Friday, January 30, 2009

10 Really Good Reasons Why To Buy Organic

10 Really Good Reasons Why to Buy Organic

http://www.living-foods.com/articles/10reasons.html

1. ORGANIC FOOD TASTES GREAT!

It's common sense-well-balanced soils grow strong healthy plants which taste better. Simply try an organic orange or vine ripened tomato for a sweet and juicy flavor treat! Recent research indicates organic foods may contain more nutrients as well.

Great chefs just can't get enough of it. Across the continent many leading restaurant chefs are using organic produce. Many have joined together in "Chefs Collaborative 2000" designed to encourage production of superior tasting foods through sound environmental practices

You get delicious, nutritious foods when you buy certified organic products- an everyday practice that's also good for Mother Earth

2. CERTIFIED ORGANIC PRODUCTS CARRY A GUARANTEE

Starting in 1996, all food products labeled organic must be in compliance with the US organic law. Certification is the public's guarantee that products have been grown and handled according to strict procedures without toxic chemical inputs. Farmers and processors alike must keep detailed records. All practices and procedures are annually inspected by a third-party certifier. All farms and handlers are required to maintain organic management plans. No prohibited substances are applied to the land on which organic food is grown for at least three years.

3. ORGANIC PRODUCTION REDUCES HEALTH RISKS

Many EPA-approved pesticides were registered long before extensive research linked these chemicals to cancer and other diseases. Now, the Environmental Protection Agency considers as potentially cancer causing 60% of all herbicides (weed killers), 90% of all fungicides (mold killers), and 30% of all insecticides (insect killers).

Children, farmers and farm workers are particularly vulnerable. According to the 1933 National Academy of Sciences study Pesticides in the Diet of Infants and Children, pesticide regulation and monitoring are outdated and flawed. Risk assessment is based on adult consumption, assuming exposure to only one pesticide at a time. IT does not take into consideration our multiple exposures to chemicals in water, rug shampoos, common household cleaners, flea powders and dozens of substances common in our modern environment. The 1993 report Pesticides in Children's Food stated that, "the average child exceeds the EPA lifetime on-in-a-million risk standard [of cancer] by his or her first birthday."

Reducing the number of exposures to all toxic chemicals should be everyone's goal.

4. ORGANIC FARMERS BUILD SOIL

Soil is the foundation of the food chain and the primary focus of organic farming. By building healthy soil, plants are better able to resist disease and insects. Each small piece of living soil contains thousands of microorganisms which help retain water and provide nutrients to the plants. Organic farmers foster soil fertility through proper tillage and crop rotation.

Chemical-intensive agricultural practices result in farms with deal soil so lacking in nutrients it requires large amounts of fertilizer. Reduced organic matter diminishes the soil's ability to retain moisture. The result is expensive irrigation using ever larger amounts of water. The resulting runoff takes the soil and chemicals with it.

We're facing the worst topsoil erosion in history due to our current agricultural practice of chemical intensive, mono-crop farming. The U.S. Soil Conservation Service estimates over 3 billion tons of topsoil are eroded from the U.S. crop lands each year, 25 billion tons globally. "Sediment loading" in streams is a major factor in the decline of our fish population. One third of all fish species nationwide are threatened or endangered.

5. ORGANIC FARMS RESPECT OUR WATER RESOURCES

Water makes up two-thirds of our human body mass. It covers three-quarters of our plant. While it may seem that there's and unlimited supply of clean water, consider the current status report:

The EPA has found 98 different pesticides in the groundwater of 40 states, contaminating the drinking water of over 100 million people. The agency has identified agriculture as the number one non-point polluter nationwide.

The elimination of polluting chemicals and nitrogen leaching, coupled with soil-building efforts, protects and conserves water resources from nitrogen contamination and sediment loading. Organic agriculture requires less water because the humus in its living soil retains moisture.

6. ORGANIC PRODUCERS LEAD IN INNOVATIVE RESEARCH

Organic farmers have led the way, largely at their expense, with innovative on-farm research aimed at reducing pesticides and minimizing agriculture's impact on the environment. Organic agriculture's best known production techniques include:

Cover cropping (green manure)
Use of beneficial insects
Crop rotation and diversification
Botanical and biological pest control
Composting
Close observation of natural soil, plant and wildlife systems
Cultural and mechanical weed control

Organic farming is not taught in standard textbooks. Farmers trying to shy away from the 42 billion pounds of petrochemicals applied each year on food and fiber crops could find it difficult. Fortunately, a network of thoughtful farmers share on-farm research through journals, conferences, electronic mail and, in some states, through the Land Grant colleges.

7. ORGANIC FARMING HELPS KEEP RURAL COMMUNITIES HEALTHY

Rural communities across the nation have watched employment shrink, family farms nearly disappear and a sense of future for the young move towards the cities. Many organic producers are independently owned and operated family farms- a nearly extinct breed in this country. In the last decade the U.S. has lost more than 650,000 family farms- 175 farms per day. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) predicts that by the year 2000, half the US farm production will come from 1% farms.

Organic farming, often done on smaller acreage farmed more intensively, is one of the few survival tactics left for the family farm and the rural community.

8. ORGANIC PRODUCERS STRIVE TO PRESERVE DIVERSITY

President Clinton has placed the loss of biodiversity (the existence of a large variety of species) at the very top of his environmental concerns. Just a few years ago, the biodiversity was not a common topic. The good news is that many organic farmers and gardeners have been aware of the problems for decades, collecting and preserving seeds, and growing unusual varieties. "This living treasures of seeds", says Kenny Ausubel in Seeds of Change, "comprises billions of years of evolution and at least twelve thousand years of human selection for agriculture."

9. ORGANIC FARMERS WORK IN HARMONY WITH NATURE

We are just beginning to understand the impact of chemical-intensive agricultural practices on the environment. Organic agriculture represents the balance demanded of a healthy ecosystem: birds and beneficial insects control pests; wild life is an essential part of a total farm and encouraged by including forage crops in rotation and by retaining fence rows, wetlands and other natural areas.

When you buy organic produce, you're helping farmers build a healthy environment for wildlife.

10. ORGANIC ABUNDANCE - FOODS AND NON FOODS ALIKE!

In the past decade, we've seen exciting developments in organic production of many food items, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and grains to name a few.

The most visible non-food item is cotton. the one crop most experts said could not be grown organically. Cotton is sprayed with more toxic pesticides, in greater amounts, than any other crop in the nation. In California's San Joaquin Valley alone, 100,000 acres are sprayed annually. Yet, once again, organic farmers are showing that it can be done, and done profitably.

Purchasing organic today ensures more organic choices tomorrow.

Why Local, Sustainable Agriculture?

Why local, sustainable agriculture?

  • Did you know that 17 % of petroleum demand in the US is for the food production industry? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
  • Did you know that the food on your plate has traveled an average of 1500 miles to get there? (Barker & Mander, 1999, Invisible Government: The WTO Global Government for the New Millenium)
  • Did you know that the average age of a farmer in Colorado is 55?(“Losing Ground - Colorado’s Vanishing Agricultural Landscape)
  • Did you know that between 1997 - 2002 Colorado lost an average of 690 acres of prime agricultural land per day to residential development? (“Losing Ground - Colorado’s Vanishing Agricultural Landscape)
  • Did you know smaller farms tend to be 2-10 times more productive than larger farms? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
  • Did you know that 90% of the agricultural subsidies benefit corporations and big farmers growing food for export; while 500 family farms close down every week in the United States? (http://www.energybulletin.net/5173.html)
  • Did you know that 91 cents of each dollar spent at traditional food markets [ie: commercial] goes to suppliers, processors, middlemen, and marketers; only 9 cents of each dollar actually goes to the farmer? (Smith, Stewart. 1992. “Farming Activities and Family Farms: Getting the Concepts Right.” Presented to the US Congress Symposium, “Agricultural Industrialization and Family Farms: The Role of Federal Policy.”)

What is sustainable agriculture?

Sustainable agriculture is a way of raising food that is healthy for consumers, preserves agricultural land, provides a fair wage to the farmer, supports and enhances rural communities, does not harm the environment and respects animals.

Some principles of sustainable practices include:

  • Reducing off-farm inputs including petroleum based synthetic chemicals
  • Managing instead of controlling pests and weeds
  • Reestablishing natural biological relationships with the farm setting
  • Farming within the physical limitations of the farm
  • Using plant and animal species that are adapted to the environment of the farm
  • Conserving soil, water, energy, and biological resources
  • Integrating the idea of long term sustainability into the design of the system

NOAA - 2008 Global Temperature Ties as 8th Warmest on Record

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090113_ncdcstats.html

--
NOAA: 2008 Global Temperature Ties as Eighth Warmest on Record

January 14, 2009

The year 2008 tied with 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record for the Earth, based on the combined average of worldwide land and ocean surface temperatures through December, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. For December alone, the month also ranked as the eighth warmest globally, for the combined land and ocean surface temperature. The assessment is based on records dating back to 1880.

The analyses in NCDC’s global reports are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms.

NCDC’s ranking of 2008 as the eighth warmest year compares to a ranking of ninth warmest based on an analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The NOAA and NASA analyses differ slightly in methodology, but both use data from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center – the federal government's official source for climate data.

Global Temperature Highlights – 2008

* The combined global land and ocean surface temperature from January-December was 0.88 degree F (0.49 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 57.0 degrees F (13.9 degrees C). Since 1880, the annual combined global land and ocean surface temperature has increased at a rate of 0.09 degree F (0.05 degree C) per decade. This rate has increased to 0.29 degree F (0.16 degree C) per decade over the past 30 years.

* Separately, the global land surface temperature for 2008, through December, was sixth warmest, with an average temperature 1.46 degrees F (0.81 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 47.3 degrees F (8.5 degrees C).

* Also separately, the global ocean surface temperature for 2008, through December, was 0.67 degree F (0.37 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 60.9 degrees F (16.1 degrees C) and ranked tenth warmest.

Global Temperature Highlights – December 2008

* The December combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.86 degree F (0.48 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 54.0 degrees F (12.2 degrees C).

* Separately, the December 2008 global land surface temperature was 1.22 degrees F (0.68 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 38.7 degrees F (3.7 degrees C) and ranked 14th warmest.

* For December, the global ocean surface temperature was 0.74 degree F (0.41 degree C) above the 20th Century average of 60.4 degrees F (15.7 degrees C) and tied with December 2001 and December 2005 as sixth warmest.

Other Global Highlights for 2008

* The United States recorded a preliminary total of 1,690 tornadoes during 2008, which is well above the 10-year average of 1,270 and ranks as the second highest annual total since reliable records began in 1953. The high number of tornado-related fatalities during the first half of the year made 2008 the 10th deadliest with a 2008 total of 125 deaths.

* Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in December was 16.95 million square miles (43.91 million square kilometers). This was 0.17 million square miles (0.43 million square kilometers) above the 1966-2008 December average. Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent was below average for most of 2008.

* Arctic sea ice extent in 2008 reached its second lowest melt season extent on record in September. The minimum of 1.80 million square miles (4.67 million square kilometers) was 0.80 million square miles (2.09 million square kilometers) below the 1979-2000 average minimum extent.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

The NRG Benefits of a Vegetarian Vs Meat Diet

The NRG Benefits of a Vegetarian v Meat Diet
Author: Dada Dharmavedananda

[Caveat: Not completely Vegan]

A rich man is sleeping in his house. Suddenly he is awakened by the burglar alarm.

"Ach! These stupid systems never work properly!" he exclaims, rubbing his eyes and struggling to stand up. He goes downstairs and, still cursing the system, turns off the alarm. Going back to his bedroom he quickly falls asleep again.

The burglars can't believe their good luck, as they take their time to carefully find and steal every available expensive item in the house.

The health situation of most people in the meat-eating nations of the world is analogous to that rich man's condition. Usually when people experience uncomfortable symptoms and sickness, they turn to doctors and medicines to turn off the symptoms so that they can again be comfortable. Just like the rich man who believes he is safe falls back asleep, so most people, under the illusion of recovered health go back to eating the wrong food, and resume other bad habits. Meanwhile, the cause of the suppressed symptoms remains and gets worse. Over time the person becomes more and more sick.

The physical cause of more than 90% of human sickness is the same: too many toxins in the body. Most of these toxins are located in the stomach, intestinal system, organs and circulation system. As an example let's look at the common cold. Here the symptoms are a running nose, fever, sore throat, sneezing, and so on. The use of medicine turns off these "problems".

Unfortunately they are alarms, not problems. They are also the means for the body to rid itself of the real problem -- excess toxins. The increased flow of mucous provides a channel for toxins to flow out. The fever causes sweat, which is also a medium for elimination. At the same time the message of the sore throat and the sneezing is: "Stop eating! Drink more and more!" Because they go on eating even though they are not hungry, most people who catch colds are compelled to continue suffering for many days or even weeks at a stretch. If they were simply to fast on water or lemon water (with a little salt, not sugar), the cold almost always fulfills its purpose and stops within one or two days.

In this case, what is the reason for the effectiveness of fasting? To answer this question we should understand a most fundamental principle of our digestion system. The digestive system has two functions: 1) abstract energy from the food and immediately pass the waste matter out of the body and 2) clean itself of old static waste matter that has clung to the walls of the intestines and other organs for days, years, or even decades. The first function is well known to everyone. The second function is also known, but essentially ignored, by most conventional doctors. They especially neglect the fact that when the digestive system becomes clean, the body next directs its cleaning efforts at any other organs or systems which contain toxins.

The two functions of the digestion system are basically non-simultaneous. That is, whenever the body is busy in digesting newly consumed food, then no energy remains for deep cleaning activity. It is only when the stomach and intestines are more or less empty of fresh food, then those organs will automatically start cleaning themselves. The toxins causing the cold are rapidly eliminated, the symptoms stop, and the person can resume eating. Hopefully s/he is wiser due to having been sick, and is more careful to avoid over-toxifying the body.

From which foods does toxification more likely occur? Here the principle is easy to understand: food which is more difficult to digest is more likely to not be fully digested. When any food enters one's mouth, digestive juices start secreting in the mouth, esophogaus, and stomach. When the food reaches the stomach, the digestive acids try to quickly break it down into small particles. Easy-to-digest food requires less acid secretion, difficult-to-digest food requires more acid. The process continues as the food solids and liquids are worked upon by the liver, the kidneys, the small intestine, the large intestine and other organs. Acids, fats and other toxic substances also pass into the blood stream, polluting the circulation system and adhering to the walls of the arteries and other blood-carrying channels. Thus, the difficult-to-digest foods are called acid-forming, while easy-to-digest foods are classified as alkaline. In the case of some extremely
alkaline foods, such as juicy fruits, they contribute their own fruit acids which may help in the digestion of other foods. There are a few foods, like sugar, tea and onion which are not difficult to digest but are classified as acidic because they contain elements which greatly disturb the equilibrium of the body. These elements are mildy poisonous.

Here is a list of foods categorized from most alkaline to most acid-forming. (As one reads down the list, each succeeding item is somewhat more acid-forming.):

1) Lemon water

2) Herb tea

3) Honey (a little)

4) Citric fruit juice

5) Other fruit juices

6) Vegetable juice

7) Citric fruits

8) Juicy fruits

9) Other fruits (except banana)

10) Non-starchy vegetables *

11) Buckwheat

(up to here all items are relevant for "graduated fasting")

12) Yoghurt

13) Starchy vegetables and banana *

14) Fresh tofu

15) Nuts

16) Raw sugar

17) Whole grains

18) Beans

19) Refined grains

20) Refined sugar

21) Tea, coffee

22) Fried foods

23) Milk varies according to personal situation **

Avoid extremely acidic food: 24) mushrooms, 25) onion, 26) garlic, 27) fish, 28) meat, 29) eggs

* Non-starchy vegetables may also be considered as salad-vegetables, i.e. they may be eaten raw. Starchy vegetables, like potato, are difficult to eat raw. Banana is much more starchy then most other fruits (unless it is extremely ripe, in which case its classification become more alkaline).

** Depending on the condition of one's liver, and also on the functioning of milk-digestion enzymes, people differ in their capacity to digest milk and milk products. For some people milk is a medicine, e.g. certain patients of ulcer. For many, milk causes gas formation, and may thus be recognized as being highly acid-forming. Non-homogenised milk is much easier to digest than homogenised milk because when fats are forcibly mixed with the rest of the milk such that separation does not occur, such globules of "whole milk" become strenuous for the liver.

Items numbered from 1 to 11 generally have a cleansing effect on the body. If a person thus restricts his diet for any length of time to those initial items, the body will undergo a gradual or radical cleansing process. The higher up on the list the restriction is made, so the faster the cleansing will occur. In this regard, the most extreme method of cleaning the body is to neither eat nor drink anything, not even water. But such a method, though appropriate for some people for a short time, is dangerous for most people.

In any case we may thus clearly understand that if an individual uses simple natural means to keep the body relatively clean from toxins, and if there is a regular intake of a reasonable amount of nutrition (not too much and not too little), then there is the greatest possibility that such a person will maintain a high degree of health.

Of course many factors enter into "keeping the body relatively clean from toxins". It is not only a matter of food and fasting. These factors include exercise, bathing, sleep, mental activity, purity of air and water, presence or absence of chemicals in the food, hormonal inbalances of the glands, and inborn genetic peculiarities. But of all these, food and fasting remain the foremost important for most people.

Thus we come to the main statement of this article: a vegetarian diet is better than a non-vegetarian diet for our all-round health. For the moment we are looking only at the physical aspect, and later will deal with the psychic and spiritual aspects. Vegetarianism is preferable for the bodily health because it consists of items which are easier to digest and thus much more alkaline than fish, meat and eggs.

The human body system has exactly the same food-eating and digesting characteristics as other vegetarian mammals (like cows, monkeys, deer and elephants), and totally different from the meat-eating mammals (like tigers, lions, wolves, dogs and cats). These characteristics include:

1) Vegetarian mammals including man have flat rear molar teeth for grinding their food. Meat-eaters do not have flat molars, and instead have sharp front teeth for tearing food.

2) Vegetarian mammals have an intestinal tract 10 to 12 times their body length. The intestines of meat-eaters is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass out quickly.

3) The stomach acid of vegetarians is 20 times less strong than that of meat-eaters.

4) Vegetarians have no claws, whereas meat-eaters have claws to catch and kill their prey.

5) Vegetarians perspire through their skin. Meat-eaters have no skin pores, and instead perspire through their tongues.

6) Vegetarian mammals require high-fiber diets (available in fruits, vegetables and whole grains) or else they eventually become constipated. Meat-eating mammals remain perfectly healthy even when their diets include very little fiber. Constipation is usually the first cause of digestion-related diseases in humans.

7) Meat-eaters can easily digest foods containing a high quantity of cholesterol and saturated fat. Vegetarians have a very limited capacity to deal with these same elements. For example laboratory experiments show that if dogs are gradually given more and more butter fat, even 250 grams every day, they show no increase in their serum cholesterol level. On the other hand, if vegetarian mammals eat much fat a great strain is first placed on the liver, fatty deposits develop on the inner walls of the arteries, and gradually the heart weakens through over-work, causing heart attacks and blood clots.

It is clear that human beings are bound to face difficulties in the digestion of meat, fish and eggs. Furthermore, humans who regularly eat such heavy foods gradually experience weakening of their digestive systems such that they are unable to rapidly eliminate waste matter, and thus their bodies get less and less time to perform self-cleaning.

Regarding heart disease, the cause of more than half of the deaths in the USA, the American Medical Association states that more than 90% of all heart disease could be prevented by vegetarian diet.

The editor-in-chief of the prestigious "American Journal of Cardiology" and a foremost expert on heart disease, Dr. William Roberts, wrote: "When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh was never intended for human beings, who are naturally herbivores."

The reader may be interested in my own experience of low-protein diets. Not only have been a strict vegetarian for the last 25 years of my life, but numerous times for months at a stretch I have also eliminated from my diet milk products, grains, beans and starchy vegetables. During those periods, which continued for as long as 9 months at a time, I ate only fruit and salad. Without any major source of protein I felt stronger and better than during any other times of my life. Indeed I would maintain such a diet always, except that I prefer to be able to eat together with other people. Also, this sort of diet is awkward or even impossible in very poor societies where the climate is cold, such as in Mongolia and Russia (where I am presently working). Thus, only due to circumstances, not due to physical need, I eat a diet containing some high protein foods. Still, I prefer that my meals predominantly consist of fruits and salad-type vegetables.

Dada Dharmavedananda has been teaching yoga and natural therapy for nearly 40 years in over 50 countries. He is the founder of the Ananda Marga Wellness Center, which offers comprehensive in-patient natural therapy and naturopathic treatment. Visit his website: http://www.amwellness.org for more information.

Toxic Coal Ash Stored in 32 States a "Risk to Human Health and the Environment"

Toxic Coal Ash Stored in 32 States a ‘Risk to Human Health and the Environment’
by www.SixWise.com

http://www.sixwise.com/Newsletters/2009/January/28/Toxic-Coal-Ash-Stored-in-32-States.htm?source=nl

Coal ash is a byproduct of coal-fired power plants. The waste, which is a mixture of noncombustible ingredients of coal and the ash trapped by equipment designed to reduce air pollution from the plants, has become an increasing burden as electricity needs have increased, as have the regulations restricting emissions from power plants.

In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, the Associated Press found that 721 power plants produced nearly 96 million tons of coal ash. Some of the waste was transferred to landfills while another portion was sold for use in concrete, but about 20 percent of this, or close to 20 million tons, was put into surface ponds.

What are Coal Ash Ponds, and What’s All the Concern About?

Some 300 ponds for coal ash exist in 32 states around the nation, with Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Georgia and Alabama storing the most. These ponds are subject to very little regulation, despite the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) saying eight years ago that it wanted to set up national standards to do so. Because the EPA has not yet addressed the issue, the ponds are subject to less regulation than landfills that accept household garbage.

“Your household garbage is managed much more consistently” than coal combustion waste, Dr. Thomas A. Burke, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told the New York Times. “It’s such a large volume of waste, and it’s so essential to the country’s energy supply; it’s basically been a loophole in the country’s waste management strategy.”

The regulations that do exist vary by state, and most of the ponds have no liners and no monitors in place to ensure that the toxins held within do not leak into underground aquifers. Already, leaks and ruptures in several states have contaminated surrounding land and water supplies, and the EPA has suggested that contamination may be more widespread than is realized due to lack of monitoring and poor state records.

As of 2007, there were 24 cases of water pollution linked to coal ash ponds or landfills, spread throughout 13 states, and another 43 cases where coal ash was the likely cause of the pollution.

Most recently, in December 2008 a coal ash pond in East Tennessee ruptured, spewing a billion gallons of the toxic waste over 300 acres of land.

Just what types of risks are involved here? Coal ash is a concentrated source of arsenic, lead, mercury and many other contaminants. It is also radioactive. Not surprisingly, according to the EPA the wastes "have the potential to present danger to human health and the environment."

Also according to the EPA, coal ash poses an increased risk of cancer when metals from the ponds leach into drinking water sources. It’s also been linked to birth defects, and tadpoles and certain fish species have also suffered deformities as a result of coal ash leaks and spills.

As for when regulations may be enacted to help clean things up, it doesn’t appear to be anytime soon.

“We’re still working on coming up with those standards,” Matthew Hale, director of the office of solid waste at the EPA, told the New York Times. “We don’t have a schedule at this point.”

A Simple Solution to Protect Your Family’s Water

Whether or not you’re in the vicinity of a coal ash pond or any other toxic waste area, it’s a good idea to make sure that your family’s drinking water is safe.

According to the EPA, consuming contaminated tap water over time that contains excessive levels of chemicals (such as disinfection by-products, solvents, and pesticides), radionuclides (such as radium), and minerals (such as arsenic) can lead to chronic health effects such as cancer, liver or kidney problems, or reproductive difficulties.

To put your mind at ease and get safe, superior quality water from your own kitchen, Sixwise.com highly recommends The Wellness Kitchen Water Filter. It reduces chlorine, chloramines, cysts, VOCs, pesticides, and herbicides below detectable levels for the life of the filter.

The Wellness Kitchen combines the best filtration and enhancement technologies to deliver the purest and most natural tasting water available. It effectively reduces harmful contaminants, while at the same time enhancing the water with adding important yet delicate wellness "ions and minerals" that your body needs.

Your health is simply too important to gamble with, and that’s why we at Sixwise.com believe you’re better off safe than sorry. If you choose not to filter your family’s water, we highly recommend getting a sample independently tested so you can be sure it’s safe for you to drink.

Studies Prove That MILK Damages Your Health

Studies prove that MILK damages your health
The dangers of milk - Read the evidences

Click here for the truth about dairy products and strong bones.
http://www.milksucks.com/index2.asp

To learn more about dairy foods and osteoporosis, please visit these sites:
http://www.DumpDairy.com
http://www.PCRM.org
http://www.StrongBones.org
http://www.drmcdougall.com

Harvard School of Public Health, on the Consumption of Dairy Products (2005):

“The recommendation to drink three glasses of low-fat milk or eat three servings of other dairy products per day to prevent osteoporosis is another step in the wrong direction. … Three glasses of low-fat milk add more than 300 calories a day. This is a real issue for the millions of Americans who are trying to control their weight. What's more, millions of Americans are lactose intolerant, and even small amounts of milk or dairy products give them stomachaches, gas, or other problems. This recommendation ignores the lack of evidence for a link between consumption of dairy products and prevention of osteoporosis. It also ignores the possible increases in risk of ovarian cancer and prostate cancer associated with dairy products.”

MILK SUCKS ...

FOR ANIMALS:
downed cowCorporate-owned factories where cows are warehoused in huge sheds and treated like milk machines have replaced most small family farms. With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day— 10 times more than they would produce in nature. To keep milk production as high as possible, farmers artificially inseminate cows every year. Growth hormones and unnatural milking schedules cause dairy cows' udders to become painful and so heavy that they sometimes drag on the ground, resulting in frequent infections and overuse of antibiotics. Cows— like all mammals— make milk to feed their own babies— not humans.

milking machines
Male calves, the "byproducts" of the dairy industry, endure 14 to 17 weeks of torment in veal crates so small that they can't even turn around. The Real Cost of Milk ProductionFemale calves often replace their old, worn-out mothers, or are slaughtered soon after birth for the rennet in their stomachs (an ingredient of most commercial cheeses). They are often kept in tiny crates or tethered in stalls for the first few months of their lives, only to grow up to become "milk machines" like their mothers.

FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:
dairy cesspoolCfilthy cowsow's milk is an inefficient food source. Cows, like humans, expend the majority of their food intake simply leading their lives. It takes a great deal of grain and other foodstuffs cycled through cows to produce a small amount of milk. And not only is milk a waste of energy and water, the production of milk is also a disastrous source of water pollution. A dairy cow produces 120 pounds of waste every day -- equal to that of two dozen people, but with no toilets, sewers, or treatment plants.

In Lancaster County, Pa., manure from dairy cows is destroying the Chesapeake Bay, and in California, which produces one-fifth of the country's total supply of milk, the manure from dairy farms has poisoned vast expanses of underground water, rivers, and streams. In the Central Valley of California, the cows produce as much excrement as a city of 21 million people, and even a smallish farm of 200 cows will produce as much nitrogen as in the sewage from a community of 5,000 to 10,000 people, according to a U.S. Senate report on animal waste.

FOR YOUR HEALTH:
veal barnDairy products are a health hazard. They contain no fiber or complex carbohydrates and are laden with saturated fat and cholesterol. They are contaminated with cow's blood and pus and are frequently contaminated with pesticides, hormones, and antibiotics. Dairy products are linked to allergies, constipation, obesity, heart disease, cancer, and other diseases.

The late Dr. Benjamin Spock, America's leading authority on child care, spoke out against feeding cow's milk to children, saying it can cause anemia, allergies, and insulin-dependent diabetes and in the long term, will set kids up for obesity and heart disease, America's number one cause of death.

And dairy products may actually cause osteoporosis, not prevent it, since their high-protein content leaches calcium from the body. Population studies, backed up by a groundbreaking Harvard study of more than 75,000 nurses, suggest that drinking milk can actually cause osteoporosis. Find out more by visiting our links page.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
loading sick cow onto truckAccording to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average American consumes more than 550 pounds of dairy products annually, which is 40 percent of the bulk of the food we eat. Click here to see an illustration of the "Food Pyramid" which is representative of actual American eating habits.

Give the bottle the boot! Instead, try delicious soy or rice milk, soy cheese, Tofutti ice cream, and tofu sour cream and cream cheese. All are widely available at health food stores and many supermarkets. Click here for information on adopting a dairy-free diet.

Got Osteoporosis?

"The dairy folks, ever since the 1920s, have been enormously successful in cultivating an environment within virtually all segments of our society—from research and education to public relations and politics—to have us believing that cow's milk and its products are manna from heaven. ... Make no mistake about it; the dairy industry has been virtually in total control of any and all public health information that ever rises to the level of public scrutiny."
- Dr. T. Colin Campbell

Why dairy products won't help you maintain healthy bones

Building strong bones and keeping them that way is easier than you may have thought.

This Web page focuses on debunking a myth sold to the American public by a multibillion-dollar industry—an industry that has repeated its marketing message so often and for so long that most people now believe that dairy products are essential to bone health, despite extensive evidence to the contrary. The dairy industry has an army of dietitians, public relations consultants, and lobbyists on its payroll but does not have the evidence on its side.

The dairy pushers pay dietitians, doctors, and researchers to endorse dairy products, spending more than $300 million annually, just at the national level, to retain a market for their products. The dairy industry provides free teaching materials to schools and pays sports stars, celebrities, and politicians to push an agenda based on profit, not public health. Dr. Walter Willett, veteran nutrition researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, says that calcium consumption via dairy-product intake "has become like a religious crusade," overshadowing true preventive measures such as physical exercise. To hear the dairy industry tell it, if you consume three glasses of milk daily, your bones will be stronger and you will be able to rest assured that osteoporosis is not in your future. Not so.
After examining all the available nutritional studies and evidence, Dr. John McDougall concludes: "The primary cause of osteoporosis is the high-protein diet most Americans consume today. As one leading researcher in this area said, 'eating a high-protein diet is like pouring acid rain on your bones.'" Remarkably enough, both clinical and population studies show that milk-drinkers tend to have more bone breaks than people who consume milk infrequently or not at all. For the dairy industry to lull unsuspecting women and children into complacency by telling them to be sure to drink more milk so that their bones will be strong may make good business sense, but it does the consumer a grave disservice.

Much of the world's population does not consume cow's milk, and yet most of the world does not experience the high rates of osteoporosis found in the West. In some Asian countries, for example, where consumption of dairy foods is low, fracture rates are far lower than they are in the United States and in Scandinavian countries, where consumption of dairy products is high.

While reading this, please remember that dairy products contain no complex carbohydrates or fiber but are packed with saturated fats and cholesterol and have been linked to heart disease, cancer, Crohn's disease, and a host of childhood illnesses from asthma to diabetes.

But Don't Take Our Word for It—Examine the Science for Yourself

"Milk, it now seems clear, is not the solution to poor bone density. To the contrary, it's part of the problem."
- Dr. Charles Attwood

In one study, funded by the National Dairy Council, a group of postmenopausal women were given three 8-ounce glasses of skim milk every day for two years, and their bones were compared to those of a control group of women not given the milk. The dairy group consumed 1,400 mg of calcium per day and lost bone at twice the rate of the control group. According to the researchers, "this may have been due to the average 30 percent increase in protein intake during milk supplementation. ... The adverse effect of increases in protein intake on calcium balance has been reported from several laboratories, including our own" (they then cite 10 other studies). Says McDougall, "Needless to say, this finding did not reach the six o'clock news." This is one study that the dairy industry won't be repeating any time soon.

After looking at 34 published studies in 16 countries, researchers at Yale University found that the countries with the highest rates of osteoporosis—including the United States, Sweden, and Finland—were those in which people consumed the most meat, milk, and other animal foods. This study also showed that African-Americans, who consume, on average, more than 1,000 mg of calcium per day, are nine times more likely to experience hip fractures than are South African blacks, whose daily calcium intake is only about 196 mg. Says McDougall, "On a nation-by-nation basis, people who consume the most calcium have the weakest bones and the highest rates of osteoporosis. ... Only in thoseplaces where calcium and protein are eaten in relatively high quantities does a deficiency of bone calcium exist, due to an excess of animal protein."

Harvard University's landmark Nurses Health Study, which followed 78,000 women over a 12-year period, found that the women who consumed the most calcium from dairy foods broke more bones than those who rarely drank milk. Summarizing this study, the Lunar Osteoporosis Update (November 1997) explained: "This increased risk of hip fracture was associated with dairy calcium. ... If this were any agent other than milk, which has been so aggressively marketed by dairy interests, it undoubtedly would be considered a major risk factor."

"The association between the intake of animal protein and fracture rates appears to be as strong as the association between cigarette smoking and lung cancer."
Dr. T. Colin Campbell
A National Institutes of Health study at the University of California, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2001), found that "women who ate most of their protein from animal sources had three times the rate of bone loss and 3.7 times the rate of hip fractures as women who ate most of their protein from vegetable sources." Even though the researchers adjusted "for everything we could think of that might otherwise explain the relationship ... it didn't change the results." The study's conclusion: "[A]n increase in vegetable protein intake and a decrease in animal protein intake may decrease bone loss and the risk of hip fracture."

Another study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2000) looked at all aspects of diet and bone health and found that high consumption of fruits and vegetables positively affected bone health and that dairy consumption did not. Such findings do not surprise nutritional researchers: The calcium absorption rate from milk is approximately 30 percent, while figures for broccoli, Brussels sprouts, mustard greens, turnip greens, kale, and some other green leafy vegetables range from 40 percent to 64 percent.

After reviewing studies on the link between protein intake and urinary calcium loss, dairy industry researcher Dr. Robert P. Heaney found that as consumption of protein increases, so does the amount of calcium lost in the urine (Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 1993): "This effect has been documented in several different study designs for more than 70 years," he writes, adding, "The net effect is such that, if protein intake is doubled without changing intake of other nutrients, urinary calcium content increases by about 50 percent."

Researchers from the University of Sydney and Westmead Hospital discovered that consumption of dairy foods, especially early in life, is associated with increased risk of hip fractures in old age (American Journal of Epidemiology, 1994).

In Pediatrics (2000), published by the American Academy of Pediatrics, Pennsylvania State University researchers showed that calcium intake, which ranged from 500 to 1,500 mg per day, had no lasting effect on the bone health of girls in their teens. "We (had) hypothesized that increased calcium intake would result in better adolescent bone gain. Needless to say, we were surprised to find our hypothesis refuted," one researcher explained.

Dr. Barnard
"It is hard to turn on the television without hearing commercials suggesting that milk promotes strong bones. The commercials do not point out that only 30 percent of milk's calcium is absorbed by the body or that osteoporosis is common among milk drinkers. Nor do they help you correct the real causes of bone loss."

Dr. Neal Barnard

Finally, a review of all research conducted since 1985, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2000), concluded: "If dairy food intakes confer bone health, one might expect this to have been apparent from the 57 outcomes, which included randomized, controlled trials and longitudinal cohort studies involving 645,000 person-years." The researchers go on to lament that "there have been few carefully designed studies of the effects of dairy foods on bone health" and then to conclude that "the body of scientific evidence appears inadequate to support a recommendation for daily intake of dairy foods to promote bone health in the general U.S. population."

What we do know is that osteoporosis rates decline markedly as body weight, exercise, and caloric intake rise. Corroborating the researchers' concerns about poorly controlled studies, only three studies have factored caloric intake into the analysis. Two of these studies found no correlation between dairy intake and osteoporosis, but the other found a positive link; that is, the more milk, the higher the fracture risk (Harvard Nurses Study, above). The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2000) study cited above argued that since it's clear that total caloric intake and body weight are positively associated with bone mass, such factors are "particularly important" in any study of osteoporosis and bone mass.

Is the dairy industry ignoring these factors by design in its clinical studies, perhaps because dairy-product consumers tend to be heavier and have a higher caloric intake than those consuming fewer (or no) dairy products? Despite the fact that so many dairy researchers ignore this information, most studies still show no correlation between cow"s milk consumption and a lower risk for osteoporosis, and some actually indicate that milk is associated with an increased risk. Perhaps if these factors were taken into account, the studies indicating no link would instead show, in fact, that dairy-product intake is linked to an increased risk of osteoporosis, as does the Harvard School of Public Health study. That would bring clinical analysis in line with the population analysis, which clearly states that increased dairy-product consumption is linked to increased risk for osteoporosis.

Conclusion

Drinking milk builds dairy producers' profits, but it is not likely to build your bones and may even harm them. Dairy foods are linked to all sorts of other problems, too, including obesity, heart disease, and cancer, and are likely to be contaminated with antibiotics, hormones, and other chemicals, including dioxin, one of the most toxic substances in the world. (On April 12, 2001, The Washington Post reported that "the latest EPA study concludes that people who consume even small amounts of dioxin in fatty foods and dairy products face a cancer risk of one in 100." These consumers may develop other problems, too, including learning disabilities and susceptibility to infections.)

Of course, calcium is an essential mineral. According to Dr. Neal Barnard, president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, "Milk, in particular, is poor insurance against bone breaks ... the healthiest calcium sources are green leafy vegetables and legumes. ... You don't need to eat huge servings of vegetables or beans to get enough calcium, but do include both in your regular menu planning." To learn more or for a free vegetarian starter kit—which includes information on nondairy sources of calcium—visit DumpDairy.com.

So what can I do to maintain strong bones?

Although the evidence is strong that dairy-product consumption doesn't prevent osteoporosis, simply eliminating dairy products does not ensure strong bones.

It pays to put some thought into keeping your bones healthy. Studies have shown that the following factors are helpful in building and maintaining strong bones:

• Getting plenty of exercise. Studies have concluded that physical exercise is the key to building strong bones (it's more important than any other factor). For example, a study published in the British Medical Journal that followed 1,400 men and women over a 15-year period found that exercise may be the best protection against hip fractures and that "reduced intake of dietary calcium does not seem to be a risk factor." And Penn State University researchers found that bone density is significantly affected by how much exercise girls get during their teen years, when 40 to 50 percent of their skeletal mass is formed.

• Getting enough vitamin D. If you don't spend any time in the sun (about 15 minutes on the face and arms each day is enough), be sure to take a supplement or eat fortified foods.

• Eliminating animal protein. For a variety of reasons, animal protein causes severe bone deterioration.

• Limiting salt intake. Sodium leaches calcium out of the bones.

• Eating plenty of fruits and vegetables. They contain vitamin C, which is essential for building collagen, the underlying bonematrix.

• Not smoking. Studies have shown that women who smoke one pack of cigarettes a day have 5 to 10 percent less bone density at menopause than nonsmokers.
To learn more about dairy foods and osteoporosis, please visit these sites:

http://www.DumpDairy.com
http://www.PCRM.org
http://www.StrongBones.org
http://www.drmcdougall.com

World's Top Carbon Emitters Don't Join International Renewable Energy Agency

World’s Top Carbon Emitters Don’t Join International Renewable Energy Agency
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY
01.29.09

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/worlds-top-carbon-emitters-dont-join-international-renewable-energy-agency.php

Announced back in November, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has had its first conference in Bonn, Germany. Though 75 nations have officially become members of the organization, perhaps most notable are those who haven’t joined -- Some of the world’s highest emitters of carbon emissions:

US, China, Others Remain Observers
Though maintaining observer status, the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, China and Australia all have not become signatories to the IRENA. The UK has said that is supportive of the organization, but seems worried that the organization will be focused more on “talking policy and issuing papers” than on actually deploying more renewable energy. (Worldwatch) Germany has also requested that the United States play a greater role, but based on slightly terse states my the State Department --“We will continue to examine and review all available mechanisms to promote renewable energy"--that doesn’t look likely.

In case anyone forgot, China is by most counts the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter; the US is in second place; Japan and the UK are in the top eight; and Australia, while only in the top 20 in total emissions, is right at the head of the pack in terms of per capita emissions.

Potential For Dilly-Dallying Not a Reason To Sit on the Sidelines
While not dismissing concerns about IRENA potentially turning out more papers than facilitating actual renewable energy installation, that potential is inherent in any organization of this type and is hardly a good excuse for not formally participating.

Profit Trumps Preservation For Boy Scout Councils Nationwide

Profit trumps preservation for Boy Scout councils nationwide
They logged, sold thousands of acres of prime lands
By LEWIS KAMB
SEATTLE P-I INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER
Thursday, January 29, 2009

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/scoutslogging/397864_loggingmain29.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=b&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/scoutslogging/397864_loggingmain29.html

For nearly a century, the Boy Scouts have worn a self-adorned badge as campsite conservationists and good stewards of the land.

"The Boy Scouts were green before it was cool to be green," said the organization's national spokesman, Deron Smith.

But for decades, local Boy Scouts of America administrations across the country have clearcut or otherwise conducted high-impact logging on tens of thousands of acres of forestland, often for the love of a different kind of green: cash.

A Hearst Newspapers investigation has found dozens of cases over the past 20 years of local Boy Scout councils logging or selling prime woodlands to big timber interests, developers or others, turning quick money and often doing so instead of seeking ways to preserve such lands.

"In public, they say they want to teach kids about saving the environment," said Jane Childers, a longtime Scouting volunteer in Washington who has fought against Scouts' logging. "But in reality, it's all about the money."

Scouting councils nationwide have carried out clearcuts, salvage harvests and other commercial logging in and around sensitive forests, streams and ecosystems that provide habitat for a host of protected species, including salmon, timber wolves, bald eagles and spotted owls.

Boy Scout councils have logged and sold for development properties bequeathed to them by donors who gave the lands with intentions they be used for camping and other outdoor recreation.

In some cases, councils have sought to use revenues from logging or land sales to make up for funding lost because of the organization's controversial bans on gays and atheists from membership and employment rolls.

"The Boy Scouts had to suffer the consequences for sticking by their moral values," said Eugene Grant, president of the Portland-based Cascade Pacific Council's board of directors.

"There's no question they lost membership and funding because of it. I think every council has looked at ways to generate funds ... and logging is one of them."

The investigation -- a nationwide review by five Hearst newspapers of more than 400 timber harvests, court papers, property records, tax filings and other documents since 1990 -- also found:

* Scouting councils have logged across at least 34,000 acres -- a figure that vastly undercounts the actual number of harvests conducted and acreage cut, as forestry records nationwide are incomplete or nonexistent.

* More than 100 Scouting councils have conducted timber harvests -- one-third of all Boy Scout councils nationwide.

* At least 26 councils have logged in areas with or near protected wildlife habitat at least 53 times, a number also underrepresented.

* Councils have conducted at least 60 clearcuts and 35 salvage harvests -- logging that some scholars and ecologists say can hurt the environment and primarily aims to make money.

* Several councils submitted logging plans with inaccurate and incomplete information, and in some cases, disregarded rules or conditions established to protect wildlife, streams or other resources.

* In some cases nationwide, Scout logging and land deals have involved cozy relationships in which Scouting councils have conducted business with current or former Scouting volunteers, their private companies, employers or in one case, a state regulator.

Scouting officials generally defended logging as sound land stewardship that, as a byproduct, has reaped financial rewards to benefit Scouting programs.

Trees are a renewable resource, said some, adding that their councils practice only sustainable forestry. Proceeds are put back into Scouting, mainly to maintain and improve properties at a time when competition is high and availability scarce for nonprofit dollars, they said.

Forestry records uphold such claims in many cases. Some councils selectively logged and thinned trees as a way to remove hazard trees, reduce fire risks, improve habitat and overall create and maintain healthy forests.

Dozens of councils have implemented long-range management plans with assistance from professional foresters to help better manage woodlands, records also show.

But the investigation also revealed stewardship plans that often went ignored, and several plans identified past poor management and a heavy-handed logging tradition on Scout lands.
Top loggers chart

Money also often outweighed stewardship as the main goal -- or was cited among several objectives -- for conducting logging, records show.

"Every time (a council) gets a new Scout director, they call a state forester to come out and see if there is any good timber to harvest," said Paul Tauke, Iowa State Forester. "There's always pressure to make money and to generate income so they can maintain the camps and keep the activities going."

Yet while financial rewards to help boost shrinking funds or cover needed maintenance were cited as a frequent factor for logging, many Scouting executives at the same time earned high salaries and yearly pay raises that outpaced cost-of-living increases, records show.

Local and regional executives can earn annual compensation of $100,000 to $300,000 per year. At the national level, Scouting executives make even more.

While most local councils say logging revenues primarily go back into properties, administrators say they have discretion in how to use them. Sometimes, the money from logging has gone to shore up sagging operating budgets that cover salaries and other expenses.

"I butchered the property," said Bruce Faller, a district commissioner for a Vermont Scouting council, when explaining how he was forced to cut down trees in 2006 to cover a property's legal expenses. "It was old, big, beautiful wood. ... I wouldn't have done it if there (were) any other way."

The Cascade Pacific Council in Portland, and the Andrew Jackson Council in Jackson, Miss., are among at least 26 councils nationwide that log camps as tree farms for revenue and other reasons under what they view as sustainable management plans.

"This is Pine Country," said Arnold Landry, the Mississippi council executive. "We cut when it's best for us to cut. We replant and ... make the best use of the property."

Properly managed logging is simply another resource councils can tap, some say, in an era when funding is hard to find.

Tim McCandless, executive of the Inland Northwest Council, tours a clearcut area at Camp Cowles on Diamond Lake on Oct. 3. "Our mission is kids, not trees," he points out.

"People talk about what a bad, evil, horrible thing it is to cut a tree," said Tim McCandless, executive for the Spokane-based Inland Northwest Council. "But our mission is kids, not trees."
'Bending the rules'

In Southwest Washington, along a gravel county road that gives way to Weyerhaeuser ownership, a denuded hillside piled with logging debris at the Pacific Harbors Council's Camp Delezene offers testament to how, even amid today's stagnant timber markets, trees here are like gold.

On one side of the rustic camp, a new roof on an old lodge serves as a reminder of why a forest of 80-year-old Douglas firs no longer stands on the other side.

The $20,000 spent for the new roof topped the priority list from $140,000 in revenues from last fall's 12-acre clearcut, said Douglas Dorr, a retired Weyerhaeuser construction engineer, who serves as chairman of the Tacoma council's volunteer properties committee.

But to get that money, the Scouts' logging broke state rules meant to protect endangered salmon, a consultant said. The council's logger misidentified the type of waterway next to the harvest site; did not properly define a potentially unstable slope that posed risks of discharging sediment into the waterway, and potentially onto Scouting camp sites; and failed to leave enough trees to meet the required size of buffer next to the waterway, said Chris Mendoza, a conservation biologist hired by Hearst to review the council's logging plan.

Such violations are civil infractions that can warrant warnings, stop-work orders and fines from state regulators. But enforcement of such rules are rare, a state Forestry Department spokeswoman said.

Several other logging cases examined by Hearst show some Scouting councils nationwide have deviated from forestry rules or other conditions imposed on logging plans.

Mendoza, a consultant who has worked with timber companies, environmental groups, and tribal, state and federal governments, has written more than 100 compliance monitoring reports and reviewed hundreds of logging plans. In general, the type of violations he found with the Tacoma council's logging occur commonly among small and medium landowners seeking to increase logging revenues, he said.

"It pays to do that," said Mendoza, who also now serves as a co-chairman of a state forest practices subcommittee analyzing forestry rules. "Some landowners are more prone to bending the rules, because if they get away with it, it can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars."

Smith, the Boy Scouts' national spokesman, disputes that Scouting organizations are out to make a buck at the environment's expense.

"The Boy Scouts have ... always been good stewards of their resources so they could provide programs for youth," he said.

Some Scouting officials say the Scouts are likely among the biggest landowners among nonprofit groups nationwide. How that land is used is largely left up to administrators and volunteer executive board members running the 304 local Scouting councils around the country.

Local councils are similar to franchises. They pay an annual charter fee to the national council, based in Irving, Texas, to use the Boy Scouts' name and programs. But, as independent nonprofits, they make their own decisions.

Tapping a local council's assets, such as timber, can help local Scouting executives meet yearly job performance goals -- such as increasing yearly revenues -- which, in some cases, can help them achieve pay raises. But Scouting officials say land use is primarily done to keep council coffers full and properties financially healthy.

In California, moneymaking was cited among key objectives by Scouting councils for several recent logging plans that state regulators found to contain major problems, including inaccurate and incomplete information. Scouting executives regularly hire commercial loggers to harvest trees in environmentally sensitive areas, sometimes drawing sharp criticism from community members and environmentalists.

In a few cases in the state, Scouting officials have been accused of failing to maintain roads that then damaged sensitive streams, not marking special trees to ensure they were not cut, building an unauthorized road through a protected area, and improperly operating a summer dam that killed endangered steelhead.

California public records show the Scouts have almost always followed forestry rules in recent logging around the state. But critics caution that forestry agencies -- even in heavily regulated timber states, such as California and Washington -- can be lax in enforcement.

Chris Len, legal director for the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, an environmental advocacy group that monitors logging in parts of Oregon and California, said he found several flaws when reviewing three state-approved Scout logging plans at Hearst's request.

Len's environmental group typically focuses on much larger-scale logging plans submitted by timber companies or conducted by government agencies on public lands. Although such projects can have more egregious problems, Len said, he quickly noticed several failures with Scouting councils' plans for the much smaller timber harvests.

Among the problems, Len found failures to conduct required endangered species surveys, insufficient analysis of required logging alternatives and inaccurate information about potential wildlife habitat.

"They've got endangered species all over the place, but they are not taking any extra care ... of those species," Len said.

In Washington, which has some of the nation's toughest logging laws -- but rarely enforces them -- Mendoza believes the Pacific Harbors Council's recent clearcut at Camp Delezene violated three rules critical to the protection and restoration of salmon streams. State officials said forestry regulators have conducted "compliance monitoring" in less than 2 percent of all logging cases in Washington since 2006, and have not checked if the logging at Camp Delezene followed state rules.

In its logging plan, the council's hired timber company reported the meandering Delezene Creek next to the harvest site was not a special type of waterway, known as a channel migration zone. Mendoza believes otherwise, saying "it's a classic case" of a channel migration zone.

Mendoza added the plan did not identify or designate a sharply graded hillside as a potentially "steep unstable slope." Such areas pose significant risks of dumping large amounts of sediment and debris into salmon streams, and typically trigger an added environmental review to determine if logging should be allowed.

Mendoza found that should the ground give way in the steep area that the council had logged, there would be "a direct path to deliver sediment and debris" into the protected salmon creek. Such a slope failure also "may pose a potential public safety risk" because of the proximity of several Boy Scouts campsites near the creek, Mendoza concluded.

In addition, Mendoza found a buffer of trees left by the council's logger next to the creek was about 20 feet narrower, on average, than what's required by law. It was far smaller than the buffer that the logger claimed, in paperwork submitted to the state, would be left.

Mendoza's plan review and observations from public access near the harvest site found the council's forester inaccurately reported all three conditions.

"There are blatant rules violations here," Mendoza said. "These were some big, valuable trees. It looks like they wanted to take as many as possible, and broke the rules to do it."

Breaking these forest practice rules allowed more trees to be cut -- "a purely economic decision," Mendoza believes.

Told of Mendoza's findings, council officials disagreed with them, saying that logging met all regulations and was thoughtfully planned to ensure minimal impacts. Only one logging road was built -- to haul timber away from the creek to existing Weyerhaeuser roads.

"The cheapest way would be to pull the timber down the hill and across the stream," said Dorr, the properties committee chairman. "In this case, we did it the best way."

Council officials, who showed journalists part of the clearcut in November, refused to allow Mendoza to visit the site.

"(I)t would be inappropriate to introduce a forester who has not been involved with our council or our property management plans," said board President Jimmy Collins, a Weyerhaeuser executive.

"It speaks volumes that they won't allow an independent third-party audit of what they've done," Mendoza countered.
Salvaging

On a remote hillside within the Siskiyou National Forest in southwest Oregon, the McCaleb Scout Ranch spills up the bank of the pristine Illinois River, an unobstructed stream with runs of wild salmon and steelhead.

Officially declared a state Scenic Waterway in 1970, the Illinois made the nation's list of Wild and Scenic Rivers in 1984.

But despite such designations, the protections they bring and the added safeguards of a scenic easement generally prohibiting logging along this stretch of river, the state approved the Crater Lake Council to conduct widespread logging at its camp after the massive Biscuit Fire in 2002.

"They savagely logged it," said Roy Keene, a former timber industry forester turned activist.

Scouting officials say the council simply salvaged what revenue it could from the scorched but still valuable timber to rebuild structures lost in the wildfire. But a growing number of academics and forestry experts say such post-catastrophe logging is ecologically harmful.

The case is among at least 35 salvage harvests conducted by Scouting groups nationwide since 1990, Hearst found.

"Salvage logging is almost never a positive for ecological recovery," said Jerry Franklin, professor of ecosystem analysis for the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources. "It is done to salvage economic values."

Franklin, one of three co-authors of the 2008 book, "Salvage Logging and Its Ecological Consequences," and other scholars studied salvage logging cases worldwide following hurricanes, insect attacks, floods, volcanic eruptions and fires, including Oregon's Biscuit Fire in 2002.

"Salvage logging and other post-disturbance practices can have profound negative impacts on ecological processes and biodiversity," the book concluded.

Recent Scout salvage harvests have occurred in Georgia, California, New York, Montana and Pennsylvania after tornadoes, fires, ice storms and insect infestations. After several fires, the Scouts' National Council conducted from 1999 through 2004 by far the largest of Scout salvage harvests reviewed -- in all, more than 3,400 acres -- at the nation's premier Scouting camp, the Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico.

Some critics say the 2002 salvage at the McCaleb Ranch never should have happened.

"The old woman who donated that property to the Scouts had entered into an agreement with the state to protect it from logging," said Keene, senior forester for the Institute for Wildlife Protection.

Along with the special river designation, the council and the ranch's donor, the late Betty McCaleb, agreed in 1974 to a state scenic easement on the camp, adding further safeguards.

"No trees, shrubs, or brush shall be destroyed, cut or removed from the restricted area without a written permit from (the state)," the easement states.

A logger for the Scouting council submitted plans seeking to log all "fire-killed trees of merchantable size" from the 106-acre ranch just a couple of weeks after the massive fire burned across it.

Jan Houck, an Oregon state parks official who approved the plan, said such logging "isn't necessarily prohibited" under the easement, "it just needs our permission first."

But both state and federal officials who oversee similar easements for land along protected Oregon rivers say logging on as wide a scale as that on the ranch has rarely, if ever, happened before, and can be prohibited.

Hearst also found discrepancies between the McCaleb Ranch logging and conditions imposed on it by state parks. An October site visit revealed a massive mound of logging debris, supposed to be burned years ago, remains piled on a ravine's edge above a protected salmon stream. The Scouts' logger also did not get required parks approval before taking equipment across, and logging near, the salmon creek.

Parks officials concede both issues would run afoul of approved conditions.

"The fact we didn't inspect here was an error," added state parks spokesman Chris Havel, saying his department plans to follow up with the council about Hearst's findings.

Rick Burr, current Crater Council executive who was hired after the logging and said he didn't know much about the project, said the harvest was "a one-time deal."

"The money from the (timber) sale was used to rebuild the structures," he said.

Tax records show the council made $131,000 from logging over two years, and $74,000 in insurance the year of the fire. In 2006, the first year rebuilt structures were assessed, the county valued all ranch buildings at $39,490.

Burr wasn't sure if the Crater Council -- then suffering from funding losses due to the Scouts' ban on gays -- spent all the logging revenue on the ranch, or if some went elsewhere.

Some critics say they understand the need for landowners to make money from logging. But for a high-profile organization such as the Boy Scouts, which touts itself as pro-environment, conducting high-impact, commercial timber harvests that at times violate regulation, or simply push the limits of ecological best practices, smacks of hypocrisy, they say.

"I've got nothing against the Boy Scouts," said Joseph Vaile, an Oregon environmental activist. "But it was really disheartening to see clearcut logging right next to a Wild and Scenic River."

GREEN OR GREEN-WASHED?

Boy Scout officials say the organization is a strong environmental advocate and good steward of land, but some critics say it doesn't practice what it preaches to youths. Here are some of the Scouts' key environmental positions and programs:

Scout Law -- Under Thrifty: "A Scout ... protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property."

Outdoor Code -- "As an American, I will do my best to ... be considerate in the outdoors. I will treat public and private property with respect. ... and, (b)e conservation minded. I will learn how to practice good conservation of soil, waters, forests, minerals, grasslands, wildlife, and energy. "

Forestry Merit Badge -- Scouts earn this honor when they can proficiently "describe contributions forests make to ... clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, fisheries habitat (and) threatened and endangered species," among other requirements.

Soil and Water Conservation Merit Badge Scouts earn this honor when they can proficiently describe "erosion-control practices," and "(e)xplain how removal of vegetation will affect the way water runs off a watershed," among other requirements.

Leave No Trace -- The Scouts promote Leave No Trace, the outdoor ethics guidelines that seek to minimize impacts by calling on campers and hikers to, among other things, "respect wildlife."

P-I reporter Lewis Kamb can be reached at 206-448-8336 or lewiskamb@seattlepi.com. San Antonio Express-News reporter Todd Bensman; Albany Times-Union reporter Nadja Drost; Houston Chronicle reporter Lise Olsen; San Francisco Chronicle reporter Seth Rosenfeld; Seattle P-I reporter Daniel Lathrop and P-I news researcher Marsha Milroy contributed to this report.

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed

With Al Due Respect, We're Doomed
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, January 29, 2009; A03

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318.html

[Read comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318_Comments.html ]

The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.

What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change."

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle's premonitions. "Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy," he beseeched.

"Geothermal energy," the Goracle prophesied. "This has great potential; it is not very far off."

Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. "I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand," the Goracle spoke.

A third asked the legislative future -- and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. "The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it," he said.

Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. "What does your modeling tell you about how long we're going to be around as a species?" he inquired.

The Goracle chuckled. "I don't claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator."

It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as "unified national smart grid" the way he once did "no controlling legal authority" -- and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.

"Tennessee," gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore's home state, "has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy." If that wasn't quite enough, Corker added: "Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too."

Humor? From Al Gore? "I benefit from low expectations," he replied.

The Goracle's powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. "We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization," he said. And: "This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced." And: It "could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force."

Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be "an almost existential impact" from the climate changes Gore described.

As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: "I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you're probably right, and I'm probably wrong." He ended his question by saying: "I'm not questioning you; I'm questioning myself."

Others sought to buy the Goracle's favor by offering him gifts. "Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don't either understand it or want to understand it," gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: "Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?"

The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by "naysayers" who thought it funny that Gore's testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. "The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis," Kerry said at the start of the hearing.

The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as "Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region." At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. "I'm not proselytizing," he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.

The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: "This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we're in the front car." Polar ice: "Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland."

The lawmakers joined in. "There are a lot of ways to skin a cat," contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. "And if we have the dire circumstances we're facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat."

Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.

Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a "practical politician," how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. "I am a recovering politician. I'm on about Step 9," the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.

Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? "There's a high degree of confidence." The future of automobiles in China and India? "I wouldn't give up on electric vehicles." The potential of solar power in those countries? "I have no question about it at all."

Of course not. He's the Goracle.

Less Tasty & Not As Good For You - Industrially grown produce shows long-term nutritional decline

Less tasty -- and not as good for you
Industrially grown produce shows long-term nutritional decline
by Tom Philpott
28 Jan 2009

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2009/1/27/165445/631?show_comments=no
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/27/165445/631?source=daily

Talk to old-timers, and they'll often tell you that the tomatoes you find in supermarket produce sections don't taste anything like the ones they had in their childhoods in the '30s and '40s.

Turns out, they're probably not as nutritious, either.

In an article [PDF] published in the February 2009 issue of the HortScience Review, University of Texas researcher Donald R. Davis compiles evidence that points to declines in nutrition in vegetables and (to a lesser extent) fruits over the past few decades.

For example:

[T]hree recent studies of historical food composition data found apparent median declines of 5% to 40% or more in some minerals in groups of vegetables and perhaps fruits; one study also evaluated vitamins and protein with similar results.

He points to another study in which researchers planted low- and high-yielding varieties of broccoli and grain side-by-side. The high-yielding varieties showed less protein and minerals.

The principle seems to be that when plants are nudged to produce as much as possible -- whether through lots of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides or through selective breeding -- they deliver fewer nutrients. It evidently isn't just the flavor that's become diluted in those bland supermarket tomatoes.

This is a fascinating insight. We should reflect that for at least 50 years, the best-funded agricultural researchers are the ones work to maximize yield -- that is, gross output per acre. Even now, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is expending hundreds of millions of dollars in an effort to increase yields in Africa.

Rather than isolate and fetishize yield, perhaps ag researchers should learn to take a whole-systems approach: study how communities can develop robust food systems that build healthy soil and produce nutritious food.

(It should also be noted that last year the Organic Center compiled peer-reviewed studies finding that organically grown produce tends to deliver significantly higher nutrient levels than conventional.)

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Does Your Food Travel More Than You Do?

Does Your Food Travel More Than You Do? from In the Raw -
http://earthmother-intheraw.blogspot.com/2009/01/does-your-food-travel-more-than-you-do.html

Here in the arctic tundra northeastern Ohio, it's a given that when you buy a fresh tomato, peach or bunch of grapes during the middle of winter, it could only have come from anywhere remotely nearby if grown in a hot-house. It will be June before I can head over to the organic farm stand down the road for some just-picked peas, collards and strawberries. Such is life in this climate.

But you could have blown me over with far less than a strong nor'easter today when I started looking at the labels on my produce. Ever pay any attention to those annoying little things you have to peel off your fruits and vegetables? Me neither, but you can bet I am now and so should you. We may be surprised to find that a lot of what we buy isn't grown anywhere in the United States, warmer climate or not.

Until recently, most produce in major grocery stores was anonymous. The United States Department of Agriculture issued new country of origin labeling (COOL) regulations that went into effect on September 30, 2008. Suppliers and retailers are now required to provide COOL for a wide range of products, including fresh and frozen beef, pork, lamb, and chicken, as well as fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables.

How COOL Is This?

I still couldn't find labels on all of my produce, but let's take a look at what I did find. Here's a list of fresh (and I use that term loosely) produce I ate for breakfast and lunch, where it originated from, and the number of miles it traveled to get to me. It should be noted that the mileage I list is direct from point A to point B. In all likelihood, my produce traveled considerably farther before gracing my table.

Bananas – Ecuador – 2,886 miles
Blueberries – Chile – 5,177 miles
Apples – Washington – 2,024 miles
Oranges – Florida – 817 miles
Avocado – Florida – 817 miles
Kale – California – 2,088 miles
Collards – California – 2,088 miles
Cucumbers – Mexico – 1,917 miles
Tomatoes – Florida – 817 miles
Peppers – Mexico – 1,917 miles
Onion – Washington – 2,024 miles

So by the time I had finished lunch, my food had traveled 22,572 miles. That's almost one full trip around the globe! Anyone else see the absurdity in this?
Frequent Fliers

Some food items, such as bananas, have always been imported and have wide consumer acceptance. The most obvious sources for out-of-season produce are Mexico, and Central and South America.

Check out this great resource from The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture that shows common origins of more than 95 different produce that's shipped into or across the United States each year.

Here's a list of commonly air-freighted fruits and veggies and their country of origin:

* Asparagus (Peru)
* Bell peppers (Netherlands)
* Tomatoes (Netherlands)
* Blackberries (Chile)
* Blueberries (Argentina)
* Cherries (Chile)
* Raspberries (Chile)
* Peaches (Chile)
* Nectarines (Chile)
* Papayas (Brazil)

The Real Price of Imported Food

Trucking, shipping and flying in food from around the globe takes a toll on the environment and on public health. The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) did a study analyzing the transportation-related impacts of importing agricultural products into California's three largest ports – Los Angeles, Long Beach and Oakland.

The NRDC study showed that in 2005 alone, approximately 3 million tons of fruits, vegetables, cereals, nuts, and wine were imported from overseas into California by ship, airplane and truck. The California Air Resources Board estimates that 2,400 premature deaths, 2,800 hospital admissions for asthma, and approximately 16,870 missed school days were attributable to direct and indirect exposure to diesel pollution from freight transport activities within the state.

Almost 250,000 tons of global warming gases released were attributable to imports of food products — the equivalent amount of pollution produced by more than 40,000 vehicles on the road or nearly two power plants.

Keep in mind, we're just talking about California here. Pretty eye-opening, huh?
Think Global, Eat Local

It stands to reason that produce that's traveled thousands of miles is not going to taste as fresh or be as nutrient dense as something that's just been picked this morning. And yet, when we shop at the grocery store today, we don't bat an eye at the sight of strawberries in the winter or perfect tomatoes from Holland. In the space of a generation, we've become accustomed to eating food that's never grown roots in local soil.

It's time we start paying attention to those little labels on our fruits and veggies to see how far our food traveled and begin asking our favorite grocery stores and restaurants to carry more local foods in season. We can support our local farmers by purchasing produce at a farmers' market, or becoming a shareholder in a CSA. Check out Local Harvest to find one in your area. Better still, let's put our hands in some dirt, plant and cultivate our own food. It's possible, even in the dead of winter. Take some inspiration from my friend Anthony. It might be -10 degrees outside, but he's still working in his garden. Allow him to show you around.

Environment Blamed in Western Tree Deaths

Environment Blamed in Western Tree Deaths
By MIREYA NAVARRO
January 23, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/23trees.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/23trees.html

Rising temperatures and the resulting drought are causing trees in the West to die at more than twice the pace they did a few decades ago, a new study has found.

The combination of temperature and drought has also reduced the ability of the forests to absorb carbon dioxide, which traps heat and thus contributes to global warming, the authors of the study said, and has made forests sparser and more susceptible to fires and pests.

The scientists, who analyzed tree census data collected in 1955 and in later years, found that the mortality of trees increased in 87 percent of the 76 forest plots studied. In some plots, the die-off rate doubled in as little as 17 years; in others, it doubled after 29 years, the study found.

“Summers are getting longer,” said Nathan L. Stephenson, of the United States Geological Survey, a leader of the study with Phillip van Mantgem, also of the geological survey. “Trees are under more drought stress.”

The study will appear in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

The scientists analyzed the effects of higher temperatures on old-growth temperate forests in three regions: the Pacific Northwest (including southwestern British Columbia), California and inland Western states. The average temperature in those regions rose by more than one degree Fahrenheit from the mid-1970s to 2006.

Precipitation and snowpack runoff decreased over the same period.

The higher mortality rates held regardless of tree size or type or elevation at which it grew. The fact that birth rates remained unchanged among the nearly 60,000 pines, firs, hemlocks and other trees in the study indicates that forests are losing trees faster than they are replacing them, the authors noted.

It remains unclear how much of the regional warming is a result of a natural climate cycle and how much results from a global trend toward higher temperatures. But Jerry F. Franklin, a professor of ecosystem analysis at the University of Washington and an author of the study, blamed global warming. “We see the regional warming as part of a much larger shift globally,” Mr. Franklin said.

The study focused on forests more than 200 years old where rapid changes in demographic rates would more likely be caused by environmental changes rather than by internal processes like self-thinning that are more common in young forests. The spike in mortality cannot be attributed to aging, fires and other events, the researchers said

Warmer weather makes trees more vulnerable to insects and pathogens that thrive in warmer conditions.

In a report last year, the Department of Agriculture said that climate change had “very likely” increased the size and number of fires, insect infestations and overall tree die-offs in forests in the West, the Southwest and Alaska, and that the damage would accelerate in the future.

The authors of the new study said in a teleconference that if tree mortality rates continued to rise, the average size of trees could fall because trees would die at younger ages. Smaller trees cannot store as much carbon dioxide as large ones.

In addition, areas could also become less suitable for some species and more welcoming for others, and existing species might begin to act in peculiar ways. “Novel behaviors on the part of pests and pathogens are the sort of thing we’ll get surprised by,” Mr. Franklin said.

But Steve Pyne, an environmental historian at the University of Texas who has studied fires in forests, said that how bad things became depended on what replaced the vegetation that was being lost.

“Part of the trick here is we don’t know,” Mr. Pyne said. “It’s like the financial meltdown. It’s the uncertainty. What’s going to replace it?”

He added, “It may make no difference; it may make a huge difference.”
Related Posts with Thumbnails