Conscious Choice: Songs of Compassion

May 2005 | Choice Feedback

Songs of Compassion

Recently, a friend directed me to a song by Marti Walker, who has a website,
www.martiwalker.com. Many of her songs bring light to a world so desperately in need of peace, brotherhood and unity. From the first moment I heard her song “Compassion” I’ve felt compelled to share it. My favorite lines are:

“The people in your life who criticize / With words that hurt you / It’s the so-called friend who doesn’t hear your cries / When dreams desert you / The person in this world you most despise / A smile could save him / Once Gandhi looked into his killer’s eyes / And he forgave him”

— Ricardo Nuñez, Internet

Green Buildings

I COMMEND you for your excellent report on the increasing popularity of sustainable building techniques. With the leadership of Mayor Daley and the experience of nationally respected design firms, Chicago is well on its way to becoming one of the greenest cities in the country.

Often overlooked, however, is the importance of transportation in reducing environmental impact. Recently proposed CTA cuts will only make the city less green and more dependent on fossil fuels. If Chicago truly seeks to be a green city, we must preserve the transit options currently in place, and expand, not reduce, those options in the future.

Therefore, thank you also for mentioning one initiative that can help preserve transit: LEED for Neighborhood Development. Like the existing tools for rating green buildings, this new rating system creates a ruler for measuring the sustainability of a neighborhood. Because this system includes points for location and linkage, the necessity of transit will be emphasized when determining the “greenness” of a building.

There is vast span in the “greening” of buildings. There is what we call “green washing” and then there is actual greening.

To advertise developments as green because the boilers or furnaces are high efficiency is absurd, since these things are required for new construction in Chicago and most cities. Non-toxic finishes are great but they hardly qualify as greening a building or home. And, does non-toxic finishes refer to the paint only, or is the carpeting chemical free organic wool?

There is a tendency to ‘green wash’ buildings and then bill them as green. The true questions to ask are does the building contribute to either producing its own energy, or, is it so efficient that it reduces the energy requirement by a considerable amount? Does the building recycle its gray water or have other water conserving features? Does it have permeable pavement or another way of allowing rain water to get directly back into the water table? Are all the finishes non-toxic? Is the cabinetry formaldehyde laden? Is the paint chemical free or just labeled low VOC? There are plenty of harmful chemicals that are not on the VOC list, and so on. Remember, everything is a chemical, even natural products are chemical, the focus needs to be on what is safe and what is the life cycle of the product.

Bamboo is wonderful, however, to date there is added formaldehyde in all the flooring and it must be shipped from Asia which necessitates fuel use and production of its toxic byproducts. FSC certified local wood is also a good choice, just not as sexy as bamboo at the moment. There are many considerations and there are vast differences between what is healthy. And what is good from a recycled content? Building with OS strand board is considered great at the environmental level due to its recycled wood content but it is loaded with formaldehyde and off-gasses for quite a while. Recycled rubber is great but often has toxic chemicals. As you see, there are many considerations in deciding what is green and green for whom.

Green buildings might not have a LEED designation due to the expense of the LEED process, but they should have more to offer than efficient furnaces or recycling bins.

— Toni Bark MD, Plan it Green, Evanston, Ill.

Airport Pollution

IT HAS now been confirmed with certainty that pregnant women who live near high industrial sources of pollution should protect themselves from breathing the contaminated toxic air in order to protect their unborn children. Evidence was also found that children born outside of and moved into the hotspot zones in infancy also had elevated rates of cancers.

This is of particular concern regarding airports, since areas around airports in the United States are located generally within heavily populated areas.

In fact, researchers believe nearly all child cancers and leukemia can be traced back to a mother’s inhalation of toxic substances during pregnancy.

The peer reviewed study demonstrates that there are significant birth proximity relative risks when expectant mothers are exposed to “hotspots” of carbon monoxide, PM10 particles, VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), nitrogen oxides, benzene, dioxins, 1,3-butadiene, and benz(a)pyrene.

The study confirmed that the places of children with cancer are often sites of industrial combustion, VOCs, and associated engine exhausts.

According to USEPA and Illinois EPA figures, Chicago O’Hare airport’s aircraft alone emit more VOCs than those from all Illinois electric power generating plants combined, with Carbon Monoxide emissions as much as 60 percent of that total!

The peer reviewed study, “Evidence Based Public Health Policy And Practice: Childhood cancers and atmospheric carcinogens,” by E. G. Knox was published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

— Mothers Against Airport Pollution, 630-415-3370

Veg Out

BURGER KING has a new veggie burger. They had one before, but it was pretty wretched. This latest version is made by Morningstar Farms, the famous vegetarian food purveyor.

I must say, it’s actually pretty good. If the meat-free marketplace continues to offer better and better choices, then more people will adopt that lifestyle, not for ethical or health reasons, but simply for taste.

— James Reyes, Chicago

Chicken meal

I WOULD like to clarify a misconception contained in a letter-to-the editor in your March edition. The author seems to think that “chicken meal” in a pet food is bad. She bases this conclusion on an article in your Feb. edition, which talks about the dangers of “meat meal” along with several other ingredients. It is well known that “meat meal” is a generic term for animal meat that a pet food company obtains from a rendering plant. On the other hand, “chicken meal” comes from chickens; it is the chicken meat with most of the moisture removed. Whether or not it is ok depends on the answer to the following question: Is it human grade, hormone and antibiotic and chemical preservative free? If so, it is okay.

— Chuck Carroll, Schaumburg, Ill.

Writer’s response: Mr. Carroll was right in his response to the [March Issue] letter from Rachelle [about the Feb. article about pet foods]. If ‘chicken meal’ is listed on the label it must be from chicken. A quality food would use chicken meat but many companies use parts of the chicken which provide very little nutritionally. Feet, beaks, feathers plus condemned birds which may be diseased, contain high levels of drugs or have died for various reasons.

— Ann N. Martin

Recommend this page to a friend

Top Ten pages recommended to friends: