Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/289725836?client_source=feed&format=rss
lone ranger aaron brooks dave matthews band solar flares 2012 whitney houston will toyota recall northern lights
Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/289725836?client_source=feed&format=rss
lone ranger aaron brooks dave matthews band solar flares 2012 whitney houston will toyota recall northern lights
Say it out loud, ?chem-i-cal?. It flows well, and it has a nice ring to it, doesn?t it? What does this word mean? You?d be surprised by most definitions. They may not be considered clear to the less scientifically inclined ? here?s my simple definition in progress, ?Chemicals are elements, or a combination of elements, with a specific composition and structure. All matter is made of chemicals!?
Unfortunately these days, the term ?chemicals? is colloquially misrepresented. They are generally considered offensive, are balked at and even feared, because they might turn you into the Hulk (why?s that so bad? Isn?t he Incredible?), not to mention that ?chemicals? are the source of cancer and an incalculable number of other illnesses. Because of this chemicals are often advertised as the bane of our existence. I think everyone, even those of us who are irked by this popular misuse of the term ?chemical?, must be reminded that absolutely everything is a chemical (see aforementioned definition)! News flash:
- We are chemicals.
- Our friends are chemicals.
- Our babies are chemicals.
- The air we breathe is chemicals.
- The food we consume is chemicals that are digested by chemicals that turn them into more chemicals.
You probably get the point here, but not everyone does! It?s time we start opening more minds to the idea that ?chemical? is not a bad word, chemicals are actually fascinating, and we can?t exist without them. Chemicals Are Your Friends (CAYF) is an ambitious project to try and do just that. The primary goal of CAYF is to spread chemical awareness in an accessible way to everyone by any reasonable means ? like blog posts, photos, videos and songs (yes, I have every intention of writing songs about chemicals!).
The creation of CAYF, less than a month ago, was triggered by two things. In early February I had the pleasure of attending a talk, given by Dr. Effie Sauer, titled ?Teaching chemistry for the future: what do we want our students to remember five years down the road??. Her entire seminar resounded with me, but what was particularly noteworthy were her primary goals which include stimulating enthusiasm for chemistry and purging the negative connation associated with chemicals.
Dr. Sauer?s seminar restarted the wheels in my head that had begun sometime in undergrad and must have veered off track early on in grad school. Then I had an experience which 100% catalyzed CAYF. I am a vegan, and I like to think I am conscientious regarding my food and lifestyle choices. I had discovered a new term, ?veganic?, and was naturally curious. The first site I looked at defines veganic as ?[the growth of] crops without the use of chemicals, compounds or animal inputs of any kind.? There is a lot that is wrong with this definition, but let?s stick to the point of this post. Let?s make a short and obvious list of questions regarding this definition:
- Are crops a complex mixture of chemicals?
- Can crops be grown without the use of chemicals?
- Do soil and fertilizer contain an abundance of chemicals?
- Is water a chemical?
I hope that most people would answer ?YES? to all of the above questions! Some may even go a step further and mention the fascinating chemicals involved, such as the organic (containing primarily carbon and hydrogen atoms) chemicals, photoactive (responsible for harvesting light) chemicals, the nitrogen-containing chemicals, and perhaps the most essential chemical of all, water (two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom). As you might be able to tell, I found this definition of ?veganic? a bit irritating. I should mention that there are more accurate definitions of veganic out there. However, the first I stumbled upon is an excellent example of the motivation behind ?Chemicals are your friends?.
We?ve all seen countless products that are marketed as ?chemical free?. Here is my favorite example, where the interested reader will find that under the heading ?No chemicals? it says, ?Well this one just makes sense; How can our beer be as crisp and clean as ocean air if we put chemicals in it?? Does it make sense? I don?t know about you, but I certainly wouldn?t enjoy beer as much if it didn?t contain ethanol. As Dave Barry said, ?Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.?
Describing toxic and harmful chemicals as just plain ?chemicals? comes from a good place. It is true that not all chemicals are good for us, and even those that are (like water or fluoride) can be harmful if we are exposed to too much or in the wrong way. However, all matter is made of chemicals, so it?s important to be more explicit.
It?s also important to mention the popular and misleading idea that natural chemicals are better for us than synthetic chemicals. First, some of the most toxic chemicals on Earth are natural. Second, sometimes synthetic is safer for your health, such as synthetic melatonin supplements since those naturally derived may contain viral material. Third, some synthetic chemicals are better for the environment, for example natural sources of vanilla (the vanilla bean) are being depleted.
Remember, most chemicals are pretty amazing, they are all around us and they are us. Take a minute to look around you. The objects you are able to see are due to chemicals absorbing light, the things you smell are chemicals binding to your olfactory receptors, and chemical signals in your body are responsible for your ability to sense these things. Chemicals deserve respect and appreciation because whether or not you want to admit it your friends are chemicals!
Images: The Earth seen from Apollo 17 modified from Wikipedia Commons; others: screenshots from sites linked in the text.
Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=a8064046d423d35777a706a28964f7a2
march 30 rimm pauly d project adrienne rich autism cesar chavez day raspberry ketone
This post also appears on Greenbiz.com.
This is Part One of a five-part blog series, ?Aligning Profit and Environmental Sustainability.? Each installment will offer solutions for businesses to better integrate environmental sustainability into their everyday operations. Look for these posts every Thursday for the next four weeks.
Implementing corporate environmental sustainability strategies is increasingly becoming standard practice. For example, more than 300 of the S&P 500 report their greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories each year to the Carbon Disclosure Project, and companies from the Fortune 100 and S&P Global 100 are investing billions of dollars to reach renewable energy procurement targets. Some companies are going further and taking steps to reduce the environmental impact of their products, services, and supply chains.
Despite this encouraging progress, a confluence of global environmental challenges is putting more pressure on corporate environmental sustainability strategies to get to scale quickly. Not enough global businesses have integrated environmental sustainability into their long-term decision making. And, as it stands today, existing practices are not enough to protect the natural resources that society and businesses depend on.
WRI examines this gap between existing corporate sustainability practices and the environmental protection needed for the 21st century in our new report, Aligning Profit and Environmental Sustainability: Stories from Industry. We interviewed sustainability managers from AkzoNobel, Alcoa, Citi, Greif, Johnson & Johnson, Mars, Natura, and Siemens to better understand why strategies that are good for both business and the planet are not getting to scale.
We identified four barriers in these discussions, as well as ways companies can overcome them:
Improved environmental sustainability is not valued in internal capital allocation decisions. Companies often lack the internal mechanisms to properly value the benefits of managing environmental sustainability, such as reduced exposure to energy price volatility, water risks, and other environmental impacts of operations and supply chains.
The goals of corporate sustainability teams and financial teams are not well aligned. Divergent priorities mean that sustainability teams and financial teams often do not effectively engage each other. As a result, sustainability teams are brought into project planning too late to influence project design and cannot make an effective case to financial decision makers.
Companies lack metrics to account for external environmental costs. Without a clear method to price external costs?such as the risk of climate change to society? companies can?t factor these ?expenses? into their traditional decision making. Companies may find they are not fully cognizant of the real costs and risks associated with their investments over time.
Environmental factors?such as climate change and water scarcity?are not being fully integrated into long-term business strategy. As a result, companies often miss opportunities to improve financial performance through environmental improvements in processes and product lines.
The good news is that businesses are finding ways to overcome these barriers?in many cases, by adapting strategies and techniques already at their disposal. Over the next month, we?ll outline ways corporations can better integrate sustainability into their everyday decision making through our blog series, Aligning Profit and Environmental Sustainability. Tune in every Thursday to learn how multinational companies like AkzoNobel, Alcoa, Citi, Greif, Johnson & Johnson, Natura, and Siemens are tackling these challenges.
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/eFr2MrwPn3Q/how-every-guy-will-use-google-glass
lorax fisker karma super tuesday states shepard fairey is snooki pregnant snooki pregnant gbc
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Job growth likely advanced at a moderate pace in February, which would suggest the economy has enough momentum to withstand the blow from higher taxes and deep government spending cuts.
Employers are expected to have added 160,000 jobs to their payrolls last month, picking up slightly from January's 157,000 count, according to a Reuters survey of economists.
While that would only be enough to hold the unemployment rate steady at 7.9 percent, it would be another sign of the economy's fundamental health, which has already propelled the Dow Jones industrial average <.dji> to record highs.
"Even though it doesn't necessary mean an acceleration in growth momentum, it suggests the economy is able to absorb the fiscal austerity," said Millan Mulraine, senior economist at TD Securities in New York.
A 2 percent payroll tax cut ended and tax rates went up for wealthy Americans on January 1. In addition, $85 billion in federal budget cuts that could slice as much as 0.6 percentage point from growth this year started on March 1.
The Labor Department will release the February employment report on Friday at 8:30 a.m. (1330 GMT)
While, February's anticipated pace will be below the 177,000 jobs per month average for the six months through January, there are other hints that the labor market's tone is improving.
First-time claims for jobless benefits fell significantly in February and a report on Wednesday showed private employers hired more workers than expected that month, which led some economists to brace for an upside surprise on Friday.
A snowstorm that buried the East Coast during the survey week for the report could also have kept some workers at home, temporarily depressing the jobs tally in February.
"We are moving in the right direction, but it's just frustratingly slow," said Peter McHenry, an assistant economics professor at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg in Virginia. "We want job growth to be large and robust, and there are still way too many people who are unemployed."
About 22.7 million Americans are either out of work or underemployed.
FED STILL IN PLAY
With employment falling far short of the roughly 250,000 jobs per month over a sustained period that economists say is needed to significantly reduce unemployment, the report will give the Federal Reserve ammunition to maintain its very accommodative monetary policy.
The U.S. central bank is buying $85 billion in bonds per month and has said it would keep up asset purchases until it sees a substantial improvement in the labor market outlook, a message that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke drove home in congressional testimony last week.
Since the 2007-09 recession ended, the economy has struggled to grow above a 2 percent annual pace. In the fourth quarter, output barely expanded.
Details of the February report are expected to show broad-based gains, with construction likely the star. The sector is expected to have added at least 25,000 jobs last month. In January, construction payrolls increased 28,000, for a fourth straight month of double-digit gains.
A decisive turnaround in the housing market and rebuilding on the East Coast after the destruction wrought by Superstorm Sandy in late October is boosting jobs at construction sites.
Manufacturers likely stepped up hiring in February, although the pace is expected to still be well below what was seen early last year because of lackluster domestic demand and cooling growth overseas.
After seven straight months of gains, retail employment probably took a breather in February. Courier and messenger jobs could rebound from the previous month's drop, but may also have been depressed by the bad weather on the East Coast.
Healthcare and social assistance probably recorded another month of solid job gains. The same is expected for leisure and hospitality.
Government payrolls are likely to have dropped by about 7,000 last month after falling 9,000 in January. Moderating local government layoffs, outside education, should help to blunt the blow from future job losses at federal agencies as Washington tightens its belt.
The sustained steady job gains are lending some stability to wages. Average hourly earnings are projected to have risen 0.2 percent last month after increasing by the same margin in January.
That would be the fourth straight month of gains in hourly earnings. They increased 2.1 percent in the 12 months through January after a similar advance in December.
"Earnings appear to have bottomed last year and are turning higher on account of the improving labor market performance," said Mulraine.
The length of the average workweek is expected to have held steady at 34.4 hours.
(Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Jan Paschal)
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/steady-job-gains-seen-bolstering-economy-050326902--business.html
close encounters of the third kind beyonce and jay z baby droid 4 tom brady sister dad shoots daughters laptop brandon jennings the vow review
Personally, I'm happy to give everyone (buyer, buyer's agent) updates on where I am with someone's loan, but the moment an agent tries to "push me along" to meet dates they set without checking first on what's realistic, they get the sound of a dial tone.
you are stuck with that REALTOR
=======================
no you're not. Your buyer agreement is with the real estate brokerage, not with the agent, you can be assigned a different agent, just call the broker or broker of record.
Source: http://www.zillow.com/advice-thread/what-should-my-realtor-be-doing-during-escrow/481630/
sodastream dan marino godaddy did the groundhog see his shadow Ray Lewis Murder UFC 156 my bloody valentine
Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/JHS0UOH5Lzk/how-scientists-finally-found-the-giant-squid
Fireworks 2012 4th Of July independence day BET Awards 2012 declaration of independence 4th Of July 2012 Zach Parise Spain Vs Italy Euro 2012