10 Things You Should Know About Sikhs.

by Judy Molland

Sikhs are not Muslims.

Several reports indicate that Wade Michael Page, the army veteran who is suspected of killing six and injuring three at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, last weekend, was a white supremacist and a “skinhead.”

Though police have not yet named a motive in the attack, all but one of those shot were Sikh adherents. The other was a police officer.

From The Guardian:

Underpinning everything is a sense of frustration, just short of anger, at what Sikhs in Oak Creek and other parts of the US say is the frequent assumption that because of their turbans and beards they are Muslims, with all the weight that carries since 9/11.

Jeji Shergill, 62, said that since 9/11 he has regularly been assumed to be Muslim and that spills over into abuse.

“They compare us to the Muslims and we’re completely different,” he said. “I own a gas station. I am working there. People, they call me Bin Laden. Then, I explain to them, sorry, you are misunderstanding. You are mixing us up with the Muslims. You try to explain about the turban and the beard. They still call you Bin Laden.”

Clearly, Muslims themselves have endured significant unjustified abuse since 9/11, but it makes no sense that people confuse Sikhs for Muslims.

Who are Sikhs? Here are 10 things you should know:
1. Sikhism is the 5th largest religion in the world.
2. Sikhism is a small minority in the United States, where there are roughly 500,000 observers of the religion.
3. There are 25 million Sikhs around the world, most of them in India.
4. Sikhism originated in the 15th century in the Punjab area of South Asia. (North India and Pakistan)
5. There has only been one Sikh U.S. Member of Congress — Dalip Singh Saund, who represented Southern California in the late 1950s and early 60s.
6. Sikhism includes a belief in one god and the goal of leading an exemplary existence: equality and service to others and peace. “Everyone is the same,” says Raghunandan Johar, president of the Guru Nanak Mission of Atlanta. “There is no distinction, no caste system.”
7. Sikhs believe in freedom of religion, community service and inclusiveness.
8. Sikhs do not have clergy.
9. At temples, or gurdwaras, where Sikhs hold services, everyone is welcome.
10. Doing good deeds is important for you to be with God after death. Sikhs believe that if you don’t live a life full of good deeds you will be reborn and repeat the circle of life and death.

And in case you are wondering about turbans, Sikhs are meant to keep hair in its natural unaltered state. Sikhism has a code of conduct all Sikhs are meant to follow. A Sikh is expected to keep all hair intact and the head covered. The rule of dress for every Sikh man is to wear a turban. The Sikh woman may wear a turban or elect instead to wear a kind of traditional headscarf. A woman may also wear a scarf over a turban if she so desires. A Sikh accustomed to wearing a turban feels naked without it. Normally turbans are only removed in the most intimate of circumstances, when bathing the head, or washing the hair.

It’s not clear at this point whether Wade Michael Page targeted the Sikh community mistakenly, believing that they were Muslims.

Clearly, targeting any ethnic group is wrong, but for the Sikh community of Oak Creek, Wisconsin, it will take some convincing that the shootings were not a legacy of 9/11.


Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/10-things-you-should-know-about-sikhs.html#ixzz23LcxNS7W

The True Cost of Hamburgers (Video)

• by TreeHugger
• Written by Brian Merchant

On average, Americans eat three burgers a week. That may sound surprising in statistic form, but it squares pretty evenly with our nation’s fast food infatuation.

It’s also the very first factoid presented in this neat little video, ‘the Hidden Cost of Hamburgers’, from the Center for Investigative Reporting (the same folks who did the great ‘Hidden Cost of Gas’) that seeks to educate viewers about the true cost of our beefy eating habits.





A hamburger may cost you like 99 cents at Wendy’s, but there are a slew of additional costs that those beef pattied buns impose on society at large—environmental impacts of beef production, extra health care costs for obesity-related issues, etc. As such, CIR calculates that every burger costs us an additional $1.51 in hidden costs, which adds up to $72 million in extra costs a year.

The group explains at its website: (via Grist)

We looked at a range of ways beef is produced and came up with an average that is close to how a cow would be raised in Fresno, Calif.: about 1 pound of greenhouse gases per ounce of beef, or about 6½ pounds of greenhouse gases per quarter-pounder. We looked at studies that showed the health costs of treating overweight people and associated illnesses, such as high blood pressure, stroke and diabetes — that’s about 75 cents per burger. Then we looked at how much water it takes to produce a pound of beef — that’s about 50 cents per burger.

We also looked at the price of a ton of carbon — that’s remarkably small for the U.S., less than one-hundredth of a penny. But in the European Union, because it has a functioning carbon market, the price would be about a nickel per burger. Daniel Lopez Dias, the lead economist on the calculations, notes that these figures are conservative and don’t include effects from air and water pollution, effects of low wages that slaughterhouse workers receive and the high risk of injury they face, or general effects of urban sprawl.

The point is, of course, that those costs don’t cut into the fast food companies and industrial-scale ranchers’ profit margins; instead, the public absorbs the true price of hamburgers.

This post was originally published by TreeHugger.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/the-true-cost-of-hamburgers-video.html#ixzz239hgPb5R

English Supermarkets To Start Charging For Plastic Bags?

by Judy Molland


Environmental groups in England are demanding that shoppers pay for their single-use plastic bags.
According to figures from the waste reduction body Wrap, supermarket customers in the UK used almost 8 billion single-use plastic bags in 2011, a 5.4% rise on the 7.6 billion in 2010, with each person using an average of almost 11 a month. This was the second annual rise in a row.

Wrap also points out that in Wales, where a 5p charge was introduced last October, the amount of throwaway bags being taken home has fallen significantly.

England is the only part of the UK which has no plans for a plastic bag charge, and the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Keep Britain Tidy, the Marine Conservation Society (MCS) and Surfers Against Sewage are calling for one to be brought in.

From The Guardian:

Samantha Harding, CPRE “stop the drop” campaign manager, said bag levies had been shown to work in Wales and in Ireland, where plastic bag use fell by 90% following the introduction of a charge.

“A levy is coming to Northern Ireland and Scotland is already consulting on one. Why must the English countryside be the last to benefit from good environmental policies?” she asked.

The organizations say plastic bags end up littering England’s streets, countryside and beaches, while in the sea they can entangle or be swallowed by wildlife.

Over 1 trillion plastic bags are used every year worldwide, or about 1 million plastic bags every minute, but a single plastic bag can take up to 1,000 years to decompose.

Around the world, some nations and cities, recognizing that plastic bags are bad for the earth because they are made from petroleum and don’t decompose, have begun imposing bans on single-use plastic bags. Parts of China, Australia, South Africa, Italy, Switzerland, and Germany have either banned plastic bags outright or introduced a fee for them.

And earlier this year, in the US, the city of Los Angeles approved a ban on plastic bags, joining 48 other California cities, and numerous other American cities that already have plastic bag bans.

Memo to England: time to get going on the fee for single-use plastic bags.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/english-supermarkets-to-start-charging-for-plastic-bags.html#ixzz22OgmNljE

Think Twice Next Time About Touching a Receipt with Your Bare Hands -- Your Unborn Child May Thank You for It.

AlterNet / By Scott Thill

If you're looking to avoid further hormonal freakouts brought on by industrial chemicals then you might want to clean out your wallet.

If you're looking to avoid further hormonal freakouts brought on by the hated Bisphenol A (BPA) -- a frightening endocrine disruptor reportedly found in 96 percent of women but consumed more by their children, then you might want to clean out your wallet. Or perhaps forego shopping receipts altogether until you hear otherwise from conclusive scientific studies -- which could take many years to straggle in.

Two years ago, Canada became the first country to outright declare BPA, a controversially toxic compound for polycarbonate polymers and epoxy resins found in everyday plastics and other products, a toxic substance unsuitable for the First World. More recently, laggards like the European Union, the United States and more have banned it from baby bottles, but not everything else. That includes the thousands of point-of-sale thermal receipts ripped daily from cash registers, gas stations and other places too numerous to count, unless you're a scientist studying the toxicity of BPA or its less-known substitute Bisphenol S (BPS) in those receipts and resins.

It should be by now common knowledge that BPA secretes enough weak estrogen to influence serious developmental and neurological deformities and diseases, such as the congenital defect hypospadias, a freaky misplacement of the urethra now twice as common in newborn boys as before. What is not as well known is how much BPA and BPS is in thermal receipts. In the specific case of BPS, we're in the dark.

"There's not much known about BPS as an endocrine disruptor," Dr. Andrea Gore, a fellow at The Endocrine Society and professor of pharmacology and toxicology at University of Texas at Austin, told AlterNet. "It's being used as a BPA substitute, but it's been introduced into the environment without any biological testing. There are a couple of studies out there suggesting that BPS, similar to BPA, is a weak estrogen. Beyond that, little to nothing is known about its effects in the body."

One recent study, however, has ascertained that people, especially store employees who handle thermal receipts daily, may be absorbing almost 20 times more BPS through their skin than BPA when it was considered safe. Led by Dr. Kurunthachalam Kannan from New York State Department of Health's Wadsworth Center and published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, it analyzed thermal receipts from the U.S., Japan, Korea and Vietnam and found BPS in all of them. Kannan confirmed to AlterNet that there is concern that BPS is no safer than BPA, and that the former's rate of absorption relative to the latter is startling. He found the question of whether endocrine disruptors are not as recognized or regulated as they should be too broad, but found truth in the propositions that public awareness seems limited relative to the threat and that regulation is lagging behind the data made public so far.

"Our work is on the presence and use of a toxic chemical, not about toxicity itself," he told AlterNet. "But certainly it is concerning if a product containing a toxic compound is touched all the time."

Similar studies have echoed Kannan's measured concern, although they have somewhat dispensed with his critical distance. Published in 2010 in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, "Transfer of Bisphenol A From Thermal Paper To the Skin" found that the toxic chemical was indeed transferred to dry fingers, ten times more so if they were wet or greasy. It also found indications that BPA can enter the skin to the point that it can't be washed off, and that people handling thermal paper daily for hours could, depending on the circumstances, encroach upon the margins of tolerable daily intake.

"On the printed side of the paper, BPA is present almost as a pure chemical," the study's co-author Koni Grob, analyst for Switzerland's Official Food Control Authority in Zurich, explained to AlterNet. "Working with such paper means constantly putting fingers into the chemical, which no chemist would ever do. At present uncertainty, as a pregnant woman, I would not accept touching BPA all day long."

Grob also explained that there is a broad debate about the toxicity of thermal receipts, and that the jury is still out on the scientific proof for our levels of exposure. But he warned that it is "most critical" to limit exposure to mothers and their foetusus, and that "it is up to scientists and authorities to resolve this problem. Scaring the public is useless and unfair."

But that is often where the science and common sense part company. Scaring the public, using the pretty solid science on BPA and emergent studies on BPS provided so far by Grob's "scientists and authorities" -- who have historically remained conservative in their assessments of the toxicity of everyday life -- is often what it takes to widen the public and professional dialogue and kickstart greater regulation of what are obviously dangerous chemicals. That they are in things we need -- and more often don't really need, like the majority of thermal receipts which could easily be electronically replaced -- is already a sign that their usage is far too ubiquitous. BPA's major route of exposure is diet, which means it's in our food and water, and in the things in which we store our food and water, together comprising a rather staggering amount of our toxic everyday life.

And the list of things that can go wrong because of too much exposure to BPA is a horror show, starring existential threats like cancer and diabetes to more sensational scares like genital and genetic deformities. On a good day, you probably don't really want to read how endocrine disruptors screw up your mind and body, but you probably should on any given day, and then tell a neighbor. Because science often needs a more primal mover than its own intellectual curiosity: According to Environmental Working Group senior analyst Sonya Lunder, science funded by the BPA industry says everything's fine, while those outside its influence say everything is actually rather scary.

"It is unclear how much BPA-coated receipts contribute to people's total exposure to the ubiquitous plastics chemical," Lunder explained in EWG's 2010 study "Synthetic estrogen BPA coats cash register receipts" co-authored with senior scientist David Andrews and senior vice-president for research Jane Houlihan. "What is certain, however, is that since many retail outlets already use BPA-free paper for their receipts, this is one source of contamination that could easily be eliminated completely."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.  

Is Your Clothing Laced With Formaldehyde?

by Suzi Parrasch

If you thought the last time you were in contact with formaldehyde was when you dissected a frog in your elementary school science class, think again.

A recent study by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, shows that a broad range of clothing and household products are treated with a resin that releases formaldehyde. The purpose? Think wrinkle-free shirts and chinos, and yes, even wrinkle-free pillowcases, sheets and crib sheets.

Formaldehyde may be all around you

In fact, according to an article in The New York Times, formaldehyde can show up pretty much in any room in your house. Upholstery fabrics, draperies, children’s baseball caps, and personal care products including some shampoos, lotions and make up are all on the list of potential culprits.

But why? “Formaldehyde basically keeps the fabric’s fibers in place after a spin in the washing machine. Without it, the fibers become wrinkled or creases may fade,” The Times article explains.

Formaldehyde in clothing is not a new phenomenon. Manufacturers have added it to clothing and other products for years; it also serves as a preservative and to prevent mildew while clothes and other items transit from factory to store.

“From a consumer perspective, you are very much in the dark in terms of what clothing is treated with,” David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, told The Times. “In many ways, you’re in the hands of the industry and those who are manufacturing our clothing. And we are trusting them to ensure they are using the safest materials and additives.”

No formaldehyde regulations for clothing

“The United States does not regulate formaldehyde levels in clothing, most of which is now made overseas. Nor does any government agency require manufacturers to disclose the use of the chemical on labels,” The Times reports. “So sensitive consumers may have a hard time avoiding it (though washing the clothes before wearing them helps).”

Although the study — which was carried out by the GAO as required by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 — maintains that most consumers will never be affected by exposure to formaldehyde in fabrics, and claims that contact dermatitis (an allergic reaction that can causing itching, redness and blisters) is the worst case scenario, formaldehyde can pose serious health consequences for people who work with it in factories.

Formaldehyde levels on the decline in factories

There has been a decline formaldehyde levels in factories over the last several decades, says The Times “largely as a byproduct of regulations protecting factory workers at risk of inhaling the chemical and improved resins.” After all, formaldehyde is a known carcinogen.

So why would we want it touching our skin? In the very least, manufacturers should clearly label products containing formaldehyde. And “some critics are calling for more studies on a broader range of textiles and clothing chemicals, as well a closer look at the effects of cumulative exposure,” The Times says.

“Given all of the things we buy new that can release formaldehyde in our house, all of those things contribute,” Urvashi Rangan, director of technical policy at Consumers Union told The Times, also noting that the Environmental Protection Agency is currently developing formaldehyde emissions regulations for pressed-wood products. “Over all, minimizing your exposure is a good idea.”

And as for wrinkles, do we really need chemicals to smooth them away? What’s wrong with a good, old-fashioned iron?

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/is-your-clothing-laced-with-formaldehyde.html#ixzz222nhAusX

Beauty Products May Be Slowly Killing You.

by Cathryn Wellner


Scientists from four institutions (Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, and University of Michigan School of Public Health) have come to the same conclusion as the Swedish researchers I reported on in Lipstick or Diabetes? The personal care products sold to us as body- and beauty-enhancing aids are contributing to the sharp increase in diabetes.

The new study analyzed urine samples from 2,350 women, aged 20 to 80. Participants were part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2001 and 2008. Even after controlling for sociodemographic, behavioral and dietary factors, the researchers found that women with more phthalates in their urine were more likely to have reported diabetes.

Those with the highest level of two phthalates (mono-benzyl and mono-isobutyl) in their urine had twice the risk of diabetes of those with the lowest levels. Two others (di-2-ethylhexyl and mono-n-butyl) were associated with a 70 percent increased risk, and mono-(3-carboxypropyl) phthalate with a 60 percent increased risk.

These are not the first two studies to link phthalates with health consequences. Care2 Causes bloggers have reported on a number of them:

• Annie Urban wrote about University of Missouri study that showed BPA exposure is greater than previously understood.
• Joel Boyce posted the results of a Harvard School of Public Health study that found, “If you regularly eat from containers made of the hard, polycarbonate plastic, you will get BPA into your body.”
• Kristina Chew reported on a University of California at San Francisco study that found phthalates and other chemicals, some of them banned, in 99 percent of pregnant women.
• I reported on a Swedish study that linked phthalates in personal care products with a doubling of the risk of developing diabetes.

Phthalates are so widespread that anyone who uses cosmetics, fragrances, moisturizers, soaps, nail polishes, hair spray or other personal care products may be playing with loaded dice. And the dice are loaded with diabetes.

Avoiding phthalates entirely is nearly impossible. If you want to lessen your exposure, shop in stores that carry safer products and inform yourself through some of the many online guides such as those published by the Environmental Working Group. Consumers can wield power in the marketplace when they demand change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/beauty-products-may-be-slowly-killing-you.html#ixzz21MjVnaEI

Get Off the Computer! It Might Be Making You Depressed.

By Staff | Sourced from AlterNet

To stay sane, Americans just might have to return to a 40-hr work week and ditch our screwed-up attachment to E-mail. According to a new study, spending too much time on the internet is disastrous for your mental health.

From CBS Charlotte:

Researchers at the University of Gothenburg recently studied more than 4,100 Swedish men and women between the ages of 20 and 24 for a year and found that a majority of them who constantly use a computer and mobile phones can develop stress, sleeping disorders and depression.

Sara Thomee, lead author of the study, said there was a “central link” between computers and mental disorders.

“High quantitative use was a central link between computer use and stress, sleep disturbances, and depression, described by the young adults,” Thomee said in the study. “It was easy to spend more time than planned at the computer (e.g., working, gaming, or chatting), and this tended to lead to time pressure, neglect of other activities and personal needs (such as social interaction, sleep, physical activity), as well as bad ergonomics, and mental overload.”

The study found a correlation between stress and always being available on the phone.

“Demands for availability originated not only from work and the social network, but also from the individual’s own ambitions or desires. This resulted in disturbances when busy or resting, the feeling of never being free, and difficulties separating work and private life,” Thomee explained in the study. “Unreturned calls or messages led to overload and feelings of guilt.”

Forget phone calls: E-mail is the around-the-clock work tool really stressing us out. Check out 5 ways it can completely destroy your life here.