A multitude of silent invisible polluters (as a colleague called them) inhabit the business world and the hi-tech environment around us. We live and breathe their impact (in addition to our own individual effect but that is another blog topic) - everyday, every hour, and every second of our lives.
In the business world, the most obvious targets of the environmentalists' wrath are the big corporations. Because of their size and media exposure, big corporations are encouraged, obliged or pressured (whatever fits) to do what is right where the environment is concerned.
Thus these corporations tend more than most businesses to integrate good corporate citizenship into their businesses. They are able to install environmental management systems in their operations and also more easily meet environmental sustainability compliance.
However, it is not only the big corporations that pollute the environment. There are the small and less-than-large enterprises that, because of their size, are not in the radar of environmentalists. Probably too small to be worthy of notice or media news.
Some say their smallness perhaps means that their businesses’ impact on the environment is relatively smaller than big (global) corporations.
True IF taken individually.
True IF taken individually.
BUT, taken collectively, the numerous small businesses’ environmental impact can be no less than those of the big corporations.
Consider how many countries rely on thousands and thousands of small enterprises to prop up their economies. Especially countries that do not impose strict environmental and health standards compliance in their business operations.
Consider how many countries rely on thousands and thousands of small enterprises to prop up their economies. Especially countries that do not impose strict environmental and health standards compliance in their business operations.
These small businesses are called silent invisible polluters. Because they are more or less allowed to transact their business as usual while continuing to harm the environment without any external pressure to correct the error of their ways, where the rest of humanity is concerned.
As if that is not enough for us, not only are we exposed to the adverse impact of the non-environmentally compliant smaller businesses but there is another kind of insidious pollution created by science and technology as well. Another breed of invisible silent polluters.
In fact this second set literally best fits the label.
I talk about the cannot-be-seen, cannot-be-felt and cannot-be-smelled electromagnetic radiation coming from practically every electrical or electronic gadget, appliances and power lines we depend on daily.
I talk about the cannot-be-seen, cannot-be-felt and cannot-be-smelled electromagnetic radiation coming from practically every electrical or electronic gadget, appliances and power lines we depend on daily.
Many talk of the evidences on how various techie gadgets and resulting electromagnetic pollution harm our bodies, cause even more stress and weaken the capacity of our body to heal itself. Like EMF exposure from hospital equipments causing allergies or cellphones literally frying our brains and lowering sperm count or increased prevalence of cancer esp in the young coinciding with the steep increase of humanity's reliance on many, many types of electronics.
There appears to be as many naysayers also - of course a lot of money from the industries is riding on the no-harmful effect. Yet we have lived long enough in the modern world to know in our gut, that all these artificial creations cannot NOT have any adverse impact on our health or our peace of mind.
Indeed, while many studies say although they cannot categorically say the electromagnetic radiation from e.g. mobile phones have harmful effects on human health, in the next breath they say there are 'indications' of it and would therefore advise us to lessen our - especially our children's - exposure to these devices.
I believe where health is concerned, it is always wise to stick to the old adage that it is better to err on the side of caution.
I believe where health is concerned, it is always wise to stick to the old adage that it is better to err on the side of caution.
Seeing all this struck a chord in myself and made me understand my tendencies to:
- Avoid living in over-crowded cities
- Hate mobile phones
- Avoid living in over-crowded cities
- Hate mobile phones
- Not watch TV
- Not install airconditioning system at home
- Prefer living in a place where I can feel the soil under my feet and hear frogs croaking outside my window every night
- Avoid enrolling in a dance school located right beside a power station
- Recharge best in a pristine environment (by a mountain waterfall or isolated beach strips)
- Dream of running my very own farm that produces ‘slow food’ (as oppose to fast food)
Alright there are also other reasons for my distaste for certain modern devices.
Still...
Could it be that the instincts for survival – those bodily responses that tell us if something is bad for us, then it must be avoided - are guiding me subliminally to make choices to enhance rather than diminish my long-term survival?
Still...
Could it be that the instincts for survival – those bodily responses that tell us if something is bad for us, then it must be avoided - are guiding me subliminally to make choices to enhance rather than diminish my long-term survival?
http://www.radiationtalk.com/info/radiation_cancer.php
http://www.psfk.com/2009/01/france-to-limit-childrens-access-to-mobile-phones.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549944/Warning-on-wi-fi-health-risk-to-children.html
http://safeschool.ca/Health_Warnings.html
http://www.psfk.com/2009/01/france-to-limit-childrens-access-to-mobile-phones.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1549944/Warning-on-wi-fi-health-risk-to-children.html
http://safeschool.ca/Health_Warnings.html
