waterWater, as we know, is essential to life and good health. the bottled water companies know this and are struggling to provide a better picture of water, more exotic origin, fresher and higher quality. but when you look at it more closely, bottled water is not really better for health, it would be even more unhealthy.

The presence of toxic products in the water and environmental consequences have nothing good for health. that is why I question the fact that a water bottle company enjoys a health program like the challenge 530 to promote their bottled water. The diphenol has is one of the chemical compounds polyethylene terephthalate (pet) with which plastic bottles of water on the factory.

This product is diluted in the quietly bottled water and tends to increase in concentration with the reuse of the bottle. diphenol acted as a synthetic hormone in the body. it mimics the action of estrogen, the main sex hormone in women. assimilation of synthetic compounds such as a diphenol causes a large impact such as increased risk of cancer (prostate and breast mainly) and the increase of miscarriages.other studies suggest that these products reduce the size of the male reproductive organs through the generations.

It must be added that non-recycled plastic bottles that are buried entail the creation of a rich and toxic leachate can contaminate water around. Fortunately, in Canada, the use of bisphenol a is restricted to the manufacture of rigid plastic, it is now considered toxic. gradually toys and plastic bottles will be manufactured without bisphenol a. Also, there are a Canadian study showing that six months of storage cause the leaching of antimony, a toxic chemical, plastic to the water. That said, do not believe that this regulation will solve everything. there are other equally pernicious impacts, but more subtle marketing of water.

The consumption of bottled water has an ecological footprint much larger than the tap, and this for a water of equal quality. is that on average, to produce one liter of bottled water, it uses a lot of energy, 0.317 ml of oil equivalent. easy to imagine when the water we consume comes from the Fiji Islands! energy use contributes to the emission of greenhouse gas effects and by extension, to the decline of our quality of life. about the recycling of bottles, it is an expensive option for the environment as half bottles are recycled in China and recycling techniques are still polluting. the best solution is a good reusable water bottle.

The tap water is of excellent quality. In Quebec, 170,000 chemists perform tests on the water during the year versus 52 times a year for bottled water so why pay our water from 90 to 10,000 times more expensive for water harmful to health and the environment?


health reportThe revelation of the World Health Organization (WHO) through a ‘careful study’ published in its report on health in the World 2010 presented yesterday at CESAG: worldwide, 20-40% of health resources are wasted . This report is entitled ‘financing health systems, the path to universal coverage’.

The use ‘inefficient and inequitable health resources’ is one of the obstacles to faster progress towards universal coverage, according to who . and its report on the world health revealed that 20 to 40% of health resources are being wasted. gold, he notes, reducing this waste would greatly improve the ability of health systems to provide quality services and to improve health.

‘Well, thanks to the optimization of efficiency, the health department can more easily determine the merits of a case in order to obtain additional funds from the Ministry of Finance, “notes the organization united nations health. One of the authors of this report, jean perrot, representative WHo Geneva at the launch of the report in Dakar, revealed that the money for the health sector is not always well used.

Hence the call to ‘do better’ and manage resources rationally. ‘Sometimes, the money is used for things that are not necessarily useful,’ he said, citing the money spent on seminars. in his opinion, should have been, in some cases, doing otherwise and get better results with lower costs.

However, jean michel invites to not take these numbers as orders of magnitude because the range between 20 and 40% is huge and the real difference is between countries. In addition to the inefficient use of resources, other fundamental problems that are closely related preventing countries to move closer to universal coverage. resource availability is a factor. according to the report, no country, regardless of its wealth, could not guarantee to all its people immediate access to all the technologies and interventions that can improve health or prolong life. at the other end of the scale, in the poorest countries, few services are available to all.

The other barrier to universal coverage is, according to who, excessive reliance on direct payments at the time the people need care. They include payments of OTC drugs as well as fees for consultations and interventions. although people have health insurance, they may have to pay more as a package, to share, co-payment or deductible ‘, the report of the who. the document on the world health also stressed that the obligation to pay directly for services, that payment be formal or informal, prevents millions of people receiving medical care they need. and further that ‘for those who need treatment, this can lead to serious financial difficulties, even impoverishment.’

‘The health is priceless, but it has a cost, “notes dr jeanne nama diarra, representing the who in Dakar. and it explains the whole meaning of the choice of the who wear its report on world health 2010 on the ‘financing of health systems, the path to universal coverage.’ and to achieve universal coverage, aspects of protection against financial risks and the availability of quality health service must go hand in hand.


low energy bulbs

Consumption – they could be harmful because of their mercury content …

Consumer Safety Commission (CSC) recommends taking precautions when choosing or using low energy light bulbs, while their potential harmfulness made debate, she said Tuesday in a statement. low-energy light bulbs, also called compact fluorescent lamps, took over from conventional incandescent lamps, too greedy in electricity, says the CSC. They consume four to five times less energy for equivalent performance in terms of lighting and according to the manufacturers, their lifespan is between 6,000 and 10,000 hours against 1000 hours for a conventional bulb. but their potential harmfulness being debated in terms of mercury content and level of emission of electromagnetic waves, adds csc. in the current state of knowledge, the commission advises consumers to favor the purchase of lamps displaying amounts of mercury as small as possible.

Keep a distance of 30 centimeters In case of breakage of one of these lamps, it recommends long ventilated and leave and then pick up the pieces carefully with gloves and paper towels and place them in plastic bags, but do not use the vacuum cleaner, which helps suspend in the air mercury particles.

She also advises to keep a minimum distance of 30 centimeters from a lamp of this type in case of prolonged exposure. In addition, the CSC urges the authorities to determine the maximum acceptable values ​​for exposure to mercury vapors in ambient air and hopes that the European directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment currently in force be revised to take into account technological advances, lowering the maximum level of mercury content five to less than two milligrams per lamp.

Similarly, the Committee encourages professionals to make, thanks to new technologies available, lamps containing the least amount of mercury and emits less intense electromagnetic radiation.

The SCC independent administrative authority created by the law of 21 July 1983 on the Consumer safety is composed of judges of the higher courts, representatives of professional colleges and consumers and qualified personalities, she said on its website.