In almost every area of our lives, today’s economy has made a major shift towards the world of ecology, going green and eco-friendly. Consumers are emphasizing an eco-lifestyle and companies are investing in everything from renewable sources of energy to completely ecologically safe products. Cities, counties, and entire states in the U.S. and around the globe are focused on reversing global warming. In this environment it comes as no surprise that there is a walk-of-shame for states in the U.S. that are listed as the ‘least green’.

In 2011, the organization 24/7 Wallstreet analyzed each of the states in the United States to evaluate their levels of pollution. The term pollution covers a lot of territory including air, water, earth, recycling efforts, fossil fuel energy use, etc.. The variables that exist can be state-specific as well. Some states have large tracts of land but no real industrial base, therefore they don’t have a need for high level industry requirements. With that said, those same states may rank high in wind turbine but may have the largest quantity of power plants that are coal-fired. 24/7 Wallstreet used an evaluation scale for 49 metric areas. The metric information was gleaned from just about every organization possible, both Federal and not-for-profit. The data used for the analysis was based on 2009-2010, and included thousands of data input information.

Based on the intense analysis of all of the data, here is the list of the least greenest states:

Illinois: Only 1.6% of the energy used is derived from renewable resources, ranking Illinois as the fourth worst in the nation. Illinois ranks third for consuming the greatest amount of energy. The EPA rated Illinois with the fourth worst score for toxic exposure. The state has a heavy industrial presence which contributed to this poor ranking. Strangely, it is also included as 7th place for their policies on solar energy.

Missouri: In attempting to balance or offset scores based on one category over another, the state of Missouri fell to a flat area in every category that was analyzed. It fell in the 28 categories that were ranked and only appeared five times in the upper 25 categories. Missouri holds a rank of 37 in general policy initiatives and for alternative energy in non-hydroelectric it is number 48.

Kentucky: This state has a poor performance in almost every category. 43 for the release of cancer-causing chemicals, 44 for the release of developmental toxins and 41 for the release of toxins affecting reproduction. Kentucky is ranked 39 for fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Texas: The state of Texas does excel in some areas, such as their wind energy initiatives and wind farms, however, their performance in many of the polluting categories ranks them on this list. They are at the bottom of the list for fossil fuel CO2 emissions as well as scoring 50 for toxic exposure score from the EPA. Texas is # 47 for waterway release of toxic chemicals, # 39 for the release of reproductive toxic chemicals. Texas produces the largest amount of hazardous waste in the country.

Pennsylvania: The state has a history of industries that rank high in the polluting arena. These have historically included steel, coal and natural gas. Pennsylvania ranks # 48 in fossil fuel CO2 emissions, 49 in adding particulates to the air, 49 for general toxic exposure.

New Jersey: This is a state that used to be called ‘the armpit of the country’. The toxic dumping in the state was historically notorious and New Jersey was never known for their green reputation. The state ranks # 45 in air particle pollution and # 46 for pollution to the ozone. They have increased their policies on alternative energy but the policies have not equated to actions. New Jersey ranks third to the last for alternative energy generation.

Louisiana: The state ranks # 46 in any policies or programs that equate to energy saving and has the sixth lowest budget applied to alternative energy. It ranks incredibly low for their pollution to water and is in the lowest five states for the release of carcinogens in water pollution along with birth defect chemicals. Louisiana is a state that creates the third highest amount of toxic waste annually.

West Virginia: While West Virginia has a good ranking for the lowest level of energy consumption it ranks low in any policies and actions regarding alternative energy, air and water pollution and overall carbon footprint. The only positive point they have is that the state is generating three quarters of a million mw of wind energy on an annual basis and does rank as the # 19 in this category.

Indiana: This is a coal state and houses the biggest coal power plant in the nation. There is a tie with Ohio in have the least percentage use of renewable energy sources. Indiana also has a lot of pollution problems, releasing the largest amount of water toxic chemicals.

Ohio: Ohio is number 5 in overall energy consumption (mostly from coal) with hardly any of their energy being met with alternative energy solutions. While they tie with Indiana on the topic of the least renewable energy sources and highest consumption, they also rank # 47 for fossil fuel CO2 emission, 46 for general exposure in toxins and are next to last for the largest quantity of hazardous waste violations since the year 2000.

In almost every area of our lives, today’s economy has made a major shift towards the world of ecology, going green and eco-friendly. Consumers are emphasizing an eco-lifestyle and companies are investing in everything from renewable sources of energy to completely ecologically safe products. Cities, counties, and entire states in the U.S. and around the globe are focused on reversing global warming. In this environment it comes as no surprise that there is a walk-of-shame for states in the U.S. that are listed as the ‘least green’.

In 2011, the organization 24/7 Wallstreet analyzed each of the states in the United States to evaluate their levels of pollution. The term pollution covers a lot of territory including air, water, earth, recycling efforts, fossil fuel energy use, etc.. The variables that exist can be state-specific as well. Some states have large tracts of land but no real industrial base, therefore they don’t have a need for high level industry requirements. With that said, those same states may rank high in wind turbine but may have the largest quantity of power plants that are coal-fired. 24/7 Wallstreet used an evaluation scale for 49 metric areas. The metric information was gleaned from just about every organization possible, both Federal and not-for-profit. The data used for the analysis was based on 2009-2010, and included thousands of data input information.

Based on the intense analysis of all of the data, here is the list of the greenest states in the U.S.:

Colorado: This state scored above average in just about every one of the pollution scores. It stands as #6 against toxins that cause birth defects including waterway carcinogens. Colorado ranks as # 12 in particle pollution and # 7 in their targets for energy savings. Colorado can proudly claim 6% of their energy use from alternative resources and is # 8 in the best rating in the U.S.

Oregon: The state of Oregon is in the middle one third of the entire metrics for pollution, including a rank of # 29 in toxic waste violations from the EPA and #33 in general toxic exposure. Oregon has high standard ratings for both their policies and alternative energy initiatives, as they are #2 in the most energy-savings programs. This state rates as the second highest level for hydro-electricity energy and is # 8 in non-hydroelectric alternative energy which can mostly be attributed to their wind farms.

Idaho: This state produces 84.5% of all consumed energy via alternative sources. Idaho ranks as #5 for the production of geothermal energy, #6 for hydroelectrical power and has the 4th lowest rank of fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

Montana: The residents of Montana are proudly linked to their nickname of “Big Sky Country” and rightly so. This state ranks lowest in contributing factors of ozone particulants. Montana ranks well in many of the other categories, including # 7 for total use of energy. The rankings are a direct result of the fact that Montana has such a low population (3rd lowest in the U.S.)

South Dakota: This is another state with a low population density (5th lowest), however they also have a low pollution level. South Dakota can claim the fewest EPA violations (14) since 2000 and generates the 2nd lowest amount of hazardous waste annually. It ranks 4th in alternative energy policies, with a goal of accomplishing 10% energy use via alternative sources by the year 2015.

Hawaii: It must first be noted that approximately 25% of this state’s gross state product is a direct result of tourism. Hawaii has great concerns over their natural resources and the environment. They produce the least toxic waste annually and have the best score for 2 air quality measurements. In addition, Hawaii holds a ranking of # 6 in their energy savings programs combined with the policies.

Nevada: There may be a reason Nevada ranks so low on the water pollution scale; mainly because it is an arid/dry state. Nevada does rank well in the production of alternative energy due to their 2nd highest ranking in geothermal and solar photovoltaic energy. While the state may have lower levels of pollution and great scores in alternative energy Nevada ranks just a tad above an average score when it comes to the topic of policy initiatives.

New Hampshire: Low in pollution, New Hampshire ranks as the 4th lowest in harmful pollution via particles in the nation. They rank # 5 in toxic exposure and they have the 4th lowest level of waterways developmental toxins. New Hampshire also ranks as the 5th lowest for the release of toxins affecting reproduction and 5th lowest in the release of any chemicals that are cancer causing.

Maine: This state can claim that their energy use is almost at the fifty percentile from renewable sources. Main has the largest renewable energy source from non-hydroelectric. The state has the biggest percentage of timberland in the U.S. so it may not be a surprising fact that wood and wood waste offer the largest portion of their energy sources.

Vermont: A key factor to note for Vermont is that it has both the lowest GDP and the 2nd smallest population in the U.S. This then creates an understandable situation where they have less pollution than many of the other states. Vermont has the least amount of cardinogenic toxin releases and the smallest of carbon footprints as compared to any other state. Vermont ranks in the top 15 in twenty out of 28 categories for green efforts. They have numerous policies for the promotion of efficiency and pollution reduction

There are a surprising number of companies cropping up all over the world that are taking advantage of reclaimed wood. A reclaimed wood product is finding incredible popularity becauseit is not taken from a living tree and therefore no forests are harmed in the process.
Reclaimed is one of the ecology hot key terms these days. Reclaiming, in its simplest explanation means reusing. There are specific certifications that are required; however it’s not a norm as a requirement in the decorative wood industry. Reclaiming wood can come from a number of sources: existing homes or buildings as well as fallen trees in the forests and even floating logs in lakes and rivers. Artists that specialize in wood working are now seeking out companies that offer reclaimed wood and home builders looking to keep their new house ecologically balanced are using reclaimed wood for both structural supports as well as internal esthetics.Reclaimed wood that has been previously used in construction will often have a used look. Some areas may appear where nails were hammered into the wood; some may have remnants of glue. A more worn or used look has become popular for its esthetics.

There are companies around the world that are reclaiming wood that simply did not continue to grow due to natural and man made situations or disasters. These can include floods, storms, droughts and even acid rain. The wood is completely usable, just not continuing in its growth.There are newer companies that are taking the concept of reclaimed wood to another level. These companies are locating viable wood that is in swamps and tropical areas where an overabundance has fallen.You might be surprised at some of the locations that have reclaimed wood. The distressed look has become popular for wood floors and ceilings as well as wall linings in many restaurants and standard places of business. A number of companies specialize in using reclaimed wood for a variety of furniture styles as well as counter tops. The appeal for a more antique appearance may have become somewhat in vogue, but the use of the wood is a good method of recycling or reuse.
It doesn’t take a stretch of the imagination to assume that the concept of supply-and-demand has also created less than reputable companies. These companies will often take newer wood, create a distressed or antique appearance and make an attempt to sell the product(s) as reclaimed wood. If you are looking for reclaimed wood or products made of reclaimed wood, be sure to research the company that you are buying from.

There is only one main downside when using reclaimed wood that has been taken from previous or older building structures. The drawback is that the wood may have been chemically treated as well as contain embedded nails. The nails make the wood more difficult to plane but the chemical treating can contain toxins. Reliable reclaimed wood companies will have a complete source list of where their wood came from, the approximate year the structure was built and should disclose any chemical treatments in structures of that age.

Reclaimed wood has surpassed what is called a resurgence and is now a part of the global recycling and reusing function of our daily lives; offering the beauty of nature without the destruction of forests.

Over the last twenty years there has been a hot debate as to whether China should assist in the cost of global pollution. Countries around the world are all jumping on the band wagon to clean up the earth; each with the small or large part that they can play. China, on the other hand, has not been quite as reticent to join. The opinion of the Chinese government seems to have been that they shouldn’t have to pay to clean up a mess that they really didn’t participate in.

You might look at the logic that China presents as a formidable argument against participation in a global pollution problem. However, you also have to know that in 2006, China jumped ahead of the previous stats for the United States as the country with the highest emissions of carbon dioxide; the main gas responsible for global warming. At the same time, the U.S. emissions level decreased. Another key aspect to note is that while China did sign the Kyoto Protocol and the United States did not, they signed with the agreement that there was not a requirement for reduced emissions by developing nations.

The overall explosion of growth in China is unprecedented. As was predicted, the quantity of automobiles in China has increased almost exponentially, adding to the higher rate of pollution. Once the massive economic growth began to occur, China did not have anything in kind of regulatory process in place to coordinate or govern the problems that would follow. Air pollution introduced a demand for more industry and that created scenarios for other types of pollution such as water pollution. The few regulatory fines that are set in place are at such a low payment requirement that the offenders often do not have a problem paying fines.

There is a great level of concern expressed by the Chinese citizens themselves. There has been a thirty percent increase every year of complaints to the problem of pollution within their country, and the Chinese people are trying to turn to their government for answers and results. While it has been slow to respond, internally the government seems to be levying a more serious attitude even in their larger corporate offenders. A few large companies have actually been shut down because of extreme violations.

All of this adds up to the fact that China wasn’t ready for their own growth explosion which tumbled into a financial melt down in any clean up process. One might agree that China shouldn’t have to invest in a financial situation that occurred before their time, but they are in the middle of the quagmire now.

China is currently looking to and working with a number of industrial nations and learning from their past experiences. There is growing interest in China in the solar power industry as a major answer to the high demand for power. The role that China plays may add a benefit when they combine power with the United States in the development of technologies that will assist in the reduction of gases and resources that contribute to global warming. There are excellent potential advantages for the U.S. to work with China so that the two countries that are contributing the most pollutants can reduce the effect in joint ventures. Other recommendations for areas that China could work toward would be the pursuit of electric or alternative fuel vehicles. This would help to eliminate China’s dependency on oil and fossil fuels.

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_China’s_economic_responsibilities_for_climate_change_mitigation

The topic of sustainability has been bantered around in the last few years, but very few people actually know what it means. Most understand that it is something that is good for the earth and our environment, but can’t quite wrap their arms around how they can adapt to sustainability in their own lives.

In today’s green world, sustainability actually follows the life guidelines of the Native Americans. While the white man invaded, took over, owned and destroyed, Native Americans understood that they were temporary stewards and must care for nature. Sustainability means blending harmony and dignity with nature; living within the environment while not causing damaging effects to the current and future existence; A blend of existing functionality with the economy in a non-intrusive manner; treating the community as an actual living entity with a balance in economic, human and natural; viewing our daily lives in a longer term concept and examining each effect on how it may change or harm the future; respect in all aspects of daily life.

This sounds wonderful, but can a society such as ours, with the intensity of waste, actually accomplish sustainability? There are many things that we can do every day that can help and, if enough people participate it can make a difference.

Sustainability in industry is the first major impact. Companies are beginning to realize that investing in sustainable functions and products are actually good for business. People will support and buy products from corporations that have a sustainable focus but it also has an incredible return-on-investment for their bottom line. In essence, it pays for a company to be sustainable. As consumers, we can support this attitude by buying products that offer a sustainable effort.

Products that are considered sustainable can be everything from shoes to vehicles. There are many websites that list these kinds of products and the manufacturers that make them. What you should be looking for is: organic cotton-based, bamboo and alternative wood-based, organic clothing listed as alternative (non-man made)-based; organic and Fair Trade; wool sourced directly from sheep on sustainable farms; hemp-based products; soy-based products; sweatshop-free based companies; clothing that isn’t treated with the chemicals that include toxins; containers made with recycled materials; vegetable-based products; local farm market produce; soaps made from recycled and natural oils; fragrance-free products; natural botanicals; cruelty-free products ensure no animals were harmed in the production; organic composts and fertilizers for the garden; organic pesticide products; natural bee farm honeys and waxes; recycled building materials for the home; organic plasters and building products; natural paints that are toxin-free; energy saving technologies that were produced by a sustainable manufacturer; household cleaners made from botanicals and non-toxic ingredients; planters, outdoor and indoor furniture that contain recycled or bamboo-based materials. If you are looking for organic and Fair Trade, make sure it says USDA Certified Organic and has the official Fair Trade label.

This is just a partial list as it continues on to just about everything in our lives. More companies are proclaiming their concern for the environment and are proudly touting their sustainable efforts. If you thought you had to go to specialty stores to buy and support these products, you are wrong. They are appearing in mass quantities in just about every major retail and chain store location.

All you have to do is be aware and look at the labels and packaging. Choose the product, service or company that shows they are sustainable. If you are in doubt, there is a plethora of information on the net for you to investigate as to the viability of the company itself.

Sources:
http://www.sustainabilitystore.com/sustainable.html

Our Western culture seems to be enamored with bottled water. Whether fresh from the spring or just out of the tap, it seems to be an easy method in our quasi race to be healthy.
You have probably seen some of the television and online commercials displaying the massive quantity of plastic bottles that this love affair is producing. In our attempt at complying with the medical reason to drink water, we have taken this topic to excess (as usual) and we are producing a major pollutant that is rising as a priority environmental problem.

According to WWF (World Wildlife Fund) we manufacture billions of tons of plastic every year for the plastic bottles that we carry around with us. While many of us accomplish our due diligence to recycle these bottles, most do not. We therefore see these bottles everywhere: in landfills, on the streets, in the parks and in our lakes and oceans. It is estimated that around 86% of the oceanic pollution is currently plastic. The problem is so bad that there are now ‘islands’ of plastic, linked together, floating in the oceans. In addition, there are large quantities of energy and polluting related manufacturing needed to make these bottles. Since they are a petroleum product, we are inducing a continued need for oil. All in the name of drinking the required ounces of water every day. In landfills, the resins and BPA can leak into the environment, the water system and combine to make a toxic cocktail. Something to note is that the process of recycling the plastic takes far less in green house emissions than the actual production of the bottles.

You might think that it would be a good idea to just wash out your water bottle and reuse it. Unfortunately, that’s a bad idea. These bottles contain phthalates which degrade as the age of the bottle increases and actually adds this chemical to the water itself. Millions of water bottles are aging everywhere, and, unless recycled are actually causing a major environmental impact.

An alternative concept that is becoming more popular is to purchase the reusable portable water bottles. Why we need these bottles to be produced in a variety of decorator colors and designs is beyond me, but, one supposes it is to encourage people to buy them because they are attractive. Repackaged as ‘sports bottles’, a down side to that is again, what the bottle is made of. Most contain BPA (Bisphenol A) which is used in the manufacturing of plastic bottles. The studies and reports vary on the toxicity of BPA, but it comes down to the higher the quantity in the plastic bottle, the more of a serious health concern it is.

We need to make a complete turn around about our obsession with bottled water. As a culture, we are going to destroy the environment unless we make this change. There are BPA free and environmentally safe water (or sports) bottles that are being manufactured by companies that are also environmentally conscious. Yes, they are a bit more costly, but an investment in just one of these bottles can pay for itself.

Filtered water has already been proven to actually be healthier than the bottled water we are so fond of purchasing. The filters are now made to remove many more of the chemicals and minerals that are commonly found in tap water. The answer is fairly simple: purchase a BPA Free, environmentally friendly water bottle and a high quality filter – and you have an unlimited resource for healthy water: just turn on the tap!

http://www.allaboutwater.org/environment.html
http://www.iwma.com/programs-events/Impact%20of%20Plastic.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/166320-negative-effects-of-plastic-bottles-on-the-environment/

According to a global risk assessment company called Maplecroft, it is mostly developing nations that pertain to countries with the most natural disasters risk. This is mainly due to the fact that they have fragile infrastructure to begin with and their healthcare is not prepared enough to deal with the aftermath of a natural disaster. This is why they are most susceptible to natural disaster risk and deaths that result.

The British assessment company used a variety of factors when compiling the ranking of natural disaster risk for 229 nations and territories since 1980. These factors include the likelihood and frequency of such catastrophes and the number of annual deaths resulting from them. The types of natural disasters analyzed include tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, flooding, earthquakes, landslides, droughts, epidemics, extreme temperatures, and general storms.

According to these factors, the countries with the most natural disasters are as follows:
1) Haiti
2) Mozambique
3) Bangladesh
4) Pakistan
5) Ethiopia
6) Indonesia
7) Honduras
El Salvador
9) Zimbabwe
10) Nicaragua

Developing Countries Are Hardest Hit
It is hardly surprising that Haiti and Mozambique are at the top of the list. The more or less recent earthquake in Haiti resulted in over 300,000 deaths across the country, which was at the top of the index of more than 200 nations. In general, this Caribbean country is located in a high-risk hurricane zone, so all these factors put it in first place. Mozambique has suffered a lot as well, but mainly because of severe flooding and many economic losses. Indonesia deserves its place on the list too, having been hit by the what is considered the deadliest catastrophe of the decade – the 2004 tsunami from the Indian Ocean, resulting in 226,408 deaths.

Developed Countries Not Far Behind
Developed nations are not exempt from natural disasters either. The most vulnerable countries in Europe are deemed to be Italy and France, where some 40,000 deaths resulted from the 2003 and 2006 heat waves. Another high risk country, according to the report, is the United States itself. It was ranked 30th after hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 and resulted in 1836 deaths and massive economic losses amounting to some $45 million. China ranked 26th on the list, and its biggest disaster of the decade was the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which resulted in almost 90,000 deaths. The economic losses of this catastrophe amounted to some $123 billion.

The Low Risk Countries
The countries with the lowest natural disaster risk and frequency were found to be Kuwait, Iraq, and Finland. Climate scientists from the UN stress that global warming will continue to bring more and more disasters around the world in the form of heat waves, floods, landslides and powerful storms.

The word pesticide has become a nasty term, and rightly so. While one or two generations enjoyed attractive fruits and vegetables they were closer to the apple from the story of Sleeping Beauty. Laced with toxins that harm the body, the pesticide chemicals that were at one time freely sprayed are frowned upon today. If you think that we are pesticide free, you are wrong, the chemicals are still there and the caution remains the same.

If you use a lawn company and they put a sign on your lawn to caution animals and children after they spray. You might want to get a list of the chemicals they are dumping on your grass. According to the EPA there are about twenty eight pesticides used for home, food and general pest control. Of these, approximately forty percent are listed in the category of concern for health of humans including probably or possible carcinogens.

350 million pounds per year are sprayed, dabbed, dumped or washed onto surfaces that we touch, walk on and even eat. There have been studies of a selection of nineteen pesticides and eighteen of those chosen showed test results showed health effects on humans including: headaches, skin irritation, eye irritation, fatigue, respiratory tract problems, vomiting and dizziness. All side effects are completely dependent upon the exposure level of a pesticide, but, a sensitive individual can have health effects with smaller quantities of pesticides. These same nineteen were also listed as potential hazards for genetic problems, birth defects and possible increase for the risk of cancer.

Pesticides may be a deterrent for the little roaches, ants and critters but they are also getting on the feet of our children as well as our beloved pets. The pets return home, walk throughout the house and spread the pesticide residue. The children walk on it and now they are contaminated. Our pets lick their paws and now they have ingested the toxins.

Areas that have a lot of rain and good drainage will probably find pesticides have drained into the water systems. If there are layers of natural drainage such as rocks, sand and undergrowth, this will reduce the parts per million pesticides count in a naturally refining method. There are farming communities around the world that have opted for natural or alternative pest deterrents and continue to run the water through a natural filter. This removes any fertilizer residues, even if they are organic.

One of the major problems with pesticides is that they do not remain where they are sprayed. This is called pesticide drift. Many people that have opted for growing their own organic produce in their yard may be shocked to find out that the pesticide the neighbor had sprayed on their lawn has drifted to the tomatoes that are being so carefully (and organically) tended. Pesticide drift is well known by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and it has led to restrictions of spraying of some of the chemicals anywhere near schools or any medical institution.

A pretty and green lawn with few bugs as well as perfect fruits and vegetables seems to be so highly valued in our culture that we will risk ourselves, our children and our animals. The smart consumer is becoming fully aware of these risks and opting for natural and green lawn treatments and organic produce raised in controlled environments

There is a cost for perfection, but using toxic pesticides is too high of a price to pay.

Scientists around the globe pretty much rally to the call that yes Virginia, global warming is indeed a reality. Those of us on the side of ecology for the last thirty years have been saying a simple message: we can’t continue to dump pollutants in and on Mother Earth faster than she can naturally clean them up. And as we all know, it’s not nice to make Mothers mad. With all of the statistics, study and results-driven charts, there are still some nay-sayers that believe global warming is simply a myth.

The first thing that must really be called to everyone’s attention is that the topic of global warming is not just about harming the earth and us; it’s about the business of big business. There are billions of dollars at stake in the corporate world regarding the topic of global warming and many of those dollars will go into the red if this is a reality. So before we go any further, we must always ask who the doubters are and if they have any hidden agendas.

In more recent years, one of the top excuses used by those that doubt the existence of global warming is the release of some questionable scientific studies. Both the numbers submitted and the reasons the scientists took the side of such a radical supposition became the torch that was raised and in turn promoted to raise doubt about global warming altogether. A number of right wing organizations (mostly made up of engineers and big business corporate suits) have used this torch to lay waste to anyone that brings the topic of global warming up.

A second and more prevalent selection of reasoning behind the ‘global warming isn’t real’ stand is contained in the natural changes that occur on the earth. Scientists have pulled ice from the deepest areas of the poles to show a real ebb and flow of climate change that does naturally occur. Those that don’t believe in global warming, point to the natural changes with an attitude of self-confidence. The only problem is, these changes usually take thousands of years to happen and they are actually happening now in a frighteningly close range. Many scientists are now quite concerned that the marketing efforts of those that don’t believe in global warming will cause a significant delay in actions needed to reverse the process.

The decision of the U.S. Government as a non-participate in the Kyoto meetings on climate change carries a lot of weight. One doesn’t need a magnifying glass to figure this out, as big business seems to have its investments in high places. Meanwhile the temperature is increasing world wide. Yes, it is increasing on a minute level, but every increase in temperature has a catastrophic effect.

The United Nations sponsored an individual scientific study that included eight different nations. The resulting information dictated that global warming was causing the polar caps to melt so badly and at such a quick rate that large sections of the polar caps will be completely gone by the end of this century.

There may have been some convoluted studies that were indeed blended with the real facts, but it seems that there may be some hidden agendas, financially based, that have decided to risk all of our lives and the lives of future generations. Whether you believe it or not – it really just makes sense to stop the pollution. Only time will tell if we have taken it too far to reverse.

I first became aware of the topic of drugs in the water system about six years ago. One of the local students had submitted a school science project for the science fair which examined the amount of estrogen that was contained in the city water. The project was conducted so well that the county used her information to create their own analysis of all pharmaceuticals contained in the water. The final statistics of the study was pretty astounding. Yes, there are drugs in the water system.

Many counties and states have created their own research teams to continue the direction of finding out exactly what pharmaceuticals are in drinking water and why. The Associated Press also started their own individual study and found a surprising amount of drugs in a variety of drinking sources. One might envision people simply dumping their medication down the drain, but a vast majority of the pharmaceuticals are simply from people taking their medication and having it leave their bodies naturally. When the toilet is flushed, it includes left over meds from the body. Since most areas are accomplishing the cleaning of reclaimed water, not all of those drugs are being removed.

So exactly which drugs are found in drinking water? The most popular drugs, of course. It depends on your area and the population age. Prescriptions vary by age as to what is taken as a priority ‘top ten’ drug. Since the Federal Government doesn’t have any regulations established for the amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water (yet), each county is left to their own budgets to figure out how to filter out the drugs.

Standard home filters are not usually set up to filter out at the pharmaceutical level in parts per million, so you aren’t even safe using a tap filter. Much of the bottled water is taken directly from springs, lakes and yes – even just from filtered tap-water. Drugs have been found in lakes and reservoirs all over the nation. So now we are not only adding pharmaceuticals that we don’t need to our own bodies, we have managed to infiltrate into nature and are giving the wild animals the drugs as well.

However, the journey of medication doesn’t stop there. As large corporate ranches and farms continue to inject animals with hormones, the waste byproduct from these animals is given off and enters the water system as well.

Reverse osmosis is one of the few water filtration systems that do remove drugs from water. Many counties and states are adding these types of filtration systems as an extra precaution. But retrofitting all of the water filtration in the area is both costly and time consuming.

The pharmaceutical industry does not see any problems associated with the small amounts of added drugs in the water system. However, at a number of conferences, information and research is being released that demonstrate there are definite damaging effects being seen in both embryonic as well as wildlife results. From cancer to slow growth of kidney cells, the added drugs in our water systems over such a long period of time are taking their toll on life in general.