Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Anna Webb <electricwind@earthlink.net>]

Aloha from Hawaii,
I have been a lurker on the group for a few years now. This article prompted me to throw in my .02. 

I'm seeing a disturbing trend in our country these "days" and feel the need to add some additional information that this "independent" think tank (with basic corporate interests in mind) has announced.

It's not just about eating, exercise and healthy lifestyles. It's about POLLUTION. For example, the 5 "worst" states listed just so happen to be listed in another study - done by Harvard back in the early 2000's. In this study, it's noted that:

Coal-fired industrial plants, mainly electric utility facilities, produce the bulk of regional air pollution. See AppMap.  For the southern Appalachian states of Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, xx% of the sulfur oxides, xx% of the nitrogen oxides, xx% of the mercury, and xx% of carbon dioxide come from utility plants in those eight states. Utility plants in nearby states, especially Ohio and Indiana, also contribute significantly to these pollutants deposited in the southern Appalachian states. 
www.etsu.edu/writing/adcomp_s03/airqualitydraft.doc

What tends to happen, according to these studies, is that the air pollution generated from fossil fuel burning plants - moves into the Appalachian Mountain areas and becomes trapped. In addition, most are coal mining states which heavily pollute ground water sources which in turn pollute individuals water sources contributing to disease and chronic illness, as well. If we look at this factor alone, then it makes sense that California is listed as "generally healthier than the rest of the country" - air patterns on Mainland U.S. and thus air pollution moves from West to East - and the horrid brown cloud from China typically makes landfall somewhere in the NW U.S.

Yet rather than even mention pollution as a factor in the Milken Institute study, they ignore it completely. They mention curbing obesity, smoking and pre-screening/prevention.

Announcements made to the public by "think tanks", which are rarely independent and usually represent the "corporatocracy" in one way or another, are meant to justify a "means to the end" - such as taxation, discrimination in the workplace regarding health insurance coverage, genetic testing in the workplace, or in this case, possible development and acceptance of new vaccines and/or drugs. Since it was funded by the PRMAA (Big Pharma Mfr. Assn.) it's likely to allow for new legislation which no doubt will benefit an already multi-billion dollar industry in some way.

This is just the beginning point to get "everyone" behind it, IMO. I'm not saying as a whole that we don't need to throw away our chips and grab an apple (or in my case, a mango, papaya or banana) - just be aware that all that is piped up our happy behinds isn't necessarily the straight up truth of it all.

BTW - I love this list even though I don't have much soil! I have to grow my veggies in containers here - I love reading the information posted, and the different websites that you all have. I'm from the Midwest and while I miss my garden and this lovely time of the year, I don't miss shoveling feet of snow. 
I share info from this list frequently with other groups and with friends and family - and appreciate all of your input.

Peas and Aloha, Anna

On Oct 6, 2007, at 6:00 AM, livingontheland-request@lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

> "TradingPostPaul" <tradingpost@riseup.net>
> Subject: [Livingontheland] CHRONIC ILLNESS COSTS THE ECONOMY MORE THAN
> $1 TRILLION A YEAR
> To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
> Message-ID: <200710051036170403.02939F86@mail.lobo.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> Talk about a sick society ... It didn't used to be this way, folks. Why the
> change that's destroying people? Diet and lifestyle has everything to do
> with how we live on the land, or live in artificial environments eating
> plastic food.
>
> paul tradingpost@lobo.net
> ------------------------------------------
>
> CHRONIC ILLNESS COSTS THE ECONOMY MORE THAN $1 TRILLION A YEAR
> http://www.precaution.org/lib/07/ht071004.htm#Chronic_Illness_Costs_the_Econ
> omy_More_Than_1_Trillion_a_Year
> By Victoria Colliver, Chronicle Staff Writer
>
> Americans who have common chronic health conditions cost the U.S.
> economy more than $1 trillion a year, a figure that could jump to
> nearly $6 trillion by 2050 unless people take steps to improve their
> health, a study released Tuesday found. [Total U.S. gross domestic
> product (GDP) in 2006 was about $12 trillion.]
>
> According to the report by the Milken Institute, a Santa Monica
> think tank, the economic impact of chronic illness goes far beyond the
> expense of treating disease. It takes an even greater toll on economic
> productivity in the form of extra sick days, reduced performance by
> ill workers and other losses not directly related to medical care.
>
> But veering onto a path that emphasizes changing lifestyles along with
> prevention and early detection of disease could reduce the number of
> illnesses by 40 million cases and save $1.6 trillion by 2023, the
> report said.
>
> "The public is telling us the No. 1 domestic issue is health," said
> Dr. Richard Carmona, former U.S. surgeon general and now chairman of
> the Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, in a news conference in
> Washington on Tuesday releasing the report. "The disease burden is
> mounting, the economic burden is mounting and the trajectory we're on
> is unsustainable."
>
> The study looked at seven of the most costly chronic illnesses: the
> most common forms of cancer, hypertension, mental disorders, heart
> disease, diabetes, pulmonary conditions such as asthma and stroke.
>
> "More than half of Americans suffer from chronic disease. Every year,
> millions of people are diagnosed, and every year millions die of these
> diseases," said Ross DeVol, the Milken Institute's director of health
> and regional economics and principal author of the report.
>
> Treatment for those diseases, based on 2003 data, cost $277 billion.
> But lost productivity cost far more: $1.1 trillion.
>
> Combined, the economic impact of the diseases added up to more than
> $1.3 trillion. Cost calculations, which are based on various studies
> of companies, also included economic losses generated by caregivers.
>
> The study found some conditions create a greater economic burden than
> others, regardless of the number of diagnoses or cost of treatment.
>
> For example, far fewer people suffer from cancer than pulmonary
> conditions. But the overall economic impact of cancer is greater
> because, while treatment is expensive, cancer patients also tend to be
> more debilitated and lose more work time than those suffering from
> many other chronic conditions, researchers said.
>
> If the country does nothing to address the problem, the number of
> cases diagnosed in those seven disease categories will increase by 42
> percent by 2023 for a total economic impact of $4.2 trillion, the
> report said.
>
> "The data to stay the course is not a particularly attractive option,"
> said Ken Thorpe, executive director of the Partnership to Fight
> Chronic Disease and a professor at Emory University.
>
> The country needs to shift its focus from trying to reduce health
> expenses to lower rates of illness, Thorpe said.
>
> Lifestyle changes could have a major impact on our country's price tag
> for chronic disease, the report said.
>
> Curbing obesity alone by close to 15 million cases could translate to
> a savings of $60 billion by 2023 and improve the country's
> productivity by $254 billion, the report said. Other changes include
> lowering smoking rates and increasing early detection and disease-
> management efforts.
>
> The report looked at the impact of geographical differences on chronic
> illness, which varies by habits, age and other demographic issues.
>
> California generally is healthier than much of the rest of the
> country, ranking sixth in a score of all states for percentage of
> chronic disease by population. The lowest levels of disease were found
> in Utah, followed by Alaska, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. The
> sickest states in the survey were West Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas,
> Kentucky and Mississippi.
>
> Despite California's relative health ranking, the state's large
> population means it has both a lot to lose and a lot to gain in future
> costs.
>
> "For many of the chronic diseases, California has a lower prevalence
> than other states, but we're such a large state -- the largest state
> in the country -- we have a lot to be gained in avoiding treatment of
> these disease as well as improving the quality of the workforce," said
> DeVol, the study's author.
>
> California has the opportunity to prevent about 4.2 million cases of
> avoidable chronic disease by 2023, which would increase productivity
> by $98 billion and lower treatment costs by $18.9 billion, DeVol said.
>
> "The cautionary tale, when I look at California, is looking at our
> children and obesity rates," DeVol said, adding that the rising
> obesity levels are especially dramatic among young Latinos. "If we
> don't address the rising obesity problem, we have a huge potential
> problem in the future."
>
> The study was funded in part by a grant from the Pharmaceutical
> Research and Manufacturers Association of America, the drug industry's
> trade group. The Milken Institute declined to reveal the amount of the
> grant.
>
> E-Mail Victoria Colliver at vcolliver@sfchronicle.com.
>
> Copyright 2007 Hearst Communications Inc.