Experts Identify Products That Cause Greatest Environmental Damage

[Barrett808]

Cutting-edge research identifying the types of products that cause the greatest environmental damage is the focus of a special issue of Yale's Journal of Industrial Ecology.

Seventy percent to 80 percent of the total environmental impact is from automobiles, air transport, food (meat and dairy, chief among them), home and related energy use, including heating, cooling and energy-using appliances.

Contributors to the special issue, Priorities for Environmental Product Policy, examined the impacts of products in Cardiff, Wales, in Germany, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, and in the European Union (EU) as a whole.

The most recent and influential studies on the relative impact of consumption activities are featured. All independently conducted, the studies conclude that a consistent and robust priority list of product groups can serve as a guide for environmental improvement programs undertaken by industry and government.

In many countries, environmental policy that is centered on production, use and disposal of products, rather than just pollution from smokestacks and drainpipes, is gaining acceptance. The European Union and China are banning hazardous substances from electrical and electronic products, for example, and Japan is implementing a green purchasing law.

(more)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061025185631.htm

Link to original article (hat tip to IanDB1): http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/jiec/10/3.

[Ian David]

1. Link to the original article

The articles in the special issue are available in electronic form through http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/jiec/10/3.

[Barrett808]

2. Great, thanks! n/t

[bananas]

4. bad link.nt

[progressoid]

7. try this one...

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/jiec/10/3

[Lisa]

46. thanks! These look pretty interesting!

I'm helping teach a resource management course now at a local college, and one of the students said last week during our introduction to indicators that he didn't see how such things could be useful. I'll show him this!

[FormerDittoHead]

67. Wondering: Did you really pay $8 to read this single article?

I didn't see any other way to read the Journal of Industrial Ecology article but to pay $8...

[ThomCat]

3. Become a Vegetarian

or better yet a Vegan, and help save the environment!
:7

[LeftyMom]

8. That sounds suspicously like a way to make a real difference

Can't we all just get newer, slightly less inefficient cars and houses or something? We're Americans, we don't do things that aren't easy. :P

[Coventina]

9. I hear ya, LM

What is kind of sad, though is just how hard it is to be animal friendly in this society.

DH was on his own to buy soap yesterday, and picked up something he thought would be okay, it's called "Pure & Natural Soap". I called the company this morning and asked about their testing & ingredients. They don't test on animals, but the soap contains animal tallow.

Then she asked me if she could send me some coupons.

:banghead:

[LeftyMom]

10. Well that was nice of her.

:eyes:

Apparently she decided that you didn't really want boiled corpse soap, unless it was a good deal?

[ThomCat]

25. You have a wonderful way with words.

"boiled corpse soap" :puke:

I will have to borrow that expression.

[LeftyMom]

33. Sorry about that.

[ThomCat]

34. Don't apologise.

I'm impressed. :)

[sugapablo]

19. Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps. :) n/t

[silverweb]

37. Yes!

We use them and love them! :hi:

[Norrin Radd]

64. Or Lush:

http://usa.lush.com/cgi-bin/lushdb/index.html?lang=en_US&dlang=en

[XemaSab]

60. That's how we made soap in O-Chem

Con manteca.

Probably more eco-friendly than a bucket of chemicals. :shrug:

[JudyM]

12. Helps eliminate enormous suffering, too. Link to reality attached.

http://www.meat.org/

Every meal matters.

[Raine]

65. Thumbs Up

on that!!! :thumbsup:

[buddysmellgood]

5. Wow. mystery solved. Maybe next, they'll identify the animal most responsible

for environmental damage. :sarcasm:

[RobertSeattle]

6. I'll print the article out and read it later

I'm joking!!!

[Akoto]

11. So in other words, return to medieval times to stop the damage.

Some of these things can be regulated and fixed, but for the most part, the stuff on the list would take generations to remove from our society.

[silverweb]

13. That's regressive thinking.

Try thinking forward.

It's a given that if we don't change our ways fast we'll finish off the only planet that sustains us.

That's suicidal.

The stuff on the list does not need "generations to remove from our society" because we have the technology right now to modify every bit of it so it's less harmful. That will conceivably buy us time to develop new ways of doing things that will stop and even reverse the damage we've done.

The only things lacking are education among many people and the will to act. And that's up to us.

The technology exists and is getting better all the time.

The money exists for R&D and implementation if we demand that our governments allocate it -- and new technologies will create new jobs, economic opportunities, and tax bases as they're implemented to that's a win-win.

It's up to us to make it happen by (1) educating everyone we know, (2) boycotting companies and products that slow our progress, (3) implementating every green innovation in our personal lives that we can, and (4) pushing companies/governments for wide-spread implementation.

It's imperative that we push forward. It's literally a matter of life and death.

[ThomCat]

14. Agreed.

We organize our society around too much long distance travel. Regionalizing our society and culture more would be a huge first step.

That doesn't mean being isolationist and losing contact with other regions. Given the abilities of global communication that wouldn't happen anyway. But we could,
1. Generate goods regionally instead of centrally.
2. Diversify local food production so that most food is produced locally. (which also has great disaster preparedness advantages too)
3. Encourage regional vacations instead of everyone flying to the tropics.
4. Encourage business meetings through conferencing technology instead of flying to business meetings.

Those four things would drasticly reduce our use of fossil fuels.

Then, start funding solar and wind technology. Start mass-marketing hybrid and electric vehicles. Start funding the revitalization of mass-transit where it would be effective. There is a lot we could do immediately.

[silverweb]

21. Don't forget ocean energy!

With most of the planet covered by moving water, there's no reason it can't provide a massive amount of the power we use -- and the technology is getting more elegant and efficient all the time.

[ThomCat]

23. I'm hesitant about ocean energy

because of unknown complications. Will it impact local sea life? Will it impact sea migration?

We're already doing far to much that is destroying the oceans without knowing exactly what we're doing.

[silverweb]

27. A valid point.

However, I saw an article for a new technology just the other day that would have minimal impact on any sea life or ecological system. It's just a submerged vertical tube, in which the ebb and flow of under-surface waves causes pressure changes within the tube that powers the generator.

It's beautiful. Several feet below the surface except for marker buoys, as I understand it. Essentially no moving parts. Anchored to the sea floor, so it's no hazard to sea life.

I can't find the article right now, but I'll post it as soon as I do.

[ThomCat]

29. Please do. That would be a good thing to read.

[silverweb]

30. Got it!

It uses existing technology and has a cool name, too: The Archimedes Wave Swing. :7

Here's the site: http://www.waveswing.co

I have to quit stalling and get to work now.

Later!

:hi:

[ThomCat]

32. Problems.

You would need a huge number of these to replace fossil fuel burning power plants. These need to be anchored to the ocean floor. How much space is a field of these going to require?

I can't imagine that a field of these isn't going to disrupt the ecosystem on the ocean floor. The installation is going to bring in some heavy equipment and do some level of damage. The periodic maintance is going to cause some level of disruption.

And chances are, they're going to need to keep the area around these things clear to prevent barnacles and/or coral from growing on or around them.

The devices themselves look awesome. It doesn't look like they have any risk of causing polution. But it's the details surrounding their placement and use that looks like the devil in the details.

[silverweb]

43. Point taken.

And I'd share your concern more if ocean energy were to be the sole source for all future energy needs. However, this is just one partial solution.

Of course we're not going to be able to eliminate humanity's impact. To expect that we can is unrealistic. However, done with careful thought and planning, using some selected portions of the ocean for this kind of energy would be far, far better than continued fossil fuel acquisition, shipping, and burning.

In combination with solar and wind, biomass and other biofuels, and more efficient energy usage -- as well as educating people about the folly of greed, indiscriminate consumption, and continued expansion -- ocean energy can be a very important part of the solution.

C'est vrai, n'est-ce pas?

:pals:

[ThomCat]

44. Agreed

:)

[pitohui]

57. the ocean's probably a lost cause anyway

i don't see much reason to hope the oceans can be salvaged, it's a tragedy of the commons issue apparently

[XemaSab]

62. I read a really heartening article the other day

about fish and fisheries and how "commercial extinction" doesn't mean the fish populations won't rebound once fishing pressure is taken off.

The coral reefs, OTOH, are in deep shit. :(

[eppur_se_muova]

74. Jetties and breakwaters would be the ideal places to tap wave energy.

After all, they're huge construction projects which have huge environmental impact anyway -- why not get some energy out of them, and alleviate impact elsewhere?

[Barrett808]

49. Fabulous, thanks for posting. n/t

[silverweb]

52. You're most welcome!

A great place to scan for green trends and news is www.treehugger.com. Following links from there leads to all kinds of fascinating and hopeful information.

[xxqqqzme]

53. got an error message w/ the link.

[silverweb]

54. Odd.

It was working yesterday.

This one works: http://www.awsocean.com/home.html

:hi:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

47. I have to brag about Portlands mass-transit system now...

not that I had a thing to do with it, but I do love it!

I just got their newsletter, it details the current system, the current and future upgrades. The Commuter line is going in 4 blocks from my place. They're already working on the tracks. :bounce:

pdf: http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf

[pitohui]

55. your #3 suggestion incredibly destructive

in many areas every park and natural resource would be destroyed, every tree cut down, and the entire area used for agriculture if there was no tourism to bring in outside dollars or euros

guanacaste in costa rica would be one example, without tourism, the entire area would be transformed for cattle ranching, just as brazil, which does not seem to rely much on tourism away from the beaches, is doing a terrific job of mowing down the forest and replacing it with soy

certainly kenya would be another, many ranchers there, esp. the masai, would like every lion removed and the land made "safe" for ranching, indeed, they have already mostly achieved this at nairobi national park, with less than 10 lions remaining when i visited a couple years ago and a campaign taking place (illegally) to kill the rest

without tourism, many of the wild places of the world will be cut down and harvested, the usa west included -- if not for the outcry of tourists how many more mines would scar our west, how many more cattle would be allowed to graze public lands?

make the natural world an irrelevance that no one sees anyway instead of a treasure to bring in the dollars -- and you guarantee in a hungry world that it will be completely eaten -- it would be nice if the world were otherwise, but it ain't

there may be a "lot" we can do immediately, but most of that "a lot" turns out to be just stupid feel-good measures or even counter-productive measures that alienate people from the cause, for the most part, people are not in a position to give up driving, flying, eating, or living in houses -- the four items offered as most destructive to the enivornment -- asking them to do so is a great way to marginalize yourself

i'm again reminded of orwell's rant about how sandal-wearing vegetarians marginalized the socialists, the more things change the more they stay the same i guess

what is needed to be done is immediate, worldwide, restructions on the right to reproduce -- otherwise, only the educated women stop breeding and we are quickly over-run by the ignorant and the religious hysterics who don't care about the world or the fate of the wild

as there is no will to address this need to restrict reproduction, everything else is pretty much a waste of time

you may be willing to give up driving, flying, housing, and eating food fit for humans instead of for rabbits, but i'm not and most sensible people are not

and you go ahead and tele-conference all you like, the trouble is, your competitor who is willing to meet and greet in person will get the sale -- my husband would love to stay home instead of going on sales calls -- but that ain't the way the world works

[The2ndWheel]

59. Restrict one thing, but not other things

Must restrict the right to reproduce.

Driving, flying, housing, and eating? Do all that you can, and more. That's the only "sensible" thing to do.

You've hit on the problem. You can't change one aspect, and let everything else go. Like you say about the competitor ready to fill in where you take yourself away; you can restrict reproduction, but all the other aspects will fill in the hole.

Just think of the entity which you would need for a global restriction of reproduction, while at the same time keeping our way of life intact. If you thought what Bush was doing was bad, this would be the stuff of legend.

[XemaSab]

61. The only problem I have with "eating locally"

is that I deeply suspect it could create as many problems as it solves if not more.

Take the Central Valley in California (AKA the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys.)

There's a HUGE amount of food grown there. More food is grown there than anywhere else in the western U.S. BY FAR. We're a net exporter of food.

So should more people move there and pave over farmland to eat locally?

Or should Californians in other parts of the state, like the desert and along the coast, destroy natural habitats in order to grow food?

And how should rangeland be worked into the equation?

I think eating locally sounds like a good idea to some extent, but it's not a panacea.

[The2ndWheel]

38. So you want to change things fast

yet want to continue to organize things the same way, and actually believe something will change?

Technology has caused this problem. It won't solve it. It will only make more people use, want, and expect more. It may cause "less" harm on a product by product basis, but when everyone is using more of everything, what's that going to do? Our addiction to oil has gone which way as we've improved extraction rates? Down?

The money may exist for R&D, but we'll always need more and more money. That's never ending growth, which once again, is the EXACT fucking process that got us into this mess.

This is the problem. Your solution is suicidal. Forever pushing forward, never ending progress. This is crazy. But we will do exactly what you propose, because we can't do anything else. To stop the "progress" now would be to murder billions. This thing is going to collapse eventually(as every empire/civilization has), but we must make things worse, because you can't murder billions of people. So, as our systems grow, and we fight against entropy, we must use technology, even though it's going to cause an even larger problem. Even if that's the case(I could be wrong), even if we knew things would get far worse, we won't stop.

Keep thinking "forward". Keep exponentially growing(good luck stopping that at any point with your idea). We're going to kill our eco-systems by doing it, but that's alright, because it's progress. Everyone can have everything. That's fucking progress.

Why not just cure death? What could be more forward thinking than that? We're going to kill everyone anyway, why not just not have that as a goddamn option? Nothing could be more progressive.

Yeah, education is the answer. Of course that is followed by higher standards of living, which require greater and greater amounts of resources. But who gives a rat's ass, it's fucking progress.

"new ways of doing things"

Let me guess; technological innovation?

We will increase complexity in our ever expanding system, and we will get less out of it. We can't do anything else in 2006 though. We're too far down this road. We must do exactly what you said. We cannot, CANNOT, do anything else at this point. I honestly hope your way works. If it does, great. If it doesn't, it's going to be uglier than if we stopped right now. Since we have no other option today, good luck.

[silverweb]

39. Apples are not oranges.

Technological progress is not necessarily the same thing as continuing expansion.

"Reduce-reuse-recycle" and "think globally, act locally" are much more than just cute slogans, but they can only accomplish so much. We're dealing with billions of human beings who are largely uneducated or indifferent regarding their environmental impact.

One of the things we need to emphasize is that continuing expansion is not a good thing, that we need to hold the line on our exploitation of resources and energy use. This, in combination with development of more clean technologies, could possibly save us.

"My way" is not one way. It's a combination of all the best ideas in various forms and combinations with the goal of trying to reverse the negative impact we've had on the environment. Population control, lifestyle modification, implementation of cleaner and more sustainable technologies as they are developed, and many other steps in between and beyond are what it will take. There is NO ONE PERFECT SOLUTION. There are many, many solutions that together may achieve what we need.

As you say, we're too far down this road to turn the clock back altogether, so we have to do everything we can -- and that means cutting back on consumption while moving forward with improved methods.

Like all of Life, the solutions are varied and seemingly infinite in their complexity. That certainly doesn't make the job impossible.

Step #1 is education! Without awareness and stimulation of new ideas, there's no hope.

[The2ndWheel]

48. But they are both fruit

"Technological progress is not necessarily the same thing as continuing expansion."

Give me an example.

"One of the things we need to emphasize is that continuing expansion is not a good thing, that we need to hold the line on our exploitation of resources and energy use. This, in combination with development of more clean technologies, could possibly save us."

But if we develop more clean technologies, why would anyone hold the line on anything?

""My way" is not one way. It's a combination of all the best ideas in various forms and combinations with the goal of trying to reverse the negative impact we've had on the environment. Population control, lifestyle modification, implementation of cleaner and more sustainable technologies as they are developed, and many other steps in between and beyond are what it will take. There is NO ONE PERFECT SOLUTION. There are many, many solutions that together may achieve what we need."

Exactly. We inject more complexity into our solutions, only to see the problems grow.

On population; as long as we have as much food available as we do, population will not slow. I don't mean in just country A or B(those countries usually just consume more and more), I mean the total population of humanity.

"so we have to do everything we can -- and that means cutting back on consumption while moving forward with improved methods."

Improved methods of what though? Consumption. If we improve the methods of consumption, more people will consume more.

"Like all of Life, the solutions are varied and seemingly infinite in their complexity. That certainly doesn't make the job impossible."

No, you're right, it doesn't make it impossible. We will continue to find more and more complex solutions. The complexity in the solution will have to increase with each problem(with diminishing returns each time, which leads to the need for more complex answers), but we have no choice.

"Step #1 is education! Without awareness and stimulation of new ideas, there's no hope."

I would agree, except we have no new ideas. To me, we just seem to be building upon the previous idea. We(as in mass society) have come to the conclusion that technology is the answer. Where is the stimulation of new ideas? There is one idea, just more complex ways of molding the idea.

[silverweb]

51. Too much to answer right now.

I just don't have the time today and am working all weekend, but I'll get back to you first chance I get. Suffice it to say for now that I disagree with just about every point you try to make.

Later.

On edit: While I'm gone, why don't you outline your ideas for saving the planet? I'd love to see them.

[The2ndWheel]

58. No problem, we have time

My ideas to save the planet? Any that I have are obsolete. They deal with decentralization. They deal with small scale living. All of which are possible on an individual level, even small groups. However, the institutions we've created(states, corporations, etc, etc) are all far too big, and have far too much control over life, for any of my ideas to have any possibility of being acted upon. Which is the reason I keep repeating that I know we can't do anything other than grow.

We have to find a technological solution. We don't have 6.5 billion people on this planet because of evolution. It's here because of the artificial process that we came up with. The extending of lifespans with medicine and sanitation, agriculture(especially industrial) that has given us more food than we know what to do with, that's why we have so many people. I don't see that stopping, no matter how much education we have.

"Suffice it to say for now that I disagree with just about every point you try to make."

I've noticed. Which is cool, we just have two different ways of looking at the world. Everything must co-exist with its opposite.

[silverweb]

69. Okay, before I have to get to work again....

Your ideas are not obselete and I think what you're feeling is the kind of despair and fatalism that I'm still fighting.

There was a wonderful article posted here about how Cuba survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and turned its agriculture around -- using less mechanization and more organics, while developing understanding of the ecology to actually improve the island's health and food production. The rest of us need to learn from that. www.Treehugger.com just today featured a trilogy of books that teaches how to create "forest gardens" in which carefully selected trees/shrubs complement each other, replenish the soil for one another, and also provide food. I also read last week about a scientist in Israel who specializes in salvaging saline, desert soil with plants that actually benefit and replenish the soil as well as provide food.

Sometimes moving forward means retracing our steps and taking that fork in the road that we missed a while ago. Sometimes less is more. I think we just have to stop trying to outwit Nature and work with Nature to get things done right.

As for increasing populations and extended life spans, of course they are the basis for most of our problems. The developing world needs access to contraception and education regarding family planning, ecology, and the rest of the world. Corporate consumerism has to be brought into check. Capitalism needs to be brought into check. People need to lose the idea that "the one with the most toys wins," and get over the bigger-is-better and more-is-macho bullshit. This will take education, social pressure, and lots of attitude adjustments. The myths of the sacred sperm and ova, and untouchable zygote have to be smashed, too.

I'm a medical transcriptionist and can't tell you how often I'm upset at redundant, invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures done on elderly, demented patients who have no hope for cure or any meaningful improvement. The only reason I can think of for doing these obscene things to people is to milk every bit of possible profit for health care corporations. That kind of attitude has to be seriously destroyed.

I just did a report the other day on a mentally unaware, elderly patient with severe leg contractures who was being evaluated for major joint replacement surgery. This individual has no near relatives to visit or consult with, and will never again walk or be able to hold any kind of conversation -- but consideration is being given to replacing a major lower joint. What possible reason is there except purely for financial gain? This is just so wrong on so many levels that it hurts to think about it.

People need to learn to equate quality of life with a naturally healthy life, one not based on artificial constructs that effectively destroy Nature.

People need to learn that we are part of Nature, and while we have the power to destroy Nature, as we have been doing, we also have the power to restore Nature for the benefit of all.

I understand what you're saying and think that what I actually disagree with is just the idea that we can't overcome our situation. I will not accept that fatalistic attitude until every last person has been reached to make every last effort possible to reverse the damage we've done. Ma Nature may take care of everything and just "flush it all away," as Tool calls for in Ænima, but I'm far from ready to give up yet.

Finally, I think maybe we misunderstand each other on certain terms. I said progress is not necessarily the same as expansion. More efficient energy use and greener ways of living are progress and will create new jobs, but are not necessarily expansion in terms of more of "stuff" or consumption of resources.

I agree with you that we have to stop expanding in the physical sense. We need to promote simpler lifestyles and start consuming less in terms of resources; however, that does not mean we need to revert to the Stone Age. One person I know, when told about some kind of green initiative, said "all environmentalists should have to live in caves and survive on fire ants" -- and that's just stupid. Only attitudes like that are holding us back from living in harmony with the planet.

Housing: Natural building materials sustainably grown -- bamboo, hemp, some types of wood, straw bales, adobe, green roofs, etc. There are so many ancient/new materials and technologies that can be used! We don't need vinyl, aluminum, and steel for housing! We don't need carpets imbued with chemicals that make us sick or plastics that exude poisons into our home atmospheres. We don't need electric appliances for every conceivable single function (can openers, shaving cream warmers, etc). There are so many ways to green our housing, but not enough corporations and governments are encouraging them.

Heating/cooling/lighting: Geothermal techniques, biomass, wind, sun, and sea. Megawatt solar-powered Sterling engines, for God's sake! Energy is all around us and we are developing clean energy resources right now. If enough people will demand their implementation, governments will promote them. WE WON'T NEED FOSSIL FUELS, which are the single major source of all our woes next to population.

Waste management: Vermiculture, fermentation, composting, and other processes can turn waste into energy and soil enrichment, not more pollution to dump into the oceans.

Travel: Clean ground travel is fast on the way; clean air travel will take some research yet and should be curtailed to some degree for now; and sea travel also needs to be cleaned up. Again, if people demand it and governments encourage it, the solutions will come quickly.

You made a comment about complexity just compounding our problems, but I'm thinking more in terms of diversity. The perfect solution for one circumstance may not be suitable for another, so different solutions will need to be developed regionally. Homogeneity is not natural but diversity is, and we must learn from that, too.

We need to modify a lot of attitudes and assumptions -- and our survival depends on doing just that. This is what people need to be educated about. I simply refuse to give up yet. Al Gore and others like him are raising awareness worldwide, spurring populations and governments to act. Ecologists and other scientists are working furiously on old/new solutions. We have to modify our own personal lives, educate those in our circles, and push our elected representatives to take this problem seriously.

I think in the end that the only thing I really disagree with you on is HOPE. Our situation is critical, but I will not give up hope that we can make the necessary changes on the necessary scale -- even if only in extremis.

Have to get to work now. Later!

:)

On Edit: I don't know where this graphic came from, but I saved it when I first saw it. It's an elegant, eloquent representation of the choice on which our survival depends:

[The2ndWheel]

71. "different solutions will need to be developed regionally"

Completely agree. I agree with most of what you wrote. It's just the scale aspect of it that, in my mind, will keep us from doing much. We live in a globalizing world. There is less and less diversity, in regionality, language, eco-systems, cultures, and in life period. Not saying everyone is at that point yet, but that's the trend.

Huge problem is that, as you said, we're a part of nature, not apart from nature. I see the more techno-fixes we come up with just pushing us further and further away from nature.

Completely agree on the health industry.

We're definately on the same page though. Maybe different paragraphs, but we're there.

[silverweb]

73. Yes, the scope of the problem is daunting.

Downright terrifying, in fact. There will be no easy fixes and probably much destruction before any real improvement.

We're definitely on the same page, though, and cannot stop trying, whatever it takes.

:pals:

[pitohui]

56. we'll never remove eating and housing from our society

i am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that everyone, for all time and eternity, will need food and shelter as long as they are alive

the four items on the list being driving, flying, eating, and housing -- i don't quite understand what they are suggesting we do other than commit suicide on grand scale a la streiber and kunetka's nature's end

there's a point where studies like this only encourage hopelessness, since there is no chance that a healthy, educated society can survive without transport, food, and housing

[patcox2]

15. So its transportation, food, and housing.

Great, we'll just give up those things.

As for vegetarianism, well, if God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them out of meat?

[ThomCat]

16. I see you're displaying that positive

"can-do" attitude again. Nothing like being a nay-saying and insisting nothing can be done.
:eyes:

[silverweb]

18. May I put my head-banging wall next to yours?

:banghead:

I see you love the naysayers as much as I do! :D

[ThomCat]

24. Absolutely.

:pals:

[patcox2]

26. Turn up the sensitivity on your humor detectors.

Jeeze.

[silverweb]

31. Is that what it was?

It sounded more like negative cynicism to me. Maybe use of the sarcasm smilie might have made your meaning clearer?

:shrug:

In any case, if what you said was meant in a humorous way that we misinterpreted, thanks for the clarification.

:)

[silverweb]

17. I do love you forward thinkers.

:eyes:

[LeftyMom]

20. Few animals humans eat exist as they evolved (or as God created them, if you swing that way)

Pigs? Nope. Cows? The species they were bred from is extinct. Chickens? Pfft. Turkeys? Nothing like their wild cousins. "Meat" animals exist because humans made them the way they are. We made thalidomide too, and thought it was lifesaving for a while.

[Lance_Boyle]

22. Thalidomide still is life-saving.

It's not particularly healthy for developing fetuses, but it's murder on myeloma.

[LeftyMom]

28. My point is that we tend to create modern miracles that turn out to be incredibly harmful

A diet full to bursting with cheap animal protein and the system that makes that possible certainly qualifies.

[nam78_two]

36. ....

[nam78_two]

35. K&R-thanks for posting this/nt

[Megahurtz]

40. And how about those non-stick Teflon pans?

Blech!:puke: I bet Teflon pans emit gaseous fumes that harm the ozone layer every time we fire 'em up, not to mention putting a hefty dose of cancer-causing chemicals into our bodies.
Elch! :puke: Nasty! I can't even go into a store anymore and find a regular metal pan. It takes searching! I won't even use Teflon anymore. I do iron pans or stainless steel only.

Boycott poison Teflon pans!

:applause:

[Thickasabrick]

41. Haven't used one in 10 years. Always wondered where the little

bits went after they were scratched so it creeped me out way back when. My fears about them just keep getting confirmed.

[Megahurtz]

70. The last time I had cooked in one

(which has been a long time ago now) I noticed just after using it a few times it had scratches in it eeeeeew! And I was careful enough to use wood or non-metal untensils.

But what really grossed me out was that I noticed the food just sat there and bubbled and didn't cook as quick, and I could not cook the moisture out of it very fast. The end result was a rubbery consistancy BLAAH!:puke: That was it for me right then and there!

[kineneb]

50. the good and the bad: Teflon-

Bad: on pans where it gets heated and scratched off.

Good: in replacement joints, where it allows people (and animals, too) to move without pain. Good- also in industrial uses where low friction surfaces are needed.

Suggestion: check Ikea's stainless steel cookwear collection. It is inexpensive and has a heavy-duty base. I just bought a small stockpot and matching steamer basket. Cast iron is great, too; I have several frying pans.

[Eurobabe]

68. They also harm your thyroid gland, another reason to BOYCOTT!

n/t

[formercia]

42. Third World pollution

from non bio-degradable packaging.

Many countries have no or limited trash disposal programs , so the trash, full of modern packaging materials just keeps piling higher and higher.

Next time you watch a film taken in these areas, watch for it. It's disgusting.

[karlrschneider]

45. They forgot to mention the toxic Bushes.

..

[Polemonium]

63. kick n/t

:)

[upi402]

66. see the film; "Who Killed the Electric Car"

2 thumbs up from me!

My neck is still sore from shaking my head at the corporatist crooks.

[ItNerd4life]

72. I'm skeptical about this article

because it doesn't mention conservatives. They are the biggest environmental damage to society.