11.12.12

IS HUMANITY ****ED?


Barry Boyce - We need new ways of thinking to deal with systemic problems like climate change through creating a post-capitalist economy that doesn't depend on unending growth through consumption of finite and depleting resources and a race to the bottom in wages and work standards for its existence.
The starting point for getting to the new is abandoning the idea that simply tweaking capitalism, greening it slightly, even internalizing all the externalities (like carbon pollution) into prices, is enough. We can't do the same old thing, but better.  We have to go beyond the approaches that got us there in the first place.

George Monbiot - N
eoliberalism is not the root of the problem. It is the ideology used, often retrospectively, to justify a global grab of power, public assets and natural resources by an unrestrained elite. But the problem cannot be addressed until the doctrine is challenged by effective political alternatives.
In other words, the struggle against climate change – and all the crises that now beset both human beings and the natural world – cannot be won without a wider political fight: a democratic mobilization against plutocracy. This should start with an effort to reform campaign finance – the means by which corporations and the very rich buy policies and politicians. Some of us will be launching a petition in the UK in the next few weeks, and I hope you will sign it. But this is scarcely a beginning. We must start to articulate a new politics, one that sees intervention as legitimate, that contains a higher purpose than corporate emancipation disguised as market freedom, that puts the survival of people and the living world above the survival of a few favoured industries. In other words, a politics that belongs to us, not just the super-rich.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.12.12

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION



Designers for sportswear brands can ask chemical companies for detailed information in the form of ‘Material Safety Data Sheets’ (MSDS) with regard to their moisture-wicking apparel finishers for synthetic fabrics such as polyester.
Consumers of sports apparel have no such information when purchasing.
Golf Refugees are the first brand to offer consumers similar detailed information on the toxic chemicals used, you could call it an act of ‘Freedom of Information’. Read it and weep.

Ingredients;
Diethylene glycol, methanol, Formaldehyde
Regulatory Information (R-phrases)
R11- Highly flammable.
R40- Limited evidence of a carcinogenic effect.
R39/23/24/25- Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed.
Danger of very serious irreversible effects through inhalation, in
contact with skin and if swallowed.
R22- Harmful if swallowed.
R34- Causes burns.
R43- May cause sensitisation by skin contact.
Classifications;
F - Highly flammable
Carc. Cat. 3 - Carcinogen category 3
T - Toxic
C - Corrosive
Xn - Harmful

Ingredients; 1,2-Propylene glycol
Regulatory Information (R–phrases)
R43- May cause sensitisation by skin contact.
R52- Harmful to aquatic organisms.
R36/37/38- Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin.
Classifications;
Xi - Irritant

It makes you wonder how they get away with it. Using known skin irritant chemicals in consumer sports clothing, where your skin interacts with these toxic chemicals through friction and sweating during active play.
-------------------------------------------------------

9.12.12

GOLF REFUGEES 2013 POLOS


http://www.facebook.com/golfrefugeespage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

6.12.12

BLUE EYED TEE


For those with blue eyes and a cheesy grin.
http://www.facebook.com/golfrefugeespage

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH IT PART 2

Please read and compare the two lists below.
The one of the left is a list of ingredients used to make moisture-wicking anti-bacterial polyester sportswear. And the one on the right is the information brands supply to consumers.

Lead                                                      Polyester
Nickel                                                    Made in

Chromium                                              (country of origin)
Antimony
Dibutyltin (DTD)
Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE’s)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s)
Chlorobenzenes
Chlorophenols
Ammonia
Arsenic
Formaldehyde

No regulatory body for textiles has ever tested any combination of hazardous heavy metals and chemicals for their toxicity to consumers. They only test metals and chemicals on an individual basis.
-------------------------------------------------------

5.12.12

CHRISTMAS CARD 2012


---------------------------------------------------------------

4.12.12

HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH IT?



This is our 2013 men’s ‘leaded polo shirt’.

Those very helpful scientists at The European Consumer Organisation this summer published a report stating the vast majority of sports shirts tested contained highly toxic lead. This published report also recognised scientists are unable to agree upon a safe level for lead in consumer goods. Lead is a highly toxic metal that is responsible for causing serious health issues during the decades it has been popularly used all over the world, predominately as a fuel additive. In 1996 a decision was taken on health grounds to completely ban leaded petrol. Leaded petrol is not only banned but illegal to sell in many parts of the world. Which begs the question why in 2012, lead is still used in sports apparel?

Are leading sportswear brands; Nike, Adidas, and Puma running scared, hiding behind a wall of silence?

Another report with regard to the Horizon oil spill disaster asked ‘how can 2 million gallons of dispersal chemicals poured on top of an oil slick be a good idea?
To all who understood the chemistry of what was being attempted looked on with reservations? The results of the grand experiment are still coming in as scientists continue to evaluate the health of the Gulf ecosystem in wake of the disaster. Initial tests conducted by the Georgia Institute of technology concluded the approved oil-dispersant mixture to be 52 times more toxic than oil alone. There is currently no requirement to test and compare the toxicity levels of combined mixtures prior to individual chemicals being approved for use.

What the heck has all this got to do with sports apparel? Well, sports apparel is predominantly made using polyester, which is derived from petroleum. A cocktail of addition chemicals are then applied to polyester to make a moisture-wicking anti-bacterial fabric. Golf Refugees research found a leading moisture-wicking-textile-finish included the very same chemical used to disperse the Horizon oil spill disaster. When asked what the purpose for this toxic chemical is for sports wear; ‘it helps to remove stains’. Perhaps they still had a few million gallons of dispersant chemicals lying around and rather than wait for next major oil spill, the chemical industry decided to look for an alternative market. And what better than the millions of petroleum derived sports shirts where non disclosure of chemicals is the accepted practice. Kerching.

The similarities are uncanny. You have a cocktail of chemicals, untested, unregulated in your sports apparel. During manufacture the residue from these chemicals are simply washed away into local rivers, causing widespread pollution. Sportswear brands are creating a chemical pollution disaster.
And let’s not forget the European Consumer Organisation extracted toxic chemicals including lead from sports shirts via a sweat solution. Every time you sweat inside your sports shirt your skin interacts with a cocktail of untested chemicals. How do they get away with it?

Do consumers want to know which toxic chemicals their skin is interacting with?
-----------------------------------------------------