Reading 8

Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart

Chapter 6 Pages 157 - 186

Throughout this chapter the reference to the Ford company and its venture towards creating a healthier system for workers and the environment were referred to.  It's also through this idea of creating a better means to make cars that the idea of the automobile will change too.  Hopefully for the better.  

The idea of items being "free of" something doesn't always mean anything good.  This could mean that something worse was put into the item.  It's important for consumers to know what is within an item.  Consumers need to ask to gain knowledge.

There are lists out there that categorize items for consumers to know better about the products they are buying.  A list known as "Gray List" which means the items on the list "contain problematic substances that are not quite so urgently in need of phase out." (p 174)  Also the "P List" is considered to be a "positive list" that "includes substances actively defined as healthy and safe for use." (p 175)  Consumers need to consider what they are buying, and what the items contain.

Reading 7





Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart

Chapter 5 Pages 118 - 156

This chapter deals with the idea of repeating diversity of all types, especially the connection of the environment and our society.  Diversity is a good thing that everyone should keep in mind and try to follow.  We as a culture need to go through a "de-evolution" that would result in a simplification on a mass scale.  This would help out society greater towards being healthier. 

"...fitting-est who thrive." (p 120)

The "fitting-est" individuals are the ones who are energetic and engage in a relationship between them and the place they are within.  An example are ants.  There are a variety of ant types, but each interact on diffferent leves of the same space.  Like in a tree, there are a type of ants of the branches and another type on the leaves.  In a way, they work together to some degree. 

The industries of today need to involve themselves with their surroundings (both setting and culture).  They need to begin thinking "local" because that is considered a sustainable route.  If they go outside local, it can affect there own space.  Because by bringing in new things into their setting, they could maybe harm their ecosystem.

When it comes to sewage treatment, the idea of a "living machine" is emerging.  Incorporated in this "living machine" is actually nature itself.  So putting nature together with our sewage could help both of us out whether it be food for animals, or a cleaner environment with less waste for us. 

We have become an indoor culture due to our materials and this idea of comfort that we praise.  We need to begin merging ancient ways and new technology together to create safer systems for everyone.  It's amazing how simple things like placing the thermostat in a different place like towards the workers and not the machines (that give off heat) can help cut costs and help the temperature to relate to the people and not the machines.

Certain types of energy depend on the climate.  Like with with wind power, the area has to get large amounts of wind and also have enough space for the massive wind mills.  This idea of the environment and us working together needs to grow.  We should begin to treat and adapt our buildings to be like trees.  That is help purify the air, create shade, enrich the soil, and change with the seasons.  Our cities should become forests.

In China, Styrofoam ("white pollution") is plaguing them.  The idea of creating biodegradeable trash that can be thrown out of the train window is a thiving ideal.  This way they could promote people to litter, and it would help the environment.  We need to protect nature.

Why do we work at/with harmful companies?

How can we not work with them?  They provide jobs and goods for people.  How can we say no?  We can't escape their grasp.

This diagram pieces ecology (top), economy (bottom right) and equity (bottom left) together.  Economy refers to capitalism, equity to social, and ecology to environment.  Between economy and equity there is a shift towards fairness.  Between equity and ecology the idea of questioning how safe settings are come into play.  Between ecology and economy eco-efficiency emerges.

Slow Death By Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie

Chapter 4 Pages 96 - 130

The use of flame retardants is/was very popular, even though it's not safe for the users.  This use of bromine as a flame retardant isn't healthy, and yet we are subjecting ourselves to it.  Yet there aren't too many bromines in the world.  Somehow we find enough to contaminate ourselves...

"The fellow we met with said, 'Of course, we need flame retardants on furniture, because kids are playing with matches.'  I mean they were seriously saying that we need the flame retardants in furniture so the kids can go on playing with matches.  I will never forget it." (p 100)

What kids are playing with matches?  Shouldn't that responsibility be on the parents, and not on the furniture.

The bromine in flame retardants is a known carcinogen and mutagen, and we are poisoning our future generations with it.  Children may die from their pajamas catching on fire, but it is worth the cost of pumping chemicals into their developing systems?  These children are out future and we are polluting them. 

It's ironic that Richard Simpson, the Chairman of the CPSC, believes that if something is bad for our health there would be a ban on it.  Yet these isn't.  Look at the other hazardous things that are in the world killing people, and yet there is no ban.  How is it companies can get away with putting chemicals that hurt consumers in their products?  Money drives us to do crazy and dangerous things.


We should start to recognize the things we put into our systems aren't good, when the animals we use for food die from eating it.  Shouldn't that be a sign for all of us, and for the companies to stop.  Such a simple mistake like putting the wrong ingredient in feed for animals, resulted in thousands of animals being put down, and thousand of kilograms of diseased food.  And what we did with the contaminated food...we buried it in pits throughout Michigan...that doesn't seem too safe.  


The government should be control, yet it isn't!  Public health appears to not be a priority.


It's crazy to think that future archeologists will be able to base the toxic chemicals we used into different eras.  That is how we will be remembered.


Companies will do anything to ensure that they will continue going on to manufacture and earn from their products made.  Even if it means putting out ads telling people to put flame retardants on everything to ensure kids won't catch the furniture on fire when they play with matches.  There was no mention of the health effects these flame retardants had on the children...

Reading 6

Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart

 Chapter 4 Pages 92 - 117

This whole chapter circulated about the idea of making waste into food.  This processing of recycling is something that we should revert back to.  The nomadic way of life was a healthy one for the people and the environment.  Our new ways have ruined us in the present and the future.

There are two different types of masses: biological and technical.  Biological masses deal with the biosphere and natural items, while technical masses deal with industry and are man-made.  These two masses can be reused or recycled, except for when you start combining two unlike materials.  

The rise of cities lead to sanitation problems world wide.  Even today, the "treated" sewage isn't really treated because it still contains harmful parts.  

It's sad that today people want to always be the first to use a new product they brought.  No one really wants to buy used items.  They want to be the first to use it!  "This virgin product is mine, for the very first time.  When I am finished with it (special, unique person that I am), everyone is.  It is history." (p. 102-103)  It's crazy that we all have that mentality in us.  Everyone seems to strive for it.

The creation of hybrid materials, like PET, seemed good in the beginning, but long-term they are bad.  They are unhealthy for us the consumers.  When the book mentioned about the mill that converted into a healthy environment to sell environmentally friendly fabric, it was crazy about the regulators.  The regulators couldn't believe that an industrial plant wasn't contributing harmful particles into the water.  When an item is compostable and safe for people, it seems easier to make a healthier and safer factory to product it.

The thing with technical products is when you melt them down, you can only combine them with the same item melted down.  This is help retain the original products quality.  Metals and plastics are prime examples of this.

They mention carpet are pages 112-113!!!

The end of the chapter made me feel scared to wear shoes again...flip flops it is...

Reading 5

Slow Death By Rubber Duck: The Secret Danger of Everyday Things by Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie

Chapter 3 Pages 69-95

It's interesting how PFCs are very bad for us (even though many companies deny it), but here we are lining our popcorn bags and spraying our rugs with it.  I'm glad that there are great companies out there like 3M who is 2000 removed PFOs from their Scotchgard product.  That was a move for the better and it makes them stand out a great company to get items from because they are looking out for the health of not only their workers, but consumers too.  No matter what precautions we seem to take, it appears that PFOA is everywhere around us.  How are we to escape it?!

Carpet appeared in this reading pertaining to items that give off fluorinated alcohols.  These are man-made chemicals that we have been putting into our atmosphere.  The earth tries to get rid of it, but at the rate we are putting it into the air, the more the earth has to work with no end in sight.  

"Directly across the river from the DuPont chemical factory is the drinking-water well field for the town of the Little Hocking, Ohio." (p. 74)  This seems quite wrong...

When it came to the lawsuit that followed between DuPont and the Tennants seemed like there could never be an even trade for all the harm the company did to the family.  The Tennants lost their lives, cattle, and much more.  That's crazy!!!

What gives companies like DuPont the right to say that they can set their own standard for drinking water?  Where did they get this power?  Money doesn't mean power...it means greed...

I think it's good that the people of the town didn't really attack DuPont and want them gone from their town, but at the same time...I'm like DuPont should pay and leave the town for all the harm they did.  It was very noble and right of the town to want DuPont to stay, but wanted to get their questions answered when it came to their health and more.  

It's crazy how workers will put themselves in very unhealthy and deadly conditions just to get money to provide for their family.  Is it really worth the cost, which is ultimately your death?

DuPont wasn't right in trying to hide the fact that they were contaminating their workers, and also the future generations.  Like when it came to their test on the 8 pregnant women and they found out 2 had children with birth defects.  All the company did was move the women away and out of sight.  They thought out of sight meant out of mind.  Didn't the women with the birth defected children think to look further into their children's deformities?

I feel that tap water is going to be the end of us...the silently deadly killer...

Reading 4

Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart

 Chapter 3 Pages 68 - 91

 At the start of the chapter, there is a mention that there are three different types of books in the world.  Book #1 consists of paper, ink (carbon black and heavy metals), and a jacket (wood pulp, polymers, coatings, ink, heavy metals, and halogenated hydrocarbons).  This type of book can't be composted or burned because it would contaminate our environment.  Book #2 consists of paper (thin), no jacket, and ink (soy-based).  This type of book can be recycled, but the thin papers make them very see through.  This causes the readers to strain their eyes in order to read.  But  this book type is considered eco-friendly.  Book #3 consists of paper (polymers, which can be infinitely recycled), inks (nontoxic), and glue (made from compatible ingredients).  The entire books can be reclaimed after being used by the publishing industry.  So this type of book would be the best for us to have with all our books being published.

The idea of the eco-efficient building means it's saves energy, minimizes air infiltration, lowers solar income, and decreases the amount of fossil fuels used.  In factory settings, the idea of being an enjoyable environment should be thought of.  "Biophilia" is the people's love of the outdoors.  

"Urban and industrial growth is often referred to as a cancer, a thing that grows for its own sake and not for the sake of the organism it inhabits." (p. 77)

Roof systems can be expensive due to flooding and heating problems that can arise.  The green roof is an alternative that could help battle the problems.  It consists of soil, a growing matrix, and plants.

We should begin to combine our way of life with nearby eco-systems, since they survive so well with no side effects (unlike us).

The future should create buildings that produce more energy than they use and purify its own waste just like trees do, factories should produce drinking water and decomposable items, and transportation should help to improve the quality of life to help create and abundant world.

Reading 3

World Changing: A User's Guide for the 21st Century by Alex Steffen (Author), Al Gore (Foreword), and Stephan Sagmeister (Designer)

Stuff and Shelter Sections Pages 32-39 and 142-152

Our society is a greedy one that is based on materialistic values.  But "how much stuff do we need?" (p. 32)  Sadly the gap between sustainability and everyday practice is very wide.  It's the opposite of what we actually need.  People can check the footprint they are causing on the world by the "Ecological Footprint Quiz".  The variety of lifestyles and technology around the world causes a shift in the average acres used per person.  America's average is 24 acres, China is 4 acres, and Pakistan is 1.5 acres.  Freecycle.org is something very similar to like craigslist or ebay.  People can post the things they are going to throw out, and people have to options of grabbing the items and using them before they go to the landfill never to get used again.  So in a way technology is actually helping in some small way.  

The idea of simplicity is something that companies can't grasp, and instead we get stuck with ipods that play music, surf the web, act as a phone, and so much more.  I myself have had the same ipod nano 1st generation for years because it serves the purpose it was made for.  I don't see the point in the advanced ipods that can do everything say your computer can do because I already have a computer.  We are just a society that when we want something (like access to the internet) we want it then.  

To buy anything organic now-a-days lots of money is required.  So how can we be healthy for ourselves and the environment and we can't afford it?!

"There are a number of US-controlled regions in other parts of the world where sweatshops laborers turn out garments that can be legally called American-made.  There are also sweatshops right here in the United States." (p. 36)  This greatly upset me, but at the same time it didn't shock me.  Which is quite sad.

The idea of comfort is greatly associated with the shelter we live within.  Like with wood flooring being used.  The effect though is that in just one hundred years over half of the world's rain forests have been torn down.  This is a startling fact.  Bamboo sounds like it is a great, renewable resource that we should use.  But why aren't we using it more???

"...buildings account for 50 percent of energy consumption in the United States and for more greenhouse-gas emissions than automobiles." (p. 147)

The Philosophy of Sustainable Design by Jason F. McLennan

Chapter 9: The Technologies and Components of Sustainable Design Pages 97-135

Through the years people have said that technology has ruined us and the environment around, but in some cases being "green" does require technology to function.  Water is a main resource used in waste disposal, but they call water non-renewable.  I feel that water in a sense is renewable because rain does happen often and that water can be collected and used.  Luckily we have begun to watch how much water we use.  This can be seen in the creation of low flow waste disposal.  Composite toilets are something that is very interesting because of the process it goes through.  It's amazing what we can do.  

"...out of sight, out of mind." (p. 102)  This is so true for our culture!!!

Why can't we follow the example set by all animals?  Because they have it all figured out.

So with the composing toilet people of the older generations are bias because they associate it with the outhouse.  So in turn we need to get rid of the old people, yet the older generations have told the younger generations about things such as outhouses.  

Why is it people choose the waterless toilet over the composting?  That to me doesn't make sense because I feel like the water toilet would be worse because the idea of everything not getting cleaned off can be an issue on health.  

With this book, I like how they included additional information for readers to follow and get more information about the items mentioned.  It's helping to spread the word.

"Why do we need drinking quality water to flush toilets?" (p. 106)  That is a very good question.

There are renewable energy sources that we can use, but the price plays a very huge role in the reason that people aren't using it...yet.  Hopefully over time that will change.  And also certain energy sources can only be used in certain areas, like with wind power.  The turbines are so big and have to be placed where there is a large amount of wind produced.  The spaces it can only be used in are rural areas, so it limits the use of it.

Natural ventilation seems like a great idea; it just stinks that the engineers are trying to design buildings with non-open windows.  That greatly restricts this type of energy saving process.  This energy source also deals greatly with the comfort level of the people within, so people have to be willing to give in and adjust.  This can be hard if you have a large building, with many occupants.  Less amount of people within the structure makes it easier, like with residential homes.

"Is a green material really green or is it green-wash?" (p. 126)

Reading 2

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...

Reading 1

The Philosophy of Sustainable Design by Jason F. McLennan 

Handout Pages 1-34

 "Sustainable Design is an idea whose time has come." (p. 2)  So new ideas begin to emerge in order to solve the problems that exist.  It's with time that a transformation emerges in buildings and designing that sparks a new period/process.  Using the terms " sustainable design" and "green architecture" people are able to advertise basically anything they want.  People just throw out these terms even when they don't truly understand the meaning of them.  It's just a form of advertising and getting their idea/name spread.  It's interesting because now days we ourselves create new words in order to get things across like "facebooking" and "tweeting".  Change is happening everywhere!

"The word 'sustainable' has been applied to many buildings that do not deserve the designation, thus shrouding the few that do." (p. 2)  So the few that are actually trying to help us with the hole we have dug ourselves into are getting their creditability ruined due to the posers elsewhere.  "Sustainable design is  not about features." (p. 2)  Yet we have made it such a thing.  It's as if we are spreading knowledge that we don't even truly know.  So in turn we are actually spreading lies.  It's like we are gossiping like some housewives or children!

The older generations are trying to change, but it's the newer generations that hold the key to our survival.  The phrase "you can't teach a dog new tricks" comes to mind because the older people are stuck in their own ways and change sometimes scares them.  Or for those that are "trying" to change, the attempt is there, but the success isn't.

Do we truly know what being sustainable is?!

The idea of comfort plays a major role in the development towards sustainability because people felt that it meant they would have to sacrifice their comfort.  This wasn't the case....it was just false advertising (which appears to be a norm for our culture).  So in turn the idea of sustainability scared people away because to them change meant stepping away from their norm.  

****"Sustainable design is an approach that looks to the design process to heal as well as it has damaged." (p. 5)****  It's as if we have finally started worrying about our future!

The true, original roots of sustainable lies with our ancestors back in a time when technology was very limited and very primal.  During this time they didn't know it, but they were using only what they needed and not consuming in excess and in turn they didn't harm the earth.  But for those civilizations that did harm the earth and use too much, their history will forever live on in our history.  The trial and error of the world....Greed is a major player in this whole process.  Greed at times gets the best of us all and this can be seen throughout time.

Has technology hurt us ultimately?!  In the past natives used local materials to achieve the necessary essentials, while today we travel outside our realm because we have the technology too.  Examples that we should look towards are the animals around us because they have survived centuries and centuries and evolved along with nature with no problems.  We have lost touch with our environment because all we do it drastically alter it to fit our needs versus what is good for the environment.  It's the greedy nature of us.

"In general, the harder a place was to reach or penetrate by humans of any culture, the less environmental impact occurred." (p.20)  That thought has radically changed through the years.  Today, we can adapt to basically any environment due to the technology we possess.  With the new technology came new levels of comfort for us.  Technology has become the backbone of our society, and without we would surely collapse.

We have created our own problems/consequences!!!

Through countless inventions we thought we were bettering ourselves, but underneath we were actually harming ourselves.  Like with the invention of leaded gasoline that we found out lead to cancer and birth defects.  I feel that we can't just blame certain people for the downfall of our connection to nature because they invented to help us.  We asked them for it and enjoyed it as a luxury; we just want an escape goat to blame our failures on.

Media in my eyes plays a significant role in the whole process.  Media could have posted the early warning signs that would have easily spared us.  Even today media is providing some information on the concerns at hand, but how are we to know what is true and what isn't.  The people, like me, have lost faith in the media as an effective tool.

The 1980s brought about cheaper energy costs, but to people that meant that conserving wasn't needed.  It's as if our priorities went elsewhere.  This marked a time when there were actually people designing green architecture and all for a great cause, and yet in turn they made not a lot of money.  There little greed attached to their actions logic has forever vanished.

The 1990s marked a time of trial and error, just like what our ancestors did before.  Hopefully the trial and errors we did won't bite later on like so many civilizations before. 

Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart 

Introduction and Chapter 1 Pages 3-44

This book is unlike another book I have seen before, and this is because of the material used to construct the book itself.  It's made of plastic instead of paper, and this helps to keep it waterproof and very durable.  In response to the growing issue of recycling and everything, this book can actually be "upcycled", which means it can recycled to create something better than it's original form.  Unlike with plastic bottles they can only be recycled into their same form or something of lesser value that has yet another short life spam.  This is called "downcycling" that means eventually the recycled item it destined to end up in a landfill, which defeats the purpose of recycling in the first place.  One concern I have with this book so far based just on the book itself and not the context within is that I understand it's made for plastic and can be "upcycled" and can have a longer life span than other products.....my issue lies within the fact that the book is under 200 pages long and yet it costs almost $30, which is almost double or triple a typical paper book of that length.  I understand the theory behind the chose of material, but what about the cost issue?!  That is a HUGE factor that should be greatly considered. 

Within society there will always be the group of people entitled the "hippies", which at times can be mocked by modern culture for their beliefs.  These "hippies" are the ones that live without certain luxuries, which seems so absurd to others.  Yet in time that will most likely be the way we survive....

The problem that has been baffling people everywhere is the development of a universal solution to any concern.  But you can't apply "universal solutions to local circumstances" (p. 8).  This is something that is throwing us behind because every area around the world has different characteristics that can't be tied to each and every other place.  That is what makes each area so unique, but also creates problems that need solving.  

This book has already been to shock me and I have just read up to chapter one.  It has made me start to question what is within the genetics of every item around me....and that is rather SCARY!!!  This book makes me feel like people should start to question what is within everything, instead of just remaining stationary and just accepting around them.  This logic is greatly flawed.  

Where would we be without technology?

How do we progress towards change in a safe way?

This transition from complex natural items to simple man-made ones is going to lead to our demise.  It's like we are just taking the quickest and easiest route.  And even with this idea of the high-tech realm we live within....is it really even high-tech....?  I think not!  The things around you that you deem to be high-tech are actually comprised of low grade material that is actually set to expire at certain times in order to force you to buy one after the other.  It's a never ending cycle.  

There needs to be a stand and change in the way parts from overseas are monitored and regulated.  Companies have found loop holes that satisfy their urges, but at what cost???!!!