Slow Death By Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie
Handout Foreword, Preface, Introduction, and Chapter 1 Pages iii-32
The title of this handout was very dark and looming. I'm sure that was to instill fear in the readers...and it worked...The fossil fuels that we use everyday like natural gas and oil are linked to common hormone disrupting chemicals. I had no clue, which I'm sure is true for a vast majority of the world's population due to no advertising stating this problem. In term we are hurting ourselves and also the world because we are using up our valuable fossil fuels. It's a lose-lose situation. The hormone disrupting chemicals can affect the fertility of people. In turn this can help to decline the population, which is way over or could ultimately lead to our dismiss. Children born today are beginning to develop: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism disorders, learning disabilities, diabetes, obesity, cancers, abnormal genitalia development, and infertility. We are hurting our future generations!!!
"Heck, if both Oprah and Pat Robertson are talking about toxic chemicals, then we know they have arrived as an issue of major concern for Americans." (p. xiii) This quote made me laugh because of how people base their views on what famous people believe or promote. Our society are such followers. We need some great leaders to lead us!!!
The government has and will pass laws to "try" and help out our present situation, but from past examples it appears that all the laws are good for is on paper and nothing more. Nothing is enforced. In the US, there are 82,000 chemicals and that number add on 700 new chemicals per year. We are just killing ourselves; it's so startling. We have started to try and mimic Mother Nature because it's the safest route. Consumer products don't help with our current concern because they may advertise that their products are green, but is that really true?! I don't know...
Deodorant = phthalates = reproductive problems
Baby Bottles = bisphenol A = hormone disruptor
Sofas = brominated flame retardants = cancer
That scares me...
Our society is a trial and error one that can be seen from out past, but can we continue down this path? We are researching the effects long term of certain chemicals we come in contact with everyday, but when we finally get the results will we be to late to change anything?!
Our culture depends on money in order to survive and keep thriving. Our health isn't a main concern...well it should be. Everyone around the world needs to work together, and help each other in order for changes to happen.
Past examples:
Pocket Watch = radium = dental problems, anemia
Lucifer Match = phosphorous = anemia, brittle bones, "phossy jaw"
Felt Hats = mercury = lethargy, depression, loss of appetite, headaches, ulcerated gums, the shakes
We should have learned from our past, but have we...?
We want things fast, but we will have to change that in order to save lives and further our civilization. We have the technology today to help us towards a brighter future. In 1970, the first public awareness concerning pollution was published. This should have happened long before 1970.
I wonder what the results were for Bruce and Rick's experiment?
Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart
Chapter 2 Pages 45-67
"reduce, avoid, minimize, sustain, limit, halt." (p. 45) Some of these things are so hard for us to do because we are a fast paced society that wants things done right now. That mindset needs to change. With the increasing population, the result is that more products are being used and deposed of.
"The best way to reduce any environmental impact is not to recycle more, but to produce and dispose of less." (p. 50) This line of thinking is true, but for now this is all we have. It's better that we recycle for now until something new and better comes along. Who knows when that will be...? I thought it was funny and yet so true that they termed recycling as being an aspirin to help with a hangover from over consumption. We need to move towards an eco-efficient lifestyle, which means doing more with less. The book talked about how some industries are going eco-efficient and saving money...then why aren't all industries following these examples? Are they scared of change? Or just that change takes time and time to them means profit? Surprisingly, going eco-efficient isn't very...efficient because it reduces down the amount of chemicals created, but it still gives them off. Even in small does toxins can be bad.
Recycling products like aluminum soda cans may seem good, but the can itself consists of two types of aluminum. This means when the can is melted down to create a different product it becomes weaker, and then other chemicals are brought into the equation to try and make it stronger. The recycling of consumer goods requires chemicals in order to get the product back to its original state whether it be melting, bleaching, etc...so in turn it costs more...
No comments:
Post a Comment