Buy the Deluxe Healthy Home Starter Kit and receive a FREE TOTE and FREE SHIPPING! It is perfect for yourself or for your special someone (think your Mom whom is still stuck in the toxic cleaner stone age).

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

Bookmark & Share

I always found Christmas a time consuming holiday… running to the Christmas tree lot to buy a tree, having to bring the decorations inside from storage, setting the decorations out, spending a few hours arranging things just right; and that was just for the tree! I really did think that maybe I could reduce the time commitment by ordering a fake Christmas tree online and reusing it every year. Surprising, my not as eco-conscious husband pointed out that maybe, just maybe, that wasn’t the route to go. He sent me the below email for backup, in case I didn’t believe him.

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF

The New York Times

In these eco-conscious times, many people want to shrink their environmental footprint while still enjoying the trappings of the holiday season. In some cases, the earth-friendly alternative – pass the tofurky – is a pretty obvious choice. But in others, the answer is not so clear. When it comes to Christmas trees, for instance, which is better for the planet: the long-lasting artificial kind, or the freshly cut, pine-scent-and-sap variety?

As I report in Saturday’s Times, at least one major study found that the real tree was probably the better choice. But as I found during my reporting, many consumers still believe that a faux fir is less harmful to the environment than the real thing.

That’s because an artificial tree can be used again and again, unlike a real tree, which is tossed out at the end of the season. Yet as it turns out, that’s not enough to tilt the scales in the fake tree’s favor. The resources used to make artificial trees — plastic and metal — have a high extraction cost, and most trees are made in China, meaning they need to be shipped thousands of miles before they reach American shores.

Real trees are also biodegradable and can be composted or turned into mulch; fake trees are almost all fated to end up in a landfill one day.

Artificial Christmas trees continue to sell by the truckload, of course — according to industry estimates, sales in the United States may hit 13 million this year.

Most faux trees have a lifespan of about six to 10 years, surveys have found, at which point they start to look a bit ragged and consumers chuck them out. At this point, they’re off to the landfill.

What about recycling? I posed this question to Jami Warner, executive director of the American Christmas Tree Association, which represents makers of artificial trees.

“All the materials in an artificial Christmas tree are recyclable and trees are recycled now,” Ms. Warner wrote in an e-mail.

Technically, this might be true. But all the municipal recycling programs I queried said they did not recycle artificial trees — and for good reason: artificial trees are largely made from polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, which is in most cases prohibitively expensive to recycle. I mentioned this fact to Ms. Warner, who said the onus rested with the cities, not her industry.

“Ultimately trees are likely to end up in landfills until cities offer recycling programs,” Ms. Warner wrote.

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

Whether or not to sell your primary residence might be the most important decision you make in the next few months. If you decide to sell, don’t jeopardize the decision by making the costly mistake of over-improving your nest egg – or racing to create a new room the new owner might enjoy.

Major structural changes, especially in this economic environment, need to be intensively scrutinized. Ninety percent of all remodeling projects take more than one year of appreciation to recover the costs of the improvement.

And, some projects never even get close to becoming a financial wash. Don’t get carried away with a pet project that may draw the eye of a certain set of home buyers.

The solution? Paint, paint and simply paint some more. Paint is the least expensive and the most profitable improvement you can make. For example, be certain your entry is especially crisp and bright. Take advantage of your outside trim and highlight it with a color that truly makes your home stand out on the street.

Thinking about a color for the kids’ old bedrooms? Most prospective buyers won’t see the magic of magenta or the charisma of chartreuse. Stay boring, and attractive, with light beige and don’t wander very far from off white.

If you want to be bold, be sure you know the type of buyer who will be looking at your home before you bring out your version of “wow” yellow in the den or “cool” gray in the bedroom.

If you are a female and single – and are certain your buyer will be the same type of individual – the paint and fixtures you choose for your home can be far different than those of a family home in a huge subdivision.

The way we live and work has changed dramatically in the past decade and our expectations of our homes have changed, too. If you are getting ready to list your home for sale, don’t gamble that your taste in a new kitchen, den or master suite will match the desires of the potential home buyers that come through your door.

Don’t waste your time – or jeopardize your money – by undertaking remodeling projects in an attempt to draw potential home buyers to an open house. It takes too long and you could easily guess wrong.

Remember, most buyers want to purchase a residence in model home condition, so all they have to do is turn the key in the front door and move in. Your challenge is to bring this feeling with the least possible amount of stress, cash and time.

Bookmark & Share

This article from Green Planet scared the heck out of me. I would never EVER contemplate having my house sprayed for fleas or other pests, however I am not everyone and there are a lot of people out there who control these pests with indoor spraying and other measures. I wanted to pass on this article to you so that you can make an informed decision and know the pros and cons of your decision.

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

From Planet Green:

I have a special place in my heart for this story. I live in South Carolina, where the bugs are big, really big, and the flea problem come spring and summer can take over your life. I’ve had moments of weakness just like the rest of us. A story in theWashington Post tells the story of one woman in Virginia who had her moment of weakness and it almost killed her.

According to the Washington Post, Sue Eisenfeld was a conscious consumer; she ate a vegetarian diet, refused bags at the store, and avoided processed foods. In fact, she worked as a consultant for the EPA. But it seemed after treating her cat topically, she still couldn’t get rid of the fleas. Her kitty was scratching herself raw. So she went for it. She decided to have her house sprayed. She trusted that if anything dangerous was being sprayed in her home, they would tell her. She thought wrong. We often hear that spraying pesticides in our homes is dangerous, but what we don’t hear is why. We don’t hear the immediate ramifications that can come from spraying your home. Here’s what happened to Sue.

Scary Ramifications

She began to have strange symptoms like a headache, odd electric energy down her arm, and a painful reaction to cold. She was fatigued, seriously dizzy, and had lost so much strength that she could barely brush her teeth.

According to the story:

Two trips to the emergency room ruled out a stroke and a brain tumor. But an MRI scan showed a lesion on the spinal cord in my neck. This scar or defect, I was told, had chewed away some of the protective myelin that coats nerves and transmits messages in the nervous system. This damage was scrambling messages being sent throughout my body about temperature and pain and strength and balance.

Sue’s Diagnosis

The doctor later diagnosed the illness as transverse myelitis, or an inflammation on the spinal cord. After being put on a mega-dose of steroids for five days her symptoms lessened but she had to go through rigorous physical therapy to gain back strength.

The doctors had ruled out many of the usual causes for the disease like Lyme’s disease, chickenpox, shingles, herpes, flu, and others but Sue wondered if it had been the initial pesticide exposure. After doing research she learned that’s exactly what happened. She learned that the pesticide used had not been applied correctly. Food surfaces were not covered and the house was not aired out. Then she read about the complaints against the pesticide turned into the EPA.

Again, the Washington Post:

[A]n 82-page report from the EPA that made it clear to me that MS wasn’t the cause of my symptoms. The report showed that from 1992 until early 2010, 156 “minor” human incidents had been reported to the agency concerning the product used in our house, as well as 24 “moderate” and 515 “major” human incidents.Among the complaints in the moderate and major medical incidents were dizziness, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, muscle weakness, tremors, abdominal pain, disorientation, stumbling, coma, seizure, liver failure, lethargy, numbness, blurred vision, chills, blood in the urine, memory loss, migraines, inability to walk and heart attack.

While this is public knowledge, few people that have their homes sprayed are aware of it. The fact of the matter is that you can’t trust the system, you have to do your own research. As we move into the height of bug season, remember that these poisons can do real damage. If it were me I’d avoid getting my home sprayed at all cost. Take every holistic step before ever taking the pesticide plunge. You never know the results. Here’s aguide to treating fleas holistically that really works.

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

Researchers at Indiana University have found flame retardants in the blood of pet dogs at levels five to ten times higher than typically found in humans. Could dogs be the canary in the coal mine for how accumulating polybrominated flame retardants will affect humans?

We already know that polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs for short) are found everywhere — they are used in everything from computers to carpeting, and can be measured even in the dust bunnies that gather in the corners of our living spaces.What PBDEs do to us is scary enough that these persistant, bioaccumulating chemicals are being phased out*. This is where the two most interesting aspects of the Indiana University study arise.

First, the scientists found that the level of PBDEs building up in dog’s blood serum is lower than found in cats, where PBDE exposure has even been linked to cat death. This probably reflects better metabolization of PBDEs by dogs, eliminating some PBDEs from their system so that the rate of accumulation slows. Humans metabolize PBDEs more like dogs than like cats, which might make dogs useful biosentinels, or early warning indicators of effects that could impact humans.

Second, the study detected newer flame retardants, that have come on the market to replace the PBDEs, in the dogs tested. These substitutes — which include Dechlorane Plus, decabromodiphenylethane, and hexabromocyclododecane — are not regulated because they are too new to have built up a body of evidence that can be used to force regulatory agencies into action. The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011 recently introduced by Senator Lautenberg addresses the need to restrict chemical uses before large quantities of a chemical are in our environment.

The study Flame Retardants in the Serum of Pet Dogs and in their Food, published inEnvironmental Science & Technology, was authored by Marta Venier and Ronald Hites. Seventeen dogs, with mainly indoor lifestyles, were tested. Dog food was also found to contain higher levels of PBDEs than the foods humans eat, suggesting that dogs may have higher exposures than humans.

* PBDEs with fewer bromine moieties are banned in the EU (Directive 2003/11/EC) and were voluntarily phased out by industry in the USA in 2004.

More on PBDEs and Chemical Control:
Pediatricians Say U.S. Policy Fails Children on Chemical Safety
Did the State of California Kill This Woman’s Cat?
PDBEs: Where Do They Come From And What Are They Doing To Us?

Bookmark & Share

1. Seventh Generation
2. Whole Foods
3. Tom’s of Maine
4. Burt’s Bees
5. Trader Joe’s
6. The Walt Disney Company
7. S.C. Johnson
8. Dove
9. Apple
10. Starbucks, Microsoft (tied)

The ImagePower Global Green Brands Survey features 9,000 respondents in eight countries measuring perceptions and sentiments of green actions by industries, products, and brands. The survey is sponsored by WPP companies Cohn & Wolfe, Landor Associate, Penn Schoen Berland, and partner company Esty Environmental Partners.

The news was announced at the Sustainable Brands Conference this week.

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

Bookmark & Share

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

http://jaymecarleton.com

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

The Center for American Progress Action Fund, a sister organization of CAP, is leading a campaign to curb asthma and other harmful health effects from coal-fired power plants. This campaign is already underway and it will continue until July 2, 2011.

Asthma affects all Americans. But communities of color are particularly vulnerable to respiratory diseases such as asthma. A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that African American children have the highest number of asthma attacks among all ethnic groups, and Latino children are 60 percent more likely to suffer from asthma attacks than white children. Likewise, more than 71 percent of African Americans and 66 percent of Latinos live in areas that fail to meet one or more of the Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality standards.

These crippling health disparities are made worse by the fact that communities of color are the least likely to have health insurance and access to treatment and preventive care.

Higher asthma rates also mean more missed days of work and school in addition to increased medical costs. Every day in America, 40,000 people miss school or work due to asthma, and 5,000 people visit the emergency room due to the disease.

Asthma is triggered by dirty air and asthma rates are higher in places with bad air quality. Exhaust from cars, factory emissions, smoke, and dust cause poor air quality, which can aggravate the lungs and worsen chronic lung diseases, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.

Coal-fired power plants are also a big part of the problem. Power plant pollutants are a well-known trigger, as is smog. Asthma has no known cure, but it can be controlled by limiting exposure to these triggers.

The EPA is responsible for protecting our children and families from dangerous pollutants and toxins. They have a proven track record of reducing deaths and illness due to stronger clean air standards.

The EPA took a critical step toward cleaner air on March 16, 2011, by proposing its first-everair toxics standards for coal-fired power plants. The proposed rule would limit emissions of mercury, arsenic, and other air toxics from power plants for the first time. Adoption of the air toxics rule will prevent approximately 17,000 premature deaths, 120,000 asthma attacks, and 12,000 hospitalizations and emergency room visits every year in 2016, according to the EPA.

All Americans should make a strong statement to the EPA that they want reductions in mercury, arsenic, and other toxic air pollution from power plants. Communities of color in particular can send a message that they want clean, healthy air for their children and families.

Bookmark & Share

Places Asbestos May Be In The Home

Now, of course, most of us are aware of this health hazard and carefully examine our homes for traces of the material.  Those who worked in factories or in the construction or shipbuilding industries are at the greatest risk, since their exposure to asbestos was severe and prolonged, but even brief periods of exposure have been shown to cause serious health problems.  The worst of these is a cancer of the lining of the chest or abdomen called mesothelioma.  Sadly, many employers and manufacturers were aware of the dangers of asbestos long before they began protecting their workers or customers.

For most companies, the threat of a mesothelioma lawsuit is enough to prevent them from using the material any longer, but contamination is still happening.  Zonolite, a brand of vermiculite insulation, can still be found in many homes.  Vermiculite itself is not harmful, but this mineral is found in the same underground deposits as asbestos, tainting the vermiculite.  The EPA has still yet to issue a statement about the dangers of Zonolite, let alone take any action on the matter, so many people are unaware of the dangers posed by this type of insulation.  It is worth examining your home’s insulation to see if it contains either asbestos or vermiculite.  If this is the case, contact a professional abatement team to have the material removed and disposed of safely.

Article appeared in http://ecochildsplay.com

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

Bookmark & Share

I attended a lecture yesterday and was reminded that not all materials are created the same, even though they may look like it from the outside. Cabinets are an excellent example; so many different compounds and items go into a single box. How does a consumer know where to start or what to ask for? The below article helps answer some of those questions.

- Jayme M. Carleton, Second Nature

Making Sustainability Second Nature™

http://jaymecarleton.com

This article originally appeared in EcoHome.

A product is only as sustainable as the sum of its parts. In the case of cabinetry, there are quite a few parts–from raw materials to resins to finishes–to add up.

Here’s what to look for when selecting cabinetry for green, healthy homes.

RAW MATERIALS

• Base Components.

The base components of most wood cabinetry today are made with hardwood plywood, MDF, or particleboard. While these materials are more resource efficient than solid wood, manufacturing them historically has involved formaldehyde-laden resins.

Several major manufacturers of composite wood panels have already been working with resin manufacturers and refining their manufacturing processes to create no-added-formaldehyde (NAF) or no-added-urea-formaldehyde (NAUF) products. Columbia’s PureBond NAUF plywood, for example, utilizes a soy-based adhesive.

Helping the push are the most recent emissions requirements from the California Air Resources Board (CARB); once phase two of the rules begins in 2012, they will be the strictest regulations in the world. The laws are specific to the Golden State, but most panel manufacturers and cabinet companies are changing over stock across the country and there is speculation that similar emissions regulations may be adopted at the federal level.

• Recycled Content.

Indeed, along with formaldehyde, consider the resource origins of the wood panels for recycled content (some certified by Scientific Certification Systems) and/or for sustainable harvesting as verified by the Forest Stewardship Council or the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, among others. Certified products may carry a slight price premium.

• Wood Pieces.

Finally, you’ll also need to examine the woods that make up the veneers and solid wood trim, doors, and drawer fronts. And, be sure to inquire about the chemical content of the glues used to adhere the veneers to the cabinet box; non-solvent-based adhesives can be comparable in performance and cost.

ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS
Though traditional composite wood panels dominate, alternatives exist that offer their own environmental benefits or trade-offs.

• Solid Wood.

Solid wood, for example, eliminates formaldehyde concerns, but lacks the materials efficiency of an engineered product, is fairly rare, and is more expensive.

• Composite Panels.

Weyerhaeuser makes composite panels using Lyptus, a Brazilian-grown wood that can be harvested for lumber in 14 to 16 years. Like bamboo, another cabinetry alternative, Lyptus offers the benefits of rapid renewability but does have to be shipped a longer distance. Wheatboard, made from waste stalks, is another option gaining attention.

As with traditional composite panels, ensure alternative engineered materials you select utilize formaldehyde-free resins.

FINISHES

• Low VOC.

Though low-VOC finishes are becoming more readily available, they’re not yet widespread due to concerns that their quality and richness aren’t always equivalent and the application may be unfamiliar.

Still, the options have come a long way and you should check with your supplier about what they have available.

Managing buyer expectations is key, as popular high-sheen finishes are harder to get in a low-VOC formula, and some natural-based products may have a slightly different look.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
With the many components that need exploring, it’s easy to get bogged down by the product selection process.

The KCMA’s Environmental Stewardship Program (ESP) aims to ease some of the burden by recognizing manufacturers that meet requirements in five key areas: air quality, product resource management (wood origins and content), process resource management (manufacturing processes), environmental stewardship (including documentation of environmental quality commitment), and community relations. Manufacturers must earn points in all five areas to qualify. The standard was recently updated to require CARB-compliant woods.

Bookmark & Share