Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Rachel's News #844: Collapse?

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

rachel

Rachel's News #844: Collapse?

Fri, 3 Mar 2006 20:05:38 -0500

..

..

Precautionary thinking can be tricky. Join us for a precaution training,

now set for Mar. 31-Apr. 2 in New Brunswick, N.J.; May 19-21 near

Chicago; June 23-25 in Seattle. Some scholarships are available.

More info here.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #844

" Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

Thursday, March 2, 2006.................Printer-friendly version

www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Featured stories in this issue...

 

Why Civilizations Decline

Some civilizations reach their peak of power and then suddenly

collapse and remain in decline or even disappear. Others thrive for

thousands of years. What accounts for the difference, and what does

it matter to the U.S.?

Money and Medicine: Richer or Poorer, Health and Wealth Are Linked

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical

Association confirms that people with lower " socioeconomic status " are

twice as likely to die in any given period of time, even after taking

into account age, sex, race and current smoking habits.

Benzene in Children's Drinks: Not a Sweet Surprise

The government has known since 1990 that vitamin C can combine with

other common soft-drink ingredients to form benzene -- a powerful

industrial solvent and potent carcinogen (see Rachel's #647). Recent

studies found benzene levels in some popular 'kids' drinks that were 2

to 4 times what's " acceptable " in drinking water. And benzene is only

one among many health problems linked to our soda pop culture,

including obesity, tooth decay, caffeine dependence, and weakened

bones.

Dumped Electrical Goods: A Giant Problem

As the electronic age progresses, the environmental costs grow

exponentially. If full-lifecycle manufacturing were embraced, the vast

majority of e-waste could be recycled. An average desktop computer

holds 14 pounds of plastic, 4 pounds of lead, 8 pounds of aluminum and

smaller amounts of arsenic, mercury and beryllium.

Acid Seas Are Killing Off Corals and Shellfish

As global carbon dioxide levels rise, the oceans are growing more

acidic. Scientists now believe that a critical threshold for sea-life

is being crossed, which could further the decline of corals and

shellfish populations which are highly sensitive to acidity levels.

This in turn would reduce the uptake of C02 (oceans absorb about half

the C02 we produce) worsening the problem of global warming.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #844, Mar. 2, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

[This story]

 

WHY CIVILIZATIONS DECLINE

 

By Peter Montague

 

The year 2005 began with an interesting choice by the editors of the

New York Times -- the first op ed of the year was a long essay by

Jared Diamond called " The ends of the world as we know them. "

Diamond won the Pulitzer prize for his non-fiction book, " Guns,

Germs, and Steel " and later in 2005 he published " Collapse; How

Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. "

 

Diamond's op-ed offers an analysis of why civilizations collapse. It

is an essay obviously intended to make us ask, " Does our civilization

have what it takes to survive? " In the opening paragraph he says, " In

this fresh year, with the United States seemingly at the height of its

power and at the start of a new presidential term, Americans are

increasingly concerned and divided about where we are going. How long

can America remain ascendant? Where will we stand 10 years from now,

or even next year? "

 

Diamond goes on: " Such questions seem especially appropriate this

year. History warns us that when once-powerful societies collapse,

they tend to do so quickly and unexpectedly. That shouldn't come as

much of a surprise: peak power usually means peak population, peak

needs, and hence peak vulnerability. What can be learned from history

that could help us avoid joining the ranks of those who declined

swiftly? "

 

Diamond tells the stories of a few past civilizations that collapsed

and rapidly disappeared -- the Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula in

Mexico; the Polynesian societies on Henderson and Pitcairn islands

in the tropical Pacific Ocean; the Anasazi in the American

southwest; the ancient societies of the Fertile Crescent; the

Khmer at Angkor Wat; and the Moche society of Peru, among others.

 

Diamond then offers a long list of other societies that followed a

different trajectory and survived for very long periods in Japan,

Tonga, Tikopia, the New Guinea Highlands, and Central and

Northwest Europe, among others. So collapse is not inevitable.

Collapse is the result of choices.

 

Diamond asserts that collapse results from 5 inter-woven factors:

 

1. The damage that people have inflicted on their environment;

 

2. Climate change;

 

3. Enemies;

 

4. Changes in friendly trading partners;

 

5. Society's political, economic, and social responses to those

shifts.

 

After telling the stories of particular societies that collapsed or

prospered, Diamond asks pointedly, " What lessons can we draw from

history? "

 

Take environmental problems seriously

 

He answers bluntly: " The most straightforward [lesson from history]:

take environmental problems seriously. They destroyed societies in the

past, and they are even more likely to do so now. If 6,000 Polynesians

with stone tools were able to destroy Mangareva Island, consider

what six billion people with metal tools and bulldozers are doing

today. Moreover, while the Maya collapse affected just a few

neighboring societies in Central America, globalization now means that

any society's problems have the potential to affect anyone else. Just

think how crises in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq have shaped

the United States today. "

 

The second reasons for collapse is " failure of group decision-making. "

 

Diamond then offers three kinds of failure of decision-making:

 

Decision-making failure #1: " One reason involves conflicts of

interest, whereby one group within a society (for instance, the pig

farmers who caused the worst erosion in medieval Greenland and

Iceland) can profit by engaging in practices that damage the rest of

society, " Diamond writes.

 

Examples of this in contemporary society might include

 

** The petrochemical industry that reaps mountainous profits by

selling products that are heating up the planet, contaminating our

bodies with biologically-active industrial poisons, and leaving tens

of thousands of chemically-contaminated waste sites for taxpayers to

try to deal with.

 

** Another example might be the tobacco industry that is now hawking

its cancer-causing wares to unsuspecting children world-wide.

 

This list could be readily extended because the U.S. pays only lip

service to the important principle that " the polluter shall pay. "

More often than not, in the U.S. the polluter is subsidized by the

federal government to evade paying.

 

Decision-making failure #2: " ... [T]he pursuit of short-term gains at

the expense of long-term survival, as when fishermen overfish the

stocks on which their livelihoods ultimately depend. "

 

** We might include in this category, unsustainable logging practices;

industrialized agriculture, which depletes topsoil and contaminates

water with fertilizer and pesticides; and waste-treatment plants that

discharge wastes into waters that must then be cleaned for drinking

and other essential purposes.

 

Decision failure #3: " History also teaches us two deeper lessons about

what separates successful societies from those heading toward

failure. "

 

Deep lesson #1: " A society contains a built-in blueprint for failure

if the elite insulates itself from the consequences of its actions. "

 

** With 10% of the U.S. population owning 71% of all private wealth,

we do not have to look far to see this principle at work in the U.S.

 

-- The Walmartization of the economy is one example -- getting rid

of good, family-sustaining jobs and substituting low-wage jobs with no

benefits and no job security. This does not hurt the 10%, but

ultimately it weakens the social fabric that sustains the other 90% of

us.

 

-- The privatization of public services is another example --

depleting the ranks of the civil service that provides continuity and

expertise to government from one administration to the next. The firms

that run the private prisons, the privatized public schools, the

private water-supplies, the private highways, the privatized

environmental services -- those firms can make out like bandits but

the rest of us stand by helplessly as the capacity of our governmental

institutions withers and our common wealth disappears.

 

-- The refusal to provide pensions for workers would be a third

example -- when a Reagan-appointed judge allows United Airlines to

walk away from its pension obligations, it's good for the company's

bottom line, and other firms quickly follow suit. Renouncing pension

responsibilities is now epidemic. Meanwhile, government -- dominated

as it is by the 10% -- is working mightily to cut back Medicare and

Medicaid. The 10% do not have to ask who will care for them in their

old age, but the other 90% of us do and for many the answer is nothing

but an empty question mark.

 

Deep lesson #2: " The other deep lesson involves a willingness to re-

examine long-held core values, when conditions change and those values

no longer make sense. "

 

Here, Jared Diamond provides his own examples of the U.S. clinging to

dangerously outmoded ideas:

 

" In this New Year, we Americans have our own painful reappraisals to

face. Historically, we viewed the United States as a land of unlimited

plenty, and so we practiced unrestrained consumerism, but that's no

longer viable in a world of finite resources. We can't continue to

deplete our own resources as well as those of much of the rest of the

world.

 

" Historically, oceans protected us from external threats; we stepped

back from our isolationism only temporarily during the crises of two

world wars. Now, technology and global interconnectedness have robbed

us of our protection. In recent years, we have responded to foreign

threats largely by seeking short-term military solutions at the last

minute.

 

" But how long can we keep this up? Though we are the richest nation on

earth, there's simply no way we can afford (or muster the troops) to

intervene in the dozens of countries where emerging threats lurk --

particularly when each intervention these days can cost more than $100

billion and require more than 100,000 troops. [The Iraq war has cost

the U.S. $244 billion so far, with no end in sight.--PM]

 

" A genuine reappraisal would require us to recognize that it will be

far less expensive and far more effective to address the underlying

problems of public health, population and environment that ultimately

cause threats to us to emerge in poor countries. In the past, we have

regarded foreign aid as either charity or as buying support; now, it's

an act of self-interest to preserve our own economy and protect

American lives. "

 

To me the most important point in Jared Diamond's essay is this one:

 

" A society contains a built-in blueprint for failure if the elite

insulates itself from the consequences of its actions. " This is surely

the case in the United States today.

 

The remedy for this problem is more democratic decision-making.

Decisions should be made with real participation by the people who

will be affected. (For information about how this is working now

in some places, see here and here).

 

If this simple principle were practised to a greater extent that it is

today, most of the problems that threaten our civilization could be

reversed or considerably diminished. On the other hand, if we continue

to allow a tiny elite to manage the economy and run the government for

their own narrow, selfish purposes, the outlook for long-term success

is dim.

 

==============

 

Jared Diamond is the author of The Third Chimpanzee; The Evolution and

the Future of the Human Animal (N.Y. Harper Perennial, 1992; ISBN

0060183071); Guns, Germs and Steel (N.Y.: W.W. Norton, 1999; ISBN

0393317552); and Collapse; How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed

(N.Y. Penguin, 2005; ISBN 0670033375).

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

New York Times, Feb. 21, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

[This story]

 

MONEY AND MEDICINE: RICHER OR POORER, HEALTH AND WEALTH ARE LINKED

 

By Nicholas Bakalar

 

A new report issued last week adds support to the premise that poor

people are in worse physical condition and have an increased risk for

death compared with those who are better off.

 

The findings, published last week in The Journal of the American

Medical Association, examined more than 30,000 patients consecutively

referred to the Cleveland Clinic for stress testing. The researchers

assigned a socioeconomic status score to each patient by matching the

home address to economic data in the 2000 census.

 

Patients exercised on a treadmill while being measured for the maximum

amount of oxygen they consumed during exercise, usually called

functional capacity, and for heart rate recovery, or the amount the

heart rate decreases during the first minute after exercise.

 

Both slower heart rate recovery and lower functional capacity were

associated with lower socioeconomic status, even after controlling for

age, race, smoking and body mass index.

 

The subjects were then followed for an average of six and a half

years, through February 2004, to track their survival.

 

There were 2,174 deaths during the period, and patients in the lowest

quarter of socioeconomic status score were twice as likely to have

died as those in the highest quarter, even though the two groups did

not differ in age, sex, race or current smoking habits.

 

Dr. Michael S. Lauer, the study's senior author and a professor of

medicine and epidemiology at Case Western Reserve University, said

that poverty itself could be a cause of disease or death.

 

" Some people think that poverty causes stress to the autonomic nervous

system, the part that regulates blood pressure and heart rate, " Dr.

Lauer said. " Stress to the autonomic nervous system can manifest as

hypertension and poor fitness. "

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Environmental Working Group, Feb. 28, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

[This story]

 

CHILDREN'S DRINKS CONTAIN INGREDIENTS THAT CAN FORM BENZENE

 

FDA silent despite knowledge of the problem

 

Agency Trusted Industry to Change Formulas in 1990, Yet Still Finds

Sodas with Benzene

 

By Abid Aslam

 

WASHINGTON - February 28 - Today the Environmental Working Group (EWG)

sent a letter to the FDA requesting that the Agency notify the

public about the presence of two ingredients in many popular

children's drinks that can mix together to form the cancer-causing

chemical benzene. The FDA last addressed this problem more than 15

years ago when it entered into a voluntary agreement with the beverage

industry to reformulate its products to avoid the presence of this

hazardous mixture. It appears, based on news reports and a sampling by

EWG of popular children's drinks from retail outlets, that many

manufacturers have not complied.

 

In 1990, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) learned that certain

soft drinks marketed to children contain two ingredients that can mix

in the soda to form the toxic carcinogen benzene. The Agency didn't

tell the public, but instead merely asked companies to voluntarily

change their formulas to eliminate the problem.

 

So far in 2006, two news outlets have reported that the Agency is

again testing soft drinks, finding benzene sometimes at levels above

the safe limit for drinking water, and asking companies to change

their formulas. To date the FDA has concealed this information from

the public.

 

On February 24 and February 27, 2006, EWG staff found many juices and

sodas at major national retail outlets containing the ingredients that

can form benzene. The beverage industry appears to have flagrantly

ignored the 1990 agreement to eliminate chemical combinations that can

form benzene in their products and the FDA, by all accounts, has done

nothing about it.

 

" Benzene is a potent carcinogen that has no place in foods and drinks

targeted to children, " said Richard Wiles, Sr. Vice President of

Environmental Working Group. " We urge the FDA to immediately issue a

statement telling consumers which ingredients in foods and drinks can

combine to form benzene, " Wiles added.

 

In the meantime EWG is providing the following information to

consumers:

 

To steer clear of chemicals in foods and drinks that can mix together

to form benzene, consumers should avoid products that contain both

ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and either sodium benzoate or potassium

benzoate. " Once again, the FDA has sided with industry and against the

public, in this case by concealing simple information that would allow

people to easily avoid benzene in the drinks they give their

children, " said Wiles. " Once people have this information, we are

convinced that food and drink manufacturers will simply reformulate

their products, as many already have done, and as FDA originally

intended in 1990. "

 

Additional Resources

 

A list of drinks containing ascorbic acid and either sodium benzoate

or potassium benzoate

 

UK, Germany testing sodas, too

 

FDA quietly investigating?

 

WJLA-TV news report

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Independent (UK), Feb. 27, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

[This story]

 

DUMPED ELECTRICAL GOODS: A GIANT PROBLEM

 

By Martin Hickman

 

This year [in Britain] we will discard 100 million TVs, computers,

stereos and mobile phones as we're seduced by ever newer models. They

could all be recycled - so why aren't they?

 

What do you do with your old telly - the black set that now looks so

dull when compared to its silver digital and widescreen betters?

And what about your old computer, a hulking grey box superseded by the

sleek, exciting new Apple? Or your old drill, mobile phone or any

other electrical product broken or deemed surplus to requirements in

our increasingly throwaway society?

 

Some people dump these once-treasured items of progress in the bin,

the tip, from where they make their way to landfill sites. There,

their heavy metals like mercury poison the ground and raw materials

are lost to future generations. Some, who cannot bring themselves to

jettison items once so coveted and useful, put them in the loft. Then

throw them away when they move.

 

Nationally, Britain's electronic mountain is crashing into landfill at

an extraordinary rate. No one knows exactly how much is thrown away

because it is dumped along with the kitchen scraps and broken

furniture. But industry sources estimate that 100 million fridges,

TVs, computers, mobile phones and other items of electronic equipment

are discarded every year. They weigh 936,000 tons - the same as 2,400

jumbo jets.

 

The startling fact is that all of these products can be recycled using

new technology; the country's first Waste Electrical and Electronic

Equipment (WEEE) recycling plant has just opened in the North-east.

And none should even be entering the dumps at all. By August 2005,

Britain was supposed to have introduced new European rules stipulating

that all electronic waste be recycled. Under the directive, retailers

of electronic goods pay for the collection and producers pay for the

recycling. This has been introduced in all almost EU countries - but

not in Britain. The Government's response has been slow. We are now,

along with France and Malta, incurring the wrath of the EU and

probably heavy fines.

 

Britain first announced that the directive would be in place by last

March, then the date moved to August. Then December. Then, in mid-

December, the energy minister Malcolm Wicks announced a review of the

directive - with no end date. In its defence, the Department of Trade

and Industry says it wants to get implementation right. " It doesn't

seem right to rush it through just to meet a deadline, " says a

spokeswoman.

 

The delay has infuriated environmentalists. Michael Warhurst, senior

waste and resources campaigner at Friends of the Earth, says: " WEEE is

very important. It's a complete waste of resources to be taking these

electronic items and dumping them in landfill sites. In Britain we

have a pretty pathetic situation where the Government should have

implemented WEEE and hasn't. "

 

The Government says the delay is due to ongoing discussions about how

to enact the directive. A study suggests it will cost between £229m

and £500m - £2 to £5 for each product.

 

Arguments have raged about how best to collect all those old TV sets.

Should there be neighbourhood collection sites for the smaller items

like kettles, similar to bottle banks? Should everyone take their

products to a point at the municipal dump? Should consumers return

stuff to the retailers?

 

The electronics industry, which would have to foot the bill, is

sanguine about the continuing discussion. " The cost implication is

large, and poor implementation could have massive repercussions on UK

businesses, consumers and the environment, " says a spokesman for the

Recycling Electrical Producers' Industry Consortium (Repic), which

represents the makers of 80 per cent of electrical goods.

 

Friends of the Earth believes the mess surrounding the EU directive is

symptomatic of a wider reluctance by Labour to introduce environmental

measures that inconvenience business. " What we have seen here is that

they keep consulting and trying to reach a consensus position, and

that's not working. Governments that show a bit of leadership go to

consultation and then say: 'Right, this is what we are going to do'. "

 

Frustration is also being felt at Wincanton, the British company that

has spent £4.5m installing the UK's first WEEE recycling unit near

Middlesbrough. The machine takes whole computers, microwaves and so

on, cracks them open and sorts the materials for re-use in new

products. The breaking happens when the products fall into the machine

and crash into one another as they are spun in a vortex. MeWa, the

German maker of the machine, likens it to " cracking the nut " .

 

Once broken, the components are sent into containers of ferrous metals

and non-ferrous metals. The metals are shredded for re-use. The

plastic is granulated for re-use. The gases inside the machines are

siphoned off for re-use. On a conveyor belt at the centre of the

machine workers pick off special items, like circuit boards, which

contain gold.

 

The machine, one of about 20 in Europe, can recycle 75,000 tons of

electronics a year - equivalent to 800,000 washing machines. Two

hundred people armed with screwdrivers would be required to carry out

the same job.

 

Yet local authorities are not sending truckloads of material to the

plant. Until the directive comes into force, Wincanton is relying on

retailers forwarding on faulty goods, and the appliances it remove

swhen it delivers new products to homes.

 

The main business of the FTSE 250 company is delivering goods for

major retailers. It hopes WEEE recycling will use up spare capacity on

its empty lorries and has six depots waiting to collect products.

 

Gordon Scott, managing director of its industrial division and a self-

confessed late convert to environmentalism, says: " The bottom line is

we cannot go on as we have been going on. We cannot landfill as we

have been landfilling. We have got to do something like this. "

 

Having made a downpayment of some millions, he is hoping Britain

begins to recycle its TVs and computers very soon.

 

Fashion beats functionality in a throwaway society

 

We buy more stuff and throw it away faster than at any point in our

history. Electronic goods lose their lustre for consumers quicker now

because of advances in technology and lower prices.

 

Buying a basic television has never been so cheap, relatively

speaking. In the past, people would call a television repairman to fix

the telly when it went on the blink. Nowadays they often pop down to

the high street to buy a new set - which may not cost more than their

old set did five years before.

 

Fashion is also playing an increasing role - functional but

unfashionable products are now jettisoned for the latest model. Mobile

phones are considered out of date by Dixons after just six to nine

months. Mere function is not enough - flashiness is now essential.

 

" Our attitude to technology has changed from using something until it

breaks beyond repair, to constantly replacing it because something

cooler is in the market, " says Tom Dunmore, editor-in-chief of the

gadget magazine Stuff.

 

" I know of people with five or six iPods who change their mobile phone

every few months. And they're not unusual. "

 

Mark Strutt, senior campaigner at Greenpeace, says: " We consume vast

amounts of electronic goods and throw them away. Mobile phones are a

classic example, where they are more or less designed to be thrown

away after a few years. Another prime example is the MP3 player, which

does not have a battery that can be changed or recharged. "

 

Copyright 2006 Independent News and Media Limited

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Sunday Times (London, UK), Feb. 26, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

[This story]

 

ACID SEAS KILL OFF CORAL REEFS

 

By Jonathan Leake

 

The world's coral reefs could disappear within a few decades along

with hundreds of species of plankton and shellfish, according to new

studies into man's impact on the oceans.

 

Researchers have found that carbon dioxide, the gas already blamed for

causing global warming, is also raising the acid levels in the sea.

The shells of coral and other marine life dissolve in acid. The

process is happening so fast that many such species, including coral,

crabs, oysters and mussels, may become unable to build and repair

their shells and will die out, say the researchers.

 

" Increased carbon dioxide emissions are making the world's oceans more

acidic and could cause a mass extinction of marine life similar to the

one that occurred on land when the dinosaurs disappeared, " said

Professor Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution's global ecology

department.

 

When CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels dissolves in the ocean, it

forms carbonic acid. A little of this can benefit marine life by

providing carbonate ions ' a vital constituent in the biochemical

process by which sea creatures such as corals and molluscs build their

shells.

 

Caldeira found, however, that the huge volumes of carbon dioxide being

released by humans are dissolving into the oceans so fast that sea

creatures can no longer absorb it. Consequently, the levels of

carbonic acid are rising and the oceans are " turning sour " .

 

Speaking at the American Geophysical Union's ocean sciences conference

in Hawaii last week, Caldeira said: " The current rate of carbon

dioxide input is nearly 50 times higher than normal. In less than 100

years, the pH (measure of alkalinity) of the oceans could drop by as

much as half a unit from its natural 8.2 to about 7.7. "

 

This would mark a huge change in ocean chemistry. The shells of marine

creatures are made of calcium carbonate, the same substance as chalk,

which is vulnerable to acidity. Even a slight increase in acidity

would mean many creatures would dissolve. Others might be able to

rebuild their shells but would be unable to reproduce.

 

Nature, the scientific journal, recently published a study by Jim Orr,

of the Laboratory for Science of the Climate and Environment, Paris.

It said that by 2050 the Southern Ocean and subarctic regions of the

Pacific might be so acidic that the shells of smaller marine creatures

would start eroding.

 

Such a loss would have disastrous consequences for larger marine

animals such as salmon, mackerel, herring, cod and baleen whales.

These all feed on pteropods, or sea butterflies, one of the species

most threatened by rising acidity.

 

Last week another warning was issued about the threat of acidity to

sea life at the annual meeting in St Louis of the American Association

for the Advancement of Science.

 

Katherine Richardson, professor of biological oceanography at Aarhus

University in Denmark, said: " These marine creatures do humanity a

great service by absorbing half the carbon dioxide we create. If we

wipe them out, that process will stop. We are altering the entire

chemistry of the oceans without any idea of the consequences. "

 

Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.

[For more information about the issue of ocean acidification see the

March edition of Scientific American article 'The Dangers of Ocean

Acidification'.]

 

###

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

often considered separately or not at all.

 

The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

therefore ruled by the few.

 

In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

might be done about it? "

 

As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

please Email them to us at dhn.

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

subject.

 

Editors:

Peter Montague - peter

Tim Montague - tim

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

& Health News send a blank Email to: join-rachel.

 

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

you want to .

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

 

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...