September 2006
Monthly Archive
Wed 27 Sep 2006
I see people using them just about everywhere I go these days; they are talking on them while driving, eating at restaurants, going for walks and even in the hallways of the local high schools. It is readily apparent that cell phone use is at an all-time high and showing no signs of slowing. But what is the cost of putting these little communication devices to our ears?? We all know they are dangerous to use while driving. But did we all know that they might be dangerous to talk on in general?
I recently read some disturbing information about the supposed dangers of using cell phones. I was alarmed at what I read because I have and use a cell phone several days a week. But, in all honesty, I was not convinced by what I read because it appears that the author was also trying to sell products that are intended to protect us from the potential harm. Thus, my quest for the real story behind the potential dangers of cell phones. I did my best to obtain information from the most reputable websites and here is what I discovered.
The claims behind the companies that are attempting to sell safety products are focused the electromagnetic fields (EMF) emitted from cell phones and their effects on the brain, especially in children. This form of radiation has been referred to as electro pollution and is also emitted from cordless phones, computers and essentially any electrical appliance. Because children are starting to use cell phones at very young ages…as young as six years old…they will be the first generation to be exposed to EMFs for nearly their entire lives. And children and teenagers may be the most affected by the radiation because their skulls are thin, allowing the radiation to penetrate deeply into their brains. The following quote is an excerpt from SafeWireless.org:
“Since 1993, scientific studies have continued to accumulate showing that radiation from mobile telephones and other wireless devices is dangerous. The mobile phone industry continues to deny the existence of a problem, and governments around the world continue to sort out both legal and ethical entanglements with the industry that render them impotent in terms of protecting consumers. Now, new science clearly shows that a radio frequency radiation related disease epidemic has begun – the brunt of which will be borne by our children and grandchildren. The Safe Wireless Initiative is here to empower consumers to protect themselves and their families. Please help us by joining and supporting this most important of causes. We ask for a modest membership fee that allows us to pay for the overhead associated with keeping this program current and useful.”Dr. George L. Carlo, Chairman, Science and Public Policy Institute Let us now flip the coin. I found several reputable websites dedicated to studying cell phone radiation and the effects on the brain. The FDA has a section of their Website dedicated to cell phone facts and a very easy to read page of questions and answers. The FDA Website states that within the research that has been completed thus far, the results are conflicting.
“Three large epidemiology studies have been published since December 2000. Between them, the studies investigated any possible association between the use of wireless phones and primary brain cancer, glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers. None of the studies demonstrated the existence of any harmful health effects from wireless phone RF exposures. However, none of the studies can answer questions about long-term exposures, since the average period of phone use in these studies was around three years.”According to the Oxford Journal, a study was conducted between the years 2000 and 2002, where “the authors examined the possible association between use of cellular telephones and development of acoustic neuroma”. Their results, published in 2004, were as follows:
“Use of a cell phone for 10 years or more did not increase acoustic neuroma risk over that of short-term users. Furthermore, tumors did not occur more frequently on the side of the head on which the telephone was typically used, and the size of the tumor did not correlate with the pattern of cell phone use. The results of this prospective, population-based, nationwide study, which included a large number of long-term users of cellular telephones, do not support an association between cell phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma.”
My two-cents in regards to cell phone use and safety, I believe, is the overall truth. We the people, the scientists and the government really don’t know what effect EMF radiation has on the body and the earth. In short term studies, it is clear that there is no absolute correlation but long-term studies are difficult to complete as they obviously take a long time. There are also varying degrees of cell phone use between people. I use mine a few days per week…some people walk through the grocery store with a cell phone plugged into their ear.
As in all aspects of life, everything should be enjoyed in moderation. I would not spend hours on a cell phone, or any phone for that matter. There are more important things to do in life than talk on the phone. Would I buy a cell phone for my 6 year old?? No. A very definitive “no”, but not necessarily because of the potential dangers; I wouldn’t buy him a cell phone for the same reason that I wouldn’t buy him a digital camera or an MP3…he’s six years old! Here are some helpful links:
v http://www.who.int/peh-emf/en/
v http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/3/277
v http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/qa.html#31
v http://www.safewireless.org
v http://cellphonesafety.wordpress.com/
Has your cell phone got you down? Maybe you need to get back to basics with our 7 Ways to Embrace the Miracle of Life.
cell phone awareness,
cell phone radiation,
cell phone safety,
cell phone use,
EMF,
kids and cell phones,
Living Well,
Natural Health
Fri 22 Sep 2006
As the popularity of buying organic produce continues to grow worldwide, the questions regarding the cost are growing at a steady pace as well. Recently, ModernSage.com received a question in regards to the cost of buying organic produce. The question reads:
“Hi there! I just have a quick question. I would like to know if you can possibly help answer it. Why is it that organic food is more expensive? Doesn’t it take less work because it is organic? I don’t understand why it seems to be backwards? We pay less for food that costs more to maintain with the use of pesticides and more for the food that we don’t need to use pesticides? I’d appreciate if you can get back to me either way. Thank you. By the way, I love your site.”
This is not the first time that I have heard this question, but in all honesty, I did not know the answer. So, in my attempt to answer the question and educate myself at the same time, I’ve done some research on this topic that may be of interest to readers. It is actually fairly simple to understand why the cost of organic foods is higher than conventional produce.
The first reason I’ve discovered that seems the simplest is that producing organic food requires labor-intensive techniques. Farmers and producers work in environmentally friendly ways, which require, for instance, substituting pesticide use for more hand weeding. In addition, organic farm owners are at a higher risk of losing crops because they don’t use the more conventional methods of dealing with pest outbreaks and diseases.
Organic farms also yield a smaller crop, as they don’t use conventional growing methods. Conventional farmers often utilize cheap to buy and transport chemical fertilizers and sewage sludge to grow their crop. Organic farmers, however, use all-natural animal manure, which is quite heavier and much more expensive to ship. Organic farmers also use organic feed for their cattle and other livestock, which can cost double the amount of conventional feed. In addition, simply certifying the food as organic involves additional administrative costs.
Conventional farms yield far more crop because they use every acre to grow their foods. In contrast, organic farmers practice crop rotation practices to keep their soil healthy. They do not plant money-yielding crops on every acre every year because they rotate fields and plat crops to be plowed. This method yields fewer cash crops but improves the soil’s nutrients for the long term. Conventional farms yield high volumes that can be sold at low prices.
Because organic farms yield fewer crops, and there are less organic farms than conventional, the demand for organic food is greater than the available supply. The simple law of supply and demand explains this reason for the rise in cost. In addition, many retailers simply charge more for organic produce.
Seems pretty simple to understand now, doesn’t it? And that is not even taking into account the argument that conventional crops have invisible costs, such as cancers and other diseases in farm workers and their children and the contamination of water supplies…but that is another issue altogether.
We want to know what you think…is buying organic worth the cost? Visit our message boards and tell us what you think:
http://www.modernsageonline.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php
Living Well,
Natural Health,
organic,
organic farms,
organic foods,
organic produce
Thu 14 Sep 2006
Posted by Last under
Uncategorized ,
Living Well ,
Natural Health ,
Fashion ,
Fashion ,
Living Well ,
Natural Health ,
blue jeans ,
eco friendly jeans ,
green jeans ,
organic cotton ,
organic jeansComments Off
I know that “green” is a hot topic everywhere these days as the popularity of all things organic grows well beyond the farm. However, I never imagined that blue jeans, worn everyday by millions of people, would end up on the eco-friendly bandwagon. Of course, I never knew that the process of making blue jeans was actually dangerous for the environment.
Admittedly, I am not a green expert. When the checkbook permits, I will opt for organic. But most of my fruits and veggies come from our homegrown, pesticide-free garden. When it comes to clothing, like most, I’ve seen my share of items made with hemp. However, I’ve always thought the reasoning had something to do with the feeling you get when you inhale the scent or something. Apparently, I’ve some learning to do.
In my research, I’ve discovered that the process involved in the production of denim causes significant damage to water and soil. According to Panna.org, cotton growers use many of the most hazardous pesticides on the market. In addition, the indigo color necessary for the “blue” in blue jeans, is traditionally created using aniline, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, all of which come from drilled oil.
Thankfully, for those eco-aware jean lovers with very large pocket books, you now have a choice! Several clothing companies, such as Del Forte Denim, have adopted new eco-friendly production methods, such as using organic cotton and rinsing the jeans in a chemical-free wash. The eco-wise denim is reportedly non-toxic and earth-friendly.
So, how much will you be out if you opt for the green fashion? Close to $200 for some brands. A great option for the eco-considerate upscale shopper. But there is hope for the rest of us; Levi Jeans is introducing their new line of 100% organic cotton jeans in the Fall of 2006 (ie. now!). I, for one, am patiently awaiting their arrival…and crossing my fingers that they won’t be over my jean budget of $40 per pair.
Have you seen them yet?? Let us know! And by the way, if you’re looking for all things “green”, be sure to check out our Natural Store at ModernSage.com.
blue jeans,
eco friendly jeans,
Fashion,
green jeans,
Living Well,
Natural Health,
organic cotton,
organic jeans