Sleeping in an Eco-Friendly Bed

by Steve Graham

You could be saving the planet in your sleep, or at least minimizing the impact of your mattress on the planet. Eco-friendly mattresses differ from the standard bed in that they use greener materials and fewer chemicals, and are recyclable.

Materials

The visible outer layer of a typical mattress is made of polyester, which may also be blended with cotton. Polyester is typically petroleum-based and non-biodegradable. Greener manufacturers stick to organic cotton or wool.

The squishy stuff under the cover is often polyurethane and polyester quilting and padding surrounding wire coils. Arguably the most eco-friendly mattresses on the market replace all this metal and petroleum-based padding with a core of natural rubber latex.

Flobeds is one of the leaders in natural latex mattresses, but several competitors have entered the natural latex market. Flobeds makes customized beds using three layers of latex in varying firmnesses. The latex is made with no petrochemicals from sustainably harvested, natural and renewable rubber trees.

There also are standard mattresses with some green credibility. The Pure Echo mattress has a standard spring system, but uses organic cotton and natural wool instead of synthetic fibers or standard cotton.

Chemicals

The Pure Echo and natural latex mattresses also have fewer chemicals than most standard alternatives.

Polyurethane foam emits volatile organic compounds that have been linked to respiratory diseases and skin irritation. Some brands of memory foam are known for the heavy chemical smell of these VOCs and other materials off-gassing in the mattress.

In addition, many mattresses are treated with chemical pesticides and flame retardants that may also be dangerous to both your health and the environment. Some major mattress manufacturers have phased out toxic flame retardants, replacing them with wool and other more natural flame barriers.

Moreover, without any of these chemicals, rubber latex is naturally hypo-allergenic, and free of dust mites, mold and mildew.

Lifecycle

The future use of your mattress materials is as important as their history. A more durable mattress is more eco-friendly. Even a traditional mattress full of chemicals and polyester earns some eco-friendly points if it lasts longer than the 5-year expected lifespan of some cheap mattresses.

That’s because it’s difficult to reduce, reuse or recycle a used mattress. Many thrift stores don’t accept used mattresses, and used mattresses can be less than desirable. They may be soiled or infested with bedbugs. Even landfills may be reluctant to accept mattresses because mattress springs can damage their compactors.

There are a few mattress-recycling companies, including St. Vincent De Paul in California and Oregon, and Nine Lives Mattress Recycling in South Carolina. St. Vincent De Paul claims it can recycle about 85 percent of the mattress, including most of the cotton, steel and wood, but options are limited for recycling polyester and some other materials. Also, it can be expensive to get the mattress to these recyclers.

Again, rubber latex offers a better option. It is completely biodegradable and even compostable. When I bought my Flobed mattress, they sent latex samples, which I fed to my compost worms. It took a few months, but the worms ate the latex.

If you want to reduce your environmental footprint in the bedroom, look for a biodegradable natural latex mattress with organic cotton and wool, and minimal chemicals.

Eco-Friendly Planet

Respect your planet and do your bit for nature. Here's how you can help save Mother Earth.

At the office Are you buying a new printer for the office? There are numerous printers now that have the option of printing on both sides of the paper. It makes sense in investing in these printers for the office, where print volumes are so high.

How many of us turn off our computer monitors when we leave for a meeting, or when we go to lunch? Don't shut down the computer if you don't want to, but at the very least, switch off the monitor. Get your child into the habit of switching off the monitor of the computer every time he steps out of the room, if he's going to be gone for more than ten minutes.


When travelling

Make it a point to turn off all the lights before leaving your hotel room. Many of us don't really bother doing this, since we feel "We're paying for staying in the room, right? So lets run up the electricity bill really high!" No one will benefit from your leaving on the lights when you're not in the room, and the greatest harm will be born by the planet!

If you are planning to travel to a relatively untouched destination, try to avoid carrying things that you will throw away a few days after reaching. Although the temptation to carry disposable items on holiday is always there, it is far better if you bring all your rubbish back with you, and dispose it off in your own home. Many travel destinations may not have adequate recycling facilities, and they soon start sinking under the load of excessive tourism. And if you must dispose off some rubbish, do so responsibly. Throw any rubbish you may have, in a bin. Don't litter, and be especially careful about disposing rubbish when you are on the beach, in the forest, or in some other natural habitat.

Tourism as an activity can cause a lot of harm to the environment, the culture and the eco-system of a place, so bear this in mind. Respect the sensibilities of the people that dwell in the villages you may be visiting.


Personal habits

Someone's birthday coming up? Instead of purchasing a paper card, simply send an e-greeting, and follow up with a telephone call. Never forget the adage - save paper, save a tree. With the millions of people engaged worldwide in conservation activities, it seems a shame if we don't do our little bit to help the environment in whatever small way we can.

Avoid buying fruits and vegetables that are not in season, or that are not produced locally. If you make it a rule to purchase only locally made food items, it will save on immense transportation costs and fuel. In addition, local economy will see a boost.

Avoid the temptation of buying little plastic Ziplocs or plastic containers to store food in. Instead, store food in ceramic containers. Also, when preparing your child's tiffin, don't wrap his chapatti or sandwiches in tinfoil. If you must, use a thin muslin cloth instead.

10 New Eco-Friendly Travel Gadgets

Biodegradable laptops, solar-powered batteries, cell phones made from recycled materials, and more.
By Scott Steinberg

Call us cranky, jealous of yesteryear’s freewheeling jet-setters, or just plain old-fashioned, but these days, “getting away from it all“ just doesn’t feel the same. Courtesy of 2008’s ADD-afflicted world of buzzing BlackBerries, text-messaging iPhones, and jangling Bluetooth headsets, even pleasure seekers can seldom afford to unplug from the grid.

With 71 percent of Americans determined to shrink their carbon footprint, but only 18 percent of the nation’s annual 2.5 million tons of consumer electronics waste being recycled, what’s today’s eco-enlightened traveler to do?Happily for those tired of getting the stink eye every time they innocently whip out their Treo or MacBook Air, the answer is simple: geek out the green way!

Increasingly biodegradable, constructed from natural materials, and Energy Star compliant, a new breed of environmentally friendly gadgets promises to offer eco-conscious travelers simple, feel-good solutions. From sustainable hard drives and bamboo-encased laptops to solar-charged video players, H2O-powered timepieces, and memory cards that upload pixel-perfect snapshots straight from quaint Parisian bistros and glistening Norwegian fjords, the future’s sealed in silicon. Even for self-described IT fetishists, there are more ways than ever to cut back on pollution and synthetic waste without cutting the cord.

See our slideshow of the 10 New Eco-Friendly Travel Gadgets.
Don’t mistake it for another tree-hugging fad. Over the past three years, a genuine sea change has quietly been reshaping the fundamentals of high-tech business, and electronics manufacturers are rapidly cleaning up their act. Meanwhile, ballooning public pressure has resulted in groundbreaking initiatives like the EPA’s Plug-In to eCycling program, which has recycled 95-plus million pounds of e-waste since 2003.

To put things in perspective: six out of every ten American households own a digital camera; nearly eight, a mobile phone. And with the consumer electronics industry expected to grow 10 percent to more than $700 billion total by 2009, and 17 percent of holiday shoppers willing to pay more for eco-friendly gifts (according to Deloitte & Touche), well...the future is looking green.

Your first order of business as a responsible traveler, though?Toss that old Polaroid and Reagan-era brick of a cellular handset. (Fun fact: recycling 100 million phones generates enough energy to power 194,000 homes for an entire year.) Best Buy, Staples, and Sam’s Club stores, and even the U.S. Postal Service, have trade-in and recycle programs.

All that extra scratch and good karma will serve you well in your efforts to appease Mother Nature by way of a 21st-century upgrade. Because the next time your spouse complains about you forgoing a night at the opera in favor of copping one of the following deliciously shiny time-sinks?You can look them straight in the eye, gasp, and sputter in semi-convincing outrage, “But, honey, it’s an investment in mankind’s future!”

The Truth About CFLs: Is the Toxic Mercury They Contain Safe for the Environment?

Jasmine Greene

For years, compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) have been touted as the green altenative to incandescent bulbs. But are they truly better for the planet?
Incandescent bulbs are extremely inefficient—90% of the energy they require generates heat while only 10% becomes light. Much of that wasted energy unnecessarily contributes to global warming. And with lighting accounting for 20% of residential electricity, incandescents bump up home energy bills.
CFLs, on the other hand, produce the same amount of light as incandescent bulbs but use only a quarter of the energy. This makes them popular with many folks who care about the Earth. Others, however, worry that the toxic mercury they contain will find its way into our environment and our bodies.
The CFL alternative has been around since the 1930s, but CFLs have not been popular for several reasons. The original models gave off a greenish and not a yellow or white light like incandescents. (This is moot as they now come in a variety of colors.) They take slightly longer to turn on and don’t work with dimmer switches. And, in rare cases, they can interfere with cordless phones, radios and remote controls.
The main objection, however, has been their higher cost. They are more expensive, but they last years longer and reduce electric bills (saving as much as $47 over the life of a CFL), so their overall cost is less than for incandescents.
The question here, however, is not if CFLs save homeowners money, but if they are good for the environment. And we'd better settle this question soon. After all, many countries will be outlawing the sale of incandescent lights within the next decade: Canada has called for a ban by 2012, Australia by 2010 and the US by 2014.
While using CFLs will allow people to decrease their energy consumption, a good start to decreasing greenhouse emissions, the main problem is the mercury they contain. Mercury is extremely toxic to humans in even the most minute amounts, but it’s central to the functioning of CFLs.
A CFL is filled with a gas that fluoresces when in its excited state. This gas then produces a UV ray that reacts with mercury and a phosphorescent chemical to create visible light. While CFLs contain only five milligrams of mercury, even such a small quantity can be deadly.
Ironically, incandescent bulbs—although not containing mercury—add more mercury to the environment than CFLs. The reason, according to Wendy Reed, manager of the EPA Energy Star program, is that coal plants are the largest source of mercury emissions in the air and incandecents, as noted, require much more energy—mostly coal-produced in this country—than CFLs.
One of the other major issues dealing with the mercury in CFLs revolves around disposal and recycling. While people never had to worry about tossing incandescents in the trash, CFLs must be disposed of properly, otherwise the mercury can leech into the soil or groundwater.
Many US counties and cities offer a collection/exchange program for mercury-containing devices, but they are not always readily available. Some stores have taken the initiative, such as Home Depot and Ikea, and started in-store CFL recycling programs, The EPA is pressuring more large retailers to start similar disposal/recycling programs.
Overall, while the mercury in CFLs can pollute the air, water and soil if not properly disposed of, on balance the huge energy savings make CFLs the environmentally friendly choice. And the future is bright for CFLs. Some manufacturers have created bulbs that have less mercury, and states such as Maine are beginning to require this legally.
Beyond the mercury levels, one of the growing concerns of switching over to CFLs has been the increased levels of UV radiation from these bulbs. In early October 2008, the British Health Agency (HPA) investigated CFLs and found that nine out of 53 bulbs emitted unacceptable levels of UV radiation at a proximity of 12 inches or less and for a period of more than one hour per day. Not only that, but those suffering from lupus or other problems caused by the sun are especially susceptible to such UV exposure. The HPA suggests enclosed or globe CFLs for any applications where UV exposure is a concern; the extra enclosure is enough to absorb excess UV. While most people are not in contact with CFLs at such close proximity and for long periods of time, those with CFL desk lamps or who work continuously around these bulbs should take extra precaution to cover the lights.
While some folks are still reluctant to embrace CFLs because of their mercury, UV radiation or cost, the majority of US companies and people have now cottoned to the energy-saving fluorescent bulb thanks to its ability to reduce both their electric bills and greenhouse emissions. After all, who among us can say “no” to saving both money and the environment?

Why You Ought To Acquire Eco Friendly Clothing

There are more than just the most apparent reasons why eco friendly clothing has grown to become more fashionable or 'trendy', if you will. The thing is, eco friendly clothing has started to come in production many, many years ago by utilizing "nature's wonder fabric", often known as hemp. Truth be told I don't know why not all clothing manufacturers produce eco friendly clothing, because it's stronger, tougher and a lot affordable than clothing fabricated from wool or cotton, for example..

You might also be thinking the same, which if eco friendly clothing is really so great, why isn't everybody producing and selling hemp clothing? Well, as might or may not be aware, the initial popular label of eco friendly clothing, or hemp clothing, was Levi's jeans in the 60's. Levi's quickly became known for its durability and strength and vanquished most of the competition in the jeans and clothing industry, despite being considerably higher priced versus the rest of their competitors. There was a ban placed on the fabric recognized as hemp after the whole hippie epidemic as government made hemp illegal because a vast majority of folks would smoke hemp, which is another word for cannabis..

A couple of years later studies revealed that hemp was "nature's wonder fabric" which led to the government's allowance to work with the material again to manufacture garments. Since hemp grows quickly and almost anywhere, it really is very affordable option for big clothing companies to employ in the creation of their garments. Added to that, the fibers are totally impervious to any damaging weather effects so they don't rot and tear, unlike cotton or wool. All these factors make hemp the ultimate environmentally friendly clothing fabric.

Nowadays eco friendly clothes are more famous than ever. The fact that they are environmentally friendly, sturdy and most likely only half as expensive as garments made out of other materials has made them a preferred item, especially in younger societies. The reasons why these garments are obtainable at such discount prices is because they could be produced in bulk. Since hemp is so abundant there is never a shortage of the product making it easy to produce tons of garments out of it. This ends up in affordable prices which are in turn passed on to you. So you see, not only does the environment benefit from hemp garments, consumers do as well.

Hemp clothing is quite a bit cheaper, lasts longer and doesn't get damaged or deteriorate as time goes by. Why would you buy clothing made out of another material?

>

Article Source Earth Articles Green Directory

Ecotourism Challenging Traditional Luxury Reservation Industry

By Peter I. Wilson

While the term "ecotourism" is tossed around quite loosely in the travel and tourism industry, the roots of the word and the concept are not so widely known. According to most records, a man named Hector Ceballos-Lascurain came up with the word to help define the concept of environmentally sensitive travel.

In the concept, nature is the focus of travel that takes individuals and groups to often-remote locations. These destinations have long been off the regular routes of most recreational tourism. In the past, when a tourist made a reservation at a traditional mass tourism stop, there was little or no thought given to the natural resources involved or the environment that was impacted.

But with ecotourism the destinations are generally undisturbed by the activities of human beings. The natural resources and the unique local culture are the primary focus of the trip, along with education that will help the traveler understand the location and its characteristics more fully. In slightly more than two decades, the idea of ecotourism, first labelled by Ceballos-Lascurain, has become a significant sector in the tourist industry. In the process, the fragility of nature has become more widely understood and travelers are more likely to view and appreciate a destination with out exploiting its treasures.

A portion of the world's population will continue to seek out the finest of accommodations and another sector will search for the best prices on excursions that have only enjoyment as a goal. But a growing number of people want something more, though not in the way of treasures or thrills. These ecotourism enthusiasts want to travel to places of natural beauty, but want their visit to have a minimum impact on the environment. These travelers do not care to bring back samples of natural treasures.

As more people take part in this new way, the general public will become more aware of the environment and the need for protecting it. This can be a positive thing, if the ecotourism is planned well and managed very well. Local populations can benefit financially from managed growth of ecotourism, but may suffer if the projects are not put together carefully.

What does ecotourism mean now, more than two decades after the idea entered the public consciousness? In the simplest terms, it means being enlightened about the need to protect natural resources and delicate cultures. Beyond this, it means taking this knowledge along when traveling, putting into action the ideas and beliefs that ecotourism teaches.

Travelers can get plenty of experience with local cultures and with the natural habitat that surrounds an ecotourism destination. But in the process these tourists can also help promote responsible tourism by interacting with local populations in a respectful manner, and when leaving the location, taking only memories and photographs.

As ecotourism grows, it will become even more important that human beings have little or no impact on nature. Travelers heading to remote and often exotic places will bring back stories of wonderful experiences. This positive marketing, by word of mouth, will increase the number of tourists wanting to try ecotourism. Countries will recognize the economic potential of this industry and will begin developing projects that highlight natural resources and interesting cultural activities.

Indeed, much of this growth is already taking place. Ecotourism is, by many counts, the fastest growing sector of the tourism market. Increasing numbers of tourists are choosing this alternative to traditional mass tourism and recreational tourism.

How Airlines Can Become Eco-Friendly

By Chris Cooke

Reducing the environmental impact of jet travel is no easy task for airlines.
When it comes to the airline industry, it is definitely not easy being green. By its very nature, jet aviation is extremely hard on the environment. Every commercial airplane you see taxiing around the airport spends an average of 8–14 hours airborne every day of its service life. Depending on the airline, the average service life of an aircraft is about 20 years. Jet aircraft burn enormous quantities of carbon-producing fossil fuel (although modern high-bypass jet engines burn significantly less fuel than earlier turbojet models)

Idiling and trailing
Think about all of those times you’ve sat there impatiently, waiting for takeoff—then imagine how often this happens all over the world. Some airports regularly experience waits of up to an hour for planes to take off, and most aircraft have many, if not all, of their engines idling during that time. Not only are these long ground times hard on the environment, but they’re also expensive. Then, to make matters worse, the majority of the engines’ exhaust is deposited where aircraft spend most of their time: at high altitudes.

We have all seen those trails of white clouds (called contrails) left behind by the engines of aircraft operating at high altitude. The contrails deposit moisture into the atmosphere and are created by the hot exhaust gasses as they rapidly cool. This moisture turns into ice crystals and is thought to trap more of the earth’s heat from escaping into the upper atmosphere. To tackle this contrail problem, testing work is being done to increase the efficiency of jet engines at lower altitudes. If aircraft were outfitted with such engines, pilots wouldn’t have to fly at the higher altitudes where contrails are produced. Unfortunately, there are also other considerations, such as weather at the lower altitudes where aircraft are more affected by turbulence.

Carbon Emissions
The airline industry releases an incredible amount of carbon into the atmosphere on a daily basis. Annually, this figure amounts to more than 500 million tons of CO 2, which represents 2–3 percent of the world’s total carbon emissions. Those emissions are growing rapidly as emerging economies expand and modernize across the globe, offering travel to greater numbers of their citizens. In addition, take a look at all the ground support vehicles and the associated infrastructure needed to support the airline and its operation. Rarely will you find an electric ground support vehicle—most are powered by gasoline, diesel, natural gas or some other type of fossil fuel.

Cleanliness Helps
Dirty airplanes contribute to the pollution problem as well, but not in the ways you might imagine. Some airlines don’t do very well at keeping the exteriors of their aircraft clean, especially the belly area, where large amounts of grease and dirt accumulate. This buildup increases the skin friction underneath the aircraft, so more power (fuel burn) is needed to propel the airplane through the air. Imagine the problem as akin to having the hull of a ship covered in barnacles. Imagine how much harder the engines would have to work to push that ship through the water. While this may seem insignificant on an individual aircraft basis, multiply it by the thousands of airplanes flying each day, and the scope of the problem becomes clear.

Seeking Solutions
From a pilot’s perspective, we have very little control over lessening the impact our industry has on the environment. We can do small things, such as reducing APU (auxiliary power unit) usage while at the gate and taxiing out with fewer engines running, if possible. But our goal is to provide our passengers with a comfortable experience from the moment they enter the aircraft to the moment they step off. Occasionally, the ground crew will forget to connect the external air-conditioning or the units will be broken, and we have to start the APU early to cool the cabin. While the APU doesn’t burn as much as one of the main aircraft engines, it is still a carbon-producing entity.

Industry inefficiencies that have been largely ignored in the past are now being reevaluated in an effort to become more environmentally friendly. Some airlines are taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint with such cutting-edge ideas as laminar flow, blended aerodynamic engineering and the use of composite materials. Most airlines have or are planning to install winglets on their Boeing 737 and 757 fleets, which increases fuel efficiency by about 5 percent. Composite materials are often much stronger than steel and aluminum and weigh considerably less, and a lighter airplane burns less fuel. One airline even has the goal of using alternative sources of fuel derived from sustainable plant sources or algae, then mixing it with existing aviation fuel.

Most airlines still issue updates to their pilot’s aviation publications in paper form, but many in the corporate aviation world download the updates electronically to their laptop computers. The amount of paper wasted every year through the needless issuance of paper approach plates (approach diagrams and airport layouts) and charts twice a month is mind-boggling. Here’s a better idea: Why not install two sets of publications onboard each aircraft, instead of having every pilot carry a set? (There are usually 10–20 pilots for every aircraft in the fleet.) The benefit would be twofold, saving the backs of pilots who lug those heavy flight bags and saving many trees at the same time.

Offset Damage
Carbon offsets are another idea making their slow way through the pipeline. The offsets are voluntary surcharges purchased by any traveling individual and applied to environmentally friendly green projects. For example, let’s say you’re scheduled to fly from London to Los Angeles and determine that your carbon footprint is X. X is then converted to a monetary value and automatically directed to a beneficiary project that will use the money for a “green” undertaking. Projects include reforestation, energy efficiency ventures and renewable energy development. One drawback, however, is making sure that the money actually gets to the proper green enterprise and is spent on its intended beneficiary.

There are ways to save money and our environment simultaneously, but they require forethought and an initial financial commitment with an eye toward future savings. In an industry where consistent profits are rare and oil prices often rise, our priorities have to change if we’re ever going to escape from our established habits and prepare ourselves for a sustainable future.

Simple Green
A few little things I do routinely when traveling:

• Carry small containers of shampoo that I refill at home.

• Take short showers and use only one towel. If I am staying more than one night at a hotel, I’ll ask that the sheets not be changed each day.

• Take a water bottle I’ve previously used and refill it with tap (safe locations only) water for gym use.

• Try not to leave lights on if I’m leaving the room to save electricity.

Eco-Friendly Household Cleaning

Author: Caroline Higgins

As we individually try to turn our households into more “green environments” we often hear conflicting reports on cleaning products and their effectiveness. Despite the confusion, there are many non-toxic, non-polluting products on the market today which can easily replace the products you think you can’t live without. Household cleaners, botanical disinfectants, laundry detergents, recycled paper products and dishwashing are all available in eco-friendly forms.

These green cleaners take a little more scrubbing, but get the job done. According to a spokesman for the National Environmental Trust, "These chemicals make cleaning easier, but they don't make cleaning any better. The largely American tendency toward germ phobia has partly been fueled by advertising that promotes disinfecting cleaners that eradicate all bacteria in sight as the best way to protect your family from germs. But you don't really need to kill the bacteria; you just need to get them off your table.

In fact, disinfectants could do more harm than good to humans. Some chemicals in disinfectant sprays contain a chemical known to damage the reproductive systems in the offspring of pregnant rats, even in small amounts.

Recently, NPR reported that phosphate detergent is the only way to clean your dishes while utilizing your dishwasher. These reports state that non-phosphates detergents ruin dishes, while leaving them gray, often with black spots. Those of us who live the eco-friendly lifestyle, know that phosphates are a strong environmental concern, while non-phosphate alternates are an environmentally healthy alternative.

Some have taken to their blogs to voice their concern, Val from Zero Waste Home Challenges states on her site “I have been using phosphate free dishwasher and laundry soap since the seventies. My dishes are not gray with black spots, they shine, squeak and sparkle and are clean. The detergents I use contain vegetable based detergents with enzymes. Zero chlorine, zero bleach and absolutely no harsh chemicals.”


It’s time to clean out your cupboards and restock with eco-friendly cleaning items and paper products, as we build together a healthy and environmentally sustainable society.

"Green" Area Rugs and Flooring

By Ron Neal

Over the years, a debate has taken place in the flooring industry over the impact its products have on the environment. In 2003, a group of industry researches and technical specialists met at the University of North Carolina to examine the science with regard to the positive or negative attributes of materials found in products like carpeting, area rugs and linoleum.

The panel looked at hundreds of studies in relation to how carpet and non-carpet materials contribute to environmental quality and whether there's a significant concern with toxic substances and allergens alleged to have commonly been found.

The intention of the researchers was to try and settle years of anecdotal evidence and set an industry standard to help buyers and sellers of flooring products. A good portion of the information reviewed came from the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Health Science Libraries, and other previously published industry experts.

A review of all of the literature led to one major conclusion: materials found in flooring "play a significant role to the quality of life indoors." It contributes to healthy design factors, safety, aesthetics, climate control, ergonomics and physical comfort. When maintained properly, carpeting and area rugs are not at all risks to public health.

While the group's conclusion was great news for the industry and the public, it's still necessary to examine flooring's impact on the whole environment, including the part played by rugs and flooring made from natural materials.

Decorating Like Darwin: By Natural Selection

With so many types of area rugs available today, it's hard enough to make a style selection, let alone having to take health and environmental concerns into account. Keeping rugs clean and in good condition will go a long way in alleviating any concerns. Area rugs do have material differences, though. Here's a quick look at natural fiber rugs and other natural flooring:

WOOL RUGS

Water, water everywhere, so keep it away from wool. Water is one of the biggest enemies of wool rugs. Wool, popular in Oriental rugs, has a high moisture regain and is susceptible to microorganism attack. That may sound like the bad plot to a Hollywood horror film or an episode of Fear Factor. Nevertheless, keep something that requires water, like potted plants, off of wool rugs.

Water aside, wool's long, coarse fibers have the ability to maintain indoor air quality and, unlike synthetic fibers, can absorb indoor contaminants. Since discarded carpet accounts for a tremendous amount of waste – 4.7 billion pounds in 2002 according to the EPA – any rug that lasts longer, like a hand-knotted wool rug, is going to get the seal of approval from the Green Party.

JUTE RUGS

Once used primarily as carpet backing, Jute has made it to the big time. As a full-fledged member of the area rug and carpet family, Jute, which ranges from light tans to browns, is one of the finest and softest of natural floor covering materials.

Composed mainly of plant materials, Jute is a rainy season crop that grows best in warm, humid climates like parts of China and India. While it may grow in rainy weather, the Jute rug won't stand up to areas with high moisture levels. Unlike wool, jute is resistant to microorganisms, but the material will in fact deteriorate rapidly when exposed to moisture.

BAMBOO RUGS

Gilligan's Island no longer corners the market on bamboo flooring. You don't need to live in a hut to use this material.

Bamboo, which is also a trend in cutting boards and hardwood floors, has become a popular option for area rugs. And its environmental friendliness is obvious. No trees to cut down, no waste. Bamboo is technically a grass, and moreover a highly renewable resource. Maturing in less than six years, bamboo is harvested over and over from the same plants. Its strength combined with a natural beauty can add a contemporary touch to any living space.

SEAGRASS RUGS

Seagrass is not something you may have thought was illegal. You can't grow it in your backyard, but it does look great in the house. Created from tropical grass mainly imported from China, Seagrass, which only comes in a natural organic green color, is smooth to the touch and extremely durable and stain resistant.

SISAL RUGS

Sisal is another natural fiber that has recently gained popularity among designers. The material is derived from a cactus plant, grown in semi-arid regions liked Brazil and Africa.

Sisal is stronger and more durable than other natural fibers, making its staying power ultra-environment friendly. Water is not Sisal's friend, either. The rug should never be used in the bathroom or other moist areas of the house.

CORK FLOORING

Now you may be thinking how a rug is made from cork? Well, it's not. Cork has been slipped in to this discussion simply because it can be considered a cousin in the natural fiber family. Used as durable hardwood-type flooring, the cork tree is the only one whose bark can regenerate itself after harvest without damaging the tree or the environment. The tree is never killed or cut down and can produce bark for centuries. Furthermore, almost all of its harvested materials are put to use.

Cork is known for its sound environmental policy, and when feet hit the floor, it's known for its durability. Cork may seem elastic when compared to wood, but its "natural memory ability" and resistance to liquid penetration can make it an attractive alternative.

LINOLEUM FLOORING

This is no joke. Linoleum is back. So break out the disco ball and platform shoes. Vinyl nearly sent linoleum to the flooring scrap yard, but just like bell-bottoms, linoleum is making a comeback. It's contemporary and gets the green seal. While vinyl is synthetic and petroleum-based, linoleum is made entirely of natural materials, linseed oil being the main ingredient.

The resurgence of natural and retro products is behind linoleum's rebirth. As a natural product, linoleum can be recycled and is hypoallergenic, which benefits those who suffer from allergies or asthma. Linoleum also contains antibacterial properties that help stop the growth of microorganisms.

Growing Organic In a No Dig Garden

By Judy Williams

Creating no dig gardens on top of the soil gives you many immediate advantages over the usual garden.

. It is quick and easy
. It will improve the soil underneath the bed
. It is weed free and organic

No dig gardens are the quickest, easiest way to get home grown vegetables on your dinner table. No dig gardening consists of layering organic materials on top of the soil to create a nutrient rich environment for your plants, in this case, vegetables. The garden literally composts the materials while feeding the plants.

No matter what your location, no dig vegetable gardens are an option for you. This includes city, country, mountain, plain. They're easy to build (a morning's work!) They're virtually maintenance free. They mirror nature to create a rich, organic environment for your plants. They can be built anywhere, any time to any design.

Gardening is sublime. It is where you can enjoy the wonder of nature close up and personally. No matter where you are. You will need a sunny space and a flat surface. Beyond that, just add a few ingredients and you're on your way. So let's get growing!

While my site has concentrated on the vegetable garden, the same garden building techniques can be used for flower beds, herbs and fruit trees.

Herbs

Herbs can be planted straight into the no dig garden bed. Because of their uses, the herb garden should be situated in a sunny spot very near your kitchen. Then you can simply step out the door and make an ordinary meal into a culinary delight! If there isn't an obvious space handy, herbs will grow very well in containers.

However, if you do have the space, there is a wonderful project called the 'Herb Spiral' you can build. It's extremely space efficient and caters for the various microclimates that herbs like.

It involves building a vertical spiral, usually from rocks, about 6 ft across and 2-3 feet high. The top is quite dry and hot, the bottom is moist and there is a sunny side and a shady side. A garden of this size will need about 1.5 cubic metres of soil or compost materials.

The top is good for Mediterranearn type herbs like rosemary, thyme and sage. The mid sections suit chives, shallots, Italian parsley, tarragon, rocket and coriander. The lower, cooler section suits borage, peppermint, pennywort and lemon balm. These are just suggestions as there are many plants that will grow in your spiral.

Useful note: For those in the Northern hemisphere, the hottest side of your spiral will be facingsouth. For those in the Southern hemisphere, the hottest side of your spiral will be facingnorth.

Flowers and Shrubs

Every garden has some sort of ornamental flowers or shrubs. It's fundamental to our concept of a garden! The no dig gardening method will allow then to thrive no matter where you are.

There isn't the space to go into specifics here, but some simple considerations before you get started...

. Try to plant species that are native to your area. There are many reasons for this but the best one is that those plants will do best where you live! Don't get stuck in a high maintenance routine for something that simply isn't suited to your area.

. Plant species that will attract local fauna. Help struggling native animals, birds, frogs and insects by building suitable habitat for them. You will be rewarded many times over when they discover where you live!

. Plan what you want from your garden. A colour scheme? Flowering year round? What will really thrill and inspire you? That is what the garden is for. It feeds your spirit while you make your way in the world.

Fruit trees

To use the no dig garden method with fruit trees, you have to be patient. The garden will have to be 2-3 generations on before the benefits have gone deep enough for the fruit tree to be planted. However, once the hard yards are done (mostly by local worms!), you should be thinking about planting your own fruit trees.

Apples are the most popular fruit on the planet. Do you recall how the fruit tasted when you were a kid? Nothing like the stuff you get today. The disturbing thing is that pesticides can be taken into the fruit and stay there long after harvest. Then they are waxed and stored in chemical dependant environments. Seriously consider growing your own fruit.

Berry canes, apples, cherries, lemons, limes, plums, pears, oranges, there's no end to the possibilities. Explore what will grow in your neighbourhood and plant those trees! It's not too hard and a single tree (apple) can net up to 500 apples in a growing season.

Growing items of your own food is incredibly rewarding. Even decorating your house with cut flowers that you have grown yourself is vastly more satisfying than just buying a bunch. Gardening is a creative and spiritually nourishing pastime. Ponder your space. Imagine the limitless variety available to you. Then go crazy with inspiration!

The Lawn of the Future

Written by Patti Moreno

America is lawn obsessed and has been since the 1950’s. The environmental impact of having a traditional lawn is staggering. The energy used to maintain a traditional lawn, the chemical pesticides and fertilizers that are used are poisons and the amount of money spent on lawns can run you thousands. The gas powered lawn mowers, blowers, and edge trimmers pollute the air, are too noisy and require yearly maintenance. Using a gas powered lawn mower for one hour is equal to driving a car for 350 miles. Americans spend an average of 30 billion dollars a year to maintain their lawns making turf big business and US lawns use 270 billion gallons of water PER WEEK.
In Canada they have banned the use of petrochemical fertilizers all together and it’s time for Americans to rethink their lawns. The statistics are really mind boggling. For me I wanted to stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution. After planting a variety of trees, shrubs, and native plants in my landscape there was still an area that I wanted to add grass. The area is quite challenging because of the tree canopy making the area very shady. I had heard about fescue grasses as a variety of grass that is more environmentally friendly and many experts out there recommend planting tall fescue grasses. Over the past few years I tried a variety of grass seed blends that contained fescue grasses without solid results. It proved to be more challenging than I thought.

Last year I was introduced to Eco-Lawn grass seed. Eco Lawn grass seed is made up of 7 different fine fescue grasses. These fine fescue grasses have thin blades with 9” to 12” deep roots. It’s environmentally friendly because the thin grass blades don’t need a lot of water to grow and the long roots allow the grass to access water deeper in the ground. These fine fescues are drought tolerant requiring 75% less water than a traditional lawn. It can grow in the poorest of soils and doesn’t require fertilizers. There’s a significant money savings as well. In fact, according to the manufacturers, you can save up to $6500 over a ten year period per 1000sqft of lawn on installation and maintenance. The fine fescues’ slow growth keeps the grass shorter longer requiring less mowing than a traditional lawn. It is so beautiful when fully grown that you can opt to not mow at all. But best of all for me, it can be used in full sun, but also thrives in the shade!

It all seemed too good to be true. After visiting, Steve, a Cape Cod, Massachusetts resident who has an established Eco-Lawn, I decided to try it. Last fall, I installed my Eco-Lawn. I planted the seed in areas that had no grass and also in areas where I wanted to convert the existing lawn (if you can call it that) and made a video about the whole process. Installation is easy, just rake the area of all debris and spread the seed evenly using the recommended amount for your area. Water consistently for about a month until the lawn is establishes. Depending on when you start your lawn you’re going to want to add more seeds to any patchy areas. Don’t for get to watch my step by step video on how to start an Eco Lawn with tips on how to convert your existing lawn. Now that spring is here, I couldn’t be more pleased with the results.

Live Green And Save Money

We all want to live green and save money at the same time, and we can too. Kermit the Frog was wrong when he said, “It ain’t easy being green.” It’s really easy, and highly effective too, if you know how. In this article Eco Friendly Green Earth will provide you with 5 essential steps you can start taking today to live green and save money.

1. Turn your heater thermostats down one or two degrees in winter, and turn your air conditioning thermostats up one or two degrees in summer. If we all did this, the combined difference would be phenomenal. We’d still feel warm in winter and cool in summer, so learn how to live green and save money with your heating and cooling appliances.

2. The other appliance that needs your attention is your washing machine. Start washing your clothes in cold water. Modern powders work just as efficiently in cold water as hot. Most of the energy that goes into a clothes wash is in heating up the water, so you will save on electricity, live green and save money too.

3. When your clothes are nice and clean, don’t throw them into the dryer. Unless it’s pouring rain, hang them out to air dry. It’s what your grandmother did, and she managed just fine. She may have liked having a dryer, but they weren’t around back then, so she just had to live green and save money. You can too!

4. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are a dream come true for anyone who wants to live green and save money. They burn just 25% of the electricity that a standard light bulb burns, and they can last up to 10 times longer. Change your old bulbs today!

5. Try to consume a little less of everything, from electricity, to gas in the car, to the food you eat. Take time to write out a shopping list, and stick to it. If you feel the impulse to buy something you don’t really need, get into the habit of waiting 24 hours, then review it. The chances are you either won’t want it any more, or you will have forgotten about it.

It’s easy to live green and save money. You just have to give it some thought. Get into a routine that works and Eco Friendly Green Earth feels before you know it, you will find yourself in the situation where you live green and save money every day.

Health Problems Reportedly Emerge Near Gas Fields, Science Lags Behind

Written by Abraham Lustgarten and Nicholas Kusnetz

On a summer evening in June 2005, Susan Wallace-Babb went out into a neighbor's field near her ranch in Western Colorado to close an irrigation ditch. She parked down the rutted double-track, stepped out of her truck into the low-slung sun, took a deep breath, and collapsed, unconscious.

A natural gas well and a pair of fuel storage tanks sat less than a half-mile away. Later, after Wallace-Babb came to and sought answers, a sheriff's deputy told her that a tank full of gas condensate -- liquid hydrocarbons gathered from the production process -- had overflowed into another tank. The fumes must have drifted toward the field where she was working, he suggested.

The next morning Wallace-Babb was so sick she could barely move. She vomited uncontrollably and suffered explosive diarrhea. A searing pain shot up her thigh. Within days she developed burning rashes that covered her exposed skin, then lesions. As weeks passed, any time she went outdoors, her symptoms worsened. Wallace-Babb's doctor began to suspect she had been poisoned.

"I took to wearing a respirator and swim goggles outside to tend to my animals," Wallace-Babb said. "I closed up my house and got an air conditioner that would just recycle the air and not let any fresh air in."

Wallace-Babb's symptoms mirror those reported by a handful of others living near her ranch in Parachute, Colo., and by dozens of residents of communities across the country that have seen the most extensive natural gas drilling. Hydraulic fracturing, along with other processes used to drill wells, generates emissions and millions of gallons of hazardous waste that are dumped into open-air pits. The pits have been shown to leak into groundwater and also give off chemical emissions as the fluids evaporate. Residents' most common complaints are respiratory infections, headaches, neurological impairment, nausea and skin rashes. More rarely, they have reported more serious effects, from miscarriages and tumors to benzene poisoning and cancer.

ProPublica examined government environmental reports and private lawsuits, and interviewed scores of residents, physicians and toxicologists in four states -- Colorado, Texas, Wyoming and Pennsylvania -- that are drilling hot spots. Our review showed that cases like Wallace-Babb's go back a decade in parts of Colorado and Wyoming, where drilling has taken place for years. They are just beginning to emerge in Pennsylvania, where the Marcellus Shale drilling boom began in earnest in 2008.


Concern about such health complaints is longstanding -- Congress held hearings on them in 2007 at which Wallace-Babb testified. But the extent and cause of the problems remains unknown. Neither states nor the federal government have systematically tracked reports from people like Wallace-Babb, or comprehensively investigated how drilling affects human health.

"In some communities it has been a disaster," said Christopher Portier, director of the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the National Center for Environmental Health. "We do not have enough information on hand to be able to draw good solid conclusions about whether this is a public health risk as a whole."

Exemptions from federal environmental rules won by the drilling companies have complicated efforts to gather pollution data and to understand the root of health complaints. Current law allows oil and gas companies not to report toxic emissions and hazardous waste released by all but their largest facilities, excluding hundreds of thousands of wells and small plants. Many of the chemicals used infracking and drilling remain secret, hobbling investigators trying to determine the source of contamination. The gas industry itself has been less than enthusiastic about health studies. Drillers declined to cooperate with a long-term study of the health effects of gas drilling near Wallace-Babb's town this summer, prompting state officials to drop their plans and start over.

These factors make a difficult epidemiological challenge even tougher. Doctors and toxicologists say symptoms reported by people working or living near the gas fields are often transient and irregular. They say they need precise data on the prevalence and onset of medical conditions, as well as from air and water sampling, to properly assess the hazards of drilling.

"There are considerable issues about health effects," said John Deutch, former director of the CIA and a professor of chemistry at MIT, who heads a Department of Energy panel examining the environmental effects of shale gas drilling, with an emphasis on hydraulic fracturing. "Frankly, I'm not even sure ... what serious public health work has been done in making a connection."

The health questions are intensifying at a moment when communities and states are already weighing the benefits and costs of drilling for natural gas. Drilling has brought much-needed jobs and cash infusions to some of the nation's poorer regions; bullish estimates of U.S. gas reserves promise plenty of drilling development in the future. At the same time, fracking's lasting environmental toll -- particularly the threat it may pose to water supplies -- has become the subject of intense debate. Since 2008, ProPublica has reported about hundreds of cases of water contamination in more than six states where drilling and fracking are taking place as well as the difficulties of handling the vast quantities of waste the drilling processes produce.

Medical and government groups are beginning to sound alarms about drilling's potential to damage health.

In May, Sen. Robert Casey Jr., D-Pa., wrote to Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state officials, asking them to investigate illness clusters in Pennsylvania. "Despite being above the normal rate, these disease groupings are often dismissed as statistically insignificant," Casey wrote.

In July, when the EPA proposed new emissions rules for the drilling industry, it warned that without them, there could be an unacceptably high risk of cancer for people living close to major facilities. In August, a national association of childrens' doctors published a fact sheet detailing concerns about fracking and warning that children are more susceptible to chemical exposure. The group called for more epidemiological research and disclosure of chemicals used in drilling.

The gas drilling industry says it supports such research and that health concerns should be taken seriously, but that the public should be careful of jumping to conclusions. "Sound science does exist on these issues," wrote Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the industry group Energy in Depth, in an email. Tucker pointed to a case in Pennsylvania where a woman alleged drilling had contaminated her water and made her sick. A state investigation found that her water was indeed foul, but that it had been that way long before drilling began. "Eventually, pretty firm conclusions can be made with respect to potential causes and effects. Unfortunately, it takes time to do all that in a rigorous, data-driven way."

No such research is underway on a significant scale, however.

Portier, whose agency is a sister agency of the CDC and charged with determining the toxicity of industrial chemicals and preventing exposure to them, says the anecdotal evidence of environmental illness is sufficient to warrant a more serious and systematic approach to studying it. His agency, in conjunction with the EPA, is performing at least five health consultations for communities concerned about health impacts, including two in Pennsylvania. These smaller-scale studies assess health risks based on data already collected, giving a snapshot of a community at a particular moment. But what's needed is a nationwide study that tracks people living close to drilling over time, Portier said. That could cost upward of $100 million. "We can't do everything yet," Portier said. "We only have so much money available."

* * *

The number of new natural gas wells drilled each year in the United States has skyrocketed, from 17,500 in 2000 to a peak of more than 33,000 in 2008. Fracking technology, once used in just a small percentage of wells, has made it possible to get gas out of deeply buried reserves and has become an essential part of drilling almost every new well. At the same time, fracking has opened up vast new reserves in the eastern United States. The wells are now being drilled in heavily populated parts of Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Colorado, and even into urban neighborhoods of Fort Worth.

Alongside the growth in drilling, reports of fouled water, bad odors and health complaints also have increased. In the few places where basic environmental sampling has been done, the results confirm that water and air pollution is present in the same regions where residents say they are getting sick.Last spring, the EPA doubled its estimates of methane gas leaked from drilling equipment, and said the amount of methane pollution that billows from fracking operations was 9,000 times higher than researchers had previously thought.

In Colorado, the ATSDR sampled air for pollutants at 14 sites for a 2008 report , including on Susan Wallace-Babb's property. Fifteen contaminants were detected at levels the federal government considers above normal. Among them were the carcinogens benzene, tetrachloroethene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. The contamination fell below the thresholds for unacceptable cancer risk, but the agency called it cause for concern and suggested that as drilling continued, it could present a possible cancer risk in the future. Even at the time of the sampling, the agency reported, residents could be exposed to large doses of contaminants for brief "peak" periods.

"Since residents may be repeatedly exposed to these peak concentrations of benzene," the ATSDR report said, "the concentrations... warrant careful monitoring and exposure evaluation."

In Pavillion, Wyo., where residents have complained of nerve damage, and loss of sense of taste and smell, EPA superfund investigators found benzene and other hydrocarbons in well water samples, as well as methane gas, metals, and an unusual chemical variant of a compound used in hydraulic fracturing. A health survey conducted there by an environmental group in late 2010 found that 94 percent of respondents complained of health issues they thought were new or connected to the drilling, and 81 percent reported respiratory troubles. The ATSDR, in consultation with the EPA, advised at least 19 families in Pavillion not to drink their water and to ventilate bathrooms when they bathed, in part because volatile organic compounds can become airborne in a shower. But the government stopped short of saying that drilling caused the contamination or their symptoms.

In 2009, an environmental sciences firm also found widespread air contaminants in Dish, Texas, a small town in the heart of the Barnett Shale just north of Fort Worth. Wolf Eagle Environmental, hired by the town's mayor and local residents, collected readings from seven monitoring stations and detected 16 chemicals, including benzene and other known and suspected carcinogens. Benzene exceeded Texas' exposure standards at three of the stations.

Wilma Subra, the environmental consultant who ran the survey in Pavillion, also surveyed Dish residents about their health. About 60 percent of respondents reported symptoms that would be expected in people exposed to high levels of the chemicals found in the air samples, Subra said.

Texas' Commission on Environmental Quality reviewed Wolf Eagle's work and agreed that the contaminants could pose a long-term health risk to residents. This year, it followed up with air monitoring of its own in nearby Fort Worth. While the agency determined that contamination levels did not present a public health risk, emissions at five test sites violated state regulatory guidelines. The state documented high levels of benzene and formaldehyde -- both carcinogens -- in those spots.

"Evidence like that really gives our agency a bit of urgency in its work," said Al Armendariz, the EPA's regional administrator for south central states, based in Texas.

* * *

One of the byproducts of the natural gas boom has been that environmental agencies set up to handle issues of permitting and waste disposal are grappling with questions of health and epidemiology, subjects for which they have little training or experience.

In Pennsylvania and Colorado, regulators are still taking the first awkward steps toward developing processes to track and investigate reports of illness related to drilling.

Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection has received 1,306 drilling-related complaints since 2009 -- 45 percent of which alleged water pollution -- but officials acknowledged they couldn't separate out how many involved health issues. Officials with the state Department of Health said they coordinated with the DEP on drilling-related health complaints, but would not respond to questions for this story and denied ProPublica's request for complaint records, citing privacy concerns.

Pennsylvania's secretary of health has urged the creation of a registry to track health complaints in the state's drilling areas -- at an annual cost of about $2 million -- but so far, the governor has not acted upon the recommendation.

Records show Colorado's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission received 496 complaints between mid-2006 and the end of 2008. But officials there, much like their Pennsylvania counterparts, have no way to separate those related to health -- even the ones passed on by the state Department of Public Health and Environment -- from those concerning spills, or noise, or other disruptions.

In an internal government report, the commission separated out complaints related to odors for this period. There were 121. But there are limited public records reflecting what state officials did in response to these reports. Often, records show state officials pursued or fixed the source of an odor, but not whether they tracked any possible health effects connected to the odors.

"Those are allegations, they're complaints, they may or may not be valid complaints," said Debbie Baldwin, the commission's environmental manager. "Given the number of people in the state, the number of wells in the state and the amount of activity associated with oil and gas ... that's a small number."

It is unclear from available records whether the commission ever independently evaluated Susan Wallace-Babb's assertion that toxic emissions harmed her health. The agency's report shows that inspectors confirmed her story about an overflow and fumes and asked Williams, the company drilling near her home, whether dangerous pollutants had been emitted. The company said no, assuring inspectors "this is a non-incident," records show. In the segment of the incident report labeled "resolution," the agency also noted that the company suspected Wallace-Babb "may have been influenced by others annoyed with local gas-field operators."

In response to a request for comment, Williams referred ProPublica to a letter it submitted to the U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform committee after Wallace-Babb testified in 2007. In the letter, the company says that it placed a cap on an open tank near Wallace-Babb's home and conducted its own air monitoring for pollutants that would post a health risk, finding none. State and federal air monitoring also did not find levels of emissions that would clearly pose a health risk, the company said. "We had employees or contractors at the well site on a regular basis and none of them ever complained about feeling sick as a result of being near the tank," Williams’ letter states.

Colorado's health department responded to questions by e-mail about how the state tracks health complaints from people in drilling areas. The department's spokesman said the state had insufficient data to show a relationship between drilling and health issues. "There continues to be much interest in the potential health effects of gas production activities," wrote Mark Salley. "This department will continue to work with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to protect the public's health."

* * *

In September 2009, Range Resources began drilling a natural gas well near the home of Beth Voyles in one of the most heavily drilled counties in southwestern Pennsylvania. The following spring, Range began filling a giant waste impoundment near Voyles' home, and wastewater accumulated in puddles on the dirt roads, where the water was sprayed to hold down the dust, according to a lawsuit Voyles filed against the state and interviews with ProPublica. The family immediately noticed a stench, and its dog, which lapped the fluid from the puddles, got sick.

A veterinarian determined that the dog had been exposed to ethylene glycol, a component of antifreeze that is also used in hydraulic fracturing. The dog's organs began to crystalize, and ultimately failed, the vet told Voyles, and the family had to euthanize the dog. A short time later the family had to euthanize a horse after it exhibited similar symptoms, Voyles told ProPublica. "If it's crystalizing their organs," Voyles said of her animals, "just how long before it's going to do that to us?" Then the whole family started getting rashes, aches and blisters in their noses and throats. Her doctors couldn't pinpoint what was causing their symptoms.

"You feel like you're drugged because your brain's not thinking," she said. "We want our life back."

When Voyles began to suspect drilling might be the cause, she had her doctors run blood tests for chemicals known to be used in the processes. The results came back showing high levels of benzene, toluene and arsenic.

In August 2010, after several complaints from the area, according to Voyles' lawsuit, the state Department of Environmental Protection asked Range to treat the impoundment pond for hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that can be fatal at high levels and cause nausea, vomiting and headaches in lower amounts. The impoundment was briefly emptied in June, Voyles said, but then filled again in August. Now the rashes are back, she's lost much of her sense of smell and she says everything tastes like metal.

Voyles is suing the DEP, which she says ignored her concerns that the chemicals in her blood could be from the waste in the impoundment nearby, never advised her that its tests showed her well water was also contaminated with an industrial solvent and never issued any violations to Range. Among the clear violations that DEP overlooked, she alleges, was that the waste impoundment did not meet minimum state regulatory requirements. Her lawsuit does not seek compensation, but asks that the agency investigate her complaints according to state regulations. The DEP did not respond to calls requesting comment.

Range Resources did not respond to a call from ProPublica about Voyles' case either. In an earlier report, the company denied there were problems with the impoundment near her home.

After seeing several medical specialists and epidemiologists, Voyles still doesn't know what to do about her family's health.

"They don't know how to treat us," she said.

* * *

In assessing Voyles' case and others like it, environmental epidemiologists warn that proximity and correlation don't add up to proof. Even when symptoms and contamination occur in the same place, they say, it doesn't necessarily mean the contamination caused the symptoms.

"You have a community where there is a putative exposure, and a community with putative illness," said Daniel Teitelbaum, a toxicologist who has spent years examining health issues around drilling and helped frame some of the early research in Colorado. "But you can't say whether the people exposed are the people who are ill."

In the Pennsylvania case pointed out by industry spokesman Chris Tucker, for example, a woman complained for years of symptoms similar to Wallace-Babb's. She alleged that drilling activities had contaminated her water with barium. She spoke at anti-drilling rallies and environmental groups used her case. But when Pennsylvania officials investigated, they found her intense exposure to barium hadn't come from drilling –--it was a natural seepage into her well.

Teitelbaum says that collecting measurements of contaminants in the air and water is an essential first step. But he said epidemiologists then set out to track an "exposure pathway," comparing people exposed to pollutants to people not exposed, and then identifying how the exposure occurred. No such scientific protocol has been developed to examine the gas fields. Without one, the more common respiratory and skin ailments are increasingly accepted as being related to pollution, Teitelbaum said. But whether the more serious symptoms have anything to do with drilling is a complete unknown. "You hear and see everything you can possibly imagine, from miscarriages to multiple sclerosis to brain tumors," he said. "There is no way to document whether those things are real or not real."

That's why a health registry -- a database to cross reference patterns of symptoms and locations where they occur with water and air tests -- is so important, he said. Without this context, complaints from residents may not be taken seriously by doctors or environment officials, partly because people respond to chemical exposures differently. Their symptoms can vary widely and can be difficult to recognize.

"If someone comes in and just says I can't think straight, or I'm really tired or I have headaches, that's not measureable," said Dr. Kendall Gerdes, a Denver-based physician who specializes in ecological exposure cases and has seen a number of patients complaining about the gas patch. "Therefore it's considered psychosomatic by most doctors' training."

Gerdes said many of the symptoms roughly fit what ecological-disorder specialists in ecological disorders call multiple chemical sensitivity. It's a sort of catch-all to explain intense reactions to chemical compounds ranging from skin maladies to nerve damage.

According to Gerdes, those predisposed to chemical sensitivity are likely to have the most pronounced reactions to chemical exposures in drilling areas. "Characteristically that person will know they can't be around fresh paint, or can't wear perfume," he said. "So to me, it is an unrecognized vulnerability that, when put together with significant exposures, is enough to cause troubles."

The more people with chemical sensitivity are exposed, the more sensitized they get, Gerdes said. Before Susan Wallace-Babb passed out in the field by her truck, she had felt wooziness and headaches. In the weeks after, she couldn't bear the slightest exposure in places where she had previously felt safe.

"I would wake up in the middle of the night in pain and vomiting and so sick I could barely make it to the bathroom," she said. "And that was with the house closed."

Gerdes and others experts say that whatever affected Susan Wallace-Babb likely also affected others in her community, but they may not have exhibited the same symptoms or reacted as quickly.

For all the mysteries surrounding Wallace-Babb's condition, one thing was clear: When she was away from home, she felt better. When she returned, her symptoms worsened. "That's probably the clearest association you can make," Gerdes said. "When it happens several different times there is a correlation."

Wallace-Babb reluctantly decided to move.

"My body could not rid itself of the toxins," Wallace-Babb said. Her doctor warned her that if she didn't leave, she would never get better. "I thought gosh, there is my dream house. There is my dream all gone and what am I going to do?"

* * *

By late 2009, stories like Wallace-Babb's had become common in Garfield County, Colo., where she had lived and the natural gas production had jumped eight-fold in the previous eight years.

Rick Roles, whose ranch is dotted with gas wells and used to be near a set of large open-air waste pits, complained of intense fatigue. His eyes and throat burned relentlessly, he told ProPublica during a visit in 2008. Light work made his heart race, and, like Voyles, doctors detected benzene in his blood. Roles was a smoker, which could explain the Benzene. But he also raised goats with prized bucks, and after the wells were drilled, many of the kids were stillborn or deformed.

A few miles away another woman, Laura Amos, was diagnosed with a rare adrenal tumor she believed was caused by drilling chemicals that are used in fracking. In 2001, her water well exploded with methane and gray sediment the same day drillers pumped fluids underground to frack a well nearby. By 2003 she was sick. After her lawyers obtained documents from the drilling company, EnCana, showing that the suspected chemical was used in nearby wells, Amos accepted a multi-million-dollar settlement. The terms remain confidential, except for the fact that Amos is no longer allowed to talk about her case. Colorado fined EnCana for failing to contain its drilling waste properly. EnCana has said it disagreed with the state action and that there was no proof that fracking caused Amos' well problems.

Another local couple, the Mobaldis, experienced symptoms similar to those of Wallace-Babb and Voyles, but worse. Steve Mobaldi testified about his wife's condition at a 2007 congressional hearing. "Chris began to experience fatigue, headaches, hand numbness, bloody stools, rashes, and welts on her skin," he said. "Tiny blisters covered her entire body. The blisters would weep, then her skin would peel ... Canker-type sores appeared in her mouth and down her throat, and they would disappear the next day... The racking pain was unbearable."

Chris Mobaldi developed a pituitary tumor and died in 2010 from a complication in her treatment.

In response to these cases and others, state and county health officials conducted a series of monitoring projects that found gas drilling was the area's largest source of several hazardous air pollutants, including benzene and ozone-forming emissions. For several years, with the cooperation of federal health officials, Colorado monitored air quality in Garfield County, determining repeatedly that while pollution in the area did not exceed health standards, it probably meant there was a slightly elevated risk of cancer and other health effects. But none of those steps were sufficient to help officials determine the precise risk level. They didn't have a way to systematically record health complaints or to track which residents might have been exposed to which pollutants and when -- the essential link in completing an epidemiological study.

Still, the incremental studies underscored concern among residents.

When Antero Resources announced plans in the spring of 2009 to drill 200 more wells in Battlement Mesa, a golf-course community almost within sight of Wallace-Babb's old home, about 400 residents petitioned the county to study the potential health impacts before they permitted the drilling.

In February 2010, the Garfield County board of commissioners hired researchers at the Colorado School of Public Health to conduct another health impact assessment, analyzing air samples collected by federal and state officials over the years to gauge the dangers of new drilling and how best to mitigate them. Whereas previous research had analyzed samples of emissions from sites across the county, this time researchers focused on the risk to one small, well-defined area, trying to assess the potential of risk increasing over time. The researchers also were tasked with designing a long-term plan to collect data on the drilling once it began, tracing how emissions affected residents. The two-pronged effort promised to be one of the most in-depth analyses so far of gas field health effects in the nation.

In a draft of the health impact assessment released in February 2011, the School of Public Health researchers concluded that without pollution control measures, emissions from drilling would likely be high enough to cause disease in Battlement Mesa, including respiratory and neurological problems, birth defects and cancer. The report said that air pollution was a greater risk than water pollution, and pointed to fracking as the stage of drilling that released some of the most toxic emissions. The conclusion was starkly different from past government assessments, which were limited to determining whether pollution was dangerous at the time the samples were taken. The School of Public Health's view was that the drilling was clearly emitting carcinogens and that sooner or later, this would lead to problems, according to Roxana Witter, an assistant research professor at the Colorado School of Public Health and the lead author of the study.

The authors stressed that data from the long-term monitoring phase of their research were needed to fill crucial gaps in evaluating the risks from drilling emissions, but the project wouldn't get that far.

The draft findings were immediately controversial.

"It got political," said John Martin, one of the Garfield County commissioners who oversaw the study. Martin said environmental groups wanted to use the study to stop drilling. "It got blown completely out of proportion and they took advantage of that issue to further their agenda."

The drilling industry was highly critical of the draft and its authors and pressed county officials to delay issuing its final report by extending the period for public comments. Money from outside interest groups had been flowing into elections for Garfield County commission seats and, in November 2010, a commissioner seen as a supporter of more health research was defeated.

In May, the commission decided not to extend the researchers' contract, and a final draft of the report was never produced, limiting the impact of its conclusions.

"The study wasn't finalized," said David Neslin, director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. "We always have to be careful about using draft documents which haven't been finalized."

Martin, one of the commissioners who voted against paying to finish the project, said the commissioners had already gotten what they were looking for: general recommendations for how to mitigate potential health effects. If there are larger uncertainties about how drilling can affect public health, Martin said, that's for state and federal agencies to study.

"We have limitations and this is beyond the scope of what we need to be doing," he said.

For the next phase of the study -- the long-term monitoring project -- the county and the School of Public Health sought the help of Colorado's health department. The department had planned to apply to the EPA for funding to measure drilling emissions and track their movement as drilling progressed.

But in August, local gas drilling companies informed government officials they would not cooperate with the study unless Garfield County and the state agreed to replace Witter's team with other academic researchers and start over.

"GarCO operators have collectively decided a Garfield County air study, conducted by the Colorado Public School of Health [sic], is unworkable and one they are unable to participate in moving forward," wrote David Ludlam, executive director of the West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas Association, in an Aug. 3 email that was forwarded to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

Antero did not respond to requests for comment. In an email to ProPublica, Ludlam explained the industry wanted to see a scientific organization like Colorado State University's Department of Atmospheric Science do the work, rather than Witter. "It is less about a tangible bias and more about an overall environment of distrust in Garfield County resulting from their previous work product being politicized by outside parties," he wrote.

The state health department abandoned, for the time being, its plans for the research one week after receiving Ludlam's e-mail, withdrawing its application for federal funding.

The project's demise has left the state's leading environmental doctors discouraged. "It is tragic," said Teitelbaum. "We are going lickety split ahead with the drilling along the East Coast and nobody knows what the hell is going on. And nobody wants to spend any money on it."

While Teitelbaum and others wait for answers, Wallace-Babb continues to grapple with the ailments that drove her from Colorado.

In 2006, she moved to Winnsboro, Texas, a small town two hours east of Dallas. For three years her symptoms gradually improved, until she could work in her garden and go about her normal daily routine. Then, early last year, Exxon launched a project in an old oil field 14 miles away and began fracking wells to get them to produce more oil. Within months, Wallace-Babb's symptoms returned. Again, she wears a respirator to visit the grocery store. Again, she is looking to move.

"It's one thing if you choose to work for that industry and you get damaged from that exposure," Wallace-Babb said. "At least they made money. But if you are just living and minding your own business and your life gets torn asunder, it's different.

"I made nothing. I got all the damage."

Light Bulbs Advertised as 'Green' Contain Arsenic and Lead: Study

Those energy-saving little LED bulbs advertised as eco-friendly -- and used in strings of holiday lights and in car headlights -- actually contain toxic lead, arsenic and some other bad stuff, new research shows.

Alarming? Sure. But in a surprise twist, a study author says: Buy them anyway.
Share
As long as the bulbs aren't crushed, they pose no danger. And for saving electricity, they hands-down beat Thomas Edison's invention, the incandescent bulb, as well as the traditional bulb's successor, mercury-containing compact fluorescent bulbs.

"We're not recommending that people throw them away. These things have a long life expectancy," Oladele Ogunseitan, chair of University of California Irvine's Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention, told Consumer Ally about LED lights.

You may have read appeals from your electric utility to switch holiday lights to strings of newfangled energy-saving "light-emitting diodes," or LEDs. Maybe you own a flashlight or camping headlamp powered by the tiny bulbs. For research published in the science journal Environmental Science & Technology, Ogunseitan and his colleagues examined crushed holiday LED lights in a quest for health hazards. (That such examination hadn't been done before is, in itself, a "surprise," he says.)

Oddly, they found the danger level varied by bulb color.

White bulbs overall appeared to have relatively low toxicity: "they contain less copper and do not contain arsenic or lead," the study states.

Red lights contained up to eight times the toxic lead permitted under California law. In general, brighter, high-intensity bulbs were more hazardous than others.

"We find the low-intensity red LEDs exhibit significant cancer and non-cancer potentials due to the high content of arsenic and lead," the study states.

Breathing toxic fumes from a single broken bulb wouldn't automatically cause cancer, but could prove a tipping point on top of chronic exposure to other carcinogens, according to a university press release. Toddlers could be harmed, Ogunseitan warned, if they mistook the bright lights for candy.

That's not exactly what you want to hear about an "environmentally friendly" light bulb.



What to do: • If your LED bulbs stop working or break open, do what you're supposed to do when your compact fluorescent bulbs go out -- consider it hazardous waste and never toss it in the trash.
• Wearing gloves and a mask, sweep up broken bulbs with a designated broom kept for this hazardous purpose (more tips here).
• Take the contaminated pieces to your community's hazardous-waste facility. (As an aside, chances are a business in your community takes back intact compact fluorescent bulbs, as seen here.)

On the bright side, LED lights tested by Ogunseitan didn't contain mercury, which is one if its touted high points. Compact fluorescent bulbs do contain mercury; when broken, mercury can be released as a vapor. "That's a big problem," Ogunseitan says. "Don't breathe the dust."

LED lights have been considered the next great thing for green lighting, and Ogunseitan says consumers still should buy them. Manufacturers of compact flourescent bulbs haven't been able to find a substitute for mercury after a decade of trying, he says. The makers of LED lights could switch to lead-free soldering to improve their toxic troubles. Until then, he calls for policies at the state and local government levels to make sure that people have ways to dispose of these "green" bulbs responsibly.

Written by Sally Deneen

How to Make Eco-Friendly Home Improvements

Green Remodeling and Repairs Can Make Your Home Healthier
From Earth Talk,

Most homes are not lacking in ways they can be healthier for family and kinder to the environment. For one, indoor air quality is a serious problem affecting millions of homes. Studies show that air within homes can be more seriously polluted than the air outdoors—even in the largest and most industrialized cities.

Changes in Air Quality Call for Eco-Friendly Home Improvements
According to Glenn Haege, a master handyman who hosts a national radio show on home repair, as our homes and apartments have become more energy efficient and airtight, “humidity levels from cooking and breathing tend to increase, causing mold and mildew.” Harmful chemicals, he says, from construction materials, insulation, furniture, carpeting, padding, paints, solvents and household cleaners, drawn by this moist atmosphere, combine to contaminate the indoor air which then stays trapped inside.

Eco-Friendly Home Improvements: Start by Testing Indoor Air
The first step in remedying this problem is to test your indoor air. Pure Air and Envirologix, among others, sell inexpensive and easy-to-use indoor-air quality testing kits. Once you get an idea of the contaminants floating around your home, you can get to work replacing the offending sources accordingly. Green superstores such as the Environmental Home Center, Green Building Supply and Oikos offer a wealth of greener and healthier building supplies and materials. Also, BuildingGreen.com offers a free online “GreenSpec” database with detailed listings for over 2,000 environmentally preferable building products.

Natural Products Can Help with Eco-Friendly Home Improvements
Materials outside the home can also contribute to health problems. One example is pressure-treated lumber, which contains a form of cyanide to keep pests away. Kids who play on backyard jungle gyms and decks made of such material can develop rashes and skin infections. Cedar wood is a naturally pest-resistant alternative that, while more expensive, is a kinder-gentler option that will stand the test of time.

Simple Eco-Friendly Home Improvements Anyone Can Do
Other ways to green-up the home include replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with more energy-efficient compact fluorescents, as well as switching out conventional hot water heaters in favor of solar hot water heaters or on-demand tankless versions. And for saving on water, replacing traditional showerheads and toilets with pressurized low-flow alternatives can save gallons per day while generating cost savings on utility bills. Likewise, capturing rainwater and shower “gray-water” to irrigate the garden is another smart move.

Do-It-Yourself Resources for Eco-Friendly Home Improvements
Do-it-yourselfers can find hundreds of websites offering tips on green building and repair. Glenn Haege’s MasterHandyman.com and NaturalHandyMan.com both offer a plethora of articles and links and are good resources if you’re looking to improve your own handy skills while staying true to your green ideals. Two helpful books are: Green Remodeling, by David Johnston and Kim Master; and Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product Selection and Specification, by Ross Spiegel and Dru Meadows. For less handy homeowners, finding a handyman well versed in green building issues might be a better way to go. The Natural Handyman Network offers a free online search tool that should offer some promising leads.

Renewable Energy

Renewable Energy: What is it?

The term “renewable energy” describes energy sources which occur naturally in the environment and cannot be depleted as they are used. Renewable energy sources include wind energy and solar energy, among others. These are green power sources—clean-burning, non-depleting energy supplies that won’t pollute the planet or cause any other long-term environmental issues.

Why use Renewable Energy?

Using renewable energy sources rather than fossil fuels such as gas, oil, and coal are desirable for several reasons. First, supplies of these fossil fuels are limited—they will eventually run out, and steps must be taken to provide alternative energy sources to replace them. Second, burning fossil fuels causes pollution, most notably the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming and the Greenhouse Effect. Burning fossil fuels also causes air pollution and acid rain, both of which have a negative impact on the health of ecosystems and habitats around the world.

By signing the Kyoto Protocol, the UK government has committed to reducing greenhouse emissions by at least 12.5% by the year 2012, and to reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60% by the year 2050.

To help meet this goal, the government has pledged to create alternative energy sources such that 10% of UK electricity will come from renewable energy sources by the year 2010, with the intention of doubling this figure by 2020. Currently less than 5% of the UK’s electricity comes from renewable sources.

What Alternative Energy Sources are Available?

There are several candidates when it comes to searching for an effective solution to the energy problem. An efficient supply of green power from renewable sources might include the following:

• Wind Power
• Solar Energy
• Hydroelectric Power
• Geothermal Energy
• Bio-fuel
• Atomic Energy

Each of these energy sources has some good and bad points, and has the potential to be an efficient source of power in different situations.

Wind Power

Wind is an enormous and never-ending supply of green power, and has already been harnessed and used as a power source for several centuries, in the form of windmills. With cost-effective technology to harness the power of wind already developed, this type of green power is the most popular choice for a clean, renewable energy source. The turbines that generate wind energy work in the same way as windmills do, and the energy they generate is stored in batteries for redistribution through the UK energy grid. The only real downside to this type of energy generation is, of course, that on windless days no energy is generated—however, as more “wind farms” are placed throughout the country, back-up energy can be stored for such situations.

Solar Energy

Capturing and storing the sun’s energy is a popular way of reducing electricity requirements in many green homes. Solar power can be used to heat water, and the sun’s energy can be captured using solar panels or solar cells. Solar panels can be efficiently integrated into the roof of a building, and provide quiet, pollution-free energy.

The main disadvantages of solar energy are that it can only be captured during the day, and that energy capture is reduced on days of medium to heavy cloud cover. However, batteries can be used to store solar energy. Another consideration is that providing solar energy to a home involves large start-up costs, however over the twenty to thirty year life of the solar energy system, very little is required to maintain the system.

Hydroelectric Power

Hydroelectric power harnesses the energy created by running water, and converts this energy into electricity. This is an efficient technology which is widely used in many countries; however in the UK less than 1% of energy is derived using hydroelectric systems. If all possible sites of hydroelectric conversion were developed in the UK, the total energy production would meet around 3% of the country’s electricity needs (the current figure is around 0.8%).

Geothermal Energy

Geothermal energy is heat energy stored deep within the earth. In some areas, this heat rises to the surface of the earth, and can be used to heat water. There is currently one geothermal power plant operating in the UK, and ground source heat pumps are becoming increasingly popular in UK homes. This is an extremely efficient method of generating electricity however the geological requirements of harnessing geothermal energy make it a limited option for use in this country.

Bio-fuel

Bio-fuel is any substance, whether solid, liquid or gas, that is derived from biological material. This broad definition can include almost any combustible biological substance—from cow dung to raw plant materials, alcohols and oil. The most common use of bio-fuels is in powering vehicles, with many new car models able to run on biodiesel (made from oil and fat) or alcohols such as ethanol and butanol.

The main down-side of bio-fuels is that, unlike most other renewable energy sources, the combustion of such fuels produces greenhouse gases, making bio-fuel the least green of the green power sources.

Atomic Energy

Also known as nuclear energy, atomic energy technology harnesses the heat generated by the splitting of atoms. This process is called nuclear fission. Approximately 20% of the UK’s energy is generated using this technology. Atomic energy generation is extremely efficient and produces no greenhouse gases. The most significant draw-back involves safety issues in the handling and disposal of the radioactive waste that is a by-product of atomic reactions. However, the UK government is stringent in adhering to safety policies and there are regulations in place to ensure that atomic waste is disposed of safely.

Pacific Plastic Trash Island by thechicecologist.com

A very troubling recent find in our ocean was a huge ‘island’ of trash twice the size of Texas and more than 30 feet deep. Just imagine a 3 story Wal-Mart sprawling from the Mexico border up from California and Arizona, through Nevada, Idaho and the whole west coast (including Oregon and Washington) and you have and idea what I’m talking about. The overall area of this behemoth is twice that of the Continental United States given its depth. Now imagine that there are TWO of them: the Western Garbage Patch just north of Hawaii, and the Eastern Garbage Patch just east of Japan.

Garbage Island

I can’t say it was that recent, as it was predicted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) back in 1988 and has been tracked (and growing) ever since. So why has it taken so long to get out to the public and why are there still people who don’t believe in it’s existence?

pacific gyre plastic I keep putting ‘island’ in single quotes because it’s not quite what you may imagine, instead of a big mass of floating plastic bottles and trash, it’s actually more like a plastic soup, constantly moving just below the surface of the water. This is why there are no real pictures of the island and you can’t see it on Google Earth, or in satellite images. Without pictures of a so called ‘trash island‘, people are less likely to believe in its existence and the media has no stimulating images or graphics to catch our attention with.

Additionally the plastics have been affected with photodegradation, which causes the plastic to break down into smaller pieces (while still remaining a polymer) and are ingested by smaller and smaller animals throughout the food chain. This allows the plastic to penetrate the entire food chain from the bottom up.

As an example, say some plankton (very small animals at the bottom of the food chain) eat some of this plastic. Then, a hundred of these plankton are then eaten by a small fish, like a Sardine. Then a Mackerel eats 25 of these Sardines. Then a Tuna eats 10 of these Mackerels. Then you eat a Tuna. Well guess what, you just ate a bunch of plastic, just how much? 100 (plankton) x 25 (Sardines) x 10 (Mackerels) = 25,000 pieces! Through a process called bioaccumulation, the amount of a substance is concentrated as it is passed up through the food chain to the top predator, scary huh?
plastic island

Plastic pulled up from the Pacific Gyre by Algalita Marine Research Foundation

A five-year survey of Fulmars found in the North Sea region found that 95 percent of these seabirds contained plastic in their stomachs. Studies of the Northeast Atlantic plankton have found plastic in samples dating back to the 1960s, with a significant increase in abundance in time.
-United Nations Environment Program


Ocean PlasticAt this point, the best solution is to stem the cause through a reduction in waste entering our oceans, particularly plastics. I am a huge proponent of a reduction or elimination of disposable plastic bottles and plastic bags through reuse of durable goods like metal containers and canvas bags.

Several cleanup ideas have surfaced which vary from a floating recycling plant, to the melding of plastic into a Utopian island. The most practical and organized appears to come from the Environmental Cleanup Coalition which proposes a large floating cleanup flotilla with an accompanying algae and tuna aquaculture operation to supports costs.

Further research and updates on the Pacific trash gyre can be found on Algalita Marine Research Foundation‘s website.