People are the one responsible in the negative changes that we have seen in the environment today. That’s why we human being should be aware of our choices every now and then. By being careful with our choices we can make the earth a better, full of life and healthier place to live in.
We created to progress and live life in advance and the modern way. Along with the progress caused negative impact and degradation to the environment. However, with the climate changes and calamities that we have experienced, people are now much concerned with the environment. The government and the rest of the world are making moves that will help lessen the environment degradation process.
Thankfully, there are so many methods to save the mother nature nowadays. We can start it with our home by transforming that into an eco-friendly property. That way you can save energy and helps preserve the environment. But what type of home is best for eco-friendly updates, is it a new home or an older one?
New Home Advantages
Insulation is very important a home must have as it helps maintain the temperature inside that could save energy. Modern homes come equipped with effective energy saver insulation.
With the modern homes, bathroom equipments like, faucets and shower heads are designed to use less water compared to their older counterparts.
Windows installed in the new homes will save you a lot of energy, prevent any heat leakage, damage or any problems associated with the older windows. They will remain in good condition for long time as they were built to last.
New Home Disadvantages
Formaldehyde-containing particle board are usually found in new homes.
Sometimes base models of newly-built homes are with low-end features, like vinyl counter tops and wood laminate flooring.
Old Home Advantages
When looking for quality craftsmanship, real wood flooring and architectural design that much different from others, can have it all with the old homes.
Parts of the house will deteriorate as the time goes by that needs a remodeling job that will greatly increase its energy efficiency.
Old Home Disadvantages
Being exposed too much to the minerals called asbestos may cause several health problems and illness. Old homes may contain this kind of hazardous minerals, and workers may put their life at risk of being exposed during remodeling process.
Older homes may cost you a great amount of energy usage. Energy efficient windows, bathroom equipments and appliances are rarely found in this home.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Monday, June 20, 2011
Healthy City, Could You Identify it ?
Sarah Mahoney and Brad Edmondson, researchers for a certain association of older folks, developed a ranking of what they termed as the “Healthiest Hometowns.” To avoid stress-inducing suspense, let me mention at the start that the healthiest hometowns or American cities, in their view, are Ann Arbor, Honolulu, Madison, Sante Fe and Fargo.
Using a series of alternative criteria (e.g., greenest, longest life expectancy, skinniest and cities with the most medical care insurance), dozens of other hometowns gained honorable mention, which I suppose will cheer old folks living in those cities across the land. Unfortunately, the criteria used for the healthiest rankings are mostly medical in nature. Make no mistake – the selected cities are extremely cool places and probably ought to be at or near the top of any healthy city ranking, regardless of the selection criteria employed. But the reality is that the factors used for these selections were appropriate for identifying only the least sick cities, not the healthiest.
This did not come close to a ranking of the most well cities in America. That would be the ranking I believe most people would most like to see. Such a ranking has not been attempted, despite the magazine, professional association and other healthy city ratings announced with much fanfare each year. The absence of a truly well city rating is easily explained – those commissioning and conducting such assessments do not appreciate the difference between wellness and health as the absence of illness. The medically not-so-sick ratings of healthy cities sells magazines, but nobody gets it right. No group has looked exclusively at factors that reveal how genuinely healthy the people are and how supportive are their environments in sustaining positive lifestyle mindsets and behaviors.
Until now. I have suggested that the National Wellness Institute (NWI) do just that – develop and apply genuine REAL wellness criteria. By gathering data on factors that measure wellness, not medical care utilization or risk factors, NWI could identify the most well cities in America, using REAL wellness, not medical criteria. The time for such a true health or wellness ranking has come at last. The top five well cities might still be Ann Arbor, Honolulu, Madison, Sante Fe and Fargo, but NWI would pick these places or others for very different reasons than those relied on by the old folks assessors. If NWI does it right, the practice of rating the well cities might spread across the globe. What a boon this would be for tourism alone – who would NOT want to vacation in the wellness places abroad?
Getting back for a moment to the above-noted report, I must say that it’s a bit comical, really, to consider the factors used to assess health and well-being. It shows that the focus of most people, including the experts in the health system who designed this study, still equate health as the absence of illness or risk factors for illness. Here are the criteria utilized in deciding the healthiest cities:
* Physicians per capita.
* General practitioners per capita.
* Cardiologists per capita.
* Oncologists per capita.¨
* Percentage of population that smokes. ¨
* Stress index (including divorce rate. suicide rate and rates of depression).
* Number of alcoholic drinks per month.
* Percentage of population that has health plans.
* Percentage of population that has trouble affording health care.
* Percentage getting regular checkups.
* Teaching hospitals per capita.
* Hospital beds per capita.
* Overall mortality.
* Mortality rates of heart disease.
* Mortality rates of cancer.
* Rates of diabetes. ¨
* Rates of hypertension.
* Rates of high cholesterol.
* Obesity rates (average BMI).
None of these criteria would be on my list. This is no way to discover the identity of the most well cities. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the factors – all are in fact useful for assessing medical situations in varied jurisdictions. But, they do not tell us as much about how WELL the city residents are as they do how UNWELL they might or might not be. The researchers did list a few criteria that could be included in my proposed NWI wellness-based assessment. If I were to design such an investigation, the following factors would be examined:
* Existence of smoke-free legislation (smoke-free office buildings, restaurants, bars).
* Healthy eating score (how many fruits, vegetables and whole grains did average resident consume).
* Number of alcoholic drinks per month.
* Percentage getting regular exercise.
* Percentage who commute by biking or by walking.
* Percentage who say they get enough emotional support.
* Percentage satisfied with life.
If you are ready to move to a wellness city, those identified by this group for all the wrong reasons still might be good bets. They are all attractive places. (What’s not to like about a town – Fargo – that erected an 8-foot, 500-pound statue commemorating Wood-Chip “Marge,” the main character in the dark-comedy film “Fargo?”)
What, that is, besides the blood-freezing cold ten months out of the year? But, I recommend you stay where you are until a new ranking based on REAL wellness lifestyle criteria is available. You certainly should not relocate on the basis of convenient access to an ample supply of medical resources. If that’s your priority, just move close to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, The Johns Hopkins Hospital complex at Baltimore or the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda!
All the best and be well.
Using a series of alternative criteria (e.g., greenest, longest life expectancy, skinniest and cities with the most medical care insurance), dozens of other hometowns gained honorable mention, which I suppose will cheer old folks living in those cities across the land. Unfortunately, the criteria used for the healthiest rankings are mostly medical in nature. Make no mistake – the selected cities are extremely cool places and probably ought to be at or near the top of any healthy city ranking, regardless of the selection criteria employed. But the reality is that the factors used for these selections were appropriate for identifying only the least sick cities, not the healthiest.
This did not come close to a ranking of the most well cities in America. That would be the ranking I believe most people would most like to see. Such a ranking has not been attempted, despite the magazine, professional association and other healthy city ratings announced with much fanfare each year. The absence of a truly well city rating is easily explained – those commissioning and conducting such assessments do not appreciate the difference between wellness and health as the absence of illness. The medically not-so-sick ratings of healthy cities sells magazines, but nobody gets it right. No group has looked exclusively at factors that reveal how genuinely healthy the people are and how supportive are their environments in sustaining positive lifestyle mindsets and behaviors.
Until now. I have suggested that the National Wellness Institute (NWI) do just that – develop and apply genuine REAL wellness criteria. By gathering data on factors that measure wellness, not medical care utilization or risk factors, NWI could identify the most well cities in America, using REAL wellness, not medical criteria. The time for such a true health or wellness ranking has come at last. The top five well cities might still be Ann Arbor, Honolulu, Madison, Sante Fe and Fargo, but NWI would pick these places or others for very different reasons than those relied on by the old folks assessors. If NWI does it right, the practice of rating the well cities might spread across the globe. What a boon this would be for tourism alone – who would NOT want to vacation in the wellness places abroad?
Getting back for a moment to the above-noted report, I must say that it’s a bit comical, really, to consider the factors used to assess health and well-being. It shows that the focus of most people, including the experts in the health system who designed this study, still equate health as the absence of illness or risk factors for illness. Here are the criteria utilized in deciding the healthiest cities:
* Physicians per capita.
* General practitioners per capita.
* Cardiologists per capita.
* Oncologists per capita.¨
* Percentage of population that smokes. ¨
* Stress index (including divorce rate. suicide rate and rates of depression).
* Number of alcoholic drinks per month.
* Percentage of population that has health plans.
* Percentage of population that has trouble affording health care.
* Percentage getting regular checkups.
* Teaching hospitals per capita.
* Hospital beds per capita.
* Overall mortality.
* Mortality rates of heart disease.
* Mortality rates of cancer.
* Rates of diabetes. ¨
* Rates of hypertension.
* Rates of high cholesterol.
* Obesity rates (average BMI).
None of these criteria would be on my list. This is no way to discover the identity of the most well cities. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the factors – all are in fact useful for assessing medical situations in varied jurisdictions. But, they do not tell us as much about how WELL the city residents are as they do how UNWELL they might or might not be. The researchers did list a few criteria that could be included in my proposed NWI wellness-based assessment. If I were to design such an investigation, the following factors would be examined:
* Existence of smoke-free legislation (smoke-free office buildings, restaurants, bars).
* Healthy eating score (how many fruits, vegetables and whole grains did average resident consume).
* Number of alcoholic drinks per month.
* Percentage getting regular exercise.
* Percentage who commute by biking or by walking.
* Percentage who say they get enough emotional support.
* Percentage satisfied with life.
If you are ready to move to a wellness city, those identified by this group for all the wrong reasons still might be good bets. They are all attractive places. (What’s not to like about a town – Fargo – that erected an 8-foot, 500-pound statue commemorating Wood-Chip “Marge,” the main character in the dark-comedy film “Fargo?”)
What, that is, besides the blood-freezing cold ten months out of the year? But, I recommend you stay where you are until a new ranking based on REAL wellness lifestyle criteria is available. You certainly should not relocate on the basis of convenient access to an ample supply of medical resources. If that’s your priority, just move close to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, The Johns Hopkins Hospital complex at Baltimore or the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda!
All the best and be well.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Go Green City
We all know that going green is the cool thing to do nowadays. Find out some easy tips on how everyday citizens, real estate construction sites, and even businesses can help improve our environment by making it a safer place to live.
* Many cities will offer residents incentives to use less energy. Look for and work towards rebates that your current city may be offering such as $25 off this month’s bill if you use less energy than the previous month. Not only will you be able to take advantage of the rebate, but you’ll also be helping your city be more eco-conscious.
* Utilize the recycling program your city has organized. Recycling as a whole costs less to operate than waste collection, landfilling, and incineration and drastically reduces emissions, saves energy and reduces pollution. Did you know that every ton of paper that is recycled saves 17 trees and that the energy we save when we recycle one glass bottle is enough to light a light bulb for four hours
* Compost. Larger cities will usually offer a compost service that comes on the same day as your garbage and recycling. Composting is a great way to cut back on the amount of garbage you produce which in turn reduces the amount of garbage that goes to landfills and cuts back on the production of methane and leachate formulation in the landfills. Cities can then use compost to prevent pollutants in stormwater runoff from reaching surface water resources, prevent erosion and silting on embankments parallel to creeks, lakes, and rivers, and even prevents erosion and turf loss on roadsides, hillsides, playing fields, and golf courses.
* Use sediment control measures around your home and work site. Natural erosion stormwater runoff from your home and worksite can negatively affect water quality, wetlands, wildlife and natural vegetation around your city. If you notice that following a storm excessive debris and runoff is leaving your property, it is important that you install proper devices to keep this excess debris from entering the drainage and water system. When sediment gets into the water system, it takes longer and becomes more expensive to purify that water for drinking. It also can get washed into the lakes and oceans causing excess flooding in times of high precipitation.
* Help beautify your city by picking up trash wherever you may be. Whether it’s around your property or while on a walk, avoid littering and try to pick up trash is one of the simplest ways to help greenify and beautify your city!
* Many cities will offer residents incentives to use less energy. Look for and work towards rebates that your current city may be offering such as $25 off this month’s bill if you use less energy than the previous month. Not only will you be able to take advantage of the rebate, but you’ll also be helping your city be more eco-conscious.
* Utilize the recycling program your city has organized. Recycling as a whole costs less to operate than waste collection, landfilling, and incineration and drastically reduces emissions, saves energy and reduces pollution. Did you know that every ton of paper that is recycled saves 17 trees and that the energy we save when we recycle one glass bottle is enough to light a light bulb for four hours
* Compost. Larger cities will usually offer a compost service that comes on the same day as your garbage and recycling. Composting is a great way to cut back on the amount of garbage you produce which in turn reduces the amount of garbage that goes to landfills and cuts back on the production of methane and leachate formulation in the landfills. Cities can then use compost to prevent pollutants in stormwater runoff from reaching surface water resources, prevent erosion and silting on embankments parallel to creeks, lakes, and rivers, and even prevents erosion and turf loss on roadsides, hillsides, playing fields, and golf courses.
* Use sediment control measures around your home and work site. Natural erosion stormwater runoff from your home and worksite can negatively affect water quality, wetlands, wildlife and natural vegetation around your city. If you notice that following a storm excessive debris and runoff is leaving your property, it is important that you install proper devices to keep this excess debris from entering the drainage and water system. When sediment gets into the water system, it takes longer and becomes more expensive to purify that water for drinking. It also can get washed into the lakes and oceans causing excess flooding in times of high precipitation.
* Help beautify your city by picking up trash wherever you may be. Whether it’s around your property or while on a walk, avoid littering and try to pick up trash is one of the simplest ways to help greenify and beautify your city!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)