Friday, October 31, 2008

Apa Itu Pemanasan Global (Bhgn I)


Pemanasan global berlaku apabila gas-gas rumah hijau seperti gas metana, karbon dioksida dan nitrus oksida terperangkap di atmosfera Bumi, meningkatkan suhu purata di permukaan laut dan Bumi.
Bila suhu di permukaan laut meningkat, ais di kutub / Artik akan mencair dgn lebih cepat. Permukaan lapisan ais mempunyai fungsi penting sbg pemantul haba cahaya matahari yg mengekalkan suhu kepanasan Bumi tapi ais yg mencair menyebabkan pancaran cahaya matahari sampai terus ke laut dan oleh itu meningkatkan lagi suhu di permukaan laut dan Bumi. Kitaran pemanasan ini menyebabkan kadar pencairan ais yg lebih cepat dan suhu purata di laut dan Bumi meningkat secara mendadak. Bayangkan apa yg terjadi apabila ais mencair sepenuhnya?

Ais yg mencair meningkatkan aras laut

Aras laut yg semakin meningkat, akan semakin menelan darat Bumi. Kawasan tanah rendah akan semakin dilanda banjir.

Banjir menyebabkan:
-Kehilangan nyawa dan harta benda
-Perebakan penyakit
-Pencemaran air dan makanan
-Keseimbangan ekologi terjejas
-Ekonomi terjejas
-Keamanan negara terjejas

Sebanyak 75% drpd populasi dunia kini, tinggal kurang drpd 500 km jauh drpd pesisir pantai. Ini menyebabkan kawasan penempatan berkurangan. Penghijrahan penduduk secara besar²an akan menyebabkan;

Penghijrahan penduduk
-Perebakan penyakit² vektor spt demam malaria
-Pengurangan peluang pekerjaan
-Masalah sosial dan budaya
-Ekonomi terjejas
-Masalah politik
-Keamanan negara terjejas

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

What the Public Doesn't Get About Climate Change

A good read: by Bryan Walsh

As I report on climate change, I come across a lot of scary facts, like the possibility that thawing permafrost in Siberia could release gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, or the risk that Greenland could pass a tipping point and begin to melt rapidly. But one of the most frightening studies I've read recently had nothing to do with icebergs or megadroughts. In a paper that came out Oct. 23 in Science, John Sterman — a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's (MIT) Sloan School of Management — wrote about asking 212 MIT grad students to give a rough idea how much governments need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to eventually stop the increase in the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. These students had training in science, technology, mathematics and economics at one of the best schools in the world — they are probably a lot smarter than you or me. Yet 84% of Sterman's subjects got his problem wrong, greatly underestimating the degree to which greenhouse gas emissions need to fall. When the MIT kids can't figure out climate change, what are the odds that the broader public will?

The shocking study reflects the tremendous gap that exists on global warming. On the one hand are the scientists, who with few exceptions think that climate change is very serious and needs to be dealt with immediately and ambitiously. On the other side is the public, which increasingly believes that climate change is real and worries about it, but which rarely ranks it as a high priority. A 2007 survey by the U.N. Development Programme found that 54% of Americans advocate taking a "wait-and-see" approach to climate change action — holding off on the deep and rapid cuts in global warming that would immediately impact their lives. (And it's not just SUV-driving Americans — similar majorities were found in Russia, China and India.) As a result we have our current dilemma — a steady drumbeat of scientific evidence of global warming's severity, and comparatively little in the way of meaningful political action. "This gap exists," says Sterman. "The real question is why."

That's where Sterman's research comes in. "There is a profound and fundamental misconception about climate," he says. The problem is that most of us don't really understand how carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Increasing global temperatures are driven by the increase in the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere. Before the industrial age, the concentration was about 280 parts per million (ppm) of carbon in the atmosphere. After a few centuries of burning coal, oil and other fossil fuels, we've raised that concentration to 387 ppm, and it's rising by about 2 ppm every year. Many scientists believe that we need to at least stabilize carbon concentrations at 450 ppm, to ensure that global temperatures don't increase more than about 2 C above the pre-industrial level. To do that, we need to reduce global carbon emissions (which hit about 10 billion tons last year) until they are equal to or less than the amount of carbon sequestered by the oceans and plant life (which removed about 4.8 billion tons of carbon last year). It's just like water in a bathtub — unless more water is draining out than flowing in from the tap, eventually the bathtub will overflow.

That means that carbon emissions would need to be cut drastically from current levels. Yet almost all of the subjects in Sterman's study failed to realize that, assuming instead that you could stabilize carbon concentration simply by capping carbon emissions at their current level. That's not the case — and in fact, pursuing such a plan for the future would virtually guarantee that global warming could spin out of control. It may seem to many like good common sense to wait until we see proof of the serious damage global warming is doing before we take action. But it's not — we can't "wait and see" on global warming because the climate has a momentum all its own, and if we wait for decades to finally act to reduce carbon emissions, it could well be too late. Yet this simply isn't understood. Someone as smart as Bill Gates doesn't seem to get it. "Fortunately climate change, although it's a huge challenge, it's a challenge that happens over a long period of time," he said at a forum in Beijing last year. "You know, we have time to work on it." But the truth is we don't.

If elite scientists could simply solve climate change on their own, public misunderstanding wouldn't be such a problem. But it can't. Reducing carbon emissions sharply will require all 6.5 billion (and growing) of us to hugely change the way we use energy and travel. We'll also need to change the way we vote, to reward politicians willing to make the tough choices on climate. Instead of a new Manhattan Project — the metaphor often used on global warming — Sterman believes that what is needed is closer to a new civil rights movement, a large-scale campaign that dramatically changes the public's beliefs and behaviors. New groups like Al Gore's We Campaign are aiming for just such a social transformation, but "the reality is that this is even more difficult than civil rights," says Sterman. "Even that took a long time, and we don't have that kind of time with the climate."

The good news is that you don't need a Ph.D. in climatology to understand what needs to be done. If you can grasp the bathtub analogy, you can understand how to stop global warming. The burden is on scientists to better explain in clear English the dynamics of the climate system, and how to affect it. (Sterman says that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's landmark report last year was "completely inadequate" on this score.) As for the rest of us, we should try to remember that sometimes common sense isn't a match for science.

The fastest, most effective way to curb global warming that every individual resides on this planet can help is to a adop plant-based diet. For more information, continue reading on the UN's reports on livestock farming :

Monday, October 27, 2008

Methane rise reminds us of climate change feedback loop

By Chris W

The amount of methane in the sky of planet Earth increased by around 28 million tons from June 2006 to October 2007*. The total methane in the air is now around 5.6 billion tons. Scientists are concerned that we may be seeing the beginning of a feedback loop in the arctic in terms of methane release. Billions of tons of methane are believed trapped in the arctic land surface by permafrost, the layer of soil that remains permanently frozen, forming a barrier to lower layers. As the arctic permafrost warms, the concern is that the trapped methane will be released into the sky, where it will exercise a strong greenhouse effect (actually, methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, pound for pound). The total impact of methane on global warming is around one third that of carbon dioxide: while more powerful as a warming agent, there is also much less of it than there is of carbon dioxide. We know methane as a fuel, as in natural gas, and as a component in cow farts. Funny stuff, a great way to mock the threat posed by human caused climate change- until you realize that the enormous number of cattle on the face of Planet Earth are yet another example of human activities driving atmospheric processes. The cattle would not be there without us.

Scientists are also noting a steep increase in yet another greenhouse gas, Nitrogen Trifluoride. This chemical substance has increased 30 fold since 1978, entirely because of human activites. Nitrogen Trifluoride is used industrially as a cleaning agent during the manufacture of liquid crystal display TV sets and computer monitors, and ironically, in the production of thin-film solar panels. Depressing, isn't it, that thin film solar which has such potential to reduce our carbon emissions, bears with it the price of releasing a greenhouse gas of its own. Nitrogen Trifluoride, according to the scientists, is thousands of times more powerful at trapping heat than carbon dioxide is.

For perspective on this, ask yourself, smugly and complacently, "what's the worst thing that could happen?" Then search your memory from the year 2005, when you asked yourself that same question about the subprime mortgage problem.

Here is a bit more about NitroTri:

Another Inconvenient Truth

A film review in The Star:

OIL is the excrement of the devil,” announces the narrator at the start of the documentary, A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash.

The documentary certainly doesn’t start on a bright note. Instead, it pounds several depressing facts into the viewer: oil is running out. The world will change irrevocably. Your comfortable modern life will be history.

Yet one is still drawn to the film’s sights and sounds. Archival footage €“ which include humorous TV advertisements from the 1960s €“ gives us a glimpse of the early, optimistic days of petroleum. But then came the fall, and the happy images are replaced by the bleak and apocalyptic sights of abandoned oil fields, with its rusting towers and muddy fields, in places like Baku, Azerbaijan.

The film, made by award-winning journalists and filmmakers Basil Gelpke and Ray McCormack, has an impressive array of interviewees, many of them geologists, former oil industry insiders and academics. Gelpke and McCormack rely on their voices €“ there are no celebrity narrators here €“ to explain how the oil industry evolved, how people deluded themselves into believing that oil supply will never run out and how, through market and political forces, people have became addicted to oil, using it for nearly every aspect of their lives.

Oil is an amazing source of energy, says interviewee Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. One barrel of oil will produce as much work as you would get from 12 people working all year.

Unfortunately, human beings are using it far too quickly and carelessly.

A dangerous thing to do since oil is not a renewable source of energy, and its supply will dwindle one day.

One can’t help but feel alarmed when one discovers that the great bulk of the world’s oil supplies was formed in two unique environmental periods of the Earth’s history, and over a period of millions of years.

Yet, human beings are guzzling it up in just over two centuries.

And as the reality of dwindling oil supplies sink in (even if the governments of the world refuse to acknowledge it), the “devilish” side of oil use comes forth: wars, price surges and turmoil in the market and society.

The film goes on to discuss energy sources that could replace oil. But can alternative energy like hydrogen fuels, solar and wind power, and fuel cell technology save mankind from the hole it has dug itself?

Saturday, October 25, 2008

ECO FILM FEST by EcoKnights

Not to be missed!!! Admission is FREE!

Eco Film Fest 2008
@ Akademi Seni Budaya & Warisan Kebangsaan (ASWARA)

Sat & Sun
Nov 1st & 2nd 2008
10am - 7pm

Catch Malaysian's budding and aspiring talents in film making, comprising university and college students in Malaysia's first of its kind, environmental film competition.

Films on the current state of environment in Malaysia, from disastrous effect of global warming to human health to policies to sustainable development, will be featured in tandem with this year's theme, "Climate Change - A Call for Action"

Drop by at
-Artist' Escape where well known and entertaining local artists will be serenading /or pumping you up with their latest;
-Ecolicious, treat yourself with mouth-watering organic food & drinks
-Greenscape where you can shop till you drop with a wide range of household green gadgets
-Ecobiz: Explore green technology and services

Also catch ASWARA's best performances at "Tapestry - Rakyat Malaysia",
and make sure you stop by at Supreme Master Television's corner in the main exhibition hall, and for the screening of our SOS-Save our Planet DVD.

See you there! :)

ECO FILM FEST is organized by EcoKnights

Explorers to measure Arctic's vanishing summer ice

Source: The Star

British explorer Pen Hadow is to return to the North Pole five years after his record solo trek, in an attempt to establish when Arctic summer sea ice will disappear for good.

The receding ice has proved a battleground for countries surrounding the region as they race to stake claims on some of the richest untapped mineral and marine resources on the planet.

Hadow, the first person to walk solo from Canada to the Pole without aircraft resupplies, will be part of a three-man team collecting accurate readings of the ice's thickness.

Current estimates suggest the year-round ice is receding at a rate of 300,000 square km (116,000 square miles) per decade -- about the size of the British Isles.

But despite some submarine and satellite measurements there is no accurate measure of how rapidly it is thinning.

"Our physical efforts hauling equipment over the surface will amass data in unprecedented detail," Hadow said.

"The Arctic Ocean is not only an astonishingly beautiful place but a globally unique environment of immense significance to the balance of the Earth's whole eco-system."

Hadow and his fellow explorers are expected to travel 12 hours a day for up to 120 days, walking, skiing and swimming over some of the toughest terrain in the world in temperatures as low as minus 50 Celsius (minus 58 Fahrenheit).

The U.N.-backed team will take 10 million readings between February and May, providing data to help anticipate the impact of sea ice loss on wildlife and the planet.

Estimates of when the summer sea ice will disappear totally range anywhere from five to 100 years.

Russia has already claimed half of the Arctic sea bed, which is thought to hold large untapped reserves of gas and oil, and the summer opening of the Northwest Passage off Canada could cut weeks off east-west sea voyages.

Hadow said he expected the Arctic landscape to have changed dramatically since 2003, with more ice floes and thinner ice.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

John Hopkins statements about cancer


Cancer Update from John Hopkins

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard
tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person's lifetime
3. When the person's immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9 When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to starve the cancer cells by not feeding it with the foods it needs to multiply.


a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in color. Better alternative is Bragg's aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soya milk cancer cells are being starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruits help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells. To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts)and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water-best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines become putrefied and leads to more toxic buildup.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body's killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence,Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body's own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body's normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor. Anger, unforgiveness and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily, and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.


1. No plastic containers in micro.

2. No water bottles in freezer.

3. No plastic wrap in microwave.

Johns Hopkins has recently sent this out in its newsletters. This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as well.

Dioxin chemicals causes cancer, especially breast cancer. Dioxins are highly poisonous to the cells of our bodies. Don't freeze your plastic bottles with water in them as this releases dioxins from the plastic.

Recently, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, Wellness Program Manager at Castle Hospital , was on a TV program to explain this health hazard. He talked about dioxins and how bad they are for us.. He said that we should not be heating our food in the microwave using plastic containers.

This especially applies to foods that contain fat. He said that the combination of fat, high heat, and plastics releases dioxin into the food and ultimately into the cells of the bo! dy. Instead, he recommends using glass, such as Corning Ware, Pyrex or ceramic containers for heating food. You get the same results, only without the dioxin. So such things as TV dinners, instant ramen and soups, etc., should be removed from the container and heated in something else.

Paper isn't bad but you don't know what is in the paper. It's just safer to use tempered glass, Corning Ware, etc. He reminded us that a while ago some of the fast food restaurants moved away from the foam containers to paper. The dioxin problem is one of the reasons.

Also, he pointed out that plastic wrap, such as Saran, is just as dangerous when placed over foods to be cooked in the microwave. As the food is nuked, the high heat causes poisonous toxins to actually melt out of the plastic wrap and drip into the food. Cover food with a paper towel instead.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

An Interview with John Robbins (Part 2)

Bringing Family Together

I: You mentioned the social aspects of food and I think it's very interesting in families, in modern culture we often do not have time to sit down to have a meal together the way we used to. So could you speak a little bit about your lifestyle choices particularly in terms of bringing together family? I know you live with three generations.

J: We do! I live with my wife of forty years and our adult son, his wife and their six-year old twins, our grand-twins. We live with three generations in one house and we get along very well. We love each other, our values are deeply compatible. I don't think this is for everybody, but it works very well in our case. We prepare most of our food. We don't eat out very much. I suppose I would if restaurants were more compatible to the food choices I want to make. We eat a very simple and healthy diet. It's totally vegetarian and we do that for the reasons I've been talking about and also because it brings us together.

In sharing food, we share time and space, we get to know each other, we're not passing by each other, we're actually engaging, connecting, and learning about one another. Therefore, we're learning about our love for each other, how we can make a difference in each other's lives and how we can support each other, how we can understand each other more fully. This is the kind of relationship building that in modern society often gets lost in the shuffle when people are so driven, they're so time-stressed, and they're so anxious frankly that they don't really connect with one another. I think we need to connect with each other and food is a wonderful medium for that. So rather than go out and eat fast food which isn't healthy for the environment, isn't healthy for us, is full of bad fats and animal ingredients that I don't want to touch, we prepare our food at home. We grow a lot of our own food in our garden; we shop at local farmer's markets, where local growers bring their produce; and we are also fortunate enough to have some natural food stores in the area which we also shop at. And we're making distinctions about what we do and don't want to put into our bodies, what we do and don't want to support in the world, in who, we in fact are, the kind of characters we're going to express by our lifestyle.

Plant-Based Foods, an Excellent Source of Protein

I: So I want to ask you about food additives and particularly in animal production; there are a lot of hormones and other additives. We practice vegetarianism but we also don't eat eggs. There used to be a feeling that it is one of the most perfect proteins. Could you speak a little about eggs and the vegan lifestyle?

J: Well, I don't eat eggs either. The idea that eggs are the perfect protein stems from rat experiments. They found that rats, baby rats, prospered when they were fed eggs, so they sort of made the assumption from that. This is originally the research. A lot has been done since, but that's how it first got started. Well it turns out that baby rats' needs are so different than a human baby's needs. Rat mother's milk is about 45% protein, a human mothers' milk is about 8% protein. So it's not a really comparable food. I look at the constituency of human breast milk as nature's answer to the question, "What is the ideal food for a human baby?" I don't look at what makes a rat grow the fastest, I look at what will help a human being thrive, and that's obviously human breast milk for a human infant.

What we've learned since in medical science is that the need for animal protein was vastly exaggerated, because many of the studies were done and funded by animal product industries - the National Dairy Council, the Egg Board, the Meat Board, the National Cattlemen's Association, a whole slew of industry groups that profit from people thinking they need to eat their products to get adequate protein.

Plant-based proteins are more than adequate, they are excellent. And they don't come along with the saturated fat, cholesterol and these other things that the animal proteins come with that do us such damage. If you want to have a lean, fit, thriving body that operates on all cylinders, gives you the most mental clarity, the most emotional serenity, gives you the most physical strength and strongest immune system, eat a plant-based diet.

You don't need eggs for protein; you don't need meat for protein. I cannot tell you how many times people have said to me, "You're a vegetarian? Where do you get your protein?" Well I get it from plants, I get it from beans, I get it from seeds and nuts, I get it from whole grains, I get it from vegetables, because I don't fill my diet with a bunch of junk food, and I don't fill my diet with a bunch of sugar, white flour and things like that. I make every calorie count. I don't have a lot of wasted empty calories in the diet that I consume. Therefore the protein percentage doesn't have to be so high.

If the calories you're eating, most of them, are junk and empty, then the few remaining ones that have any nutrition better be solid protein in order for you to get enough. But if all your foods are good, then protein comes from all the foods that you eat. You don't have to say, "There's where I get my protein." I'm getting it from all of the foods that I eat. There is good protein in whole grains, fresh vegetables and certainly in beans and in soy products.

I: So vegetarian and especially a vegan diet is a way to become, as in the title of your new book, "Healthy at 100."

J: Well yes, I've looked at cultures where people have thrived for the longest times, where they're not just champions of longevity and that they live long but they live long, healthy lives. And their elder hoods are filled with fitness, mental clarity, contribution, joy and beauty; and they almost always eat plant-based diets or very close to this.

Making the World a Better Place for All Life

I: Yeah, that's interesting. I also wanted to congratulate you on the "Shining World Leadership Award" for humanitarianism from Supreme Master Ching Hai. She was very excited and impressed with the nobility you demonstrated in walking away from what could've been a very wealthy lifestyle, in the name of your values and your choices.

J: Well I did it in the name of all of our aspirations for a humane and sustainable world. It wasn't just for me. It really was for the planet, for all of us who are striving and inspiring towards creating a spiritually fulfilling, socially just and environmentally sustainable human presence on this planet.

I: Thank you so much for your work because I've read that for a couple of years after "A Diet for a New America" came out, beef sales in the US dropped almost 20% and there's been Howard Lyman and a number of other activists that have brought out the terrors of what has gone on in the beef industry. So I think it's interesting to see the ripple effect 20 years later.

J: And I mean you can translate that 20 % reduction of beef consumption into how many fewer heart attacks occurred, how many fewer cases of cancer occurred, how much less diabetes there was. Not that these epidemics aren't still major issues, but they have been to a degree ameliorated by that reduction. You can also translate it into how many square miles of tropical rainforests are still standing that would otherwise would have been destroyed? How many species are still with us that would otherwise have been extinguished? How much less water pollution we have to deal with, how much less greenhouse gases are in our atmosphere as a result of that reduction? We're still trashing the environment, but this was a big step; and I will feel fulfilled only when it is a step that many other people take, and we continue on that path, because the day that slaughter houses are a memory, the day that world hunger is a memory, the day that environmental destruction is a memory, will be the day that I rejoice.

I: I agree with you. The members in our Association all over the world have been doing a campaign on Alternative Living, trying to bring the word to people to associate compassion with our diet choices.

J: People today are very removed from animals and if they have images, they are of family farms and animals running around on the farm. Modern meat production has become something totally institutionalized and utterly dominated by the profit motive and a true violation of the human heart's need to live in integrity with the well-being of other forms of life.

I: So one last question to you on that note is in terms of your own spiritual motivation in life. We all meditate in our Association but a lot of people have different forms of practice. What is your secret to success in spiritual harmony?

Be Tuned into the Higher Wisdom of Life

J: Well, I meditate also. I do everything I can to quiet my mind, open my heart, and to be fully present and tuned to the higher wisdom of life and to the instinct for goodness and wellness in everyone. I want to respond to it, I want to welcome it, I want to honor it. I think that there is some good in everybody and if I can look for that, then I can be a place in which their own spirit, their own joy, their own sense of contribution and gifts can come forward. Then I am happy.

I: John you walked away from a very large empire, the Baskin Robins kingdom. For the viewers that may not know Baskin Robins, it is the largest ice-cream chain in the world, more than 5,000 stores worldwide, promoting 31 flavors of ice-cream. Your father and uncle began this business and you were not a fan of ice-cream.

J: Well I was. I grew up as a child being groomed to succeed my father. I'm an only son and I don't have brothers so it was expected that I would one day follow in his footsteps. He owned and ran the world's largest ice-cream company, a multibillion dollar company. He owned it along with my uncle. My uncle died of a heart attack in his early 50's. A very large man, he ate a lot of ice-cream as we all did. When he died, I asked my dad if there could be any connection between my uncle's fatal heart attack and the amount of ice-cream that he would eat. My dad froze, looked at me, and said: "His ticker just got tired and stopped working." I saw the denial in my dad's face and I realized why he would need to block that, because he had by this time manufactured and sold more ice-cream than any other human being that's ever lived on this planet. He did not want to think that, that product was hurting anybody, much less that it might have played a role in his beloved brother-in-law and partner's death.

But the reality is that the more ice-cream you eat, the more likely you are to have a heart attack, also the more likely you are to get diabetes; and my father developed very serious diabetes. And it's not just Baskin Robins. In the United States another very large ice-cream chain is "Ben and Jerry's." Ben Cohen was the co-founder and co-owner for years and he had a quintuple bypass procedure at the age of 49. That's how ill his cardiovascular system had become, that's the level of cardiac distress he was in; and he also is a heavy set fellow who ate a lot of ice-cream.

I am not saying an ice-cream cone is going to kill anybody. But I did not want to be selling a product that the more you ate of it, the more you consumed of it, the wealthier I would be and the sicker you would be. I didn't want that on my conscience. I wanted instead to shape my life such that I could be a vehicle for a more healing and a more compassionate world. Although I was offered the opportunity to be as extraordinarily wealthy as my father is, I walked away from that entirely and I told him, "I don't want a trust fund, I don't want an inheritance, I don't want to live off of your fortune, because I want to seek my own values and I want to live completely congruent with that. I want to find my own powers and my own path in life and I want to follow the inner, the divine call that I feel. I don't know where it will lead."

I was a young man. I couldn't say to him, "Oh, I'm going to write books that are going to be nominated for Pulitzer Prizes and become best sellers. Who knew that would ever occur. I only knew that I had a commitment within myself, a conviction, and that I had to be part of making the world a better place for all of life; and selling ice-cream just didn't fit with that. So I walked away from it and I made a choice for integrity. It was not a choice my parents felt real happy about. There was an alienation as a result of it, although a lot of that's been healed in subsequent years. The reality is that although I don't have anything like the financial wealth that I would have had, you know if I had stayed with Baskin Robbins, I have an inner wealth, that comes from knowing that my life is in alignment with my heart, and I think that's priceless.

I: Thank you so much for your work.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

An Interview with John Robbins (Part 1)

From Supreme Master Television, Episode 179 and 186 (Originally in English)

Today on our show, we have a very special guest. Mr. John Robbins is the bestselling author of "Diet for a New America" and his new book "Healthy at 100." John Robbins is the only son of the founder of the largest ice-cream chain in the world, Baskin Robbins. Instead of inheriting the overwhelming wealth and privilege of this ice-cream empire, Mr. Robbins chose to disavow his inheritance and become a vegan activist. He published his Pulitzer Prize nominated book, "Diet for a New America" in 1987 in order to showcase the problems of factory farming and to encourage others to follow a plant-based diet. Within five years following publication of his book, beef sales in the United States dropped by nearly 20%. Since that time, he has traveled throughout the world speaking and writing about all aspects of healthy living, including writing numerous other bestselling books. We are honored to share with you his inspiring example of healthy living. Mr. Robbins shares with us his profound thoughts and inspiration which followed the publication of his first book, "Diet for a New America." Let's now join Mr. John Robbins.

Interviewer: In "Diet for a New America," you do a very thorough research on the environmental, social and health impacts of animal production for food. Could you speak a little bit about the values in relation to our food choices, and the impact that might have on the people around us?

John: That's a great question. Most often when people buy food at the market, restaurant or the fast food store, they don't really think about it except for how much it costs and how it tastes. Maybe they think a little bit about what it's going to do to their waistlines and that's usually about it. But there are so many more consequences, from the choices we make, on our health that we don't tend to think about, and also the health of the world.

The Impact of Our Food Choices

On the environment, on the people who are involved in food production, there are social implications, there are enormous consequences to the way we as a culture eat, the way we as a community prepare our food, the way we as established individuals share our food; and I've tried to enlarge people's thinking around it, make people more aware that there is an animal involved.

For example, if you're eating meat, drinking milk, eating cheese, or any kind of animal product, there is an animal at one end of the system. What happened to that animal? How was it treated? Because modern meat production has developed in a particular way that makes for profit, for agribusiness, but it makes for enormous suffering for the animals involved. They are confined in what are called intensive conditions that often give the animals no more space than their body requires; they're in cages the size of their bodies. They would actually have more space if you stuffed them into the trunk of a sub-compact car and kept them there. They can't move at all, and that's the point. Because if the animal can't move, it can't, so to speak, waste calories in movement. So it's profitable but it's horribly cruel.

Modern factory farming is unbelievably cruel. It violates the instincts and the needs that are basic to the animal. I'm talking about cows, I'm talking about chickens, I'm talking about turkeys, and I'm talking about pigs, veal calves. All the animals that are involved in modern meat production are treated by large scale animal agriculture as if they had no needs of their own, as if they weren't living beings; they're just commodities in a supply chain. The fact that they have any kind of instinct and need for space, for movement, any kind of social needs, any kind of need, not to be in abject pain, is not part of the equation. So as consumers, we need to grasp that as the reality, and we have to ask, "Is eating products from systems like that in alignment with our values?"

If we are people who want there to be peace on Earth, we want to begin with ourselves. If we are people who want there to be less suffering in the world, then we want our lives to contribute to less suffering. If we are people who want the world to be a thriving, prosperous place for all kinds of creatures, then what are we doing to our bodies, what are we doing to the Earth, and what are we doing to the entire Earth community when we eat food that's produced in that way? I think it's a violation of the human-animal bond, I think it's a violation of our own spirits. I know it's absolutely devastating to the animals that are involved, and I can't ignore them. I can't sit down to eat and think, "Oh, it comes from the butcher," and not remember the eyes of cows I've looked into. Not remember cats and dogs I've loved and thought, "Well, why do we make this interesting distinction?"

In this culture, we tend to do this. We call some animals pets, we love them, we lavish our care on them, and we often experience that they are part of our families; it's quite beautiful actually. But then in another group of animals, we call them dinner; and by virtue of that distinction, we feel that it is acceptable to visit upon those animals any matter of cruelty as long as it lowers the price per pound. What level of distinction are we operating there? Does that line go right through our hearts and split us in two? I think so.

My work has been very much about awakening people to the reality that how animals are treated in meat production and in food production is something we need to consider if we want our food choices to be in integrity with our hearts. If we want our lives to be a statement of compassion, not cruelty, then we need to look at the choices we're making and what really are the consequences.

I: So the thing that was so beautiful about "Diet for a New America" is you presented very thorough research on the environmental impact, and the greater community that many don't think of. Can you speak a little about environmental sustainability relative to food choices because that was a very enlightening thing for me when I first read your book?

Simple Living So Others May Simply Live

J: Thank you! Many people today want to lead more Earth friendly lives or want to create lifestyles that are in harmony with the planet, that don't consume egregious levels of resources, that don't create disastrous levels of pollution. It's becoming ever more obvious that the way we've treated the atmosphere, leading to destabilization of the climate, and in many, many ways our relationship to the Earth as a culture, is completely out of balance. So people are looking for how they can seek to correct that. And it turns out that the food choices that are healthiest for our bodies that lower our cholesterol, that make us the leanest, fittest instruments to operate in, that are kindest to the other animals because they don't have the kind of cruelty that's involved in modern meat production, are also the ones that are environmentally most benign. They consume the least resources. They allow the most of these resources to be available to feed other people. Therefore, they are the most honest and effective answer we have to world hunger issues. And they are ecologically the obvious, virtuous thing to do.

I'll give you an example. It takes sixteen pounds of grain to make the average pound of feed live beef. And virtually all the grain eaten in the United States is feed live beef; and in all modern industrialized countries too. Sixteen pounds of grain to make a pound of beef, that's the feed conversion ratio. Well it only takes one pound of grain to make a pound of whole wheat bread or to prepare a pound of rice. We're wasting the other fifteen pounds. It's just basically going into manure which doesn't get used as a fertilizer because that's how the system has gone out of whack; it just becomes a pollutant in the water table. What happens when you eat lower on the food chain, you eat a more plant-based diet, you move in a vegetarian or vegan direction, you are in effect consuming far less resources, and therefore there is less water pollution, there is less air pollution, there is less soil erosion, there are fewer greenhouse gases involved.

Basically you have a lighter footprint on the planet and you are taking a step with that footprint that leads other people. We are such social creatures around our food, and when you take a step that is honoring the Earth, that's living simply so others may simply live, that's honoring all of our children's right and need to have a livable planet in the future, that's honoring all of our rights and needs to have a stable climate in the future. And you're doing that with a food choice that's also healthy for your body and that is also kinder for the animals. You're in a state of integrity and you're in a state of clarity about who you are and what you want your statement to the world to be through the way you live. And you want that to be a statement of consciousness, conscience, compassion and care. Or do you want to be like unfortunately most people in the modern world and let it be a statement merely of convenience and unfortunately that translates into indifference to the planet, to the animals and in fact, to your own health needs?

You Can Make A Difference

If you never have been to an animal factory farm or a slaughterhouse, check these out!

Jika anda tidak pernah ke ladang kilang ternakan atau rumah sembelih, sila layari yg berikut!

The Terrible Treatment of Turkeys

The Cruel Fate of Cows

The Pititful Plight of Poultry

A Plea for Mercy for Pigs

Also visit:
Emotional World of Farm Animals

约翰.罗宾斯 先生专访 (II)


采访者: 您提到食物在我们社会上所代表的意义,是非常有意思的。现代的家庭,大家很少有时间坐下来,像我们以前那样一起进餐。可否请您说说您的生活方式,特别是家人团聚方面?我知道您是三代同堂。

约翰: 是的!我与结缡四十年的妻子、成年的儿子、媳妇,还有他们的六岁双胞胎--我们的孙子,三代一起住在一栋房子里,而且相处得很好。我们深爱彼此,价值观非常一致。我不认为人人都可以这样做,但我们的情况非常融洽。大部分的食物我们都是自己准备,我们不常外出进餐。假如餐厅能多提供我想要的食物,我也会出去吃。我们的饮食很简单、很健康,完全是素食的。原因我已经提过了,而且它也让我们全家团聚在一起。



采访者: 我想请问您关于食品添加物的问题,尤其是动物性食品含有大量的荷尔蒙和其它添加物。我们吃素,也不吃蛋。过去的论点认为蛋是完美的蛋白质来源之一,请谈谈您对蛋及纯素生活方式的看法?


我们从现代医学得知,人体需要动物性蛋白质的说法其实是言过其实,因为许多提出这类说法的研究,是由动物性产品制造业赞助研究的,包括:美国奶制品委员会(National Dairy Council)、禽蛋委员会(Egg Board)、肉品协会(Meat Board)、美国畜牧者协会(National Cattlemen's Association),还有许多食品行业诱导人们相信,必须食用他们的产品才能获取足够蛋白质,藉以从中获利。




采访者: 所以大家应该改吃素食,特别是不含蛋奶的纯素饮食,就像您的新书《健康壹百岁》的标题一样。



采访者: 是,这是有趣的现象。我要恭喜您荣获清海无上师颁发的「全球优秀领导奖」,表彰您对人道主义的贡献。您基于个人的价值观和选择,放弃非常富裕的生活,您所展现的高雅行谊,令她十分欣喜且印象深刻。


采访者: 十分感激您所做的贡献,我知道当您的书《新世纪饮食》出版几年后,美国的牛肉销售减少了将近二成,而且霍华.李曼(Howard Lyman)和其它动物保育人士也揭发牛肉业的可怕内情。我认为二十年后还能见到这个涟漪效应,真是有意思。

约翰: 你可以换算看看牛肉消费量降低二成后,可使心脏病病例减少多少?可使癌症病例减少多少?可使罹患糖尿病的人数减少多少?并非这些疾病已不再构成威胁,而是减少牛肉的消费量后,这些病症的发生率已经降低到某种程度。你也可以换算看看,由于这些成果,让多大面积的热带雨林保留了下来?要不然,它们可能已经遭到破坏了。由于这些成果,让多少物种存活了下来?要不然,他们可能早已绝种了。减少牛肉消费,我们必须处理的水污染问题减少了多少?温室效应气体又减少了多少?人们依然在破坏环境,不过这是重要的一步,如果其它人也这么做,我会觉得很满足。然后我们在这个道路上继续努力,直到有一天屠宰场成为记忆,世界饥荒、环境破坏都成为记忆,那就是我最高兴的时候了。

采访者: 我同意。我们世界会全球的会员都在推动「您也可以选择这样的生活」,努力传播讯息,鼓励人们选择爱心的饮食方式。

约翰: 今天的人类和动物很疏远。如果人们对动物仍有印象,他们的印象通常还停留在一些家庭式的农场,农场内有动物在四处奔跑。然而现在的肉品生产已经完全变成制度化经营,完全由利润动机所支配,而且真正违背了人类衷心想与世界其它众生和谐共存并照顾其福祉的愿望。

采访者: 我想请教您的最后一个问题,是关于您个人灵修的动力。我们世界会的会员都有打坐。许多人有不同的修行方法,请问您获得灵性和谐的秘诀为何?



采访者: 约翰,您放弃了巴斯金.罗宾斯庞大的企业王国。许多观众可能不知道,巴斯金.罗宾斯是全球最大的冰淇淋连锁企业,在全世界有五千多家连锁店,提供三十一种口味的冰淇淋,风行全世界。令尊和您的姨丈开创这个事业,然而您却对冰淇淋没兴趣。


但事实上,你吃越多冰淇淋,就越可能得到心脏病,也越可能罹患糖尿病。我父亲就有严重的糖尿病。不仅是巴斯金.罗宾斯企业,美国另一家很大的冰淇淋连锁企业「班和杰瑞公司」(Ben and Jerry's),它的其中一位创办人兼合伙人班.柯汉(Ben Cohen)拥有这个企业多年,但是他在四十九岁时就施行心血管绕道手术,而且是五条血管的手术,由此可见他的心脏、血管的病情多么严重。他也是体格魁伟,吃了很多冰淇淋。



采访者: 非常感谢您的贡献。

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

约翰.罗宾斯 先生专访

今天在我们节目中有一位非常特别的来宾,那就是约翰.罗宾斯先生(John Robbins),他是畅销书《新世纪饮食》(Diet for a New America)及刚出版的新书《健康壹百岁》(Healthy at 100)的作者,也是全球最大的冰淇淋连锁店巴斯金.罗宾斯(Baskin Robbins)的创办人之独子。然而罗宾斯先生并没有继承冰淇淋王国的庞大财富与殊荣,反而选择放弃继承权,成为一位素食主义的倡导者。1987年,他出版了荣获普立兹奖(Pulitzer Prize)提名的著作《新世纪饮食》,揭露工厂化养殖农场的问题,并鼓励大家采行素食的饮食方式。这本书出版后的五年内,美国的牛肉销售量下滑了将近百分之二十。从那时起,他奔走世界各地发表演说,并撰写许多畅销的著作,全方位探讨如何过健康的生活。我们很荣幸与您分享他这种激励人心的健康生活方式。罗宾斯先生要和我们分享他在第一本书《新世纪饮食》出版后的一些深刻见解与发人深省的观点,我们一起来欢迎罗宾斯先生。

采访者: 在《新世纪饮食》一书中,您深入探讨了荤食对环境、社会与健康的影响。可否请您谈谈食物选择的重要性,及其对我们周遭的人所产生的影响?

约翰: 这是很好的问题。通常人们在市场、餐厅或快餐店购买食物时,只会考虑到价格和味道,不会想到其它方面;或许他们还会考虑一下食物对腰围有什么影响,通常就只有这样。但事实上,我们对食物的选择,会严重影响我们的健康、影响地球的健全,这些后果通常都被我们所忽略。








采访者: 所以《新世纪饮食》一书最精采的地方就是,您就饮食选择对环境的冲击以及对社会层面的影响,提出非常精辟的探讨,这些层面许多人都不曾想过。可以请您谈谈食物的选择与环境永续性之间的关系吗?当我第一次读您的书时,这方面的见解让我觉得非常具有启发性。



约翰: 谢谢!现在有许多人想过着更环保的生活,或是想创造一种与地球和谐共处的生活方式,不再挥霍资源,不再制造污染、带来灾害。很显然地,我们对待环境的方式造成了气候的不稳定,使我们在许多方面与地球的关系完全失去平衡。所以人们在寻找补救的方法,最后发现选择素食对我们的身体才是最健康的,能降低胆固醇又能让我们体态轻盈健美,而且没有现代化肉品生产的残酷制造过程,所以是善待动物的表现,同时也是对环境最有利的选择。素食消耗的资源最少,保留了大部分资源,让其它人的粮食不虞匮乏,这才是解决世界饥荒最实际、最有效的方法,显然也符合环保理念、符合道德规范。



Monday, October 13, 2008

Ex-cattle farmer says no to meat

Cattle-farmer-turned-vegan Harold Brown gives a talk entitled "Animal Killer to Animal Advocate," sponsored by the Dartmouth Animal Welfare Group.

Photo: Tiffany Ho/The Dartmouth Staff

Former beef cattle farmer and mechanic Harold Brown decided to become a vegetarian after learning the word from a bumper sticker on the back of a car that he repaired. The slogan read, "I don't eat my friends," and after asking the vehicle's owner what the sticker meant, Brown further investigated and gained an appreciation for the concept of vegetarianism.

"I had gone four years to Michigan State University. I don't think I was that stupid, but I had never heard that word. I hooked up with some people in Cleveland, found out what these funny v-words meant, and started making changes in my diet. My health improved," Brown said.

Brown, who now works for Farm Sanctuary, a shelter for farm animals in upstate New York, spoke about his personal experience with animals and the benefits of vegetarianism to Dartmouth students on Monday evening in the Rockefeller Center. The lecture, titled "Animal Killer to Animal Advocate" was sponsored by the Dartmouth Animal Welfare Group and the Council on Student Organizations. The animal welfare club also invited a speaker from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to speak on vegeterianism earlier this term.

Brown first began making changes to his diet after learning that his blood pressure and family history dictated a need for an alteration in his lifestyle. Without a change in his diet, doctors predicted that he would need bypass surgery by the time he turned 35. Brown responded by giving up red meat, cutting back on dairy products and increasing his intake of lean, white meats.

Brown's decision to stop eating beef while still working and eating on his grandfather's cattle farm caused a tension between him and his family members. Life became so stressful that Brown and his wife moved to Cleveland, Ohio, where he saw the bumper sticker that drastically changed his habits. He became a vegetarian, and after one year, switched to a completely vegan diet. After a few years on this regime, Brown is virtually safe from heart attacks.

"I realized that if I wanted to do what is optimal for this organism that I live in, I needed to be vegan," Brown explained.

During the question and answer session, Brown corrected students' misconceptions about his vegan lifestyle, addressing the overly stressed importance of protein in America.

"In America, it comes down to an argument between the big three — beef, fish or chicken," Brown stated. "We eat 5-10 times more protein in this country than we need to."

He argued that while protein rebuilds tissue, carbohydrates, which are found in abundance in plant products, are what supply humans with energy.

He attributed the high rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancer in the United States to excessive consumption of pathogen- and hormone-filled meat.

"Of all the cancers, the ones that have grown the fastest in the last 30 years besides the ones from smoking are hormone cancers," Brown said. "We're eating stuff that has a lot of hormones in it already. They just don't tell you."

A vegan diet has proven to be both beneficial and cost-effective for Brown. His discovery of plant-based ethnic cuisine from countries such as Ethiopia and India and his exploration of different varieties of vegetables has expanded both his spice rack and palette.

Brown also discovered that money can be saved by buying fruits and vegetables instead of meat, reputing the myth that a vegan spends more money on food than a meat-eater.

"On average, steaks start at $2.99 per pound and up, whereas a five pound bag of apples will cost you about four bucks," Brown explained.

Prior to his speech, Brown showed his audience an excerpt from the documentary Peaceable Kingdom, a film that chronicles the stories of farmers who left the agricultural industry to pursue the ethical treatment of animals. The film features numerous interviews with Brown, and the third edition is slated for release this summer.

By Brook Jackling,
Published on Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Book review - Diet For A New America (好书推荐 - 新世纪饮食)

Book review - Diet For A New America
好书推荐 - 新世纪饮食

If you care about your health and the environment, yet are confused as how your diet is going to affect you and your children;or after reading so much hazardous effect of meat-based diet, you may wish to change to a plant-based diet but still have doubts, then please go and get a copy of this book - DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA written by John Robbins, all the answers are there.

You can get the English version from MPH book stores, and the Chinese version from Popular book stores or from most of the book stores in Malaysia. If you are lucky and you don't mind reading secondhand book, you may find one with half the price or less in the Pay Less book stores. You can also get a copy from Lapis Lazuli Light Centre in Klang tel : 03-51625911 (open on Sat & Sun only) or from, that's for sure !

You will have no regret reading this book, for your own sake, and for the sake of your family, your country and your only home - our Planet Earth !


MPH 书局有售卖英文本,大众书局则有中文本,在马来西亚的一般书局均可以找得到;如果你不介意用二手书,幸运的话,可能在 PAY LESS 书局以一半或更便宜的价钱买到。你也肯定可以在巴生的琉璃光中心 电话 :03-51625911(只在星期六和星期天开放〕或 上网在亚马逊网站 购得。

为了您本身着想,还有您的家人,您的国家,还有您这一生唯一的家 - 我们的地球,您决不会后悔阅读这本好书。

John Robbins John Robbins is the author of the internationally best-selling Diet for a New America. How Your Food Choices Affect Your Health, Happiness, and the Future of Life on Earth. Considered to be one of the world's leading experts on the dietary link to the environment and health, he is the founder of EarthSave International, a nonprofit organization that supports healthy food choices, preservation of the environment, and a more compassionate world. Many of the nation's leading authorities in health and ecology have called his work among the most important of the century.

The recipient of the 1994 Rachel Carson Award, John Robbins's life and work have been featured in an hour-long PBS special entitled Diet for a New America.

An eloquent spokesperson for a healthy and sustainable future, he has received standing ovations at thousands of conferences and speaking engagements worldwide, including the United Nations. John Robbins lives with his family in Santa Cruz, California.
约翰罗宾是这本国际畅销书 -新世纪饮食的作者。内容细说饮食选择将如何影响你的健康,快乐,和未来地球的生命,是全球其中一位率先把饮食和环境与健康的关系连贯在一起的著名专家,他也是EarthSave International 的发起人, 一个支持健康饮食生活方式,环境保护和慈悲世界的非营利组织。许多国家的健康和生态保护领导单位视他的付出为本世纪极为重要的贡献。



Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Tumbuhan Indah yg Serap Gas Tercemar

Berikut ialah bbrp pohon kecil yg indah, yg boleh diletak dlm rumah, pejabat atau tempat merokok, utk menyerap gas atau asap tercemar di udara.

1) yellow palm (Chrysalindocarpus lutescens)
- boleh menyerap gas monoksida, gas pencemar udara yg utama, keluaran kenderaan dan kilang-kilang. Jenis yellow palm yg lain juga merupakan penyerap gas pencemar yg baik. Ia mampu menghasilkan seliter wap air dlm masa 24 jam, yg membolehkannya menyerap sejumlah besar gas beracun.

2) Paris lily (Cholorophyllum clevelandii)
- boleh menyerap gas monoksida.

3) Tumbuhan aglaonema(Aglaonema brevispathan)
-boleh serap formaldehyde dan benzena. Benzena ialah sebatian kimia yg berbahaya, ditemui dlm minyak, bahan api dan asap rokok, yg boleh mengakibatkan ludah dan sakit kepala bila kita terdedah kpdnya dlm dos yg banyak.

4) lidah mertua, or sansieveira (Sansieviera trivasciata)
Daun lidah mertua mampu menyerap gas beracun, formaldehyde, pada kadar 0.938 gram/jam.

Gas formaldehide merupakan gas tak berwarna yg mengganggu pernafasan. Ia terbebas daripada asap pembakaran hutan, asap dari sistem ekzos kenderaan dan asap rokok.
Gas berbahaya ini biasanya digunakan utk kekalkan mayat, sbg bahan pengawet dlm cat, salah satu ramuan dlm kosmetik dan ubat, dan dlm pemprosesan kayu.

Pohon indah, penyegar udara berkesan yg lain ialah:

5) blanceng, or Chinese evergreen (Araceae)
6) sirih gading (Scindapsus aureus)
7) lidah buaya (Aloe vera)

Pokok tumbuhan dlm pasu kecil ini, harus dipindah ke luar, utk menyerap cahaya mahatari, setiap dua atau tiga hari. Baja organik boleh digunakan untuk tumbuhan ini.

Sumber (source, in English):

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Livestock-farmer-turned-vegetarian Howard Lyman on "The Oprah Winfrey Show"

Howard on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" April 15th, 1996

SEGMENT START: "Mad Cow Disease, it's a medical mystery spreading panic across the Atlantic. In England, 20 puzzling deaths of young people in recent years may be linked to a rare and fatal brain disorder in cattle. British scientists believe the victims may have eaten diseased beef, as many as 10 years ago. The afflicted cattle shake and contort like mad dogs before what must be an excruciating and inevitable death."

In human beings, dementia and paralysis precede death. Scientists speculate that cattle contract the disease by feeding on sheep parts that are infected with another disease. A practice officially banned in England in 1989. The disease can take years to develop. McDonald's and Burger King in England have stopped selling British beef. Europe has refused to import it and now Britain will destroy 4.7 million older cows that may have fed sheep parts. The scare is turning a nation of beef eaters away from their favorite food. Could it happen here? American officials say no, but so did the British government until last month. Though the link between cattle and humans has not been definitively proven, and there's no test for Mad Cow Disease, the fear it has generated may destroy an industry and dramaticall alter the way we eat."


* Oprah Winfrey (Host)
* Howard Lyman (Executive Director of the Humane Society's "Eating with Conscience" Campaign)
* Dr. Gary Weber (National Cattlemen's Beef Association Representative)
* Dr. Will Hueston (United States Department of Agriculture Representative)

Oprah: Dr. Gary Weber is with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. He says our government regulations has seen to it that our beef supply is safe. My next guest disagrees, he believes the United States will face a similar crisis within the next ten years, have mercy. Howard Lyman is a former cattle rancher, turned vegetarian. You hear me? Former cattle rancher turned vegetarian, we wanna know why, and Executive Director of the Humane Society's "Eating With Conscience" Campaign. You said this disease cold make aids look like the common cold?

Howard: Absolutely.

Oprah: That's an extreme statement you know?

Howard: Absolutely, and what we're looking at right now is we're following exactly the same path that they followed in England. Ten years of dealing with it as public relations rather than doing something substantial about it. 100,000 cows per year in the United States are fine at night, dead in the morning. The majority of those cows are rounded up, ground up, fed back to other cows. If only one of them has Mad Cow Disease, has the potential to effect thousands. Remember today, the United States, 14% of all cows by volume are ground up, turned into feed, and fed back to other animals.

Oprah: But cows are herbivores, they shouldn't be eating other cows

Howard: That's exactly right, and what we should be doing is exactly what nature says, we should have them eating grass not other cows. We've not only turned them into carnivores, we've turned them into cannibals.

Oprah: Now see, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me just ask you this right now Howard. How do you know the cows are ground up and fed back to the other cows?

Howard: Oh, I've seen it. These are U.S.D.A. statistics, they're not something we're making up.

Oprah: Now doesn't that concern you all a little bit, right here, hearing that?

Audience: Yeah!

Oprah: It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!

Audience: (Claps loudly and shouts) yeah!

Oprah: Dr. Gary Weber says we do not have a reason to be concerned, but that in itself is disturbing to me, cows should not be eating other cows!

Dr. Gary Weber: Well, let me clarify that. There is a reason to be concerned. We've learned from the tragedy in Great Britain and made a decision here both government...

Oprah: Well we learned in the past two weeks...

Weber: No, no, we started taking initiatives ten years ago to make sure this never happened here. Let me go back and correct a couple of things. Number one, we do not have BSE in this country and we have a ten year history of surveillance to document that based on science, we do not have it. Also, we have not imported any beef in this country since 1985 from Great Britain.

Oprah: Are we feeding cattle to the cattle?

Weber: There is a limited amount of that done in the United States...

Audience: (groans)

Weber: Hang on just a second now... the food and drug administration...

Oprah: 'cause I have to just tell you that is alarming to me, that is alarming to me.

Weber: Yeah, now keep in mind that before you view the ruminant animal, the cow is simply vegetarian, remember that they drink milk.

Oprah: So you're saying that this could never happen here?

Weber: No, we're doing everything we need to do.

Oprah: I know, but Dr. Weber are you saying that we've been watching this for ten years, are you saying that every cow that's ever died, they've examined the reason why that cow died, before they ground that cow up and fed him to another cow?

Weber: No that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying we do not have the disease here, we've got ten years of data, the best scientists in the world who are looking for this. Over 250 trained technicians and veterinarians around the country. Everyone's watching for this, everyone would like to in a way, want to find this if it is there because they want to protect our industry and of course the public.

Oprah: OK, lets meet this man, Dr. Will Hueston is with the United States Department of Agriculture. Dr. Hueston, you think Mad Cow is a threat to U.S. cattle?

Dr. Will Hueston: I think it's an issue we need to be on top of at all times but there's no evidence at all that we have the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the United States.

Oprah: What dya' just say?

Audience: (laughs)

Hueston: What I, yes, I've given you a mouthful, but I think it's important Oprah, and especially, and I appreciate you having this show to help clarify some of these issues...

Oprah: Yeah, me too!

Hueston: That the term Mad Cow stimulates a whole lot of feelings and concerns in people, and remember cows can get mad for a lot of reasons. This is a disease, a specific disease in Great Britain, a tragic disease of cattle called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy and we use they initials B.S.E.

Oprah: OK, I wanna know why Howard, who used to be a cattle rancher, it was a cattle rancher you were?

Howard: Yes.

Oprah: Why are you now a vegetarian? What made you turn?

Howard: Well, what I know about what is happening out there with cattle, like feeding cows to cows, I look at it and say that's a risk that I am unwilling to take. The same things that we've heard here today, is exactly what was heard for ten years in England, "Not to worry, we're on top of this." You know, we've had a ban in the United States of feeding sheep to cows for a long time, but when they went out and looked, 25% of the renderers admitted that they were paying no attention to it. Voluntary bans do not work and if we continue to do what we're doing, feeding animals to animals, I believe we are going to be in exactly the same place because I've heard all of these things before in England, we're on top of this, it's safe, we would not put the public at risk, they have put the public at risk.

Oprah: Yeah, of course they said that, yeah. Even Dr. Weber, you know that of course they said that, because what else are they going to say? What else are they going to say? They going to say public you are at risk, some of you may die and the cows are going to go crazy, they couldn't say that.

Howard: Ask yourself the question. Today we could do exactly what the English did and cease feeding cows to cows. Why in the world are we not doing that? Why are we skating around this and continuing to do it when everybody sitting here knows that, that would be the safest thing to do, why is it, why is it? Because we have the greedy that are getting the ear of government instead of the needy and that's exactly why we're doing it.

Audience: (applause)

Oprah: We have a lot of questions about this Mad Cow Disease that we'd like to try to get resolved, because we don't want to just alarm you all, but I have to tell you, I'm thinking about the cattle being fed to the cattle and that's pretty upsetting to me, Yes mam?

Audience Member: I just had one question, I'm confused about why cattle are being fed lamb and why are they being fed beef?

Howard: Well, what it comes down to is about half of the slaughter of animals is non-sellable to humans. They either have to pay to put it into the dump or they sell it for feed, they grind it up turn it into something that looks like brown sugar, add to it all of the animals that died unexpectantly, all of the road kills and the euthinized animals,. add it to em', grind it up and feed it back to other animals. It's about as simple as you can be. We are doing something to an animal that was never intended to be done.

Oprah: OK, so the point I wanted to ask Dr. Weber, and I think I asked this earlier, but let's get this clear, Oh that's your point isn't it?, during the commercial break, oh the lady in black, what was your question? You can ask it.

Audience Member: My question was, are the animals tested before they're ground? Are all of the animals that are ground into feed that are fed to the cows?

Weber: There is no test other than analyzing the brains, and sinc we don't have animals with these symptoms, not every brain is going to be evaluated.

Oprah: OK, so the answer to your question is no.

Weber: Its no, that's correct. No animal can enter the plant that has any of these symptoms, by law. And there's veterinarians and inspections and it doesn't happen Howard and you know it. It doesn't happen.

Howard: Oh come on, let's get real! Any animal that is not staggering around goes in there, you know as well as I do, we have 100,000 cows per year that die. They take 2,700 brains out, of those less than a hundred of them, they look for prions, they were looking for Spongiform. We ended up feeding downed cows to mink, the mink come with the disease, transferred it to animals, the animals came down with it, and your sitting here telling everybody that it's safe, not true.

Weber: Howard, Howard, I understand..

Audience: (applause)


Sunday, October 5, 2008

Antara Penyakit dan Kos Pemakanan Daging

-Penyakit lidah biru
-E coli
-Flu burung
-Penyakit lembu gila
-Penyakit khinzir (PMWS)
-Keracunan Kerang


-Lbh 17 juta nyawa terkorban di seluruh dunia setiap thn.
-Kos penyakit kardiovaskular adalah sekurang²nya US$1 trilion setahun.

-Lebih sejuta pesakit kanser kolon baru didiagnosis setiap tahun.
-Lebih drpd 600,000 kematian berkaitan dgn kanser kolon setiap tahun.
-Di Amerika Syarikat shj, kos rawatan kanser kolon adalah kira² US$6.5 bilion.
-Berjuta² org baru didiagnosis dgn kanser akibat pemakanan daging setiap tahun.

-246 juta org di seluruh dunia dijangkiti.
-Jangkaan US$174 bilion dibelanjakan setiap tahun utk rawatan


Friday, October 3, 2008


Even before the last speck of dust could settle from the devastating Sichuan earthquake and the last round of resounding hand clapping and feet stomping have stopped at the closing ceremony of the recent Olympics, China is once again at the forefront of the world's attention. This time, a scandal that not only threatens the lives of its future generations but those of its neighbours.

When news of mass poisonings from its toxic milk powder spread like wild fire over to Malaysian shores, my sister called me up and asked if she should get rid of all foodstuff that has milk as an ingredient. I don't blame her for going crazy as she still has a 6-year old imp who, occasionally, still finds comfort in the milk bottle. Her little girl threatened to run away if mommy dared throw away her milk powder! After calming them down, I asked mommy to check if the milk powder was manufactured locally or imported from a 'safe' country. She heaved a sigh of relief when she checked and confirmed that it was indeed imported and from a reliable manufacturer. So now, daughter and mommy are both happy. But everything else in the fridge and in the pantry went into the garbage chute : ice-creams, chocolates, cream biscuits, milk wafers and just about anything that looks like it might contain milk and its by products. That's a lot of good money down the chute, if you ask me!

It is reported that thousands of children have been hospitalised with kidney problems after consuming milk formula that was tainted with MELAMINE, a cheap industrial chemical. Apparently, it was used to add more protein properties to ordinary milk powder in a bid to pass quality checks.

Protein is an important nutrient required by our body but an overdose of it(usually from consuming too much meat) can prove hazardous to our health. Too much of it is either converted into fat or excreted through the liver which, when overworked, will turn the excess protein into urea. The kidneys then filters out the urea as well as the protein unprocessed. As a result of this heavy workload on the kidneys, they eventually enlarge and this can cause untold damage. And in order to flush out the urea, we need to drink lots of water and this is where children are the worst victims.

When infants are put on a high-protein diet (as in the Melamine added milk powder),
it can lead to hypernatremic dehydration because their small bodies use up an excessive amount of water when their kidneys filter out the urea content. This dehydration process can lead to brain damage as well as kidney failure and eventual death! At the last count, at least a dozen or more children have lost their lives due to drinking the tainted milk.

In a nation where the one-child policy is a mandatory rule, parents whose children are affected will have to come to terms with having to face the fact that their only child will never lead a normal and healthy life ever again. The best lawyers and whatever compensations that may be meted out will never be able to make a difference to these anguished families.

Neighbouring countries in South East Asia raised the alarm and start to ban all China-made food products which contain milk and its by-products. The European Union
has placed a ban on children's food imports from China. Other European countries are also following suit to safeguard their people's health and lives. Random food checks on China food products containing milk are being carried out elsewhere.

Closer to home, our Health Ministry is setting up more labs in every state to carry out tests at a quicker pace. So far, it has been identified that products locally manufactured by 34 companies are safe and free from melamine contamination. The Ministry was able to verify that the milk ingredients used by these companies were not sourced from China and as a double precaution, have also been tested to be safe by the Chemistry Department.

Be that as it may, many of us will hesitate to pick up anything from the Supermarket shelf without checking on its ingredients from now on. There may also be many who are ignorant of what is going on and will still continue to feed their children and themselves with unsafe food.

There is no way anyone can stop unscrupulous people from making a fast buck at the expense of another's life. It's a sad, sad world we are living in these days. When will man ever learn to live and let live?

Oh well, I guess there is something good to be said in spite of all this : Friends of mine are making an effort to stay off milk and its related products and also promise themselves to a less-meat diet now that they are more aware of its adverse consequences on the environment. Mothers-to-be will definitely opt to breast feed their new-borns in light of this tragedy. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that young and innocent lives have to be sacrificed for the world to sit up and take note of the food they now consume.

Some things have to happen and for a good reason. So, if it is any comfort to the affected families in China, their present suffering may help to save other lives now and in the future. Who knows, God moves in mysterious ways.... someone out there somewhere may be working out a rescue mission for the affected children. We pray that the day will come soon. If all else should fail, let's all still hold on to our faith and hope in the Almighty.

Take care, live right and eat healthy!!

If you want to know more on the dangers of excess protein:!&id=191820

For an update of products on suspect list (in Malaysia):

Health Ministry labs to hasten Melamine tests:

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Penterjemahan Penulisan Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, ketua IPCC, PBB

Berikut ialah penterjemahan sebahagian penulisan Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (daripada bahasa Inggeris) dlm blog beliau: Blog Dr. R K Pachauri
Perubahan Cara Hidup untuk Planet yang Sihat

Beberapa minggu yang lepas, saya telah berceramah secara awam tentang manfaat pengurangan makanan daging sebagai cara untuk kurangkan pengeluaran gas rumah hijau. Seperti yang telah dijangkakan, hasilnya, saya telah terima beberapa komen yang positif dan sejumlah lain yang merupakan kritikan tegas. Tujuan saya mengutarakan isu ini hanyalah untuk mewujudkan perdebatan dalam subjek ini. Laporan sintesis yang merupakan sebahagian daripada Laporan Penilaian Keempat, Panel Antara Kerajaan bagi Perubahan Iklim (IPCC) menyatakan dgn jelas, “Juga terdapat persetujuan dan bukti medium bahawa perubahan dalam gaya hidup dan corak tingkah laku boleh menyumbang kpd pengurangan perubahan iklim melibatkan semua sektor. Amalan pengurusan juga boleh mengambil peranan yg positif.” Dalam pandangan saya, suatu komponen penting perubahan gaya hidup yg berkaitkan perubahan dlm diet, mengikut fakta boleh membawakan peningkatan dlm kesihatan manusia. Dlm kes pemakanan daging, terdapat manfaat yg bukan saja terhadap individu yg mengurangkan pemakanan daging tetapi juga manfaat dari segi pengurangan pengeluaran gas rumah hijau.

Organisasi Makanan dan Agrikultur (FAO) mengeluarkan suatu laporan dlm 2006
yg menganggarkan pengeluaran gas rumah hijau dari agrikultur sbg keseluruhan, yg mana sebanyak 80% adalah disebabkan penghasilan haiwan ternakan. Ini terdiri drpd 18 % pengeluaran gas rumah hijau drpd aktiviti manusia. Suatu perbandingan menarik antara suatu hidangan vegetarian dan stik daging, sbg contoh, yg dibekalkan oleh The New York Times dlm naskah 27 Januari 2008 amatlah terserlah.
Sebuah hidangan terdiri drpd 1 cawan brokoli, 1 cawan terung, 4 auns kubis dan 8 auns nasi menghasilkan persamaan 0.4 paun keluaran CO2. Di sebelah yg lain, 6 auns stik daging menghasilkan persamaan 10 paun keluaran CO2, yg mana adalah 25 kali lebih banyak drpd hidangan vegetarian mengikut perbandingan.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Going Green for Raya

Wow! Edible plate? Have you heard of that?

Made from tapioca, it is so durable that it is even microwavable. However, be minded that it can only store liquid for up to about an hour.

Apparently it is the only product of its kind in Malaysia. According to manufacturer, NHI Sdn. Bhd, they have spent almost 3 years in research and finally now produce them as an alternative to polystyrene which is forever non-degradable!!

These biodegradable plates have a shelf life of 2 years and they biodegrade in 28 days. After which they can be eaten by fishes while also becoming a form of fertilizer when they biodegrade.

The Malacca Chief Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam, will be serving his Raya Open House guests using these environmentally-friendly plates.

“I hope my move to go green during Hari Raya will help promote further use of environmentally friendly products, not only here but also in the country," he further adds.

To read more: Going Green for Raya

Kudos to Malacca Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Mohd Ali Rustam. God bless you for spreading the awareness of using biodegradable products for a greener world during this festive season.

May your noble effort inspire more Malaysian leaders in playing their vital role for Mother Earth. Thank you so much and Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri.