Laboratory tests found high levels of BPA on 40 percent of thermal paper receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses and services, including McDonald’s, Chevron, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, WalMart, Safeway and the U.S. Postal Service, among others. BPA in paper receipts also contaminates paper recycling and is showing up in napkins, toilet paper and other common papers with recycled content. (Thinkstock)

Many of us already know the risks associated with regular use of products containing the plastic hardener and synthetic estrogen Bisphenol A (BPA)—and have switched over to BPA-free water and baby bottles and food storage containers. But the recent revelation that many of the receipts handed around every day in the U.S. contain the chemical has been a real shocker to those already worried about BPA exposure.

Many thermal papers used in the U.S.—receipts, event tickets, labels—contain so-called “free” BPA (that is, not bound into resin or plastic), which helps “develop” the inks to make the printed information visible. “While there is little concern for dermal absorption of BPA, free BPA can readily be transferred to skin and residues on hands can be ingested,” reports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Laboratory tests commissioned by the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) and carried out by the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences Laboratory in 2010 found high levels of BPA on 40 percent of receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses and services, including McDonald’s, Chevron, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, WalMart, Safeway and the U.S. Postal Service, among others.

“The total amounts of BPA on receipts tested were 250 to 1,000 times greater than other, more widely discussed sources of BPA exposure, including canned foods, baby bottles and infant formula,” reported EWG. Wipe tests conducted by the lab easily removed BPA “indicating that the chemical could rub off on the hands of a person handling the receipt.”

While BPA contamination of food is still a bigger problem, says EWG, a large number of Americans—especially the seven million who run cash registers—are nonetheless exposed to additional amounts of BPA through handling receipts. An EWG analysis of U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data found that retail workers carry an average of 30 percent more BPA in their bodies than other adults.

Another more exhaustive study of BPA in thermal paper receipts and 14 other types of papers found the chemical in a whopping 94 percent of samples from the U.S., Japan, Korea and Vietnam. The State University of New York researchers behind the study, which was published in September 2011 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology, estimate that receipts and other thermal paper products contribute around 33.5 tons of BPA to the environment in the U.S. and Canada each year. Even more disturbing was their finding that BPA in thermal paper receipts also contaminates paper recycling and is showing up in napkins, toilet paper and other common papers with recycled content.
On a more encouraging note, Wisconsin’s Appleton Papers, the world’s largest thermal paper maker, removed BPA from its products in 2006. And the EPA has since launched a program to evaluate the safety and availability of alternatives to BPA in thermal paper. Public health advocates and environmentalists, of course, would like to see BPA phased out entirely.

CONTACTS: EPA, www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/bpa_action_plan.pdf; EWG, www.ewg.org; “Widespread Occurrence of Bisphenol A in Paper and Paper Products: Implications for Human Exposure,” Environmental Science & Technology, www.pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202507f.

Obama's State of the Union address was, in the words of one prominent green leader, "a strong defense of the importance of clean energy to America’s long-term economic prosperity." (White House photo)

The economy dominated President Obama’s recent State of the Union address, but his discussion about energy and the environment took up almost seven minutes—or nine percent—of the hour-plus address. And while much of what Mr. Obama said was comforting to environmentalists, his statements about expanding natural gas production—albeit “without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk”—and opening up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources did not sit well.

Even so, natural gas is cleaner burning than oil or coal, and reducing our reliance on foreign oil is a good thing overall. “Right now American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years,” Mr. Obama said, adding that “…last year we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years.”

Michelle Wilson Berger of the National Audubon Society points out that when George W. Bush told us in his 2006 State of the Union that the U.S. was addicted to foreign oil, some 60 percent was coming from foreign sources. “Now it’s just less than half,” Berger says, adding: “The trend is going to continue in that positive direction and within a couple decades, it’s going to be even less, say something like 36 percent.”

Nonetheless, environmental advocates were hoping for less bullish talk from Obama on expanding fossil fuel development of any kind, given the dire climate predictions we are facing. But Obama isn’t giving up his commitment to renewables, despite the recent bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra after it had received upwards of $500 million in loan guarantees. “Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail,” stated Obama in the speech. “But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy.”

Obama also called on Congress to pass a new standard aimed at boosting wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables, and to extend related tax credits to help diversify and green the country’s energy mix, adding that he wants to end tax subsidies for oil companies. In underscoring that Americans don’t have to choose between the economy and the environment, he cited the case of the revival of the American auto industry thanks in part to automakers’ willingness to innovate to meet aggressive fuel economy standards.

Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund considers Obama’s State of the Union “a strong defense of the importance of clean energy to America’s long-term economic prosperity.”

Speeches aside, 2011 wasn’t a bad year for Obama on the environment. He proposed raising the average fuel efficiency standard for new cars to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025—this alone, says Natural Resources Defense Council’s Frances Beinecke, “will save drivers more than $80 billion a year at the pump and cut our annual oil use by more than the amount we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq in 2010.” Obama’s recent rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline project—which would have transported dirty Alberta tar sands oil across U.S. soil—was another triumph, as were establishing the first national standards to limit mercury and other air toxins from power plants, proposing a visionary national oceans policy, protecting the Grand Canyon from uranium mining, and supporting clean energy investments at record levels.

CONTACTS: White House State of the Union 2012, www.whitehouse.gov/state-of-the-union-2012.

Here’s the one thing you need to know about computer and audio/video cables: They’re cheap.

“NO!” you exclaim, perturbed by my obvious and odious lie and my use of purple prose in this paragraph.

“But I spent $75 at Best Buy on an HDMI cable, and…”

Yeah, you’re an idiot. Though it’s not your fault. You, like many before you, have been duped by the markup gods and the big box retail game.

The truth is, depending on your technological needs, you can get away with paying little to nothing for cables and wires. Here’s what I mean:

Case #1: I have a new HD flatscreen television with a cable box. I do not have surround sound or an A/V receiver to hook up

You need: One HDMI cable. It will handle audio and video.

You could get away with: One component video cable (Red/Green/Blue plugs) and a Red/White RCA audio cable.

You should spend: $0. Comcast will give you either cable for free. Ask for the HDMI cable. It’s one wire that does everything instead of five wires. HDMI also supports 1080p, whereas component video only goes to 720.

What the stores have tried to sell me: An $89 — yes $89 — Monster HDMI cable. Again, you should spend ZERO dollars for the same quality.

Case #1a: I also have a Blu-ray player.

You need: To buy an HDMI cable, because it most likely did not come with your $30 Blu-ray player.

You could get away with: Asking your cable company nicely for a second HDMI cable. They literally have piles of these things.

You should spend: No more than $5. Don’t believe me? Click here.

The stores have tried to sell me: The $89 — yes $89 — Monster HDMI cable and a $35 optical audio cable. You don’t need an optical audio cable when you’re using HDMI. Ever.

Case 2: I have a flat-screen television, a brand new A/V surround sound receiver, a cable box, and a Blu-ray player.

You need: Speaker wire, a subwoofer cable, possibly a subwoofer Y-adapter, and three HDMI cables. You run one HDMI cable from the television to the receiver and one each from the receiver to the cable box and Blu-ray player. Same with a PlayStation 3. No audio cables needed. You run speaker wire from each speaker to its corresponding port on the receiver. DO NOT buy banana plugs or any other kind of accessory for the speaker wire. It’s simply another point of potential failure. Just use the bare wire.

You can get away with: Do not use component video cables. You’ll have to buy a separate coaxial or optical audio cable for surround sound (Dolby Digital/DTS) audio. Just use HDMI.

You should spend: $5 or less per HDMI cable and no more than about $15 for the speaker wire.

The stores have tried to sell me: The $89 — yes $89 — Monster HDMI cables, $35 optical audio cables, $40 Monster speaker cable and $10 speaker cable attachments.

Case 3: I have several home networking devices, including a NAS device, home theater PC, video game consoles, and a network printer

You need: Cat 6 cables and a gigabit router with Wireless N. You can use Wi-Fi for things like Wii, room monitors/security cameras, a smart thermostat, etc. For an Xbox 360/PS3, a computer, a NAS, and anything that is storing photos, videos, or music, you should make sure it is plugged into the network directly. Just my advice. Some will say Wi-Fi is there, but I say plug it in.

You can get away with: Cat 5e cables and a gigabit router with Wireless N.

You should spend: About $100 on the router (see this story) and $2-20 on each network wire.

The stores have tried to sell me: Extremely marked up routers and $20-40 cables. Think twice.

Set-top boxes in the U.S. consume 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year, equivalent to the annual output of six coal-fired power plants. Part of the reason is that they typically operate at nearly full power even during the two-thirds of the time when they are not in use. (Thinkstock)

We hear a lot about how much energy modern day flat screen TV sets consume, but the innocuous set-top boxes that drive them, along with their built-in digital video recorders, may be even more to blame. A recent analysis conducted by the consulting firm Ecos on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) found that “the average new cable high-definition digital video recorder (HD-DVR) consumes more than half the energy of an average new refrigerator and more than an average new flat-panel television.” Overall, set-top boxes in the U.S. consume some 27 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. This is equal to the annual output of six average (500 megawatt) coal-fired power plants and accounts for the emission of 16 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Part of the reason these boxes are such energy hogs is that they typically operate at nearly full power even during the two-thirds of the time when they are not actively in use driving TV screens or recording to built-in DVRs. “As a nation, we spend $2 billion each year to power these boxes when they are not being actively used,” reports NRDC.

To make matters worse, American consumers have little if any choice about which set-top boxes they get from their cable or satellite service providers. Since the providers usually own the boxes yet don’t have to pay consumers’ electric bills, they have little incentive to utilize or develop more efficient models. In Europe, Sky Broadcasting is beginning to distribute more efficient equipment to subscribers there. NRDC is urging the largest pay-TV service providers in the U.S. (Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV, Dish Network, Verizon and AT&T) to heed the efficiency call with their own set-top box and DVR offerings.

Redesigning set-top boxes to power down when not in use is perhaps the biggest opportunity for energy savings. “Innovation to reduce power consumption when not in active use—such as has occurred with mobile phones, which also work on a subscriber basis and require secure connections—is sorely needed in set-top boxes,” counsels NRDC. Also, re-jiggering content delivery systems so that only one main set-top box sends signals to all the televisions in the house (or to lower power “thin client” boxes) could also cut down household electric bills and carbon footprints. The group adds that “better designed pay-TV set-top boxes could reduce the energy use of the installed base of boxes by 30 percent to 50 percent by 2020.”

Last year the U.S. government released new energy efficiency standards for set-top boxes within its EnergyStar appliance efficiency rating program. While this new specification is a step in the right direction, consumers have little knowledge about such options. NRDC urges pay-TV subscribers to request that their providers make available set-top boxes and DVRs that meet the newer EnergyStar 4.0 standards. The more of us that request such improvements, the likelier they are to happen. And the cable or satellite provider that can save customers money while reducing overall environmental impact may just win over an increasingly large sector of the American people that actually cares about being green.

CONTACTS: NRDC’s “Better Viewing, Lower Energy Bills, and Less Pollution,” www.nrdc.org/energy/files/settopboxes.pdf; EnergyStar, www.energystar.gov.

It’s a known fact that our oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the increasingly large load of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) entering our atmosphere. About 25 percent of all the CO2 we send skyward out of our tailpipes and smokestacks ends up in the world’s oceans, where it triggers chemical reactions in the water column that lead to increased acidification. Researchers estimate that the acidity of our seas has increased 29 percent since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. If we do not slow down the pace of greenhouse gas emissions, our oceans could be two to three times as acidic in 2100 as they already are today, which could prove disastrous to marine ecosystems and the world’s food chain.

“When carbon dioxide is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals,” reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These calcium carbonate minerals, typically abundant in areas where most marine life congregates, are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms, from oysters to coral. “However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells,” adds NOAA. The process will not only wreak havoc on the shellfish we eat, but also on smaller marine organisms that are key components on the lower end of the marine food chain.

Ocean acidification is likely to affect the ability of some shellfish to produce and maintain their shells. This process will not only wreak havoc on the shellfish we eat, but also on smaller marine organisms that are key components of the lower end of the marine food chain. (Thinkstock)

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading green group, coral reefs around the world may face an even greater risk than shellfish because they require very high levels of carbonate to build their skeletons. “Acidity slows reef-building, which could lower the resiliency of corals and lead to their erosion and eventual extinction,” they write. This would be an unmitigated environmental disaster, given that an estimated one million marine species depend on healthy coral reefs for survival.

“Such losses would reverberate throughout the marine environment and have profound social impacts, as well—especially on the fishing and tourism industries,” NRDC reports. “The loss of coral reefs would also reduce the protection that they offer coastal communities against storms surges and hurricanes—which might become more severe with warmer air and sea surface temperatures due to global warming.”

Researchers are working on strategies to protect aquaculture farms from further losses due to acidic water, but any large-scale effort to address ocean acidification will require the slowing down or phasing out of fossil fuels. Powering our cars, heating our homes and running our machines and appliances all require burning fossil fuels which generate greenhouse gas emissions and in turn cause acidification. Cutting back on our consumption of oil, gas and coal and switching to renewable energy sources—solar, wind, biomass and others—will be a necessary part of the strategy to counteract ocean acidification.

We can all help by driving less and walking/biking more; upgrading our vehicles, light bulbs and appliances to more energy efficient versions; patronizing companies that work to reduce their carbon footprints; and pushing our state and federal governments to enact binding reductions in CO2 pollution.

CONTACTS: NOAA, www.noaa.gov; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

Some 60 percent of our household indoor water usage happens in the bathroom. Toilets are the biggest water hogs, with older models using as much as eight gallons per flush. A shower, even with a low-flow shower head, can use up to 40 gallons of water, and a bath can use up to 50-60 gallons. (Thinkstock)

Some 60 percent of our household indoor water usage happens in the bathroom. As such, updating old leaky fixtures and changing a few basic habits could go a long way to not only saving fresh water, an increasingly precious resource, but also money.

Undoubtedly, the toilet is the biggest water hog in the bathroom. Those made before 1993 use up to eight gallons of water per flush, five times what modern toilets use. “It’s a good idea to replace pre-1993 toilets if you can,” says Patty Kim of National Geographic’s Green Guide. (FYI, usually a toilet’s manufacture date is stamped under the lid if you want to check how old it is.) If it is older and you can’t or don’t want to upgrade it, Kim recommends rescuing a two liter soda bottle from the recycling bin and filling it partially with some water and sand or pebbles and then putting it into your toilet’s tank, where it will take up space and force your toilet to use less water every flush. Or get a Toilet Tank Bank for less than two bucks; it hangs in your toilet tank and displaces almost a gallon of water to save water on every flush.

Plumbing leaks account for some 14 percent of the total water usage in an average U.S. home. Toilets are often a major culprit. Kim recommends testing your toilet by putting 5-10 drops of food coloring into the tank, then put the lid back on but don’t flush. Check back in 15 minutes or so to see if any of the colored water leaked down into the bowl. If so, you have a water-wasting leak, and it might finally be time to replace that aging toilet after all. The EarthEasy website reports that replacing an older18 liter per flush toilet with an ultra-low volume (ULV) 6 liter flush model “represents a 70 percent saving in water flushed and will cut indoor water use by about 30 percent.”

The shower can also be problematic as a water-waster, especially if the shower head in question was made before new regulations went into effect in 1992 mandating lower flow. Kim says you can check to see if your shower head is older or not by turning the shower on full blast and catching its output for two minutes in a bucket. If the bucket is overflowing, then your shower head is an older, more wasteful model. Newer low flow shower heads won’t come anywhere near to filling the bucket after two minutes. A new shower head costs around $10 and is a great investment because you can save water and money with every ensuing shower. Regardless of whether or not you have a newer shower head, you can save more water by turning off the shower to soap up, then turning it back on to rinse. Eartheasy reminds us that even with a new shower head, even a moderately short shower can still use between 20 and 40 gallons of water. But that’s nothing compared to a bathtub, which can hold as much as 50-60 gallons of water.

Additional pearls of wisdom in regard to reducing bathroom water waste include turning off the faucet while brushing teeth. Better yet, fill up a glass with just enough water to rinse after brushing. Likewise for shaving, stop up the sink with a little warm water in it and wiggle your razor around in the basin between strokes. And if you suspect your faucet may be spraying harder than it needs to, unscrew the aerator tip where the water comes out and take it into a hardware store for a more stingy replacement.

CONTACTS: The Green Guide, http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/; EarthEasy, www.eartheasy.com.

In theory, burning any kind of plant material for energy is a carbon-neutral endeavor, but chopping down forests for ethanol is unwise because they cannot be regrown quickly. And tree plantations don't provide the clean water, storm buffers, wildlife habitat and other ecosystem services that natural forests do. Pictured: A wood biomass plant. (Thinkstock)

Typically unmarketable trees, brush and logging debris becomes the feedstock for biomass processing plants or for coal-fired power plants equipped to “co-fire” with plant material. But environmentalists warn that some timber companies and their utility and state customers are taking things too far by levelling entire forests—including some within publicly owned national forest land—to generate more feedstock for otherwise underutilized biomass energy production facilities.

Among the negative environmental impacts, chopping down forests to burn for ethanol production—even if replanted as tree plantations—is like biting the hand that feeds you. “Natural forests, with their complex ecosystems, cannot be regrown like a crop of beans or lettuce,” reports the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group. “And tree plantations will never provide the clean water, storm buffers, wildlife habitat, and other ecosystem services that natural forests do.”

Another negative for biomass is that burning it, like coal or anything else, produces air pollution including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and a variety of toxic substances. According to NRDC, these pollutants increase the incidence of asthma, heart disease, lung cancer and other respiratory ailments, and premature death.

But perhaps most troubling about plans to cut down forests for biomass feedstock is taking carbon neutrality out of the equation, given the fact that tree loss in and of itself is already responsible for some 20 percent of the world’s total carbon pollution. “When biomass is harvested from forests, carbon stored in the soil is released into the atmosphere,” reports NRDC. “This is in addition to the carbon that is emitted when the wood is burned for energy. And there’s no guarantee the lost trees will ever be replaced.”

NRDC concedes that there is still a place for biomass in the alternative energy universe, but cautions that “only biomass that is carefully chosen, grown responsibly, and efficiently converted into energy can reduce carbon and other emissions compared to fossil fuels.” The group would like to see Congress put in place tighter regulations on biomass harvesting and processing. “Biomass can be harvested and utilized in ways that reduce pollution and protect forest habitats, but only with sustainability safeguards and proper accounting for carbon emissions—including carbon released due to deforestation,” concludes NRDC.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

On Thursday, the day after many websites blacked out in protest of SOPA, the government shut down one of the most popular file-sharing websites.  Along with shutting it down, a federal indictment accused the owners of Megaupload.com of facilitating millions of illegal downloads.

Megaupload, a Chinese based company, is accused of costing copyright holders at least $500 million. The United States had jurisdiction because some files were being hosted by leased servers in Ashburn Va.

The shutdown came on the heels of a hacker attack that shutdown the Justice Department’s website and other federal sites.  Officials declared the shutdown of the Justice Department’s site “a malicious attack,” according to the Boston Globe. A hacker group known as “Anonymous” took credit for the attack.

According to the Globe, a Justice Department statement said that Kim Dotcom, 37, and three other employees were arrested in New Zealand on Thursday in relation to Megaupload.  Three more defendants have not yet been apprehended. Dotcom, who had his name legally changed from Kim Schmitz, is the founder, former CEO and current chief innovation officer of the file-sharing website.  The others arrested are Finn Batato, 38; Mathias Ortmann, 40; and Bram van der Kolk, 29.

“This kind of application of international criminal procedures to Internet policy issues sets a terrifying precedent,” said The Electronic Frontier Foundation that defends free speech and digital rights, according to The Globe. “If the United States can seize a Dutch citizen in New Zealand over a copyright claim, what is next?”

Before it was shutdown, Megaupload posted a statement that declared the SOPA bill a huge breach of copyright laws.

“The fact is that the vast majority of Mega’s Internet traffic is legitimate, and we are here to stay. If the content industry would like to take advantage of our popularity, we are happy to enter into a dialogue. We have some good ideas. Please get in touch,” the statement said, The Globe reports.

Megaupload had the support of celebrities such as Kim Kardashian, Alicia Keys and Kanye West.  These endorsements were unusual because the entertainment industry usually condemns the downloading of illegal material, as they lose money from it.

The company cited Swizz Beatz, a musician, as its CEO, but he declined comment to the Boston Globe.

The former website, which was listed at one point to be the 13th most visited website, is charged with copyright infringement, conpiracy to commit money laundering and racketeering.

Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have, in the face of federal inaction, agreed on a region-wide greenhouse gas emissions limit, enforced through the sale of pollution permits to large fossil fuel power plants there. Money raised is invested in local businesses throughout the region that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources Pictured: The Big Allis Power Plant, Queens, New York City. (Thinkstock)

Given the lack of federal action to curb greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., several East Coast states joined together in 2008 to form the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), committing to a market-based system to cap carbon pollution and lower energy bills while creating more green jobs.

Under RGGI, the 10 participating states—Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont—agreed on a region-wide greenhouse gas emissions limit, enforced through the sale of pollution permits to large fossil fuel power plants there. The utilities that run the plants purchase the right (at quarterly auctions) to emit certain capped amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). The money raised is in turn invested in local businesses throughout Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. RGGI’s overall goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector in the states involved by 10 percent by 2018.

The program was conceived in 2008 by then New York governor George Pataki based on a similar federal program launched by President George H.W. Bush in 1990 that successfully curbed emissions of other pollutants that led to acid rain.

While RGGI had strong bipartisan support at launch, changing priorities have since forced some states to reconsider their commitments. According to RenewableEnergyWorld.com, New Jersey is likely to back out, while factions in New Hampshire and Maine have also called for a withdrawal. “The political tides have turned significantly since the program was started, and many legislatures are now dominated by a new crop of lawmakers looking to cut spending in cash-strapped states,” the website reports.

Environmentalists and many business owners have banded together to try to save RGGI in the face of economic threats to its viability. Last July some 200 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic businesses signed on to an open letter urging the governors of the 10 participating states to keep up with the program so that it can achieve its goals. “The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative shows that market-based programs can reduce greenhouse gas emissions while boosting our economy and improving energy security, and we encourage you to support and strengthen RGGI going forward,” the letter states. The letter goes on to cite research showing a $4-6 increase in economic output for every $1 invested in energy efficiency programs in the RGGI states. “Even better, these market-driven investments create jobs in the clean tech sector—one of the most dynamic segments of our state economies.”

Perhaps more important, RGGI “serves as a powerful model for what a comprehensive national energy policy should do” says the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group. Whether or not the economy will improve enough or climate change will become dramatic enough for Congress and the White House to take federal action to limit greenhouse gas emissions across the board is anybody’s guess. In the meantime, keeping alive programs like RGGI might be the best we can hope for.

CONTACTS: RGGI, www.rggi.org; RenewableEnergyWorld.com, www.renewableenergyworld.com; Businesses Letter to State Governors, www.cleanenergycouncil.org/files/RGGIJuly2011Final.pdf.

Many mainstream mouthwashes contain ingredients that you wouldn't want to swallow or rinse down the drain. Fortunately, there are many natural alternatives available now, including recipes for making your own. (Thinkstock)

Many mainstream mouthwashes contain ingredients that you definitely don’t want to swallow, or even put down the drain. According to the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia’s (EHANS’s) “Guide to Less Toxic Products”—a free online resource designed to help consumers choose healthier, greener everyday products—conventional mouthwash is often alcohol-based, with an alcohol content ranging from 18-26 percent. “Products with alcohol can contribute to cancers of the mouth, tongue and throat when used regularly,” the guide reports, adding that a 2009 review in the Dental Journal of Australia confirmed the link between alcohol-based mouthwashes and an increased risk of oral cancers.

And you might want to avoid mouthwashes with fluoride (aka sodium fluoride). While fluoride may help fight cavities, ingesting too much of it has been linked to neurological problems and could be a cancer trigger as well. Common mouthwash sweeteners have also been linked to health problems: Saccharin is a suspected carcinogen while sucralose may trigger migraines. Synthetic colors can also be troublesome.

Some brands contain formaldehyde (aka quanternium-15). According to the National Cancer Institute, overexposure to formaldehyde can cause a burning sensation in the eyes, nose and throat as well as coughing, wheezing, nausea and skin irritation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers formaldehyde a “probable human carcinogen” and research has shown an association between long term workplace exposure and several specific cancers, including leukemia. Few of us are exposed to as much formaldehyde as, say, morticians, but does that mean its okay to swish it around in our mouths every day?

Other problematic ingredients in many conventional mouthwashes include sodium lauryl sulfate, polysorbate, cetylpyridinium chloride and benzalkonium chloride, all which have been shown to be toxic to organisms in the aquatic environments where these chemicals end up after we spit them out.

So what’s a concerned green consumer to do? EHANS recommends the following mouthwashes that do not contain alcohol, fluoride, artificial colors or sweeteners: Anarres Natural Candy Cane Mouthwash, Auromere Ayurvedic Mouthwash, Beauty with a Cause Mouthwash, Jason Natural Cosmetics Tea Tree Oil Mouthwash, Dr. Katz TheraBreath Oral Rinses, Hakeem Herbal Mouthwash, and Miessence Freshening Mouthwash. Besides these brands, the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Database also lists Tom’s of Maine Natural Baking Soda Mouthwash, Healing-Scents Mouthwash, and Neal’s Yard Remedies Lavender and Myrrh Mouthwash as least harmful to people and the environment.

You can also make your own all-natural mouthwash at home. Eco-friendly consumer advice columnist Annie Berthold Bond recommends mixing warm water, baking soda or sea salt, and a drop of peppermint and/or tea tree oil for a refreshing and bacteria-excising rinse. Another recipe involves combining distilled or mineral water with a few dashes of fresh mint and rosemary leaves and some anise seeds; mix well and swish! A quick Internet search will yield many other down-home natural mouthwash formulas.

CONTACTS: Guide to Less Toxic Products, www.lesstoxic.ca; Skin Deep Database, www.ewg.org/skindeep/; Annie Berthold Bond, www.anniebbond.com.

A new thinner and more sensitive glass has been invented by the makers of Gorilla Glass, who supply the glass on touch screen gadgets like iPhones and iPads, according to CNN.

The new glass is lighter and more responsive to the touch, yet still tough and resistant to scratching according to the company that produces it, Corning Inc.  Since it is thinner, it also lets in more light and creates a brighter display screen.

The company debuted the glass on Monday at a gadget-showcase at the International Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

“It’s not scratch-proof. And if they drop it on granite, it can be broken,” said Corning general manager Clifford Hund according to CNN.

Hund added that the glass is 20% thinner but still retains the same properties as the old glass.

Gorilla Glass 2 will debut in Windows-based PC products later this year, and other manufacturers are looking into using the product.

One out of three counties across the contiguous U.S., says a recent study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council, should brace for water shortages by mid-century as a result of human induced climate change. (Media credit/Comstock)

Climate change promises to have a very big impact on water supplies in the United States as well as around the world. A recent study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group, and carried out by the consulting firm Tetra Tech found that one out of three counties across the contiguous U.S. should brace for water shortages by mid-century as a result of human induced climate change. The group found that 400 of these 1,100 or so counties will face “extremely high risks of water shortages.”

According to Tetra Tech’s analysis, parts of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas will be hardest hit by warming-related water shortages. The agriculturally focused Great Plains and arid Southwest are at highest risk of increasing water demand outstripping fast dwindling supplies.

While the mechanisms behind this predicted dwindling of water supplies is complex, key factors include: rising sea levels and encroaching ocean water absorbing lower elevation freshwater sources; rising surface temperatures causing faster evaporation of existing reservoirs; and increasing wildfires stripping terrestrial landscapes of their ability to retain water in soils.

Researchers have already begun to notice dwindling water supplies across the American West in recent years, given less accumulation of snow in the region’s mountains as temperatures rise. According to a 2008 study out of the Scripps Institute for Oceanography and published in the journal Science, Western snowpack has been melting earlier than it did in the past thanks to global warming, leading to markedly longer dry periods through the late spring and summer months in states already suffering from extended droughts. Given that the length and strength of these changes over the last 50 years cannot be explained by natural variations, researchers believe human induced climate change is the culprit.

The upshot of these changes is that Americans of every stripe need to curtail their water usage—from farmers irrigating their crops to homeowners watering their lawns to you and I taking shorter showers and turning off the tap while brushing our teeth. Even more important, water and resource policy managers need to conceive of new paradigms for the management of freshwater reserves to make the most of what we do have. And all of us need to work together to cut down on the emissions of greenhouse gases that have led to global warming in the first place.

Analysts also worry that warming-related water shortages could erupt into conflict, especially in parts of the world where one country or group controls water resources needed by others across national borders, such as the Middle East where already five percent of the world’s population relies on just one percent of the world’s fresh water. Parts of Africa, India and Asia are also at risk for water-related conflicts. American policymakers hope that the situation won’t get that dire in the U.S., but only time will tell.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; Tetra Tech, www.tetratech.com; Scripps Institute for Oceanography, www.sio.ucds.edu.

Echinacea has gained popularity in recent years as a remedy for the common cold. But because it is not regulated as a medical drug by the FDA -- and given the variation between dosages and formulations available to consumers -- it is difficult to get definitive answers as to its effectiveness. (iStock)

Echinacea, also known as purple coneflower, has gained popularity in recent years as a nutritional supplement that proponents believe is helpful in staving off the common cold and shortening its duration. But given the variation between dosages and formulations—such herbs are not regulated as medical drugs by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and so makers have little incentive to standardize—it’s hard to get definitive answers as to Echinacea’s effectiveness.

Historically, Native Americans relied on the root of Echinacea to numb toothache pain and treat dyspepsia as well as snake, insect and spider bites. While some modern day folks rely on Echinacea just based on this anecdotal evidence, scientific studies have verified that the herb can be effective. To wit, a 2008 University of Connecticut review of 14 different clinical trials of Echinacea use found that taking the supplement reduced the chances of getting a cold by 31 percent, and helped people get over cold and flu symptoms a day and a half earlier than those who didn’t take it.

Researchers initially thought Echinacea’s effectiveness was due to its immune-boosting traits, but they now believe instead that the herb works more as an anti-inflammatory agent. A 2009 University of British Columbia study found that typical commercially available Echinacea preparations are effective in reducing the body’s production of inflammatory proteins in human bronchial cells. In layman’s terms, this means that Echinacea can help lessen the annoying symptoms of common colds, the flu and other respiratory ailments. Furthermore, the study found that Echinacea is just as effective in reducing bronchial inflammation whether it is consumed before or after a viral infection sets in, indicating that taking moderate doses on a regular basis during cold season can help prevent some bronchial irritation if and when cold symptoms begin.

Interestingly, though, a 2010 study of 719 participants in Wisconsin focusing on illness duration and severity found that the duration of the common cold could be shortened by taking a pill of some sort, whether Echinacea or a placebo with no active ingredients. But this study merely underscored the importance of psychological factors in fighting illness and did not say that Echinacea isn’t effective.

Given the lack of FDA oversight of herbs, different formulations may contain vastly different amounts of Echinacea. A 2004 evaluation of 19 different Echinacea brands by the non-profit Consumers Union and published in Consumer Reports found that the amount of Echinacea actually present in supplements varied considerably from brand to brand—and even in some cases from bottle to bottle of the same brand. The magazine recommended a few brands as “best picks,” including Spring Valley, Origin and Sundown, all which featured high concentrations of Echinacea and reliable dosage amounts from pill to pill.

Before taking the Echinacea plunge, beware that the herb can cause allergic reactions in some people and may interact negatively with some common medications. Researchers warn that anyone with autoimmune disease or a handful of other illnesses should not take Echinacea without first consulting with their doctor.

CONTACTS: FDA, www.fda.gov; Consumers Union, www.consumersunion.org.

For the most part, companies offering energy audits are reputable and legitimate and will help you both save money and reduce your carbon footprint if you follow their advice in regard to upgrading things like insulation, windows and appliances. “A home energy assessment, also known as a home energy audit, is the first step to assess how much energy your home consumes and to evaluate what measures you can take to make your home more energy efficient,” reports the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). “An assessment will show you problems that may, when corrected, save you significant amounts of money over time.”

“During the assessment, you can pinpoint where your house is losing energy,” adds DOE. “Energy assessments also determine the efficiency of your home’s heating and cooling systems [and] may also show you ways to conserve hot water and electricity.”

You can conduct your own energy audit if you know where to look for air leaks (drafts), water waste and other key areas of a home’s inefficiencies. The DOE’s energysavers.gov website has guidelines to help homeowners conduct their own do-it-yourself home energy assessments. For instance, DOE recommends that homeowners make a list of obvious air leaks, such as through gaps along baseboards or at the edges of flooring and at wall and ceiling junctures. The potential energy savings from reducing drafts in a home can be as high as 30 percent per year, reports DOE. (The DOE website also provides information on other ways to save money and resources through less obvious things such as outdoor landscaping. It also posts guidelines for energy-efficient designing and remodeling.)

You should also check the filters on heating and cooling equipment to see if they need to be changed so as to keep your furnace and air conditioners functioning at maximum efficiency. And if these or other appliances over 15 years old consider replacing them with newer models that meet federal EnergyStar efficiency criteria. Also, swapping out older incandescent bulbs in light fixtures with higher efficiency compact fluorescent or LED bulbs will save money and energy.

A professional energy auditor with dedicated assessment tools and the knowledge of how to use them will in all likelihood carry out a more comprehensive assessment than you can do yourself. “Thorough assessments often use equipment such as blower doors, which measure the extent of leaks in the building envelope, and infrared cameras, which reveal hard-to-detect areas of air infiltration and missing insulation.”

If you are concerned about enlisting a for-profit firm that upsells its own energy efficiency upgrade services based on a “free” energy audit, check with your utility to see whether it offers unbiased, independent energy audit services (which it may do for free or for a nominal cost). The assessor from your utility may be able to recommend window and door replacement companies, heating and cooling specialists and other vendors nearby that do reputable work to make your home is not only energy efficient but warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.

CONTACTS: DOE Energy Savers, www.energysavers.gov; EnergyStar, www.energystar.gov.

If the shockingly large screen and 4G speed on the LG Nitro HD isn’t enough for you, we’ll delve into the greedy, dirty little details a little bit.

When, you get up close, the Nitro HD’s 4.5″ screen might as well be a 50″ plasma in your den. Combined with 4G speed, it turns the phone into a portable man cave that you can use to actually fulfill those fantasies of watching a football game during a wedding or making a last minute fantasy team switch during church that you see on all those commercials.

The 4G LTE is amazing. It’s still relatively new around here in Boston, so we’re still getting used to not having to troll around for Wifi hotspots to download vides and apps. YouTube videos stream just as fast as they would on WiFi. That makes watching game highlights and an occasional catch-up episode easy on the train or during downtime at work.

It is amazing how far the cell phone has come in the past few years, and this is a prime example. The display is in 1280 x 720 resolution, at 329 pixels per inch, with real RGB pixels, giving you the best possible display on a cell phone.

And the phone zooms Android 2.3 with a 1.5 GHz dual-core processor.

The display is truly impressive. There’s a lot of real estate, and it’s incredibly crisp when playing videos. I checked out some highlights from my Steelers absolute laydown against the 49ers on Monday night, and I loved how detailed everything looked on the phone’s screen. Everything sounded clean and clear as well.

The ESPN ScoreCenter app also looks amazing on the larger screen of the Nitro, letting you check on all your teams, but what’s even more amazing is the ESPN Bowl Bound 2011 app that gives you highlights and analysis of the coming college bowl season. If you’re not a huge college football fan, all you have to do is play with this app for five minutes, and you’ll be hooked.

What makes it easier is that, on the 4G LTE network, the videos and data stream as fast as they would if you were sitting at your office computer. The only difference is that you can check everything on your mobile man cave of a phone instead of “company time” on your work computer.

Having high-def video content over 4G LTE makes a world of difference. You really notice the improvement over the grainy “mobile video” content of yesterday. It’s like having HDTV at your fingertips.

If you’re a Google user, the phone will be more comfortable right away, because the Nitro HD comes preloaded with the major Google apps like Maps, Mail, and Calendar. There is also an office-esque app, visual voicemail, and YouTube and Twitter onboard.

The 8 megapixel camera is also a great feature, same as the iPhone 4S. Finally, phones take real photos.

The whole package also makes it easier on the battery. The display is energy-efficient, and the battery gives you up to seven hours of talk time, so you can also use your man cave as a phone.

What makes LG Nitro’s True HD IPS Display so amazing? 16:9 Aspect ratio for widescreen entertainment, sharper, crisper images, amazingly accurate colors and more. Exclusively available on AT&T’s 4G LTE network. Find out more at NitrobyLG.com.

LG provided a sample phone for the purposes of this article, and the author was paid or otherwise directly compensated to promote the product in the article.

January 2012 marks the beginning of a planned phase-out of inefficient light bulbs in the United States that was signed into law five years ago by President George W. Bush. It was designed to reduce energy usage nationally from lighting by some 30 percent overall within three years. The benefits of the phase-out will be a savings of between $100 and $200 annually on electric bills in each American household—a total energy savings equivalent to the output of 30 large power plants—and reductions in global warming-inducing carbon pollution equivalent to taking 17 million cars off the road.

The first bulbs to disappear from store shelves are conventional 100 watt incandescents, but consumers can get compact fluorescent (CFL) or light emitting diode (LED) bulbs with similar light output instead. There are also some new more efficient incandescent bulbs that made the cut and will be available as replacements for conventional incandescents. In 2013, conventional 75 watt incandescents will be phased out, while conventional 60 and 40 watt bulbs will be phased out in 2014. Given the great alternatives available these days, most consumers will hardly notice any difference except lower electric bills.

As for what consumers should do to prepare themselves, the best advice is to get educated about the difference between power use and light output as we enter the brave new world of more efficient lighting. “Given the range of efficiencies the new bulbs provide, buying a bulb solely on the amount of power it uses no longer makes sense and we’ll have to shift to buying lumens,” reports Noah Horowitz of the Natural Resource Defense Council. “For example, a typical 60 watt light bulb produces around 800 lumens. The CFL that produces 800 lumens only uses 15 watts.” He adds that bulb packages will likely contain claims like “as bright as a 60 watt bulb” or “15W = 60W” to help consumers make the transition.

Horowitz adds that consumers looking to replace their old incandescents with new more efficient varieties should look for CFLs or LEDs marked as “warm white,” since the quality of light they give off will be most similar to that given off by old-school incandescents. “Those marketed as ‘cool white’ or ‘day light’ have much different light color, which only a small minority of consumers prefer,” says Horowitz.

Also, Horowitz warns that most CFLs are not dimmable and “may fail prematurely if installed in a dimming circuit.” So if your space features light sockets with dimming capability the best bet would be LED bulbs or newer more efficient incandescents. Specially marked dimmable CFL bulbs are also an option but at present are less commonly available.

As for whether to switch out your older incandescents with newer more efficient bulbs, the answer is maybe. According to Earth911, the leading source of information of how and where to recycle anything, consumers should consider the waste they will create by throwing out working albeit aging light bulbs. “If they aren’t spent, don’t trash them,” reports Earth911, adding that they can be used until they burn out—at which point more efficient bulbs can go in. Those who want to start saving energy now might consider donating older bulbs to local charities. Meanwhile, spent bulbs can be recycled. Earth911’s website can help find locations near you where old bulbs can be dropped off.

CONTACTS: Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org; Earth911, www.earth911.com.

About 950 light years away exists a star resembling the sun, orbited by two earth-like planets.

The two planets, Kepler-20e and Kepler-20f, were discovered by the Kepler spacecraft, which was launched by NASA in 2009 primarily for the purpose of seeking planets. The telescope has provided evidence for dozens of planets similar to the earth in size, but Francois Fressin, of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, was the first to contribute a report supporting the claims.

Though the planets are consonant to earth in diameter, one being only 3 percent larger while the other is 10 percent smaller, they exist under temperatures far higher than ours: 1400 degrees and 800 degrees Fahrenheit. This heat implies that the planets do not support life similar to that of earth’s, but perhaps instead something of an unintelligent form, like bacteria or mold.

These discoveries prove that the Kepler is capable of uncovering planets similar to earth in mass, and are encouraging in the continued search for life on other planets.

Recent experiments found that metal undergoes a never-before-seen transition when it is exposed to extreme pressures and temperatures, similar to those near Earth’s core.

Scientists at the Carnegie Institution for Science introduced Iron oxide to these conditions, and the metal was then able to conduct electricity.  Depending on the temperature, the metal has the ability to be a conductor or insulator. However, there were few changes in its structure, BBC reports.

These findings may affect our small understanding of Earth’s magnetic fields, although the implications are still inconclusive.

The scientists subjected the substance to temperatures up to 2,200C and 1.4 million times atmospheric pressure, according to BBC.

“Our new results show, instead, that iron oxide metalizes without any change in structure and that combined temperature and pressure are required,” said Ronald Cohen, a co-author of the study according to BBC.  “Furthermore, our theory shows that the way the electrons behave to make it metallic is different from other materials that become metallic.”

Iron Oxide and magnesium make up a lot of the Earth’s mantle, and these new results create an electric link between the mantle and the core, according to the new properties that Iron Oxide accepts under pressure and high temperature.  Therefore, scientists are able to peer a bit further into the magnetic field that radiates from the core .

Asthma rates have doubled since the 1980s, in spite of air quality in U.S. cities having increased over the same time period. This has led some experts to conclude that other factors -- including Vitamin D deficiency, obesity, overuse of acetaminophen (i.e. Tylenol) and spray mist from glass cleaners and air fresheners -- are now playing a role. (Thinkstock)

Asthma is on the rise across the U.S., doubling since the 1980s. According to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), most people who develop asthma likely have a genetic predisposition but also probably experienced “critical environmental exposures during the first years of life.” Asthma rates are highest in urban areas where auto and industrial emissions make for difficult breathing. But air quality in U.S. cities has improved in the last few decades, leaving researchers puzzled as to what’s behind the trend.

One theory is that better hygiene in developed countries means that Westerners have less exposure to bacteria, viruses and parasites, altering our immune response with the result being increased risk for allergic diseases like asthma. Indeed, Western asthma rates are 50 times higher than in rural Africa. While this “hygiene hypothesis” may be part of the story, researchers believe that there are also other factors.

Some studies have shown a correlation between asthma and obesity, though a direct link is hard to prove. Other research has shown that psychological stress can trigger asthma attacks in those already predisposed. Dr. Harold Nelson, professor of medicine at the National Jewish Health in Denver, explained in a 2009 New York Times blog post that increased acetaminophen (i.e. Tylenol) use in young children, exposure to household cleaning sprays, and lack of Vitamin D also likely contribute to rising asthma rates. But how?

Pediatricians recommend against giving young children aspirin today, given the increased risk of Reye’s syndrome, so many parents now use acetaminophen to relieve pain and reduce fever. But acetaminophen lowers levels of the antioxidant glutathione, resulting in an increased asthma risk. A 2008 study found that use of acetaminophen in the first year of life was associated with a 46 percent increase in the prevalence of asthma symptoms among a study group of 200,000 six- and seven-year-olds.

In regard to household cleaners, frequent inhaling of the spray mist from glass cleaners and air fresheners among other products irritates the lungs and increases the risk of developing asthma. A 2007 study found that European adults who used spray cleaners four days a week faced double the risk of developing asthma symptoms, while weekly use of cleaners increased the risk by 50 percent.

The link between Vitamin D deficiency and asthma comes from several studies on the topic over the last decade showing that low levels of Vitamin D in pregnant mothers result in more asthma in offspring. Those who spend lots of time indoors are particularly vulnerable to Vitamin D deficiency, as exposure to sunlight increases the body’s ability to produce the important nutrient.

Dr. Nelson says that people can take steps to lower their exposure to these “new” asthma risk factors. For one, forego spray cleaners and air fresheners for liquids and pump sprays that don’t produce a fine mist. Pregnant women might consider Vitamin D supplements. And parents should discuss pain relievers with their doctor and consider alternating different types so kids don’t get overexposed to any particular one.

CONTACTS: EDF, www.edf.org/health/air/asthma; “New Risks Linked to Asthma Rise” (New York Times, 2/12/09), well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/new-risk-factors-linked-to-asthma-rise.

Recycling and re-use have many environmental benefits, including reducing the amount of waste we bury in already overcrowded landfills and burn in polluting incinerators, like the one pictured here. (Thinkstock)

Recycling, which turns materials that would otherwise be incinerated or become landfill-clogging waste into valuable resources, has become second nature for many Americans. As many as four out of five U.S. households already take the time to separate recyclables from trash. Those hold-outs not yet willing to bother should consider the benefits to their household and society at large.

First and foremost for consumers is saving money. Many municipalities across the U.S. today don’t charge customers for curb-side pickup of recyclables but continue to charge for garbage pick-up, so recycling is a way to reduce a household’s overall waste expense. Otherwise, consumers who collect large amounts of recyclables may be able to find a local company willing to buy them in bulk. Some municipalities operate drop-off centers where consumers can trade in aluminum cans and other scrap metal (copper, steel, etc.) for cash. Yet another way to recycle and make some cash is to sell your old stuff in a yard sale. Likewise, shopping at yard sales and second-hand stores will also prevent the manufacture of new items altogether.

And there are many benefits to recycling beyond each household’s own bottom line. Recycling saves resources. By recycling paper we save oxygen-providing, carbon-sequestering trees from the axe. By recycling plastic, we save petroleum, contributing (however slightly) to national security. By recycling metals, we take a bite out of energy-intensive mining. And recycling anything saves large amounts of energy and water that would otherwise be expended in making new goods from virgin materials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adds that recycling “protects and expands U.S. manufacturing jobs and increases U.S. competitiveness.”
Yet another benefit of recycling is reducing the amount of waste we send to overcrowded landfills and polluting incinerators. At the other end of the consumer loop, buying products made out of recycled rather than virgin materials is another way to save money, as they are often less costly and just as good quality.

Beyond recycling, reducing our consumption of goods that are heavily packaged (often with materials not recyclable themselves) is another important part of any effort to spare bulging landfills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the re-use of materials that would otherwise end up in landfills is yet another way to conserve resources. It’s not difficult to think of many ways that used boxes, packaging, paper and plastic bags can be re-purposed to extend their usefulness and spare the garbage (or recycling) man. Also, composting food scraps—either at home or as part of a community effort—helps reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills and incinerators.

With world population still growing and developing countries now fully embracing an American-style consumer culture, recycling and other waste reduction techniques take on an increasingly important role in efforts to protect the environment. Indeed, there’s no time like the present to step up reducing, re-using, recycling and composting. To find out where to recycle just about anything near you, visit the Earth911 website, where you can search by entering your zip code along with the item you’re looking to unload.

CONTACTS: EPA, www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm; Earth911, www.Earth911.com.

By Kevin DeStefano at Emmanuel College

Your favorite smart-phone can do everything that your laptop, cellphone and digital camera can do. Big whoop. We get it. Yes, your iPhone or shiny new tablet is nothing short of science fiction.

Finally, scientists have created devices that meet all of the expectations of your eleven year old self (aside from light-sabers). You thought that now all there was to look forward to was living on other planets and fighting robots that transformed into cars. You were wrong.

Here’s a list of crazy inventions that most people haven’t even heard of yet.

5. SixthSense

No, not the M. Night Shyamalan movie. SixthSense is the name given to the next step in wearable interactive technology. Invented by Pranav Mistry, a student at MIT who wanted to make the technology open source and affordable to mass produce. Essentially, it’s a camera attached to a projector, attached to a computer that you can wear anywhere.

Say you need to know if your next flight is delayed due to weather. Instead of taking out your smart-phone and bringing up an app, the camera on SixthSense reads your flight ticket and projects delay and delay times on the same ticket that you are currently reading. By using hand gestures, similar to Microsoft’s Kinect, the user has the ability to access all of the knowledge of the web without ever touching a keyboard.

4. Synthetic Meat

Where’s the beef? “In-vitro” meat is exactly as disturbing as it sounds. Not processed in a plant or factory, but “born” in a lab. Synthetic meat is chemically identical to tissue from a dead animal because it came from the same animal. The only difference is how the meal is prepared.

Synthetic meat is grown from culturing cells from animal tissue, so it’s completely organic – but it sure ain’t natural. Currently, it costs millions to produce small amounts of synthetic meat. In the near future, however, synthetic meat will be cheaper to produce than livestock.

Why is this such a cool invention? Because, in theory, it only takes one living cow to produce one million times its weight in meat.

Ethics aside, this same process could be used to create human tissue, possibly human organs for spare parts. Maybe immortality isn’t as far away as we think.

3.  3D Printing

Now the concept sounds simple, instead of printing a two dimensional sheet, printers can now create three dimensional models by using one machine. Why is this so incredible? Because instead of ink, these printers create objects; usually multiple materials at once. Steel, plastic, carbon fiber, copper, wood. You name it, they can print it.

The concept even goes as far as producing organic materials such as cells and tissues using the same technique of three dimensional layerings using computer generated mapping and accuracy.

Imagine one machine, loaded up with giant cartridges of raw materials, building  multiple houses complete with plumping and electrical wiring. The invention is so intuitive that as it improves, 3D printing could advance to creating complex machinery such as cars and planes and other objects with moving parts.

2. Wireless Electricity

Yes, that is correct. We said wireless electricity.

While technically not a new concept as it was first envisioned by historical genius Nikola Tesla, wireless electricity has finally been patented. Wireless power, or wireless energy transfer, is carried out by principles of induction and magnetism.

Magnets are placed on surfaces such as walls, floors, ceilings and directly connected to the power grid. Corresponding magnets are placed on electronic devices such as phones, televisions, or laptops and relay back and forth to create an electrical current supplying all of the devices.

Imagine owning an electric car and being able to park it in a location with a charging mat. Or, walking into a room and suddenly your mobile device starts charging. Wireless is the new revolution, and it is only a matter of time until wireless electricity is everywhere.

Photo Cred: Sciencenews.org

1.Graphene

Imagine waking up and walking to your front porch stoop to retrieve your morning newspaper when instead you lift a touch screen. The same weight, size and flexibility as a newspaper only with a fully interactive display that you can take to work or read on the morning commute to work.

Behold, the holy grail of modern technology and modern science. A carbon based material that is currently both the thinnest and strongest material known to man, graphene is also a great conductor of electricity as well as flexible. Samsung as well as many other developers have released prototypes of paper thin, flexible touch screens that implement graphene.

As far as abundance, graphene is as common as the graphite from pencils and is set to replace silicon as a semiconductor in computer chips. Graphene is sure to replace all display monitors, televisions, tablets and smart phones. Because it is such a new material, researchers haven’t even scratched the surface as to all of its applications. For that reason alone, it is number one on our list.

We Blasters tend to raise our electrical bills in November and December as we test out the holiday season’s gifts, games and gadgets. This year is no exception, economy or no economy. But what did surprise us this year were the extraordinarily low prices of some of the gifts — many of which are under $100 this year.

Without further ado:

OCZ Technology 240 GB Vertex 3 Solid State Drive – $400

If you have someone on your gift list that needs a computer upgrade, the odds are this is it. Solid state hard drives are the best thing going right now, the the OCZ Vertex 3 is a great one.

With a transfer rates averaging over 190 MB/sec on HD Tune, it is much faster than a traditional hard drive. Windows 7 is optimized for solid state drives, and they zoom. PC’s aren’t dead yet, so keep upgrading!

First Act Soulo iPad Microphone and Karaoke App – $69-$99

Of all the things your iPad can do, I bet you never thought to add “karaoke machine” to the list. Well keep on thinking, because you haven’t yet found something that your iPad can’t do.

The Soulo iPad Microphone and Karaoke App does both things. It has a full-size mic to jam away, and a functional app that displays lyrics from the songs in your iTunes library. It also has audio effects to improve pitch and make yourself sound halfway decent when you belt out your favs.

It even has a function to record music videos with the iPad 2′s camera.

The Soulo is $69 for a wired mic or $99 for wireless.

Callet Case, Cover and Wallet for iPhone 4 – $19.99

The Callet is just an example of smart thinking. It’s a simple piece of silicone that fits over your iPhone 4 and has slots on the back for your license, credit cards, etc. In the months before app-based payment takes over at every retail store, this looks like a happy medium.

The case is durable and comfortable both to store in your pocket and hold in your hand. It doesn’t obstruct any of the buttons, either.

If you’re looking for an affordable iPhone accessory that they’ll actually use, look here. Comes in pink and black.

Kensington AbsolutePower – $89.99

The Kensington AbsolutePower Laptop, Phone, Tablet Charger is the authority on device charging. Finally, there’s a device with enough juice and enough plugs to charge your laptop and two USB devices (phone, GPS, bluetooth, etc.) AT THE SAME TIME. Plug the AbsolutePower into one outlet, and it does the rest.

The device works with just about all laptops on the market. It has a power plug with a variety of adapters and two built-in USB ports with 2.1 amps of charging power, good enough for tablets and cell phones alike. This is a great dad gift, too.

Ecobee Smart Internet Thermostat – $400 plus installation

This is one of the most expensive items on the list, and it’s not a give-and-go present. The Ecobee Smart Thermostat requires about two hours of professional wiring and installation by an HVAC contractor, so be prepared for a $600 investment between the device and installation. You also need a WIFI network.

That said, this thing is awesome. The Ecobee is the best Internet-enabled home thermostat on the market, and the pros agree. You get a programmable, touchscreen-based thermostat that’s easy to use on the wall. But the reason you buy the Ecobee is that it’s also entirely app-enabled.

Download the free app for your smartphone (or iPad) and you’re good to go. You can access your thermostat from anywhere in the world, including any computer. You can program complex schedules or just turn on your A/C when you’re on the way home from work, so you arrive to a cool house in the afternoon.

The Cdock – $55, $65, $70

The Cdock is a simple as it gets. An iPhone dock, it uses the phone’s display to create a retro-looking clock while charging your iPhone/iPod touch in style. You use whatever clock/alarm app you want, and the Cdock makes it look good on the outside.

It’s a dock-only. No speakers or anything, but the Cdock plugs in via USB or regular electrical outlet to charge your phone.

The reason we’re drawn to the Cdock is simple: style. You can buy it in glossy black, brushed aluminum or natural walnut. This lets you actually match your iPhone dock to your furniture decor, without some black plastic dock standing out in the crowd.

Dragon NaturallySpeaking 11 – $39.99 to $95.99

This is the year of the voice.

With Siri getting things done for iPhone 4S users, this should be the year you finally give your wrists a rest with Dragon NaturallySpeaking. You can have the home edition for under $40 or the premium package for under $100.

Most importantly, the software works. You talk. It types. It’s accurate right out of the box or can be trained with your own style or accent. This makes a great student gift or a present for someone with a small office. Of course, if you’re buying for a doctor or lawyer, they may already have the software, so ask.

AeroPress Coffee Maker — $30

If you have a friend who’s a huge coffee nut, they probably already know about this device, but many still haven’t given it a try yet because they’re hopelessly dependent on a Keurig or even possibly a traditional coffee maker.

But the AeroPress really works. I have it and love it. Special thanks to Useful Things for providing me with one to test out. The video below, by former Maximum PC editor Will Smith, was my first experience seeing the AeroPress in action. Take a look.

Dazzle DVD Recorder HD — $50

For some reason, Avid did not put their brand name on the Dazzle DVD Recorder. That was a dumb move, because Avid is a symbol of video quality. It’s the software used by TV stations to edit news footage.

So for $50, the Dazzle DVD Recorder is a good bet. You can take any video from your old camcorders, new camcorders, digital cameras, smartphones, DVDs, and even your gaming consoles, and put it on your computer, YouTube, etc.

It’s a really poorly named product. It should be called Avid Dazzle HD. It can record DVDs, but that’s not
what your recipient will use it for.

playGo Wireless Media Streamer — $450

This is another one on the expensive list, but if you have someone in your family who loves music and gadgets, the playGo is a great gift.

It works with all computers (PC and Mac) and allows you to send any music or audio wirelessly to anywhere else in your house, including your kickass home theater receiver/surround sound.

The playGo is a way for people to play their home music library on their “good” speakers without needing to put it on an iPod/iPhone and without having to buy a second computer or a home-theater PC. It works great, and sends high-quality, distortion-free sound up to 75 feet away.

Remote Control Helicopter — $40

No matter what, you’re going to end up at T.J. Maxx and/or Marshalls at some point during your gift-buying frenzy.

In doing some research, I found a couple products that I’d be happy with. The first one is their Remote Control Helicopter. It’s a toy. Not much to it. You use the remote; it flies. It’s a great way to break stuff indoors, and I’m sure we could all figure out interesting ways to break IT outside.

More to come in the next few days, right up until Christmas!

Once mercury gets into the marine food chain, mostly from human industrial sources such as coal-fired electricity generation, smelting and the incineration of waste, it “bioaccumulates” in the larger ocean predators. That’s why larger fish -- like the bluefin tuna pictured here -- are generally riskier to eat than smaller ones. (Thinkstock)

Mercury in the fish we like to eat is a big problem in the United States and increasingly around the world. Mercury itself is a naturally occurring element that is present throughout the environment and in plants and animals. But human industrial activity (such as coal-fired electricity generation, smelting and the incineration of waste) ratchets up the amount of airborne mercury which eventually finds its way into lakes, rivers and the ocean, where it is gobbled up by unsuspecting fish and other marine life.

Once this mercury gets into the marine food chain, it “bioaccumulates” in the larger predators. That’s why larger fish are generally riskier to eat than smaller ones. Those of us who eat too much mercury-laden fish can suffer from a range of health maladies including reproductive troubles and nervous system disorders. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that human fetuses exposed to mercury before birth “may be at an increased risk of poor performance on neurobehavioral tasks, such as those measuring attention, fine motor function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities and verbal memory.” Up to 10 percent of American women of childbearing age carry enough mercury in their bloodstreams to put their developing children at increased risk for developmental problems.

In partnership with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the EPA issues determinations periodically in regard to how much mercury is safe for consumers to ingest from eating fish. State and tribal environmental authorities and/or health departments issue fish consumption advisories for water bodies in their respective jurisdictions based on federal guidelines. The EPA consolidates these local and regional advisories on its website, where concerned consumers and fisher folk can click on a map of the states to find out which advisories may be in effect in their area.

As for which fish to avoid, the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which runs the handy Seafood Selector website, reports that people with mercury concerns should steer clear of bluefin tuna, walleye, king mackerel and marlin. Bluefish, shark, swordfish, wild sturgeon, opah and bigeye tuna carry a proportionately large mercury burden as well. Also of concern, but to a slightly lesser extent, are orange roughy, Chilean sea bass, blue crab, lingcod, Spanish mackerel, spotted seatrout, wahoo, grouper, snapper, halibut, tile fish, rock fish and sable fish, as well as blackfin, albacore and yellowfin tuna.

Beyond what individuals can do to avoid mercury, the U.S. government and states have begun working together to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. Earlier this year the EPA proposed new “Mercury and Air Toxics Standards” regulating mercury emissions from utilities across the country, with the goal of reducing the amount of mercury emitted by coal burning by 91 percent by 2016. Elsewhere, representatives from 140 countries signed on to reduce global mercury pollution at a 2009 United Nations Environment Program’s Governing Council meeting in Nairobi, Kenya. The agreement commits signatory countries—including the U.S.—to cutting back on the use and emission of mercury. A legally binding treaty mandating just how much each country will have to cut back mercury emissions takes hold in 2013.

CONTACTS: EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/; EDF Seafood Selector, apps.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1521.

Only eight percent of U.S. homes use oil heat today. Natural gas is both cheaper and has lower carbon emissions than oil, though it is still a fossil fuel and its green-friendliness is overstated. Most eco-advocates would rather see a shift to truly renewable heating sources like geothermal or solar. (Thinkstock)

Natural gas has been a more affordable heat source than oil for Americans in recent years. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that the average American homeowner will pay only about $732 to heat their home with gas this winter season (October 1 through March 31) versus a whopping $2,535 for oil heat. While the price of natural gas has remained relatively stable in the last few years, oil prices have been high and rising thanks in large part to continued unrest in Middle Eastern oil producing countries. Just two years ago the average winter home oil heating bill was $1,752.

While oil prices are likely to remain high and volatile in the foreseeable future, most energy analysts agree that pricing for natural gas, much of which is still derived domestically, is not expected to rise or fluctuate substantially in the U.S. any time soon. According to EIA economist and forecaster Neil Gamson, the U.S. already has a glut of natural gas and expects even more domestic production to come online soon as drillers are set to open up the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and New York to more gas development.

Only about eight percent of U.S. homes are on oil heat today. Most are in the Northeastern U.S. and were built back in the day when oil was the cheapest way to keep toasty through the long winters. Many utilities have since put gas lines into neighborhoods that didn’t have them in the past, opening the door for homeowners to switch out old inefficient oil furnaces for more efficient gas units.

The federal government’s 30 percent tax credit (capped at $500) for upgrading to a high efficiency furnace expires at the end of 2011 but will likely be extended in one form or another into 2012. In the meantime, some states, municipalities and utilities offer their own incentives and low-interest loans on upgraded, high-efficiency furnaces. Check what’s available in your area via a zip code or map-based search online at the website of the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE). Regardless of incentives, gas furnaces tend to cost less than their oil counterparts anyway, but installing one from scratch will incur an extra thousand dollars or two to run a gas line to it from the street. If natural gas continues to be substantially cheaper than oil, the fuel cost savings alone would pay back the up-front equipment and infrastructure investment within five years in most cases.

Environmentally speaking, gas has lower carbon emissions than oil, but hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”)—the highly controversial gas extraction method increasingly employed today (drillers inject water, sand and chemicals at high pressure underground to break through rock and access the natural gas)—takes a heavy toll on surrounding ecosystems and regional water quality. Most environmental advocates would rather see people transition to truly renewable heating sources like geothermal or solar. If you’re going to the cost and trouble of switching out an oil furnace for something new, a geothermal heat pump may cost more ($7,500 and up) than a new gas heating system but will save big bucks and emissions in the long run. For those in reliably sunny areas, a solar heating system will cost even more up front but can deliver similar long term economic and environmental benefits.

CONTACTS: EIA, www.eia.gov; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org.

Whether you’re a musician, or are shopping for one this holiday season, here’s a look at JAM, by Apogee Electronics, a professional grade digital converter for studio quality recording.

With a true “plug and play” setup, it takes just a few minutes before your ready for some high quality recording on your iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Unlike a simple adapter, JAM is a converter, which transforms the analog signal from your instrument to a digital one before it enters your device, avoiding any unwanted noise.

The input is particularly useful for recording multiple tracks with clarity. Just plug your headphones into your computer or other device, and you’ll have in-ear monitors. Alternatively, let it play through your built in speakers and play/record new parts to your creation while listening to existing tracks. Either way, the integration with GarageBand is seamless, and the sound quality superb.

Although originally designed for electric guitar and bass guitars, JAM is compatible with any instrument that has a built in pickup. We also tested JAM with a Taylor 510ce acoustic/electric, and it sounded very crisp and clear.

Physically speaking, JAM is compact and convenient in size, and is easily stored in a guitar case or bag. It comes equipped with two cables, one for use with Mac (via USB) and one for iPad/iPhone. You won’t have to worry about a lose connection as the output on JAM locks into place. It is also a very lightweight design that poses no threat of pulling the cable out of your guitar — all in all a very functional design.

For a hundred bucks, and a piece of American engineering (Made in USA!) JAM is a great pickup.

Hope you’re all set with your storage needs.

The heavy rains that fell in Thailand this fall have led to serious flooding. The floods forced many of the world’s hard drive-producing factories to temporarily shut down.

The factory closures have affected several companies, including Western Digital and Seagate and some 40 percent of world hard drive manufacturing.

You can expect hard drive shortages. A few of the hard drives we’re tried to review this month — or include in gift guides — could not be sent to us because some companies have suspended their review programs.

With PC sales already slowing, this could have huge implications for the industry.

Interestingly, solid-state hard drive manufacturing was not affected, which may also lead to this medium taking off more and more.

In a study done by the University of Kansas, more than 10,000 patients were observed in relation to their vitamin D intake. Researchers discovered that more than 70 percent of those being analyzed were suffering from vitamin D deficiency, which makes them highly susceptible to health problems, like diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiomyopathy.

Also, a vitamin D deficiency nearly doubles an individual’s chances of dying.

Dr. James L. Vacek, a professor at the University of Kansas Hospital and Medical center, said “We expected to see that there was a relationship between heart disease and vitamin D deficiency; we were surprised at how strong it was”.

However, vitamin D supplements could provide a solution. In the study, patients who suffered from deficiencies and were treated with supplements were proven to be 60 percent less likely to die from any cause.

Experts consider 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood a healthy amount, but research has shown that up to 70 percent of Americans are not reaching that standard. Vacek believes that this is because 90% of vitamin D supposedly comes from skin exposure to the sun, and 10 percent from food. During the winter months, the sun is generally not strong enough to provide an adequate amount.

Vitamin D can be attained through 20 minutes of full body exposure to the sun on warm days and by eating foods like oily fish, milk products, and eggs.

David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences says that the grain currently fed to some seven billion livestock in the United States could feed nearly 800 million people directly. (Thinkstock)

Our meat consumption habits take a serious toll on the environment. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the production, processing and distribution of meat requires huge outlays of pesticides, fertilizer, fuel, feed and water while releasing greenhouse gases, manure and a range of toxic chemicals into our air and water. A lifecycle analysis conducted by EWG that took into account the production and distribution of 20 common agricultural products found that red meat such as beef and lamb is responsible for 10 to 40 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as common vegetables and grains.

Livestock are typically fed corn, soybean meal and other grains which have to first be grown using large amounts of fertilizer, fuel, pesticides, water and land. EWG estimates that growing livestock feed in the U.S. alone requires 167 million pounds of pesticides and 17 billion pounds of nitrogen fertilizer each year across some 149 million acres of cropland. The process generates copious amounts of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide, while the output of methane—another potent greenhouse gas—from cattle is estimated to generate some 20 percent of overall U.S. methane emissions.

“If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” reports ecologist David Pimentel of Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. He adds that the seven billion livestock in the U.S. consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire U.S. population.

Our meat consumption habits also cause other environmental problems. A 2009 study found that four-fifths of the deforestation across the Amazon rainforest could be linked to cattle ranching. And the water pollution from factory farms (also called concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs)—whereby pigs and other livestock are contained in tight quarters—can produce as much sewage waste as a small city, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Further, the widespread use of antibiotics to keep livestock healthy on those overcrowded CAFOs has led to the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that threaten human health and the environment in their own right.

Eating too much meat is no good for our health, with overindulgence linked to increasing rates of heart disease, cancer and obesity. Worldwide, between 1971 and 2010, production of meat tripled to around 600 billion pounds while global population grew by 81 percent, meaning that we are eating a lot more meat than our grandparents. Researchers extrapolate that global meat production will double by 2050 to about 1.2 trillion pounds a year, putting further pressure on the environment and human health.

For those who can’t give up meat fully, cutting back goes a long way toward helping the environment, as does choosing meat and dairy products from organic, pasture-raised, grass-fed animals. “Ultimately, we need better policies and stronger regulations to reduce the environmental impacts of livestock production,” says EWG’s Kari Hammerschlag “But personal shifting of diets is an important step.”

CONTACTS: EWG, www.ewg.org; David Pimentel; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

I was going for a fresh start with my computer. It’s been running slow. There’s a lot of stuff installed that I don’t need. So I did some autumn cleaning, opening the case to dust it up and then doing a fresh format and install of Windows 7 Ultimate. (All my documents, photos, videos, music, and other files are stored off the “C” drive. (See this article for more info on “Clean Starting” your PC)

Besides Office and iTunes, and this handy guide I created a while back, here are some more programs (in no particular order) that you should download and install:

10. Foxit Reader

Adobe/Acrobat Reader was a default for me for years. Every time I configured a new computer, it was one of the first programs I installed. Until now.

Thanks to MaximumPC, a magazine I’ve read and subscribed to for years, I found Foxit Reader. Apparently, 100 million other people have found it too.

It’s fast and light, allowing you to view PDFs with just 3MB of memory used. It’s free, but there’s also a professional version for $40 if you want to do some PDF editing. I think I’m in love.

One warning, when you install it, it does try to bundle a browser toolbar with it. Just uncheck that option.

9. 7-Zip

Sure every new version of Windows supports Zip files natively, but what about the occasional RAR or ISO file? What about GZIP and TAR files?

7-Zip is a tiny program that integrates into the Windows 7 shell to give you native-looking support for all these formats. It is a great program that does not hog resources.

8. Filezilla

Sure iCloud and Dropbox are great, but I back up a lot of my files on personal webservers, and I still like FTP as the way to go when it comes to accessing those files. It also comes in handy for editing website files on the fly.

Filezilla is the best way to use FTP in Windows. You can download a client and a server app for free under the GNU license. It’s a great way to handle files.

7. Notepad++

Good ole Notepad. One of the last unchanged vestiges of Windows 3.1 days. Personally, I love Notepad, but my eyes don’t. Neither does my head after a migraine induced by a difficult CSS editing session.

Notepad++ is just that. It is a basic text editor that does two things that we tech nerds need: It supports more than one document, and it highlights HTML and programming code in easily recognizable colors.

It is a smart text editor that is also amazingly fast, almost as fast and unassuming as the original Notepad. But once you install Notepad++, you’ll know why I’m never going back.

6. Audacity

This isn’t new at all, but if it is to you, then shame!

I love Sony’s Acid software for music projects and anything that requires a lot of power, but for everything else, including podcasts and streaming interviews, it’s Audacity. Audacity does for free almost as much as hundreds of dollars worth of audio software can do, and it’s so easy to use.

Audacity is a default app for Emerson College as well, and if the journalism and multimedia students are using it, you should too.

The only pain is that you have to download the MP3 plugin separately.

5. Gimp or Photoshop Elements?

Gimp is the open-source response to $500 for Adobe Photoshop. It’s very decent software. It is what Open Office is to Microsoft Office. Powerful, but lacking in the polish department. It’s also free.

If you want to buy something, Photoshop Elements is an under-$100 alternative to the full version, and it’s worth a glance. If you primarily do photo editing, retouching, and the like, Elements is really all you need. It gives you layers and most of the tools you use in the full version.

Still…I don’t use either. I admit it. I have the full version. I use it for Blast’s graphical needs, and I also need things like Adobe InDesign and Contribute.

4. Secunia PSI

This is a new one for me, but I’ve started to really enjoy it. Secunia Personal Software Inspector keeps tabs on all the software you have installed on your computer and checks them against a database of known vulnerabilities. It will tell you if you need a new patch or if your older software is at end-of-life, possibly leaving it vulnerable to exploits.

You can disable the tray icon and just scan your computer manually, but I have it running right now, it it only uses 1.2MB of memory, so I’m happy. When you’re doing a clean start install of Windows, it’s great to have this one running, because it will tell you what you still have to patch, even when you think you’re done.

3. bioPDF

Here’s another one that goes against the Adobe grain. bioPDF is a PDF Printer that lets you do just that. Everyone runs into a time when they need to create a PDF, and there are a lot of bloated or adware-filled options out there. This is not one of those. This is a quick, tiny, and free PDF creator.

2. GnuCash

We all need a little accounting software in our lives. For most people, that’s Quicken. For small business owners, it’s QuickBooks. But both cost money, and people tend to think they have to buy it new all the time, because new versions keep coming out every year.

I use GnuCash. It’s larger than your usual free app (about 400MB) but that works in its favor in this case. GnuCash is also the only title of its kind to make PCMag.com’s Best Free Software of 2011 list.

The best thing is, if you have an old version of Quicken of Microsoft Money, you can import your old backup files into GnuCash.

1. TrueCrypt

TrueCrypt is an encryption program. Not everyone needs it. Some people really need it. No matter. TrueCrypt won’t stop the CIA or a police raid on your computer, but if you want to hide sensitive, uh, photos from a snooping friend, roommate, or significant other, it will do the trick.

All snark aside, there are perfectly valid reasons to use this software. People store all kinds of sensitive information on their computers (see Gnucash) and this software lets you protect it.

Google+, which has yet to be determined as a worthy opponent to Facebook, has been gifted with the big political name of Barack Obama. Or rather, his reelection campaign.

Thus far, the page has posted five times, the first saying “Welcome to the Obama 2012 Google+ page. We’re still kicking the tires and figuring this out, so let us know what you’d like to see here and your ideas for how we can use this space to help you stay connected to the campaign”.

The new addition has yet to show if it’ll contribute to the popularity of the social networking site.

A study by researchers from the US Centers for Drug Control and Prevention has linked the majority of hospitalizations to four drugs: warfarin, oral antiplatelet medications, insulins, and oral hypoglycemic agents. A majority of these hospitalizations are due to allergic reactions and accidental overdoses, and 48.1 percent were 80 years old or older.

The study has also shown that better management of related drugs could potentially lead to the avoidance of thousands of hospital admissions.

The biggest funder of the fight against three major diseases has run out of money, slowing the advance in research and aid to poor patients.  An official with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria announced the news on Thursday, saying that they are unable to give new grants until 2014 due to global economic trouble, according to CBS News.

The Fund gathered an independent panel last March to discuss the financial situation of the organizations biggest donors, and the panel suggested that they create tougher financial safeguards.  The Fund has been the target of allegations of money mismanagement and alleged fraud.  Since the allegations, they have found $20 million in mismanagement, alleged fraud and misspending.

Because of these allegations, Germany, the European Commission and Denmark have withheld hundreds of millions of Euros from the Fund until a n internal investigation of money management occurs.  Germany has since given back the funding.

Since its 2002 creation, the Geneva based company has distributed about $15 billion to programs to coordinate world efforts against disease and to hasten emergency funds from wealthy nations to the poorer, more affected nations.

“We’re not cutting back — we’re not expanding,” the fund’s board chairman, Simon Bland, told The Associated Press from Accra, Ghana, according to CBS.

Just this year, the Fund spent $2.8 billion, including money to pay for treatment for almost half of the developing world’s AIDS patients.

The Fund can afford to keep existing AIDS programs going, but will not be able to expand or add new patients, CBS reports.  It will repurpose funds that had previously been allotted to countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico and Russia.

“It is deeply worrisome that inadvertently the millions of people fighting with deadly diseases are in danger of paying the price for the global financial crisis,” the fund’s executive director, Dr. Michel Kazatchkine, said in a statement according to  CBS.

Green walls, or "vertical gardens," are walls partly composed of or filled in with live plant matter. They filter air and water, soak up carbon dioxide and help lessen the “heat island” effect of urban areas while reducing air conditioning costs in their host buildings. Pictured: a vertical garden at the Anataeum Hotel in London. (Media credit/Niall Napier via Flickr)

Green walls (also known as biowalls, vertical gardens or vertical vegetated complex walls) are wall structures partly composed of or filled in with growing plant matter. More than just easy on the eyes, green walls work like green roofs by filtering air and water, soaking up carbon dioxide and helping lessen the “heat island” effect of urban areas while reducing air conditioning costs in their host buildings.

The self-proclaimed creator of the vertical garden concept, French botanist Patrick Blanc, pioneered the use of hydroponic cultivation techniques—plants grow in an irrigated mineral nutrient solution without the need for a soil substrate—to create large green wall installations in both residential settings and within larger public structures and even office buildings from Singapore to San Francisco and points in between.

Blanc’s installations start by placing a metal frame on a load-bearing wall or structure. The frame supports a 10-millimeter-thick PVC plate, upon which are stapled two 3-millimeter-thick layers of polyamide felt. “These layers mimic cliff-growing mosses and support the roots of many plants,” he says, adding that a network of pipes and valves provides a nutrient solution of dissolved minerals needed for plant growth. “The felt is soaked by capillary action with this nutrient solution, which flows down the wall by gravity.”

“The roots of the plants take up the nutrients they need, and excess water is collected at the bottom of the wall by a gutter before being re-injected into the network of pipes: The system works in a closed circuit.” Plants are chosen for their ability to grow in this type of environment and depending on available light.

“Each vertical garden is a unique wall composition of various types of plants that has to take into account the specific surroundings of the place in which it is created,” says landscape architect Michael Hellgren, who founded the firm Vertical Garden Design in 2004. “It is not only the colorful interplay between the plants on a ‘green wall’ that is fascinating, but also the appearance of the wall itself, which changes daily.”

Hellgren, who has designed and implemented large green walls in his home country of Sweden as well as in Spain, Portugal and Italy, among other locales, sources plants for his projects from various climate zones around the world. His favorites are so-called “lithophytes”: plants that can grow on rocks, branches and tree trunks without necessarily being rooted in soil. “Among other things these climbing plants have the enormous advantage of their roots acting as excellent natural drainage on the wall,” he adds.

While large “vertical gardens” are surely impressive, critics question the sustainability of such endeavors, given the energy inputs needed to run the pumps and other equipment used to maintain proper nutrient and air flows, and the emissions caused by the manufacture and transport of specialized materials. Also, larger green walls need more water than rain alone can provide, and thus don’t necessarily save water. But as the field matures, practitioners are finding wider arrays of plants to choose from that are better at taking care of themselves—and scaling back on inputs and supporting machinery with the hope that one day many of the walls will be self-sustaining gardens that cleanse our dirty air and compromised storm water.

CONTACTS: Patrick Blanc, www.verticalgardenpatrickblanc.com; Vertical Garden Design, www.verticalgardendesign.com.

Advocates of thorium to power nuclear plants say that the element is safer than uranium, and that its waste cannot -- like the plutonium waste of uranium fission -- be re-formulated for nuclear weapons. Thorium plants, they say, also wouldn't need containment domes like those pictured here because the reactors can't "melt down" and release radiation. (iStock)

Thorium, a naturally occurring radioactive element found in abundance in the Earth’s crust all around the world, might well be a better fuel source than uranium for nuclear power generation for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, just one ton of the silvery metal can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3.5 millions tons of coal, according to Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia of the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Another advantage is that it comes out of the ground as a 100 percent pure, usable isotope. Unlike uranium, which contains only 0.7 percent fissionable material, thorium doesn’t require enrichment to be used in nuclear reactors. Also, the spent-fuel waste from thorium fission cannot be re-formulated for nuclear weapons like plutonium, the waste product of uranium-based fission.

Also, proponents say that thorium doesn’t require the high temperatures and mitigation equipment of uranium-based reactors. “The plants would be much smaller and less expensive,” Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering, told the UK’s Telegraph last year. “You wouldn’t need those huge containment domes because there’s no pressurized water in the reactor.” With no high temperatures, thorium reactors can’t “melt down” and release radiation.

“Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away,” adds Sorensen. “You can run civilization on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s essentially free.” The advocacy-oriented Thorium Energy Alliance reports that there is “enough thorium in the U.S. alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years.”

Nuclear researchers in the U.S. first contemplated using thorium as a nuclear energy feedstock back in the 1940s, but its lack of feasibility in making nuclear weapons put it on the back burner, where it has sat for the last six decades despite various attempts to revive the technology for practical use. In Russia, China and India, thorium reactors represent the next generation of nuclear power. India possesses about a quarter of the world’s thorium reserves. The country is working to develop a network of large thorium-based reactors, and plans to meet 30 percent of its electricity needs with thorium by 2050.

Many nuclear advocates and environmentalists alike don’t see thorium as the savior its supporters make it out to be. For one, uranium is still relatively easy to come by and inexpensive, and the nuclear industry is set up to run on it. Changing over to thorium would be expensive, and who knows what unforeseen problems may arise with full-scale deployment. Perhaps most important, some analysts worry that putting more eggs into humanity’s nuclear basket will surely further delay the transition to a truly green economy that runs on clean renewable energy from the sun, wind and other so-called alternative sources.

CONTACTS: CERN, www.cern.ch; Thorium Energy Alliance, www.thoriumenergyalliance.com; Teledyne Brown Engineering, www.tbe.com.

Although there is no definitive proof, many studies seem to indicate that consumption of onions, garlic and other members of the allium family (leeks, shallots and chives) reduces the risk of certain cancers. (Thinkstock)

Natural healers have extolled the cancer-preventing virtues of garlic and onions for years, but only recently do we have enough scientific research to draw some conclusions. Several animal studies showing promising results using garlic and other members of the allium family (onions, leek, shallot, and chive) to prevent tumors have led to hundreds of studies involving human garlic eaters. While it is near impossible to pinpoint a direct link between garlic consumption and cancer prevention, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reports that “several population studies show an association between increased intake of garlic and reduced risk of certain cancers, including cancers of the stomach, colon, esophagus, pancreas, and breast.”

To wit, a multi-year study of 25,000 people from Switzerland and Italy found that those who ate the most garlic and onions were up to 88 percent less likely to develop various types of cancer (including cancers of the esophagus, mouth, throat, colon, breast, ovary, prostate and kidney) than those who said they ate little or none. “High onion intake, for example, was associated with a 56 percent lower risk of colon cancer and a 25 percent lower risk of breast cancer compared to no onion intake,” reports Karen Collins of the non-profit American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR).

According to Collins, another study found a 32 percent lower colon cancer risk among Iowan women who ate at least one garlic clove a week compared to others who ate one once a month or less, while an analysis of several studies worldwide “linked a 31 percent lower risk of colon cancer with consumption of about four to five cloves of garlic weekly.” And the results of several studies conducted in China show that that those who eat five cloves of garlic a week are half as likely to develop stomach cancers than non-garlic-eaters. Meanwhile, AICR reports that isolated components of garlic have shown the ability to slow or stop the growth of tumors in prostate, bladder, colon, and stomach tissue.

Just how do allium plants prevent cancer? “Like many vegetables, onions and garlic contain antioxidants that can block highly reactive free radicals from damaging cell DNA and starting the cancer process,” reports Collins. “Laboratory studies have shown that onion and garlic compounds can increase enzymes that deactivate carcinogens in the body, enhancing our ability to eliminate carcinogens before they do any damage.”

Some researchers, however, say that study limitations—that is, the accuracy of reported amounts and frequency of garlic consumed and the inability to compare data from studies that used different garlic products and amounts—make a definitive declaration on the topic unlikely anytime soon. And without such definitive conclusive proof of a causal link, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will not allow food purveyors to state the health benefits of the garlic in their products on their labels.

NCI would like to see better-designed human dietary studies using predetermined amounts of garlic to discern potentially effective intakes as well as more studies directly comparing various garlic preparations. “Given this protective potential, the challenge now is to identify amounts that will provide optimal effects,” says Collins. In the meantime, don’t skimp on the garlic and onions.

CONTACTS: National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov; American Institute for Cancer Research, www.aicr.org.

A wide range of green gifts can be obtained from nonprofit organizations that use the proceeds to fund important work and from green companies, easily found online, that sell recycled, recyclable or otherwise sustainably sourced and produced merchandise. Pictured: Organic Bug's Tree of Life recycled metal folk art. (Media credit/Organic Bug)

The holidays are a great time of year to share your enthusiasm for protecting the environment with family and friends. One meaningful gift—a fashion-forward t-shirt from Rain Tees—can help fight environmental destruction far away while raising awareness here at home. Every Rain Tee is hand-made in the U.S. from eco-friendly fabrics and features original artwork created by children living in countries facing rampant deforestation. For every t-shirt the company sells, proceeds help the cause and Rain Tees’ charity partner, Trees for the Future, will plant a tree in a critically endangered part of the world.

Another way to link your gifting and philanthropic tendencies is to donate to the Paradigm Project to help purchase clean burning stoves for poor families in Africa. Your donation goes toward reducing deforestation and respiratory disease in a developing country, and the Paradigm Project will send you a unique holiday ornament in exchange.

Many other non-profits also provide holiday season incentives to donate to their causes in the name of a friend or loved one. To wit, the NRDC’s Green Gifts website offers dozens of gift opportunities related to various campaigns the organization is conducting around the world. By donating through the Green Gifts program, you and your gift recipient can help defend polar bears, protect clean water, revive rainforests or promote renewable energy, among other options. Similar land and species “adoption” programs that can be leveraged as holiday gifts are available from groups such as the Nature Conservancy, WWF, Defenders of Wildlife and the Whale Museum.

If not spending money is a priority this holiday season, you can make artwork or functional items out of leftover materials otherwise headed for the trash can or recycling bin. Handmade gifts in any form are always appreciated and will likely be cherished for much longer than anything store-bought.

But if making your own presents isn’t your thing, a wide range of green gifts, large and small, can be found online. Some companies that specialize in fairly traded, sustainably sourced gift-worthy items include The Hunger Site Store, Branch, Low Impact Living, BGreen Apparel, A Greener Kitchen, Green Heart and Organic Bug, among many others. And once you’ve completed your green shopping, wrap up your gifts in the festive designs of Earth Presents, which sells 100 percent recycled/recyclable gift wraps. For still more ideas on where to source that perfect green gift, check out the website of the non-profit Green America, which provides links on its website to dozens of firms that sell sustainable wares.

No doubt it feels good to go green over the holidays, given the excess we typically associate with gift-giving. And given the poor state of the economy, it makes sense to give gifts that will last, whether they involve furthering important environmental work or providing items that haven’t caused unnecessary environmental destruction in their manufacture and that won’t break down once the holidays are over.

CONTACTS: Rain Tees, www.raintees.com; Paradigm Project, www.theparadigmproject.org; NRDC Green Gifts, www.nrdcgreengifts.org; Nature Conservancy’s Holiday Giving, support.nature.org/site/PageServer?pagename=holidaygiving_xx_hgg; WWF Gift Center, www.worldwildlife.org/gift-center/; Whale Museum’s Orca Adoption Program, www.whale-museum.org/programs/orcadoption/orcadoption.html; Green America, www.greenamerica.org.

Owning a tablet is becoming less and less inaccessible to people who aren’t willing to dole out major dough, no thanks to Apple. This week, Barnes & Noble’s Nook Tablet enters the market at $249, and Amazon.com’s Kindle Fire arrives at $199. Apple’s iPad absolutely has certain qualities that might make it more appealing than its adversaries, but are they really worth dishing out another $300?

3G is absent in the Nook and Kindle Fire, but still, the price remains. Hopefully the competition will inspire Apple to rethink its costs.

Apple has released a statement declaring that they will replace the first generation iPod Nano due to the slim chance of the device overheating.

The iPod was sold from September 2005 to December 2006, and though it hasn’t been mass produced in years, Apple asserts that they will be replacing each 1G Nano with the same version.

Replacements will be sent to users about six weeks after they send their old models.

You can’t help but love the Vers brand. A start-up, local company that makes natural wood speakers and accessories for Apple products. It’s like a tree-hugging vegan made a baby with a super-geek.

And that starts their iPhone 4/4s Slimcase off on the right foot.

“For each tree we use in production, 100 are re-planted through our partnership with The Arbor Day Foundation and the U.S. Forestry Service. Use a tree – plant a forest; we’re excited to be able to go beyond achieving sustainability to helping to restore the environment where it’s needed most,” said David Laituri, creative director and founder of Vers, which is based in Wayland.

The case is designed to be slim and fit in a pocket, and while it does add some girth to the phone, the case keeps the phone size manageable. The case also doesn’t add much depth to the screen, so it’s still easy to text and type. The lightly-colored bamboo shell also gives a great contrast to a black iPhone.

The Slimcase comes in two pieces that snap together and pull apart cleanly with some force. When assembled, you can tell that it’s two pieces of wood, but it doesn’t detract from the loook.

The felt-backing on the inside of the case allows you slide it on smoothly without damaging the back.

If there’s one drawback, it’s that the case does add some depth to the bottom of the phone, which doesn’t allow you to plug it into some common device docks. You have to pull the bottom piece off to fit it in.

The Slimcase is $39.99, so get your wood on.

Eminent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says that fully half of the planet's higher life forms could be gone within 100 years, joining the dodo bird, sketched here, which has been extinct since the 17th century and whose fate was directly attributable to human activity. (Thinkstock)

Researchers believe that the rate of species loss currently underway is 100-1,000 times faster than what was normal (the so-called “background rate” of extinction) prior to human overpopulation and its negative environmental effects. But thanks to overhunting, deforestation, pollution, the spread of non-native species and now climate change, we are likely in the midst of the sixth mass extinction in the geologic history of the world. The previous mass extinction, 65 million years ago, wiped out the dinosaurs and other species; the previous one, 250 million years ago, killed off 90 percent of all species on the planet.

While the current mass extinction might in reality not be that bad—only time will tell—eminent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson predicts that the rate of species loss could top 10,000 times the background rate by 2030, and that fully half of the planet’s higher life forms could be gone within 100 years. This jibes with statistics from the non-profit International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)—keeper of the global “Red List” of endangered species—which currently considers 37.8 percent of the world’s already classified species to be threatened. Of course, this is far from the whole story, as biologists think that we have only classified 10 percent or less of the world’s total number of plant and animal species.

Which types of species are being hit hardest? An analysis of IUCN statistics from 2008 found that of the world’s fauna (animals), invertebrates (animals without backbones, such as earthworms, shellfish and insects) were suffering the most, with 40.5 percent of those classified considered threatened. Next hardest hit were fish species, with 36.6 percent threatened, followed by reptiles at 30.5 percent and amphibians at 30.4 percent. Meanwhile, 20.8 percent of mammal species were threatened and 12.2 percent of birds.

More shocking was the statistic that some 70.1 percent of plant species are at risk. However, a more recent (2010) study found that only 22 percent of the world’s classified plants are actually facing extinction. This finding has led analysts to question conservationists’ estimates in regard to animal species loss as well.

In lieu of any direct way to measure the rate of species loss, conservationists have relied on reversing the so-called “species-area relationship,” whereby scientists tally the number of species in a given area and then estimate how quickly more show up or evolve as viable habitat increases (or decreases in the case of reversing the concept). But lately this method of tracking and predicting species losses has been criticized for generating overestimates. “The overestimates can be very substantial,” argues UCLA evolutionary biologist Stephen Hubbell, “…but we are not saying [extinction] does not exist.”

However many species may be dying, it’s clear we are in the midst of another mass extinction, and if you believe 70 percent of biologists, unlike previous mass extinctions humanity is most likely the cause. Conservationists remain optimistic that we can marshal the resources to turn the tide—and we’ll need to if the planet is to remain habitable for our species, given our own dependencies on the world’s biodiversity.

CONTACTS: E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation, www.eowilson.org; IUCN, www.iucn.org; “Species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss,” www.nature.com/nature/journal/v473/n7347/full/nature09985.html.