The amount of pesticides in today’s produce is a clear notion that our food safety is compromised. Pesticides nowadays are the omnipresent monster that is inherent to nearly every fruit and vegetable that reaches our table. Have you ever wondered what pesticides do to your body and how food safety is most likely one of the most central concerns in today’s world?
What are pesticides? The term “pesticides” refers to a broad class of crop-protection substances: insecticides, for insect control; rodenticides, for rodent control; herbicides, for weed control; and fungicides, for fungi, mold and mildew control. Herbicides are the most widely used chemicals in agriculture. In a nutshell, a nuclear bomb of chemicals!

Modern production of food incorporates a wide range of synthetic chemicals. Many of these chemicals have the potential to be very damaging to humans if they are exposed to high concentrations, or to low concentrations over an extended period of time. Even though more and more people are realizing there is a vast spectrum of pesticides in conventionally produced food, what could they really do? It is an ill-hidden fact that most of the studies on food safety are done or supported by the companies themselves. Fantastic! The result – a myriad of illnesses for both humans and the environment.
Imagine munching on a beautiful big green apple. You are probably thinking you are giving your body some great nutrition it needs. Yet, what is coating inside that bright delicious fruit? Farmers use pesticides on many conventionally grown fruits and vegetables. The EPA sets limits on how much pesticide residue can remain on food. It is a relatively complex process, incorporating variables such as the toxicity of the pesticide and how much of the food people generally eat. At the end, each of the 9,700 pesticides (at last count, in 1996) receives a number called a “tolerance.” The EPA, FDA, and USDA claim they play a role in ensuring pesticides on our food do not exceed the tolerances – at least, one would hope so. In 1999, 40% of U.S. produce tested by the government contained pesticide residue. Allegedly, about 1% of domestically produced and 3% of the imported food had levels that violated standards – I seriously doubt the real numbers are so low.
While those numbers might seem reassuring, sceptics point out that no one could possibly test all the food grown or imported into the U.S. Even 1% of the total produce in the U.S. is a huge amount! Also, although pesticide tolerances are assumed to be safe, these chemicals are by their very nature toxic, and have not been studied directly in people. More importantly yet, the individual safety profiles of pesticides do not take into consideration any hazard from their combined effects. Take a Cheerio’s box off the shelf, and you can find residues from more than 30 pesticides. Each one is within its tolerance, but how about the effect of those chemicals acting in combination in our systems?

Combined pesticides build up in the body after many years of pesticide exposure, another reason why they are particularly dangerous for pregnant women and kids. Ingestion or pesticide exposure can cause:

  •   Problems with motor skills 
  •   Behavioral problems and disorders
  •   Delayed developmental growth
According to FDA data analyzed by the non-profit Environmental Working Group, the following fruits and vegetables tend to contain the highest levels of pesticide residue:
Peaches, Apples, Sweet bell peppers, Celery, Nectarines, Strawberries, Cherries, Pears, Imported grapes, Spinach, Lettuce, Potatoes
As you can see, these are the think-skinned fruits and vegetables.
The foods with the least pesticide residues were:
  • Avocados, Onions, Frozen sweet corn, Pineapples, Mangos, Asparagus, Sweet peas, Bananas, Cabbage, Broccoli, Papayas, Kiwi, Eggplant, Cantaloupe, Watermelon, Sweet Potato, Melon
You can reduce your exposure to pesticides by buying organic for the high-pesticide items. According to EWG, conventionally grown produce should be fine for those on the low-residue list.
In either case, you can take steps to reduce pesticide contamination of fresh food. First, eating organic fruits and vegetables from your local farmers market is usually a plus. Second, rinsing reduces but does not eliminate pesticides. Peeling helps, but valuable nutrients often go down the drain with the skin. The best approach: eat a varied diet and rinse all produce thoroughly as a quick rinse will not do. Pesticides do mean compromise on food safety but you can work to limit it for you and your family!



We have all wondered at some point whether organic or local food is better. Wait, you might think, why do we need to have the dilemma between organic and local whatsoever? Interestingly enough, there is a reason for this post – organic does not necessarily mean good for the environment or your health and neither does local.The claim goes that organic food is usually not grown using man-made chemicals, pesticides, fossil fuel or sewage-based fertilizers, or genetically modified seeds. We demand that as much as possible of our food be clean of those ingredients, all right? Hell, yeah! Yet, practice proves this is in many cases not so feasible.
Throughout the history of the world, most fruits and vegetables have been grown without pesticides, so I need help to comprehend why is this ancestral agricultural method referred to as “unconventional”? To produce more, “conventional” farmers use chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Even after the fruit and vegetables are washed, they allegedly contain on average seven to eight pesticides.

Why are we constantly lured to believe organic food is totally pesticide free, better for the environment or our health for that matter? There is a very important connection between pesticide use and the antioxidant content of food. Crops that are hassled by insects produce polyphenolic compounds, which are naturally powerful antioxidants. Clearly then, crops that are treated with pesticides do not need that natural protection and produce less of the compound.  It is a no brainer – when crops are grown without pesticides, consumers get a double benefit: better nutrition without the residue of chemical pesticides in the food.
Ideally, organic food should put the emphasis on the taste rather than presenting the picture perfect vegetable or piece of fruit. Anyone who has had a garden knows that food you grow yourself does not end up looking as “perfect” as what you can find in the grocery store, and yet it tastes so much better. This is a utopia. Why? Farmers markets are typically seasonal, but grocery stores are year-round and often carry organic. Never thought about that, have you? This means year-round access with no guarantee of local production.
If you are already confused with all the arguments pro and contra, remember one thing: eating organic or local does not necessarily relate to better health. Eating smart however does.  Eating smart does not rely on locally produced and/or organic food. Good food and healthy eating means respecting the seasons, availability, location, price, portions, etc.
Try comparing the menus of your grandparents to those available to the average Westerner today. What do you realize? It is all about fusion. Local only and organic only would deprive us of some brilliant food traditions, tastes and quests. Say YES to the old kind of food lifestyle!


Have you ever thought whether solar power plants really are a clean energy source? Is it in any way connected to water, wind, soil or other elements? Is it applicable in just any sunny region of the world and what is the cost to the environment as, certainly, everything has its footprint?


Just like I was, many of you would not be surprised to hear that in response to the threats posed by climate change, recent years have witnessed a rapid increase in the levels of energy harnessed from renewable sources, particularly wind and solar. However, despite offering a great deal of potential as a major future source of zero-carbon energy, concerns are growing that one particular type of solar power, known as concentrated solar power, may pose a significant threat to water supplies in some of the world’s driest regions. For many of us, solar power means solar panels. Also known as photovoltaic (PV) panels, these are an increasingly common sight on urban rooftops and industrial-scale facilities worldwide. However, photovoltaic panels are not the only way that the sun’s energy can be captured. In particular, Concentrated Solar Power (or CSP for short), is emerging as a viable alternative to PV. CSP produces heat or electricity using hundreds of mirrors to concentrate the sun’s rays to a very high temperature.
One policy question for local, state, and federal decision-makers is whether and how to promote renewable electricity development in the face of competing water demands. A principal renewable energy technology being considered for is concentrated solar power (CSP), which uses solar cells to convert thermal solar energy into electricity. The steam turbines at CSP facilities are generally cooled using water, in a process known as wet cooling. The potential cumulative impact of CSP in a region with freshwater constraints has raised questions about whether, and how, to invest in large-scale deployment of CSP. Much uncertainty about the water use impacts of CSP remains because its water demand is highly dependent on the location and type of CSP facilities constructed (e.g., whether thermal storage is included and whether wet cooling is used), and because the data for these evolving technologies are preliminary.
                                             The quantity of electricity produced at these facilities, the water intensity per unit of electricity generated, and the local and regional constraints on freshwater will shape the cumulative effect of CSP deployment on water resources and the long-term sustainability of CSP as a renewable energy technology. Water resource constraints may prompt adoption of more freshwater-efficient technologies or decisions not to site CSP facilities in certain locations.


Water constraints do not necessarily preclude CSP, given the alternatives available to reduce the freshwater use at CSP facilities. Moreover, water impacts are one of many factors (e.g., cost, climate and air pollution emissions, land and ocean impacts, wildlife and the environmental impacts) to be weighed when judging the tradeoffs between different energy options. States are responsible for most water planning, management, and allocation decisions and electricity sitting decisions. Whether and how the federal government should promote water conservation, efficiency, markets, and regional- and state-level planning and collaboration is a matter of debate. At the same time, federal policies (e.g., energy, agriculture, and tax policy) can affect water-related investments and water use, and operations of federal facilities can affect the water available for allocation.
After all, deserts are deserts precisely because they have very little water. Paradoxically, one of the main projected future uses of CSP is for desalination, or turning sea water into water for drinking or irrigation for populations in arid areas. Further research and investment into this application of CSP technology could also help to offset any detrimental effects on global and local water supplies. It is possible that many developers may be tempted to think that they will be under less pressure to consider water-use due to the sheer remoteness many sites, but people who live there are likely to see it very differently. In this light, developers would be well-advised to act now in an effort to avoid anti-CSP sentiment based on environmental grounds, as has already happened with wind energy in the UK. In doing so, they will need to involve local communities in making location decisions and in distributing potential rewards.




Living green by saving water does not sound too hard, does it? Water is the most precious commodity on Earth and in the Middle East we have the highest consumption per capita worldwide. This holds true especially for countries like the UAE and Qatar, where desalination is the only way to have access to potable water and water for irrigation.
In ancient times the Egyptians used to treat water by keeping it in huge jars. They then siphoned it off, which allowed the mud from the River Nile to settle at the bottom. Those people would be appalled by how much water the current world consumes, sustainability here seems to be a myth! Toilets use up to 26.5 liter each time you flush – how outrageous especially when you know that from all the water in the world, only one per cent is potable! It is a shocking waste – a standard five-minute shower uses 60 to 100 l water; add to it the 100 or more liters every time our dishwasher works!

Good news though, there is a solution to live more environmentally friendly! You and I and everyone else can follow some quite simple tips and decrease our water footprint significantly – not to mention the financial savings. I have tested all of the below myself and can guarantee you that they work. Living Green by Saving Water starts here:

1 Don’t rinse dishes before loading them in the dishwasher - just scrape them or soak them and let your dishwasher do the work it was designed to do
2 Make sure you always wash full loads as they washing machine and dishwasher use the same amount of water anyway
3 Collect rainwater for watering your garden and think about collecting household water for that as well (e.g. wash your vegetables in a bowl and then throw the water on the plants outside, keep a bucket next to you in the shower to catch excess water, etc.) 
4 If you’re only making one or two hot drinks, only boil that amount of water in the kettle
5 When washing dishes by hand, fill the basin rather than leaving the tap on and washing dishes under a steady flow of water
6 A quick shower (up to 3 mins) uses times less water than a bath and it gets you just as clean
7 Replace your old shower head with a low-flow fixture
8 When you’re brushing your teeth, shaving, or washing vegetables or dishes, remember to turn the tap off when you’re not actually using the water. Same applies to the time while lathering when you’re washing your hands as well, and you’ll save nearly four liters every time
9 Fix any leaking pipes and taps immediately, inside and outside the home. If you ever spot a leak in the street, be a good citizen and report it
10 Invest in a high-efficiency washing machine as they use less than half the water of many traditional models
It is great conserving water on your own and it would give you great sense of fulfillment to inspire others to do it too. Share the inspiration with others, family, neighbors, friends. Living Green is everyday devotion, save water, protect our environment!



“Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” “Turn off the lights when you leave a room,” “Time yourself in the shower so that you don’t waste water,” “Go Green!” and all the rest.  You all have heard these before and more.   However, after a long day at the office or a stupid hard dilemma faces us, we tend to forget and ignore these little things.
It bothers me when people leave the lights on for no reason.  It bothers me when people leave water running for no reason.  It bothers me when people throw out a perfectly good piece of paper or a plastic water bottle.  It bothers me that I see these things happening and I’m the only one aware.
We always remember that economically, leaving the lights on or the water running is a waste, but it takes a minute to remember that it burns our precious fossil fuels which contributes to the ozone layer that is growing in the atmosphere or that leaving bottles or trash on the ground can lead to pollution of our actually precious and slowly diminishing water supply.
The economical mindset sometimes helps the cause, but it mostly hurts it. So be aware and make other aware of this. Sometimes the little things are the ones that lead to great disasters. 

Eric Johnson, Director of Atlantic Consulting in Switzerland, recently completed an independent research called “PET’s carbon footprint – to recycle or not to recycle” with the aim to address users and producers of PET as well as regulators and policy makers.
According to the study, for regions with adequate space and little recycling infrastructure like the UAE (even though a high-income economy), disposing of bottles in landfill generates a lower carbon footprint than recycling or incineration. The ever-present PET bottle, used around the world to package drinks, may best be buried after use rather than burnt or reconverted into a second-life product. According to the study,  the footprint of recycling is lower than that of landfills only if at least half of the plastic ends up being valorised. That’s right: only if about 50% or more of the used PET actually displaces production of new PET, will recycling deliver the lowest footprint.In recycling programs using curbside collection, typically less than 50% of the used bottles end up displacing new PET. Programs using take-back obligations, separate collection or bottle-deposits, however, tend to report much higher displacement rates – some in the range of 75%!

How about incineration then? Charging used plastic bottles to waste incinerators converts them largely to carbon dioxide (greenhouse-gas), which then goes straight into the atmosphere. This footprint debit can be reduced partially by generating power and heat from the incinerator. Yet, waste incinerators even at their best are inefficient power generators, so the net effect is still far more ‘carbon positive’ than either recycling or landfilling.
What the study suggests are two important points for policy makers. One, in regions that already have a recycling infrastructure (easily done in a country like the UAE as long as there is real will), the low-carbon aim should be to boost used PET’s displacement of new PET significantly above 50%. The key to this is not in raising curbside collection rates, but in improving yields, especially in sorting and to a lesser extent in reprocessing. It is a no-brainer: collecting clean, as pure as possible used-material yield a much cleaner recyclate than collecting heaps of mixed materials. The technology for cleaning and sorting plastics rather poor and unlikely to improve dramatically – so the fix must be in collection.
Second, in regions or countries without a recycling infrastructure whatsoever (as is in most developing countries), the lowest-carbon choice may well be to landfill plastic bottles. Happily for them, it will tend to be the cheapest choice as well (which is the case in the UAE as well as we do not have any waste tax, funny enough). Call it ‘carbon capture and storage’ if you will, on an economy budget. And the carbon really is stored: degradation of plastics in landfill, even under wet conditions, is very minor.
There are two other significant points made: one is the correction of a misperceived conventional wisdom. Habitually it is said that the common practice of shipping baled plastic bottles to China for recycling is an ecological nonsense, that it overrides the benefits of valorisation. Not true, says the study. Sure, the transport adds to the footprint, but not nearly as certainly as displacement. If the travelling bottles end up substituting what would have been new PET, then the journey was well worthwhile.

The study found that PET recyclate has a lower carbon footprint than virgin PET. Manufacturers making product from recycled PET – e.g. straps, films and fibres (for fleeces and similar garments) – should be able to claim that they are lower-carbon than alternatives made from new PET. Hopefully governments or consumer groups could help out by awarding such products low-carbon labels.
The idea from the study is clear: push your government to establish a solid network of recycling centers and make sure you collect and give away all your plastic bottles for recycling. More importantly though, make sure recycling is obligatory at is it only then that solid quantities are amassed. Segregate your recyclable waste at source and clean it before you throw it away (e.g. throw the milk remnants from the bottle before putting in in the recycling bin). Now, there is an essential caveat – we should actually minimize our consumption of bottled water and waste overall. I will soon write more on the topic. In the meantime, remember to:  Live Green, Minimize Consumerism and your Waste!

Clock

Followers

Powered by Blogger.

Copyright 2009 - Think Green, Act Green, Go Green!

Blogspot Theme designed by: Ray Creations, Ray Hosting.