Category Archives: burning behavior

Global Warming Critics Are Being Paid – That’s why there always is an angry post

Posted on by
Reply

any time anybody mentions Global Warming in a supportive way. For a long time I was puzzled by how fast and how consistently the Global Warming nay sayers put comments up on articles or blogs or whatever source and how angry they were. After I read the Reuters article  below it suddenly dawned on me that they are being paid to do it. Such prompt and vicious attacks must be a FULL TIME JOB.

Now before you get all back about it. First, there is a right wing conspiracy. The Koch Bros and Massey to name a few billionaires certainly have staff members dedicated to Climate Deniers. But that could only account for say what 30 or 40 people doing it. That is a lot. But consider another supplemental alternative. Exxon Mobile at best guestamate (and they don’t even know really) employs 90,000 people and BP employs another 85,000. Just those 2 companies employ enough people to account for every man, woman and child in Springfield Il. and the surrounding area. What if they let it be known that for a half-hour a day, or like when you have some downtime, it is OK to use company computers to harass climate scientists, journalist who right articles supportive of Climate Change and environmental organizations? Just in one week they could contribute 90,000 hours of cruising the net time and attacks. Anyway this is part of the article that I found at PEAKOIL:

http://peakoil.com/?p=53923

But came from here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P00A20100426

Climate debate gets ugly as world moves to curb CO2

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April 23, 2010. REUTERS/Mukesh Gupta

A schoolgirl crosses a dry pond on the outskirts of Jammu April 23, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Mukesh Gupta

SINGAPORE (Reuters) – Murderer, liar, fraud, traitor.

Science |  Green Business |  COP15

Climate scientists, used to dealing with skeptics, are under siege like never before, targeted by hate emails brimming with abuse and accusations of fabricating global warming data. Some emails contain thinly veiled death threats.

Across the Internet, climate blogs are no less venomous, underscoring the surge in abuse over the past six months triggered by purported evidence that global warming is either a hoax or the threat from a warmer world is grossly overstated.

A major source of the anger is from companies with a vested interest in fighting green legislation that might curtail their activities or make their operations more costly.

“The attacks against climate science represent the most highly coordinated, heavily financed, attack against science that we have ever witnessed,” said climate scientist Michael Mann, from Pennsylvania State University in the United States.

“The evidence for the reality of human-caused climate change gets stronger with each additional year,” Mann told Reuters in emailed responses to questions.

Greenpeace and other groups say that some energy companies are giving millions to groups that oppose climate change science because of concerns about the multi-billion dollar costs associated with carbon trading schemes and clean energy policies.

For example, rich nations including the United States, Japan and Australia, are looking to introduce emissions caps and a regulated market for trading those emissions.

More broadly, the United Nations is trying to seal a tougher climate accord to curb emissions from burning fossil fuels and deforestation blamed for heating up the planet.

Other opponents are drawn into the debate by deep concerns that governments will trample on freedoms or expand their powers as they try to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the impacts of higher temperatures.

“There are two kinds of opponents — one is the fossil fuel lobby. So you have a trillion-dollar industry that’s protecting market share,” said Stephen Schneider of Stanford University in California, referring to the oil industry’s long history of funding climate skeptic groups and think tanks.

“And then you have the ideologues who have a deep hatred of government involvement,” said Schneider, a veteran climate scientist and author of the book “Science as a contact sport”.

:}

“THIS TIME IT’S DIFFERENT”

Scientists and conservationists say some anti-climate change lobbyists are funded by energy giants such as ExxonMobil, which has a long history of donating money to interest groups that challenge climate science.

According to a Greenpeace report released last month, ExxonMobil gave nearly $9 million to entities linked to the climate denialist camp between 2005 and 2008.

The report, using mandatory SEC reporting on charitable contributions, also shows that foundations linked to Kansas-based Koch Industries, a privately owned petrochemical and chemicals giant, gave nearly $25 million.

Koch said the Greenpeace report mischaracterized the company’s efforts. “We’ve strived to encourage an intellectually honest debate on the scientific basis for claims of harm from greenhouse gases,” the company said in a note on its website.

ExxonMobil makes no secret of funding a range of groups, but says it has also discontinued contributions to several public policy research groups.

:}

“We’ve never experienced this sort of thing before,” he said of the intense challenges to climate science and the level of email and Internet traffic.

All the climate change scientists with whom Reuters spoke said they were determined to continue their research despite the barrage of nasty emails and threats. Some expressed concern the argument could turn violent.

“My wife has made it very clear, if the threats become personalized, I cease to interact with the media. We have kids,” said one scientist who did not want to be identified.

(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Oslo; Editing by Megan Goldin)

:}

Please see the entire article. It is amazing in its even handedness but here is the kicker for me. 2 hours later at 9:58 this comment pops up:

where is the proof? how can you prove that carbon dioxide making up 2% of the warming gasses is responsible for 100% of the temperature change? You can’t. there is no way you can show that evil industrialism is hurting the precious gaia. but you can move to a north korean work camp and unplug from modern industrialist society. Get a new guilt free life in a NPRK work camp! get close to nature under a steel ball tipped leather whip!

boomba Report As Abusive

:}

So A Volcano And An Oil Rig Blew Up – So what it was Earth Week

Posted on by
1

It is true, a Volcano blew up and I did not say a word:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/14/iceland.volcano.evacuation/index.html

800 evacuated as Iceland volcano erupts

By the CNN Wire Staff
April 14, 2010 12:38 p.m. EDT

(CNN) — Icelandic authorities evacuated about 800 people early Wednesday when a volcano erupted beneath the Eyjafjallajokull glacier, an emergency spokesman said.

The first evacuations began at 2 a.m. (10 p.m. ET Tuesday), according to Rognvaldur Olafsson, chief inspector at Iceland’s Department of Civil Protection and Emergency Management. He said everyone in the area was safe.

“We have located the fissure that is erupting under the glacier,” Olafsson told CNN. He said scientists are currently doing aerial reconnaissance of the area and that officials would know more when they return.

So far, he said, the eruption has created a large hole in the glacier. Lava is not a big concern but flooding is, he said.

iReport: Are you there? Send your images, videos

Map: Eyjafjallajokull glacier

RELATED TOPICS
  • Iceland

“The volcano is under the glacier, and it’s melting parts of the glacier,” Olafsson said. “The rivers will rise and potentially make some damage.”

iReporter captures footage of eruption

Rivers closest to the glacier have already started rising, he added.

The glacier is the sixth-biggest in Iceland, just to the west of the bigger glacier, Myrdalsjokull. It is about 100 miles (160 km) east of the capital, Reykjavik.

:}

So will it effect the environment. Yes. Anything that disrupts air travel is a good thing because air travel is one of the largest causes of global warming. Will it cool the planet any. Probably not but if Kitra goes off it could be a major event and the last three times “Eyja” went off Kitra did too. So keep on watching folks. Air travel here was disrupted too so it was nice to sit on my swing out back and look at the stars with no blinking jet lights.

:}

And yes, an Oil Rig blew up and sank. What, that doesn’t happen everyday? I guess the gulf needs 42,000 gallons of oil spilled in it every day for God knows how long.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/26/national/main6433600.shtml

NEW ORLEANS, April 26, 2010

Oil Spill Continues; Will Robot Fix Leak?

Officials Wait to See if Unmanned Submarines Can Activate Cut-Off Valves a Mile Below Gulf of Mexico Surface

(CBS/AP)

Authorities continue to monitor the size and direction of a Gulf of Mexico oil sheen by air, while using robotic underwater equipment to try to shut off its source at a wrecked deepwater drilling platform.

The Coast Guard and the companies that owned an operated the rig plan a Monday afternoon news conference in Robert, La., the site of a command center established over the weekend to deal with the crisis.

The oil has been leaking at a rate estimated at 42,000 gallons a day. Workers are trying to make sure the oil doesn’t reach the Gulf Coast’s fragile ecosystem.

An explosion on the floating deep water rig last Tuesday night led to a huge fire and the eventual sinking of the rig. The search for 11 missing workers was called off on Friday.

Crews began using a robot submarine Sunday to try to the leak nearly a mile below the surface, but said it would take at least another day before they knew whether the job was completed.

The Coast Guard said the oil spill was expected to stay 30 miles off the coast for the next several days.

The robot submarines are trying to activate valves at the well head. If that doesn’t work, crews are also planning to drill a relief well to cut off the flow – which could take several months.

What appeared to a manageable spill a couple of days ago after an oil rig exploded and sank off the Louisiana coast Tuesday, has now turned into a more serious environmental problem. The new leak was discovered Saturday, and as much as 1,000 barrels – or 42,000 gallons – of oil is leaking each day, Coast Guard Rear Adm. Mary Landry said.

:}

This is what they want in the artic? If they drill off Virginia, is this what they want coming up Chesapeake Bay?

:}

Global Warming Is Not A Crisis – According to the New York Times

Posted on by
1

I keep wanting to make the point that medicine is one of our biggest energy wasters but the world keeps yanking my chain like this:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/on-the-energy-gap-and-climate-crisis/

The one I’d choose is much like the one stated by  Richard Somerville of the University of California, San Diego, during a climate debate several years ago over the proposition that “ Global Warming is Not a Crisis.”

:}

But then little things like this pop up the same day:

http://www.ecanadanow.com/science/2010/04/08/global-warming-is-still-an-issue-two-glaciers-disappear/

Global Warming is Still an Issue, Two Glaciers Disappear

Posted by Staff on Apr 8th, 2010 /

Two more glaciers have disappeared from Glacier National Park. There are 25 glaciers left and scientists believe they will be gone by the end of the decade. This brings the problem of Global Warming back into the news after the recent email scandals, that implied that many in the Global Warming movement were manipulating statistics.

The loss of the glaciers in the northwestern Montana park is attributed to warmer temperatures. These 2 glaciers fell below the measure used by scientists to determine if they can be called glaciers. This number is 25 acres. When the glacier falls below this number, it is no longer considered a glacier. The largest glacier in the park, called the “Harrison Glacier” covers 465 acres.

The decrease of glaciers means there is less water in the rivers of the area. Less water also contributes to an increase in fires and a decrease in fish. It is not certain what is causing the rise in temperatures causing the shrinking of the glaciers. 90% of glaciers worldwide are now said to be shrinking. Alaska, the Alps and the Andes are leading the world in the loss of glaciers. Scientist have toyed with the idea of covering glaciers in plastic sheeting to keep them cooler.

:}

Isn’t life pathetic sometimes…

:}

Energy Consumption And Healthcare – What does treatment really cost.

Posted on by
Reply

The basic problem in the beginning of the conservation movement (energy) was no one knew how much energy was being used and thus how much could be saved. The same is true in spades for medicine. Think about it, how much does an xray cost? No one knows. So how much energy does an xray take? When you ask you get answers like this…

http://greenanswers.com/q/72578/science-technology/how-much-energy-does-it-take-make-x-ray

seanm (881) 3/10/10 10:37am

This is a good question and the answer varies depending on the type of X-ray machines you’re talking about. Traditionally X-rays have only been possible with a high voltage generation, which takes a lot of energy, anywhere from 30 to 150 kV. By comparison, high-voltage electric transmission lines operate at about 110 kV, so we’re talking about a lot of power. However, X-rays can be exposed in tiny fractions of seconds and since the 1980s technology has advanced to make X-rays even faster so as to reduce the exposure of operators and patients to radiation. I could not find specific energy consumption ratings on various X-ray machines, but there are efforts afoot to replace traditional X-ray machines with digital ones, which in addition to eliminating the need to keep film and developer on hand will reduce energy consumption by up to 78%.

Citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_tube
http://www.gereports.com/picturing-the-benefits-of-digital-x-rays/

:}

say what…

:}

or an mri (they routinely charge 2 to 3 thousand $$$)???

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080908210925AA26KhC

How electricity does an Xray or MRI machine use per scan? How much does it cost the Hospital?

My brother insists that it takes a LOT of electricity in order to power and Xray or MRI machine just for one scan. He thinks it uses more than a normal household uses per month. I doubt that. Does anyone know how much is used or how much it costs? No guesses please…my other brother loves to answer questions with guess-answers because he thinks he’s probably always right…conveniently nobody ever has a computer when he gives these questionable answers and nobody remembers what he said

answer1

Best Answer – Chosen by Voters

The amount of energy used will always be constant on the machines the only way to solve this problem is to determine where the machines are used to get kilowatt costs as they are more expensive in some areas of the country. Once you determine that factor it will be easy to solve the equation.

answer2

Here is a listing of a typical “open” MRI Model describing the power consumption:
Manufactured by Esaote S.p.A.; a low field open MRI scanner with permanent magnet for orthopedic use. The outstanding feature of this MRI system is a patient friendly design with 24 cm diameter, which allows the imaging of extremities and small body parts like shoulder MRI. The power consumption is around 1.3 kW and the needed minimum floor space is an area of 16 sq m.

So it uses about 1.3kW to run. The usual power outlet is 480 volts/3 phase/125 amps. It uses more power (up to 2kW) when the magnet is on. Keep in mind that this is considered a ‘small’ MRI machine. Larger units weigh up to 12 tons and are assembled on site in phases.

Typical US 3-prong outlet is 125 volts/15 amps.

A typical US household uses approximately 8900 kW per year. So one MRI scanner consumes approximately several dozen households worth per year depending on how often it’s used.

Source(s):

RN

answer3

X ray machines draw a lot of power for a very short time, a few seconds. So overall power consumption is low. MRI is no different.
Overall, the consumption would depend on how much it is used. If the X ray machine is being used for 1000 films, the consumption would be equal to a household consumption.

:}

The point being that we have no idea what our healthcare costs and doctors want to keep it that way.

:}

Large Sequoias point to the death of the Anastasi and other North American Tribes

Posted on by
1

No trees were sacrificed to complete this study.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36083323/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Earth’s biggest tree rings tell fiery tales

Fallen giant sequoias reveal a 3,000-year-old history of fire and drought

Image: Tree
Hemera/ThinkStock
The tree rings of 52 fallen giant sequoias, Earth’s biggest trees, have revealed a 3,000-year-old history of droughts and fires.
By Larry O’Hanlon

Using huge chainsaws and strong backs, the largest trees in the world are finally giving up their 3,000-year record of fires and droughts. No trees, however, were harmed in the making of this fire history.

“We only used dead trees,” emphasized tree ring researcher Thomas Swetnam of the University of Arizona. Swetnam led the study that was reported in a recent issue of the journal Fire Ecology. “We spent multiple years collecting the wood and hauling it back to Tucson.”

The giant sequoias in California’s Sequoia National Park are far too thick to be cored for the extraction of the pencil-thin cores typically used by tree ring researchers. So the authors of a new report on tree ring evidence of past droughts and fires used all sorts of other tools to slice and dice 52 giant dead and fallen sequoias, lug the pieces back to roads by hand. Then they spent years piecing together the valuable history in their laboratories.

:}

This raises the question, “what if you are good to the Earth and it burns you anyway”?

:}

Healthcare Is Not Prepared For Peak Oil – In fact it throws our money out the window

Posted on by
Reply

This article is about a year old and it makes points that have been made before, such as:

1. The medical field is not prepared for Global Warming. Our Healthcare system world wide will not be able to cope with the shift in and increase in what are largely thought of as tropical diseases today.

2. Medical Communty’s contribute to Global Warming through inefficiencies.

They also make the point that whether you believe in Peak Oil or not,  Healthcare is addicted to Oil.

3. The pharmaceutical industry’s dependence on Oil would cause it to collapse if oil supplies became restricted or suffered a huge price increase.

4. Hospitals are dependent on electricity (coal) for their medical practices and have very little flexibility built into their practice. eg. No xrays, then what?

But the most telling part for me is the following.

:}

http://www.greens.org/s-r/45/45-05.html

Medicine at the Crossroads of Energy
and Global Warming

by Dan Bednarz, Ph.D., and Kristin Bradford, M.D., M.P.H.

The difficult thing now is there’s no [longer any] low-hanging fruit. — Roger Elliott, St. Joseph’s Hospital, Chippewa Falls, WI, on efforts to reduce hospital energy costs.

[A]ny field … should be judged by the degree to which it understands, anticipates, and takes action in regard to changes in society. — Bernard Sarason, The Making of an American Psychologist

dot dot dot (as they say)

A given in hospital operations is unlimited inputs of energy and resources; this results in waste in the name of hygiene, insurance and regulatory considerations, and “the best” care. However, the fact that worldwide “energy demand is accelerating” and on its current pace “will double by the year 2050” will soon burst upon medicine.

Turning specifically to energy usage, the Health Care Energy Project tells us that hospitals “use twice as much energy per square foot as office buildings…” In addition, hospitals consume large quantities of petroleum-based, processed, and transported products ranging from aspirin to jells and lubricants to plastic dinnerware and gloves to pharmaceuticals, syringes, IV and dialysis tubing, to name but a few. And most of these items are produced for one-time, non-recyclable use. Petroleum derivatives are also found in many computer parts, electronic equipment, furniture, and so on.

… hospitals “use twice as much energy per square foot as office buildings…”

As noted, hospital administrators are somewhat aware of and responding to the rise in energy costs for heating, cooling, and lighting, primarily by locating the problem in the domain of facilities management. Therefore, controlling energy costs in a hospital largely is confined to electricity and natural gas bills.

As the costs of oil and natural gas have risen in recent years facilities managers are trying to make their buildings more energy efficient, hoping that such savings will offset price rises. Yet, a 2006 survey of hospitals found:

More than 90% … reported higher energy costs over the previous year [2005], and more than half cited increases in double-digit percentages.

The facilities management response is to replace, retrofit or upgrade inefficient infrastructure —boilers, lighting fixtures, building insulation, windows, etc., and in general to “modernize” facilities — in accordance with the Energy Star Program. Some of the newest “green” hospital building approaches promise to reduce energy consumption by as much as 60% below code mandates. This is encouraging, but only a beginning.

However, new construction is done only when it makes “economic sense,” leaving many older hospitals and kindred structures too obsolete to “economically” justify retrofitting or demolishing and replacement — again energy is presumed to be plentiful and cheaper than upgrading — and no consideration whatsoever is given to its scarcity. Moreover, the costs for new hospital construction are soaring, another factor traceable to increasingly expensive fossil fuels. Dave Carpenter, summarizing a 2006 energy survey of hospitals, comments on the constraints facilities managers face:

Money-related reasons were among those given most often in response to a … question asking why recommended energy-saving measures hadn’t been implemented, including 37% who reported a lack of funds. Additionally, 31% cited other priorities, 26% said the payback period was judged to be too long, 23% said operations and maintenance budgets were underfunded and 16% cited lack of senior management commitment and support.

Given these constraints:

Facilities managers have little choice but to stay on the lookout for energy savings wherever they can be found. [One manager] says “it’s going to get worse before it gets better…”

We would argue that “it,” energy costs, will not get better. The entire health care industry will be forced to accommodate to dwindling fossil resources while simultaneously beginning to face the consequences of global warming.

This is stark because the health care system —already stressed in other ways — could begin to fail and even collapse for want of energy and a surge in patients.

… the health care system … could begin to fail and even collapse…

Finally, a word is needed on the third so-called “fall-back” fossil fuel we have barely mentioned, coal, since many energy experts offer it as a painless fix for peak oil. While the high levels of greenhouse emissions of coal are well known, what is less appreciated is that carbon sequestration to control greenhouse emissions is expensive and still an unproven technology. Second, recent reviews have concluded there are substantially less coal reserves than the commonly accepted estimates of 200–300 years supply. Perhaps as little as a few decades of recoverable coal remains, much of it low-grade and high in pollutants.

The dimensions of what we face are uncertain, but the major question undeniably is how will hospitals change given the ecological (global warming as well as multiple sources of pollution and resource scarcity) and geological (twilight of fossil fuels) state of affairs the world now faces?

:}

And the answer is?

:}

Healthcare Professionals Waste So Much Money – It is a dieing shame

Posted on by
1

The Disposable Society and Industrial Society hit the medical profession hard. They throw out and stamp out enough product to treat most of the third world. It is despicable actually. We wonder why we spend twice as much on medicine as the rest of the world and have crappier outcomes? Well once hospitals became “cost centers”, the game was pretty much over.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224183113.htm

Going Green in the Hospital: Recycling Medical Equipment Saves Money, Reduces Waste and Is Safe

ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2010) — Wider adoption of the practice of recycling medical equipment — including laparoscopic ports and durable cutting tools typically tossed out after a single use — could save hospitals hundreds of millions of dollars annually and curb trash at medical centers, the second-largest waste producers in the United States after the food industry.

The recommendation, made in an analysis by Johns Hopkins researchers in the March issue of the journal Academic Medicine, noted that with proper sterilization, recalibration and testing, reuse of equipment is safe.

“No one really thinks of good hospitals as massive waste producers, but they are,” says lead author Martin Makary, M.D., M.P.H., a surgeon and associate professor of public health at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “There are many things hospitals can do to decrease waste and save money that they are not currently doing.”

Hospitals toss out everything from surgical gowns and towels to laparoscopic ports and expensive ultrasonic cutting tools after a single use. In operating rooms, some items that are never even used are thrown away — single-use devices that are taken out of their packaging must be tossed out because they could have been contaminated. Selecting such good devices for resterilization and retesting could decrease the amount of needless waste from hospitals.

And, the researchers say, hospitals could procure more items designed to be used safely more than once after being sterilized.

Hospitals, they add, are increasingly attracted to reprocessing because recycled devices can cost half as much as new equipment. Only about a quarter of hospitals in the United States used at least one type of reprocessed medical device in 2002, and while the number is growing, the practice is not yet widespread, they say. Banner Health in Phoenix, they write, saved nearly $1.5 million in 12 months from reprocessing operating room supplies such as compression sleeves, open but unused devices, pulse oximeters and more.

:}

One Hospital ONE point 2 million $$$. How many Hospitals are there in operation in the US? My god people wake up.

Green Hospitals And Environmental Doctors – They sure are hard to change

Posted on by
1

People always ask me, “why did you study psychology”? I always reply, “because saving the planet Earth from Humans is all about changing behavior. Doctors are a case in point. Doctors are investors. What do they invest in? Why highly profitable things…like coal mines, plastics manufacturing, and utilities. So they know that if they change their behavior at work – even though they make money in the short run – in the long term they could lose money as the very things that make them wealthy become less profitable. They also know that their work load will drop because people stay healthier. So, while all other businesses are cutting costs through things like recycling and waste reduction on the back end and enviro friendly practices on the front end you still hear terms like “barriers”  and “hurdles” in the healthcare industry. These are polite terms for “no way” and “not in your lifetime”. In all fairness, this article is dated 2003 and in some ways that is a lifetime ago…others not so much…

http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2003/06/medical_product.html

« The Future of the Medical Device Industry | Main | Move Over X-Rays, Welcome T-Rays »

June 5, 2003

Medical Products Struggle to Get “Green”

By Katrina C. Arabe

Designing medical products for recyclability is tough. And recapturing medical equipment for recycling is even trickier. Learn how the industry is managing the journey toward “green”:

The eco-friendliness drive is accelerating in the medical products industry, but the road to “green” is marked with many potholes. For starters, increased use of disposable products has exacerbated hospital waste. And designing medical products to be easily disassembled and recycled continues to be confounding because many medical devices are required to be extra-tough—able to endure falls and harsh sterilization. But many manufacturers, vendors and suppliers are facing such obstacles head-on.

“Two years ago you couldn’t get group purchasing organizations for hospitals to talk about environmentally preferable purchasing,” says Laura Brannen, co-director for Hospitals for a Healthy Environment (H2E), “but now many champion the cause.” For instance, Baxter Healthcare of Illinois, one of the largest medical products manufacturers, together with group purchaser Premier Inc. and Catholic Health Care West, both of California, is trying to create an advisory group that will delve into recycling and waste-reduction issues, such as decreasing medical packaging and recycling single-use plastics.

And the H2E program is attacking the environmental problem from many fronts. “H2E hopes to provide the framework and initiate discussions on how the industry can create processes and infrastructure that develop take-back programs, or products and packaging that are stackable and returnable,” says Brannen. “H2E is also pursuing partnerships between manufacturers and distributors to establish methods that let distributors back-haul plastics to the manufacturer or plastic recyclers. The group’s ultimate goal is reaching medical device designers so products have minimal environmental impact.”

What a Waste

Hospitals produce over 6,600 tons of waste per day, estimates H2E, at least 15% more than 10 years ago due to the proliferation of disposable products. And this estimate does not even take into account the output of private medical and dental clinics, veterinarians, long-term care, laboratories and independent blood banks.

Accounting for 75-80% of a healthcare facility’s waste, solid waste is the most sizeable portion, says H2E, encompassing paper, metal, glass and plastics. Chlorinated materials, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC), are especially problematic because incinerating waste with chlorinated content produces dioxins, which can cause cancer and hormonal defects. In fact, burning medical waste with chlorinated materials is the third biggest source of dioxins in the environment, says Health Care Without Harm (HCWH). And globally, waste incinerators account for 69% of dioxins, estimates HCWH.

PVC is found in a wide range of medical products, from disposable intravenous (IV) bags and tubing to bedpans and notebook binders. Additionally, it’s common in durable medical products, where it is particularly difficult to reduce because of a dearth of PVC-labeling and PVC-free devices. “A first step in reducing PVC use in these applications would be to require vendors to disclose the PVC content in their products,” says Brannen. “Medical products and their packaging are often not labeled with their contents.”

Currently, there is no U.S. industry standard that calls for the labeling of injection molded parts, says Chris Belisle, senior project engineer for injection molder Phillips Plastics Corp. of Wisconsin. However, several internationally owned medical OEMS are preparing for recycling mandates that may be enforced in the future. For example, Datex-Ohmeda Inc. of Finland, a supplier of anesthesia equipment, denotes the resin acronym on every injection molded part.

Designing for Disassembly

An even more fundamental approach to the “green” issue is designing medical products for easy dismantling and recycling—not an easy feat for many medical devices. “Common methods for making disassembly easier such as snap fits, may work well for some products, but they may not be appropriate for use in certain medical applications,” says Belisle. Unlike other products, many medical devices are required to pass demanding drop tests and to withstand severe sterilization that could damage fragile internal electronic circuits. In some cases, designing for recyclability could even negatively impact medical product design and increase production costs.

Nonetheless, some companies are incorporating recyclability concerns in product development. Says Pedro Torres, a supply manager for Datex-Ohmeda’s manufacturing plant in Wisconsin, “Taking time to review each step in a development process may at first appear to slow it down, but we found that strategic cradle-to-grave program reviews improve current products and provide cost-saving initiatives for future programs.”

Design engineers can take certain measures to promote a product’s future recyclability. According to Jack Pape, a VP with rotational molding company, Meese Orbitron Dunne Co., New Jersey, engineers can reduce the priciest part of disassembly—labor—by incorporating simple hinges. Furthermore, he recommends specifying recyclable materials, such as linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) and high-density polyethylene (HDPE), as well as materials that are commonly used and likely to remain in wide circulation.

Engineers should also refrain from modifying the material through additives, textures and foaming agents because this drives up the cost of recycling and diminishes the recycled material’s potential market and value, Pape says. Moreover, he advises engineers to consider the effect of weathering—dirt, debris, and wear and tear—on recyclability. Finally, he tells engineers to steer clear of adhesive labels and inks whenever possible because they are difficult and expensive to remove.

Other Hurdles

Pape’s company already designs many products for future recyclability, but he acknowledges that it’s only a start. “Just because a product can be recycled doesn’t mean it will be economically viable to do so when the product is ready to enter the waste stream,” he explains. “Nor is there any guarantee there will be a market for the recycled material.”

And that’s not all design engineers must take into account. Another issue is how the price of the recycled material will match up against that of the virgin material at the product’s anticipated date of obsolescence or disposal. “Further clouding the forecast,” he notes, “are the possibilities that new materials may be developed after manufacturing that render recycled material useless. And environmental regulations may be enacted after manufacturing that could eliminate use of the material or increase the cost to use it.”

“After considering these possibilities, design engineers must address their greatest and most costly challenge: how the product will be removed from the waste stream and transferred into the recycling stream, assuming there’s a market for the material,” continues Pape. He points out that there is currently no government-sponsored collection program for obsolete medical equipment. “Who will bear the responsibility for tagging a given product for recycling at the end of its useful life and who will assume the cost of shipping it to a recycling operation that can accommodate the given material?” he asks.

Long Road Ahead

Indeed, medical product manufacturers, vendors and suppliers have their work cut out for them. But through more conscientious purchasing, eco-friendly design and established recycling programs, they can make steady progress in their long journey toward a “green” medical products industry.

Source: Think “RECYCLE” for Medical Products
Jean M. Hoffman
Medical Design News

:}

The link to the article was broken so I printed only the author’s name for attribution. However here is the drirect link to the publication and part of a 2008 article. Apparently GREEN In Medicine has gotten a bit more lively:

http://www.medicaldesignnews.com

http://medicaldesign.com/engineering-prototyping/sustainable_design_medical/index.html

Sustainable design for medical devices

Mar 1, 2008 12:00 PM, Chris Kadamus, Principal Design Engineer, Cambridge Consultants, Cambridge, Mass.

Chris Kadamus
Chris Kadamus

Medical products account for an enormous amount of the solid, industrial, and chemical waste in developed countries throughout the world. In the U.S. alone, hospitals produce more than 6,600 tons of waste per day, including 800 tons of non-hazardous, and potentially recyclable, plastic parts. In addition, many medical products use hazardous chemicals and solvents during manufacture or include materials that can be harmful if not disposed of properly. Disposal of non-hazardous and hazardous medical waste can be costly from an environmental and financial point of view. As such, it could benefit the medical-device industry to embrace sustainable design, a concept in which products are evaluated in terms of financial impact and social and environmental impact as well.

Historically, the medical-device industry as a whole has been risk averse. This is primarily because of stringent FDA regulations, fear that alternate methods or materials may compromise patient health, and an overarching fear of legal liability. Adding design for sustainability to an already rigorous set of design requirements, including biocompatibility and aseptic assembly, can put an additional burden on design teams whose primary goals are time-to-market and FDA compliance.

Furthermore, much of the medical-device industry generates most of their revenue from disposable products. Approximately 90% of medical-device waste consists of items designated for one-time use. Fears of contamination, the high costs of sterilization and reprocessing, and the desire for continuous revenue have firmly anchored the disposable products’ business model in the minds of industry leaders.

There are, however, a number of driving factors and significant competitive advantages in bringing sustainable design to the medical-device industry. First, while the U.S. has lagged in the ratification of environment legislation, the European Union has moved to ban some hazardous materials, promote recycling and encourage energy efficiency using legislation. Standards such as WEEE (Directive on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment), RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment), REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), and the EuP regulations (Energy Using Products), while not currently applicable to the U.S. or enforced for many medical products, have gained significant support in recent years. Many experts agree it is only a matter of time before these or similar standards will be enacted in the U.S. and become applicable to the medical-device industry.

:}

Risk adverse my ass.

:}

Cutting Healthcare’s Enormous Energy Waste – This article is not on topic BUT

Posted on by
Reply

I had originally planned on taking a look at how much an X-Ray costs in energy terms. The Healthcare industry sucks up huge amounts of energy. Another thing I planned on looking at is their huge computer usage. Like utility companies, hospitals are nothing but giant billing agencies, add to that all of the data they must store and a hospital has got to be gulping the juice. This articles points out that ALL BURNING Behavior is much like most medical behavior, just plain sloppy living.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1907514,00.html

The Key to Fixing Health Care and Energy: Use Less

Our health-care crisis and our energy crisis are complex dilemmas made of many complex problems. But our biggest problem in both health care and energy is essentially the same simple problem: we use too much. And in both cases, there’s a simple explanation for much of the problem: our providers get paid more when we use more.

Undoing these waste-promoting incentives — the “fee-for-service” payment system that awards more fees to doctors and hospitals for providing more services, and the regulated electricity rates that reward utilities for selling more power and building more plants — would not solve all our health-care and energy problems. But it would be a major step in the right direction. President Obama has pledged to pass massive overhauls of both sectors this year, but if Congress lacks the stomach for comprehensive reforms — and these days it’s looking like Kate Moss in the stomach department — a more modest effort to realign perverse incentives could take a serious bite out of both crises. (See pictures of Cleveland’s smart approach to health care.)

Everyone knows we use too much energy. Our addiction to fossil fuels is torching the planet, empowering hostile petro-states and straining our wallets. Meanwhile, studies by scientists at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere suggest that more than half of our energy is lost through inefficiencies, calculations that don’t even include the energy we fritter away through wasteful behavior like leaving lights on or idling cars. We’re on course to increase electricity usage an extra 30% by 2030, which could require trillions of dollars’ worth of new emissions-belching power plants, so it would be much better to eliminate the usage that doesn’t add to our quality of life.

:}

Please read the rest of the brief article. It is thought provoking.

More on Green Medical Technology tomorrow.

:}

Global Warming – Tundra melts releasing Methane by the ton and Pelicans refuse to migrate

Posted on by
1

Anybody that says there is no proof of Global Warming is either being paid off, blind or lying.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2229

11 Jan 2010: Report

Arctic Tundra is Being Lost
As Far North Quickly Warms

The treeless ecosystem of mosses, lichens, and berry plants is giving way to shrub land and boreal forest. As scientists study the transformation, they are discovering that major warming-related events, including fires and the collapse of slopes due to melting permafrost, are leading to the loss of tundra in the Arctic.

by bill sherwonit

During the summer of 2007, lightning strikes sparked five tundra fires on Alaska’s North Slope. Two of the fires — rare events north of the Arctic Circle — began in neighboring drainages, only a couple of days apart. That, in itself, might have gained the attention of tundra researchers. But the 2007 fire season would ultimately burn a record swath across the North Slope, while reshaping the way scientists think about the Arctic’s response to global warming.

Researchers have known for years that the Arctic landscape is being transformed by rising temperatures. Now, scientists are amassing growing evidence that major events precipitated by warming — such as fires and the collapse of slopes caused by melting permafrost — are leading to the loss of tundra in the Arctic. The cold, dry, and treeless ecosystem — characterized by an extremely short growing season; underlying layers of frozen soil, or permafrost; and grasses, sedges, mosses, lichens, and berry plants — will eventually be replaced by shrub lands and even boreal forest, scientists forecast.

Much of the Arctic has experienced temperature increases of 3 to 5 degrees F in the past half-century and could see temperatures soar 10 degrees F above pre-industrial levels by 2100. University of Vermont professor Breck Bowden, a watershed specialist participating in a long-term study of the Alaskan tundra, said that such rapidly rising temperatures will mean that the “tundra as we imagine it today will largely be gone throughout the Arctic. It may take longer than 50 or even 100 years, but the inevitable direction is toward boreal forest or something like it.”

Alaska
iStock
With temperatures increasing across the Arctic, the Alaskan tundra as we know it could be gone before the end of the century, some scientists predict.

Dominique Bachelet, a climate change scientist at Oregon State University, forecasts that by 2100 tundra “will largely disappear from the Alaskan landscape, along with the related plants, animals, and even human ecosystems that are based upon it.” She made that prediction in 2004, and now says “the basic premise still holds, but the mechanism of change may be different than we thought.” Instead of long-term, incrementally complex changes caused by gradually warming temperatures, “extreme events will be the important triggers for change.” Hot-burning fires or slumping hillsides tied to melting permafrost could “clean the slate and allow new species to establish themselves,” Bachelet said.

The transformation of the tundra — the word comes from the Finnish, tunturia, meaning “treeless plain” — will have a profound impact on the creatures that live and breed there, including grizzly bears, wolves, foxes, and many species of waterfowl and migratory songbirds. Especially hard-hit could be caribou, which depend heavily on lichen as a food source.

:}

This is an amazing article. More amazing because Sarah Palin has lived through this for the last 10 years and still does not admit that it is even happening. Then there is the methane and the frozen Woolly Mammoths that keep popping out of the ground.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/14/arctic-permafrost-methane

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

David Adam, environment correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 14 January 2010 19.00 GMT

Article history

Arctic tundra in SiberiaPermafrost in Siberia. Methane emissions from the Arctic permafrost increased by 31% from 2003-07, figures show. Photograph: Francis Latreille/Corbis

Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.

They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.

Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: “High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions.”

Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates

:}

And it is confusing the birds.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/03/brown_pelicans_wont_flow_south.html

Environment, Oregon Coast, Outdoors »

Brown pelicans won’t fly south from Oregon coast and that worries scientists

By Lynne Terry, The Oregonian

March 12, 2010, 6:06PM

peli.jpgView full sizeBenjamin Reed/Los Angeles TimesA group of brown pelicans gathers at the Wildlife Center of the North Coast near Astoria. These birds were among those lodged at the center after they failed to fly south for the winter.Unlike past years, they’ve refused to return to California.

In January, scientists were stunned to see hundreds of brown pelicans that normally fly south before winter lingering on the Oregon coast.

Now it’s March and dozens are still here.

“This is a first for us,” said Roy Lowe, seabird specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Biologists are worried. Birds have starved to death and been pummeled by storms. Scientists are also perplexed about why they’ve altered their habits. Climate change could be a factor — no one really knows for sure.

But last week, birders counted dozens on the coast. Lowe said there have been sightings of 60 in Newport, 25 at Charleston and seven in Depoe Bay.

“Maybe some of them will survive the spring,” he said. “I haven’t heard of any moralities. They haven’t looked good for a long time, but they continue to hang in there.”

The downwelling ocean conditions off the coast this time of year do not support an abundance of forage fish for the pelicans. Lowe said they could be finding food in estuaries and lower bays, but they’re also scavenging.

“They’ve been hanging around where people are crabbing and going for any bits of fallen food,” said Deborah Jaques,  a wildlife biologist in Astoria who contracts with state and federal governments.

In the summer, flocks of about 20,000 brown pelicans live on the Oregon Coast and then fly to Southern California and Mexico before winter to breed.

Scientists said the El Nino conditions, with warmer ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific, could have affected the brown pelican’s food supply.

In January, many were found injured by storms or starved to death.

:}

Things better change soon…

:}