Tag Archive for 'Environment'

Penises are shrinking and other reproductive consequences of trashing the planet

sad globe

photo by 9583071@N02

Penises are shrinking.

Over the weekend  ChemTrust, an organization that works to publicize how manufactured chemicals and hormones “undermine humans and wildlife by effecting their health, behaviour, intelligence and ability to reproduce,” released a report reviewing over 250 studies looking at the sexual health ramifications of a variety of species after prolonged exposure to chemicals and synthesized hormones in the wild and lab environments. The conclusion: male gonads and offspring are under fire, threatening the survival of  a large portion of the animal kingdom over time.

In study after study, from birds to amphibians to wild cats to polar bears,  reproduction is threatened by the chemicals humans spray over the terrain.  Animals living in highly polluted and very agrarian regions are especially prone to reproductive effects.  Males increasingly have a wide range of symptoms, including hermaphroditic tissues, shorter penises, smaller testicles, and deformities that effect the ability to impregnate females.

Fertility is on the decline, with lower sperm counts and slowed development in the womb, leading to sickly offspring that nurse on contaminated milk.  As chemicals build up in the body, mating rituals are changing, and in some species, less fit males are more effective at landing a mate that ones less effected by pollution.

Why should you care? You are what you eat.

Famed food writer Michael Pollan has been making rounds discussing the problem of corn.  The American diet is full of corn. It’s in foods you don’t give a second thought to.

Take a typical fast food meal. Corn is the sweetener in the soda. It’s in the corn-fed beef Big Mac patty, and in the high-fructose syrup in the bun, and in the secret sauce. Slim Jims are full of corn syrup, dextrose, cornstarch, and a great many additives. The “four different fuels” in a Lunchables meal, are all essentially corn-based. The chicken nugget—including feed for the chicken, fillers, binders, coating, and dipping sauce—is all corn. The french fries are made from potatoes, but odds are they’re fried in corn oil, the source of 50 percent of their calories. Even the salads at McDonald’s are full of high-fructose corn syrup and thickeners made from corn.

Of the 37 ingredients in chicken nuggets, something like 30 are made, directly or indirectly, from corn.

In a parallel argument, we’re eating animals in the food chain that are beginning the suffer from the damage done by pollution.  Forget that we’re stuffing animals with corn feed.  We’re eating ones whose tissues are riddled the hormones and chemicals that are rendering animals sterile and fertility challenged.  Not only are we exposed to the same toxins every day via the air and our toiletries, hair dyes, pesticides and cleaning solvents, we’re also consuming them via our food supply.

While smaller creatures are reacting noticeably first, it won’t be long before the high concentrations humans consume and absorb take effect.  Already, mothers pass a chemical cocktail onto their babies via breast milk that may grow to pass those same chemicals off to their offspring.   Nor does it help that “trace amounts of pharmaceuticals, including narcotics, birth control, antidepressants and other controlled substances, are in the drinking water and in U.S. rivers, lakes and streams,” in 80% of the water samples recently tested by the EPA.

When you begin to realize how impossible it is to avoid the chemicals and hormones corporations have spray our planet with, combined with the general apathy of much of the developed world,  the notion of a not-too- distant future of a sterile human race a la Children of Men seems less far fetched.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Telecommuting, Good for you and the Environment

In recent months I’ve become a fan of Alexander Kjerulf’s blog Chief Happiness Officer, which focuses on how to make the work place a more enjoyable venue to spend half your waking hours.

He recently blogged about the Top 5 Reasons to Let Employees Telecommute, and I’m a bit disappointed that he neglected to discuss the environmental and bottom line impacts of telecommuting as well. Kjerulf focused on the feel good aspects of telecommuting — better home and work relationships all around, productivity, freedom and responsibility.

Business being business, it’s important to highlight the economic benefits of telecommuting. Last summer, Ted Samson published a great article at Infoworld entitled, “Giving telecommuting the green light,” which covered some great cost savings of telecommuting.

For instance, there is increasing media coverage of the American dependence on fossil fuels. Samson reports that

According to the 2005/2006 National Technology Readiness Survey (NTRS), we could save about 1.35 billion gallons of fuel if everyone who was able to telecommute did so just 1.6 days per week. That calculation is based on a driving average of 20 miles per day, getting 21 miles per gallon.

On an average week, I can sit in traffic for 30 minutes to and from work. So for every day I telecommute that’s an hour of my life I get back, and over the course of a year hundreds of dollars at the gas pump that I’m saved.

At the end of the day most companies care about the bottom line. Thus Samson points out that

“Your organization could save one office for every three teleworkers (that’s about $2,000 per teleworker per year, or $200,000 per 100 teleworkers),” according to the Canadian Telework Assocation(CTA). . .

AT&T reports savings of $3,000 per office, for approximately $550 million, by eliminating or consolidating office space; about 25 percent of IBM’s 320,000 workers worldwide telecommute, saving Big Blue some $700 million in real estate costs, according to the CTA.

Even with the expense of setting up telecommuting situations, companies still come out on top because of their use of less physical space, which in turn means less technology plugged into a wall socket and lower utility bills. Note: this money saving is also good for the environment; regardless of how plugged in you are at home,you would be unlikely to use as much energy in a residential space as you would in a like sized business one.

Telecommuting, kind to the environment and a tool to keep your sanity.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The bully at the conference table

Am I alone in thinking it’s incredibly arrogant for the American government to hold itself to an entirely separate standard from the rest of the world? Our environment is failing in part due to the disproportionate amount of pollution the US pumps into the atmosphere, groundwater, and oceans. We should be jumping at every opportunity that keeps our planet lush and green for future generations to enjoy. Instead, per usual, we’re expecting the rest of the world to turn their backs on the American refusal to curb the use of a toxic chemical, while the rest of the developed world has managed move towards the elimination of pesticide methyl bromide. The US uses more of the ozone-depleting chemical than THE REST OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD COMBINED. Can protecting big business really be more meaningful than protecting a planet that billions of people live on?

Am I alone in my outrage?