There has been a lot of talk lately about how many servings of fish is too much and which fish are the best to eat. With concerns like mercury poisoning, eating farm-raised fish or wild fish, genetic engineering and over fishing, it’s important to consider certain things when choosing your next fish dinner or sushi roll.

Doctors and health professionals in general recommend fish because of the high dose of Omega 3’s fatty acids a serving supplies you with. A 6-ounce serving of fish can provide a day’s worth of high quality protein for adults. Eating fish once a week should not cause any concern for most people. For those fish eaters who partake in multiple servings of fish a week, especially children and pregnant women, the main concern can become mercury poisoning. Eating too much mercury-ridden fish can cause certain health problems including impairment in memory and behavior, tingling in the hands, feet, and lips, as well as causing possible damage to the heart and immune system. Aside from the mercury concern, we now have a number of different fish species that are soon to become extinct due to over fishing, or are being caught using environmentally destructive methods. There are some very simple rules to follow to be certain you are not getting a side dish of mercury or hurting the environment with your fish entree.

You’ve likely heard of Skin Deep, the cosmetic safety database which lists the toxicity of ingredients in personal care products.  But did you know there is now a similar database for food?
 
What’s On My Food, a brand-new searchable database launched yesterday by the Pesticide Action Network, will give you the inside scoop on exactly what chemicals are on the food you eat.  With just a click of the mouse, you can view the toxicology risk and known pesticide residues on everything from almonds to oats to winter squash.

For instance,  did you know 82% of conventional applesauce contains Carbendazim, an endocrine disruptor known to cause tumors in rats and ranked by Friends for Earth as one of the “Filthy Four” pesticides? Suddenly organic applesauce doesn’t seem quite so expensive, and the thought of making it at home doesn’t seem nearly as daunting.

The helpful — if not somewhat disturbing — website details each pesticide’s risk to human health by placing each chemical in one of the following toxicological categories:

 - Carcinogen
 - Hormone Disrupters
 - Neurotoxin
 - Developmental/Reproductive Toxins

Data used to compile this database was gathered from the EPA’s Pesticide Reregistration Decisions, the Pesticide Info Database, and the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program.

Source: Go Media, Image: Jekrub on Flickr, Written by Gina Munsey

There is enough energy stored beneath the earth’s surface to power all of our energy demands thousands of times over. The problem is, it’s thousands of feet beneath us. Out of sight. Out of mind. But what if we could get to it? What if we could harvest that power?

That’s the task at hand for Jared Potter. Jared Potter, CEO of Potter Drilling, is developing technology that his father, Robert Potter, initiated over 30 years ago while working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Robert Potter worked on developing Hot Dry Rock (HDR) heat mining, which, simply put, is a method of harvesting geothermal energy by pumping water into hot, crystalline rock via an injection well. The water is superheated as it flows through open joints in the hot rock reservoir, and is returned through production wells. At the surface, the useful heat is extracted by conventional processes, and the same water is recirculated to mine more heat.

Developed nations have so far ignored the guidelines and warning issued by the UNFCCC regarding the amounts of carbon emissions that they need to reduce by the year 2020 in order to prevent a climatic catastrophe.

According to the scientific panel of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the world must cumulatively reduce its carbon emissions by at least 25 to 40 percent in order to mitigate the adverse effects of global warming. However, during the ongoing round of Climate Change Talks at Bonn, Germany, the developed nations have failed to come up with convincing targets for reducing their greenhouse gas outputs.

While the European Union has made it clear to notch up its 20 percent reduction target by 2020 to 30 percent if rest of the developed nations agree to a 20 percent reduction target, there has been poor response from countries like Australia, United States and Japan.

The United States Congress has passed a bill calling for 14 percent reduction by 2020 from 1990 levels but the Obama administration is yet to promise anything substantial at the international forum. The United States is in discussions with China and has been trying to get the Chinese government to agree to some kind of emission reduction goals. And although China seems ready for voluntary sectoral emission cuts, an official deal has not been reached yet which could be the possible reason for US government’s reluctance in announcing a definite target.

Over the last few years, the wind energy sector has been experiencing tremendous growth as governments and utilities around the world seek sources of energy that generate reduced greenhouse gas emissions. In Ontario, the province has plans to increase the wind component of its electricity generation from the current 1 percent to 15 percent by 2025.

For the most part the wind energy industry has coasted along with favorable press and public opinion. The industry has had to weather some resistance, particularly pertaining to wildlife impacts (primarily birds and bats) and the consistency and reliability of wind power. Yet these criticisms have not gained enough traction to have a noticeable effect on the growth of the industry, which is being hailed as a source of tens of thousands of potential new jobs in the evolving green economy.

But over time another resistance to the wind industry has emerged focusing on the negative impacts of wind turbines on human health. This movement has been steadily growing in both its organizational power and the press coverage that it has been receiving.

As the earth warms, the melting of the earth’s two massive ice sheets-Antarctica and Greenland-could raise sea level enormously. If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt, it would raise sea level 7 meters (23 feet). Melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise sea level 5 meters (16 feet). But even just partial melting of these ice sheets will have a dramatic effect on sea level rise. Senior scientists are noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections of sea level rise during this century of 18 to 59 centimeters are already obsolete and that a rise of 2 meters during this time is within range.

As I note in Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization, assessing the prospects for the Greenland ice sheet begins with looking at the warming of the Arctic region. A 2005 study, conducted by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) team, an international group of 300 scientists, concluded that the Arctic is warming almost twice as fast as the rest of the planet. It found that in the regions surrounding the Arctic, including Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia, winter temperatures have already climbed by 3-4 degrees Celsius (4–7 degrees Fahrenheit) over the last half-century.

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, an Inuit speaking on behalf of the 155,000 Inuits who live in Alaska, Canada, Greenland, and the Russian Federation, described their struggle to survive in the fast-changing Arctic climate as "a snapshot of what is happening to the planet." She called the warming of the Arctic "a defining event in the history of this planet."

It's hard to watch television, read the paper, or go online without coming across facts about global warming prevention. You may already feel like you’ve got the basics down. Some of the more interesting global warming facts may have escaped your attention, though, as they don’t get quite as much coverage. The more time you spend digging into global warming causes and effects, the more you'll realize that climate change goes beyond some of the most catastrophic (and newsworthy) problems associated with it. Global warming will transform your life at basic levels that we’re just beginning to understand.

Global warming causes you may not have known about.

You’re likely aware that many of your daily activities — driving your car, cooling and heating your home, operating electronic devices - produce greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide. You may not, however, be aware of some other major contributors to climate change that you encounter regularly. For instance,

The meat on your plate: Deforestation, especially of tropical rainforests, is one of the major causes of global warming, and residents of countries such as Brazil and Costa Rica often destroy these forests to create grazing space for cattle. Choosing to eat less meat, and purchasing the meat you do eat from local sources, should be a part of your plan to lighten your own carbon footprint.
The food and yard wastes you throw away: When you send food wastes, grass clippings, and other organic materials to the landfill, they're much more likely to end up producing methane because they'll decompose in an anaerobic (or oxygen-free) environment. Composting those wastes, whether by sending them to a large-scale operation, or adding them to your own compost pile or bin, will allow for oxygen-rich decomposition… which prevents methane emissions, and "closes the loop" by creating material you can use for garden and plant fertilizer.

If asked which is more nutritious baby food or a cheeseburger, you'd probably guess infant food. Guess again…a study out of Britain has discovered that those little jars of mush aren’t that healthy.  In fact, researchers found that cheeseburgers and chocolate biscuits were more nutritious than many leading brands of baby food sold in Great Britain. We aren't even talking about a homemade cheeseburger but one from a fast food chain.

One company under fire is Heinz.  Of particular concern are its mini cheese biscuits for toddlers, which contain more saturated fat than a McDonald’s quarter pounder with cheese!  The Guardian writes:

The survey by the Children’s Food Campaign of 107 foods marketed for consumption by babies and young children - all bought from mainstream British supermarkets - shows that a high proportion of these foods are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar. Only half of all the products surveyed were low in saturated fat, salt and sugar, while for Heinz products this figure was one in four.

More bad news for television:  "Television exposure during infancy is associated with language delays and attentional problems," according to Dimitri Christakis, director of the Center for Child Health, Behavior and Development at Seattle Children's Research Institute.
Of particular concern are homes in which the television is on all the time, which amounts to 30% of all households! In these situations, less interaction, critical for infant language development, occur because of the interference of the television.

Christakis and his colleagues studied 329 two-month to four-year-old children and their parents. Children were monitored for two years recording what they heard or said for 12 to 16 hours.  Researchers did not calculate whether the children and their parents were actively watching TV or if it was just on in the background during the research.  The results, according to Live Science:

The next climate treaty is likely to include much tougher emission reduction goals for the developed countries and given the tormenting economic conditions their governments could be looking to outsource a significant percentage their emission reduction responsibilities to developing countries.

Although all the developed countries involved in negotiations for the next climate treaty agree that tougher emission reduction goals are necessary to combat global warming, they also acknowledge the fact that they are at loss of adequate resources to achieve those goals. While many plan to introduce carbon trading schemes the economic crisis means that the effectiveness of such schemes cannot be guaranteed. And thus, these countries seem to be looking for some tweaks in order to achieve those goals while avoiding any further damage to their economic growth.

The emission reduction schemes of both European Union and the United States allow a major portion of the emissions goals to be achieved by outsourcing them to developing countries. Experts fear that the real reduction in domestic emissions could be very less.

analysts say that the fine print of the complex agreement allows EU countries and companies to pay developing countries to make about 75 percent of the pledged emissions cuts from 2008-2020.

Britain had earlier been accused of weakening the EU plan to cut emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

According to documents obtained by the Guardian newspaper, the government is proposing that firms and countries attempting to meet the EU’s target to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 should be able to achieve up to half the required cuts by investing in carbon offset credits through the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The BMW mini coups took the U.S. by storm in part, due to its great gas mileage. Well, now BMW has launched the MINI E, an all electric, zero emissions car. Peter Trepp of Pacific Palisades has become the first consumer in the country to drive the car. He will have it for one year as part of a one-year field study. Additional consumers in New York, LA and New Jersey will also be taking ownership of their MINI E by the end of June.

I’m only slightly miffed that I wasn’t selected to test-drive the car for a year but I’ll get over it. In the meantime, the rest of us can follow Peter through his blog "Plugged-In With Peter’s MINI E," which can be viewed at http://www.petersminie.blogspot.com/. Yes, his blog is a marketing tool but I can’t resist and I will be following him. Maybe we’ll even be able to get him to write a special piece for us at Gas 2.0.
 
So how did Trepp become one of the lucky 450 people to drive the car? He is a venture capitalist whose firm specializes in funding early-stage clean technology companies. Besides being tested here in LA, NY and NJ, the car will also be tested in Berlin and Munich, Germany; and London, England. Hey - they should have tested it in San Francisco, Portland or Seattle where they are building electric vehicle infrastructure.

A Mayo Clinic study shows that kids who got the flu shot–especially those with asthma– are 3 times as likely to require hospitalization as those who did not receive the shot.

All kids in the study had lab-confirmed influenza, but the ones who got the shot ended up at the hospital more. And not because they had better health insurance, either.

As you may know, the CDC now recommends that all children, up to age 18, receive the flu vaccine. Because, as a Harvard study showed last year, kids carry germs. Adults who live in a population more concentrated with kids are more likely to get sick.

Get the flu shot; don’t mind the mercury.

While everyone is waiting impatiently (or quite patiently, in my case) for the swine flu vaccine, there is something y’all should know: the seasonal flu vaccine isn’t all that effective. And for kids, it just might increase the chances that you get a bonus trip to the hospital.