The Jeffrey And Tracey Info Emporium

In my 35 years as a conservationist, I have never beheld such a bleak and depressing situation as I see today. The evidence for my despair falls into three categories: the state of Nature, the power of anticonservationists, and appeasement and weakness within the conservation and environmental movements. I fear that on some level we must recognize that this state of affairs may be inevitable and impossible to turn around. That is the coward’s way out, though. The bleakness we face is all the more reason to stand tall for our values and to not flinch in the good fight. It is important for us to understand the parts and pieces of our predicament, so we might find ways to do better.

The State of Nature

I’ve just authored a book, Rewilding North America, which goes into considerable detail describing and trying to understand the Seven Ecological Wounds that drive the Sixth Great Extinction, which is the fundamental fact and problem in the world today. Around the world, direct killing of wildlife, habitat destruction, habitat fragmentation, loss of ecological processes, invasion by exotic species and diseases, ecosystem pollution, and catastrophic climate change are worsening. We six-and-a-half-billion too-clever apes are solely to blame. Despite impressive successes here and there, the overall state of Nature continues to decline. This is simple reality, despite the scolding we hear not to be doom-and-gloomers.

Power of the Anticonservationists

In the United States, the federal government has become the sworn enemy of conservation. Not only has the radical-right Presidency and Congress stopped any progress in the conservation and restoration of Nature, they are dedicated to overthrowing the twentieth century’s legacy of conservation and environmental policy and programs. They are unabashedly trying to go back to the unfettered, uncaring era of the robber barons in the late nineteenth century. This revolution is both philosophical and practical. Bad as this is, the radical-right is also dedicated to shredding science, particularly biology, and time-traveling back to before the Enlightenment.

While the United States is an extraordinary political case, elsewhere some of the supposedly most civilized nations on the planet, such as Canada, Norway, and Japan, are again waging nineteenth-century crusades against wild Nature: frontier-forest mining, slaughter of troublesome animals (such as seals, wolves, bears), and commercial whaling, just for starters. Japanese, European, Chinese, and American businesses are looting the last wild places for timber, pulp, wildlife, minerals, and oil, opening up such places to further habitat destruction and bushmeat hunting by local people.

Although the radical-right control of the U.S. Presidency and Congress was gained by a very small margin in 2004 (no mandate), it is backed by powerful and popular forces and by a shocking descent into prescientific irrationality by large sections of the public.

Appeasement and Weakness in the Conservation and Environmental Movements

The efforts to protect wild Nature and to clean up pollution face internal subversion from the right and left that leads to deep compromises not only on issues but also on fundamental principles. We can stuff these calls to compromise into several boxes, including sustainable development, resourcism, Nature deconstruction, politically correct progressivism, and humanistic environmentalism.
First, some brief definitions: conservation is the movement to protect and restore wildlands and wildlife (Nature for its own sake); resourcism or resource conservation is the resource extraction ideology of the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies (multiple-use/sustained yield); environmentalism is the campaign to clean up pollution for human health and make cities livable.

The radical right has been disciplined about thinking and acting for the long term; we have failed in part because we do not have a long-term strategy to which we stick.

Internationally since the 1980s, conservation efforts to protect wildlands and habitat by means of national parks, game reserves, and other protected areas have been severely compromised as financial-aid agencies and even some top international conservation groups have shifted to promoting so-called sustainable development and community-based conservation. Although these approaches are sometimes sound conservation tactics, in practice they have elbowed Nature into second place. This establishment undercutting of Nature conservation has been joined by the leftist passion of some anthropologists and other social engineers to reject protected areas in favor of indigenous extractive reserves. Shockingly, sustainable development is coming close to dominating the pages even of publications about conservation biology, and gains more and more adherents in resource management graduate schools and large “conservation” organizations. Some members of the academic left have become deconstructors of Nature, denying that it independently exists, proclaiming that we invent it; therefore there is no reason to protect it.

Pressured from the left and right during the last twenty-five years, conservation and environmental organizations worldwide have moved away from forthright calls for zero population growth, even though human overpopulation is the underlying cause of all conservation and environmental problems. We hear a growing drumbeat that there is a dearth of births and that developed nations face economic collapse because of fewer young people. We are essentially silent in response to this cornucopian madness. Similarly, the conservation and environmental movements in general shy away from acknowledging the reality of human-caused mass extinction. If we don’t even clearly state the problem, how can we do anything about it?

We can also see a shift in the U.S. from conservation to resourcism among several prominent and influential entities. Once the preeminent conserver of biological diversity, The Nature Conservancy has been steadily moving to a resourcist approach. They talk now of “working landscapes,” a fancy euphemism for logging and livestock grazing, and demand that their employees talk about people instead of Nature. High County News, once a feisty voice for grassroots conservationists in the West, has steadily turned into a voice for resourcism: not the preservation of wilderness, but the preservation of happy little resource-extraction communities, and for negotiated settlements between conservationists and resource-extraction industries, which usually favor industry.

Some consultants, foundations, and political realists are urging grassroots wilderness groups to compromise in order to pass wilderness legislation that may or may not adequately protect existing wilderness. This encouragement of appeasement is based on a desire to pass bills, and an overreaction to the narrow victory of the radical right in the 2004 election. Another source for this push to compromise is the fuzzyheaded wish that if people only talk together, everything can be worked out.

Several bright young men have gained a disturbing amount of attention with their recent speeches about the “death” of environmentalism. Insofar as they consider Nature protection at all, they demand that conservationists drop their priorities to focus on social justice and other humanistic progressive causes. Overall, they call on environmental organizations to essentially go out of business and just become part of the progressive wing within the Democratic Party. The overwhelming identification of environmentalism with the progressive movement and the Democratic Party is a key reason that it lacks credibility with much of the American public.

Just as there has been a disturbing shift in attitudes among large segments of the American public, so have there been problematic changes among members of the conservation public. To be blunt, many of the employees and activists with conservation groups are ignorant of our history and have not read the classic books of conservation. There is an appalling lack of intellectual curiosity in the movement. On the whole, the radical right and grassroots anticonservationists both read and think more than do conservationists and environmentalists. As far as outdoor recreation goes, young people, who once would have been hikers and backpackers, now seek thrills on mountain bikes and thus cut themselves off from experiencing Nature and from having self-interest in protecting roadless areas. I don’t see kids out messing around in little wild patches; they’re inside, plugged in to a virtual reality.

These are trends. Of course there are exceptions. Dwelling on the exceptions, though, keeps us from doing something about the real problems. I’m not doing “nuance” here. This sober, unapologetic cataloging of the array of problems Nature conservationists face is, I am convinced, the first step in developing a more effective strategy.

In December of 1776, the American Revolution was in its darkest hour. In response, Tom Paine wrote his first “Crisis” paper:
“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

General Washington had the paper read to his miserable, disheartened troops in their frozen winter camps. There was no surrender. Years of hard battle lay ahead but victory was gained.

We need Tom Paine conservationists in our dark hour. Let us not apologize for loving wild Nature, for caring about other species, for speaking the truth. Reach out to others. Make deals when they are good deals. But let us not be frightened and browbeaten into appeasement. Let us instead offer a bold, hopeful vision for how wilderness and civilization can live together.

–Dave Foreman, Chairman and Executive Director
The Rewilding Institute www.rewilding.org
March 24, 2005
Please spread widely. Permission is granted to print in publications only in its entirety and credited.

Avoiding Allergies by Use of the Right Native Plants in the Landscape

Many of our most allergenic plants commonly used in landscaping in the United States and Canada are indeed natives. However, it is the manipulation of these plants by commercial horticulture that has, and is, causing most of the huge increases we are now experiencing with allergy problems.
Thirty years ago fewer than 10 percent of Americans had allergies. The official figure today is that a whopping 38 percent of us now suffer from allergies.(December 99, American College of Asthma, Allergy, and Immunology)
Not too many years ago death from asthma was fairly rare. Today it is all too common and is considered epidemic. Asthma has now become the number one chronic childhood disease in America.
Furthermore, there is new data coming in recently that shows a strong connection between over-exposure to pollen and or mold spores and increases in other diseases such as heart disease, autism, pneumonia, and reflux disease.

American Elms
The landscape tree in most of America for many years was the tall, stately American Elm. The American Elm used to grace the streets of thousands of towns and cities and when DED, Dutch Elm Disease, started to spread and kill off these native elms, the insect-pollinated, perfect-flowered elms were most often replaced with wind-pollinated, unisexual-flowered, street trees.
Many things happened because of the big switch from the elms to these other tree species. First, the elm flowers had a rich nectar source and since these trees bloomed very early in the season, at a time when insect food sources were severely limited urban honeybees and butterflies depended on this food source.
Since the majority of the street trees used to replace the elms were wind-pollinated, they often lacked these nectaries and supplied no early-season food source. Soon we started to see a rapid decline in the total numbers of urban honeybees and butterflies. There were other factors as well behind this decline, pollution, insecticides, and disease, but the loss of the crucial early-season food sources should not be underestimated.
DED spread mostly from East to West across the US and so has the rise in allergy rates. You can actually track the spread of allergy from the decline of the elms.
The American Elms, Ulmus americana, did cause a certain amount of low-level, early spring allergy, simply because they were so very common. The over-planting of elms resulted in a lack of biodiversity and set the stage for the massive kill from the DED. We now know that it is always a mistake to use a monoculture, to plant too much of just one species. Diversity is always a good idea in horticulture.

Diversity
Biodiversity is the way to go when we are creating landscapes that will limit allergenic exposure. Almost any species of plants can eventually cause allergies if it is over-planted enough. All to often in our urban landscapes of today we see that landscapers have used the same old plants over and over again. This overly simplistic approach to landscaping results in landscapes that lack originality and produce a numbing “sameness” to far too much of our urbanscape. When residential houses are professionally landscaped with the exact same plant materials used to landscape banks, real estate offices, and dentist’s shops, we all lose.
Allergy rates today are far worse in urban areas than they are out in the country. Pollen allergies are worse in cities than in the country, despite the fact that there is much more total green matter in the countryside than in the city. Plant selection has been the main problem.

Natives and Urban Landscapes
There are many native trees and shrubs used in our landscapes. Maples, oaks, locust, poplars, willows, catalpa, birch, junipers, and many more native species are extensively used. Unfortunately the plant breeders and propagators discovered how to “sex-out” the trees and shrubs. They learned to use only male plants, ironically, as “mother plants,” as the source for their scion wood for asexual propagation. First they just used male plants from the dioecious (separate-sexed) species, but later they learned how to produce all-male clones from species that in Nature were never unisexual (the monoecious species).
For example, Honey Locust trees, (Gleditsia triacanthos) are native to our Southeastern US. Look at these trees in the wild and you will see that all of them are almost always covered with long seedpods. But go to a nursery now and look at the Honey Locust trees for sale. The ones on sale now are called “seedless” and they are in effect, all-male clones.
What exactly is the effect of using all male cloned trees and shrubs in our landscapes? Very simply, this translates to an excess of allergenic pollen. Only male flowers produce this airborne pollen. Unisexual female flowers produce no pollen.

Why the Emphasis on Male Plants?
Horticulturists knew that female plants produced seeds, seedpods, and fruit. This “litter” fell on the sidewalks and created a “mess.” By using only asexually (no sex involved) propagated cultivars (cultivated varieties), they were able to create “litter-free” landscapes. These required less maintenance and were (and still are) very popular with city arborists and the public. In the US today, four of five of the top-selling street tree cultivars are male clones.
Female flowers (pistillate) on female trees or shrubs produce an electrical (-) current. Their stigmas are broad and sticky. Airborne pollen from male plants has a negative electrical impulse before release and a positive charge after release, and this pollen is light and dry. Because of the + and – electrical charges the pollen and the stigmas are drawn to each other. They are mutually attractive. Mother Nature saw to it that pollen would land, and stick, exactly where it was needed. Female plants are nature’s pollen traps, our natural air-cleaners.
Today though, most of the female plants are long gone from our landscapes. The pollen from the males floats about, seeking a moist, sticky, positive-charged target. We humans emit a positive electrical charge, and our mucus membranes, our eyes, skin and especially the linings of our nose and throat, now trap this wayward pollen. We have become the targets Allergy develops from repeated over-exposure to the same allergens. If your own yard is full of pollen-pumping trees and shrubs, you and your family are the ones who will be exposed the most.

About the Author

Thomas Ogren is the author of Allergy-Free Gardening, Ten Speed Press. Tom does consulting work on for the USDA, county asthma coalitions, and the American Lung Associations. He has appeared on CBS, HGTV and The Discovery Channel. His book, Safe Sex in the Garden, was published 2003. In 2004 Time Warner Books published his latest: What the Experts May NOT Tell You About: Growing the Perfect Lawn. His website: www.allergyfree-gardening.com

Aside from home ornaments and jewelries, you have probably heard
the term brass on brass bands. Do you know why a brass band is
called a “brass band”?

Some people may actually believe that brass bands are called as
such because the instruments the musicians use are made of
brass.

By definition, a brass band is a group of musicians who plays
brass instruments along with percussion instruments. Brass
instruments are technically defined as instruments whose tones
are produced by vibrating the lips through a resonator. Examples
of such brass instruments are the trumpet and the horn.

According to music scholars, the term “brass instruments” is a
misnomer. Not all brass instruments are made of brass. Some
brass instruments are actually made of wood like the cornett.
Some other woodwind instruments, on the other hand, are made of
brass but are not exactly categorized under the brass instrument
family. An example of this brass woodwind instrument is the
saxophone.

Therefore, brass bands are not called “brass bands” because the
instruments the musicians use are made of brass. The word
“brass” in the term brass band actually refers to the type of
sound an instrument makes.

But what exactly is “brass”?

Brass is an alloy or a combination of copper and zinc. Usually,
brass contains more than fifty percent of copper but it is
generally harder compared to copper. It is a malleable and
ductile alloy that can be hammered into leaves or strips and
designed according to one’s desire. These characteristics make
brass a prevalent option for decorating wares.

Brass has a yellowish color which makes it look so much like
gold. Because of this, brass has been used as a cheap substitute
for gold and the term “brassy” used to refer to denote one being
tasteless and showy.

There are different categories of brass depending on its zinc
and copper ratio. Alpha brasses contain less than thirty-five
percent zinc and are best utilized when they are cold.

Alpha-beta brass is 35%-45% zinc and is commonly used while it
is hot.

Beta brasses have 45%-50% zinc content. It can only be used
while hot and is preferred by metalworkers to use for casting.
Beta brasses are also harder and stronger compared to other
types of brass.

Brass that contains more than 50% percent zinc is called white
brass and is usually too brittle to use.

Calamine brass is a combination of calamine (a zinc ore) and
copper. It is a specialized type of brass because it uses a
different type of zinc (calamine) instead of the usual metallic
zinc used to create brass.

Another particular type of alpha brass is a brass that contains
75% zinc and 25% copper. It is called Prince’s metal or Prince
Rupert’s metal named after Prince Rupert of the Rhine who was a
commander of the Royalist cavalry during the English civil war.

Brass has been used all through out history in different fields
- may it be in art, or in trade and commerce. In ancient times,
Romans used brass to make coins, decorate their jewelry and to
adorn their armor.

After the middle ages, the use of brass increased as craftsmen
incorporated it in making clocks, plates, chandeliers and other
household items. A particular town called Dinant (currently
called Belgium) was the most profuse creators of brassware
during those times. They created large brass dishes and exported
these wares into the Netherlands.

The Islamic East was also known for creating brass wares and
braziers. Evidences of their craftsmanship can be found in
Venice where 15th century well-wrought bowls, dishes, and
candlesticks were shipped there by Eastern merchants.

Brass was also particularly popular in 18th century colonial
homes in North America. Brass chandeliers made in England and
the Netherlands in the 17th century are quite prevalent
adornments in these colonial houses. In addition to this, brass
drawers incorporated into furniture were considered to be
well-liked during that era.

Although brass has survived the time and enjoyed its popularity
during those ages, brass is considered as a modern alloy. It was
only utilized up until the 16th century. In ancient times,
people use the word “brass” as a term to refer to any alloy
mixed with copper. The brass that ancient people used to refer
to was probably bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. Nowadays,
people already have a clear distinction between brass and bronze.

Aside from being a popular material all through out history,
brass has also undergone different “misrepresentations” when it
comes to its name. But even if it is less regarded than gold,
brass has stood the test of time and has proven to be a material
of high class.

VFD(oil Treatment, oil Filtration, oil Purification, oil
Recycling, oil Filter, oil Restoration, oil Regeneration, oil
Filtering, oil Reclamation) series is mainly used to improve the
properties of insulation oil. It can remove trace water, gas,
particulate matters etc. from the insulating oil effectively and
rapidly so as to boost performance of transformers, circuit
breakers, mutual inductors, cable and capacitors which has
insulation system. VFD series specialize in purifying branded
oil, insulating oil of high voltage and super high voltage
transformer. Additionally, it is suitable for treating low
viscosity lubrication oil. Product Catalogue Insulation Oil
Series, VFD Double-Stage High-Efficiency Vacuum Insulation
Oil Purifier, VFD-A Double-Stage Vacuum Insulation Oil
Automation Purifier , VFD-R Double-Stage Vacuum Insulation Oil
Regeneration Purifier, VFD-T Double-Stage Vacuum Insulation Oil
Purifier with Tester, Turbine Oil series TF Turbine Oil
Purifier , TF-A Turbine Oil Automation Purifier, TF-R
Turbine Oil Regeneration Purifier , Lubrication Oil series
LV Lubrication Oil Purifier, LV-A Lubrication Oil
Automation Purifier , LV-R Lubrication Oil Regeneration
Purifier, Gas Engine Oil Regeneration System , GER Series

Maybe you live in a nice house smelling of alpine meadows with a sparkling bathroom, lovely clean and polished surfaces.

What if someone were to come into your lovely shining home and mix up a cocktail of unknown chemicals for you and your family to distribute around the house. Would you allow it? Of course not. You wouldn’t want potentially poisonous chemicals around your house to pose a risk of contamination to the air you breath or to what your family eat & drink.

Disturbingly however, they may already be there.

Brought into your home as unseen and unlabelled additives in many of the cleaning products that are commonly available to keep your house sparkling clean.

You may think that the ingredients in household products are safe having been tested by the authorities and cleared for use because they are known to pose no threat. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality many hazardous chemicals are added to consumer goods. Some of these are known to be hazardous, but current legislation allows for their continued use. This is because the regulations work on ‘safe limits’ of exposure for individual products. The weaknesses of this approach are that they do not add up accumulated doses from multiple sources of exposure, and neither do they take into account the effect on children and unborn infants, the dosages allowed being based on adult tolerance levels.

A study by the European Environment Agency carried out in 1998 noted that ”widespread exposures to low levels of chemicals may be causing harm, possibly irreversibly, particularly to sensitive groups such as children and pregnant women…”

Consider some of these common types of household cleaning product and what threat they may carry.

Air Fresheners

Many of these products contain formaldehyde and phenol. The former is a known carcinogen and the later can cause skin irritation.

Antibacterial Cleaners

May contain triclosan, which has been connected to liver damage and is readily absorbed through the skin

Carpet and upholstery shampoo

Many contain perchlorethane, which is a carcinogen which damages the liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Ammonium hydroxide may also be present which is a corrosive compound, extremely irritating to the eyes, skin and respiratory system.

Dishwasher detergents

Studies have shown these to be the foremost cause of home poisoning incidents. Most products contain the dry form of chlorine. Scientists and engineers do not handle chlorine without protective clothing. It is extremely dangerous and can very easily be lethal. Indeed, it was the first agent to be used in World War One as a chemical warfare agent.

Dishwashing liquids are labelled ‘harmful if swallowed’ yet it is used to wash your dishes. Can we be certain that no residues are left on your crockery to be picked up by your food?

Furniture polish

Commonly contain nitrobenzene, which is highly toxic and easily absorbed through the skin. Petroleum distillates may also be present, which are highly flammable and have been linked to skin & lung cancer.

Laundry products.

These present a veritable cocktail of chemicals, including ammonia, phosphourous, naphthalene & phenol along with numerous others. They can all cause irritation to the skin, allergies and sinus problems. Any residue left in your clothes can be absorbed into your body through the skin.

Oven cleaner

These are the most powerful toxic products that you can introduce into your home. They contain ammonia and other chemicals which can irritate the skin, and produce fumes which can attack the respiratory system. Any residue left in your oven may be intensified when you next use it.

Toilet cleaner

These usually contain hydrochloric acid which is highly corrosive, the eyes and skin being particularly vulnerable to attack, and known to be harmful to the liver and kidneys. If mixed with other chemical products, chlorine can be produced which can be fatal in high concentrations.

The above is a brief overview of the possible risks, and it must be stressed that the effects noted for the individual chemicals are for high levels of exposure. However, the point being made by many agencies such as Greenpeace is that the level of exposure in the home is unknown and unmonitored.

What can you do as a householder to minimise the risk to yourself and your family? Well, if you are able, you may want to try talking to your grandmother, as past generations have had to undertake most modern cleaning tasks without the intervention of the chemical industry. For instance, she may have used common salt and baking soda to clean the oven and not risk poisoning anyone.

The easiest way to avoid the risk is to avoid the products. Governments are not going to outlaw the chemicals, and the manufacturers are not going to replace them unless they are forced to do so, either by regulation or by consumer pressure.

There are a growing number of manufacturers who are producing safe products based on natural ingredients that do not present the same threats as the more established and heavily promoted products.

The Veriuni Store offers a full range of such products. Please feel free to visit and browse:-

Maybe you live in a nice house smelling of alpine meadows with a sparkling bathroom, lovely clean and polished surfaces.

What if someone were to come into your lovely shining home and mix up a cocktail of unknown chemicals for you and your family to distribute around the house. Would you allow it? Of course not. You wouldn’t want potentially poisonous chemicals around your house to pose a risk of contamination to the air you breath or to what your family eat & drink.

Disturbingly however, they may already be there.

You may think that the ingredients in household products are safe having been tested by the authorities and cleared for use because they are known to pose no threat. Sadly, nothing could be further from the truth.

In reality many hazardous chemicals are added to consumer goods. Some of these are known to be hazardous, but current legislation allows for their continued use. This is because the regulations work on ‘safe limits’ of exposure for individual products. The weaknesses of this approach are that they do not add up accumulated doses from multiple sources of exposure, and neither do they take into account the effect on children and unborn infants, the dosages allowed being based on adult tolerance levels.

Consider some of these common types of household cleaning product and what threat they may carry.

Air Fresheners

Many of these products contain formaldehyde and phenol. The former is a known carcinogen and the later can cause skin irritation.

Antibacterial Cleaners

May contain triclosan, which has been connected to liver damage and is readily absorbed through the skin

Carpet and upholstery shampoo

Many contain perchlorethane, which is a carcinogen which damages the liver, kidneys and central nervous system. Ammonium hydroxide may also be present which is a corrosive compound, extremely irritating to the eyes, skin and respiratory system.

Dishwasher detergents

Studies have shown these to be the foremost cause of home poisoning incidents. Most products contain the dry form of chlorine. Scientists and engineers do not handle chlorine without protective clothing. It is extremely dangerous and can very easily be lethal. Indeed, it was the first agent to be used in World War One as a chemical warfare agent.

Dishwashing liquids are labelled ‘harmful if swallowed’ yet it is used to wash your dishes. Can we be certain that no residues are left on your crockery to be picked up by your food?

Furniture polish

Commonly contain nitrobenzene, which is highly toxic and easily absorbed through the skin. Petroleum distillates may also be present, which are highly flammable and have been linked to skin & lung cancer.

Laundry products.

These present a veritable cocktail of chemicals, including ammonia, phosphourous, naphthalene & phenol along with numerous others. They can all cause irritation to the skin, allergies and sinus problems. Any residue left in your clothes can be absorbed into your body through the skin.

Oven cleaner

These are the most powerful toxic products that you can introduce into your home. They contain ammonia and other chemicals which can irritate the skin, and produce fumes which can attack the respiratory system. Any residue left in your oven may be intensified when you next use it.

Toilet cleaner

These usually contain hydrochloric acid which is highly corrosive, the eyes and skin being particularly vulnerable to attack, and known to be harmful to the liver and kidneys. If mixed with other chemical products, chlorine can be produced which can be fatal in high concentrations.

The above is a brief overview of the possible risks, and it must be stressed that the effects noted for the individual chemicals are for high levels of exposure. However, the point being made by many agencies such as Greenpeace is that the level of exposure in the home is unknown and unmonitored.

What can you do as a householder to minimise the risk to yourself and your family?

The easiest way to avoid the risk is to avoid the products. Governments are not going to outlaw the chemicals, and the manufacturers are not going to replace them unless they are forced to do so, either by regulation or by consumer pressure.

There are a growing number of manufacturers who are producing safe products based on natural ingredients that do not present the same threats as the more established and heavily promoted products.

The Veriuni Store offers a full range of such products. Please feel free to visit and browse:-

https://www.moreinfo247.com/8786479/Department.vstore?id=32

Weigh up the risks and benefits to your home and its occupants and make your decision.

For general advice on this and other responsible consumer matters, visit greenconsumerguide.com.

Other information on this and other consumer related ecological matters can be found at :-

http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/resource/green/index.php

About the Author

Chris Western is an affiliate of SFI, one of the largest & most successful schemes on the internet.

The full range of SFI goods and business opportunities can be found at :-

https://www.moreinfo247.com/8786479/Free

All of the home businesses being run by Chris Western can be viewed at:-

http://www.tradingpost365.com/
http://www.searchestate.com/uws/mn1041341.htm

LV — Lubrication Oil Purifier Application LV series oil
purifier are suitable especially for purifying and restoring
hydraulic oil, machine oil, coolant oil and various other
lubrication oil. The most breakdown of machinery which has
lubrication oil system results from contaminated lubrication in
which has water, gas, impurities etc. LV series can rapidly
remove water, gas, particulate matters and impurities from
lubrication oil and improve properties of lubricating oil so as
to greatly extend lifetime of machinery which has lubrication
system.

Polar bears have long fascinated us. With their thick, white coats, they look incredibly cuddly, particularly the cubs. In truth, they are the biggest and most powerful bears on the planet. Alas, they may be added to the endangered species list.

Polar bears are an amazingly beautiful animal. Unfortunately, they are under a lot of pressure as a species due to climate change in the Arctic. Receding ice and pollution issues are leading to concerns polar bears may be facing extinction. To better understand polar bears, here’s an overview of this amazing animal.

While penguins are only found in Antarctica, polar bears are only found in the Arctic Circle. This, of course, means they are particularly susceptible to any environmental changes in the Arctic.

Polar bears are the largest bear species by over 400 pounds on average. They are primarily solitary creatures. For food, seal is always on the menu, but they will also scavenge if they come across something tasty. Interestingly, polar bears never drink water. They get it all from their meals.

Polar bears are known for their beautiful white coats. In truth, the coats are not white. The hairs are colorless, hollow tubes that absorb the light giving them the bears their white color. Polar bear skin is actually black like their noses. A common myth is the hollow tubes of polar bear skin can act like fiber optics for your phone. This myth has been disproved, but it gives you an idea of the nature of the hairs.

Female polar bears usually give birth in the last two months of the year. They almost always give birth to twins. When it is time to do so, the mothers will dig dens out of the snow and ice. They will remain in the den without food until the cubs are able to leave.

When born, polar bear cubs are absolutely tiny. They weigh less than one pound, which is pretty amazing considering an adult polar bear can weigh 1,100 pounds on average. After birth, the mother will stay with the cubs for two years and train them in all aspects of polar bear etiquette. After that she abandons them to their own fates. The fathers take no part in the raising of the cubs.

As with many animals, polar bears have some unique characteristics. They can walk up to 40 miles a day and swim up to 60. To catch seals, they stand over a breathing hole and wait for a seal to come up for air. They then swat the seal with their left paw, always their left paw for some unknown reason. After eating, they can go five days without swatting another seal.

As of the writing of this article, polar bear populations are under duress as the Arctic undergoes fundamental changes. Ice is melting and so is the territory of the polar bear. Latest estimates indicate only 25,000 polar bears remain.

Richard Monk is with FactsMonk.com - a site with facts about everything. Visit us to read more about polar bear facts and Arctic Facts.

First we must define sustainable development. Sustainable is to say that something such as resources or an environmental system can be continued indefinitely without depleting any of the material or energy resources required to keep it running.

Development is the act, process, or result of developing. Combined together it is an idea brought forward by the World Commission on Environment and Development defined by them as a form of development or progress that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. We must also understand that we are the stewards of the natural environment and the entire planet, and as such we are responsible for what ever happens to any of the ecological systems.

Can sustainable development work? This question is more complex than it seems. A simple yes or no answer does not apply to this question due to all of the factors involved, which must be considered and evaluated. On the one hand you would have to say no. The reasons you would have to say no are, because of the opposition you would receive from changing human habits, which have been set for thousands of years. Structure and cost to big businesses and trying to control other countries and governments and the economical impacts such major changes could have on any societies economy. It would be impossible for the United States to order or police all of the other nations and possibly unethical to force them into our ideas and ways of life. This approach has brought the United States into many wars. Wars negatively impact many ecological systems by either invading them or totally destroying them. War also destroys and uses vast amounts of natural resources. Yet the United Nations, if given more power could possibly perform this task of policing and regulating without resulting in war if all of the nations of the world joined the United Nations, but at what cost. In the United States big business is able to influence our politicians. If big business felt this was economically unsound they could afford to spend billions of dollars to fight any legislation that would help this cause or tie up legislation, regulations or mandates in our court systems for years.

Then you have human nature, which resist change especially when it comes to giving up something that makes life easier or that is the economical source of their survival. If people survive or derive their income or livelihoods from these natural sources it will be almost impossible to get them to change their habits of destruction to the natural environment.

Then you have the anti-environmental groups, which work hard to confuse the issues or hide the facts with extra facts or manipulate the data with the help of big business and skeptical scientist they hire. All of these factors and more would be reason to say that sustainable development would not work.

The impact on the environment would be devastating and our world would eventually be unable to sustain any life and we would have to move or perish with it. When all the resource started disappearing businesses would run out of materials and be forced to eventually close forever.

Now, onto the idea that sustainable development can work for this environment and the entire planet. You have many people all ready starting to see the impacts we have on the environment. There are many groups and businesses and governments, which are working towards this goal. The groups are working to get the politicians to bring about more regulations and laws to help protect the natural environment and the entire planet.

By starting with smaller portions of the human population such as communities and cities, we can slowly work towards sustainable states and countries and eventually the entire planet. Some businesses are helping by means of recycling, using less resources, cutting pollution and a host of other environmentally sound practices.

The United States is one of the fore runners in this struggle, to change the way humans interact with the natural environment. More and more political leaders are stepping up to the plate and doing their part to bring about positive change. Recently President Bush unveiled plans on reducing global warming and pollution, which is first meant to stop these effects and then reverse them.

Sound scientist are stepping up and reporting on sound scientific facts about environmental issues such as greenhouse gases, pollution, El Nino and any other environmental conditions, that are destroying our natural environment, which in turn will lead to the destruction of our entire planet.

As more people are educated to what is happening to the natural environment and learn that we the humans of this planet are the ones responsible for the depletion and destruction of the natural environment, then that is the more people who will help in the struggle to maintain and fix what has happened and sustainable development will become a complete reality.

One of the main concepts of sustainable development that must be understood and practiced by every human is stewardship, because like it or not we are the stewards of the entire planets environment.

The impact of sustainable development working is that the businesses will continue to function and grow and they will have customers to buy their products and the resources to produce them. The impact of sustainable development working for the environment is obvious. If we the inhabitants of this natural environment take care of it, the natural environment will continue to take care of us and we will not perish or have to move to another planet.

Instead of asking if sustainable development will work or not we need to look at the facts of do we need it to work or not. I believe that it has been shown that we have no choice in this matter we either make sustainable development work or we will perish from our own lack of effort and humanity will be no more.

About the Author

BBA student @ Northwood University

There is only one reason that wind turbines will be built in the West Country.

Our Press has failed to tell its readers of the corruption which stares us in the face, but is not seen as such. For example; The target to be met is to produce 10% of our electricity from renewable sources under the Kyoto Protocol. That has nothing to do with significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, which the Government are permitting British industry to increase by 7.5% over the next three years.

The Rt. Hon. Mike O’Brien claims that economic expansion at a time of growth is far more important than bothering about CO2 emissions. Mr. O’ Brien’s sole concern is to increase by 10%, the amount of electricity produced by renewable energy, in the form of wind farms.

The fact that the creation and erection of the requisite number of wind turbines will involve the emission of far more CO2 than the wind farms will ever reduce, is dismissed as being irrelevant. Such twisted logic is just pure corruption - But never mentioned by the Press. Nor is the vast financial gains to be made by seducing us into accepting these wind farms in our back yard. They will cost a lot of money and huge profits will be made. But unseen and unthought of, is the question; “Where will all the vast quantity of new money come from?”

Britain as a nation, public and private, is hopelessly in debt, and those debts get bigger and bigger as we borrow more new money to pay the interest. This creates a dire shortage of money. The money to build all the wind turbines does not exist and new money will be borrowed into existence to foot the bill. Those who create vast fortunes for themselves by selling credit as money, will have an irresistible motivation to bribe Mike into twisting logic.

The Press has a proud duty to understand all this and make sure all its readers share that understanding.

The result can then be that the correct and easy way to prevent global warming can be made known. It will not involve corruption.

About the Author

Dr Hamlyn is a founding member of the Royal College of General Practitioners, a veteran of WW II, retired farmer and practicing medical doctor. He is a prolific and articulate voice on the subject of monetary reform.

Is your company aware of the heavy fines and penalties that can
be imposed on your organization for infringing environmental
laws and regulations? Many companies are not.

It’s important to know that your organization can be fined for
many different kinds of infringement, not just for incidents of
pollution. Examples are:

- Failure to register, for example, with the appropriate
regulatory agency or compliance scheme.

- Failure to report specific incidents, such as environmental
infringements and impacts

- Failure to comply with the law, for example, regulations
relating to pollution prevention and control, waste packaging
requirements, emission levels, countryside and habitats
protection, and planning and building regulations.

- Failure to keep proper records, such as those related to
disposal of hazardous waste materials, waste management
licenses, and local air pollution control.

- Lack of certification, including water discharge consents,
IPPC Permits, and certificates of competence.

- Provision of false information

- All of these breaches of the environmental regulations can
result in your organization being heavily fined. It’s not just
the fine, which can result in a substantial financial penalty,
it’s also the damaging publicity associated with the
infringement that is so important for your corporate reputation.

In today’s world, everything from refrigerator disposal to
vehicle emissions, through river water quality, the construction
of incinerators, the use of packaging, energy, waste and water
infrastructure, pollution abatement, ownership and development
of contaminated land, production of chemicals and policy on
climate change, is subject to legislation.

International Treaties such as Kyoto, the Montreal Protocol on
ozone depleting substances, WTO trade rounds and UN Conventions
and Declarations such as the Johannesburg summit on sustainable
development in 2002, all require Governments to take action at
national level by agreed deadlines. Even companies that don’t
consider themselves directly affected by much of this, may find
that their clients or suppliers are faced with new regulatory
requirements.

Each year, thousands of companies are prosecuted and fined for
environmental offences, and there is pressure every year for the
level of penalties to increase, especially for repeat offenders.

The rules and regulations are changing all the time and you need
to be certain that you are fully informed about new proposals
long before they are introduced.

Just remember, it’s not just incidents of pollution that can
lead to heavy fines. Failure to register, failure to report,
failure to comply, failure to keep proper records, lack of
certification offences, provision of false information - these
are all treated as serious breaches of environmental law.

It’s no good pleading ignorance of the law - that’s no defence.

You need an early warning system, which ensures that you are
always well informed about your responsibilities.