5 Ways to Improve Urban Living and Reduce Premature Death

(The Real Agenda News) Science proves it: Living in large cities results in less healthy life.

Urban life is harmful to health, so how can we transfer this public health emergency to the citizenship and the decision-making process?

More than 100,000 scientific articles talk about air pollution and health, according to Pubmed, the largest database of biomedical publications.

The scientific evidence is clear: current urban life has serious negative impacts on our health. But the simple fact of living in a city should not imply these risks, especially because they are perfectly avoidable.

We have a double challenge ahead: to make this information understandable to public opinion, that is, for people on the street who are not scientists, and as the ultimate goal, to transfer it to political decision-making.

The company ISGlobal developed the interactive digital report The Cities We Want, which aims to summarize and adapt scientific information on urban life and health so that it is understandable to a general public. 

Scientists and communicators have started working together to explain with simple words, videos and illustrations, the keys to build healthier and more sustainable cities.

During the preparation of the report, one of the key messages that we have heard the most from scientists is that it is a global public health emergency that can be addressed from today, because there are many measures available to design healthy cities. That is, the situation is very serious but there are solutions.

The cities we want are cities designed for people: spaces with good air quality, low noise levels and no heat islands. Urban environments with more green spaces that promote healthy levels of physical activity.

So here are 5 measures that cities can apply to put health at the center of priorities:

1. Reducing Air pollution from motorized traffic

Cities were built mainly around cars generate pollution and promote unhealthy lifestyles. In some cities private vehicles occupy between 65% and 70% of the city’s space.

The World Health Organization proposes a series of comprehensive solutions to recover public space for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to reduce levels of air pollution – a toxic air we breathe in 98% of cities in low-income countries, and in 56% of high-income countries.

2. Reducing noise caused by motorized traffic

Urban planning also plays an essential role in reducing noise levels. The populations most report noise pollution, create noise maps and carry out action plans to reduce noise in the most affected areas.

Some of the most frequent strategies are the use of sound-reducing pavement in the roadways, the limit of traffic volume, the reduction of speed limits or the promotion of silent zones and the creation of green spaces.

3. Increase Physical activity through active transport

Lack of physical activity is the fourth risk factor for global mortality and causes one in four cases of breast and colon cancers.

Active transport, or moving on foot or by bicycle on a daily basis is the most practical and sustainable way to increase physical activity. 

A good public transport network makes it easier for citizens to walk and reduce the use of private vehicles. In addition, the availability of green spaces is important to perform physical activity safely.

These measures are collected in a study published in The Lancet, which analyzes physical activity in 14 large cities.

4. Reduce the infrastructure for motorized vehicles and increase green spaces

In the cities, the temperatures are usually higher than in the areas that surround them and the night temperature can reach up to 10 degrees more than in the surrounding area. This effect is known as “heat island”.

Islands of heat and high temperatures increase mortality, especially cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

For this reason, it is necessary that the urban design incorporates as a priority the prevention of the increase in temperatures. 

The insulation of buildings can be improved to depend less on the use of air conditioning, to change urban materials for others that absorb less solar radiation, etc. 

There are several mitigation plans, such as this guide from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

5. More natural spaces to increase access to nature

The city of the future must be a green city. Scientific studies associate green spaces – urban parks, gardens, tree-lined streets or forests, among others – to numerous health benefits, such as stress reduction, the fact of living longer or in a better state of general and mental health.

Nature must be part of the city. Beyond scattered points, the natural spaces must be a plot that communicates all the urban space and benefits all the citizens.

It is estimated that with better urban planning and transportation, cities could avoid 20% of premature deaths each year.

The post 5 Ways to Improve Urban Living and Reduce Premature Death appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Why Do Airlines Force Us To Breath Toxic Air From Jet Engines? (VIDEO)

Most air travelers are oblivious to the fact that the airline industry forces them to breath in highly toxic jet engine air due to what is, from the perspective of the public health, imbecilic and ruthlessly neglectful aircraft design. 

When the issue of so-called aerotoxicity first came to my attention, I could hardly believe what I was learning: namely, that hundreds of thousands of passengers and crew each day are forced to breath in highly toxic chemicals, which the airline industry knows about but has done virtually nothing to mitigate or resolve since the inception of the practice almost six decades ago.

The facts speak for themselves, and today nearly every airplane designed and produced by the world’s airplane manufacturers forces everyone within them to breath in highly neurotoxic chemicals like tri-cresyl phosphates (TCPs) which are used to lubricate and maintain the jet engines. Were this seat belt safety design, it would be the equivalent of mandating passengers ride on the roof of cars without anything holding them down! 

Here are some of the known side effects of short term exposures to the fumes:

“Blurred or tunnel vision, disorientation, memory impairment, shaking and tremors, nausea/vomiting, paresthesias, loss of balance and vertigo, seizures, loss of consciousness, headache, lightheadedness, dizziness, confusion and feeling intoxicated, breathing difficulties (shortness of breath, tightness in chest, respiratory failure), increased heart rate and palpitations, nystagmus, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways).” [Source]

Here are some of the known symptoms of long term low level exposure or residual symptoms from short term exposure to the fumes: 

“memory impairment, forgetfulness, lack of coordination, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, respiratory problems, chest pain, severe headaches, dizziness and feeling intoxicated, weakness and fatigue (leading to chronic fatigue), exhaustion, increased heart rate and palpitations, numbness (fingers, lips, limbs), hot flashes, joint pain, muscle weakness and pain, salivation, irritation (eyes, nose and upper airways), skin itching and rashes, skin blisters (on uncovered body parts), signs of immunosupression, hair loss, chemical sensitivity leading to acquired or multiple chemical sensitivity.” [Source]

We’ve covered this topic before in greater depth. For instance, you can read, “Asbestos of the Sky” – The Aviation Industry’s Darkest Coverup, to learn more. You can also take a look at the full version of the timeline poster below which covers the issue going all the way back to 1936!

I’m writing about the topic again mainly because as a regular air traveler, I can not escape the clear harm that is being done to me and my fellow humankind, every time I fly. And it literally pains me not to do something about this profound health issue. I take protective supplements as often as I can before and after flying, but the reality is that until the root problem is addressed and the chemicals are removed from the air we breath, slapping band-aids on a problem will only go so far. As one prominent US lawyer once opined: “The only thing filtering this toxic soup out of the cabin are the lungs of the passenger and crew.” 

Consumers and Activists Making Waves

The good news is that, after decades of ignoring or actively covering up the issues, minor but significant reforms are taking place internally within the airline industry. For instance, back in 2009 Boeing introduced the 787 Dreamliner, which — finally! — takes its cabin air from outside the plane and NOT directly from the engines. This move lead to Airbus officially announcing in 2016 it would allow a “bleed free” filtering option on their A320 Neo.

More recently, in September of last year, the Australian airline EasyJet announced it was retrofitting their aircraft with filters, “…to stop toxic fumes entering its passenger cabins and cockpits in a move seen as the industry’s first acknowledgment of “aerotoxic syndrome,”” as reported by The Australian.  Even foreward thinking legislators are starting to take action.  In July of last year, Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal proposed new legislation (The Cabin Safety Act) to protect pilots, flight attendants, and passengers from this completely preventable public health problem.  While the bill appears stalled, it is part of a growing number of trends which indicate a critical mass of awareness is gathering, and this is putting pressure on the industry to reform.

Can you imagine the mass appeal among recently awoken health activated consumers for an airline alternative which would ensure that the planes provided clean air to their passengers?  Take notice. Speak up. Write about it online or via social media. Also, contacting your airlines directly will have a significant impact if enough of us do it.

If you are interested in learning more there are a number of citizens’ organizations who are doing their part in keeping the public educated on the topic. Here are just a few:

• www.aerotoxic.org 


• https://www.aerotoxicteam.com/


• AEROTOXIC SYNDROME | BLEEDFREE.EU

© April 8, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Why Do Airlines Force Us To Breath Toxic Air From Jet Engines? (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

[WATCH] Disarming The Climate Change Agenda

After YouTube’s glaring censorship agenda set out to silence those who question the establishment, many have transitioned to a platform where their speech is not politically censored.  One such man is now disarming the climate change agenda and his DTube video is throwing all kinds of wrenches in the cogs of the propaganda machine.

Jay Sather’s DTube channel is dedicated to “destroying the illusion,” something which is not allowed on YouTube.  In the video below, Sather demolishes the climate change agenda. You can’t even go on social media or a mainstream media (government) outlet’s website without seeing a propaganda piece about “man-made climate change.”

“Let’s make some sense about what the heck’s going on here in regards to climate change,” Sather says.

“There’s this huge propaganda wave I’m seeing, trying to tell us that humans are the cause of global warming when, in my opinion, we are not.” Sather goes on to say that while there are record heat waves, there are also record cold waves occurring right now too. There are a lot of changes happening all around the globe right now, but they aren’t’ caused by carbon emissions. “They are caused by my natural earthy and cosmic cycles,” Sather says.

Sather appears to come to the same conclusion as most of us who look at the statistics and data and happen to also understand that the sun’s cycle plays a role in the weather on Earth. “The Earth is [also] moving into a more energetic region of space,” says Sather. “There’s a lot of things going on in our whole solar system because of that…we’re seeing weird things happen with the poles of Saturn, weird hexagonal shapes…storms are getting worse on all the planets.”

“Just because you deny man-made global warming, does NOT mean you are denying the Earth being polluted…this is a big one. One of those subconscious programmings we’ve undergone…these are two very different things,” Sather reminds everyone. He then says the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) “sucks” and they are “one of the biggest polluters there is.”

Sather continues to make the point that all of this propaganda designed to indoctrinate you into the “religion” of man-made climate change is done to enslave you with carbon emission taxes and control your very life. People have stopped asking “why.” Most just blindly accept what they are told without actually applying their own sense of logic to the information presented by the corporate mainstream media, aka, the government’s propaganda machine.

 

Tyrannical Law Will Throw Waiters in Jail Who Offer Customers Unsolicited Plastic Straws

Instead of thinking outside the tyranny of the state to solve the problem of plastic in the ocean, lawmakers will use the barrel of a gun to enforce a tyrannical straws law.

The post Tyrannical Law Will Throw Waiters in Jail Who Offer Customers Unsolicited Plastic Straws appeared first on The Free Thought Project.

The #1 Reason Never To Buy Bottled Water Again (VIDEO)

Huge companies like Pepsi, Nestlé, and Coca-Cola sell billions of units of Reverse Osmosis purified tap water each year, the inevitable consequence of which is the littering of our planet with plastic that will pollute the environment for hundreds of years. What if you could eliminate the “middle men,” thousands of dollars in costs, and tons of plastic in the process?

If you have followed our work at GreenMedInfo.com you know that water quality concerns figure top on our list, especially considering how toxic the environment and municipal tap water have become, as well as the fact that 99% of water molecules by number in your body are water. Clearly, people are waking up to the vital importance of consuming clean water, but a common question emerges: what water should I drink?

I, personally, drink Mountain Valley water out of glass whenever economic and logistical considerations make that possible. But when it comes to cooking, washing vegetables, or making hot beverages like tea and coffee, its simply not economical to use Mountain Valley. So what’s the solution?

Here’s An Economical Solution to the ‘Water Quality Problem’ I Use Daily

I have the great pleasure of introducing our followers to my colleague Peter Spiegel’s groundbreaking solution: the AquaTru™ water purification system. He has managed to make available, for the first time, the same 4-stage Reverse Osmosis technology used by the world’s largest beverage corporations to produce bottled water, but has miniaturized it to fit your countertop with no installation or plumbing required.

He also is contracting directly with the membrane manufacturer, eliminating thousands of dollars of “middle man” costs. This system also provides a cost effective alternative to extremely bulky and costly under-the-sink RO systems. Not only will you save a ton of money on pure water you will also save the environment from millions of pounds of plastic. For instance, the Pacific Instituteestimated that the U.S. consumer, in 2006 alone, bought 31.2 billion liters of water sold in plastic containers weighing a total of 1,800,000,000 pounds!

AquaTru™ is the first and only counter top water purifier that makes bottled-water-quality water right from your tap without any plumbing or installation. AquaTru’s exclusive, patent pending TruPure™ technology miniaturizes the same reverse osmosis technology used by all the major bottled brands and puts it into a compact countertop water purifier for the first time. AquaTru™ removes or substantially reduces virtually all the toxic chemicals  — including radioactive material like uranium! — in your tap water [more details provided below].

You can check out the special offer limited to GreenMedInfo subscribers here, or read more about this amazing technology in the details below…

What’s wrong with Tap Water?

The EPA has not set a new drinking water standard since 2001.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates about 100 contaminants in our tap water, but a study conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found over 300 harmful contaminants in tap water serving over 53.6 million Americans.

Harmful contaminants in our unregulated drinking water include:

– Disinfection byproducts

– Perchlorate (rocket fuel – read the Greenmedinfo.com exposure on “Perchlorate Gate“)

– MTBE (gasoline additive)

– Prescription drug residue like anti-depressants & hormones from birth control.

– Increasingly omnipresent radionuclides like Uranium-238

In case you don’t know, disinfection byproducts are carcinogens which are produced when drinking water-disinfectants like chlorine and chloramine react with naturally-occurring or decaying matter in the water to form byproducts that pose serious health risks.  An astounding 600+ have been identified in standard municipal tap water!

Nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural runoff contaminate our groundwater supply posing health risks.

A study by the EWG found that over 43 million Americans in 42 states drink water that is polluted with chromium, much of it likely being in the carcinogenic form of Chromium-6.

What’s wrong with typical fridge & pitcher filters?

They are filters, not purifiers. Most pitcher and refrigerator filters are only designed to make your water smell, look, or taste better, but not necessarily safer, which is of primary importance. Filters remove simple chemicals like chlorine, but may leave behind a toxic chemical concoction for you to drink.

What’s wrong with bottled water?

According to the Pacific Institute, it takes over 17 million barrels of oil to produce the plastic required for bottled waters consumed by Americans in a year, which is enough oil to fuel more than 1 million cars for an entire year.

The Pacific Institute estimates that it takes 3 liters of water to create 1 liter of bottled water.

Over 73 billion half-liter bottles of water are consumed in the US per year. Only 29% are recycled, meaning 50 billion bottles end up in landfills or polluting our waterways.

The recommended eight glasses of water a day (1460 pints). At $.25 a pint (if you buy at Costco) that will cost you $365 a year. At a $1.00 a bottle at a convenience store that’s $1460.

And that’s not to mention the plastic chemicals that leach into the bottled water!

What’s right about AquaTru™?

With AquaTru™, your water isn’t just filtered….it’s purified.

Affordable and easy to maintain. No installation is necessary. It utilizes patent-pending TruPure™ reverse osmosis technology for nearly 4X the efficiency of regular RO systems. The 4-step reverse osmosis filtration process includes:

1. Mechanical Pre-Filter: Removes sediments and cloudiness (turbidity) from water

2. Reverse Osmosis Pre-Filter: Removes more than 99% of chlorine and chloramine which can damage the RO filter

3. High Efficiency US-Made Reverse Osmosis Membrane: Takes out metallic ions, salts, viruses, pollutants, drugs, etc.

The Japanese RO membrane manufacturer’s data shows it removes the following contaminants:

• Arsenic = 95.00%


• Asbestos = 95.00%


• Barium = 99.90%


• Chlorine = 99.90%


• Chloramine = 99.00%


• Cadmium = 99.00%


• Copper = 99.00%


• Chromium (hexavalent) = 99.00%


• Cysts (cryptosporidium & giardia) = 99.99%


• Fluoride = 90.00%


• Lead = 99.00%


• Mercury = 99.00%


• MTBE = 90.00%


• Nitrates = 90.00%


• Perchlorate = 90.00%

Mike Adams of NaturalNews used ICP-MS instrumentation to assess the unit’s ability to remove heavy metals and radionuclides and found it removed the following:

• Aluminum reduction = 92.99%


• Copper reduction = 99.79%


• Arsenic reduction = 99.90%


• Strontium reduction = 98.80%


• Cadmium reduction = 100.00%


• Cesium reduction = 100.00%


• Mercury reduction = 100.00%


• Lead reduction = 99.90%


• Uranium reduction = 100.00%

4. Activated Coconut Shell Carbon Filter: “Polishes” the water and removes any remaining volatile organic compounds (toxic gases)

5. Bisphenol Free, Non-Estrogenic Material Used (Tritan™): AquaTru™ uses Tritan™ copolyester material, which is the same material used by the Vitamix and Nutribullet and which was evaluated by 3rd-party research to be free of estrogenic and androgenic activity in 2012 (email us for the research document: info@greenmedinfo.com). Also, Tritan™ copolyester material is free of not only bisphenol A, but all bisphenols, e.g. bisphenols S, F, M, etc.

The filter features a compact footprint; sits easily on your counter or under any standard kitchen cabinet. Its easy-to-use dispensing button makes filling up your glass or water bottle fast & convenient. The removable dispensing tank can be stored in the fridge for cold drinking water. The digital display tells you when it’s time to change filters. The filters last two years or more. The unit is completely portable, so you can take it with you if you move.

Why AquaTru™?

We all need to drink water – a lot of it. What are you doing to make sure it’s safe, pure and healthy? Make sure you get the full story before choosing what goes into your body, what comes out of your pocketbook and what’s best for the world around you!

Ready to order your AquaTru™ water purifier?

Peter is making available the AquaTru™ available at special price. Check out the offer here.

For additional information, watch the eye-opening movie about the bottled water industry, “Tapped“:

© December 21, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post The #1 Reason Never To Buy Bottled Water Again (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Plastic Particles Found in Drinking Water

Dying due to plastic consumption seems an outrageous thought. But so was the idea that chemicals in plastic could change someone’s sexual orientation; until scientists proved it.

As explained in the link above, chemicals in plastic are responsible for countless diseases and, believe it or not, for the change in sexual orientation.

The effects that chemicals used in plastic have on animals have been proven without a doubt, and those same chemicals are ingested everyday by humans either in food, or drinking water.

As if plastic products shedding chemicals was not bad news, plastic microparticles are making their way into drinking water.

Plastic particles in water cleared for human consumption

We already knew that there were tiny fragments of this material that reached the seas, where they could be ingested by marine fauna and thus end up in the food that humans consume.

But now it turns out – perhaps more alarming – that a recent study has suggested that it is also common to find plastic particles or fibers in drinking water.

To what extent should we worry? The study was carried out by several university researchers, but instead of being reviewed by other researchers in a scientific journal, it was commissioned and published by a media company.

Of course, it is possible that many samples of drinking water contain plastic, given that it is a common material that often passes into the environment in the form of garbage as well as fibers from garments. made with artificial materials.

Surely the purifying treatments do not manage to eliminate the particles.

For example, sedimentation techniques consist of allowing the specks of clay, silt or organic matter to settle to the bottom of a purification tank.

Many plastic micro particles are less dense than water, so they float and can not be removed.

But what we also do not know is what happens with these micro fragments once they are in the intestine.

It could be that they passed through the body without being absorbed, just like the non-digestible fiber of the food.

However, the smaller they are, the more likely they are to reach the bloodstream and even the cells.

The study in question looked for plastic particles larger than 2.5 microns, which are about 10 times smaller than the cells that line the intestine.

Nano particles of 0.1 microns or less are more likely to penetrate cells, but we do not know if they are present in drinking water because the researchers did not look for them.

Artificial substances have been introduced into the human body for at least 400,000 years, when Palaeolithic cave dwellers inhaled the soot particles from the first bonfires that ignited in the cavities.

But there are many cases of corpuscles with harmful effects on health.

For example, clay specks cause podoconiosis, a form of elephantiasis, to around 1.5 million Africans.

As for the inhalation of asbestos particles, it is the cause of a very aggressive form of lung cancer.

We also have strong evidence that exposure to suspended particles is harmful, and that these corpuscles reach the bloodstream.

Researchers have found particles from combustion engines in human brains.

The harmful effects of water and air pollution

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that every year there are more than six million deaths related to air pollution.

That is to say, there is a whole series of possible harmful effects for health that have to do with exposure to particles.

There is no conclusive evidence that the plastic micro particles discovered in the study on drinking water can reach the blood or that they are harmful to human health, but they have several potentially harmful effects.

As with other corpuscles, such as those found in air pollution, can cause inflammation, an immune response to any element that is recognized as “alien” to the body, which, in turn, can be harmful.

Another possible problem is that the plastic micro particles can become vehicles of entry of other toxins to the body.

In general, this class of microscopic fragments repel water and combine with insoluble toxins.

For example, they can be combined with compounds that contain toxic metals, such as mercury, and with organic pollutants such as some pesticides and the chemical known as dioxin, which we know causes cancer and reproductive and developmental problems.

If the micro particles are introduced into the body, the toxins can accumulate in the fatty tissues.

At present, we do not have unequivocal evidence that the microscopic fragments of plastic present in drinking water have harmful effects on health, but, since they may have other kinds of corpuscles, it is urgent that we improve our knowledge of what happens with micro particles of water. plastic in the body.

The post Plastic Particles Found in Drinking Water appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Apocalyptic Smog Causes Health Concerns: ‘Delhi Has Become A Gas Chamber’

Residents of the heavily populated city of New Delhi, India have had to tie scarves across their faces in an effort to breathe more easily.  The heavy smog in the city is entering day three, and a state of emergency could soon be declared to protect the health of the people who reside there.

Air quality readings in India’s capital have soared since Tuesday, with one monitor showing levels in the city were 969. To put that in perspective, the World Health Organization considers anything above 25 to be unsafe. Those levels are based on the concentration of fine particulate matter, or PM 2.5, per cubic meter. The microscopic particles, which are smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, are considered particularly harmful because they are small enough to lodge deep into the lungs and pass into other organs, causing serious health risks.

The wider Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR) is a sprawling area that encompasses Delhi, as well as satellite districts in the neighboring states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, and is home to some 46 million people  The area lacks effective public transportation and workers must drive their own cars to and from jobs in the city, which CNN says further exacerbates the problem.

According to CNN, The Delhi government is being urged to declare a city-wide health emergency, as residents endured a third straight day of heavy pollution. But apparently, this happens every year, according to one Twitter user, who blames the smog on crop burning.

Delhi has become a gas chamber. Every year this happens during this part of year. We have to find a soln to crop burning in adjoining states

— Arvind Kejriwal (@ArvindKejriwal) November 7, 2017

Every year, farmers across fertile neighboring states set fire to their fields to clear them for the next season. Known as stubble burning, millions of tons of crop residue are set alight releasing untold amounts of particulate matter into the environment.

Politicians and government officials are also blaming farmers in neighboring northern Indian states who clear their fields by burning their crops. The landlocked capital sits in a natural bowl and is surrounded by industrial and agricultural hubs. Without the coastal breeze of cities such as Mumbai and Chennai, much of the pollution settles.

But crop burning is not the only problem India faces with regards to their pollution problem.  Delhi’s pollution also comes from industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust from cars, road dust, and the burning of biomass, said Santosh Harish, assistant director of research at EPIC India, a research institute based in the US and India.

A report by the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur carried out in 2014 found that vehicle omissions accounted for 20% of Delhi’s annual PM2.5 levels and combating that pollution will be a difficult task because the number of cars on the city’s roads has continued to rise. According to government statistics, the total number of vehicles in Delhi exceeded 10 million for the first time in 2016.

Should New Delhi fail to reign in their pollution, the health of 46 million is on the line.

Plastic Straws, Utensils to Be Banned in Seattle Restaurants in 2018

Plastic utensils are convenient and straws are fun for kids, but much of that plastic eventually winds up in a landfill or as litter. The environment is paying dearly for the 300 million tons of plastic produced globally each year, and if changes aren’t made, and fast, the problem is only going to get worse. The city of Seattle, Washington, has already banned single-use plastic bags in an effort to reduce plastic pollution, and on July 1, 2018, a new ban on plastic straws and utensils at restaurants will go into effect. [1] [2]

The city is instead making a push to allow only compostable or paper utensils and straws. [1]

Sego Jackson, the strategic advisor for Waste Prevention and Product Stewardship for Seattle Public Utilities, said:

“As of July 1, 2018, food services businesses should not be providing plastic straws or utensils. What they should be providing are compostable straws or compostable utensils. But they also might be providing durables, reusables, or encouraging you to skip the straw altogether.” [2]

The Office of the City Clerk says the ordinance passed the full city council in 2008. However, the exception has been in place since 2010. Restaurants will be forced to abide by the ordinance if the exception is not renewed. Officials say the decree is necessary because disposable food service ware is a burden to Seattle’s solid waste disposal system. [1]

Despite the ordinance’s 7-year existence, efforts to ban disposable plastic food service stalled because there were no viable compostable alternatives at the time. [2]

Read: Edible Silverware Could Cut Down on Plastic Waste and Pollution

Jackson said:

“Early on there weren’t many compostable options,” he explained. “And some of the options didn’t perform well or compost well. That’s all changed now.”[3]

Only restaurants will be affected by the ban. Plastic straws and utensils will still be available for purchase at city grocery stores.

Restaurants that fail to abide by the decree will first receive a warning. If the establishments continue to use plastic food service ware, they could be slapped with hefty fines.

Many dining establishments have decided not to wait until 2018 to start making changes. A campaign called “Strawless in Seattle” is planned for September, according to Jillian Henze, of the Seattle Restaurant Association. Up to 500 local groups and restaurants will cease using straws and disposable utensils for the month.

Sources:

[1] The New York Times

[2] KIRO

[3] EcoWatch

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Fracking Giant Sues Citizen for Speaking out Against Fracking

Fracking giant Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. is suing Dimock, Pennsylvania resident Ray Kemble and his attorneys for $5 million after Kemble accused the gas driller of polluting residential wells in Pennsylvania. Cabot alleges that Kemble and his lawyers extorted the company through a “frivolous” lawsuit. [1]

In 2013, an EPA official wrote in an internal report that fracking conducted by Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. caused methane to leak into domestic water wells in Dimock, completely contradicting Cabot’s assessment, which said the methane gas was naturally occurring. [2]

State regulators initially got involved in 2010 and said Cabot’s drilling contaminated local wells, though a subsequent EPA investigation in 2012 found the water posed no health risks to Dimock residents.

Though the 2013 report didn’t exactly contract the EPA’s finding that the water was safe to use, it did show that at least one official determined that Cabot’s work damaged water wells.

Read: Study: People Living Near Fracking Sites Suffer Severe Health Problems

Now, Cabot is suing Kemble, claiming that his efforts to garner media attention to his polluted well “harmed” the company. The energy company alleges in the suit that Kemble’s actions breached a 2012 settlement that was part of an ongoing federal class action lawsuit over Dimock’s water quality.

Kemble says that even now his water “burns the back of your throat, makes you gag, makes you want to puke.” According to the outspoken Pennsylvanian, who, along with other community members, was featured in the 2010 documentary “Gasland,” said that things only got worse after Cabot fracked 3 wells near his house. [3]

In August 2017, scientists from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a public health agency, again tested the water at Kemble’s home and about 2 dozen other houses.

A report released by the ATSDR in 2016 found contamination in some of Dimock’s well-water, but the tests did not look at what was casing the contamination. [4]

Read: Fracking Contaminates Groundwater, Study Proves

George Stark, Cabot’s director of external affairs, said of the lawsuit:

“Cabot will protect its rights and pursue justice against those who irresponsibly and maliciously abuse the legal system.” [1]

Source: Sierra Club BC

In April 2017, Kemble and his lawyers filed a federal lawsuit accusing Cabot of continuing to pollute Kemble’s water supply. However, the suit was withdrawn 2 months later. [3]

According to Cabot, the claims Kemble made in the lawsuit were the subject of a 2012 settlement between the driller and dozens of Dimock residents – including Kemble – and were barred by the statute of limitations. Cabot claims in the lawsuit that Kemble had breached the 2012 settlement by publicly discussing the company and the alleged damage it did to his water supply.

In 2016, some of Kemble’s neighbors, who had refused to sign a settlement agreement with Cabot, were awarded $4.2 million by a jury. However, in March 2017, that ruling was overturned. [4]

The judge overseeing the case ordered a new trial.

Two weeks later, Kemble filed his lawsuit against Cabot.

Sources:

[1] MintPress News

[2] The Washington Post

[3] Press Connects

[4] Hot Air

Sierra Club BC

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

National Park Bottled Water “Ban” Reversed By Trump Administration

The news is awash with fire and brimstone warnings about plastic pollution, both on land and at sea. To help battle back against the trillions of pieces of plastic littering the planet, the National Park Service put a policy in place in 2011 encouraging national parks to end the sale of bottled water. It wasn’t an outright ban, but 23 out of 417 national parks went on to restrict bottled water sales. In mid-August 2017, the Trump Administration reversed the Obama-era policy.

The policy was rolled back “in close consultation with Department of Interior leadership,” the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) said in a statement. [2]

Acting National Park Service Director Michael T. Reynolds said in a statement:

“While we will continue to encourage the use of free water bottle filling stations as appropriate, ultimately it should be up to our visitors to decide how best to keep themselves and their families hydrated during a visit to a national park.” [1]

The ban surely reduced some of the plastic litter plaguing national parks, but aspects of the policy made little sense. The 23 national parks that stopped selling bottled water continued to sell bottles of sweetened drinks, so the policy basically zeroed in on 1 source of pollution while essentially ignoring other sources, and made it impossible for visitors to those particular parks to purchase a healthy beverage option.

Jill Culora, vice president of IBWA, said:

“The rescinded policy was seriously flawed.”

The parks that banned the sale of bottled water tried to make up for it by spending millions installing water stations.

The policy was established to reduce waste, Culora said, but “people coming to the parks that banned the sale of bottled water were still allowed to buy other less healthy beverages – including carbonated soft drinks, sports drinks, teas, milk, beer, and wine – that are packaged in much heavier plastic, glass, cans, and cardboard containers.”

Visitors were also allowed to carry food wrapped in plastic into the parks. [2]

Read: This is Why We Need to Stop Using Plastic (Infographic)

The bottled water policy encouraged visitors to use water fountains and bring refillable bottles to quench their thirst. The park service says it is discontinuing the policy to give visitors more hydration options.

In a statement, the National Park Service said:

“The change in policy comes after a review of the policy’s aims and impact in close consultation with Department of the Interior leadership.” [1]

Still, every little bit of conservation helps. In a statement, the Sierra Club’s public lands policy director, Athan Manuel, said:

“actions that roll back protections on our National Parks and public lands only move our country backward — putting the importance of local economies, wildlife and communities on the back burner.”

The Sierra Club noted that the bottled water ban in national parks was intended to increase sustainability and cut carbon emissions.

Read: Plastic Bottles Could Lead to Environmental Crisis, Scientists Warn

And the nonprofit group Corporate Accountability International (CAI) pointed out that the Trump Administration recently appointed a deputy secretary at the Department of the Interior who previously was employed by a law firm that has represented one of the nation’s largest bottled water companies.

David Bernhardt was confirmed by the Senate as deputy interior secretary only weeks ago. He is a former lobbyist with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which has represented Nestlé Waters, the distributor of the Deer Park brand. [2]

Nestlé is notorious for its former chairman and CEO, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, who in 2013 said that drinking water is a not a human right and should be privatized.

Jesse Bragg, spokesperson for CAI, said in a statement:

“The [bottled-water] industry has lobbied Congress to block this policy for years.” [1]

Bragg added that this is an “example of the industry pulling the strings behind the scenes to protect is profits.”

Sources:

[1] NPR

[2] The Washington Post

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Easy Detox Tip: Eat Broccoli Sprouts

Air pollution is an inescapable health threat of our time, and no matter the amount of healthy choices you make, you are still vulnerable to exposure. The health effects of air pollution are many, including allergies, asthma, heart disease, lung disease, and even nerve damage. Even exercising outdoors in urban environments can increase our intake of pollutants, since strenuous exercise increases oxygen demands. Fortunately, specific dietary strategies may protect our body and brain from the effects of air pollution.

An Uncommon Fighter Against Air Pollution

An estimated 7 million deaths occur worldwide due to air pollution. ^[1] Researchers are constantly looking at bioflavonoids and chemical constituents in natural foods that could possibly reduce air pollution effects. A recent study looking at the effects of air pollution found it may be mitigated by broccoli sprouts, an antioxidant-rich food that is also high in beneficial enzymes. ^[2] Broccoli sprouts are extremely high in glucoraphanin, which initiates the production of sulforaphane. This compound increases enzymes that facilitate the removal of pollutants.

The study, including 291 participants, consumed a beverage containing freeze-dried broccoli sprout powder, whereas the control group consumed sterilized water mixed with pineapple and lime juice. Individuals consuming the broccoli sprout beverage increased their excretion of benzene, a toxic carcinogen, by up to 61%. Benzene is commonly found in our environment due to toxic emissions from heavy industry. Researchers believe the sulforaphane may be exhibiting the main protective effects, increasing the ability of cells to adapt and survive in the presence in toxic chemicals.

Air Pollution Starts in Your Home

When many people think of air pollution, an image of dirty and smoky downtown cities typically comes to mind. Our homes, however, are probably a major source of pollutants. Furniture, for instance, releases toxic flame retardants that interfere with hormonal health and may increase cancer risk. Since you live and sleep in your home, you’re probably breathing in a variety of toxins from furniture, cleaners, and even the paint on your walls. There are many ways you can reduce indoor air pollution, like finding furniture without artificial flame retardants and using non-toxic cleaning agents.

What do you do to fight air pollution? Do you think you’ll start consuming more broccoli sprouts?

References:

1. World Health Organization. 7 million premature deaths annually linked to air pollution. WHO News Release.


2. P. A. Egner, J. G. Chen, A. T. Zarth, et al. Rapid and Sustainable Detoxication of Airborne Pollutants by Broccoli Sprout Beverage: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial in China. Cancer Prevention Research, 2014; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0103.

How Pollution Affects The Gut Microbiome

Pollutants pervade almost every aspect of our environment. Air pollution is one of the biggest threats, and water pollution comes in at a very close second. Even the pollutants in our foods are contributing to a myriad of health concerns. Researchers believe external pollution may be implicated in cancer, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, among other of the most pressing health concerns of our time.^[1] Research is showing that persistent organic pollutants, or POPs, could be altering the gut microbiome and reducing the ratio of good to bad bacteria in the intestines. This imbalance is one of the driving forces behind some diseases, and could partially explain the detrimental effects of pollution on our health.

POPs and Your Gut Health

Our gut microbiome is intricate and is home to trillions of bacteria. The majority of the bacteria, when the body is healthy, is deemed as the “good” bacteria. You replenish this good bacteria with probiotics and feed it with prebiotics, like inulin and dietary fiber. The good bacteria in your gut is responsible for not only fighting off the bad bacteria, but for supporting immune health, mood, and even weight. Without a healthy microbiome, health would disintegrate at a rapid rate,

Certain compounds in the environment bind to specific receptors in the body, including the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. This receptor is responsible for keeping the gut healthy. Animal models have shown that POPs decrease good bacterial strains and increase the bad ones, imparting effects such as impaired liver function, intestinal swelling, and altered fat and glucose metabolism. ^[2] This may explain why pollution is so powerful for influencing obesity and diabetes risk.

What You Can Do

One of the best tactics against POPs is to eat an organic, preferably raw, diet. This will reduce your exposure to pesticides and other chemical ingredients commonly added to conventional food. Even internal pollutants–the origins of negative thoughts and emotions–may be reducing gut health and increasing the risk for disease. This is why it’s so important to reduce your exposure to television shows, movies, and literature that promote negative thinking without necessarily putting your head in the sand. Getting enough sleep is essential for managing stress, and some research shows it could help support a healthy gut.

References:

1. Lim SS, Vos T, Flaxman AD. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk fact clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2224-60. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8.


2. Carol Potera. POPs and Gut Microbiota: Dietary Exposure Alters Ratio of Bacterial Species. Environ Health Perspect; DOI; 10.1289/ehp.123-A187.

Air Pollution May be to Blame for 20% of Dementia Cases

A new study in Translational Psychiatry suggests that women who are exposed to air heavily polluted by vehicle exhaust and other sources of fine particulate matter have a significantly higher risk of developing dementia.

For the new study, researchers tracked the cognitive health of 3,647 women ages 65-79 for 10 years. All of the women were dementia-free at the beginning of the study. As part of the Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study (WHIMS), researchers assessed the participants’ cognitive function annually.

The researchers used EPA data to estimate the women’s daily particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5) where they lived. PM2.5 are fine particles that are up to 2.5 micrometers in diameter. They are made up of solid and liquid droplets which are emitted from power plants and motor vehicles, and other sources of combustion.

Read: Toxic Nanoparticle Air Pollution Found in Human Brain Tissue

The miniscule size of PM2.5 makes them easy to inhale, and inhalation of the particles can increase the risk of heart disease, asthma, reduced lung function, and other health problems.

High Levels of Pollution, High Levels of Risk

The team found that women who live in areas exposed to high PM2.5 levels had an 81% increased risk of global cognitive decline and a 92% increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias compared to women who live in areas with low PM2.5 levels.

Researchers also looked at the brain tissue of lab mice and discovered amyloid beta protein clumps – the hallmark signature of Alzheimer’s disease – and the die-off of cells in the brain’s hippocampus, where memories are formed.

Air pollution was also shown to affect a woman’s cognitive abilities even more dramatically if she carries APOE-e4, a gene variant which puts them at higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

Using air pollution standards set by the EPA, researchers found major differences on all those measures between those who breathed clean air and those exposed to pollution levels deemed unsafe.

In the lab mice, breathing air collected over the 10 Freeway in Los Angeles led to denser brain concentrations of amyloid protein which were more likely to form dangerous clumps than breathing air that met EPA standards pre-2012.

Read: Toxic Air Affects 90% of World’s Population

Are we seeing this in real-time in China?

Approximately 54% of the world’s population lived in urban areas as of 2014, according to the United Nations. In China, where air pollution is extreme, more than 55% of the population live in the city.

Interestingly, a 2013 study published in the Lancet showed that the number of people in that country with Alzheimer’s disease soared from 3.7 million in 1990 to 9.2 million in 2010. These are eclipsing figures from the 2012 World Alzheimer’s Report, which predicted an estimated 5.4 million dementia cases in China in 2010.

Potential Legal Ramifications?

The authors of the study, geriatric and environmental health specialists at USC, estimate that prior to the 2012 air pollution standards set by the EPA, about 21% of new cases of dementia and of accelerated cognitive decline could likely have been the result of exposure to air pollution.

Here’s where things get tricky.

When the EPA devises its pollution standards, the agency is required to consider the impact they will have on the health of “vulnerable populations.” The EPA is also tasked with using its regulatory authority to protect those populations. The standards set in 2012 clearly do not adequately protect women (and mice) who are genetically predisposed to developing Alzheimer’s disease.

Though air pollution has been decreasing since 2012, Dr. Jiu-Chiuan Chen, an environmental health specialist at USC’s Keck School of Medicine and the study’s senior author, said it’s not clear that even current standards are safe for aging brains, or for brains that are genetically vulnerable to Alzheimer’s.

It would behoove the Trump administration to look over this latest study, as President Trump has indicated that it will either trash or overhaul Obama administration regulations that tightened emissions from power plants and established tougher fuel efficiency standards for cars in an effort to fight climate change and cut air pollution.

Chen said:

“If people in the current administration are trying to reduce the cost of treating diseases, including dementia, then they should know that relaxing the Clean Air Act regulations will do the opposite.”

Sources:

[1] Medical News Today

[2] Los Angeles Times

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Living in the Country Reduces Risk of Dying from Cancer by 29%

Living in a rural area has a multitude of benefits – cleaner air, less noise, and more relaxing surroundings, just to name a few. If you’re fighting cancer from a rural area of the country, your location may also boost your odds of survival quite significantly, research shows (though it may be because of the type of general practitioners (GPs) you’re more likely to find in the country).

Let’s not knock city livin.’ There are lots of awesome things about living in a big city, but it can be a much more stressful environment than rural and even suburban environments. Air pollution – a major problem in cities – has been linked to greater breast density, which is a precursor to breast cancer. Even the constant sound of vehicles passing by has been associated with weight-gain.

It also takes longer to make a doctor’s appointment, and you might not get as much TLC from an urban GP as you would from a rural one.

Source: EPA

Researchers at the University of Aberdeen studied 926 Scottish patients with bowel cancer, using a database linking GP records to routine data for patients diagnosed with bowel cancer between 1997 and 1998. The researchers followed the patients up to 2011.

They found that cancer patients who lived in rural areas were 29% less likely to die from the disease than those who lived in cities. Lead researcher Peter Murchie called the findings “very reassuring for rural populations.” [1]

By the time rural cancer patients seek medical attention, their symptoms are often more serious, compared to those of urban patients. However, that doesn’t mean their illness is more advanced, Murchie and his colleagues discovered. In this particular study, waiting longer did not seem to limit cancer patients’ chances of survival.

Murchie said:

“[This] fits with ideas of rural stoicism and patients taking longer to react and waiting. They present with more serious symptoms, but there isn’t good evidence that they have more advanced disease.” [1]

People who live in the country are more likely to have a relationship with their doctor, and that appears to be one of the main survival-boosting aspects of rural living, Murchie explained.

If you’re an urban dweller and see a city slicker doctor, you can probably attest to the unfortunate reality that many urban practices are about as personable as a cattle call. And in densely populated areas, being physically closer to a hospital isn’t necessarily “better” if you have to wait months to schedule an appointment.

Source: The Washington Post

Another potential reason for the increased cancer survival may be wealth. Rural patients tend to be more affluent than those in deprived urban areas. Another factor may be the more traditional nature of rural GP surgeries, said Murchie. [2]

“The nature of your relationship with your GP is different in rural areas… You’re more likely to know the GP socially and that can help or hinder depending on symptoms. Access to rural GPs, generally speaking, is easier than it would be if you registered at a big urban practice.” [1]

Helen Stokes-Lampard, chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs in the U.K., said:

“It’s encouraging that this study demonstrates GPs and our teams in remote and rural areas are overcoming the specific challenges facing them, and delivering good cancer care. This should reassure patients who live in remote areas, and/or have longer travelling times to their local GP practice, that the quality of care that they receive is not affected.” [2]

Sources:

[1] Net Doctor

[2] The Times of London

EPA

The Washington Post

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Sad: Humans Have Created 9 Billion Tons of Plastic in 67 Years

In 1950, plastic was a rarity. Today, plastic is everywhere – in our homes, cars, streets, landfills, and oceans. Scientists recently calculated how much plastic humans have produced since that year, and the conclusion is mind-boggling: 9 billion tons, or 8.3 billion metric tons. [1]

A study published July 19, 2017 in the journal Science Advances reveals that plastics production has risen at a compound annual growth rate of 8.4% in the last 67 years, more than 2.5 times the rise in the global gross domestic product.

A mere 2 million pounds of plastic was available in 1950, compared with more than 400 million tons in 2015. Shockingly, half of the world’s plastics were produced in the last 13 years.

And, the researchers estimated, the amount of plastic in use now is 30% of all plastics ever produced. [2]

As if your mind isn’t boggled enough, think of it this way: according to the U.S. Navy, 9 million tons of plastic is the equivalent to 85,567 aircraft “supercarriers” like the USS Gerald R. Ford, which weighs 107,000 tons (97,000 metric tons). [3]

As of 2015, about 7 billion tons of plastic waste had been disposed of as waste. Of that amount, just 9% of it gets recycled, 12% is incinerated, and 79% winds up in landfills, according to the report.

If humans don’t act quickly to reverse the upward trend, 13.2 billion tons (6.3 billion metric tons) will be disposed of in landfills by 2050, the researchers wrote. Right now, there is already countless plastic particles polluting the oceans. Something needs to be done.

Source: OneWorldOneOcean.com

Roland Geyer, an associate professor of industrial ecology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and lead author of the new study, said:

“You could say, ‘What a phenomenal success story,’ but I do think it will come with some heavy environmental collateral damage.”

Geyer went on:

“Humankind is making an incredible amount of plastics, even more than we thought it would be, and it keeps increasing. And we’re not very good at dealing with the waste.” [1]

The same team of researchers worked on an earlier study which found in 2015 that between 5 million and 13 million metric tons of plastic work their way into the ocean each year. In this recent study, the researchers noted that plastics are found in every major ocean basin on the planet. [2]

Read: Fish Eat Plastic from Polluted Oceans, Travels up Food Chain & Harms Humans

They write:

“The growth of plastics production in the past 65 years has substantially outpaced any other manufactured material. The same properties that make plastics so versatile in innumerable applications — durability and resistance to degradation — make these materials difficult or impossible for nature to assimilate.

Thus, without a well-designed and tailor-made management strategy for end-of-life plastics, humans are conducting a singular uncontrolled experiment on a global scale, in which billions of metric tons of material will accumulate across all major terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the planet.”

According to Geyer, recycling alone doesn’t cut it. He and his colleagues recommend weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the different strategies for managing plastics. Reusing and recycling are 2 of those strategies, but they’ve done little to solve the problem.

Strategies like substituting other materials or using waste-to-energy or other technologies for converting the materials into other substances should be given greater consideration.

Sources:

[1] Newsweek

[2] CNBC

[3] Live Science

One World One Ocean

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.