2014年3月31日 星期一

甲醛 聯合新聞網 消基會抽查顏料逾2成含甲醛 消基會針對顏料安全性測試結果顯示,在26件樣品中,其中有6件(約23%)被驗出含游離甲醛,雖檢出量合於規範,但消基會呼籲廠商重視甲醛管控。

 

聯合新聞網
消基會抽查顏料逾2成含甲醛
〔中央社〕消基會針對顏料安全性測試結果顯示,在26件樣品中,其中有6件(約23%)被驗出含游離甲醛,雖檢出量合於規範,但消基會呼籲廠商重視甲醛管控。
 
 
Formaldehyde
Chemical Compound
Formaldehyde is an organic compound with the formula CH2O or HCHO. It is the simplest aldehyde, and is also called by its systematic name methanal. The common name of the substance comes from its similarity and relation to formic acid. Wikipedia

危險性

甲醛對皮膚黏膜有刺激性作用,比如咽喉和眼睛鼻腔等,造成這些位置水腫,發炎、潰爛,甚至最後導致鼻咽癌等嚴重病變。接觸過甲醛的皮膚可能出現過敏現象,嚴重者甚至會導致肝炎肺炎腎臟損害。
對嬰幼兒的孕婦危害更加嚴重,可導致懷孕期間胎兒停止生長發育,心腦發育不全,嚴重可導致胎兒畸形和流產等嚴重後果。[來源請求]
因為甲醛樹脂被用於各種建築材料,包括膠合板毛毯隔熱材料、木製產品、地板煙草、裝修和裝飾材料,且因為甲醛樹脂會緩慢持續放出甲醛,因此甲醛成為常見的室內空氣污染之一。甲醛一般會從源頭慢慢釋出,新製產品在最初數月內所釋出的甲醛量最高,一段時間後,釋出的甲醛量便會漸漸降低。
甲醛若在空氣中的濃度超過 0.1 mg/m3, 會導致眼睛黏膜細胞的傷害。在體內,甲醛可能導致蛋白質不可逆的與DNA鍵結。動物實驗顯示暴露在大劑量的甲醛中會使得鼻子與喉嚨致癌的機率增加。然而在大部份的建築內甲醛含量濃度不足以產生致癌性。美國國家環境保護局將甲醛分類為可能致癌物質國際癌症研究機構(IARC)則將其分類為人類致癌物質。
2009年3月,美國安全化妝品運動組織的一份報告中指出,強生等公司的嬰兒產品含有致癌物質甲醛和二惡烷。見1,4-二噁烷#強生
2010年7月31日,中華人民共和國中華全國工商業聯合會傢具裝飾業商會舉辦了「對甲醛零容忍」新聞發布會,作為對中華人民共和國國家安監總局檢測事件的回應。中華人民共和國國家安監總局對全國85家木質傢具製造企業的檢測結果顯示70%以上的傢具企業生產環境有毒物質濃度超標,嚴重影響工人的健康。發布會代表傢具製造行業發表「對甲醛零容忍」宣言。[5]

工業區土壤重金屬管制標準放寬得離譜

全台的工業區幾乎都只能靠此法解套,實際上工業區多應該考慮當廢棄地。


l工業區土壤重金屬管制標準放寬得離譜,銅由現行標準每公斤土壤不得超過二百毫克,擬提高十倍放寬為二千毫克;鋅更由現行標準每公斤土壤不得超過六百毫克,擬無上限,沒有訂出管制標準;砷就更扯了,修正後的管制標準和現行標準都是每公斤土壤不得超過六十毫克,國際環保期刊的報告,人體每日對砷最大允許攝取量是二十毫克,管制標準是人體可攝取量的三倍之高,「那還需要管制嗎?」http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2014/new/mar/29/today-center10.htm
〔記者張聰秋/彰化報導〕環保署研擬大幅放寬工業區土壤重金屬污染監測及管制標準,引起環保團體反彈,該署二十八日在和美鎮公所舉行公聽會,但不歡而散。到場的環保團體要求管制標準只能...
LIBERTYTIMES.COM.TW

2014年3月27日 星期四

我們很健康 (日經中文網特約撰稿人 健吾)

東京眼(7) 我們很健康

2014/03/27


日經中文網特約撰稿人 健吾:紀文這品牌,在香港人的心目中,大概只是一家賣很貴很貴的魚蛋卷的品牌。在日本,他們好像是很大的食品製造公司。最近他們推出了一種「新飲品」,聽説是像可樂一樣的豆乳。看上去就跟豆乳沒有很大的分別,喝下去就是可樂的味道。

    不會日語的朋友R去東京旅行的時候,最愛尋找這種「健康食品係」的新産品。九時後,百貨公司關門了,
就去激安の殿堂或藥粧店尋寶。在飯店休息的時候,打開電視,看的都是直銷頻道健康食品的廣告:黑蒜精華、青汁、維他命、漢方藥減重補助食品、吃了後睡很少 都會精神的補助劑、喝了後就不會再困的精華飲料……在日本,好像沒有問題,藥品解決不了的:想睡而不能睡的時候可以「眠眠打破」,能睡卻睡不著的時候可以 服快眠精。

    除了藥品,很多香港人對日本的食物有很多想像。在三一一大地震之前,很多中産家庭都會在日式超級市場買「日本食物」。他們覺得,在香港的街市買到的蔬菜、 水果,大多沒有他應有的味道。現在的豬肉、牛肉、海鮮,都沒有以前那麼好吃。三一一大地震後,香港的中産家長都對日本食材失去信心了。大家都害怕幅射。我 的朋友,在出版社當高職的R先生,以前一年去八次東京購物吃喝,地震後,有一段很長的時間沒去東京:「你沒有聽過嗎?很多人都不敢去日本了。有流言呀,説 到日本旅行,被醫生説他們兩年不能生孩子。在網上流傳很久呢。」

    是什麼人呢?

   「不知道。都是網上的人這麼説。」R回答。

    不知道是什麼人在網上隨便説的話,都會相信嗎?

    「也不知道啊,寧可信其有嘛!」R説。

    R對健康很在乎。現代人,都很怕自己不健康。沒有健康,對我們這一代的自由工作者(フリーター)或是以個體戶形式接生意的年輕人而言,手停就口停,沒有生病的餘裕。

    R的男朋友在香港,加入一些傳銷公司的補助食品銷售鍊。R也曾到那傳銷中心,傳銷中心會給你做一些「檢查」。那些不知道是什麼的機器,説你只要拿在手上, 就可以查看身體的結構:「唉……結果,現在真的很麻煩。」R説:「把那個機器那在手上,他們就説可以看到我的『內臟脂肪』。又説,平常人呢,那個內臟脂肪 的數字,只是2。但我現在有7。之後,他們(那健康食物公司的人)就會問我:『你的家人是不是也有類似的狀況?』我就想起,我媽媽也是一個看上去很瘦很瘦 的人,但她很早的時期已檢查到『三高』(高血脂、高血壓、高膽固醇)。她平日已經是那種吃菜不吃肉的人,但也是這樣子。」

    好了,重點應要來吧?

    「對啊,但我真的不知道,我為什麼會相信這些人(傳銷的人)的説話。」R説:「我到他們的辦公室,用他們的機器,他們給你一些數字,聽他們的説詞:説現代 社會由於很多不同的原因,如基因改造食物、污染、化合物、精製食品等等,指現在的食物,根本沒有以前的食物那麼多營養,只有更多毒素及化合物。他們把你嚇 得怕怕的,然後再給你一些補助品,一個解決方法,之後吃了,他們的機器所測出來的數字下降了,變回『正常』了,我就健康了嗎?」

    日本、美國或是香港,甚至是發展中的中國,很多中産人士,都很關心健康。為了健康,他們會吃很多健康食品。2013年有調查説過,美國人每年花費近五十億 美元購買沒有證據證實會改善身體狀況的草藥成品。而根據學術論文 BMC Medicine的報告,有指現在29,000種不同的草藥健康食品,有很大部份的草藥成品,大多是已磨碎的米或海草,並沒有什麼健康的功效。

   説到底,什麼是健康?我們工作、遊樂至晨昏顛倒,身心俱疲,我們為了減肥、瘦身、健身,節食、吃人工蛋白奶粉,然後每天早上晚上,我們就吃蟲草丸、舞茸丸、強腎丸、前列通、酵素、多種維他命……然後我們告訴自己,繼續晨昏顛倒,身心俱疲,我們也很健康。

健吾 簡歷
80年生,香港專欄作家、香港商業電臺節目《光明頂》、《903國民教育》主持,香港中文大學日本研究學系及香港大學專業進修學院講師。著書超過二十七本,主力研究日本東亞流行文化軟實力及多元性別關係等議題。

本文僅代表個人觀點,不代表日本經濟新聞(中文版:日經中文網)觀點。

2014年3月26日 星期三

飲食起居,非常理性和科學化......健康狀況(江燦騰)

健康狀況一百分
我今天特別忙碌,一早起來,就開始編輯我校得本期通識學報稿件,中午去學校參加通識學報的編輯會議,獲得高度的肯定和極大的進展.
之後,我趕往台大醫院,進行三個月一次的例行性回診,主治醫師張恬君教授,看了我的各項抽血檢查報告後,又親自替我量了血壓,便告訴我說,這一次的檢查報告,顯示一切良好,可以打一百分.讓我非常高興.
我的飲食起居,非常理性和科學化,所以身體的健康狀況,也一如預期的良好.我吃很少調味料的簡單食物,少油,少糖,少鹽.但營養均衡,不吃零食,可是每天 喝即溶黑咖啡兩大杯或三大杯,補充葉黃素一粒,若晚上上課回來,就烤一片或二片全麥土司.我水果都是每餐半根香蕉,長期如此.
這樣,我就可以工作整天,神智集中清爽,效率奇高.
這就是我自己覺得很快樂的生活方式.所以,不覺得自己是體弱氣衰.

more:  江燦騰,

2014年3月25日 星期二

The Unhealthy Meat Market By NICHOLAS KRISTOF美國工業化養殖的惡果

專欄作者

美國工業化養殖的惡果


我們的食品來自哪裡?這個問題的答案常常是泰森食品(Tyson Foods)——美國的肉類加工廠。
泰森食品是美國100強企業之一一周可宰殺13.5萬頭牛、39.1萬頭豬,以及4100萬隻雞——數字讓人震驚。幾乎所有美國人都經常吃泰森食品生產的肉類——無論是在家、麥當勞、食堂,還是養老院。
「即使某塊肉不是泰森公司生產的,消費者的選擇實際上只不過是經過同樣流程包裝成商品的牛肉、雞肉和豬肉而已。它們都是通過泰森開創的系統生產出來的,」報道工業化農業生產的資深記者克里斯托弗·萊昂納德(Christopher Leonard)在他的新書《肉製品勾當》(The Meat Racket)中寫道。這本書是關於泰森食品公司的。
萊昂納德在書中說,以泰森食品為首的幾家公司控制着我們的 肉製品行業,它們的種種做法對動物和人類的影響引發了擔憂,破壞了美國鄉村原本的結構。許多養雞的農戶並不擁有他們所餵養的雞,也不知道飼料里有什麼。他 們只是按照與泰森的合同來飼養這種家禽,許多農民難以維持生計。
由於擔心由多家大企業壟斷的肉製品產業主導了美國的鄉村,奧巴馬總統推出了一項始於2010年的行動,目的是加強對肉製品行業的反壟斷監管,讓農民起訴肉類加工企業的過程更容易。其目標很宏大:創造「全新的鄉村經濟」,造福每一個農民。
萊昂納德寫道,泰森食品的遊說者利用其在國會的友人,破壞了奧巴馬政府的監管努力,奧巴馬的行動遭遇了「慘不忍睹的失敗」。
工業化農場帶來了大量災難性的後果,但必須承認,它替我們 省了錢。當赫伯特·胡佛(Herbert Hoover)總統夢想着讓「每口鍋里都有一隻雞」的時候,雞肉還是一種奢侈的食物,價格比牛肉貴。根據全美養雞理事會(National Chicken Council)的數據,按照今天的幣值計算,1930年,一磅(0.45千克)宰殺乾淨的雞肉價格為6.48美元(約合39.7元人民幣)。去年,雞肉 的零售價為每磅1.57美元,比牛肉便宜多了,這跟泰森食品有一定關係。
雞肉價格下降的一個原因是,科學的飼養方法縮短了把雞飼養到可以宰殺所需要的時間。從1925年以來,生長期縮短了超過一半,與此同時,每隻雞的體重增加了一倍。生產一磅雞肉所需的飼料總量也大大減少。
但是:
這種工業化的農業體系還在三個方面產生了巨大代價。
首先,它是動物們的災難。目前的飼養方式讓雞長出了巨大的胸脯,到成年時它們就會常常向前摔倒,難以呼吸或站立。
「這些家禽活着實際上就是受罪,」美國愛護動物協會(American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals)的勞麗·比徹姆(Laurie Beacham)說。該機構稱,把雞養得「膨脹到爆炸」本質上是極其殘忍的。
根據《禽類科學》(Poultry Science)雜誌統計,如果人類的生長速度和現在的雞一樣快,兩個月大的嬰兒體重就會達到660磅。
第二,工業化農業危害我們的健康。約翰·霍普金斯大學布隆 博格公共衛生學院(Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health)的羅伯特·馬丁(Robert Martin)指出,一個1萬頭豬的農場製造出的糞便,相當於一個4萬人口的小城市,但養豬業可沒有廢物處理工廠。馬丁說,的確,北卡羅萊納州一個縣的豬 製造的廢物,相當於紐約市全部人口生產廢物的一半。
另一個健康隱患是,為了讓家畜和家禽在擁擠骯髒的環境中迅速成長,它們的飼料中常常加入了抗生素。這可能會造成具有抗生素耐藥性的感染,每年有兩百萬美國人因此患病(對病人使用過量抗生素也是一個原因,但美國五分之四的抗生素用在了農場飼養的動物身上)。
第三,這種工業化的模式導致了美國鄉村的空心化。鄉村的中心地區只剩下幾家大公司和無數在邊緣掙扎的人們。
萊昂納德在書中寫道,過去40年里,在泰森公司運營的縣 裡,有68%的縣人均收入增速低於該州的平均水平。我們或許會以為美國的鄉村到處是紅色穀倉,一派美好的田園景象,如同《華生一家》(The Waltons)中的場景,但如今,它也是一塊失業、貧窮、絕望和毒品肆虐的土地。
批評當前的工業化農業的模式很容易,提出一個可行的替代性方案則要難得多。我成長於俄勒岡州低效的家庭農場,但回到那種農場所代表的農村結構並不是解決辦法。那樣的話,我們會回到一磅雞肉價格6.48美元的時代。
但是,首先需要深刻地認識到,我們工業化的食品體系是不健 康的。這種體系讓一些人獲得了收益,但它造成的健康和環境成本則要全社會承擔。它讓股東獲得了回報——泰森食品的股價自2009年初以來提高了三倍。但與 泰森有關的人和動物,往往處境悲慘。工業化生產的肉類有一種苦澀的餘味。
翻譯:王湛
 

Op-Ed Columnist

The Unhealthy Meat Market



Where does our food come from? Often the answer is Tyson Foods, America’s meat factory.
Tyson, one of the nation’s 100 biggest companies, slaughters 135,000 head of cattle a week, along with 391,000 hogs and an astonishing 41 million chickens. Nearly all Americans regularly eat Tyson meat — at home, at McDonalds, at a cafeteria, at a nursing home.

“Even if Tyson did not produce a given piece of meat, the consumer is really only picking between different versions of the same commoditized beef, chicken, and pork that is produced through a system Tyson pioneered,” says Christopher Leonard, a longtime agribusiness journalist, in his new book about Tyson called “The Meat Racket.”
Leonard’s book argues that a handful of companies, led by Tyson, control our meat industry in ways that raise concerns about the impact on animals and humans alike, while tearing at the fabric of rural America. Many chicken farmers don’t even own the chickens they raise or know what’s in the feed. They just raise the poultry on contract for Tyson, and many struggle to make a living.
Concerned by the meat oligopoly’s dominance of rural America, President Obama undertook a push beginning in 2010 to strengthen antitrust oversight of the meat industry and make it easier for farmers to sue meatpackers. The aim was grand: to create a “new rural economy” to empower individual farmers.
Big Meat’s lobbyists used its friends in Congress to crush the Obama administration’s regulatory effort, which collapsed in “spectacular failure,” Leonard writes.
Factory farming has plenty of devastating consequences, but it’s only fair to acknowledge that it has benefited our pocketbooks. When President Herbert Hoover dreamed of putting “a chicken in every pot,” chicken was a luxury dish more expensive than beef. In 1930, whole dressed chicken retailed for $6.48 a pound in today’s currency, according to the National Chicken Council. By last year, partly because of Tyson, chicken retailed for an average price of $1.57 per pound — much less than beef.
Costs came down partly because scientific breeding reduced the length of time needed to raise a chicken to slaughter by more than half since 1925, even as a chicken’s weight doubled. The amount of feed required to produce a pound of chicken has also dropped sharply.
And yet.
This industrial agriculture system also has imposed enormous costs of three kinds.
First, it has been a catastrophe for animals. Chickens are bred to grow huge breasts so that as adults they topple forward and can barely breathe or stand.
“These birds are essentially bred to suffer,” says Laurie Beacham of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which argues that there’s an inherent cruelty in raising these “exploding chickens.”
Poultry Science journal has calculated that if humans grew at the same rate as modern chickens, a human by the age of two months would weigh 660 pounds.
Second, factory farming endangers our health. Robert Martin of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health notes that a farm with 10,000 hogs produces as much fecal waste as a small city with 40,000 people, but the hog operation won’t have a waste treatment plant. Indeed, the hogs in a single county in North Carolina produce half as much waste as all the people in New York City, Martin says.
Another health concern is that antibiotics are routinely fed to animals and birds to help them grow quickly in crowded, dirty conditions. This can lead to antibiotic resistant infections, which strike two million Americans annually (overuse of antibiotics on human patients is also a factor, but four-fifths of antibiotics in America go to farm animals).
Third, this industrial model has led to a hollowing out of rural America. The heartland is left with a few tycoons and a large number of people struggling at the margins.
Leonard writes in his book that in 68 percent of the counties where Tyson operates, per capita income has grown more slowly over the last four decades than the average in that state. We may think of rural America as a halcyon pastoral of red barns and the Waltons, but today it’s also a land of unemployment, poverty, despair and methamphetamines.
It’s easy to criticize the current model of industrial agriculture, far harder to outline a viable alternative. Going back to the rural structure represented by the inefficient family farm on which I grew up in Oregon isn’t a solution; then we’d be back to $6.48-a-pound chicken.
But a starting point is to recognize bluntly that our industrial food system is unhealthy. It privatizes gains but socializes the health and environmental costs. It rewards shareholders — Tyson’s stock price has quadrupled since early 2009 — but can be ghastly for the animals and humans it touches. Industrial meat has an acrid aftertaste.

2014年3月16日 星期日

台灣醫糾有罪率低


彰化縣員榮醫院今天舉辦「保護基層醫師,提升病人安全」研討會,消基會名譽董事長謝天仁表示,衛生福利部應盡速實施醫療糾紛賠償機制,由健保總額中提撥至少逾一億元互保賠償基金,不僅能緩和醫療糾紛,也能減少醫師自我保護的防衛性醫療。

醫師免驚! 消基會:台灣醫糾有罪率低

近來醫院暴力事件頻傳,彰化縣員榮醫院今天舉辦「保護基層醫師-提升病人安全」研討會,邀請警察機關、彰化地方法院及數十位醫院與診所的醫護人員與會,並請消基會名譽董事長謝天仁律師及彰化地院庭長余仕明主講醫療糾紛的避免及解決。

謝 天仁指出,雖然民眾及醫師都覺得國內醫療糾紛事件頻傳,但這是媒體渲染報導所致,因為根據十年的統計數據顯示,台灣在十年間發生2562件醫療糾紛訴訟, 但判有罪的才50件,平均一年才5件,與國際各國相比,台灣醫糾事件發生比例很低,且集中在婦產科,德國是台灣的四十幾倍,日本也是台灣的十幾倍之多。

謝 天仁表示,國內醫療糾紛的案件並不多,醫師不用過度擔心,他建議政府應趕快從健保總額內,每年抽萬分之2,即逾一億元成立互保賠償基金,對無過失,甚至是 有過失的醫療糾紛都予以賠償,「先賠給當事人,就不會走到訴訟」。彰化地院庭長余仕明說,醫院應培養專業人員,專責與病患及家屬互動溝通,透過制度化的機 制,來降低醫療糾紛事件。(孫英哲/彰化報導)

男士防癌十方法 10 Ways for Men to Prevent Cancer Today

10 Ways for Men to Prevent Cancer Today

Athlete preparing work out
Getty Images
Sweat Daily  天天出汗
In a University of Vermont study, the fittest men were 68 percent less likely to develop lung cancer and 38 percent less likely to develop colorectal cancers than the least active men—and those who developed cancer had better outcomes if they exercised regularly. Cardio and resistance training help control inflammation and hormone levels—and they keep your immune system strong to fend off wayward cells. (Turn up your muscle gains outside the gym. These 18 Ways to Build Muscle All Day will help you shed fat, sculpt muscle, and accelerate recovery.)

Skip Anything Fried不吃油炸物

Guys who eat french fries, fried chicken, fried fish, or fried doughnuts once or more a week have up to a 37 percent higher risk of prostate cancer, according to a new study from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. Oil that’s heated to high temperatures develops carcinogenic compounds in food. (You might not know you’re missing vital nutrients, but here’s how to get them by learning these 6 New Food Rules to Follow.)

Sip Pomegranate Juice飲石榴汁

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin at Madison found that pomegranate juice may stunt lung cancer growth. Plus, previous studies also show it delays prostate cancer in mice and stabilizes PSA levels in men who’ve been treated for the cancer. Sip about 16 ounces of the juice per day, which is rich in polyphenols, isoflavones, and ellagic acid that may team up to fight cancer.

Get Screened做癌篩選

If there’s a screening for a type of cancer and you’re eligible for it, get it. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that if everyone over 50 had regular colon cancer screenings, 60 percent of deaths from the disease could be prevented. Talk to your doctor about screenings for colorectal, prostate, testicular, skin, and lung cancer. (Discover 8 stealth strategies to Cancer-Proof Your Body.)

吃藍莓Snack on Blueberries

The fruit is brimming with a compound called pterostilbene that may slash precancerous lesions in the gut that, left unchecked, could lead to colon cancer, Rutgers University researchers say. Aim for a cup and a half of blueberries per day—pour them over your cereal, snack on them fresh, or dump them into a daily smoothie.

Befriend Fiber 多吃富纖維質東西

People on a high-fiber eating plan—about 17 grams per 1,000 calories—had a 19 percent decrease in kidney cancer risk compared with those who took in the least, a study in the journal Clinical Nutrition found. Fiber may block cancer-causing toxins from traveling from your intestines to your kidneys, the study reports. (Here are more foods with amazing—and scientifically proven—health benefits: Check out the 50 Foods with Superpowers.)

Get Help to Stop Snoring 防打鼾

People with severe sleep apnea—snoring is the main symptom—are almost five times as likely to die of cancer as those who snooze more soundly, according to researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health. With sleep apnea, levels of oxygen in your blood dip. This can cause small existing tumors to grow new blood vessels, giving them fuel to develop faster and spread through your bloodstream more quickly.

Stand Up多站立

More than 92,000 cases of cancer a year can be blamed on sitting too much, a study by the American Institute for Cancer Research suggests. Even if you exercise regularly, you’re still at risk. Set your cell phone alarm to remind you to stand for one to two minutes every hour. It’ll help reduce levels of molecules in your body that are linked with cancer risk.

Down the Sunshine Vitamin  每日維他命D約1000單位

People who supplemented their diets with 1,000 IU of vitamin D every day decreased their risk of cancer by as much as 77 percent over four years compared to those who popped a placebo, reports a study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Vitamin D is also available in salmon, sardines, and shiitake mushrooms.

Go Nuts每日三種巴西堅果 
巴西堅果學名Bertholletia excelsa),又名巴西果鮑魚果巴西栗西番蓮果有時候也被稱為巴西果,應與巴西堅果相區別)

Eat three Brazil nuts every day, which deliver healthy selenium. A Harvard study found that this amount is associated with a 48 percent lower incidence of advanced prostate cancer.

2014年3月11日 星期二

個案討論: 吳先生的血壓器計值大煩惱



個案討論: 吳先生的血壓器計值大煩惱

可能很少讀者懂得Dr Deming 所說的"儀器校正;系統的統計穩定狀態/統計控制圖等概念。
建議你們參考我社的出版品:

舊的華人戴明學院網站
 http://deming.hans.idv.tw/

*****個案
Kuo Wei Wu
媽 媽幾年前買了台血壓機給我們,我怎麼量,都在150~160/80~95之間,但我去診所,由醫生以老式水銀式量,卻又在130/80正常範圍內。這二 天,再用家裡的血壓機量,又是偏高(150/90),連著二天,搞得我神經緊張得很,下班回家,直接到診所,請醫生幫我量(舊水銀式),還是正常。他X 的,電子血壓機是設計來嚇人的嗎?我能否告製造商「恐嚇」?
· · 40 分鐘前 ·

  • 李士傑說讚。
  • Sandy Chen 電子血壓機本來就不是很準, 所以要量久了, 以"比較值"來看今天你的血壓有沒有特別不一樣...
  • Sandy Chen 如果每天你用家裡的電子血壓機量都是150~160/80~95, 那今天量也是這個範圍, 就不用太緊張。除非你量出來 170 或是 190...那才要趕緊去診所

英國兒童餐點:麵包和穀物食品----含鹽過多

Children's diets 'far too salty'

girl eating breakfast cereal

Related Stories

Children in the UK are eating far too much salt, with much of it coming from breads and cereals, research suggests.
Children should eat less than a teaspoon of salt a day, but 70% of the 340 children in the study published in Hypertension ate more than this.
Breads and cereals accounted for more than one-third of the salt in children's diets. A fifth came from meat and one-tenth from dairy products.
This was despite a UK-wide drive to cut salt levels in food.

Start Quote

It is very difficult for parents to reduce children's salt intake unless they avoid packaged and restaurant foods and prepare each meal from scratch using fresh, natural ingredients”
Lead researcher Prof MacGregor
The Department of Health said its voluntary salt reduction code with manufacturers was working, but agreed that more progress is still needed.
Manufacturers say they are reducing salt in many products, including bread.
The study authors say efforts must be redoubled because salt increases the risk of high blood pressure from a very young age, and high blood pressure can lead to heart disease and stroke.
Processed foods For the research, they asked the parents of the 340 children to keep a detailed food diary and take photos of all foods and beverages their child consumed, as well as any leftovers. At the same time, the investigators analysed urine samples from the children to get an objective measure of salt intake.
On average, five and six-year-old children in the study consumed 3.75g of salt a day - more than the recommended 3g maximum.
Eight and nine-year olds consumed 4.72g a day - within their 5g limit.
Thirteen to 17-year-olds consumed 7.55g a day - more than the 6g limit.
sliced bread Manufacturers have been working to reduce salt levels in foods such as bread
Boys tended to have higher salt intake than girls, particularly in the older and younger groups - about 1g higher per day in 5 to 6-year-olds, and 2.5g per day higher in 13 to 17-year-olds.
Hidden salt Much of the salt consumed was from processed foods rather than added at the table.

Salt limits

salt
The daily recommended maximum amount of salt children should eat depends on age:
  • One to three years - 2g salt a day (0.8g sodium)
  • Four to six years - 3g salt a day (1.2g sodium)
  • Seven to 10 years - 5g salt a day (2g sodium)
  • 11 years and over - 6g salt a day (2.4g sodium)
Lead researcher Prof Graham MacGregor, who is chairman of both the charity Blood Pressure UK and the lobby group Consensus Action on Salt & Health (CASH), said: "It is very difficult for parents to reduce children's salt intake unless they avoid packaged and restaurant foods and prepare each meal from scratch using fresh, natural ingredients."
He said manufacturers needed to do more to cut out salt.
Each 1g reduction in salt consumption would save thousands of lives from heart disease and strokes, he said.
A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "On average, we are eating approximately 2g of salt more each day than the recommended amount and it is vital that we address this. This is why we are working with industry through the Responsibility Deal to reduce the amount of salt in foods. We have just finalised new salt targets for 76 categories of food and call on industry to sign up."
Aim for foods that have a low or medium salt content:
  • Low is 0.3g salt or less per 100g (or 0.1g sodium)
  • Medium is 0.3g -1.5g per 100g
  • High is more than 1.5g per 100g (0.6g sodium)
Salt levels in many of our foods have reduced significantly, some by 40%-50% or more, and since 2007 more than 11 million kg of salt have been removed from the foods covered by the salt reduction targets. However, average salt consumption remains high at around 8.1g per day, so there is still a long way to go to meet the 6g per day population intake goal.
Manufacturers insist they are reducing salt in many products, including bread.
Terry Jones of the Food and Drink Federation said: "Although salt intakes in the UK have reduced significantly in recent years, we recognise that more work must be done to help and encourage people to stay within recommended limits. This is why food manufacturers have a long history of reducing salt in products and providing clear on-pack labelling to help people know what a product contains."
Luciana Berger MP, Labour's shadow public health minister, said the government had lost its way on public health.
She said: "We are consulting parents and experts about what's in children's food and whether they would find it helpful to have maximum levels of sugar, fat and salt."

2014年3月8日 星期六

What 10 Things Should You Do Every Day To Improve Your Life?


What 10 Things Should You Do Every Day To Improve Your Life?
Spending time in nature daily can help improve livelihood.
Getty Images

1) Get out in nature

You probably seriously underestimate how important this is. (Actually, there’s research that says you do.) Being in nature reduces stress, makes you more creative, improves your memory and may even make you a better person.

2) Exercise

We all know how important this is, but few people do it consistently. Other than health benefits too numerous to mention, exercise makes you smarter,happier, improves sleep, increases libido and makes you feel better about your body. A Harvard study that has tracked a group of men for more than 70 years identified it as one of the secrets to a good life.

3) Spend time with friends and family

Harvard happiness expert Daniel Gilbert identified this as one of the biggest sources of happiness in our lives. Relationships are worth more than you think (approximately an extra $131,232 a year.) Not feeling socially connected can make you stupider and kill you. Loneliness can lead to heart attack, stroke and diabetes. The longest lived people on the planet all place a strong emphasis on social engagement and good relationships are more important to a long life than even exercise. Friends are key to improving your life. Share good news and enthusiatically respond when others share good news with you to improve your relationships. Want to instantly be happier? Do something kind for them.

4) Express gratitude

It will make you happier.
It will improve your relationships.
It can make you a better person.
It can make life better for everyone around you.

5) Meditate

Meditation can increase happiness, meaning in life, social support and attention span while reducing anger, anxiety, depression and fatigue. Along similar lines, prayer can make you feel better — even if you’re not religious.

6) Get enough sleep

You can’t cheat yourself on sleep and not have it affect you. Being tired actually makes it harder to be happy. Lack of sleep = more likely to get sick. “Sleeping on it” does improve decision making. Lack of sleep can make you more likely to behave unethically. There is such a thing as beauty sleep.
Naps are great too. Naps increase alertness and performance on the job,enhance learning ability and purge negative emotions while enhancing positive ones. Here’s how to improve your naps.

7) Challenge yourself

Learning another language can keep your mind sharp. Music lessons increase intelligence. Challenging your beliefs strengthens your mind. Increasing willpower just takes a little effort each day and it’s more responsible for your success than IQ. Not getting an education or taking advantage of opportunities are two of the things people look back on their lives and regret the most.

8) Laugh

People who use humor to cope with stress have better immune systems, reduced risk of heart attack and stroke, experience less pain during dental work and live longer. Laughter should be like a daily vitamin. Just reminiscing about funny moments can improve your relationship. Humor has many benefits.

9) Touch someone

Touching can reduce stress, improve team performance, and help you be persuasive. Hugs make you happier. Sex may help prevent heart attacks and cancer, improve your immune system and extend your life.

10) Be optimistic

Optimism can make you healthier, happier and extend your life. The Army teaches it in order to increase mental toughness in soldiers. Being overconfident improves performance.

2014年3月5日 星期三

WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'


WHO: Daily sugar intake 'should be halved'

Where is sugar found in the diet and what does it do to your body?

Related Stories

People will be advised to halve the amount of sugar in their diet, under new World Health Organization guidance.
The recommended sugar intake will stay at below 10% of total calorie intake a day, with 5% the target, says the WHO.
The suggested limits apply to all sugars added to food, as well as sugar naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit concentrates.
UK campaigners say it is a "tragedy" that the WHO has taken 10 years to think about changing its advice.
The recommendation that sugar should account for no more than 10% of the calories in the diet, was passed in 2002.
It works out at about 50g a day for an adult of normal weight, said the WHO.

Start Quote

It is a tragedy that it has taken 10 years for the WHO to think about changing their recommendation on sugar”
Katharine Jenner Action for Sugar
However, a number of experts now think 10% is too high, amid rising obesity levels around the world.
Announcing the new draft measures, the WHO said in a statement: "WHO's current recommendation, from 2002, is that sugars should make up less than 10% of total energy intake per day.
"The new draft guideline also proposes that sugars should be less than 10% of total energy intake per day.
"It further suggests that a reduction to below 5% of total energy intake per day would have additional benefits."
Dr Francesco Branca, WHO's nutrition director, told a news conference that the 10% target was a "strong recommendation" while the 5% target was "conditional", based on current evidence.
"We should aim for 5% if we can," he added.

Facts about sugar

  • Evidence shows most adults and children in the UK eat more sugar than is recommended as part of a healthy balanced diet
  • Food and drinks that have a lot of added sugar contain calories, but often have few other nutrients
  • Sugary foods and drinks can also cause tooth decay, especially eaten between meals
  • Sugar found naturally in whole fruit is less likely to cause tooth decay than juices or blends because the sugar is contained within the body of the fruit
  • Source: NHS Choices
The plans will now go for public consultation, with firm recommendations expected this summer.
Public Health England said its scientific advisory committee on nutrition was reviewing evidence on sugar in the UK diet.
Director of Nutrition and Diet, Alison Tedstone, said: "Our surveys show that the UK population should reduce their sugar intake as average intake for adults is 11.6% and for children is 15.2%, which is above the current UK recommendation of 10%. "
Campaign group, Action for Sugar, said it was pressing for 5% to become the firm recommendation.
Nutritionist, Katharine Jenner, said: "It is a tragedy that it has taken 10 years for the WHO to think about changing their recommendation on sugar, which will have had
The WHO guidelines are based on a review of scientific evidence on the health impact of sugar, including damage to teeth and the effect on obesity.
The obesity study, published last year in the BMJ, found while sugar did not directly cause obesity, those who consumed a lot of it, particularly in sweetened drinks, tended to put on weight as sugary food did not make them feel full.
A review of the link between sugar intake and tooth decay, carried out by UK researchers, found cases of tooth decay were lower when sugar made up less than 10% of daily calories.
Paula Moynihan, Professor of Nutrition and Oral Health at Newcastle University, said: "The less sugar you eat, the lower your risk of dental decay."
Prof Tom Sanders of the School of Medicine, King's College London, said a limit of 5% added sugar "would be very tough to meet".
He added: "5% is untried and untested; 10% we can live with."
Dr Nita Forouhi, of the Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge, said the 5% target was "ambitious, and challenging".
On Tuesday a leading doctor called for a tax on sugar to help combat growing levels of obesity.
Dame Sally Davies, England's Chief Medical Officer, told MPs: "We may need to move toward some kind of sugar tax, but I hope we don't have to. "

More on This Story

Related Stories

二手煙危害小孩動脈

Passive smoking 'damages children's arteries'

passive smoke Smoke can linger for hours

Related Stories

Passive smoking causes lasting damage to children's arteries, prematurely ageing their blood vessels by more than three years, say researchers.
The damage - thickening of blood vessel walls - increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes in later life, they say in the European Heart Journal.
In their study of more than 2,000 children aged three to 18, the harm occurred if both parents smoked.
Experts say there is no "safe" level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

Start Quote

This study goes a step further and shows it [passive smoking] can cause potentially irreversible damage to children's arteries increasing their risk of heart problems in later life”
Doireann Maddock British Heart Foundation
The research, carried out in Finland and Australia, appears to reveal the physical effects of growing up in a smoke-filled home - although it is impossible to rule out other potentially contributory factors entirely.
Hidden damage Ultrasound scans showed how children whose parents both smoked developed changes in the wall of a main artery that runs up the neck to the head.
While the differences in carotid intima-media thickness were modest, they were significant and detectable some 20 years later when children had reached adulthood, say the investigators.
Study author Dr Seana Gall, from the University of Tasmania, said: "Our study shows that exposure to passive smoke in childhood causes a direct and irreversible damage to the structure of the arteries.
"Parents, or even those thinking about becoming parents, should quit smoking. This will not only restore their own health but also protect the health of their children into the future."
father smoking while holding his child
The results took account of other factors that might otherwise explain the association, such as whether the children went on to be smokers themselves, but the findings remained unchanged.
However, if only one parent smoked the effect was not seen - possibly because exposure was not as high.
Dr Gall said: "We can speculate that the smoking behaviour of someone in a house with a single adult smoking is different. For example, the parent that smokes might do so outside away from the family, therefore reducing the level of passive smoking. However, as we don't have this type of data, this is only a hypothesis."
Regardless, experts say all children should be protected from second-hand smoke.

Passive smoke

Boy playing with full ashtray
  • Smoke can stay in the air for up to two and a half hours even with a window open
  • It may still be there even if you can't see it or smell it
  • Second-hand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, some of which are known to cause cancer
  • Children who breathe in second-hand smoke have an increased risk of asthma and coughs and colds, as well as cot death, meningitis and ear infections
Doireann Maddock, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, said: "The negative health effects of passive smoking are well known, but this study goes a step further and shows it can cause potentially irreversible damage to children's arteries increasing their risk of heart problems in later life.
'Avoid scaremongering' "If you're a smoker, the single most effective way of reducing your child's exposure to passive smoke is for you to quit.
"If this isn't possible, having a smoke-free home and car offers the best alternative to help protect your child from the harmful effects of passive smoke."
Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said: "We must avoid scaremongering because damage to arteries could be caused by a number of factors including poor diet and other forms of air pollution.
"While it's sensible and considerate not to smoke around children in a small confined space it's far too easy to point the finger at smokers when the issue is extremely complicated."

2014年3月4日 星期二

Animal protein-rich diets could be as harmful to health as smoking

Animal protein-rich diets could be as harmful to health as smoking

People under 65 who eat a lot of meat, eggs and dairy are four times as likely to die from cancer or diabetes, study suggests
Plates of food rich in protein
The study throws doubt on the long-term safety of the Atkins and Paleo diets, which are high in meat, eggs and other sources of animal protein. Photograph: Reuters
 
A diet rich in meat, eggs, milk and cheese could be as harmful to health as smoking, according to a controversial study into the impact of protein consumption on longevity.

High levels of dietary animal protein in people under 65 years of age was linked to a fourfold increase in their risk of death from cancer or diabetes, and almost double the risk of dying from any cause over an 18-year period, researchers found. However, nutrition experts have cautioned that it's too early to draw firm conclusions from the research.

The overall harmful effects seen in the study were almost completely wiped out when the protein came from plant sources, such as beans and legumes, though cancer risk was still three times as high in middle-aged people who ate a protein-rich diet, compared with those on a low-protein diet.

legume
[名]《植物》1 マメ:マメ科の植物の総称;pea, beanなど.2 マメ科植物のさや(pod).3 ((主に米))食品としてのマメ類.
But whereas middle-aged people who consumed a lot of animal protein tended to die younger from cancer, diabetes and other diseases, the same diet seemed to protect people's health in old age.

The findings emerged from a study of 6,381 people aged 50 and over who took part in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) which tracks a representative group of adults and children in the US.

The study throws doubt on the long-term health effects of the popular Atkins and Paleo diets that are rich in protein. Instead, it suggests people should eat a low-protein diet until old age when they start to lose weight and become frail, and then boost the body's protein intake to stay healthy. In the over-65s, a high-protein diet cut the risk of death from any cause by 28%, and reduced cancer deaths by 60%, according to details of the study published in the journal Cell Metabolism.

Valter Longo, director of the Longevity Institute at the University of Southern California, said that on the basis of the study and previous work, people should restrict themselves to no more than 0.8g of protein a day for every kilogram of body weight, equivalent to 48g for a 60kg person, and 64g for an 80kg person.

"People need to switch to a diet where only around nine or ten percent of their calories come from protein, and the ideal sources are plant-based," Longo told the Guardian. "We are not saying go and do some crazy diet we came up with. If we are wrong, there is no harm done, but if we are right you are looking at an incredible effect that in general is about as bad as smoking."

"Spend a couple of months looking at the labels on your food. There is a little bit of protein everywhere. If you eat breakfast, you might get 4g protein, but a piece of chicken for lunch may have 50g protein," said Longo, who skips lunch to control his calorie and protein intake.
People who took part in the study consumed an average of 1,823 calories a day, with 51% coming from carbohydrates, 33% from fat, and 16% from protein, of which two thirds was animal protein. Longo divided them into three groups. The high-protein group got 20% or more of their calories from protein, the moderate group got 10 to 19% of their calories from protein, and the low group got less than 10% of calories from protein.

Teasing out the health effects of individual nutrients is notoriously difficult. The apparently harmful effects of a high-protein diet might be down to one or more other substances in meat, or driven by lifestyle factors that are more common in regular red meat eaters versus vegetarians. Other factors can skew results too: a person on the study who got ill might have gone off their food, and seen a proportional rise in the amount of calories they get from protein. In that case, it would be the illness driving the diet, not the other way round.

"I would urge general caution over observational studies, and particularly when looking at diet, given the difficulties of disentangling one nutrient or dietary component from another. You can get an association that might have some causal linkage or might not," said Peter Emery, head of nutrition and dietetics at King's College London.

Gunter Kuhnle, a food nutrition scientist at Reading University, said it was wrong "and potentially even dangerous" to compare the effects of smoking with the effect of meat and cheese as the study does.

"Sending out [press] statements such as this can damage the effectiveness of important public health messages. They can help to prevent sound health advice from getting through to the general public. The smoker thinks: 'why bother quitting smoking if my cheese and ham sandwich is just as bad for me?'"
Heather Ohly at the European Centre for Environment and Human Health in Exeter said: "Smoking has been proven to be entirely bad for us, whereas meat and cheese can be consumed in moderation as part of a healthy diet, contributing to recommended intakes of many important nutrients."
Most people in Britain eat more protein than they need. The British Dietetic Association recommends a daily intake of 45g and 55g of protein for the average woman and man respectively. But according to the British Nutrition Foundation the average protein intake per day is 88g and 64g for men and women.
In a series of follow-up experiments, Longo looked at what might lie behind the apparently damaging effects of a high-protein diet on health in middle age. Blood tests on people in the study showed that levels of a growth hormone called IGF-1 rose and fell in line with protein intake. For those on a high protein diet, rises in IGF-1 steadily increased their cancer risk. Further tests on mice found that a high-protein diet led to more cancer and larger tumours than a low-protein diet.

2014年3月3日 星期一

中國企業開始重視環保/《喚醒綠色虎》: 中國環保力量的覺醒



唐山鋼鐵高管:中國企業的環保措施動真格了
環保措施落後,亂排廢氣的現象非常普遍——或許很多人對於中國鋼鐵廠還有著這樣的印象,但現在的情況已大為改觀。最新的大型鋼鐵廠,都在借助外資等力量充實環保設備,生產一線也在為達到嚴格的環保標准而努力…… (詳見全文)




 013年12月13日 07:35 AM中國環保力量的覺醒環境網站“中外對話”北京辦公室助理編輯張春
環保紀錄片《喚醒綠色虎》在獲得華盛頓“格蘭特海姆環境新聞獎”等多個獎項之後,今年9月獲得了鳳凰視頻紀錄片大獎——“綠色中國獎”。這是這部關於中國的紀錄片第一次在中國得獎。影片由加拿大資深導演馬求實和中國獨立製片人史立紅聯合製作。中外對話:為什麼要做這麼一部片子?又為何選擇虎跳峽這個故事?馬求實:我以前做過另外兩部重要的環境紀錄片,一部關於蘇聯的激進發展和保護北極的環境運動,另一部關於美國核污染和民眾抵制運動,關注的焦點都在環保運動的興起中國是新興的大國強國,所以,我也早有計劃做一部關於中國環境運動發端的片子。最後選擇虎跳峽,有兩個重要的契機。到中國展開調研的第一周,我就見到了汪永晨、馬軍、劉鑑強、於曉剛等中國環保領域的領軍人物,他們也是虎跳峽運動的參與人。這些人都給我講了虎跳峽的故事。也提到,當時在南方周末任職的劉鑑強(編者註:劉鑑強現為中外對話北京辦公室總編輯)關於虎跳峽的文章發布後,溫家寶總理立刻下令暫停虎跳峽項目。同時,在這次調研中,我通過於曉剛看到了《怒江之聲》這部紀錄片,我非常喜歡這個片子的拍攝方式。後來我認識了這個片子的導演史立紅,了解到她從2004年就開始拍攝關於怒江和金沙江老百姓反對建壩的故事,這些珍貴的視頻資料使得《喚醒綠色虎》成為可能。中國共有約2萬座在建或建成的大壩,基本沒有遭遇過反對的聲音,卻在虎跳峽這樣一個絕佳的大壩選址處,放棄了修建計劃。對我來說,虎跳峽在中國環境運動史上的作用越顯意義非凡。中外對話:這部片子中,在滇池邊圍湖造田、除四害趕麻雀這樣一些珍貴的畫面,在別處從來沒有見過,請問你們是如何獲得這些內容,又是如何將這些內容組織到電影中的?史立紅:這些是史料,部分是買來的,部分是通過特殊渠道獲得的。《喚醒綠色虎》有兩條主線,一條是保護虎跳峽的行動,另一條是中國人環保意識轉變的歷史。第一條主線,從NGO和蕭亮中的呼籲、宣傳,到最後當地民眾自己來宣傳並發動保護,這是保護虎跳峽的行動本身;第二條主線,從20世紀50年代“人定勝天”到2000年前後以環境為重的態度轉變,是中國人環保意識覺醒的大歷史背景。我們看到的全民大煉鋼、圍滇池造田,以及全民趕麻雀,就是那個年代中國人對待環境的態度。中外對話:過去幾十年中,中國人對待環境有什麼樣的改變?馬求實:有兩個不同層面的改變。第一,政府的政策轉變了。在上世紀六七十年代,政府的態度就是人定勝天,經濟發展是第一位的。隨後,政府則已經將環境的重要性擺到更靠前的位置。第二個改變是,公眾開始表達利益訴求了。在七十年代,他們可能並不同意政府的政策,例如圍滇池造田,但是不敢表達;在2004年之後,老百姓可以表達了。這個是很大的變化。中外對話:這部電影在世界上得到什麼樣的反響?馬求實:本片從2011年9月開始,在加拿大、美國、巴西、馬來西亞、印度等30多個國家和地區放映,獲得了10個大獎。其中2013年12月獲得華盛頓“格蘭特海姆環境報導獎”(Grantham Prize)的“特殊報導獎”。該獎的目的在獎勵“有潛力帶來建設性改變”的傑出環境報導。由於講的是民間行動,普通人的故事,這部片子也得到了公眾的廣泛歡迎。一個原因是,國外的人不了解中國,大家平常看到的都是中國的官方政策、活動,這次很不一樣;更重要的一方面,中國能夠通過公眾運動保護自己的環境,對他們是非常大的鼓勵。在柬埔寨、越南等很多國家,故事對他們來說很新鮮,也很難想像。與此同時,他們也面臨相似的情況,因此很受觸動。有一位叫做Cynthia Chong的環保主義者寫信給我,說他們希望能把這部電影翻譯成本族語言,以便在當地傳播。Cynthia Chong女士來自馬來西亞薩巴州山打根市(Sandakan,Sabah),是一個名叫“東南亞可再生能源人民大會”(SEAREPA)的NGO網絡的成員,這個組織由80個NGO組成。她在加拿大的一次放映會上看到了《喚醒綠色虎》,徵得我同意後在他們的大會上放映了這部片子。後來有15個人站起來,希望把片子翻譯成他們自己的語言,讓更多的人看到。現在有10個不同語言的志願工作小組正在同步翻譯這個片子。一位參與者說:“這個片子並沒有告訴我們是該建還是不該建,而是讓我們看到公眾參與可能產生的影響,以及民主的意義。”中外對話:你們怎麼看待中國環境運動中的公眾知情權問題?如影片所述,在虎跳峽的故事中,很多群眾並不知曉將要發生在自己身上的事情。史立紅:現實是,公眾根本就沒有知情權。蕭亮中是自小在金沙江邊長大的人類學家,懂得金沙江的自然和人文環境的重要性。他知道建大壩的危害,所以2004年得知大壩施工之初,他就努力幫助鄉親們知情,並通過媒體和NGO來讓公眾知道虎跳峽要發生的事情。次年1月,蕭亮中去世,我們一批學者、NGO人士,幫忙做了虎跳峽流域的資料彙編,包括聯合國人權宣言、中央關於知情權的文件,也包括媒體報導。我們把資料發給當地的老百姓。這對老百姓了解自己的處境、維護自己的權利很重要,但以前他們沒有渠道獲得。現在金沙江的公眾意識是怎樣的?比如村民中有一位丁大媽,後來每天必看雲南新聞聯播和中央新聞聯播,還讓兒子給她訂了人民日報,了解政策導向。他們也開始知道開發商和政府不是一回事,不會輕易上當受騙。他們就像蕭亮中一樣認識到:“你哪怕用黃金把這條金沙江河谷鋪滿,也換不來這條自由流淌的大江,也換不來我們的家園!”中外對話北京辦公室編輯劉琴對此文也有貢獻
环保纪录片《唤醒绿色虎》在获得华盛顿“格兰特海姆环境新闻奖”等多个奖项之后,今年9月获得了凤凰视频纪录片大奖——“绿色中国奖”。这是这部关于中国的纪录片第一次在中国得奖。影片由加拿大资深导演马求实和中国独立制片人史立红联合制作。
中外对话:为什么要做这么一部片子?又为何选择虎跳峡这个故事?
马求实:我以前做过另外两部重要的环境纪录片,一部关于苏联的激进发展和保护北极的环境运动,另一部关于美国核污染和民众抵制运动,关注的焦点都在环保运动的兴起。中国是新兴的大国强国,所以,我也早有计划做一部关于中国环境运动发端的片子。
最 后选择虎跳峡,有两个重要的契机。到中国展开调研的第一周,我就见到了汪永晨、马军、刘鉴强、于晓刚等中国环保领域的领军人物,他们也是虎跳峡运动的参与 人。这些人都给我讲了虎跳峡的故事。也提到,当时在南方周末任职的刘鉴强(编者注:刘鉴强现为中外对话北京办公室总编辑)关于虎跳峡的文章发布后,温家宝 总理立刻下令暂停虎跳峡项目。同时,在这次调研中,我通过于晓刚看到了《怒江之声》这部纪录片,我非常喜欢这个片子的拍摄方式。后来我认识了这个片子的导 演史立红,了解到她从2004年就开始拍摄关于怒江和金沙江老百姓反对建坝的故事,这些珍贵的视频资料使得《唤醒绿色虎》成为可能。
中国共有约2万座在建或建成的大坝,基本没有遭遇过反对的声音,却在虎跳峡这样一个绝佳的大坝选址处,放弃了修建计划。对我来说,虎跳峡在中国环境运动史上的作用越显意义非凡。
中外对话:这部片子中,在滇池边围湖造田、除四害赶麻雀这样一些珍贵的画面,在别处从来没有见过,请问你们是如何获得这些内容,又是如何将这些内容组织到电影中的?
史立红:这些是史料,部分是买来的,部分是通过特殊渠道获得的。
《唤醒绿色虎》有两条主线,一条是保护虎跳峡的行动,另一条是中国人环保意识转变的历史。第一条主线,从NGO和萧亮中的呼吁、宣传,到最后当地民众自己来宣传并发动保护,这是保护虎跳峡的行动本身;
第二条主线,从20世纪50年代“人定胜天”到2000年前后以环境为重的态度转变,是中国人环保意识觉醒的大历史背景。我们看到的全民大炼钢、围滇池造田,以及全民赶麻雀,就是那个年代中国人对待环境的态度。
中外对话:过去几十年中,中国人对待环境有什么样的改变?
马求实:有两个不同层面的改变。第一,政府的政策转变了。在上世纪六七十年代,政府的态度就是人定胜天,经济发展是第一位的。随后,政府则已经将环境的重要性摆到更靠前的位置。
第二个改变是,公众开始表达利益诉求了。在七十年代,他们可能并不同意政府的政策,例如围滇池造田,但是不敢表达;在2004年之后,老百姓可以表达了。这个是很大的变化。
中外对话:这部电影在世界上得到什么样的反响?
马求实:本 片从2011年9月开始,在加拿大、美国、巴西、马来西亚、印度等30多个国家和地区放映,获得了10个大奖。其中2013年12月获得华盛顿“格兰特海 姆环境报道奖”(Grantham Prize)的“特殊报道奖”。该奖的目的在奖励“有潜力带来建设性改变”的杰出环境报道。
由于讲的是民间行动,普通人的故事,这部片子也得到了公众的广泛欢迎。一个原因是,国外的人不了解中国,大家平常看到的都是中国的官方政策、活动,这次很不一样;更重要的一方面,中国能够通过公众运动保护自己的环境,对他们是非常大的鼓励。
在柬埔寨、越南等很多国家,故事对他们来说很新鲜,也很难想象。与此同时,他们也面临相似的情况,因此很受触动。有一位叫做Cynthia Chong的环保主义者写信给我,说他们希望能把这部电影翻译成本族语言,以便在当地传播。
Cynthia Chong女士来自马来西亚萨巴州山打根市(Sandakan,Sabah),是一个名叫“东南亚可再生能源人民大会”(SEAREPA)的NGO网络的成员,这个组织由80个NGO组成。
她在加拿大的一次放映会上看到了《唤醒绿色虎》,征得我同意后在他们的大会上放映了这部片子。后来有15个人站起来,希望把片子翻译成他们自己的语言,让更多的人看到。 现在有10个不同语言的志愿工作小组正在同步翻译这个片子。
一位参与者说:“这个片子并没有告诉我们是该建还是不该建,而是让我们看到公众参与可能产生的影响,以及民主的意义。”
中外对话:你们怎么看待中国环境运动中的公众知情权问题?如影片所述,在虎跳峡的故事中,很多群众并不知晓将要发生在自己身上的事情。
史立红:现实是,公众根本就没有知情权。萧亮中是自小在金沙江边长大的人类学家,懂得金沙江的自然和人文环境的重要性。他知道建大坝的危害,所以2004年得知大坝施工之初,他就努力帮助乡亲们知情,并通过媒体和NGO来让公众知道虎跳峡要发生的事情。
次年1月,萧亮中去世,我们一批学者、NGO人士,帮忙做了虎跳峡流域的资料汇编,包括联合国人权宣言、中央关于知情权的文件,也包括媒体报道。我们把资料发给当地的老百姓。
这对老百姓了解自己的处境、维护自己的权利很重要,但以前他们没有渠道获得。
现在金沙江的公众意识是怎样的?比如村民中有一位丁大妈,后来每天必看云南新闻联播和中央新闻联播,还让儿子给她订了人民日报,了解政策导向。他们也开始知道开发商和政府不是一回事,不会轻易上当受骗。
他们就像萧亮中一样认识到:“你哪怕用黄金把这条金沙江河谷铺满,也换不来这条自由流淌的大江,也换不来我们的家园!”
中外对话北京办公室编辑刘琴对此文也有贡献