Solar, Wind & Geothermal

Welcome to the energy articles section of the Clean Energy Ideas website.Here you will find a list of many solar, wind and geothermal energy related articles, including various articles on other forms of renewable energy.

We hope these articles will be of use to you in finding the information you require. If you have any issues or would like to suggest changes to the content of these articles, you can provide feedback via the contact us page.

If you would like permission to feature an article from this area of the Clean Energy Ideas website, you must seek permission first.

All our publications focus on the environment and renewable energy, including how we can help to improve the quality of the air we breathe, and on a larger global scale, how we can possibly reduce the future effects of global warming.

If you have any suggestions of articles you would like to see on our website, please feel free to suggest these by contacting us.

Read More..

Fragrance in Perfumes and Cosmetics

Fragrance has long played an important role in personal grooming. Long ago, when daily bathing wasn’t common, dabs of fragrance here and there helped a person smell more pleasing. Nowadays, we still use fragrances — in the form of perfumes, deodorants, lotions, hair products, soaps and cosmetics — to please, attract and entice.Perfume consists mostly of chemicals called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. We smell fragrance chemicals because they become airborne due to their volatility. While some may enjoy the wafting fragrance of a well-perfumed person passing by, the chemicals may irritate others, especially in tight spaces, like an elevator. Perfume can be a trigger for asthmatics and migraine and sinus headache sufferers, for example. And children, since they are closer to the ground, are more likely to inhale VOCs as they fall through the air.

Some VOCs, such as formaldehyde, ethanol and d-limonene, cause eye, nose and throat irritation, difficulty breathing, allergy symptoms and headaches. Formaldehyde is considered a probable carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

But fragrances aren’t only inhaled — exposure occurs through skin contact, especially since we apply perfume and beauty products to the skin directly. Contact dermatitis, an allergic reaction in the skin, is on the rise. A 1996 Danish study on perfume and eczema, a kind of dermatitis, concluded that the number of eczema patients with perfume allergy doubled between 1979 and 1989. And, according to the American Academy of Dermatology, fragrance is the number one cause of allergic cosmetic reactions.

Perfumes and fragrances can consist of hundreds of chemicals. Testing of Calvin Klein’s Eternity by an independent lab, commissioned by Environmental Health Network (EHN), revealed that the perfume contained over 800 compounds.

Among the chemicals of concern in Eternity perfume was diethyl phthalate (DEP), an irritant and suspected hormone disrupter that is absorbed through the skin and can accumulate in human fat tissue. The lab, Scientific Instrument Services, found that DEP made up just over 10% of the perfume.

What is a Plasticizer Doing in My Perfume?

DEP and other phthalates, which are plasticizers used to soften vinyl plastic, are among the most common fragrance ingredients in perfumes and cosmetics. Phthalates are added to cosmetics and perfumes for multiple reasons. For example, their oily texture helps lubricate other substances in a formula. Phthalates also help lotions penetrate and soften the skin. They’ve become essential to scented products, however, because phthalates help fragrances last longer, according the American Chemistry Council.

Some health advocates and some researchers are becoming wary of phthalates, though. Phthalates are suspected carcinogens and hormone disruptors that are increasingly being linked to reproductive disorders. Some disturbing trends in human male reproductive health mirror the effects of phthalate exposure in animals. And one study has associated phthalates from hair care products and cosmetics with early puberty in Puerto Rican girls.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has found that phthalate levels in the American adult population are much higher than previously believed. Dibutyl phthalate, or DBP, was found in the urine of all 286 people tested. Most disturbing about the CDC study was that women of childbearing age had the highest levels of phthalates. Since phthalates are particularly dangerous to fetuses, this is of great concern.

In a follow-up to the original CDC report, researchers found evidence of phthalate exposures in a small group of children were even higher than in the adults already studied. Both CDC and Beauty Secrets, a report by the Environmental Working Group, implicate beauty products as a primary exposure route of phthalates for women of childbearing age.

Phthalates have not been linked in a cause-and-effect relationship to human health problems, but the evidence in animal studies is beginning to show there is cause for concern. Manufacturers claim that their products do not contain high enough levels of any phthalate to cause harm. But phthalates are used widely in soft vinyl toys, plastics, food packaging, plumbing, to solvents and finishes, industrial lubricants, wiring, carpeting and flooring, and many more items. This means that we can be exposed to phthalates multiple times every day.

What Manufacturers Hide from You

It’s not so simple to avoid phthalates by switching cosmetics, as it turns out. That’s because they are rarely listed on product ingredient labels.

In fact, a recent investigation by the Environmental Working Group, Coming Clean and Health Care Without Harm found that phthalates were found in almost 75 percent of common personal care products tested by an independent lab. Some 72 products including cosmetics, nail polishes and hardeners, lotions, deodorants, hair sprays, shampoos, conditioners and more were tested, with the findings reported in Not Too Pretty: Phthalates, Beauty Products & the FDA.

Yet, out of the 72 products tested, not one listed phthalates as an ingredient on the label. Even the nail polishes, which should include phthalates on ingredient labels under federal law, listed no phthalates. The reason? According to the report, "phthalates are claimed as fragrances or as a part of trade secret formulas, and are exempt from federal labeling requirements".

Federal Regulation Makes No "Scents".

Although perfumes and fragrances can consist of hundreds of chemicals, many of which are untested for toxicity, these products are only minimally regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (See What Your Nose Should Know for more information on regulation.)

In May 1999, after learning the test results for Eternity, EHN petitioned the FDA to declare Eternity "misbranded," due to the hazardous ingredients it contains. If the FDA rules in favor of EHN, a warning statement would have to appear on the Eternity label, stating, "Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined".

"This is kind of a test case to rewrite the regulations. We’re hoping the FDA will realize that all fragrances should be tested for safety", says Barbara Wilkie, president of the board of EHN. The FDA is currently accepting public comment on the petition. To find out how you can write in with your story of scent sensitivity (related to any perfume), visit EHN’s website.

You can cut down on your exposure to chemicals in synthetic fragrances by following the tips in How to Minimize Exposure to Chemical Fragrances.

For a list of phthalate-free personal care products and cosmetics, visit Not Too Pretty. You can also find out if products you currently use contain phthalates on Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Searchable Product Guide website. Take a stance and write to the company that makes your favorite cosmetics and ask them to formulate it without phthalates. Alternative ingredients do exist and are already in use.

Read More..

Potential Causes of Global Warming

Currently no one really knows the exact cause of global warming although it is a big part of what science is researching. There are a lot of efforts being placed into finding out the exact cause of this and to figure out how to stop it from going much further. We can speculate however what may happen if global warming is not put to a stop and put to a stop very soon. While there are many people out there with outlandish stories of what is going to happen to the world, there is some underlying cause of concern with the issue of global warming that should not be ignored in the slightest bit.

Among all of the things that are being taught in our public schools, one thing that should have a little more time and dedication put into it is the subject of the natural causes of global warming along with the man made causes. It is extremely important to make sure that our future generations all understand that this is a serious situation that is not just going to go away on its own. We have to figure out everything that is the cause of global warming and put a stop to it.

While there are certainly natural causes of global warming that certainly is not where the situation stops. Many people will venture to say that the main cause of global warming is actually humans and their actions against the environment. There are a lot of things to consider though as there may still be a lot of issues and causes out there that we do not yet know about which could be working along with the natural causes of global warming. Only time and research will tell though and that is why the science community is actively working on finding out everything they can.

When it comes to protecting our planet, there is no subject that is more important then that of the main cause of global warming. Although there is still a lot of work and research to be done in the science community it is important to know that a lot of people feel that the main cause of global warming is people. What we, the human race that depends on the planet, are doing to the planet is truly upsetting. Our actions and the chemicals that we use on a daily basis is said to be a big factor in everything warming up.

Read More..

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Read More..