Organic Pesticide for Organic Farming! AMAZING Recipe!!!

OH MY GOD

Was my reaction to the AMAZING potency of an all natural pesticide I made over the weekend.  

  I have to check my garden constantly for pests, as I refuse to use pesticides!  In the past, caterpillars have come in the night and literally destroyed my garden or whatever I have growing.  I have felt so defeated and so discouraged!  But a few days ago, when I was tending to my most recent little organic garden, I spotted an evil caterpillar crawling straight for my raised bed of greens!  I immediately ran indoors and got a spray bottle that had 4 liquid ingredients mixed inside.

  I ran back outside to the caterpillar and sprayed it.  It was instantly immobilized and died shortly after.  I jumped and shouted for joy!  Have I finally found the magical mixture to stop these feasting beasts?  I have!!!!

  The mixture that was in the spray bottle contained 4 ingredients:

•Water

•Organic White Distilled Vinegar

You should be able to find all of these ingredients at your local health food store.  If not, you can purchase them online at websites like amazon.com

•Tea Tree Oil

•Neem Oil

•The Recipe•

  This mixture is all natural and all organic.  

1.  Mix equal parts vinegar, tea tree oil and neem oil with half a cup of water within a spray bottle and spray this around your yard.  

DO NOT SPRAY DIRECTLY ON YOUR PLANTS.
2.  If you have raised beds or potted plants, spray the mixture onto the wood or pot.  Do this once a day and your garden will be pest free!!!  You can use it to kill pests on site and to also keep them at bay.

  This mixture WORKS so well.  It's also a good human repellent as well (as it STINKS to high heaven!) but the odor is not as potent to humans as it is to pests and your produce will not smell or taste like the mixture.

  Try this amazing mixture on your pests and let me know if it works just as well for you!

Gross, She Doesn't Shave: an exploration of female body hair throughout history

Ashamed, disgusted and ugly: it’s how a female from the ages of puberty to death should feel if they do not shave their body hair.  How could this be?  How could a natural occurrence within our bodies be viewed as something unnatural and taboo? 

  When I was 10 years old, I felt the pressure to shave.  I would see hairless women in TV, on magazines.  My dolls had perfect smooth skin.  My mother shaved, my grandmother shaved, my aunt shaved.  All of the women around me shaved and so I, too, felt that pressure to shave.  I remember feeling strange when I would look down at my hairy legs, or whenever I would lift up my arm.  I felt different and odd for something that was so very natural.  And so, at 10 years old, I began shaving. 

  

  Here in the United States, shaved women heavily outnumber unshaved women.  Is it vanity, our culture, the media?  What is it that makes a woman continuously shave?  And why do we feel grossed out when we see a woman’s body hair? 

  Female body hair removal dates back to Medieval Europe!  A male author of a feminine “recipe” book from the 1500s instructs women to rub boiling arsenic water on their hairy areas.  He then instructs the ladies to follow up with cold water so that “the flesh doesn’t come off.”  Lovely. 

  Body hair on women, but not men, evokes disgust and the removal of such hair has become the everyday norm.  World history, documented by art, shows the absence of hair on the female body.  It is not clear if shaved women posed for these portraits or if man simply objectified the female form and painted what he imagined.  But when we observe art throughout the ages, nude men proudly displayed their body hair, while women had none at all.  Male body hair looks to be celebrated within certain portraits. 

  The only artist that I can recall from history who addressed female body hair within his paintings is Gustav Courbet.  He has multiple paintings of females proudly displaying their body hair, so much so that their body hair almost becomes the focal point of the entire piece.  Gustav Courbet led the realist movement within the art scene of 1800s France.  Gustav’s “erotic” paintings that portrayed real and natural women were exiled and would not be seen by the public until the 80s!  The body hair that was displayed in his paintings elicited disgust from viewers.  The paintings were viewed as crude, sexual and dirty.  Courbet established a group for himself and other artists that promoted the expansion of free and uncensored art. 

  If we go even further back in time, to 3000 B.C., societies in Egypt and India were developing copper razors and exfoliating crèmes for the hair removal of both sexes.  What could have possibly been the motivating factor behind this movement? 

  It is said that ancient Egyptian priests (much like our media today) thought that body hair was shameful and unclean.  These priests thought that their sophisticated society needed to be separated from the animals and barbarians in the world.  They equated their own body hair to the hair of wild animals and beasts.  They also believed that one would be more susceptible to diseased if they were hairy.  To be hairy in ancient Egypt meant that you were dirty, neglected your hygiene and were no better than an animal.  Sound familiar?

  Female body hair seems to be viewed as dirty/disgusting throughout history to modern day.  But it is more normal and far more acceptable to see a man with a wild and untamed beard than it is to see a woman with body hair.  Why?

  If you are a woman and you shave, I want you to think about why it is that you shave.  Is it a personal preference?  Does hair make you feel uncomfortable?  Is it to appease your significant other?  Do you feel pressured to shave?

  If you are a woman and you shave, I want you to try to go without shaving for as long as you can.  Record your thoughts, how you feel about growing out natural hair.  Would you feel dirty?  Would you feel free?  Would you feel uncomfortable?  I believe we owe it to ourselves as women to experience our bodies how they naturally are and to not feel ashamed.  If you shave for whatever reason, that is your decision.  But when you let yourself feel ashamed of your au naturel, that is when you inhibit your own happiness. 

From Dairy Farms to Nurseries: Taking A Closer Look at Breast Milk Production

Consuming countless vitamins, nutrients, and up to 10 billion live immune cells a day, there's no denying it: breastfed babies, of any mammalian species, get some of the most incredible nutrition around. But could it be that gender of your infant determines how much milk they're getting? In a recent study, published on PLOS One, on female lactating cows by Katie Hinde and several of her associates, it's been shown that the sex of the fetus, as well as other factors in utero, plays a large part in how much milk the mother produces for her young, as well as how much milk the mother will produce for any future pregnancies.

After studying over 2.39 million lactation records from 1.49 million dairy cows, it's been shown that heifers who, during their first pregnancy, gave birth to a daughter produced 1.6 percent more milk than they would have for a son. Interestingly enough, this bump up in production from the first female pregnancy was maintained for any future pregnancies, but the heifers who first gave birth to a son did not receive as high of a raise in milk production. Because on the dairy farms the female calves are taken away from their mothers soon after birth, it was noted that the overall boost in milk production must have come while the calf was in utero.

Other studies have shown that human mothers, in a similar sense, also produce more milk for their first born daughters than their sons. One reason for this could be the hormone estrogen, which is more abundant in the female fetus as well as the mother and could correlate to the boost in milk production. There are also many other physiological and hormonal factors that are involved in the production and nutrient content of breast milk, including the mother's gut bacteria and environmental exposure to pollution or toxins. Studies have shown that milk produced for a week old female newborn can be much different, in terms of nutrient and bacterial content as well as hormonal levels, than the breast milk produced for a ten month old male baby. It all depends on the individual needs and demands of the child in question.

Overall, the more time passes the more we realize that the differences between other species and ourselves, especially concerning our young, really aren't as glaring as we once thought. Being one of the most universal forms of nutrition, breast feeding has proven itself again and again to be incredibly adaptive and specific to the mother and child, whether they are human or not. The amazing specifications of breast milk will continue to be explored and studied as scientists yearn to understand the subtle physiological intricacies and factors that are involved in producing the most ancient life giving substance there is.

The Illusions of Product Placement

In the wonderful world of film, we have Product Placement.  Companies pay to have their 'promotional products' featured in films.  So really, there is no escaping advertising(this is why I prefer reading books).  I'm sure you're aware of this, but what you may not know about is the precision of the placement.

  For example, a certain sugary beverage company has very strict rules for their product.  This promotional beverage can only be seen in the hands of or around a young and "thin" person - a specific BMI is even mentioned!  The beverage can not be shown around or in the same room or scene as "overweight individuals".  The brand name cannot be spoken by overweight individuals.

  These same rules apply to countless products.  Talk about not-so-subliminal-messaging! 

So, next time you're in the theater, keep an eye out!  

C.A.R.E. Clinic Visits New Orleans: A Volunteer's Perspective

     

  On August 29nd, one of the many mobile C.A.R.E. clinics from the National Association of Free Clinics came to the Ernest Memorial Convention Center in New Orleans. Providing kidney screening, pregnancy tests, health education, and urgent medical care, this event was purely for the benefit of the many uninsured people in New Orleans. Hosted in a large hall in the Memorial Convention Center, its many carefully sectioned medical stations and shiny equipment was an exciting sight. The clinic work force consisted of hundreds of volunteer nurses, doctors, and people simply willing to help out for the benefit of their community. After the volunteers arrived at 9 in the morning and went through orientation, the clinic opened its doors at 11 AM to the public and stayed open well into the night. Soon, the giant hall was filled with people seeking medical care- men, women, children, the elderly. Each volunteer had a job assignment and knew what he or she was supposed to be doing, Unfortunately, as the day wore on it was plain to see that the clinic's system had flaws.

     Poor communication between volunteers performing one task and the other were rampant. If a folder wasn't properly labeled or the time of the patients' arrival wasn't written down, confused and frustrated volunteers would find themselves bringing people to the wrong place and have to double back to get the correct information.Often patients would be lead to a medical station to be treated by a doctor, only to discover that it was already full and be have to be led back to the small cramped waiting area. Some nurses and/or doctors would come back from the restroom or from a break and take a new patient, only to find they had forgotten there was already a patient waiting inside their medical station. Volunteers would be told to collect a certain number of patients from a large main waiting area and then bring them to a specific waiting/treatment area called a pod (in this case, pod A) only to be scolded and/or chastised for not collecting the proper documents. Pod leaders, a sort of manager for each medical area, were stressed and often absent from managing the pod, leaving the largely untrained volunteers to organize hundreds of medical patients themselves. These mistakes, mostly driven by poor management, led to time consuming delays, longer waits for patients, and higher stress levels on volunteers.

      By the end of the shift at 3 PM, many volunteers were relieved to go and have their replacements take over for the night shift.

     Over the course of the day, what appeared to be nearly a thousand patients came and went through the Convention Center doors, some waiting several hours just to be seen by a doctor. Several times, a patient would appear needing to see the cardiologist or optometrist only to find that the doctor hadn't shown up or had taken an unscheduled break. Seeing as this was the C.A.R.E. clinic's third time coming to New Orleans, one would think that they'd have a smooth, well organized plan already in place for the management as well as patients. As one volunteer remarked at the end of the day, "This is New Orleans for you." Even though the day was stressful as well as physically and mentally tiring, many of the volunteers agreed that it was worth it to help the patients get the care they needed.

"It is not how much you do but how much love you put in the doing." Mother Theresa

-Photos to come later-

Eating Experiments: A Report on the Effects of Genetically Modified Crops

Since the 90s, genetically modified crops have been invading our farms, grocery stores and homes. They have been the cause of major health issues and even death for countless people, yet they continue to be grown, harvested and sold. In this article you will get answers to the following questions that have haunted me for so long. These questions include:
What effects do these post-DNA-surgery patients have on our environment and the people you love? Is modern science qualified to perform DNA surgery on our food? Are there any positive effects of the GM food in which we consume? What is currently being done about these threats to our health and environment?

What effects do these post-DNA-surgery patients have on our environment and the people you love?

Genetically modified crops affect both consumers and the environment. They even affect those who do not consume them.
GM crops are responsible for inhabiting 331 million acres of land. This means that 331 million acres of land is being sprayed daily with pesticides, herbicides and other harmful chemicals. Substances like pesticides have been labeled as both environmental pollutants and hazardous to our health.
To put things in perspective, think about this: workers who deal with these chemicals put their lives at risk and are required to wear protective equipment and gear. Where is our protective gear?

To aesthetically please, fruits like tomatoes have been modified to retain their firm red appearance. Although this appearance is maintained for a longer period of time than non GM foods, the tomato itself begins to almost rot inside and ultimately lose its’ nutritional value. The tomato has an impressively longer shelf life, but sits in an ill stupor upon the shelves - waiting to be consumed.
GM crops, being antibiotic resistant, are often targeted by bacteria. This bacteria could pick up these antibiotic resistant cells which would then cause them to mutate. This super bacteria could then infect us. Because GM crops are without labels, fault could not be traced back to them. A real-life example of this would be an incident that occurred In the 90s. Although it failed to make major headlines, many people died and/or were partially paralyzed/temporarily disabled due to a syndrome that was eventually traced back to GM bacteria.
The genes in GM crops, herbicides and pesticides are all vulnerable to theft from weeds, bacteria and viruses. This implied scenario is called gene pollution and the effects are tragic. There are many sources of pollution on this Earth, but the negative effects caused by gene pollution is irreversible.

Are there any positive effects of the GM food in which we consume?

Not unless you prefer harmful chemicals over a few harmless bugs! Many believe that GM foods (along with non organic foods) are helpful in that they are “pest-resistant” and tolerant to herbicide. To this I say, balderdash! Certain crops are genetically modified to withstand the harmful chemicals sprayed on them. This scenario eerily reminds me of the dairy cows who are given antibiotics to withstand the milk inducing hormones that they are injected with. Can we really call this practice “helpful”? What we all seem to keep forgetting is - what goes into them, goes into us (if we so chose to consume it).

Is our government doing anything about these threats to our health?

The Obama administration has recently approved of several genetically modified crops to be planted in the U.S. The United States of America already accounts for 42% of genetically modified crops while Brazil comes in at 2nd place with 16%. English scientist, David King, believes that genetically modified foods are safer to consume than conventionally grown crops. He continues to stand by his opinion and holds the position of chief scientific adviser of England.

Is modern science qualified to perform DNA surgery on our food?

No, to put it blatantly. Did you know that 97% of your DNA is literally labeled by scientists as "junk"? Because so little is known about DNA, scientists have labeled the unknown strands and functions of our DNA as ³junk². If this little is known about our very own DNA, what makes scientists and biotech companies think that they are prepared to perform DNA surgery on globally consumed products? Does this mean that we are consuming experiments? What do you think? Biotech companies possess approximately 23% of the world's seed companies. This percentage continues to increase.

A simple rule to follow in order to avoid consuming GMO foods

If you wish to avoid consuming GMO foods, only purchase foods that have a '100% Organic' sticker on the label.

What are some of the most common genetically modified foods?

• Artificial sweeteners

• Soy

• Corn

• Canola

• Sugar

"Humankind has not woven the web of life.
We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
All things are bound together.
All things connect."

Keep Off the Seagrass! Learn Why These Vital Grasses are Vanishing

What exactly is seagrass and what role does it play in our ocean?

Submerged in the shallow waters of our coast, seagrass is a flowering plant that resides in ecosystems such as lagoons, bays and near shore waters all over the world. Like other plants, seagrass uses photosynthesis, therefore it relies on water clarity to collect the rays of the sun. Seagrasses reproduce both sexually and asexually, so they also depend on the consistency of their ecosystem for both reproduction methods.

Seagrass is yet an additional organism that is being negatively affected by the degradation of coastal waters in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.

60 distinct species of seagrass have been discovered so far. Some of these species include freshwater dwelling seagrass that have the capability to also tolerate saline waters. Seagrass beds have a multitude of beneficial functions, some of which include: protecting the shoreline by stabilizing sediments and decreasing wave energy, providing a habitat for countless organisms, regulating the food system, attracting migratory organisms which is both beneficial to the food chain/ecosystem and tourism and supporting the reproduction of certain species of fish by acting as a nursery among other things. Seagrass is a truly understated and amazing creature. I could go on for paragraphs and paragraphs about their facts and benefits but I won't, for seagrass beds of all species face great danger.

The welfare of seagrass beds were not paid special attention to until their net worth was eventually estimated. The approximate economic value of seagrass to the coast of Texas ended up being $9,000 to $28,000 per square acre. In Florida, where much success, income and jobs rely on the well being and function of the coast, it was estimated that the value of seagrass beds per acre rake in an approximate 55.4 billion dollars a year. Be this as it may, estuaries in the region and near shore waters experienced 20% to 100% of seagrass loss within the last 50 years.

Areas such as the Galveston Bay system completely lost the entirety of their seagrass beds. This loss was due to both human and natural factors. Seagrass can normally withstand natural factors of stress, but the factors in this scenario became excessive and proved to be too much for the already delicate beings.

The factors that eliminated the Galveston Bay system are the very same factors that threaten other worldwide seagrasses every day.

These factors included: dredge and fill operations, shoreline development, over fishing, excessive boating, land subsidence and natural events like hurricanes.

What you may not know is that the loss of seagrass influences the amount of coastline that we lose. Because the seagrass is not there to stabilize sediments or reduce wave power, these factors accelerate the decay of our northern Gulf of Mexico coastline. It was recently estimated that we lose approximately 28 square miles of (northern gulf of Mexico) coast a year. The coastline and seagrass fields rely on each other to maintain a consistent and functioning ecosystem.

Has the EPA done anything about this threat to the environment?

Firstly, what is the GMP? GMP stands for the EPA's(Environmental Protection Agency's) Gulf of Mexico Program.

The initial effort of this program was to write and publish a report dedicated to the documentation and study of seagrasses particularly growing and residing in the Northern Gulf of Mexico region. The purpose of this report was to educate the public/society on the ever changing condition of seagrass and to make past and present studies and reports readily available. The 260 page report was entitled ''seagrass status and trends in the Northern Gulf of Mexico''.

The northern Gulf of Mexico region that the GMP has been focused on since 1999 can be defined as the waters lying adjacent to the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. The northern Gulf of Mexico region stretches approximately 1,500 miles and houses a recorded 25 million living organisms. It is a source of human consumption, tourism and most importantly a home to countless groups of wildlife.

Even though it was the only, somewhat depressing, attempt to do anything at all about the sea grass by the EPA, the report provides the public with an abundance of information and helped enlighten many about the vital importance of seagrass. Although words cannot save our deteriorating coastline or stop the decay of seagrass, they may gift us with the knowledge required to take action.

What can you do to help prevent the loss of these vital organisms?

1. Choose and Support Eco Friendly Tourism Methods! If you are planning on a visit to the coast, take tour boats and vacations that haven't/won't interfere with the fields of seagrass. Take tours/boats that guarantee to stay out of areas that are inhabited by seagrass. Do not support hotels/resorts who have built their establishments on certain shores and active coasts that are close to or closely interact with seagrass beds.

2. Know Where Your Fish Comes From: If you are a regular consumer of fish or fish solubles, find out where your fish comes from. Make sure that you're receiving your fish from scientifically (not corporate) regulated areas for fishing. These regulated areas for fishing lessen the impact on seagrass and their ecosystem. You can do this at the: Blue Ocean Institute Seafood.

3. Do not fall for or support ambiguous organizations or allegedly 'Certified' fisheries without further research into their authenticity.

For example: Fisheries who are allegedly ''certified'' with the MSC are supposed to be fishing in regulated areas that will not cause great harm to fragile ecosystems such as seagrass beds. With 104 certified fisheries, the MSC has only rejected the certification of one fishery in their entire existence of an organization; this acceptance rate may well be valid but some news reports over the past year, like this one in The Vancouver Sun and this one on the CLIMATE PROGRESS Blog, have started to cast doubt on the organizations credibility. It is therefore important to just check all the facts first before buying.

''Nature does nothing in vain'' - Aristotle

Toxic Isotopes and Tsunamis: A Report On Nuclear Energy

     On March 11^th, 2011, a massive 9.0 earthquake struck the Pacific Ocean, not far from the coasts of Northeastern Japan. This sparked a giant tsunami that headed straight to Japan and the 40 year old nuclear power plant producing energy there. The earthquake/tsunami combo spawned countless disasters and blackouts all over the north, sending up tsunami warnings to countries around the Pacific, from Hawaii to California. The plant, Fukushima No. 1 (also Fukushima Daiichii) suffered blows to its central cooling system from the tsunami and not long after several explosions occurred. So far, four nuclear reactors in the Fukushima Daiichii power plant have exploded or breached, and are reported to be leaching high levels of radiation. The Prime Minister, Naoko Kan, is urging all civilians within 20 miles of the plant to go indoors, turn off ventilators, and not to leave for fear of radiation sickness.
The nuclear plant in Japan had been very vulnerable before the earthquake to natural disasters, and since the first explosion had begun to emit extremely dangerous radioactive isotopes.

     In February 2003, a total of 441 nuclear power plants were reported to be in operation around the world, and 103 of these power plants exist just in the United States. Nuclear power plants first came into the picture in 1951; the United States government had been doing research in nuclear weapons since before World War II, and only afterward encouraged development in nuclear energy. The nuclear energy production process occurs when uranium-235 particles (also U-235) are split in a process called fission, and the heat generated from fission creates so-called “green energy”. These nuclear power plants are powered first by burning coal or oil, then water in boilers are heated to create enough power for proper fission.

     Are there any adverse health/environmental affects due to nuclear power plants and the waste they produce? The answer is yes, and there's a lot about nuclear power that's being left unsaid. The leftover waste created by nuclear plants is plutonium, a highly dangerous chemical that was used in making the Nagasaki bomb. It only takes 18 pounds of plutonium to make a bomb similar to this; given the fact that 310 tons of plutonium was produced from nuclear plants in the year 2000, this waste could encourage terrorist attacks at the least. The average nuclear reactor can emit 20-30 tons of radioactive waste per year. Far from being environmentally friendly, this radioactive waste cannot be degraded by the environment or successfully dumped into oceans without poisoning all of the fish; in some cases it can take hundreds of thousands of years for one pound of plutonium to naturally degrade into the environment. Plutonium and other radioactive substances leaching into the air and ground from nuclear plants has been proven to cause cancer, birth defects, damage to internal organs, and other illnesses in humans. The mining of uranium to create nuclear energy, and the plutonium created as a result, produces radioactive isotopes that can seep into the environment very easily. These isotopes and the mining process itself adversely affects everyone, from poisoning our groundwater to causing cancer and other life threatening diseases.

     The risk of accidents at nuclear power plants is alarmingly high. In 1986, in Russia, the Chernobyl power plant exploded. Thirty people were killed instantly, and 209 people had be treated for severe radiation poisoning. It was the world's worst nuclear accident; according to a study done by the World Health Organization years after, even a faraway place like Scotland had 10,000 times the normal radiation level. The economic disadvantage and stock market drop for the Soviet Union was the worst in fifty years. According to a scientific study by Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigations, an accident or explosion at a US nuclear power plant could kill more people than an atomic bomb.

     Like the Japan earthquake and the resulting disastrous nuclear plant meltdowns, these incidents could have happened at any nuclear plant, whether the cause be a natural disaster or a man-made mistake. Because nuclear waste “recycling” or reproducing is illegal in the US, the waste is usually dumped at specific sites and left to sit and -hopefully- degrade. The best course of action now, to stop the waste from poisoning the environment and its creatures even more, would be to cease all nuclear energy production and seek out alternative energies. There are greener, alternative sources of energy to be sought out. Currently 20% of the world's total electricity is from nuclear energy, and that could be changed if the governments put more money into alternative energies. Geothermal power is renewable and created by harnessing heat from deep under the earth to produce energy. The tides can be used to turn wind turbines and create renewable energy using wind. Bio-energy is also a viable alternative; plant matter and animal waste can be heated and used as fuel for energy/electricity production.

     Though today there is much to be done and changed in the ways we produce energy, the last thing one would want to do is give up hope for renewable energy sources. Petition to your local representatives and government for better safety regulations in nuclear power plants, and pursue action to be taken in renewable clean energy!

Mardi Gras in New Orleans: The Modern Life of Beads

 Colorfully decorated floats, masked riders throwing cups from floats, and hundreds of costumed people standing in the streets- these are just a few aspects used to describe Carnival in New Orleans. Since the 1960s, Carnival (also known as Mardi Gras or, more broadly, “the Mardi Gras season”) has been celebrated in and around New Orleans, with big parades such as Endymion, Orpheus and Bacchus dominating the season. Travelers and party goers from all over come to New Orleans in the spring in order to experience the parades and, of course, catch as many beads as they can carry.

Mardi Gras means Fat Tuesday in French, and has been reportedly celebrated in the Louisiana area since the 1840s or earlier. According to legend, the floats and traditions of Mardi Gras were inspired by the French and medieval European celebrations that were brought overseas by immigrants. The first Carnival throws used in the US included sugared almonds, gold painted walnuts, and coconuts, but in the early years of Carnival they were not limited to more unpleasant things such as dirt, flour and quicklime. In the late 1800s to mid 1900s, one of the most prized and often used Carnival throws were glass beads imported from Czechoslovakia. But due to safety concerns, production costs and other political factors, glass beads slowly died out and were replaced by plastic ones.

The advent of the plastic bead was a sudden, but very popular one. The main exporter of beads to the US quickly changed from Czechoslovakia to southern China, where the plastic could be produced cheaply and efficiently shipped to the United States in time for Carnival. The beads now thrown from floats are made mostly from polystyrene, which when extruded (as Mardi Gras beads are) contain hydro-chlorofluorocarbons. Also known as HCFCs, these are potentially toxic carbons that have been shown in some studies to cause cancer and other life threatening diseases. The workers who make Carnival beads are also subject to handling dangerous HCFCs, and many of them are at risk of disease and respiratory illness from working with polystyrene all day. If it is allowed to degrade and seep into the earth, HCFCs can kill off many plants and infect groundwater. When found in the ocean, polystyrene and HCFCs can poison the fish and the abundance of ecosystems within it.

After Carnival and Mardi Gras day, many beads that were not caught or were broken are left lying in the streets, as well as many plastic bags and other assorted trash items. They are then collected and thrown away. The beads are very harmful in the way that there is almost no safe way to get rid of them; if you incinerate the beads, they excrete toxic chemicals that send pollution into the air. Polystyrene beads are not easily recycled in the United States, though they are in some European countries. As modern landfills do not allow most plastic waste to be degraded and the beads are resistant to photolysis, they can sit in the dumps for hundreds of years, leaching chemicals and harmful dyes. There are a few ways to safely degrade plastic and polystyrene, such as properly heated incineration techniques, but they are rarely used in the United States.

Should Carnival parades consider going back to throwing primarily glass beads instead of plastic ones? The answer could be both yes and no. Yes, because of the negative environmental impacts of plastic beads in landfills and waste sites, not to mention the wasted labor of factory workers to produce strings of beads that are bought, thrown, and then dumped. Another answer could be no, because glass beads are much more expensive than plastic ones so they would be thrown less often than is usually expected in parades, causing public indignation and perhaps be less of an “economic boost” for the South and for China. A combination of both glass and plastic beads, perhaps, and some new producing/recycling techniques could be the key. Whatever is decided for the future of Mardi Gras and Carnival in New Orleans, no one can disagree that it is a unique traditional celebration and there is nothing quite like it anywhere else.

Contacting Vitter: Hannah Sarco's Letter to a U.S Senator

Inspiring youth activist, writer and fellow reporter - Hannah Sarco - recently reached out to David Vitter, hoping to share her feelings on his recent decision to try to overrule Obama's drilling moratorium.

Dear Senator Vitter,

I can understand, on some level, your growing concerns about the economy and what effect rising gas/oil prices will have on Louisiana communities. However, I must warn you that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is dangerous, expensive, and potentially life threatening to the extensive ecosystems that live there. Not only are these drilling operations severely dangerous in the Gulf but they pose huge threats in any ocean. Oil drilling has already proven itself to be a potential economy killer as well; the BP oil spill sent thousands of jobs and paychecks down the drain. The oil spill, which could have occurred on any oil rig in the Gulf, killed thousands of migratory birds, native plants and marine animals that are crucial to biodiversity within just 6 months. These are major risks that stand even without mentioning the often traumatic, and extremely hazardous, lifestyles of workers on oil rigs.

I'm asking you, as a New Orleans native, to please invest your time not in overruling Obama's drilling moratorium and continuing dangerous oil drilling, but in alternative energies. I cannot stress enough the importance of alternative, local and clean energy sources. Wind power is a viable and lucrative option to pursue in the Gulf Coast area; because the land is very flat here, wind turbines can easily be used to produce energy. In Europe, there is much work being done in places such as Poland and Germany to use and promote clean energy; this also is reducing harmful CO2 emissions. In 2007, a study showed that the United States emitted, per capita per year, 14.7 metric tons of CO2. In the France, it was less than half, with only 6 metric tons per year. These emissions came from sources like car exhaust, chemical plants, oil rigs, and more; the less CO2 spewing into our atmosphere, because of oil drilling in particular, the better.

Not only would wind and/or solar energy generate jobs, it would stimulate our economy, protect workers and ecosystems from toxic oil spills, cut back on greenhouse gases that lead to global warming, and save our tax payer's money on practices that endanger every one's health.

I hope that when you read this email you will consider changing your focus on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and take a more environment and people friendly approach to this issue. Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,

Hannah Sarco