News

Cleaning Products for Asheville, NC Schools

Posted by Julie Wishart on December 18, 2014 0 Comments

I am so excited for our products to get into the school system.  The schools are currently using Quats Sanitizer, it has been under investigation for causing respiratory distress, they use this toxic product as well as toxic bleach to sanitize and disinfect schools.  There is also a very large number of students developing allergies, migraine headaches and asthma.  If we connect the dots we can see how this is due to the products that they use in schools currently.  

Fortunately our disinfectant and sanitizer "Pure" has been approved by the Buncombe County Health Dept. and the N.C. Dept. of Health to take the place of toxic Bleach and toxic Quats Sanitizer. Our product kills everything from H1N1, Influenza, MRSA, Staph, etc.  It has no odor and 32oz will sanitize and disinfect 1,000. sq. ft. It has the lowest toxicity rating by the EPA. 

Our Probiotic/Enzymatic Bali Dreaming Hard Surface Cleaner is also non-toxic, highly effective, economical and is a high dilution rate of 1-64. 

We are ready for the schools to make a change. The only way these changes happen is when the parents demand change.  I am excited to be apart of my first School Board Meeting in January.  

We offer free delivery and another benefit for Asheville Schools is that unlike the big janitorial/chemical companies we will also recycle and repurpose all our plastic bottles. 

Choose local and wisely. 

Read More

Cancer is Big Business

Posted by Julie Wishart on August 11, 2014 0 Comments

On Cancer Business & the Cancer Industry

Quotes

Page eight of “Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment?” features observations by cancer specialists and other individuals concerned by the “rich” subject of cancer business and industry.

Oncology is one of the most expensive and most profitable fields of medicine.
Stephan Seeßle, MD

We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of doing research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.
Glenn A. Warner, MD, former head of the immunotherapy department of the Tumor Institute under Orliss Wildermuth, MD.

There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo.
Dr. Robert C. Atkins, M.D.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you wake up to this reality.
John Diamond, MD & Lee Cowden MD

I would eventually realize from William's [stage 4 colon cancer patient] situation that standardized care providers who are given the power to protect the health of Americans are doing exactly what they are accusing the alternative therapists of doing - failing to save patients, while making huge profits from treatments that far too often do not work.
Deborah Walters Childs in her book "A Dose of Reality: Losing William to the Big Business of Cancer in America"

The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer

Cancer is so difficult to cure because it is so profitable to treat.
Walter Last

Most effective cancer treatments are very inexpensive, and that makes them worthy of suppression. You get extreme doses of this reality when you study Hoxsey - the success of his clinics and the tens of thousands who came to his support when the FDA came after him. The story of Hoxsey is the story of the brutality of profits over humanity, decency, and scientific principle.
Greg Caton in his book Meditopia

[Conventional cancer treatment is] big money. You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars. ... Cancer: we are talking about well over a million [new] cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably equals that. ... About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry. Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive. Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%.. [Why carry on doing it?] Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board of directors of MSK [Memorial Sloane Kettering] you will find that the drug industry has a dominant position on that board. One company in particular, Bristol Myers, which produces between 40-50% of all the chemotherapy in the world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital. [Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest?] They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid, they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have a man like Benno Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel under Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of millions of dollars. [Another revolving door.] You bet, and a big one. We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the war.
Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994

A control for cancer is known, and it comes from nature, but it is not widely available to the public because it cannot be patented, and therefore is not commercially attractive to the pharmaceutical industry.
G. Edward Griffin, author of World Without Cancer, a book about vitamin B 17 (Laetrile/Amygdalin) against cancer

Friend, I appreciate your concern for the ailing humanity, but in the USA we have perhaps the most criminal Government in the world. It is Goverment policy to maintain ill health, as there is money in it.
Dr. J L Jamison, Mariposa, CA, USA, in a letter to Dr P D Desai of India, quoted in G.K. Thakkar "The Wonders of Uropathy"

ANYTHING created with a vested interest in mind is open to all sorts of corruption, especially when it deals with the emotions and fears of man, as healing undoubtedly does.
Dr Arthur Lincoln Pauls in his book Shivambu Kalpa: The Ancient Healing Way of the Self, By the Self, with Medicine of the Self

All health care practitioners who have developed a cure for cancer from Dr. Coley's toxins in 1900 through Dr. Stanislaw Burzinsky's antineoplastons currently have been greeted with vicious opposition... continuing harassment from lawsuits threatening loss of medical licensure. There have been at least a dozen safe cures for cancer down through he past century of health care that have come and gone without the general public's awareness that they even existed. The cancer industry is so powerful that television, newspapers, and medical journals subsidized by revenue from pharmaceutical advertisements are generally unwilling to admit that these cures have ever existed. Often fabricated articles are published disparaging the safety and effectiveness of the cure thus frightening the general public away from some natural therapy that could make them well.
Dr. James Howenstine, MD

The American public has no idea how politics secretly control the practice of medicine. If a doctor dares to introduce a natural, less costly method, no matter how safe or effective, Organized American Medicine can target this doctor for license revocation using fear tactics and legal maneuverings. Why do holistic therapies threaten medicine? (Firstly) They involve a major change in scientific thought. (Secondly) They imply that current methods are inadequate, and, (Thirdly) they threaten huge profits...
James P. Carter, M.D., Ph.D., author of "Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives"

An important clue proving that there is no sincere interest in curing cancer is provided by the fact that only .5% (one half of one percent) of the dollars spent on cancer research is spent on research directed at stopping the spread of cancer (metastases). When a cancer fails to spread the patient can live many comfortable years in an uneventful manner.
Dr. James Howenstine, MD

Cancer is no longer a mysterious disease. However, the establishment still presents that image. There are many simple non-toxic effective treatments for cancer. The cost of proving them has been made impossible by the collusion between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. The establishment has deliberately used every imaginable and shameful tactic, some of which are even "strong-arm," to discredit, conceal and destroy these therapies. The reasons are clear. The pharmaceutical industry, which profits in the countless billions from their infamous chemotherapy would lose an enormous income if the truth were known.
Robert E Willner MD, PhD

CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death rate - will a treatment significantly extend a patient's life. I'm not talking about life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:
Response rate is a favorite. If a dying patient's condition changes even for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the patient is listed as having "responded to" chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.
Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a bust. Worse yet, a toxic one.
Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo's much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn't die of Hodgkins disease, that's all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within the cancer industry - again, the life of the patient is not taken into account.
In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks analysis. Due to gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry.
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com

It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

FDA drug approval: eye-opening behind-the-scenes report on FDA advisers‘ industry ties
More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found...The experts are supposed to be independent, but ... 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate...Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998...The expert panel's "consumer representative," whose assignment is to defend consumers' interests, had the most extensive financial relationship with Johnson & Johnson.
In recent years, the FDA has followed every advisory committee recommendation to approve or reject a medicine - except once... The federal agency is forbidden from using experts with financial conflicts unless a waiver is granted, usually on the grounds that the experts' value outweighs the seriousness of the conflict. The FDA grants these waivers routinely...Many financial conflicts are considered too small to require disclosure or a waiver and were not counted in USA TODAY's study. For example, a committee member can be paid up to $50,000 a year by a drug company without any financial conflict being disclosed if the work was on a topic other than what the committee is evaluating...Financial conflicts are so common that eight of 10 members who evaluated the drug Aggrastat, made by Merck, had conflicts of interest...
Dennis Cauchon in USA TODAY September 25, 2000, found at mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm

I have the answer to cancer, but American doctors won't listen. They come here and observe my methods and are impressed. Then they want to make a special deal so they can take it home and make a lot of money. I won't do it, so I'm blackballed in every country.
Dr. Johanna Budwig

...my mother died of ovarian cancer ... and it had cost my father his entire lifetime of earning. The medical industry took every last dime, drove him into bankruptcy, and provided no positive results whatsoever for my mothher over nearly 2 years. In economics, you supposedly exchange your valuable (money) for another valuable (results). No results means you don't pay or you get your money back. Not in modern medicine.
Peter Parker in his Amazon.com review of the book Cancer: Curing the Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy, or Radiation, by William Donald Kelley

Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies… The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology.
Dr Warner, M.D.

...the amount of cytotoxic drugs sold by the pharmaceutical companies... has grown from $3 billion in 1989 to over $13 billion in 1998. (Moss p75) These figures are chemotherapy drugs sales only, not taking into account professional or hospital fees associated with treatment.
Cancer's share of the total US health budget is calculated at 9.8% according to the AHCPR (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research) 1994 figures...9.8% of 1 trillion dollars: that means the cancer industry is turning over about $98 billion per year.
...More people living off cancer than ever died from it...
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com

THE EPIDEMIC OF UNNECESSARY MASTECTOMY:
HOW NOT TO BE A VICTIM
We are living in the age of health scare campaigns.
This is because we have in the U.S. a massive profit-oriented industry involving doctors, hospitals, HMOs, clinics, laboratories, biotechnology companies, researchers, and laboratories. 
All of these enterprises are nourished by health scares.
For years, one of the common money-makers for surgery done to women was hysterectomy.
Unfortunately for the promoters of this type of mutilation, the excessive enthusiasm among doctors for it has come to be exposed.
For example, it was reported by the Journal of the American Medical Association (May 12, 1993) that only 58% of a group of 642 hysterectomy cases could be justified as appropriate.
It has become expedient for medical profiteers to develop new markets, and mastectomy has been emerging as the current favored gold mine.
A study reported by Reuters (11/28/00) found that 53% of the mastectomies done on a group of 142 women were unnecessary. This group could have been effectively treated with lumpectomy, but the slash-and-burn surgeons found it more profitable to mutilate them.
Mastectomies create opportunities for their colleagues in the cosmetic breast reconstruction business.
Michael Phillip Wright

Never go to a doctor without knowing what his favourite diagnosis and therapy are. In the end, a doctor is also a company who wants to sell you something.
Lothar Hirneise, eminent alternative and conventional cancer treatment researcher

When Fred Wortman of Albany, Georgia, developed an inoperable malignancy of the intestine, he faced the prospect of long treatments with x radiation "therapy". "The doctors," Mr. Wortman said, "refused to operate when they discovered the condition of my bank balance."
Being a wide reader, he remembered a simple remedy for cancer that was given in a book by a 'Mrs. Brandt', and looked it up. It was rather involved and cumbersome to follow, so he reduced it to its essentials, took the "cure" and was completely cancerfree within a month.
From The Grape Cancer Cure

Mastectomies Generate Income For Plastic Surgeons 
”Oncologists continue to recommend mastectomies as a treatment for breast cancer because it fattens the bank book of the plastic surgeons who make millions of dollars from breast reconstructions.
Here's how it goes:
A woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. Her oncologist recommends mastectomy.
She is referred to a plastic surgeon who says that her breast(s) can be reconstructed with breast implants or a "natural" tissue flap.
The woman has the mastectomy and reconstruction and is left disabled, while the oncologist and plastic surgeon laugh all the way to the bank with the woman's insurance money. ...these dark, dirty deeds are still being done by the medical community ...”
Pam Young speaking from her own experience as a wheelchair-bound cripple after mastectomy and breast ”reconstruction” (more at On Avoidable Suffering) originally found at
http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/messages/120088.shtml

It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made from. The first ones were made from mustard gas exactly like the weapons that killed so many soldiers in WW I, eventually outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. In the 1930s, Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No one was cured. Most of the medical profession at that time regarded such "treatment" of malignant disease as charlatanism.
Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were conducted at Yale around 1943. 160 patients were treated. No one was cured.
The beginning of the hype that promised to cure all cancer by means of chemo drugs, came as an offshoot of the postwar excitement with the success of antibiotics and the sulfa drugs. Caught up in the heady atmosphere of visions of money and power in vanquishing cancer, Memorial Sloan-Kettering began to make extravagant claims that to this day have never been realized. Some 400,000 "cytotoxins" were tested by Sloan-Kettering and the National Cancer Institute. The criteria in order to be tested were: will the toxin kill some of the tumor cells before it kills the patient. That's it! Many were brand new synthetic compounds. But thousands of others were existing poisons which were simply refined. Finally about 50 drugs made the cut, and are the basis of today's chemotherapy medicine cabinet.
One of these 50 is a sheep-deworming agent known as Levamisole. With no major clinical trial ever showing significant increased long term survival with Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent even today! The weirdness is, Levamisole was included for its "immune system modulation" properties. However, its major toxicities include:
- decreased white cell count (!) - flu symptoms - nausea - abdominal cramps - dizziness
Some immune booster!
A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British Journal of Cancer showed almost double the survival rate using a placebo instead of Levamisole! The utter mystification over why this poison continues to be used as a standard component of chemo cocktails can be cleared up by considering one simple fact: when Levamisole was still a sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year. When the same amount was suddenly upgraded to a cancer drug given to humans, now it costs $1200 per year. Thank you, Johnson & Johnson. (Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 93.)
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com
More on Chemotherapy

Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths. 
”Chemotherapy Report”

“...the medicine that completely heals is not profitable and therefore is not researched.” (from an Interview with the Nobel Prize for Medicine Richard J. Roberts)

What’s good for the corporate dividends is not always good for people. Pharmaceutical industry wants to serve the capital markets … If you only think about benefits, you stop worrying about serving people. I’ve seen that in some cases researchers dependent on private funds would have discovered a very effective medicine that would have completely eliminated a disease … [but they stopped investigating] because drug companies often are not as interested in healing you as in getting your money, so that investigation, suddenly, is diverted to the discovery of drugs that do not heal completely, but chronify the disease and make you experience an improvement that disappears when you stop taking the drug. It is usual that pharmaceutical companies are interested in research that doesn’t cure but only makes illnesses chronic with more profitable drugs than the ones that would completely cure once and forever. You just need to follow the financial analysis of the pharmaceutical

On Cancer Business & the Cancer Industry

Quotes

Page eight of “Why Choose Alternative Cancer Treatment?” features observations by cancer specialists and other individuals concerned by the “rich” subject of cancer business and industry.

Oncology is one of the most expensive and most profitable fields of medicine.
Stephan Seeßle, MD

We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for financial gain. Their idea of doing research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better than three doses of that poison.
Glenn A. Warner, MD, former head of the immunotherapy department of the Tumor Institute under Orliss Wildermuth, MD.

There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo.
Dr. Robert C. Atkins, M.D.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you wake up to this reality.
John Diamond, MD & Lee Cowden MD

I would eventually realize from William's [stage 4 colon cancer patient] situation that standardized care providers who are given the power to protect the health of Americans are doing exactly what they are accusing the alternative therapists of doing - failing to save patients, while making huge profits from treatments that far too often do not work.
Deborah Walters Childs in her book "A Dose of Reality: Losing William to the Big Business of Cancer in America"

The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Ralph Moss, Ph.D., quoted by John Diamond, M.D., & Lee Cowden, M.D. in Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer

Cancer is so difficult to cure because it is so profitable to treat.
Walter Last

Most effective cancer treatments are very inexpensive, and that makes them worthy of suppression. You get extreme doses of this reality when you study Hoxsey - the success of his clinics and the tens of thousands who came to his support when the FDA came after him. The story of Hoxsey is the story of the brutality of profits over humanity, decency, and scientific principle.
Greg Caton in his book Meditopia

[Conventional cancer treatment is] big money. You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars. ... Cancer: we are talking about well over a million [new] cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably equals that. ... About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry. Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive. Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%.. [Why carry on doing it?] Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board of directors of MSK [Memorial Sloane Kettering] you will find that the drug industry has a dominant position on that board. One company in particular, Bristol Myers, which produces between 40-50% of all the chemotherapy in the world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital. [Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest?] They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid, they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have a man like Benno Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel under Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of millions of dollars. [Another revolving door.] You bet, and a big one. We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the war.
Dr. Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics, Laura Lee radio show, 1994

A control for cancer is known, and it comes from nature, but it is not widely available to the public because it cannot be patented, and therefore is not commercially attractive to the pharmaceutical industry.
G. Edward Griffin, author of World Without Cancer, a book about vitamin B 17 (Laetrile/Amygdalin) against cancer

Friend, I appreciate your concern for the ailing humanity, but in the USA we have perhaps the most criminal Government in the world. It is Goverment policy to maintain ill health, as there is money in it.
Dr. J L Jamison, Mariposa, CA, USA, in a letter to Dr P D Desai of India, quoted in G.K. Thakkar "The Wonders of Uropathy"

ANYTHING created with a vested interest in mind is open to all sorts of corruption, especially when it deals with the emotions and fears of man, as healing undoubtedly does.
Dr Arthur Lincoln Pauls in his book Shivambu Kalpa: The Ancient Healing Way of the Self, By the Self, with Medicine of the Self

All health care practitioners who have developed a cure for cancer from Dr. Coley's toxins in 1900 through Dr. Stanislaw Burzinsky's antineoplastons currently have been greeted with vicious opposition... continuing harassment from lawsuits threatening loss of medical licensure. There have been at least a dozen safe cures for cancer down through he past century of health care that have come and gone without the general public's awareness that they even existed. The cancer industry is so powerful that television, newspapers, and medical journals subsidized by revenue from pharmaceutical advertisements are generally unwilling to admit that these cures have ever existed. Often fabricated articles are published disparaging the safety and effectiveness of the cure thus frightening the general public away from some natural therapy that could make them well.
Dr. James Howenstine, MD

The American public has no idea how politics secretly control the practice of medicine. If a doctor dares to introduce a natural, less costly method, no matter how safe or effective, Organized American Medicine can target this doctor for license revocation using fear tactics and legal maneuverings. Why do holistic therapies threaten medicine? (Firstly) They involve a major change in scientific thought. (Secondly) They imply that current methods are inadequate, and, (Thirdly) they threaten huge profits...
James P. Carter, M.D., Ph.D., author of "Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives"

An important clue proving that there is no sincere interest in curing cancer is provided by the fact that only .5% (one half of one percent) of the dollars spent on cancer research is spent on research directed at stopping the spread of cancer (metastases). When a cancer fails to spread the patient can live many comfortable years in an uneventful manner.
Dr. James Howenstine, MD

Cancer is no longer a mysterious disease. However, the establishment still presents that image. There are many simple non-toxic effective treatments for cancer. The cost of proving them has been made impossible by the collusion between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry. The establishment has deliberately used every imaginable and shameful tactic, some of which are even "strong-arm," to discredit, conceal and destroy these therapies. The reasons are clear. The pharmaceutical industry, which profits in the countless billions from their infamous chemotherapy would lose an enormous income if the truth were known.
Robert E Willner MD, PhD

CHEMOTHERAPY: AN UNPROVEN PROCEDURE
In evaluating a therapeutic regimen, the only thing that really matters is death rate - will a treatment significantly extend a patient's life. I'm not talking about life as a vegetable, but the natural healthy independent lifespan of a human being.
Media stories and most articles in medical journals go to great lengths to hide the underlying numbers of people dying from cancer, by talking about other issues. In Questioning Chemotherapy, Dr. Ralph Moss talks about several of the ways they do it:
Response rate is a favorite. If a dying patient's condition changes even for a week or a month, especially if the tumor shrinks temporarily, the patient is listed as having "responded to" chemotherapy. No joke! The fact that the tumor comes back stronger soon after chemo is stopped, is not figured into the equation. The fact that the patient has to endure horrific side effects in order to temporarily shrink the tumor is not considered. That fact that the patient soon dies is not figured into the equation. The idea is to sell, sell, and sell. Sell chemotherapy.
Also in the media we find the loud successes chemotherapy has had on certain rare types of cancer, like childhood leukemia, and Hodgkin's lymphoma. But for the vast majority of cancer cases, chemo is a bust. Worse yet, a toxic one.
Even with Hodgkins, one of chemo's much-trumpeted triumphs, the cure is frequently a success, but the patient dies. He just doesn't die of Hodgkins disease, that's all. In the 1994 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, they published a 47-year study of more than 10,000 patients with Hodgkins lymphoma, who were treated with chemotherapy. Even though there was success with the Hodgkins itself, these patients encountered an incidence of leukemia that was six times the normal rate. This is a very common type of reported success within the cancer industry - again, the life of the patient is not taken into account.
In evaluating any treatment, there must be a benefits/risks analysis. Due to gigantic economic pressures, such evaluation has been systematically put aside in the U.S. chemotherapy industry.
Dr Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com

It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
Upton Sinclair

FDA drug approval: eye-opening behind-the-scenes report on FDA advisers‘ industry ties
More than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions, a USA TODAY study found...The experts are supposed to be independent, but ... 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate...Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998...The expert panel's "consumer representative," whose assignment is to defend consumers' interests, had the most extensive financial relationship with Johnson & Johnson.
In recent years, the FDA has followed every advisory committee recommendation to approve or reject a medicine - except once... The federal agency is forbidden from using experts with financial conflicts unless a waiver is granted, usually on the grounds that the experts' value outweighs the seriousness of the conflict. The FDA grants these waivers routinely...Many financial conflicts are considered too small to require disclosure or a waiver and were not counted in USA TODAY's study. For example, a committee member can be paid up to $50,000 a year by a drug company without any financial conflict being disclosed if the work was on a topic other than what the committee is evaluating...Financial conflicts are so common that eight of 10 members who evaluated the drug Aggrastat, made by Merck, had conflicts of interest...
Dennis Cauchon in USA TODAY September 25, 2000, found at mercola.com/2000/oct/1/fda_drug_approvals.htm

I have the answer to cancer, but American doctors won't listen. They come here and observe my methods and are impressed. Then they want to make a special deal so they can take it home and make a lot of money. I won't do it, so I'm blackballed in every country.
Dr. Johanna Budwig

...my mother died of ovarian cancer ... and it had cost my father his entire lifetime of earning. The medical industry took every last dime, drove him into bankruptcy, and provided no positive results whatsoever for my mothher over nearly 2 years. In economics, you supposedly exchange your valuable (money) for another valuable (results). No results means you don't pay or you get your money back. Not in modern medicine.
Peter Parker in his Amazon.com review of the book Cancer: Curing the Incurable Without Surgery, Chemotherapy, or Radiation, by William Donald Kelley

Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies… The medical establishment wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one obstacle to any progress in oncology.
Dr Warner, M.D.

...the amount of cytotoxic drugs sold by the pharmaceutical companies... has grown from $3 billion in 1989 to over $13 billion in 1998. (Moss p75) These figures are chemotherapy drugs sales only, not taking into account professional or hospital fees associated with treatment.
Cancer's share of the total US health budget is calculated at 9.8% according to the AHCPR (Agency for Health Care Policy and Research) 1994 figures...9.8% of 1 trillion dollars: that means the cancer industry is turning over about $98 billion per year.
...More people living off cancer than ever died from it...
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com

THE EPIDEMIC OF UNNECESSARY MASTECTOMY:
HOW NOT TO BE A VICTIM
We are living in the age of health scare campaigns.
This is because we have in the U.S. a massive profit-oriented industry involving doctors, hospitals, HMOs, clinics, laboratories, biotechnology companies, researchers, and laboratories. 
All of these enterprises are nourished by health scares.
For years, one of the common money-makers for surgery done to women was hysterectomy.
Unfortunately for the promoters of this type of mutilation, the excessive enthusiasm among doctors for it has come to be exposed.
For example, it was reported by the Journal of the American Medical Association (May 12, 1993) that only 58% of a group of 642 hysterectomy cases could be justified as appropriate.
It has become expedient for medical profiteers to develop new markets, and mastectomy has been emerging as the current favored gold mine.
A study reported by Reuters (11/28/00) found that 53% of the mastectomies done on a group of 142 women were unnecessary. This group could have been effectively treated with lumpectomy, but the slash-and-burn surgeons found it more profitable to mutilate them.
Mastectomies create opportunities for their colleagues in the cosmetic breast reconstruction business.
Michael Phillip Wright

Never go to a doctor without knowing what his favourite diagnosis and therapy are. In the end, a doctor is also a company who wants to sell you something.
Lothar Hirneise, eminent alternative and conventional cancer treatment researcher

When Fred Wortman of Albany, Georgia, developed an inoperable malignancy of the intestine, he faced the prospect of long treatments with x radiation "therapy". "The doctors," Mr. Wortman said, "refused to operate when they discovered the condition of my bank balance."
Being a wide reader, he remembered a simple remedy for cancer that was given in a book by a 'Mrs. Brandt', and looked it up. It was rather involved and cumbersome to follow, so he reduced it to its essentials, took the "cure" and was completely cancerfree within a month.
From The Grape Cancer Cure

Mastectomies Generate Income For Plastic Surgeons 
”Oncologists continue to recommend mastectomies as a treatment for breast cancer because it fattens the bank book of the plastic surgeons who make millions of dollars from breast reconstructions.
Here's how it goes:
A woman is diagnosed with breast cancer. Her oncologist recommends mastectomy.
She is referred to a plastic surgeon who says that her breast(s) can be reconstructed with breast implants or a "natural" tissue flap.
The woman has the mastectomy and reconstruction and is left disabled, while the oncologist and plastic surgeon laugh all the way to the bank with the woman's insurance money. ...these dark, dirty deeds are still being done by the medical community ...”
Pam Young speaking from her own experience as a wheelchair-bound cripple after mastectomy and breast ”reconstruction” (more at On Avoidable Suffering) originally found at
http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/messages/120088.shtml

It is startling to discover what chemotherapy drugs are made from. The first ones were made from mustard gas exactly like the weapons that killed so many soldiers in WW I, eventually outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. In the 1930s, Memorial Sloan-Kettering quietly began to treat breast cancer with these mustard gas derivatives. No one was cured. Most of the medical profession at that time regarded such "treatment" of malignant disease as charlatanism.
Nitrogen mustard chemotherapy trials were conducted at Yale around 1943. 160 patients were treated. No one was cured.
The beginning of the hype that promised to cure all cancer by means of chemo drugs, came as an offshoot of the postwar excitement with the success of antibiotics and the sulfa drugs. Caught up in the heady atmosphere of visions of money and power in vanquishing cancer, Memorial Sloan-Kettering began to make extravagant claims that to this day have never been realized. Some 400,000 "cytotoxins" were tested by Sloan-Kettering and the National Cancer Institute. The criteria in order to be tested were: will the toxin kill some of the tumor cells before it kills the patient. That's it! Many were brand new synthetic compounds. But thousands of others were existing poisons which were simply refined. Finally about 50 drugs made the cut, and are the basis of today's chemotherapy medicine cabinet.
One of these 50 is a sheep-deworming agent known as Levamisole. With no major clinical trial ever showing significant increased long term survival with Levamisole, it is still a standard chemotherapy agent even today! The weirdness is, Levamisole was included for its "immune system modulation" properties. However, its major toxicities include:
- decreased white cell count (!) - flu symptoms - nausea - abdominal cramps - dizziness
Some immune booster!
A 1994 major study of Levamisole written up in the British Journal of Cancer showed almost double the survival rate using a placebo instead of Levamisole! The utter mystification over why this poison continues to be used as a standard component of chemo cocktails can be cleared up by considering one simple fact: when Levamisole was still a sheep de-wormer, it cost $1 per year. When the same amount was suddenly upgraded to a cancer drug given to humans, now it costs $1200 per year. Thank you, Johnson & Johnson. (Los Angeles Times 11 Sep 93.)
Dr. Tim O'Shea in TO THE CANCER PATIENT www.thedoctorwithin.com
More on Chemotherapy

Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion. This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths. 
”Chemotherapy Report”

“...the medicine that completely heals is not profitable and therefore is not researched.” (from an Interview with the Nobel Prize for Medicine Richard J. Roberts)

What’s good for the corporate dividends is not always good for people. Pharmaceutical industry wants to serve the capital markets … If you only think about benefits, you stop worrying about serving people. I’ve seen that in some cases researchers dependent on private funds would have discovered a very effective medicine that would have completely eliminated a disease … [but they stopped investigating] because drug companies often are not as interested in healing you as in getting your money, so that investigation, suddenly, is diverted to the discovery of drugs that do not heal completely, but chronify the disease and make you experience an improvement that disappears when you stop taking the drug. It is usual that pharmaceutical companies are interested in research that doesn’t cure but only makes illnesses chronic with more profitable drugs than the ones that would completely cure once and forever. You just need to follow the financial analysis of the pharmaceutical industry and verify what I say. [An example of such abuse:] Investigations with antibiotics have been stopped because they were too effective and completely cured. As no new antibiotics have been developed, infectious organisms have become resistant and today tuberculosis, which in my childhood had been defeated, reappears and has killed this past year a million people. ... Third World diseases are hardly investigated, because the drugs that would fight them are unprofitable. But I’m talking about our First World: the medicine that completely heals is not profitable and therefore is not researched. ...politicians are mere employees of big companies, who invest what is necessary so that “their kids” get elected, and if they are not elected, they buy those who were elected. Money and big companies are only interested in multiply[ing]. Almost all politicians... depend shamelessly on these multinational pharmaceutical companies that fund their campaigns. The rest are words … 
Richard J. Roberts

...if one looks closely one sees that there is no essential difference between a beggar’s livelihood and that of numberless respectable people. Beggars do not work, it is said; but, then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, chronic bronchitis, etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course — but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout — in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering. I do not think there is anything about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, or gives most modern men the right to despise him. Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised? — for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable. In all the modern talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except ‘Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it’? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised. If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. A beggar, looked at realistically, is simply a businessman, getting his living, like other businessmen, in the way that comes to hand. He has not, more than most modern people, sold his honour; he has merely made the mistake of choosing a trade at which it is impossible to grow rich.
George Orwell: 'Down and Out in Paris and London'

Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty.Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian political and spiritual leader

and verify what I say. [An example of such abuse:] Investigations with antibiotics have been stopped because they were too effective and completely cured. As no new antibiotics have been developed, infectious organisms have become resistant and today tuberculosis, which in my childhood had been defeated, reappears and has killed this past year a million people. ... Third World diseases are hardly investigated, because the drugs that would fight them are unprofitable. But I’m talking about our First World: the medicine that completely heals is not profitable and therefore is not researched. ...politicians are mere employees of big companies, who invest what is necessary so that “their kids” get elected, and if they are not elected, they buy those who were elected. Money and big companies are only interested in multiply[ing]. Almost all politicians... depend shamelessly on these multinational pharmaceutical companies that fund their campaigns. The rest are words … 
Richard J. Roberts

...if one looks closely one sees that there is no essential difference between a beggar’s livelihood and that of numberless respectable people. Beggars do not work, it is said; but, then, what is work? A navvy works by swinging a pick. An accountant works by adding up figures. A beggar works by standing out of doors in all weathers and getting varicose veins, chronic bronchitis, etc. It is a trade like any other; quite useless, of course — but, then, many reputable trades are quite useless. And as a social type a beggar compares well with scores of others. He is honest compared with the sellers of most patent medicines, high-minded compared with a Sunday newspaper proprietor, amiable compared with a hire-purchase tout — in short, a parasite, but a fairly harmless parasite. He seldom extracts more than a bare living from the community, and, what should justify him according to our ethical ideas, he pays for it over and over in suffering. I do not think there is anything about a beggar that sets him in a different class from other people, or gives most modern men the right to despise him. Then the question arises, Why are beggars despised? — for they are despised, universally. I believe it is for the simple reason that they fail to earn a decent living. In practice nobody cares whether work is useful or useless, productive or parasitic; the sole thing demanded is that it shall be profitable. In all the modern talk about energy, efficiency, social service and the rest of it, what meaning is there except ‘Get money, get it legally, and get a lot of it’? Money has become the grand test of virtue. By this test beggars fail, and for this they are despised. If one could earn even ten pounds a week at begging, it would become a respectable profession immediately. A beggar, looked at realistically, is simply a businessman, getting his living, like other businessmen, in the way that comes to hand. He has not, more than most modern people, sold his honour; he has merely made the mistake of choosing a trade at which it is impossible to grow rich.
George Orwell: 'Down and Out in Paris and London'

Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty.Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian political and spiritual leader

Read More

Hire us to clean your house with green products in Asheville, NC

Posted by Julie Wishart on August 28, 2013 0 Comments

We have just added in-house cleaning services to our company.  We have the most wonderful employees with years of experience in household cleaning.  We are only taking a few more residential cleaning jobs so get in touch with us this week to schedule a clean.  We use only green cleaning products that we manufacture ourselves in your home. Drop us an email for rates and availability. julie@greenbamboocs.com 

Thank you

Julie 

Read More

Power to the Plants!

Posted by Julie Wishart on October 26, 2012 0 Comments

Power to the Plants!  That's right, it's our motto, our mantra, and the belief and knowledge that drives our business.  We are constantly amazed by the ways that plants heal, adapt, and show their strength.  Don't believe us?  Consider these fun facts!

1. Bamboo is one on the fastest growing plants- it can grow almost 40 inches in 24 hrs

2. The force of growing plant roots can actually cause concrete to break around them

3.  The world's tallest-growing tree is the coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), which grows along the Pacific Coast of the United States, mainly in California. Interestingly enough, it's not the world's oldest-growing tree; that award goes to a bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata).

4.  Plants have unique genes that even vary within a plant species

5.  Many plants have anti-bacterial and anti-microbial properties including: thyme, cinnamon, and clove.

6.  Some of your common house plants, such as the spider plant actually filter the air you breathe in your home.  Not only do these plants absorb pollutants, they also scrub harmful gases out of the air and help fight pollution.

7.  Kale (no, it's not just a garnish) has more calcium per ounce than milk and more iron per ounce than beef.

8.  One acre of trees absorbs enough carbon dioxide per year to match that emitted by driving a car 26,000 miles.

9.  1 out of 4 ingredients in our medicine is from rainforest plants.

10.  Plant enzymes are excellent substitutes for toxic chemicals in cleaning products!  (we couldn't resist...)


Plants do so much for us- let's show them some love!

Read More

An Alternative

Posted by Julie Wishart on September 07, 2012 0 Comments

It seems that every day on the news, we hear about a new virus, flu, or bug that threatens our health.  It is no surprise then, that people are serious when it comes to getting rid of these germs.  

So, what to do?

Bleach, QUATS, and chlorine dioxide have been used widely throughout the world as disinfectants.  These germ killing substances are used in schools, restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and homes every day.  Highly concentrated and inexpensive - these chemicals are often extremely over-used in commercial properties as a go-to cleaner for every type of surface and location.  While getting rid of the germs that make people sick is important, we must also be aware of the quieter, but equally as threatening effects of these chemicals on people and the planet.  The over-use of bleach and similar products contributes to bacterial resistance as well as poor air quality in your office or child's classroom.  Even more frightening - asthma, skin rashes, and cancers have all been linked to prolonged exposure to these toxic products.  The environmental impacts of these products are just as serious.  Runoff from commercial buildings and even homes is highly toxic to marine life and can have huge impacts on the health of rivers, streams, and lakes.  Also, "Dioxins, chemicals that can be derived from bleach through particular chemical reactions, have been demonstrated to be harmful to human health and the natural environment...Dioxins can have a number of damaging effects, including heart disease and immune system deficiency. Humans are also exposed to environmental dioxins through the food they eat, as the chemical accumulates in animal meat and byproducts as they are passed up the food chain." (http://www.ehow.com/list_6566802_effects-household-chlorine-bleach-environment.html).  The research on these toxic chemicals has only just begun to scratch the surface on the impacts that will sure to be felt by ourselves and the environment if we continue to use them so freely.


Feeling discouraged?  Don't be!   

Luckily, consumers now have another choice when purchasing a disinfectant for their business and classroom.  The growing field of nanotechnology has created amazing new products, especially with the use of silver ions and citric acid to kill germs quickly and safely.  These powerful disinfectants kill all of the scary germs like Salmonella, MRSA, and the Norovirus, but without the toxic chemicals.  Bacteria, recognizing the citric acid as a food source, allows the SDC (silver dihydrogen citrate) to enter the organism and cause irreversible damage to the proteins- destroying the organism.  This product not only kills the germs, but also has a 24-hr. residual effectiveness on the surface.  Pretty amazing!

For more information on this incredible new technology, check out our website, www.greenbamboocs.com.  Here you can find information about this product, as well as our line of enzyme-based cleaners that will keep you feeling healthy and happy!


Read More

Love your pet? Create a healthy home for them!

Posted by Julie Wishart on August 14, 2012 0 Comments

Here at Green Bamboo, we LOVE our pets and know the power that we have in creating a healthy home for them.  While many of us know the dangers of traditional household cleaners, we may not have thought about their impact on our pets as well.  So, if your own health isn't reason enough, consider your furry friends!

Take a look at this article via dogster for some important facts about cleaning products and your pets:

http://www.dogster.com/cleaning/cleaning-products-that-are-not-dog-safe

Many dog owners keep cleaners in their homes that are not exactly pet safe out of habit or ignorance of the bad effects they have on the household. Cleaning products with ingredients such as bleach, ammonia, chlorine, gycol ethers or formaldehyde can cause many problems in adults and children, but young children and pets are particularly at risk for things such as cancer, anemia, liver and kidney damage. Many toxic cleaners are also carcinogenic.

Several studies have been done on the dangerous effects of some common cleaning products. Many of these included data on pets which showed that Fido and Fluffy are not immune to chemicals and that many cleaning products are not pet safe. One study concentrated on measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in cleaning products. In it, the vapor pressure of various chemical compounds in cleaners was measured. Three cleaners, Pledge, Clorox Wipes and Lysol Disinfecting Spray, registered close to a thousand times more vapor pressure than a natural cleaner. This means that even when the toxic cleaners are put away and closed, the vapors left behind can continue to harm both us and our pets.

Some Toxic Ingredients and Their Effects on People and Pets:

Ammonia - Used in many de-greasers for ovens, glass and stainless steel, ammonia has a very high VOC, burns mucous membranes and contributes to asthma. If it is mixed with bleach, it creates a poisonous gas which can be deadly to small pets.

Chlorine - Used in disinfectants, toilet bowl cleaners and automatic dish detergent to name a few, chlorine is also used to bleach coffee filters. It can cause everything from dizziness to vomiting to laryngeal edema. Avoid this ingredient and be careful about letting your pet swim in the pool.

Glycol Ethers - Glycol ethers are found in many cleaning products that are not pet safe including glass cleaners, carpet cleaners and spot removers. It has been linked to anemia, lung damage and kidney damage in people and pets.

Formaldehyde - The thought of a funeral home comes to mind when formaldehyde is mentioned and everyone can recognize the strong, nauseating smell. But it's also used in products such as soaps and even some pet shampoos. It can contribute to asthma and is carcinogenic.

Some Cleaning Products That are Not Dog Safe

There are many, many cleaning products that are not safe for dogs on the market. Here are a few popular cleaners that contain some of the ingredients mentioned above as well as others:

Floor Cleaners - These include Pine Sol and Mr. Clean. Even if you manage to get all of the residue off the floor, the vapors linger and are dangerous to your pet. Try a non-toxic, pet safe cleaner instead.

Bathroom Cleaners - These include Clorox Bathroom Cleaner and Scrubbing Bubbles. Try a product such as Ecover Bathroom Cleaner instead. Never use a continuous toilet bowl cleaner such as Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner. It is very dangerous and the temptation to drink out of the toilet is a quirk in many of our pups.

All Purpose Cleaners - For use in the kitchen and around the house, the most common toxic all-purpose cleaners that scream "Danger!" are Mr. Clean Multi-Purpose Spray and Formula 409.

Drain Openers - You may think that since this product is poured down the drain, it can't be harmful to your pet. But the toxic drain openers give off dangerous fumes long after you've emptied them. For a non-toxic, pet safe option, try a product such as Earth Friendly Enzymes Drain Opener.

Glass Cleaner - It may seem that toxic glass cleaners are simpler products and are, therefore, safe but they are not. Instead of something like Windex, try a product such as Nature Clean Window and Glass Cleaner.

Laundry Detergent - It's easy to assume that choosing a laundry detergent isn't that important because the rinse cycle rinses it away. But there is residue left behind on clothes and pet blankets that can be harmful to your pet, especially those that chew on their bedding. Avoid detergents with toxic ingredients such as Tide and Cheer and try something like Down East's Liquid Laundry Detergent.

Instead of using toxic cleaning products around the house, try one of the non-toxic and pet safe lines of cleaners. If you do decide to keep toxic cleaners, make absolutely sure they are put away. Put child safety locks on cabinet doors and put cleaners up as high as possible. Never use them when your pet is in the same room and air out the house after cleaning with them. Never leave any residue behind. But the warning signs are clear and you and your dog will be healthier and safer if you use cleaning products that are pet safe.



Read More

How YOU can reduce plastic pollution

Posted by Julie Wishart on July 30, 2012 0 Comments

We all know that pollution from plastic bottles is a BIG problem.  But good news, there are some simple ways to reduce your impact.  Buying in concentrate and re-using spray bottles will keep hundreds of bottles out of our landfills and waterways...AND it will save you money!  No brainer, huh?  We think so.

Here are some surprising facts about plastic pollution via http://www.reuseit.com/learn-more/top-facts/plastic-bottle-facts

Fast Facts on Disposable Bottles

  • 2,480,000 tons of plastic bottles and jars were thrown away in one year (2008).
  • Tap water is cleaner, cheaper and healthier than store-bought water.
  • 60 billion single-use drink containers were purchased in 2006, and 3 out of 4 were thrown out directly after use.
  • Plastic bottles are among the most prevalent source of pollution found on our beaches.
  • Plastic trash absorbs pre-existing organic pollutants like BPA and PCBs.

The Problem

  • An estimated 2,480,000 tons of plastic bottles and jars were disposed of in 2008. (EPA)
  • Store-bought bottled water is a rip off. Tap water is often subject to more stringent regulation and testing than bottled water. It costs a fraction of the cost from the tap. It is cleaner, cheaper, and thus healthier. (Natural Resources Defense Council)
  • As of 2006, an estimated 60 billion PET single-use beverage containers were bought. Approximately 45 billion of these were discarded after use. (Container Recycling Institute)
  • Another estimation put bottled water spending at a collective $100 billion in the US for 2006. (OneWorld.net)
  • Every square mile of the ocean has 46,000 pieces of floating plastic in it. (UN, 2006)
  • Ten percent of the plastic produced every year worldwide winds up in the ocean. 70% of which finds its way to the ocean floor, where it will likely never degrade. (UN, 2006)

 

The Impact

  • Along with plastic bags, plastic bottles are among the most prevalent sources of pollution found on our beaches. (Ocean Conservency)
  • The extremely slow decomposition rate of plastic bottles leaves them to drift on the ocean for untold years.
  • When plastics break down, they don't biodegrade, they photodegrade. This means the materials break down to smaller fragments. These readily absorb toxins which contaminate soil, waterways, and animals upon digestion.
  • Refuse plastic absorbs pre-existing organic pollutants, including Bisphenol A (BPA) and polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs).
  • On PCBs: "Animals that ate food containing large amounts of PCBs over short periods of time had mild liver damage and some died. Animals that ate smaller amounts of PCBs in food over several weeks or months developed various kinds of health effects, including anemia; acne-like skin conditions; and liver, stomach, and thyroid gland injuries." (The Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry)
  • One study involving the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction and a National Toxicology Program (NTP) Expert Panel has reported on effects of BPA on development. They found cause for "some concern" related to behavioral, neural, and prostate function effects on mammals. On the NTP's concern scale, "some concern" rates 3 out of 5.

 

The Solution

  • Hope is not lost; 2008 marked the first year since their introduction that fewer PET bottles and jars were discarded than the previous year (from 2,140,000 tons in 2007 to 1,950,000 tons in 2008). The same can be said for HDPE bottles (590,000 tons in '07 to 530,000 tons in '08).
  • The solution is to embrace a cultural shift away from use-and-toss mentality: Each high-quality reusable, BPA-free bottle can eliminate hundreds (if not thousands) of disposable bottles.
  • New technologies have been developed in Singapore that will allow manufacturers to use organic chemicals called ionic liquids to pull C02 from the atmosphere (in much the same way plants do) and use these gasses to make non-toxic, BPA-free bottles that are 40% C02 by weight. Not only would such bottles be healthy for consumers, they would in fact remove harmful emissions from the environment.
  • New research published in Biomacromolecules has found that by treating BPA-containing plastics with ultraviolet light and heat, we may in the near future be able to dispose of the persistent pollutant much more safely and reliably. After treating BPA-containing plastics with light and heat, they are exposed to a fungus (which is already used for environmental cleanup) and burie. In one year's time the fungi had completely consumed the plastic and left no trace of BPA. While it is not yet in wide use, this treatment and other related research marks the start of a new, greener future.

© 2003-2012, reuseit.com. All rights reserved.




Read More

Let's be kind to our oceans

Posted by Julie Wishart on July 14, 2012 0 Comments

Here at Green Bamboo, we looooove the ocean.  Fish, dolphins, sharks, coral reefs- we can't get enough of the beauty!  That is why it is so important to us to provide you with cleaning products that are not harmful to marine life.  Our actions on land, no matter how far from the ocean we live, have real and significant effects on our oceans and the plants and animals that call them home.  Let's take care of our oceans together (yes, some of these require a vacation to the beach!).

http://marinelife.about.com/od/conservation/tp/protectmarinelife.htm

The ocean is downstream of everything, so all of our actions, no matter where we live, effect the ocean and the marine life it holds. Those who live right on the coastline will have the most direct impact on the ocean, but even if you live far inland, there are many things you can do that will help marine life.

Eat Eco-Friendly Fish

Our food choices have a huge impact on the environment - from the actual items we eat to the way they are harvested, processed, and shipped. Going vegan is better for the environment, but you can take small steps in the right direction by eating eco-friendly fish and eating local as much as possible. If you eat seafood, eat fish that is harvested in a sustainable way, which means eating species that that have a healthy population, and whose harvest minimizes bycatch and impacts on the environment.

Limit Your Use of Plastics, Disposables and Single-Use Projects

Blue Ocean Society

Have you heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? That is a name coined to describe the huge amounts of plastic bits and other marine debris floating in the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre, one of five major ocean gyres in the world. Sadly, all the gyres seem to have their own garbage patch.

What is the problem? Plastic stays around for hundreds of years, can be a hazard to wildlife and leaches toxins into the environment.  The solution?  Stop using so much plastic. Buy things with less packaging, don't use disposable items and use reusable bags instead of plastic ones wherever possible.

Stop the Problem of Ocean Acidification

Global warming has been a hot topic in the ocean world, and it is because of ocean acidification, known as 'the other global warming problem.' As the acidity of the oceans increases, it will have devastating impacts on marine life, including plankton, corals and shellfish, and the animals that eat them.

But you can do something about this problem right now - reduce global warming by taking simple steps that will likely save money in the long run - drive less, walk more, use less electricity and water - you know the drill. Lessening your "carbon footprint" will help marine life miles from your home. The idea of an acidic ocean is scary, but we can bring the oceans to a more healthy state with some easy changes in our behavior.

Be Energy-Efficient

Along with the tip above, reduce your energy consumption and carbon output wherever possible. This includes simple things like turning off the lights or TV when you're not in a room, and driving in a way that increases your fuel efficiency. As Amy, one of our 11-year old readers said, "It might sound strange, but being energy efficient helps the Arctic marine mammals and fish because the less energy you use the less our climate heats up - then the ice won't melt."

Participate in a Cleanup

© Jennifer Kennedy / Blue Ocean Society for Marine Conservation

Trash in the environment can be hazardous to marine life, and people too! Help clean up a local beach, park or roadway and pick up that litter before it gets into the marine environment. Even trash hundreds of miles from the ocean can eventually float or blow into the ocean.  The International Coastal Cleanup is one way to get involved - that is a cleanup that occurs each September. You can also contact your local coastal zone management office or department of environmental protection to see if they organize any cleanups.

Never Release Balloons

Balloons may look pretty when you release them, but they are a danger to wildlife, who can swallow them accidentally, mistake them for food, or get tangled up in their strings. After your party, pop the balloons and throw them in the trash instead of releasing them.

Dispose of Fishing Line Responsibly

Monofilament fishing line takes about 600 years to degrade. If left in the ocean, it can provide an entangling web that threatens whales, pinnipeds and fish (including the fish people like to catch and eat). Never discard your fishing line into the water - dispose of it responsibly by recycling it if you can, or into the garbage.

View Marine Life Responsibly

If you're going to be viewing marine life, take steps to do so responsibly. Watch marine life from the shore by going tide pooling. Take steps to plan a whale watch, diving trip or other excursion with a responsible operator. Think twice about "swim with dolphins" programs, which may not be good for dolphins and could even be harmful to people.
Volunteer or Work With Marine Life

Maybe you work with marine life already, or are studying to become a marine biologist. Even if working with marine life isn't your career path, you can volunteer. If you live near the coast, volunteer opportunities may be easy to find. If not, you can volunteer on field expeditions such as those offered by Earthwatch as Debbie, our guide to insects, has done, where she learned about sea turtles, wetlands and giant clams!

Buy Ocean-Friendly Gifts

Give a gift that will help marine life. Memberships and honorary donations to non-profit organizations that protect marine life can be a great gift. How about a basket of environmentally-friendly bath or cleaning products, or a gift certificate for a whale watch or snorkeling trip? And when you wrap your gift - be creative and use something that can be re-used, like a beach towel, dish towel, basket or gift bag.

Read More

Healthy Schools = Healthy Kids

Posted by Julie Wishart on July 05, 2012 0 Comments

This is a great posting about the importance of using healthy cleaning products in schools.  Tell your kid's school that you want them to go GREEN (Green Bamboo preferrably)!

via Green Clean Schools:

http://healthyschoolscampaign.org/programs/gcs/why.php

Why Green Cleaning in Schools

Each school day, some 56 million students and six million staff attend our nation’s schools, representing some 20 percent of the American population.

Yet according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), half of this population may be exposed to polluted indoor air, lead, asbestos, chemical fumes, pesticides, molds and other toxins, along with overcrowding and poor sanitation. Numerous states have passed state laws to make sure schools address this issue, and more states are likely to follow suit. A well-designed green cleaning program can help reduce these harmful exposures and yield many other positive benefits for students, custodial staff, administrators and the environment, including:

1. Green Cleaning Helps Students Stay Healthy and Learn:

Research shows a clear link between poor indoor air quality, sick students and teachers, and poor academic and occupational performance. Furthermore, according to the EPA, children miss more than 14 million school days each year due to asthma exacerbated by poor indoor air quality, which disproportionately affects low-income and minority students. Green cleaning can help reduce the environmental hazards that negatively affect children's growing, developing bodies. See Resources and Tools for more information on the link between indoor air quality and illness.

2. Green Cleaning Protects the Health of Custodial Staff:

Members of the custodial staff, especially women of child-bearing age, are particularly susceptible to health problems caused by their frequent and close interaction with cleaning chemicals and equipment. In fact, six out of every 100 custodians are injured on the job each year. Choosing safer products and training staff in proper usage can help reduce the number of injuries caused by caustic chemicals, respiratory irritation and inappropriate or dangerous equipment. This can also decrease workers' compensation claims and lower insurance costs.

3. Green Cleaning Increases the Lifespan of Facilities:

Proper maintenance and effective cleaning extends the longevity and performance of school building materials and furnishings by preventing damage and premature aging, which in turn reduces waste and unnecessary spending. For example, school districts allocate a significant amount of money to carpeting, which is expected to have a useful life of 10 to 15 years. A square foot of typical carpet can hide as much as three times its weight in dirt and sand, which act like thousands of small knives, cutting and wearing out fibers in a few short years — long before its useful lifespan and before the district had budgeted to replace it.

4. Green Cleaning Preserves the Environment:

Traditional cleaning products can contain harmful chemicals. Depending on the duration, rate and extent of exposure, they can cause cancer, reproductive disorders, major organ damage, and permanent eye damage. These cleaning chemicals are also routinely washed down the drain where they find their way into drinking water, lakes and streams, adversely affecting plant and animal life, threatening public health and adding to pollution. According to ISSA, the cleaning industry consumes six billion pounds of chemicals, including non-renewable natural resources such as petroleum, and generates 4.5 billion pounds of paper products, requiring the cutting of 35 million trees annually. Buying recycled paper and plastic products can help conserve precious natural resources for future generations.

Triple Bottom Line

If all parties understand the impact of cleaning on the triple bottom line, it is much easier to appreciate the changes a green cleaning program can bring about. Like a three-legged stool, which needs three stable legs to function, balancing these three bottom lines can make your program more effective and more sustainable over time. The three bottom lines, discussed in detail below, are economic, environmental and social.

Economic

The economic impacts of a green cleaning program come about in many ways including reducing actual product cost; using more durable products that last longer reducing costs over the product's useful life; energy and water savings, fewer incidents of accidents from chemical and ergonomic injury; healthier students and staff which can result in reduced absenteeism; and improvements in attracting and retaining students, teachers and staff.

Environmental

The extraction of raw materials and manufacturing for products including cleaning chemicals, janitorial paper, equipment and tools, have significant environmental impacts, as does their transportation, use, and disposal. Many of the raw materials are limited and nonrenewable, which means that once depleted, they are no longer available to future generations for their use. Additionally, the manufacturing consumes large quantities of energy and water, while producing significant emissions to the air, water and waste.

Social

For any program to be sustainable, it must take care of its people. After all, how can a school function if students and staff are always sick or don’t want to be there because the building is unhealthy? This component of the triple bottom line also helps us appreciate the role that schools play as part of a larger community and the important interaction that affects the health and success of all. Click here to read more about schools and sustainability.

Read More

The Power of Bamboo: Fighting De-Forestation!

Posted by Julie Wishart on June 18, 2012 0 Comments

 This is a great article about the power of bamboo and how it is being used to combat de-forestation via NY Times.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/in-africas-vanishing-forests-the-benefits-of-bamboo/

 

In Africa’s Vanishing Forests, the Benefits of Bamboo

By TINA ROSENBERG

Fixes looks at solutions to social problems and why they work.

In the district of Asosa, the land is thick with bamboo.   People plant it and manage the forests. They rely on its soil-grabbing roots to stabilize steep slopes and riverbanks, cutting erosion. They harvest it to burn for fuel, to make into charcoal sticks to sell to city dwellers and to build furniture.

Asosa is not in China, not even in Asia.    It is a district in the west of Ethiopia, on the Sudanese border.   To many people, bamboo means China.   But it’s not just panda food — mountain gorillas in Rwanda also live on bamboo.   About 4 percent of Africa’s forest cover is bamboo.

Soon it may be much more.  Bamboo may provide a solution to a very serious problem:  deforestation.  In sub-Saharan Africa, 70 percent of the people cook their meals over wood fires.  The very poorest cut down trees for cooking fuel; those slightly less poor buy charcoal  made from wood in those same forests.  Every year Africa loses forest cover equal to the size of Switzerland.  Terence Sunderland, a senior scientist at the Indonesia-based Center for International Forestry Research, said that in southern Africa, even trees that can be used for fine carving, such as ebony and rosewood, are being cut down and made into charcoal.

Deforestation starts a vicious circle of drought and environmental decline.   Burning wood releases the carbon stored inside.   And deforestation accounts for at least a fifth of all carbon emissions globally.  As tree cover vanishes, the land dries out and the soil erodes and becomes barren — a major reason for Ethiopia’s periodic famines.

Reliance on hardwood fuel poses more present dangers as well.   It’s a woman’s job to collect firewood, and when trees are scarce, women must walk farther and farther to find it, an often dangerous journey.

Much cooking, moreover, is done indoors.  The resulting air pollution kills some two million people a year. Almost half the deaths are from pneumonia in children under 5.  Bamboo and charcoal made from bamboo burn more efficiently and cleanly than wood and wood charcoal

Sunderland is talking to several southern African governments about bamboo.  Farther north, the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan, a membership organization of 38 countries based in Beijing, is providing technical support for growing and using bamboo in Ghana and Ethiopia.

How does bamboo improve on hardwood?  Cut down a hardwood tree and it’s gone.  It will take several decades for another to grow in its place; it can take a century for a forest to grow back after cutting. But bamboo is a grass, not a tree.  Under the right conditions, it can grow a full meter a day — you can literally watch it grow.   It is also fast maturing.   A new bamboo plant is mature enough to harvest after three to six years, depending on the species.   Most important, bamboo is renewable.   Unlike hardwood trees, bamboo regrows after harvesting, just as grass regrows after cutting.  After it is mature, bamboo can be harvested every single year for the life of the plant.

Bamboo has other advantages.  Its roots grab onto soil and hold it fast.   Plant bamboo on a steep slope or riverbank and it prevents mudslides and erosion.  And bamboo is parsimonious with Africa’s most precious resource:  water.

“In Africa you want everything,” said Dr. Chin Ong, a retired professor of environmental science at the University of Nottingham in England, who was formerly a senior scientist at the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi.  “You want firewood, you want to reduce erosion, to maintain the water supply, generate cash and employment.   Bamboo comes the closest — it gives you the most things.”

The need for firewood is now critical in Ethiopia; trees covered 35 percent of the country a century ago; by 2000 they covered just 3 percent.   Ethiopia is trying to reverse deforestation by planting trees, and it lags behind only China and India in sheer numbers — in 2007 alone the country planted 700 million trees.   But even a huge, continuing campaign may not be enough to reverse deforestation.  It has been a problem wherever people settled in Ethiopia.   The country’s capital had to be moved five times since the first century B.C., because any concentration of people quickly ran out of firewood. In the 1890s the problem was solved by importing eucalyptus from Australia — a tree that, like bamboo, is renewable.    The first plantations were around Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s new capital, which at times has gone by the name Eucalyptopolis.

But while eucalyptus trees provide a renewable source of wood, they starve other trees and plants of water, and rob water from rivers and reservoirs.  They gobble so much water that they are sometimes planted for the purpose of draining swamps.  By 1913, the government issued a proclamation ordering the destruction of all eucalyptus trees.   It was ignored.

In the last five years or so, Ong said, Ethiopia has realized that bamboo is a more profitable and greener solution. INBAR’s program is a four-year project financed by the European Commission and the Common Fund for Commodities, a United Nations organization.  The technology comes from China. The project provides bamboo seedlings and trains people to manage bamboo plantations.    It teaches villagers to build kilns to make charcoal, which they can sell to city dwellers (rural people in Ethiopia and Ghana can’t afford charcoal.  They burn wood. )   The program also promotes bamboo as fuel, and has helped village women to set up businesses making and selling a stove with a closed chamber that uses half the fuel of an open fire. In Ethiopia, the stove, locally made of iron and clay, costs only $3.

Coosje Hoogendoorn, INBAR’s director-general, said that while people in Ghana are slower to embrace bamboo because they can still find firewood,  Ethiopians need no convincing — there are hardly any trees left to cut down.

Bamboo is not the perfect plant.   Although the kinds of bamboo that grow in Africa are not invasive — some varieties that grow in cooler climates are — it can be very difficult to get rid of the networks of roots when the plant is no longer wanted.    While bamboo can tolerate dry conditions, like any plant it will grow more slowly with less water, and it cannot grow in desert climates — exactly where it is needed most.   And most bamboo is hollow, which means it burns more quickly than hardwood.  Fortunately, bamboo that grows in Africa’s lowlands is one of the few solid bamboo species.

Related
More From Fixes

Read previous contributions to this series.

Because bamboo requires few nutrients, it can grow in soil inhospitable to other plants — not only does it thrive there, it can reclaim the land so other plants can thrive, too.  Its roots leach heavy metals from the soil, hold the soil together and draw water closer to the surface.   One example is a project in Allahabad, India, to reclaim land whose topsoil had been depleted by the brick industry.  In 1996, an INBAR project planted the land with bamboo.  Five years later, villagers could farm the land again.   Dust storms — a local scourge — were greatly reduced.   The bamboo also helped raise the water table by seven meters.   In 2007, the project won the global Alcan Prize for Sustainability.

Charcoal, of course, is not the only thing that can be made of bamboo.  Its tensile strength makes it a good construction material, and it is also used for furniture, flooring and textiles, among other things.   Paradoxically, harvesting bamboo to make durable goods is greener than not harvesting bamboo.  Here’s why: bamboo culms — the poles — do not live as long as hardwood trees, usually up to a decade. When an old culm decays, it releases carbon into the atmosphere. (The root system, which hold 30 to 40 percent of its carbon, last much longer.) This means that an untouched bamboo forest is a poor carbon sink.    Fortunately, the best way to turn bamboo into an excellent carbon sink is to make money with it — harvest the bamboo to make durable products before it starts its decay. Treated bamboo flooring or furniture will last as long as wood, storing its carbon the whole time.

In some ways, the challenge in Africa is not to introduce bamboo, but to persuade people and governments that it has commercial uses.  “We’ve taken policymakers from Africa to China and India where bamboo used in everyday life — and there’s still very poor adoption,” said Ong.   In some countries, for example, Kenya, making charcoal is illegal — a well-intentioned ban that seeks to prevent deforestation, but one that is impractical as long as people need to find their own cooking fuel.   “It is not effective to ban charcoal production,” said Jolanda Jonkhart, the director of trade and development programs at INBAR.  “It is more effective to promote charcoal production with renewable biomass sources such as bamboo.”

Read More