A Blog For Those Affected By Environmental And Invisible Illnesses Written By Fellow Survivors
Blog posts tagged in Environmental Health
The new comprehensive World Atlas of Artificial Night Sky Brightness has revealed that an increasing portion of our sky is being polluted by the artificial sky glow – atmospheric light scatter reflected from the electric lighting below. Apart from Milky Way being no longer visible to one-third of the population, the problem with light pollution goes much further than stargazing. Epidemiologists who have taken interest in the problem say that numerous conditions may derive from the disrupted circadian rhythms – our inner day/night clocks, while ecologists point out the adverse effects of artificial light to migratory birds and mammals. But what can we as individuals do to reduce it?
Is there anyone in the room?
The simplest, cheapest, and the most obvious way of fighting light pollution is to start turning lights off when no one needs them. While outdoor lighting has its time and place, illuminating dark areas like...
It wasn’t a 100% victory and there’s still a long way to go, but Public Health England dropped a bombshell in August. Seemingly out of nowhere, one of the most important health bodies in the country declared that not only are e-cigarettes 95% less harmful than tobacco, but could also become an important weapon in fighting smoking by being dispensed as a licensed medicine.
Veteran vapers enjoyed a wry smile and carried on – because it was not really news to them. Anti-tobacco campaigners, cancer sufferers, health practitioners and e-cigarettes traders and scientists have long held the belief that replacing a stick that contains several thousand toxins with one that contains far fewer can only be a healthier option. Surely?
What the PHE statement did do was bring vaping back into the public consciousness, or introduce some people to it in the first place. BBC Radio 5 live ran a...
Environmental Health Perspectives recently drew attention to a controversial statement released by the largest general scientific organization in the world - The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) - which asserted that GM crops are completely safe and no labeling of GM foods and food products is required.
In response to this the environmental and consumer health information group published both the AAAS statement and a counter argument written by Patricia Hunt, PhD, of Washington State University and co-signed by 20 prominent scientists from fields including environmental health sciences and medicine. This set up a very informative and enlightening yes/no debate on whether or not foods containing GM ingredients should be clearly labeled as such.
I would urge every health and diet-conscious reader to take a look at the full texts of the statements over at the Environmental Health Perspectives website. Below are the opening statements from both...