Yesterday, I received a phone response from the BCS, which was really great. Marsha Davidson contacted me and assured me that they were going to investigate the fact that their awareness stickers are printed on vinyl (a known carcinogen) with Chroma-graphics, which is a PlastiColor company.
BCS response to Vinyl endorsement from Taylor Davis on Vimeo.
The Canadian Cancer Society had this to say about the stickers that the BCS is endorsing:
"With regards to the breast cancer ribbon stickers you refer to and the dangers of vinyl chloride, I would first like to point out that the Breast Cancer Society of Canada is not affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Society and therefore these stickers are not coming from our organization.Vinyl chloride is a known carcinogen."
She also said that she had sent me a reply to tayloroon@hotmail.com, which is one letter off from my email address, taylorooni@hotmail.com. I don't understand how when one 'replies' to an email the sending can go wrong, but that's beside the point.
I also realized that I had somewhere along the line of trying to contact the various organizations, I had associated the BCS with the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation CBCF.
It is now my understanding that all of these organizations are not associated with each other; the CCS, the BCS and the CBCF are all separate, not to mention all of the other 'pink' organizations.
I was browsing through thebreastcancersite.com and marveling at all of the products one can buy to stop cancer. This website is operated and owned by CharityUSA.com, LLC. which is:
"one of the largest US importers of fair-trade artisan products made by rural women from areas of conflict and poverty. We sell products from 40 countries and work with charity partners to directly import custom jewelry and other products from artisan cooperatives all over the world. In fiscal year 2008, buyers from CharityUSA.com, LLC visited Afghanistan, India, Yemen, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Hong Kong, Germany, France, Spain, Sweden, Mali, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Bolivia, Brazil, Columbia, Peru, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico and Canada, in addition to sourcing product made in the United States. We are a mission-driven company, and it is our belief that selling artisan products made by rural women is one of the most important things we do because it reduces intergenerational poverty and has been correlated with improved education for children"
So far I haven't really looked too far into what sorts of companies and sources CharityUSA uses for their products, but I am certain that some of the products they sell cause cancer and contribute to a pattern of global inequality. I haven't been able to find information of the working conditions, or names of foreign companies that they associate with, but they offer a description: "imported from Thailand, from a Thai company that offers skilled craftspeople a safe environment and fair wages."
Vague? Ambiguous?
Perhaps I will go into this a little later.
Back to Teflon and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.
Keep in mind that Teflon is in everything. Gore-Tex, stain resistant clothing, carpets, and of course cancer awareness products, and in human blood streams and food webs.
Here is a good synopsis, and a good source for other articles on this subject: http://www.ewg.org/node/8760
"Scientists independent of chemical industry money looked at the toxicity of this chemical, and the verdict is clear: This Teflon chemical should be considered a likely human carcinogen. If EPA officials needed a reason to level the maximum fine against this $24.6 billion company, they have it now," said EWG Senior Vice President Richard Wiles. "DuPont might be politically connected with an army of lobbyists, but it should still be held accountable."
As far as the Canadian Cancer Society is concerned:
"With regards to PTFE being a known carcinogen, there is a debate in the scientific community about this chemical. There is some concern that PTFE (the non-stick coating) may break down during use to release small amounts of TFE, a substance that may cause cancer in humans, however there is no definitive evidence at this time.Similarly, there is no conclusive research at this time to indicate that PFOA (the substance used during the manufacture of non-stick coatings) causes cancer in humans, however, this issue continues to be monitored and assessed by the scientific community. The Canadian Cancer Society believes that Canadians have the right to know what is in their products. This allows individuals to choose to avoid certain products when the science is not entirely conclusive."
It is important to view this 'debate' in the context of history. The chemical industry has a long history of subversion and secrecy. I would suggest looking at the Bill Moyers documentary Trade Secrets for more information on the corruption of the chemical industry.
After re-directing my action towards the CBCF, I sent them an email yesterday:
Hello, I tried contacting your organization a couple months ago about a questionable endorsement that your organization has chosen. According to your partnership with HBC/Zeller's: "This year HBC is offering exclusive pink merchandise through its Bay, Zeller's, and Home Outfitters stores throughout Canada; net proceeds will go directly to support the Canadian Brest Cancer Foundation."
"The goal of the Think Pink™ program is to one day live in a world without breast cancer. The funds raised work towards this goal by supporting breast cancer research, and breast health education and awareness programs across the country. Think Pink™ and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation believe in being breast aware and proactive in our health."
As a part of this partnership, a line of Telfon non-stick cookware is being sold. Perhaps this isn't the exact line that is being sold, but something to this effect:
http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-8-Piece-Cook-Cure-Cookware/dp/B000EG66HG
Apparently there is still a debate going on within the 'scientific community' about the dangers of Teflon and the associated chemicals that go into the manufacturing process. Apparently there is no 'definitive' human/Teflon cancer link.
However, the legitimacy of the debate is lies on dubious ground.
In 2005, DuPont was forced to pay a settlement of 16.5 million dollars because of withholding information about the harm of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
and in February of 2005, the company agreed to pay more than $107 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed in 2001 by Ohio and West Virginia residents who claimed that DuPont intentionally withheld and misrepresented information concerning human health threat posed by PFOA.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers PFOA a likely human carcinogen known to induce testicular and mammary cancers in animals. Two peer-reviewed studies from UCLA and Johns Hopkins published last year have linked PFOA exposure among the general population to low birth weight. Perfluorinated chemicals are also associated with altered male reproductive hormones, and effects on the liver, thyroid gland, and immune system.Unlike other pollutants, which break down in the environment eventually, PFOA and other PFCs don’t, according to EPA. Every molecule that is produced today will be around forever, continually redistributing throughout the environment. As a result, it is in the bloodstream of virtually every person in the country - including children still in the womb."The definitive evidence that they are speaking of is pretty clear, in my opinion from looking at the research. How the EPA came to its non-ruling (DuPont scientists, skewed facts etc.) and that it is still in 'debate' if it causes harm is dubious. Teflon is found in the bloodstream of almost every American. The research and other informative documents can be found here:
http://www.ewg.org/node/8688
http://www.ewg.org/node/8750
http://www.ewg.org/node/27028
The Canadian Federal Government has also moved to restrict the use of non stick chemicals because of the 'likelihood of harm' yet the CBCF still endorses and promotes the sale of these items.
Unfortunately, HBC/Zeller's is apparently unable to help out in the matter; this was their response:
Dear Mr. Davis, I do understand your concern in this matter and it is really unfortunate that the managers have not reverted back to you. However, I would like to inform you that since we only provide space for these products to sell, I wouldn't be able to provide you with the appropriate assisstance. If there is any other concern that we can assisst you with, please contact us at 1866 746 7422 or Customer.Service@hbc.com Regards,
Ananya
Clearly, Teflon and associated chemicals cause harm. Some suggest that using the pans safely, i.e. at low temperatures, keep the coating unblemished, discard after time etc. poses no threat to human health and safety. This may be true in the acute sense of the word harm or human health, however when considering the entire life span of a product from manufacturing, consumption and disposal, clearly damage is being caused.
I understand that it may not be considered an 'unsafe' substance yet, however one would assume that an anti-cancer organization would practice risk aversion and would do everything in their power to warn the public against potential dangers, and certainly would not encourage the sale of them.
As we have seen with other chemicals, once we find out that they do indeed cause cancer, they already are pervasive in our food webs and bodies, making them impossible to clean up.
The goal of the "Think Pink" program needs to be re-considered if they are going to endorse and encourage the sale of carcinogenic chemicals in the name of a fanciful "world without breast cancer".
I am in the process of composing a news article on this matter, and also am creating a documentary film, which will be released over the Internet. It is my hope that I can gain a positive statement of action from the CBCF on this issue. I have posted a preview of this film on my blog http://www.die4freedom.blogspot.com/ It would be helpful, I would think, to your organization's image to give me some sort of a statement. Thus far, I have not received a single response from your organization, which to me is unacceptable. At least, tell me my concerns are unfounded, or provide your rational for endorsing such products? Your silence tells me two things. 1) that my concerns are founded and that this was a honest mistake made by the CBCF. 2) It was an issue that was known about, but was kept silent from the public to sell off remaining merchandise stock.
I would really appreciate some sort of response from your organization. Public support and position can change very quickly, as was in the case of BPA/nalgene bottles. The public is increasingly informed and aware of these issues, so I urge the CBCF to be proactive on this and do what it takes to right this situation it has found itself in. Cancer research is important, and important to secure funding for, however there are other totally safe and sustainable products that could be endorsed and sold instead. Solutions are available, however the decisions have to be made and personal responsibility has to be taken in order for real change to happen. I urge you to do the right thing, as it would be beneficial to everyone. Harm reduction and risk aversion for the public also means the same for your organization.
Thank you and I look forward to your response, and I hope I don't have to wait another 3 months to receive it.
-Taylor Davis.
So, we will see what happens.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Untitled from Taylor Davis on Vimeo.
This is a preview for a short film I am currently making, which sums up a few of the issues I am trying to take personal responsibility for as a human being, as it seems not many others actually are. It will highlight aspects of urban watershed management in Victoria BC where I live, and will expose the Breast Cancer Society's current practice of endorsement of carcinogenic products.
A long awaited response
I finally recieved word from both the Canadian Cancer Society and HBC/Zeller's after sending this letter to every contact at the BCSC, HBC/Zeller's and the CCS. Still not even a slight whisper from the BCSC, not even a confirmation email. Nothing.
Hello, I have sent several emails regarding the decision of the BCSC to support and endorse the sale of Teflon 'think pink' cookware, and to support and endorse the sale of vinyl window stickers made by Chroma-graphics, which is a PlastiColor company. http://www.chroma-graphics.com/asp/category2.asp?cat=Decals http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-8-Piece-Cook-Cure-Cookware/dp/B000EG66HG
I am familiar with the Canadian Cancer Society's position on Teflon cookware. It is my understanding that Teflon and PTFE is a known carcinogen, however when used 'safely' it poses no risk, or has not yet been proven to pose a significant enough risk to affect policy. What is the definition of 'safely' when considering the entire lifespan of the product? It is my concern that PTFE, along with many others like PVC, are known toxins and at some point in their life-cycle (manufacturing, use, or disposal) they persist in the environment and become infused in our food webs and water cycles and do indeed cause cancer. Perhaps there is not a direct link between using a Teflon non-stick cookware product 'safely' and breast cancer, but what is known for a fact is that persistent chemicals like PVC, BPA, and PTFE will have negative impact on human health, regardless of how they get there.
I think that it is in very poor taste to have the Breast Cancer Society of Canada partner with Teflon and Vinyl products and encourage the sale of the products through promises of 10% donations. Perhaps advocating against these products cant be done yet as research is still on going:
"Another chemical used during the making of non-stick coating, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), may be present at very low levels in the cookware, according to at least one study. Some studies have shown that exposure to PFOA over long periods of time may be linked to cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer, though this research is not conclusive and is continuing. Several studies show that PFOA causes cancer in laboratory animals. Based on these and other studies, the majority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Board believes that PFOA likely causes cancer."
-quoted from Canadian Cancer Society
In light of the fact that these products likely do cause cancer, I would think that the BCSC and CCS at the very least shouldn't be endorsing the sale of these products, especially when other organizations and governments have taken proactive measures against their use. Volkswagen, Honda, Ikea, on and on and on have been phasing out the use of Vinyl, yet some how the one institution that should be the most aware and show the greatest level of concern for human and environmental health has managed to endorse, encourage and brand the very product that causes what they are fighting. Ottawa has also taken measures to avoid risk: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060620/non_stick_chemicals_canada_060620/20060620 Why is the BCSC and CCS still endorsing these products? Is it an oversight, or are the risks know about? This is a very ugly contradiction and should be put under a certain amount of scrutiny. The Think Pink movement should not be used to sell cancer causing chemicals, nor unknown but likely carcinogenic products. This issue should be looked at by the BCSC as it has a responsibility to inform the public of health risks. From my point of view the BCSC and its affiliated "Think Pink" marketing campaign, in the specific case of pink Teflon cookware and vinyl stickers is posing a health risk when it is being falsely advertised as a help to the cancer movement, when in fact it is a hindrance. I think it would be a nice gesture, and fair, if the Tobacco industry chose to donate a percentage of their profits towards finding a cure for that which their products cause. However, when considering the smoking/cancer risk, one would normally, and rationally, come to the conclusion that eradicating the root of the problem (smoking) would be more effective than trying to fix the problem that it creates (cancer). This choice goes directly against the statement that is made on the HBC website by the BCSC
"The goal of the Think Pink™ program is to one day live in a world without breast cancer. The funds raised work towards this goal by supporting breast cancer research, and breast health education and awareness programs across the country. Think Pink™ and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation believe in being breast aware and proactive in our health."
The statements are rife with rotten contradictions. The goal of the "Think Pink" program needs to be re-considered if they are going to peddle carcinogenic chemicals in the name of a fanciful "world without breast cancer".
To me, it is appalling that HBC/Zeller's, and the BCSC can get away with doing this. I have been into Zeller's many times and spoken with two managers who have pledged to get back to me, and have not done so for months. I have emailed the BCSC numerous times about this issue, and their association with HBC/Zeller's and the Think Pink campaign, and have not received one response.
I thank you for your response and would encourage you to put me in contact with someone within your organization who may be able to help get more information about the stance of the BCSC's position on this issue. Cancer has touched my friends and family, and its time we collectively made a well thought out effort to address the root problems, as well as trying to find a cure.
I am astonished every single day how hard we work against ourselves. Thanks very much, and I look forward to hearing your response, as I have yet to receive a substantiated response in the months I have been trying to bring this issue to attention to HBC, Zeller's, the BCSC, and the CCS.
-Taylor Davis.
The response was interesting and not surprising. The next step for me is to investigate the BCS a little more and find out why they have no regard to the sorts of products they sell. Is this because they operate for a profit and thus endorse products that are cheap and sell, irrespective of whether they do and likely cause cancer? Or have they made a mistake? If the latter is true, I would have hoped for a more forth coming response and appology for the rather crass and irresponsible decision they have made to brand these products.
I am also in the process of putting together something succinct to hopefully get the media to publish, or look into at least. However, I also have a thesis to write and am running out of time, so there might be a hiatus of new information on the blog for the time being.
HBC/Zeller's response:
Dear Mr. Davis,
I do understand your concern in this matter and it is really unfortunate that the managers have not reverted back to you. However, I would like to inform you that since we only provide space for these products to sell, I wouldn't be able to provide you with the appropriate assisstance. If there is any other concern that we can assisst you with, please contact us at 1866 746 7422 or Customer.Service@hbc.com Regards,
Ananya
Here is the response I received from the Canadian Cancer Society:
Hi Taylor,
Thank you for writing back to the Canadian Cancer Society's Cancer Information Service.
You have stated in one of your emails that you had never received a response from the National office of the Canadian Cancer Society regarding Teflon products. My files indicate that a response from National was sent to you in December 2008. *(I never received this email, probably an honest mistake)* Just in case the email did not get through properly, I have included the original response from our National office for you to review below.
With regards to the breast cancer ribbon stickers you refer to and the dangers of vinyl chloride, I would first like to point out that the Breast Cancer Society of Canada is not affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Society and therefore these stickers are not coming from our organization.
Vinyl chloride is a known carcinogen. Please find attached some information from the Canadian Cancer Encyclopedia that you may wish to review. You may also be interested in reading the links from Health Canada and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding vinyl chloride:
Health Canada:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/vinyl_chloride/index-eng.php
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s186viny.pdf
If you have any further questions for us Taylor, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Audrie, Information Specialist
Email from National:
Dear Ms. Davis,
Thank you for contacting the Canadian Cancer Society.
With regards to PTFE being a known carcinogen, there is a debate in the scientific community about this chemical. There is some concern that PTFE (the non-stick coating) may break down during use to release small amounts of TFE, a substance that may cause cancer in humans, however there is no definitive evidence at this time.
Similarly, there is no conclusive research at this time to indicate that PFOA (the substance used during the manufacture of non-stick coatings) causes cancer in humans, however, this issue continues to be monitored and assessed by the scientific community. The Canadian Cancer Society believes that Canadians have the right to know what is in their products. This allows individuals to choose to avoid certain products when the science is not entirely conclusive.
With regards to the Breast Cancer Society of Canada, it is a charity that works independently of us and we cannot speak to their policies or partnerships. With respect to our own corporate relationships, however, the Canadian Cancer Society seeks corporate partnerships that are meaningful, educate Canadians about the disease and help generate funds in support of our mission.
All new corporate partnerships are reviewed against our National Corporate Relationship and Gift Acceptance Policy which is available on our website:
http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/How%20you%20can%20help/CW-Corporate%20giving/Working%20with%20corporations.aspx?sc_lang=en
I hope this information will be helpful.
Sincerely,
The Canadian Cancer Society
The Canadian Cancer Society's Cancer Information Service is available toll-free at 1 888 939-3333 in both English and French, Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. anywhere in Canada.(Node Regina Inquiry ID #511668)
Hello, I have sent several emails regarding the decision of the BCSC to support and endorse the sale of Teflon 'think pink' cookware, and to support and endorse the sale of vinyl window stickers made by Chroma-graphics, which is a PlastiColor company. http://www.chroma-graphics.com/asp/category2.asp?cat=Decals http://www.amazon.com/Bialetti-8-Piece-Cook-Cure-Cookware/dp/B000EG66HG
I am familiar with the Canadian Cancer Society's position on Teflon cookware. It is my understanding that Teflon and PTFE is a known carcinogen, however when used 'safely' it poses no risk, or has not yet been proven to pose a significant enough risk to affect policy. What is the definition of 'safely' when considering the entire lifespan of the product? It is my concern that PTFE, along with many others like PVC, are known toxins and at some point in their life-cycle (manufacturing, use, or disposal) they persist in the environment and become infused in our food webs and water cycles and do indeed cause cancer. Perhaps there is not a direct link between using a Teflon non-stick cookware product 'safely' and breast cancer, but what is known for a fact is that persistent chemicals like PVC, BPA, and PTFE will have negative impact on human health, regardless of how they get there.
I think that it is in very poor taste to have the Breast Cancer Society of Canada partner with Teflon and Vinyl products and encourage the sale of the products through promises of 10% donations. Perhaps advocating against these products cant be done yet as research is still on going:
"Another chemical used during the making of non-stick coating, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), may be present at very low levels in the cookware, according to at least one study. Some studies have shown that exposure to PFOA over long periods of time may be linked to cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer, though this research is not conclusive and is continuing. Several studies show that PFOA causes cancer in laboratory animals. Based on these and other studies, the majority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Scientific Advisory Board believes that PFOA likely causes cancer."
-quoted from Canadian Cancer Society
In light of the fact that these products likely do cause cancer, I would think that the BCSC and CCS at the very least shouldn't be endorsing the sale of these products, especially when other organizations and governments have taken proactive measures against their use. Volkswagen, Honda, Ikea, on and on and on have been phasing out the use of Vinyl, yet some how the one institution that should be the most aware and show the greatest level of concern for human and environmental health has managed to endorse, encourage and brand the very product that causes what they are fighting. Ottawa has also taken measures to avoid risk: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060620/non_stick_chemicals_canada_060620/20060620 Why is the BCSC and CCS still endorsing these products? Is it an oversight, or are the risks know about? This is a very ugly contradiction and should be put under a certain amount of scrutiny. The Think Pink movement should not be used to sell cancer causing chemicals, nor unknown but likely carcinogenic products. This issue should be looked at by the BCSC as it has a responsibility to inform the public of health risks. From my point of view the BCSC and its affiliated "Think Pink" marketing campaign, in the specific case of pink Teflon cookware and vinyl stickers is posing a health risk when it is being falsely advertised as a help to the cancer movement, when in fact it is a hindrance. I think it would be a nice gesture, and fair, if the Tobacco industry chose to donate a percentage of their profits towards finding a cure for that which their products cause. However, when considering the smoking/cancer risk, one would normally, and rationally, come to the conclusion that eradicating the root of the problem (smoking) would be more effective than trying to fix the problem that it creates (cancer). This choice goes directly against the statement that is made on the HBC website by the BCSC
"The goal of the Think Pink™ program is to one day live in a world without breast cancer. The funds raised work towards this goal by supporting breast cancer research, and breast health education and awareness programs across the country. Think Pink™ and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation believe in being breast aware and proactive in our health."
The statements are rife with rotten contradictions. The goal of the "Think Pink" program needs to be re-considered if they are going to peddle carcinogenic chemicals in the name of a fanciful "world without breast cancer".
To me, it is appalling that HBC/Zeller's, and the BCSC can get away with doing this. I have been into Zeller's many times and spoken with two managers who have pledged to get back to me, and have not done so for months. I have emailed the BCSC numerous times about this issue, and their association with HBC/Zeller's and the Think Pink campaign, and have not received one response.
I thank you for your response and would encourage you to put me in contact with someone within your organization who may be able to help get more information about the stance of the BCSC's position on this issue. Cancer has touched my friends and family, and its time we collectively made a well thought out effort to address the root problems, as well as trying to find a cure.
I am astonished every single day how hard we work against ourselves. Thanks very much, and I look forward to hearing your response, as I have yet to receive a substantiated response in the months I have been trying to bring this issue to attention to HBC, Zeller's, the BCSC, and the CCS.
-Taylor Davis.
The response was interesting and not surprising. The next step for me is to investigate the BCS a little more and find out why they have no regard to the sorts of products they sell. Is this because they operate for a profit and thus endorse products that are cheap and sell, irrespective of whether they do and likely cause cancer? Or have they made a mistake? If the latter is true, I would have hoped for a more forth coming response and appology for the rather crass and irresponsible decision they have made to brand these products.
I am also in the process of putting together something succinct to hopefully get the media to publish, or look into at least. However, I also have a thesis to write and am running out of time, so there might be a hiatus of new information on the blog for the time being.
HBC/Zeller's response:
Dear Mr. Davis,
I do understand your concern in this matter and it is really unfortunate that the managers have not reverted back to you. However, I would like to inform you that since we only provide space for these products to sell, I wouldn't be able to provide you with the appropriate assisstance. If there is any other concern that we can assisst you with, please contact us at 1866 746 7422 or Customer.Service@hbc.com Regards,
Ananya
Here is the response I received from the Canadian Cancer Society:
Hi Taylor,
Thank you for writing back to the Canadian Cancer Society's Cancer Information Service.
You have stated in one of your emails that you had never received a response from the National office of the Canadian Cancer Society regarding Teflon products. My files indicate that a response from National was sent to you in December 2008. *(I never received this email, probably an honest mistake)* Just in case the email did not get through properly, I have included the original response from our National office for you to review below.
With regards to the breast cancer ribbon stickers you refer to and the dangers of vinyl chloride, I would first like to point out that the Breast Cancer Society of Canada is not affiliated with the Canadian Cancer Society and therefore these stickers are not coming from our organization.
Vinyl chloride is a known carcinogen. Please find attached some information from the Canadian Cancer Encyclopedia that you may wish to review. You may also be interested in reading the links from Health Canada and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding vinyl chloride:
Health Canada:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/vinyl_chloride/index-eng.php
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s186viny.pdf
If you have any further questions for us Taylor, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Audrie, Information Specialist
Email from National:
Dear Ms. Davis,
Thank you for contacting the Canadian Cancer Society.
With regards to PTFE being a known carcinogen, there is a debate in the scientific community about this chemical. There is some concern that PTFE (the non-stick coating) may break down during use to release small amounts of TFE, a substance that may cause cancer in humans, however there is no definitive evidence at this time.
Similarly, there is no conclusive research at this time to indicate that PFOA (the substance used during the manufacture of non-stick coatings) causes cancer in humans, however, this issue continues to be monitored and assessed by the scientific community. The Canadian Cancer Society believes that Canadians have the right to know what is in their products. This allows individuals to choose to avoid certain products when the science is not entirely conclusive.
With regards to the Breast Cancer Society of Canada, it is a charity that works independently of us and we cannot speak to their policies or partnerships. With respect to our own corporate relationships, however, the Canadian Cancer Society seeks corporate partnerships that are meaningful, educate Canadians about the disease and help generate funds in support of our mission.
All new corporate partnerships are reviewed against our National Corporate Relationship and Gift Acceptance Policy which is available on our website:
http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/How%20you%20can%20help/CW-Corporate%20giving/Working%20with%20corporations.aspx?sc_lang=en
I hope this information will be helpful.
Sincerely,
The Canadian Cancer Society
The Canadian Cancer Society's Cancer Information Service is available toll-free at 1 888 939-3333 in both English and French, Monday to Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. anywhere in Canada.(Node Regina Inquiry ID #511668)
Thursday, January 08, 2009
I have been emailing the Canadian Breast Cancer Society and the Cancer Society of Canada repeatedly, and I have still not heard from the Breast Cancer Society, however I did hear back from the Cancer Society of Canada:
Dear Taylor,
Thank you for contacting the Canadian Cancer Society's Cancer Information Service.
I understand from your email and the link that you have provided that you have concerns regarding Teflon/non-stick cookware and wonder what the Canadian Cancer Society's position is regarding these products. Please follow the link below to a webpage of our website that discusses our position on this issue. If you have any further questions or comments, don't hesitate to contact us again.
Teflon and non-stick cookware and cancer risk
A questionnaire about the quality of our service is also included, and we would be pleased to receive your feedback.
Sincerely,
Audrie, Information Specialist
Thank you for contacting the Canadian Cancer Society's Cancer Information Service.
I understand from your email and the link that you have provided that you have concerns regarding Teflon/non-stick cookware and wonder what the Canadian Cancer Society's position is regarding these products. Please follow the link below to a webpage of our website that discusses our position on this issue. If you have any further questions or comments, don't hesitate to contact us again.
Teflon and non-stick cookware and cancer risk
A questionnaire about the quality of our service is also included, and we would be pleased to receive your feedback.
Sincerely,
Audrie, Information Specialist
I followed up on the email with this:
Audrie,
I am familiar with the Canadian Cancer Society's position on Teflon cookware. It is my understanding that Teflon and PTFE is a known carcinogen, however when used 'safely' it poses no risk, or has not yet been proven to pose a significant enough risk to affect policy. What is the definition of 'safely' when considering the entire lifespan of the product? It is my concern that PTFE, along with many others like PVC, are known toxins and at some point in their life-cycle (manufacturing, use, or disposal) they persist in the environment and become infused in our food webs and water cycles and do indeed cause cancer. Perhaps there is not a direct link between using a Teflon non-stick cookware product 'safely' and breast cancer, but what is known for a fact is that persistent chemicals like PVC, BPA, and PTFE will have negative impact on human health, regardless of how they get there.
I think that it is in very poor taste to have the Breast Cancer Society of Canada partner with Teflon products and encourage the sale of the product through promises of 10% donations. This is a very ugly contradiction and should be put under a certain amount of scrutiny. The Think Pink movement should not be used to sell cancer causing chemicals, nor unknown but likely carcinogenic products. This issue should be looked at by the CCS as it has a responsibility to inform the public of health risks. From my point of view the BCSC and its affiliated "Think Pink" marketing campaign, in the specific case of pink Teflon cookware, is posing a health risk when it is being falsely advertised as a help to the cancer movement, when in fact it is a hindrance. I think it would be a nice gesture, and fair, if the Tobacco industry chose to donate a percentage of their profits towards finding a cure for that which their products cause. However, when considering the smoking/cancer risk, one would normally, and rationally, come to the conclusion that eradicating the root of the problem (smoking) would be more effective than trying to fix the problem that it creates (cancer).
I think that it is in very poor taste to have the Breast Cancer Society of Canada partner with Teflon products and encourage the sale of the product through promises of 10% donations. This is a very ugly contradiction and should be put under a certain amount of scrutiny. The Think Pink movement should not be used to sell cancer causing chemicals, nor unknown but likely carcinogenic products. This issue should be looked at by the CCS as it has a responsibility to inform the public of health risks. From my point of view the BCSC and its affiliated "Think Pink" marketing campaign, in the specific case of pink Teflon cookware, is posing a health risk when it is being falsely advertised as a help to the cancer movement, when in fact it is a hindrance. I think it would be a nice gesture, and fair, if the Tobacco industry chose to donate a percentage of their profits towards finding a cure for that which their products cause. However, when considering the smoking/cancer risk, one would normally, and rationally, come to the conclusion that eradicating the root of the problem (smoking) would be more effective than trying to fix the problem that it creates (cancer).
It is appalling that HBC/Zeller's, and the BCSC can get away with doing this. I have been into Zeller's many times and spoken with two managers who have pledged to get back to me, and have not done so for months. I have emailed the BCSC numerous times about this issue, and their association with HBC/Zeller's and the Think Pink campaign, and have not received one response. I thank you for your response and would encourage you to put me in contact with someone within your organization who may be able to help get more information about the stance of the BCSC's position on this issue. Thanks again for getting back to me and hope to hear from you again soon,
-Taylor Davis.
I then received this email in response:
I then received this email in response:
Hi Taylor,
Thanks for your reply. I have forwarded your emails to our National office for a response. You should receive a reply from a Canadian Cancer Society representative in the near future.
Take care,
Audrie, Information Specialist
I don't exactly know when the near future is, but in the mean time, I found some breast cancer ribbon stickers made of vinyl (vinyl chloride is highly carcinogenic), with the stamp of the Breast Cancer Society on the sticker.
Thanks for your reply. I have forwarded your emails to our National office for a response. You should receive a reply from a Canadian Cancer Society representative in the near future.
Take care,
Audrie, Information Specialist
I don't exactly know when the near future is, but in the mean time, I found some breast cancer ribbon stickers made of vinyl (vinyl chloride is highly carcinogenic), with the stamp of the Breast Cancer Society on the sticker.
Here is ChromaColor a PlasticColor company's product line of other Vinyl stickers
(see picture at top)
Its really interesting how companies such as Volkswagen, Honda, Ikea, on and on and on have been phasing out the use of Vinyl, yet some how the one institution that should be the most aware and show the greatest level of concern for human and environmental health has managed to endorse, encourage and brand the very product that causes what they are fighting.
I am astonished every single day how hard we work against ourselves.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Our education and media institutions have failed us, and we have failed them in a way too. It is the onus of the public to be more involved and informed, but that is a difficult task when considering the monopoly that the corporatocracy has on society; privatized education, private media, all controlled by profits and not accountable to votes.
I feel let down by my education system for not teaching me true historical fact. I didn't learn about the important role of American corporations relationships' to Nazi Germany. I didn't learn about regime change in South and Central America or the Middle East. I was largely sold the story that history is about ideology and religion, not money and power. I realize that this isn't totally cut and dry and I am making a generalization, but for the most part, focus was indeed placed on ideology vs. ideology and not the driving motives behind them.
Money and power have used ideology and religion as the guise for all action, which has cast an ugly light on something that boils down very simply to personal spirituality and philosophy. Just take Usury as an example. Usury used to be frowned upon by God himself, or so many ancient texts tell us, but the special interest lobby had the wishes of God changed to fit their story, and old commandments were replaced with new ones that better fit those who were interested in maintaining the status quo.
There should never be a war over an idea. However, wars over physical and biological resources have largely been blamed on ideological and religious belief. This ideological and spiritual hijacking has bread fundamentalist belief, and created huge rifts of artificial separation between human beings. I'm sure that blind faith and fundamentalism, bread from mass delusion, has indeed led to tangible killing in the name of an idea, but that still doesn't make it truly accountable. If spirituality and ideological control, such as patriotism, communist, capitalist, or religious belief are wielded as methods of social control, then there are other reasons behind their use because ideas themselves are not designed for that purpose. Human spirituality and philosophy doesn't exist for controlling the mind, it exists to free the mind and body from space and time limitations.
Ideologies are collected and organized visions that should exist to spur on intellectual debate and broaden the horizons of human intelligence; they shouldn't seek to limit criticism and control thought. This is why my institutions have failed me: I hate to think about children who are continually asked to decide what they want to be when they grow up. Ideally, they should be allowed to develop and think and have the time to 'become' before they have to decide. If one decides first, then one has to subscribe to a very specific school of thought to achieve the goal which was decided upon before the thoughts had a chance to properly form. The process by which one becomes a professional essentially limits independent thinking and replaces it with preconceived notions of what one must know and do in order to properly fill that profession. This isn't exactly sound decision making. If my history classes taught me about the real reasons behind wars, or rampant environmental destruction, (profits) perhaps I would have made different, and better informed choices so far in my life. If the media had done its job to gather the truth and convey it in an honest and unbiased way, then perhaps war and fear of war would perish with misunderstanding based hatred. Ultimately, the culpability will lie with ourselves if we fail to take the action necessary to change our situation, and we have the power to do so.
Di Eagle and di Bear a keep a living in fear
Of the impending nuclear warfare
But as a matter of fact, believe it or not
Plenty people don't care whether it imminent or not
Or who di first one to attack or if the human race
Survive or not
For those whom is aware
Them life already coming like a nightmare
And you can see it everywhere
The famine and the fear
The doubt and the drought
Desperation and despair
And you can see it all around
The massacres abound
Dead bodies all around
The atrocities abound
Missing persons can' t be found
Dictators get dethroned
New clowns are quickly found
- Linton Kwesi Johnson
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Zellers/HBC update
Just a quick update on the progress of getting an answer from Zeller's about their choice of selling a cancer causing product (Teflon was just added to health Canada's environmental toxin list) that donates profits to breast cancer research.
Starting two weeks ago, I have written two emails to corporate, (Typical response times are claimed to be 2 business days). I received this email today: "Thank you for your response. Due to higher than anticipated email volumes I have not been able to respond to your email as promptly as I would have liked. I apologize for the delay and any inconvenience this may have caused. Your comment was forwarded to our buyer for investigation of the cookware product. Your patience is appreciated in this matter. Thank you. Regards,
Susan
HBC Customer Service
I spoke to the store manager for the first time 2 weeks ago and again on Thursday of last week. I received a phone call on Friday letting me know that the person in 'housewares' at corporate was away from his phone so probably wouldn't get back to me until Monday.
Well its Wednesday now.
Its obvious they have really F'd up on this, and their posturing around and wasting time is pretty poor. HBC/Zeller's should adhere to their corporate responsibilities.
It is really disgusting to read this
when considering what kind of pink 'merchandise' they sell.
"This year HBC is offering exclusive pink merchandise through its Bay, Zeller's, and Home Outfitters stores throughout Canada; net proceeds will go directly to support the Canadian Brest Cancer Foundation."
"The goal of the Think Pink™ program is to one day live in a world without breast cancer. The funds raised work towards this goal by supporting breast cancer research, and breast health education and awareness programs across the country. Think Pink™ and the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation believe in being breast aware and proactive in our health."
The statements are rife with rotten contradictions. The goal of the "Think Pink" program needs to be re-considered if they are going to peddle carcinogenic chemicals in the name of a fanciful "world without breast cancer".
I hesitate to ask people to join a 'cause' because I hope that when one is provided information, action will result from conclusions reached from personal research and information synthesis. I don't think anyone should do what they are told; one should think and react in accordance to their own sensibility.
That being said, please feel free to email HBC/Zeller's @ customer.service@hbc.com
or the Breast Cancer Society @ cbcfbc@cbcf.org (I have also emailed them, with no response,) and make them aware of this ugly consumption/cancer paradox that they are selling us for their profit.
10% of the proceeds are not enough to pay for the damage they cause, 100% is not enough; the carcinogenic products shouldn't exist at all.
Don't stand for it, and don't buy into it.
We can't afford it.
Friday, November 28, 2008
A new TV will make me happy. I should go into debt for it so I can have it now!
They are really cheap now right?
Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up... In civilizations, population always grows until it hits the bounds of the food supply, and all civilizations become hierarchical -- the upward concentration of wealth ensures that there can never be enough to go around. The concentration of power at the top of large-scale societies gives the elite a vested interest in the status quo; they continue to prosper in darkening times long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer.
This takes us to the present day, where the "concentration of power at the top" continues to hoard resources, steal from everyone else, ruthlessly suppress opposition, and prospers as the environment and the general populace suffer. And we, strange creatures of our disconnected and self-made culture, cling desperately to the hope and false assurances that we will be saved by our gods, or our ingenuity, that what we are doing to our world is beyond our control, is not our fault, not our responsibility, and is not so bad in the global scheme of things anyway. That was a passage from the book “A Short History of Progress.”
Why do we not see these trends happening? In an age of instant information it would seem that many people would be asking more questions and be more able to alter their apathy towards the incredible greed and inequity that defines our way of life. I believe that people willingly choose to accept a sweeter pill to swallow in the form of entertainment and ignore the gathering storm. Perhaps many suffer from an unconscious state of mild depression because of what can be seen and heard all over the media. The choice is made to ignore and place it outside their realm of control.
If one takes a hard look at what has to be done to circumvent some of the problems we are compounding for ourselves, there is not much to be really positive about our collective action at the moment. The systems of consumerism and blind self-gratification are very satisfying and hard to deviate from, especially when it seems that it a normal worldly experience to go through 5 toaster ovens, 6 cars and 10 cell phones in ones lifetime. I was provided a wake up call when I realized that my childhood dreams of my imagined adult life were not right. They were sold to me as the necessary components for a happy life not complete without many possessions and personal luxuries.
So how does one not buy into the manufactured dreams when going to work depends on the ownership of a car? Well, people can start by not buying swiffer products… what’s the catch phrase? glide, flick, trap, and toss…. How is there a market for such products?! … buy our products and throw them away so you can buy more of our chemically engineered garbage. So where do I start?? Maybe I should just relax and turn on the TV and be content with delusion.
Likely not.
They are really cheap now right?
Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up... In civilizations, population always grows until it hits the bounds of the food supply, and all civilizations become hierarchical -- the upward concentration of wealth ensures that there can never be enough to go around. The concentration of power at the top of large-scale societies gives the elite a vested interest in the status quo; they continue to prosper in darkening times long after the environment and general populace begin to suffer.
This takes us to the present day, where the "concentration of power at the top" continues to hoard resources, steal from everyone else, ruthlessly suppress opposition, and prospers as the environment and the general populace suffer. And we, strange creatures of our disconnected and self-made culture, cling desperately to the hope and false assurances that we will be saved by our gods, or our ingenuity, that what we are doing to our world is beyond our control, is not our fault, not our responsibility, and is not so bad in the global scheme of things anyway. That was a passage from the book “A Short History of Progress.”
Why do we not see these trends happening? In an age of instant information it would seem that many people would be asking more questions and be more able to alter their apathy towards the incredible greed and inequity that defines our way of life. I believe that people willingly choose to accept a sweeter pill to swallow in the form of entertainment and ignore the gathering storm. Perhaps many suffer from an unconscious state of mild depression because of what can be seen and heard all over the media. The choice is made to ignore and place it outside their realm of control.
If one takes a hard look at what has to be done to circumvent some of the problems we are compounding for ourselves, there is not much to be really positive about our collective action at the moment. The systems of consumerism and blind self-gratification are very satisfying and hard to deviate from, especially when it seems that it a normal worldly experience to go through 5 toaster ovens, 6 cars and 10 cell phones in ones lifetime. I was provided a wake up call when I realized that my childhood dreams of my imagined adult life were not right. They were sold to me as the necessary components for a happy life not complete without many possessions and personal luxuries.
So how does one not buy into the manufactured dreams when going to work depends on the ownership of a car? Well, people can start by not buying swiffer products… what’s the catch phrase? glide, flick, trap, and toss…. How is there a market for such products?! … buy our products and throw them away so you can buy more of our chemically engineered garbage. So where do I start?? Maybe I should just relax and turn on the TV and be content with delusion.
Likely not.
Great Article
George Monbiot sums up so many problems and links them together in a profound way.
Clearly, with the financial crisis outstripping anything and everything, the hopes that environmental issues will become of the highest concern takes a blow.
Although, if the financial institutions fail once again as they did in the 30's, the chance for total restructure becomes available. However, a dysfunctional economy and chaotic society also spells disaster for our ecosystems. As the old proverb goes: "A crisis is an opportunity riding the dangerous wind."
It is profoundly ironic that the very system responsible for much of our environmental and social woes is the same system that we devote the majority of our resources to fix.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/#more-1155
Clearly, with the financial crisis outstripping anything and everything, the hopes that environmental issues will become of the highest concern takes a blow.
Although, if the financial institutions fail once again as they did in the 30's, the chance for total restructure becomes available. However, a dysfunctional economy and chaotic society also spells disaster for our ecosystems. As the old proverb goes: "A crisis is an opportunity riding the dangerous wind."
It is profoundly ironic that the very system responsible for much of our environmental and social woes is the same system that we devote the majority of our resources to fix.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/11/25/one-shot-left/#more-1155
Thursday, November 27, 2008
I thought I would post a few links that I think are very troubling and should be very carefully considered.
Today the SF Chronicle posted a story about the cost of the bailout so far; roughly 60% of the US GDP. Most would think that it was around 700 Billion, well it turns out that its more in the range of 8.5 Trillion. How is it possible to have a financial economy that dwarfs the physical economy? It becomes clear what a sham these derivatives have been. Thanks to Allan Greenspan for making them legal again. Boom and bust cycles are so brilliant and wealth and power consolidation is so awesome.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-....bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/200....8/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL
Also, consider what Congressman Brad Sherman said to the House of Representatives after the first bill failed but before the second bill was passed. The bill was designed to bail out foreign banks and allow for dividends and salary increases. It really did nothing for the people who have been most affected by this whole mess.
http://www.youtube.com/wat....ch?v=p6KRXnYgu5I
http://www.youtube.com/wat....ch?v=h9-tBGxVU6o
http://www.youtube.com/wat....ch?v=2kdeFQrmNkQ&feature=r....elated
In light of the recent news articles and events it is more and more clear that these videos make claims that are based on substantial evidence. Thoughts?
Today the SF Chronicle posted a story about the cost of the bailout so far; roughly 60% of the US GDP. Most would think that it was around 700 Billion, well it turns out that its more in the range of 8.5 Trillion. How is it possible to have a financial economy that dwarfs the physical economy? It becomes clear what a sham these derivatives have been. Thanks to Allan Greenspan for making them legal again. Boom and bust cycles are so brilliant and wealth and power consolidation is so awesome.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-....bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/200....8/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL
Also, consider what Congressman Brad Sherman said to the House of Representatives after the first bill failed but before the second bill was passed. The bill was designed to bail out foreign banks and allow for dividends and salary increases. It really did nothing for the people who have been most affected by this whole mess.
http://www.youtube.com/wat....ch?v=p6KRXnYgu5I
http://www.youtube.com/wat....ch?v=h9-tBGxVU6o
http://www.youtube.com/wat....ch?v=2kdeFQrmNkQ&feature=r....elated
In light of the recent news articles and events it is more and more clear that these videos make claims that are based on substantial evidence. Thoughts?
Ugly Breast Cancer Paradox
I was in Zellers (WalMart style store) the other day looking for a turkey baster to unclog my fridge drain line and I happened to notice a display of pink "cookware for the cure" on display.
http://www.amazon.com/Bial..etti-8-Piece-Cook-Cure-Coo..kware/dp/B000EG66HG
The cookware features non-stick Teflon, which has been recently added to Health Canada's environmental contaminants that cause cancer. This is a perfect example of how backwards our society really is.
http://www.cancer.ca/Canad..a-wide/Prevention/Specific..%20environmental%20contami..nants/Teflon%20and%20non-s..tick%20cookware.aspx?sc_la..ng=en
I spoke to the store manager at Zellers and pointed this glaring error out. The woman I spoke to was very understanding and was equally shocked to hear the information that I gave to her. She said that she was going to speak to her manager about this ugly contradiction, so I left it at that. I have since emailed the corporate division of Zeller's to ask for their revision of this discovery of mine.
The fight against Cancer cant be for a cure alone, as some of the fairly acute causes are obvious and need to be eliminated. Its just plain insulting to see corporations manufacturing this pink carcinogenic junk and selling it to raise money for cancer. What's next, cartons of pink cigarettes for cancer research? We really can be a collectively brilliant and very stupid society. All of the petrochemicals that go towards the manufacturing of bracelets, water-bottles, stickers, cookware etc. etc. in the name of the 'cure' is part of the root problem and has to be eliminated if we want to make real progress on the issue. So do something, write a letter or tell someone about the established cancer/plastics links and consider that 'consumption for the cure' can also be a pink cancer causing sham.
http://www.amazon.com/Bial..etti-8-Piece-Cook-Cure-Coo..kware/dp/B000EG66HG
The cookware features non-stick Teflon, which has been recently added to Health Canada's environmental contaminants that cause cancer. This is a perfect example of how backwards our society really is.
http://www.cancer.ca/Canad..a-wide/Prevention/Specific..%20environmental%20contami..nants/Teflon%20and%20non-s..tick%20cookware.aspx?sc_la..ng=en
I spoke to the store manager at Zellers and pointed this glaring error out. The woman I spoke to was very understanding and was equally shocked to hear the information that I gave to her. She said that she was going to speak to her manager about this ugly contradiction, so I left it at that. I have since emailed the corporate division of Zeller's to ask for their revision of this discovery of mine.
The fight against Cancer cant be for a cure alone, as some of the fairly acute causes are obvious and need to be eliminated. Its just plain insulting to see corporations manufacturing this pink carcinogenic junk and selling it to raise money for cancer. What's next, cartons of pink cigarettes for cancer research? We really can be a collectively brilliant and very stupid society. All of the petrochemicals that go towards the manufacturing of bracelets, water-bottles, stickers, cookware etc. etc. in the name of the 'cure' is part of the root problem and has to be eliminated if we want to make real progress on the issue. So do something, write a letter or tell someone about the established cancer/plastics links and consider that 'consumption for the cure' can also be a pink cancer causing sham.
It seems as though we find out more every day about just how grave the future might be, yet less is being done, well maybe not less, but it is safe to say what is being done certainly isn’t keeping pace with our collective and exponentially increasing problem.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/i....d/26979274/
Citing the aforementioned report, as a mammal bound to this earth, I have a deep concern for the apathy and disregard that so many seem to hold. Cancer of the mouth is threatening the survival of the Tasmanian devil? Do they chew tobacco? Can we really separate ourselves from the ones that are silently disappearing?
“Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on earth every year, a global environmental report said Friday.The report, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of animals, birds and fish has dropped by a third in the last 35 years.” You’d have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report.” –CBC news
As an animal with primal instincts, I am feeling the instinctual need to flee, but there really is nowhere to escape to. Maybe if I buy a good digital cable package... Many of my family and friends have been affected by cancer. Grandparents, friends, friends parents; pretty much anyone I know or could think of knowing has had experiences with cancer in one way or another. I see what is happening to amphibians and other sensitive species around the world and have to wonder if endlessly searching for the cure with runs accompanied by plastic water-bottle and ribbon giveaways is somewhat of an ugly paradox.
Clearly, if there is a plastic island twice the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean, and black pollution clouds over Vancouver Island from China, searching for answers to merely cure the acute effects of our heavily degraded environment isn’t all that is needed. It’s a terrible irony that the medical industry relies so heavily on polyvinylchloride; a known carcinogen and dioxide producing chemical. As many lives are saved through the drip of an IV from a plastic sac, many are lost to cancer in Lake Charles Louisiana. The cure for many of our ailments must surely lie partly within addressing our collectively poor attitudes and despicable treatment of our world and fellow humans. Is there a run or a ribbon for the "Human problem" cure? Can it be mandatory? Health care costs due to pollution are so high that they probably outstrip the cost of actually dealing with some of the root causes. Just look at asthma. This report:
http://www.asthma.ca/corp/....newsroom/pdf/asthmastats.p....df
claims that asthma is on the rise world wide to the order of 50% per decade.12% of Canadian children suffer childhood asthma. In 1990, Canada spent an estimated 600 million per year on asthma treatment. I am so happy that Stephen Harper has promised to spend 113 million on the environment over 5 years… what a great mind and wonderful leader he is. There are so many complex problems and I would be the first to admit that I am an integral part of them. I try to make the best choices I can, but often I find myself hamstrung. The "coming recession" is heralded as a really bad thing because people are slowing their spending (consumption). Is that really such a bad thing? Well, yes, because people lose jobs and suffer hardships, but that begs a question, how can we have lower consumption, something crucial to the concept of that buzz word sustaina..., yet many call for the encouragement of spend spend spending to keep the economy going. I don’t see a solution coming out of this backwards way of thinking. People are seriously deluded if they believe that we can spend our way out of our financial or environmental problems.
I don’t see how there can ever be an environmental solution with an economic one, that is to say if the traditional notion of endless expansion is considered to be vital to a functioning economy. Why growth growth growth? What happened to maintenance? Sustained pace? Sustain... hmm reminds me of a buzz word that gets tossed around a lot these days... Why does a country like Japan, experiencing a serious population decline, have to have an expanding economy? Shouldn’t an economy match a population's growth? Following that logic, many developed countries should experience flat or near negative growth. Many are panicking and losing sleep over gloomy reports of a coming recession. I am losing sleep over something much different, but perhaps not entirely unrelated.
After all these decades of hearing the repeating rhetoric of the "one day we will wake up and wish that we had made better choices" type statements, really, honestly, that day will come, and maybe it already has.Despite our 'best efforts' and increased awareness, climate change commitments thus far have failed, biodiversity protection has failed and extinction rates have accelerated, solving or reducing national or international socioeconomic disparity has failed and increased. Does this mean our economic, social and political systems and models have failed us? Likely not. Culpability lies in our own languid reactions to the transmitted information. The bottom line is that there is still time to throw everything we have at solving our environmental woes before it is too late. Transdiciplinary ideas and philosophical discussions represent an important basis of a new "economy". If we treat each other, and all other living things, as being integral parts of the much greater and very unique chance of existence we have been given, petty inter-species squabbling and personal greed can be overcome. Human creativity, compassion, scientific understanding and technology can surmount; only if we allow them to. It is essential to take knowledge we have gained, whether it is of political, economic, ecological or social focus and transform the knowledge into tangible action. Education and bridging information gaps is vital. No one faceted solution exists, thus there may be no 'right' answers, rather many differing methods of arriving at a similar destination. I hold out hope that the destination includes a little more than half of the mammal species on earth, otherwise this planet will get a whole lot more lonely.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/i....d/26979274/
Citing the aforementioned report, as a mammal bound to this earth, I have a deep concern for the apathy and disregard that so many seem to hold. Cancer of the mouth is threatening the survival of the Tasmanian devil? Do they chew tobacco? Can we really separate ourselves from the ones that are silently disappearing?
“Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on earth every year, a global environmental report said Friday.The report, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of animals, birds and fish has dropped by a third in the last 35 years.” You’d have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report.” –CBC news
As an animal with primal instincts, I am feeling the instinctual need to flee, but there really is nowhere to escape to. Maybe if I buy a good digital cable package... Many of my family and friends have been affected by cancer. Grandparents, friends, friends parents; pretty much anyone I know or could think of knowing has had experiences with cancer in one way or another. I see what is happening to amphibians and other sensitive species around the world and have to wonder if endlessly searching for the cure with runs accompanied by plastic water-bottle and ribbon giveaways is somewhat of an ugly paradox.
Clearly, if there is a plastic island twice the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean, and black pollution clouds over Vancouver Island from China, searching for answers to merely cure the acute effects of our heavily degraded environment isn’t all that is needed. It’s a terrible irony that the medical industry relies so heavily on polyvinylchloride; a known carcinogen and dioxide producing chemical. As many lives are saved through the drip of an IV from a plastic sac, many are lost to cancer in Lake Charles Louisiana. The cure for many of our ailments must surely lie partly within addressing our collectively poor attitudes and despicable treatment of our world and fellow humans. Is there a run or a ribbon for the "Human problem" cure? Can it be mandatory? Health care costs due to pollution are so high that they probably outstrip the cost of actually dealing with some of the root causes. Just look at asthma. This report:
http://www.asthma.ca/corp/....newsroom/pdf/asthmastats.p....df
claims that asthma is on the rise world wide to the order of 50% per decade.12% of Canadian children suffer childhood asthma. In 1990, Canada spent an estimated 600 million per year on asthma treatment. I am so happy that Stephen Harper has promised to spend 113 million on the environment over 5 years… what a great mind and wonderful leader he is. There are so many complex problems and I would be the first to admit that I am an integral part of them. I try to make the best choices I can, but often I find myself hamstrung. The "coming recession" is heralded as a really bad thing because people are slowing their spending (consumption). Is that really such a bad thing? Well, yes, because people lose jobs and suffer hardships, but that begs a question, how can we have lower consumption, something crucial to the concept of that buzz word sustaina..., yet many call for the encouragement of spend spend spending to keep the economy going. I don’t see a solution coming out of this backwards way of thinking. People are seriously deluded if they believe that we can spend our way out of our financial or environmental problems.
I don’t see how there can ever be an environmental solution with an economic one, that is to say if the traditional notion of endless expansion is considered to be vital to a functioning economy. Why growth growth growth? What happened to maintenance? Sustained pace? Sustain... hmm reminds me of a buzz word that gets tossed around a lot these days... Why does a country like Japan, experiencing a serious population decline, have to have an expanding economy? Shouldn’t an economy match a population's growth? Following that logic, many developed countries should experience flat or near negative growth. Many are panicking and losing sleep over gloomy reports of a coming recession. I am losing sleep over something much different, but perhaps not entirely unrelated.
After all these decades of hearing the repeating rhetoric of the "one day we will wake up and wish that we had made better choices" type statements, really, honestly, that day will come, and maybe it already has.Despite our 'best efforts' and increased awareness, climate change commitments thus far have failed, biodiversity protection has failed and extinction rates have accelerated, solving or reducing national or international socioeconomic disparity has failed and increased. Does this mean our economic, social and political systems and models have failed us? Likely not. Culpability lies in our own languid reactions to the transmitted information. The bottom line is that there is still time to throw everything we have at solving our environmental woes before it is too late. Transdiciplinary ideas and philosophical discussions represent an important basis of a new "economy". If we treat each other, and all other living things, as being integral parts of the much greater and very unique chance of existence we have been given, petty inter-species squabbling and personal greed can be overcome. Human creativity, compassion, scientific understanding and technology can surmount; only if we allow them to. It is essential to take knowledge we have gained, whether it is of political, economic, ecological or social focus and transform the knowledge into tangible action. Education and bridging information gaps is vital. No one faceted solution exists, thus there may be no 'right' answers, rather many differing methods of arriving at a similar destination. I hold out hope that the destination includes a little more than half of the mammal species on earth, otherwise this planet will get a whole lot more lonely.
Food aid folly
Priorities??
The World Bank recently announced that they are going to offer 1.2 Billion of emergency aid to help ease the world food crisis. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7426311.stm
Compare that figure to the 2007 sales of Febreze... 1.0 Billion
Compare that figure to the 2006 revenue of Monsanto... 7.344 Billion.
Compare that figure to the 2006 revenue of Pfizer... 51 Billion
Compare that figure to the budget of the war in Iraq... Trillions
All of this pales in comparison to the 8.5 Trillion spent on the fraudulent 'bailout' of the American taxpayer.
It is abundantly clear where current priorities stand.
If we compared the human species on our one planet to one hive of bees, the bees likely wouldn't have a very successful colony if they weren't able to feed a majority of their own population. Imagine if Bee's competed with and exploited each-other? Surely the hive would soon fall into disrepair? It seems as though it should likely be the same for us if we consider that earth is one integrated system that we are inexorably linked to.
We are not doing well as a species if the majority of our members are starving, or on the verge of starvation. Good thing most people aren't able to get basic life saving medicine and food, otherwise a few of us might not be able to spray chemicals to make our houses smell nice and get our antidepressants to help us cope with the silent screams and alarm we feel at an instinctual level.
The 2010 Biodiversity Goals will not be met; species are disappearing faster than they were in 2001 when the Biodiversity Goals were formulated. Should we not be matching this with more drastic action than ever before?
The recent 1.2 Billion in food Aid from the World Bank is a slap in the face; a shitty undersized band-aid on a sinking ship. Perhaps international Debt forgiveness should be a greater priority, perhaps real solutions should be implemented rather than this latest folly. 1.2 Billion is a pathetic figure. A tragedy.
All of this is fairly insignificant because food production isn't the real problem; food distribution is the culprit of starvation. If there isn't money to be made off a problem, chances are good that it wont get fixed.
The World Bank recently announced that they are going to offer 1.2 Billion of emergency aid to help ease the world food crisis. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7426311.stm
Compare that figure to the 2007 sales of Febreze... 1.0 Billion
Compare that figure to the 2006 revenue of Monsanto... 7.344 Billion.
Compare that figure to the 2006 revenue of Pfizer... 51 Billion
Compare that figure to the budget of the war in Iraq... Trillions
All of this pales in comparison to the 8.5 Trillion spent on the fraudulent 'bailout' of the American taxpayer.
It is abundantly clear where current priorities stand.
If we compared the human species on our one planet to one hive of bees, the bees likely wouldn't have a very successful colony if they weren't able to feed a majority of their own population. Imagine if Bee's competed with and exploited each-other? Surely the hive would soon fall into disrepair? It seems as though it should likely be the same for us if we consider that earth is one integrated system that we are inexorably linked to.
We are not doing well as a species if the majority of our members are starving, or on the verge of starvation. Good thing most people aren't able to get basic life saving medicine and food, otherwise a few of us might not be able to spray chemicals to make our houses smell nice and get our antidepressants to help us cope with the silent screams and alarm we feel at an instinctual level.
The 2010 Biodiversity Goals will not be met; species are disappearing faster than they were in 2001 when the Biodiversity Goals were formulated. Should we not be matching this with more drastic action than ever before?
The recent 1.2 Billion in food Aid from the World Bank is a slap in the face; a shitty undersized band-aid on a sinking ship. Perhaps international Debt forgiveness should be a greater priority, perhaps real solutions should be implemented rather than this latest folly. 1.2 Billion is a pathetic figure. A tragedy.
All of this is fairly insignificant because food production isn't the real problem; food distribution is the culprit of starvation. If there isn't money to be made off a problem, chances are good that it wont get fixed.
ALARM
Alarm
Global alarm sounded over dramatic decline in bird, fish, animal population
CBC News
Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on earth every year, a global environmental report said Friday.The report, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of animals, birds and fish has dropped by a third in the last 35 years.
"You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report. The main reasons for species extinction are pollution, farming and urban expansion, overfishing and hunting, the report said. Between 1960 and 2000, the world's population doubled, said Ben Collen, one of the authors of the report.
Decline 'caused by humans' "Yet during the same period, animal populations have declined by 30 per cent on average. It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans," he said.
The report includes a Living Planet Index that tracks birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and amphibians around the world. Marine bird species alone have fallen by 30 per cent between 1995 and 2005, it said. As well, between 1970 and 2005, land-based species fell by 25 per cent, marine by 28 per cent and freshwater by 29 per cent. "Biodiversity underpins the health of the planet and has a direct impact on all our lives, so it is alarming that despite an increased awareness of environmental issues we continue to see a downtrend trend," said WWF campaign head Colin Butfield. The report comes in the lead up to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn next week. More than 5,000 delegates will gather from May 19-30 to "discuss the protection and the preservation of species and habitats, a sustainable use of biological diversity as well as a fair distribution of access and exploitation," the conference website says
http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Global+alarm+sounded+over+dramatic+decline+in+bird+fish+animal+population/News/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=species-decline&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc
Global alarm sounded over dramatic decline in bird, fish, animal population
CBC News
Human activity is wiping out close to one per cent of every other species on earth every year, a global environmental report said Friday.The report, compiled by the World Wildlife Fund, the Zoological Society of London and the Global Footprint Network, said the population of animals, birds and fish has dropped by a third in the last 35 years.
"You'd have to go back to the extinction of the dinosaurs to see a decline as rapid as this," said Jonathan Loh, editor of the report. The main reasons for species extinction are pollution, farming and urban expansion, overfishing and hunting, the report said. Between 1960 and 2000, the world's population doubled, said Ben Collen, one of the authors of the report.
Decline 'caused by humans' "Yet during the same period, animal populations have declined by 30 per cent on average. It's beyond doubt that this decline has been caused by humans," he said.
The report includes a Living Planet Index that tracks birds, fish, mammals, reptiles and amphibians around the world. Marine bird species alone have fallen by 30 per cent between 1995 and 2005, it said. As well, between 1970 and 2005, land-based species fell by 25 per cent, marine by 28 per cent and freshwater by 29 per cent. "Biodiversity underpins the health of the planet and has a direct impact on all our lives, so it is alarming that despite an increased awareness of environmental issues we continue to see a downtrend trend," said WWF campaign head Colin Butfield. The report comes in the lead up to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Bonn next week. More than 5,000 delegates will gather from May 19-30 to "discuss the protection and the preservation of species and habitats, a sustainable use of biological diversity as well as a fair distribution of access and exploitation," the conference website says
http://technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/Global+alarm+sounded+over+dramatic+decline+in+bird+fish+animal+population/News/ContentPosting.aspx?isfa=1&newsitemid=species-decline&feedname=CBC-TECH-SCIENCE&show=False&number=0&showbyline=True&subtitle=&detect=&abc
Thursday, April 27, 2006
We are all dependents. It is all of our PROBLEM.
Many of us claim to hate the USA and everything it stands for and yet many people are striving for the American made dream in many other countries. Anyone who thinks Wayne Gretzky is a Canadian icon and patriot is sorely mistaken. He lives in Phoenix and can be seen on our T.V. sets selling us American made cars that are apparently built for our lives in Canada. Driving an American Truck in Canada is pursuing the American dream in Canada. What is going on in the U.S. is not a reflection of what the country it self stands for. It is a product of what the country inadvertently created.. Its corporations have taken the reigns from the government and assumed control of a hollowed out network filled with their own yes people who are placed in position only to ensure their hegemony grows and that their status quo remains. What the U.S. stands for has sadly been long forgotten and probably will never be able to scrub away the tarnish left behind by its own creations. Unlike other societal collapse in our civilizations short history, this story has the whole world written into it. All the points seem to be connecting: water shortages, oil and energy and resource shortages, massive environmental and biological collapses, political upheaval and sadly the last point is widespread knowledge about these facts. How can our own government cut and ignore programs and progress that has to be made towards meeting international climate change mandates? Apparently the bottom line of economic progress is the first item that has to be addressed and after that is ensured then the rest of the ducks will fall in line. Right... I don't like barbecued duck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
