When asked to think of products that may affect the environment and our health, most people think of obviously problematic things like plastic that will not decompose in a landfill and dangerous chemicals in cleaning products. One class of products that people usually neglect to think about includes cosmetics and personal care products. These products include things like lipstick, mascara, perfume, shampoo, deodorant, lotion and toothpaste. You may not realize it, but you probably use up to 10 or more personal care products in one day. Many people use these products with no hesitation, confident that the government must be making sure that these products are safe and not wrecking the environment. However, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit research and advocacy environmental organization, your confidence may be misplaced.

Cosmetics and personal care products are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors. According to the FDA, “…a cosmetic manufacturer may use almost any raw material as a cosmetic ingredient and market the product without an approval from FDA.” This means that regulation falls upon the manufacturers rather than a governmental agency. According to the EWG, within the past 30 years, the cosmetic industry has only done a safety review of 11 percent of the 10,500 ingredients it uses, and the FDA does not do any routine reviews either. This means that 90 percent of the ingredients commonly used in personal care products and cosmetics have not been evaluated by a third-party agency.

You might argue that many of these products are not intended to be ingested by humans, and thus, there is no problem. However, the skin easily absorbs cosmetics and other products, and products used on lips or hands are accidentally ingested through contact with the mouth. Studies done by scientists show that cosmetic ingredients can build up in human tissue; they’ve found preservatives like parabens in breast tumors, industrial plasticizers like phthalates in urine and fragrance components like musk xylene in fat. Do these ingredients affect humans in any noticeable way? Is the buildup of cosmetic ingredients dangerous? No one is sure because the studies simply have not been conducted, but the few studies that have been done seem to indicate that exposure to these ingredients does affect humans. For example, studies were conducted on feminized baby boys indicated that diethyl phthalate, a common fragrance used in cosmetics and personal care products, was to blame.

In addition, the ingredients in these products can easily make it into our environment. Ingredients absorbed and ingested by humans show up in urine and excrement. Although sewage is treated in the United States, the treatment does not manage to filter out everything, and when the wastewater is released back into the water supply, the ingredients come into contact with the environment. Studies have found ingredients from cosmetics and personal care products in bodies of water throughout the country. Some of these ingredients, especially those that affect hormone production, have been linked to the feminization of fish. Fragrance components that have made their way into the water have affected mussels, which cannot filter out poisons from their bodies once exposed to these chemicals. These are just two of the numerous studies showing how ingredients from common products are harming the wildlife and environment.

If we have studies demonstrating damage done to wildlife by cosmetic and personal care ingredients, then what are these things doing to us? Unfortunately, we don’t have those answers yet, but if you’re interested in being proactive about your health and the environment, there are plenty of eco friendly products on the markets for you to purchase, or you can research what chemicals your favorite brand of toothpaste may contain and if they pose any problems.

AUTHOR BIO

Jenna Pacht writes for Village Laser, which specializes in Denver laser. When Jenna isn’t thinking about the environment, she’s helping people remove unwanted hair with Denver laser hair removal.

The population of the world is on a constant upward tangent, and with living and growing space very far from following pace, we are facing a food shortage in the future. However, the amount of concern in the media about climate change over the past decade or so has gradually begun to sink in to the general population, and the increase in sustainable living has been notable. This has begun to happen right from people adding solar panels and insulating their houses to large industry using computer controlled irrigation and solar energy as well.

Following in the steps of the innovative ‘Gotham Greens’ in Brooklyn, NY, London now has it’s very first produce shop where everything sold is grown either in or on the roof of the shop itself. These days, you might well associate Dalston with the latest in the series of reality programs, but the north east London borough is the first in the capital city to have a shop like this.

Housed in an old shelter for domestic abuse victims, it is still staffed by vulnerable people, and makes a really worthy combination of help project and sustainable produce shop. Inside the shop they produce salads on the first floor by a novel ‘aeroponic’ method, whereby seedlings are surrounded with nutrient rich air whilst in rockwool. When sufficiently strong they are moved downstairs to the hydroponic section, where the water is enriched by the waste products of a neighbouring tank of decorative fish. The final products are plucked fresh and sold on the spot, along with eggs from chickens that are housed in a coop on the roof.

Farm:Shop seek to widen their appeal by making the space part of the community; holding bands, poets and talks by night, kids clubs for after school and coffee and cakes in the cafe by day. It’s a sterling example of the ‘big society’ talked about the current government, as local people from hugely diverse backgrounds including an aquaponics company and painters and decorators, have lent their skills to make the project work. It has also opened the eyes of the founders to how much small scale production goes on behind closed doors around London, from hydroponic tomatoes on a window sills to carp for the Jewish market in a back garden pond. Staffed mainly by volunteers, it’s a great example of how non-green fingered people can get involved and create a successful, responsible and carbon neutral business….and in the middle of a huge city.

Rob is a keen blogger working for vegetable system engineers RJ Herbert. He loves the outdoors, and is learning more and more about gardening and vegetable production by the day!

You’ve decided to start your own business, but you had no idea how hard it would be in today’s economy. While most start-ups have a hard time finding solid ground, it can be a thousand times more difficult in economic turmoil. Sure, you could give up and try again later, but you don’t have to. Even in a bad economy there are things you can do to make it until things get better. Here are just a few tips for young entrepreneurs for surviving in a difficult economy.

Don’t Quit Your Day Job

While this term is often mockingly used, in this case, it’s some of the best advice you can get. A second job can be critical in keeping your business dreams afloat while the economy recovers. You may have to work a job after business hours or pick up freelance work online to do in your space time. Either way, you need to have a stable source of income.

Get Creative with Advertizing

There are a number of ways to spread the word about your business, but billboards, phone book ads and many traditional methods can be expensive. Thankfully, there are free and inexpensive techniques you can use. First, ask current customers to tell friends and family about their experience. Offer a discount on their next purchase for referrals or a free gift. Either way, word of mouth is an excellent form of advertizing. Next, invest in business cards. Many people fail to do this because they think it’s too expensive and time consuming. Business cards can actually be bought at a number of online websites for around $10 for a pack of 100. Best of all, these companies have a number of designs that make it easy to find exactly what you need. You can even upload your own logo. Last, but certainly not least, print fliers. Fliers are cheap, but an eye-catching flier can drum up business.

Cut Back on Unnecessary Expenses

It can be easy to get suckered into buying a lot of services you don’t need for your business. For example, if you do most of your business locally, chances are you don’t need a long distance phone service. If you run your business from home, you also probably don’t need a landline phone and can opt for an inexpensive cell phone plan. A great way to cut back on your expenses is to track where every penny goes. Do this for a month and then look at each item carefully to determine if that expense is necessary.

The economy may be rough, but that doesn’t mean you have to give up on your dreams. By keeping a second job and getting creative with how your money is spent, you’ll have a much better chance of staying afloat.

About the Author: Jeanmarie Cassano is a recent college graduate working for a major corporation but dreaming of self-employment. She currently uses services like Metrofax email faxing and other online business tools to grow her business on the side while she works.

Last week plenty of newspaper columns were overtaken with arguments regarding whether or not smoking should be banned from vehicles on UK roads. It was revealed that the British Medical Association (BMA) is pushing the Government to be "bold and courageous" and make puffing cigarettes in cars illegal for the sake of the population’s health.

The BMA’s letter to the UK’s health secretary cited a number of "facts" in support of their desire for the change including that "toxin levels can be up to 23 times higher than in a typical smoky bar" and that children and the elderly – groups which are prone to the absorption of the deadly chemicals found in tobacco smoke, due to their weaker immune systems – often have no choice but to travel in cars and could suffer as a result of second hand smoke should the driver choose to light up.

In reaction to this news, the director of pro-choice smoking group Forest (Simon Clark) commented:

 "There is no good reason for a ban on smoking in cars, whether children are on board or not. We do not condone smoking around children [but] introducing new legislation is a gross over-reaction. What will happen next? Will it be illegal to smoke in your own home?"

Obviously, whether you are a smoker or not is likely to influence how you feel about this push by the BMA. It is always best to forge your opinion after hearing both sides of an argument however and so, here are the arguments for and against the proposed ban…

Arguments FOR Banning Smoking in Cars

• Smoking-related health issues and diseases cost the NHS an estimated £1.7 billion every year to treat, and more than 92,000 deaths occur as a result of smoking in the UK each year. Any measures that will see fewer cigarettes smoked (and thus; see less people become ill as a result) can only be positive. 
• Tar – which is found in tobacco smoke – is made up of over 4,000 different chemicals. In fact, cigarettes contain almost any toxic chemical one could expect to find inside of a motor garage. Opening the windows may see billows of smoke leave the vehicle but many of the toxins will remain in the interior linings of the vehicle (the roof and seats for example) meaning they could come into contact with the body a long time after a cigarette has been puffed. 
• Smoking whilst at the wheel can be dangerous. Many people choose to smoke cigarettes with at least one window open to provide ventilation. On more blustery days it is not implausible that hot ash could be blown back towards the driver. This has the potential to panic the driver and cause road accidents. 
• Smoking in cars can devalue them significantly. British Car Auctions (BCA) argues that the presentation of a used vehicle is a primary factor when dealers determine the price for which is can be sold. Stray ash can cause defects such as discoloration and scorch marks, not to mention a lingering smell that even the strongest of Magic Tree air fresheners will be able to combat! 
• If a driver can be reprimanded for eating, using a mobile phone or being intoxicated at the wheel, then why shouldn’t smoking whilst driving a car not be similarly punishable? Anything which has the potential to distract drivers should be banned.
• Banning smoking in cars could also see significantly less litter on UK roads. Many drivers who puff will discard butts and empty cigarette cartons by simply throwing them out of the window.
• Drivers who smoke won’t necessarily do so when the car is in motion meaning the risk of an accident is considerably less.  Many drivers will choose to spark up a cigarette should they be caught in motorway traffic for long periods of time and having both hands on the wheel is (arguably) not essential during these delays. Meanwhile, many other drivers will only smoke when they are parked up.

Arguments AGAINST Banning Smoking in Cars

• Banning smoking in cars might not be that effective. Despite the fact that using a mobile phone, eating or being intoxicated whilst in control of a vehicle is illegal many people do this regardless and are never caught or punished for doing so. 
• If someone has used their own money to buy a car then they should be allowed to do anything that is legal (which currently does include smoking) inside of it. Telling a car owner that they are not allowed to smoke in their vehicle is like telling a home owner that smoking is not allowed in their house!  
• Those who do not have any children inside of their car only have their own heath to be concerned about, as well as any passengers who might be on board. Most drivers have the decency to ask anyone in their car whether they mind a cigarette being smoked in their company.
• The proposal of making smoking in vehicles illegal is reflective of the increasing "nanny-state" of the UK government. Smoking has already been banned in many public places across the UK (pubs, clubs, airports etc) and outside of these areas people should be free to decide for themselves whether or not they spark up. A car is not a public space.
• Cigarettes are not illegal and the government takes a significant cut from the money made via cigarette sales. Adding one more place to list of where people cannot smoke seems rather hypocritical!

As you can see the debate is fairly tied and both sides have weighty arguments to support its viewpoint. It goes without saying that until a ban is implemented across the UK those who want to smoke whilst behind the wheel will continue to do so and those who despise the habit will continue to look on with disgust.

How would you feel should smoking in cars on UK roads (or the roads in another country) become illegal? Leave your comments below. 

The author of this guest post – Kat Cole – is employed by a car accident claims company and is the designer of an online compensation calculator.

In Victorian times there was little onus on employers meeting health and safety standards and so the injury rate was far higher. Fortunately nowadays there are a large number of factors at hand that prevent employers from not looking after the health of their employees.

These safety regulations are at hand to prevent injury caused by negligent practices. There are a number of these practices in place as you will see from our list below ad all are there for the betterment of the worker.

As an employee you have a right to the safety and wellbeing of yourself and your colleagues in the place you work in. These rights are given to you by law and generally can’t be changed or altered by the person who employs you.

As far as your job is concerned you have the right to have any problems that may cause potential health and safety issues properly controlled so they are no risk to you or your safety.

If you do work in a hazardous place of work you have a legal right to ensure that you are given all the safety gear and protective equipment to ensure that you are safe from any accidents at work that might take place. This equipment must be provided free of charge and must be maintained o replaced so it meets an optimum standard at all times.

If this does not seem to be the case then you can stop work if you feel your place of work is unsafe. You have a legal right to do this and leave the work place without being disciplined by your workplace as this situation was a danger to you.

You must always tell your employer about the safety concerns you have. This will insure anything that seems is a problem is addressed and hopefully sorted out.

If your employee fails to listen to your concerns then you can make it known to the Health Safety Executive (HSE). You are allowed to do so without being disciplined by your employee.

When you are at work you also have rights to time off for breaks, time off during the working week as well as annual paid holidays. There are also a number of rights regarding the amount of hours you work in a week; the pay regards working on Sundays, the rest breaks you are entitled to and the hours that you work at night and issues regarding them.

This is the case for all workers without exception in the UK and there are a number of commonly known of places where you can enquire about these issues or any related issues to do with your health and safety concerns, as well as the hours you spend working in the work place.

Simon Grant is a writer and blogger who contributes to a great many sites including food blog Amateur Gastronomy.

It goes without saying that the majority of people in the UK will never find themselves facing criminal charges. This does not however mean that there’s no value in becoming acquainted with the fundamentals of the prosecution process. In the unlikely event that extraneous circumstances came to pass the worst were to transpire – it is useful to be at least modestly prepared.

If the police consider an individual to be a suspect in a criminal case then they have the right to place them under arrest. The aim of arresting an individual is to withhold their right to freedom for a period of time in order to hold them in custody and question them with regard to the alleged offence. In most instances the police are only permitted to hold a suspect for a maximum of 24 hours – unless they are accused of a ‘serious crime’ such as murder in which case an appeal to a court can result in permission to hold a suspect for up to 96 hours.

Following arrest, the police must explain to a suspect the reason for their arrest and outline their rights. These rights are the cornerstone of justice in the UK and must be abided by in all instances.

Prior to any form of questioning the suspect is informed of their right to remain silent, this information is imparted by the ‘police caution’ which is generally delivered at the time of arrest.  This standard caution is familiar to most as a result of film and television portrayals of police arrests, but familiarity may well result in a failure to fully comprehend the meaning of the words. Essentially, the police caution explains that the suspect is under no obligation to answer any questions, but that failure to do so may damage their defence if the charge is to ultimately be resolved in court.

In addition to the right not to speak, all suspects are also subject to the legal entitlement to free legal advice. Dependent upon the nature of the charge and location of questioning, this legal advice can take the form of advice over the telephone courtesy of Criminal Defence Service Direct (generally for less serious offences) or the attendance of a criminal defence solicitor during questioning. The right to free legal advice applies to all – regardless of financial means or indeed whether the individual is inside or outside of a police station at the time of questioning.

Whilst at the police station, suspects are also legally entitled to have the opportunity to inform a friend or family member that they have been arrested, gain access to the ‘Codes of Practice’ (the rules which the police must follow) and see a written notice outlining their rights with regards to the practical aspects of their incarceration – such as meal and bathroom access entitlements.

Written by Stephanie Staszko on behalf of Gray and Co Criminal Defence Solicitors who provide accredited police station representatives You can follow her on Twitter @StephStaz

This is a guest post from Stephani S, who contributes to Advance Me America’s leading merchant cash advance provider.

A question that many people might not ask themselves – are fair -trade items always necessarily eco-friendly? The two concepts seem to be inextricably linked, especially in the consumer mind, but perhaps they are not always one.

The surge in popularity of ethical consumerism has certainly created a market for greener products, but it has also created a market for specific branding to demonstrate that these products have been scrutinized, and are assuredly your best conscious purchase. There are so many up-and-coming products, the average person can become confused rather quickly. It’s easy to make the assumption that any chocolate bar bearing a sticker that announces “fair trade” must also be good for the environment and good for those who pick the cacao, but, indeed that is not always the case.

Focusing on items that are “fair-trade certified” and for now ignoring the niche certifications such as bird-friendly, Rainforest Alliance-approved, UTZ certified and so on – we learn that traditionally, the fair-trade designation has been associated with labor standards rather than environmental concerns. This suggests that workers in distant places are earning better and more consistent wages, and laboring under better conditions than they would with products brought to market under conventional labels. But, any product that’s certified as fair trade, must also meet a set of environmental standards as determined by the Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International.

These restrictions are in some respects, very straightforward. For example, the certification process specifically bans a long list of dangerous pesticides, but, in other respects, the standards are more general. Things such as requiring buffer zones to be in place around conservation areas, minimize water use for irrigation, and ensure that organic waste is disposed of in a sustainable manner – but fair-trade advocates hold that the ecological rewards extend beyond simple rules. Through helping to empower and promote smaller producers, the label helps those who more likely to use traditional (and sustainable) growing methods that are better for the environment.

Remember though, that fair-trade doesn’t equal organic. Even while the international labeling group encourages producers to adopt organic practices whenever feasible, it does not require it. The group that maintains these standards within the United States is Transfair USA. According to them, more than 60% of fairly traded coffee also happens to be organic. There also exists a large area of overlap between fair-trade coffee and “bird friendly”, shade-grown varieties, but one doesn’t always equal the other. It seems however, that if one assumes the certifications are legitimate, fair-trade is likely to be more eco-friendly than most of the recognized brands in the supermarket.

Still, concerns are raised regarding this issue, one being that the promise of higher wages gained in fair-trade agreements could possibly create an incentive for farmers to over produce their goods. There is also the question of whether the farmers really enjoy many benefits directly provided from the higher price consumers pay for fair-trade items. Over production of goods keeps the rest of the world’s farmers poor, and results in more land being cleared for farming. Of course these concerns might be over emphasized, because fair-trade certifications more often than not place bans on the use of untouched forests, and there is very little evidence that small-scale production has led to over production.

Something else to consider, is the fact that fair-trade items are produced at far distances, and therefore must travel to reach local markets. If the products are shipped by sea, the impact might not be so bad, as it is believed that long-distance hauling, over ocean, has less detrimental effect than the same product being trucked from points within the U.S., but, certain perishable fruits and vegetables must always be transported by air which does indeed raise serious concerns.

The bottom line is this: If you’re concerned about issues of global poverty, and also passionate about climate change, you probably won’t be able to have it both ways at all times. Try keeping things in strict perspective. Rejecting bananas grown far away may reduce your carbon footprint in small measure, but you can make a much larger impact by refusing to support factory farming, and putting the pack of ground beef you picked up for supper, back on the shelf.

Coca-cola by Deusx Florida

With the intense focus upon global warming and the deterioration of the environment, consumers are developing environmental consciences. Once, consumers only used to care about what benefits they personally would derive from a product– it this product a worthwhile purchase for me? Now, consumers are interested in the before and after as well – how was this product made? What happens to this product once I throw it out?

For the past several years, consumers have begun to demand that companies become more sustainable in their practices. One industry that has particularly come under fire is the bottled beverage industry, with The Coca-Cola Company attracting much of the attention. As one of the largest beverage companies in the world, Coca-Cola is practically the poster child for beverage companies in general. Coca-Cola owns more than 500 brands in 200 countries and as of 2006, owned a market share of 53 percent. The company sells more than 25 million plastic soda bottles a day. Without even bothering to do the math, you can see that that’s a lot of bottles – more than ten billion a year! These ten billion or so bottles are made out of 900 million pounds of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), which is a recyclable material.
In response to consumer demand and pressure from organizations the likes of As You Sow and National Recycling Coalition, Coca-Cola announced in 2007 that it was dedicated to figuring out a way to recycle or reuse 100 percent of its plastic bottles in the United States. Coca-Cola’s plan was to invest more than $60 million into recycling. Part of this investment was earmarked to build the world’s largest plastic bottle to bottle recycling plant, which was built in Spartanburg, South Carolina in 2008, and became fully operational in January 2009.

This plant was built in cooperation with the United Resource Recovery Corporation (URRC), a company that specializes in recycling PET from food and beverage containers. URRC uses a special process that takes the PET and turns it into chip resin, which can then be reused in food packaging materials. This process is FDA approved. Early estimates suggest that this plant will be able to turn out enough recycled PET each year to create two billion 20-ounce bottles.
The best part about this plant is that it doesn’t just contribute to environmental sustainability – it also has the potential money for the company, which would be a wonderful incentive for other companies to start taking interest in recycling their PET packaging and containers as well. The plant wouldn’t net a ridiculously large amount of money for Coca-Cola, but possibly enough money that it would make a difference. There is a huge demand for this type of recycling program around the United States, especially in the Midwest where recycled bottles end up in China because it’s cheaper to ship them over rather than having these bottles taken care of domestically.

PET is such a valuable recyclable material that even though the recycling plant can produce huge quantities of recycled PET, it’s not enough to meet the recycled PET demand. To meet this demand and ensure access to recycled materials, Coca-Cola formed Coca-Cola Recycling LLC (CCR) in November 2007. CCR is interested in recycling all sorts of Coca-Cola packaging materials such as PET, cardboard, plastic film and aluminum from around the country. CCR is focused on developing cost-efficient solutions for recycled containers and will also help establish more centralized recycling centers in the United States.

Jenna Pacht writes for A Beautiful Look by Jenna, which specializes in Denver electrolysis, the only FDA approved method of permanent hair removal.

Using data from Sexually Transmitted Disease Morbidity on CDC WONDER the above graphic shows the District of Columbia having a far greater number of Syphilis cases per 100,000 population than any other State.

Whilst the above chart shows Syphilis cases, DC is top in almost every sexually transmitted disease that can be charted.

City Weekly show that in 2008 he accepted contributions totalling $187,500 from various boiler room call centers.

The problem with these call centers is that they prey on the vulnerable and use intimidating techniques when trying to close the deal. Worse still is that many of the offers are get-rich-quick schemes and they exploit the poor with fake scarcity offers and imminent price rises.