Short video describing several reasons why everyone should consider changing from regular light bulbs to the newer compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) in support of your green lifestyle!

Nice work Lee  … Thanks!

Over the last decade, the presence of numerous airborne chemicals in our indoor environments has been very well documented.  Many of these chemicals are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) known to cause respiratory and other health problems including asthma in both adults and children.

Sources of these VOCs have been traced back to household cleaning products, home maintenance chemicals (solvents, thinners, etc.) and even the paints and finishes used on our walls.

Though some household cleaning product companies have developed no VOC alternatives over the last few decades, only recently have the paint companies followed that early lead.

Even still, it appears that some of the companies now advertising non-VOC paints, are still producing paints with other volatile compounds that also raise health concerns.

Watch the following documentary video from BGTV to learn more about the ins and outs of eco-friendly paints!

Sounds like T. Boone Pickens might have lost again ….

Isn’t amazing how quickly things can change.  Just one short year ago, fuel prices were soaring and the emphasis on alternative energy was in the stratosphere along with them.

This summer it’s a completely different story.

Though thoughts of alternative energy systems haven’t completely diminished, it has definitely started to drift off to the sidelines.

Why?

First of all … The Economy ….

When people are suddenly being pressured with increasing costs, lay-offs or threats of lay-offs, stagnating salaries and so forth, it is difficult to be as enthusiastic about a topic like alternative energy.  Add in the fact that financing for alternative energy programs ran into the same funding issues as everything else, many projects were pushed to the back burner for the moment.

Then couple the fall in oil prices (> $120/barrel in ’08 to <$70/barrel in ’09) and lower prices at the pump thus easing the financial burden on summer travelers and it is easy to see why most people are starting to slip into complacency about our energy situation.

Now I am not saying we have completely forgotten about our energy situation but there are definitely more pressing things on our minds at the moment.  The one thing we can not afford to do is become completely complacent with foreign oil since the root of the problem (our dependence on it contributes to the financial burden on our economy) is still very much alive.

I became even more concerned today when I came across a news story posted on the Associated Press (AP) website about a significant oil discovery off the coast of Brazil.

The AP reported oil exploration companies had found a field believed to contain up to 8 billion barrels of oil in a region where the total recoverable oil estimates range up to 100 billion barrels.

Those are awfully big numbers aren’t they!

Perhaps or maybe they are just a little deceptive ….

First of all, the 100 billion barrel figure is the high-end estimate and there could be substantially less recoverable oil present given the location (deep water and difficult drilling conditions).  Secondly, let’s consider the quantity of oil present with the current daily global use of oil (85,897,000 barrels/day).

100,000,000,000 barrels/85,897,000 barrels/day = 1,164 DAYS

1,164 days/365 days/year = ~3.2 YEARS

Although the numbers may appear impressive (and in some respects they are), the high-end estimates only adds a few years into the global oil reserve.  If it turns out recoverable oil is more towards the low end of the range (50 billion barrels) it would only add 1.6 years into the global oil reserves.  Oh and one other thing, Brazil is a foreign country and therefore that is foreign oil as well!

Just remember, even though the economic burden imposed by petro-fuel costs have been somewhat alleviated from the recent past and there are claims by many people associated with the petroleum industry of huge finds to keep us going, the numbers just don’t add up!

Support viable alternative energy projects when ever you have the chance!

Green cleaning products are being used in the White House!

These same green cleaning products were formerly used in Dick Cheney’s Vice President Residence!

Are these the first bipartisan green cleaning products?  Can there really be that kind of compromise in Washington D.C. ?

Actually, I use them and am an Independent …. I guess that means they are multi-partisan!

There is little doubt, Dr. Forrest C. Shaklee was truly a green lifestyle visionary as indicated by his life’s work and the following quote:

“Listen to the voice of nature and feel the joy of living” – Dr. Forrest C. Shaklee.

As mentioned in a news interview on a St. Louis, MO TV station of current CEO, Roger Barnett, the Shaklee Corporation introduced one of the green cleaning product lines anchored by Basic H® in 1960. (Sidenote: Rachel Carson’s – Silent Spring credited with launching the current environmental movements wasn’t even published until 1962).

Ever since they were introduced, Shaklee Corporation has continually worked to refine their green cleaning products line always striving to maintain the balance between our safety and the environment.  Shaklee’s current line of green cleaning products, Get Clean®, comprises a complete system of Earth-friendly home cleaners.

Some of the reasons why I chose Shaklee green cleaning products over 25 years ago include:

• The Get Clean® products are safe for people and the Planet;
• Tough on dirt outperforming or matching the cleaning strength of >20 national brands;
• Products like Shaklee Basic H2® (second generation of Basic H®) are ultra-concentrated reducing waste, shipping costs and not only being green but saving green ($) as well;
  • The Get Clean® starter kit can save families over $3400, eliminate > 100 pounds of packaging waste and >240 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.

It is great to see even the “Big Boys” of D.C. can get beyond the politics of the day and agree on something even if it is just a line of green cleaning products that is good for all of us and the environment!

For more information about Shaklee green cleaning products and the Get Clean® line, click on the Get Clean® Starter Kit image below:

No, not by getting rid of some of the old political cronies that permeate Washington but by simple organic gardening practices in the new White House vegetable garden!

Given the fact that I had posted a previous article on lead in urban gardens, it seemed fitting to create this as a follow-up.

I believe Washington D.C. is considered an urban environment

The White House Goes Green!

In case you missed it, First Lady Michelle Obama (with the help of staff and local students) broke ground and planted an organic fruit and vegetable garden on the White House lawn earlier this year.  The “fruits” (or should I say vegetables) of their labor started to be harvested and June with the intent to provide fresh, organically-grown produce for the First Family, White House staffers and even some State dinners!

See the video below for an up close look at the White House gardening venture:

Amongst all the initial hoopla associated with the planting of the garden was a report of “elevated” levels of lead in the soil of the garden plot.  According to a story in today’s New York Times, the initial level of lead reported was 93 p.p.m. which is less than 25% of the hazard level established by the U.S. E.P.A. (though countries like the Netherlands set hazard levels as low as 40 p.p.m.).

Through the actions taken to enhance the productivity of the garden plot, lead levels were decreased to as low as 14 p.p.m. Concentrations like these are typically found in areas where there has been little human activity and is indicative of natural levels of lead in the environment.

So what actions were taken exactly?

A few simple organic gardening steps were implemented to enhance the ground’s fertility and also reduce the availability of lead to the plants including:

• Addition of lime;
• Addition of green sand;
• Addition of crab meal;
• Addition of organic compost supplied by the National Park Service; and
• Adjusting the soil pH to between 6.5 and 7.

It should be noted, when developing compost to use in produce gardens be sure to avoid using organic material obtained along roadways or in high traffic areas since this material often has higher levels of lead.

So the next time your near D.C. and pass the organic produce section of a local market, think about the steps taken at the White House to produce contaminant-free and nutrient-rich fruits and veggies.  On the other hand, if the produce was grown on another urban garden, hopefully they used similar practices to “keep the lead out”.

Continuing the article series examining green cleaning products, this post looks at “ready-to use” and concentrated cleaning products derived from vegetation sources such as coconuts, corn, palm, etc.  In this post, I am focusing on green cleaning agents derived from coconuts to simplify the analysis.

Many of the coconut-based cleaning agents used in major brands are reported to be relatively safe and easily biodegradable as was the case with the materials evaluated earlier (baking soda, vinegar, etc.).  Therefore this evaluation considers the nature of the source of the cleaning agents and some of the steps involved as the product evolves from the coconut tree until it gets into the consumers’ hands.

First of all, the source is from a living plant supplying the raw ingredients on a periodic basis; a definite renewable source!  The plant also uses atmospheric CO₂ as it continues to live and produce the fruit and oil and therefore is an ongoing absorber of an additional environmental concern playing a role in removing greenhouse gases.

Additionally, most coconut-based cleaning agents are derived from raw coconut oil as it is being refined and the cleaning agents are constructive byproducts of the refining process.

Once the cleaning agents are produced, they are then delivered to various companies to formulate their specific “green cleaning product”.

Some companies opt to formulate their product at a “ready to use” concentration as matter of convenience while others deliver a highly concentrated formulation where the end user mixes the final use solutions in spray bottles or for other uses.

Though each vendor is still using an environmentally friendly agent, in my mind, there are distinct advantages to using the highly concentrated alternative:

• The only ingredient the consumer adds to the highly concentrated coconut-derived cleaning product is water therefore saving the cost of shipping a relatively large quantity of water;
• Less packaging is required since the highly concentrated cleaner is used to make the “ready-to-use” solutions many times over;
• Far less fuel is used to ship the highly concentrated cleaner (also saving on the cost of shipping as well); and
• Re-use of cleaner and mix bottles over and over again minimizes the amount of plastic waste to be sent out for disposal or recycling.

Granted the “ready-to-use” formulation is more convenient and some would consider less “sloppy”, I still believe a little effort to mix the final cleaning solutions may well be worth the effort considering what is being saved.

(Of course this could be the latent chemist starting to rear its nerdy head as well!)

Now that I have given you my viewpoint about vegetation or coconut-based green cleaning products, please let me know yours by commenting below ….

Over the last few weeks, I have been evaluating how different terms are used by those with an interest in green living.  Today’s post will focus on the use of “green” as it pertains to three “home-brews” often touted as green cleaning products.  These environmentally or Earth friendly household products are baking soda, hydrogen peroxide and vinegar.

The real question is … are baking soda, hydrogen peroxide and vinegar truly green or Earth friendly when used as cleaning products?

There is little doubt these common household staples are relatively safe and when used in the condition (diluted to a few percent in the case of hydrogen peroxide and vinegar) and flushed down the drain they pose little harm to the environment (or water treatment facility).

This is the basis most people claiming these are viable as green cleaning products use to formulate the conclusion they are indeed green or Earth friendly.

So it must be true then … baking soda, hydrogen peroxide and vinegar can be used as green cleaning products right?

But … where do these common household products come from (besides Good Golly Miss Jolly World )?

Definitely an interesting question ….. Let’s take a look at each product:

• Baking Soda – historically baking soda was produced via a synthetic industrial chemical method called the Solvay process, a switch to the use of a natural resource, the mineral trona, occurred during the 1980s. Here in the U.S. most of the trona deposits were formed from evaporation of large inland lakes ~ 50 million years ago in western Colorado and Wyoming.  The trona deposits are now mined from several hundred feet below ground surface them brought to the surface to be processed to extract both sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and sodium carbonate (soda wash).  This does raise another question …. I wonder how many truly green or environmentally friendly mines there are in the World?  Hmmmmmm …..

• Hydrogen Peroxide – though hydrogen peroxide exists in many organisms, virtually all hydrogen peroxide is produced from another synthetic industrial chemical process (Autoxidation) involving organic chemicals such as anthraquinone, a hydrocarbon-based carrier solvent, natural gas and a metallic catalyst (nickel or palladium).  The organic chemicals involved are typically derived from petrochemical feed stocks.  As I look over the process and chemicals involved I have to wonder where the “green” part comes into play …..

• Vinegar (acetic acid) – Much of the food grade vinegar we have around the house is assumed to be derived from the fermentation of ethanol derived from vegetation.  When the label states “apple cider vinegar, rice vinegar, etc. that may almost be a safe assumption, especially if you read the “ingredients label” and it clearly states vegetation as primary ingredients.  If you use biologically derived vinegar to make your own household cleaning solution you are likely being truly green.  However, if you by a commercial product labeled as containing vinegar it is likely the source was from synthetic sources of ethanol (including petroleum) since only 10% of all acetic acid produced comes directly from biologic sources (vegetation) and mass production of the synthetic form is much cheaper to produce.

So in the final analysis how does each of these highly touted “green cleaning products” stand up to the scrutiny?

1. Baking soda-derived from processing of a mined Earth resource – NOT GREEN!
2. Hydrogen Peroxide – derived from industrial chemical synthesis – NOT GREEN!
3. Vinegar – if derived from a clearly labeled plant source – LIKELY GREEN!
   1. if an ingredient in commercial “green” cleaner – NOT LIKELY GREEN!

Let me know how you feel about baking soda, hydrogen peroxide and vinegar as green cleaning products by commenting below!

As each of us strives to exist in harmony with nature by maintaining a green lifestyle, many of our daily actions project beyond our personal benefit as we help sustain our environment.

Perpetuating the green living philosophy by finding new ways to enhance our interactions with the natural environment leaving a postive legacy in our wake.

This ideal is best communicated in a quote by Albert Pine (19th Century English author):

“What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us. What we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal.”

So the next time you take action on any green lifestyle initiative, remember, not only are you helping others and the environment, you are also creating a piece of your legacy as well …

I received an email recently with a message from Dr. Stephen Chaney I believed to be of interest to anyone concerned with health and living a green lifestyle regarding supplementation issues.

The message provides great insight regarding what appears to be confusing information concerning the use of supplements and things you should consider when coming across new information.

======================

“To Supplement or Not to Supplement by Dr. Stephen Chaney, Ph.D. (Bochemistry)”

I came across an article a few weeks ago showing that supplementation with 800 mg of folic acid reduced hearing loss in a group of older men and women.

Some of you may recall hearing about a study several months ago suggesting that intakes of 400 mg of folic acid (the recommended Daily Value) or more was associated with a slight increase in the risk of colon cancer. In fact, some experts were recommending that if you were over 50 you should take a multivitamin only every other day.

About a month after that there were a couple of studies showing that in adults over 50 supplementation with 600 to 800 mg of folic acid significantly decreased the risk of dementia.

Are you confused yet?

The problem is that many people don’t understand the difference between “relative risk” and “absolute risk”. Perhaps the best way to help you understand the difference is to give you an example.

I read another paper the other day arguing that colonoscopies were a waste of medical resources. You might say: “That’s absurd. Colonoscopies have been shown to reduce the risk of colon cancer by 60%. Why wouldn’t you want to recommend that everyone over 50 get a colonoscopy on a regular basis?”

Yes, but that’s a relative reduction in risk. Your absolute risk of developing colon cancer over your lifetime is only around 6%. If you reduce that by 60% you have achieved only a 2.4% absolute reduction in the risk of developing colon cancer.

Now that you understand the difference between relative and absolute risk I should tell you that the Framingham study has shown that your lifetime risk of developing dementia is around 20%. Similarly, your lifetime risk of developing severe hearing loss is around 33%. (That might be an underestimate, however, because those statistics predated rock bands and iPods).

When you look the same data from the viewpoint of absolute risk it helps you sort out all that conflicting information.

When you look at absolute risk the benefits of folic acid supplementation far outweigh the potential risks for most people.

Of course, if you have a family history of one of these diseases that dramatically changes the equation.

In my case, I have a family history of colon cancer, so I will continue to endure the colonoscopies at the recommended intervals (At least until a better diagnostic procedure comes along).

However, I also use a holistic supplementation program, and I think that the benefits of folic acid as part of that program far outweigh any risks.

================

I guess this post  examining supplementation issues is definitely defined as a green remedy of nature   ….

I recently visited a colleague’s blog site and read a post triggered by Michael Jackson’s untimely death due to cardiac arrest.  The post addressed the issues associated with people, their lifestyles, health background and heart disease.

One of the key points made by the author focused on the relationship between lifestyle and poor health choices as being a major factor leading to heart disease.  Part of the poor choices relates to the types and quantities of food we eat and the manner in which it can impact our health.

Fast Food = Bad and Regular Food = Good, right?

Though no one questions the potential health threat associated with eating processed foods, especially fast foods; what about the fruits, veggies, poultry and meat produced on factory farms or derived from genetically modified or altered organisms?

Organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have already started to assess these problems due to higher risk of allergic reactions and lower nutritional values with food from these sources.  It will be interesting hear about the findings of these organizations.

In the meantime, two questions arose as I pondered the nature of these food sources and their potential health impacts:

• If man deliberately alters the genetic code to create a new organism for a given purpose (higher yield, more resistant, flavor, etc.), can this new organism really be considered natural?  Part of the reason this question instantly popped in my mind pertains to my background in geology.  The most basic type of Earth material is a mineral which by definition must be natural thus created via the Earth’s natural processes.  If we create a pseudo-mineral in the lab, it is not considered a true mineral.  From my perspective, if we genetically alter an organism for a specific purpose, we have effectively done the same thing and therefore that organism (or food) should not be considered natural!
• How long will it be before a new type of food processing facility pops up with a catchy marketing slogan like you see below!

Soylent Green Anyone?

===================

What is Soylent Green?

Now there is some … “food for thought”