Here’s why…

• Tobacco growing requires the use of more pesticides per acre than any other crop.
• Flue curing, the process of drying out tobacco leaves requires an external heat source and this contributes to deforestation. While the US mostly uses oil, coal, or liquid petroleum gas, developing countries account for 85% of all tobacco grown and use wood-burning fire for flue curing.
• Each cigarette emits around 14 milligrams of fine particulate matter which doesn’t seem like much. But if you multiple it by the estimated 5.5 trillion cigarettes smoked annual, it becomes more than 80,000 tons of fine particular matter emitted each year.
• Cigarettes might go up in smoke but the butts remain and account for 1.7 billion pounds of non-biodegradable trash.

You can read the full article here…

(image from SXU.hu)

Post from: Healthbolt

Well, it seems that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is no different. They, too, attach conditions on their loans to recipient countries. Conditions such as the country being required to reduce or limit their education, social services, and health expenditure in an effort to get inflation in check. The idea behind this is that, despite these cutbacks in services, once the country’s inflation has been controlled and economy restored, the health of the people will improve automatically.

But as a recent article in Slate points out – this ain’t necessarily so!

Turns out a new research study with a long drawn out title – International Monetary Fund Programs and Tuberculosis Outcomes in Post-Communist Countries - has found the opposite seems to be happening.

Here’s Slate’s take on it…

“The authors find that the IMF’s strictly conditioned loans are associated with a fall in the quality of health, measured by one important indicator: an increase in the rate of tuberculosis. They further argue that this is a relationship of cause and effect—that the IMF loans (or, realistically, the conditions attached to them) are responsible for the observed decline in health. While it’s perhaps impossible to prove this using the tools of epidemiology, the authors substantiate an extremely strong case.”

And there seems to plenty of numbers and stats to back this up.

Read the non-scientist speak version over at Slate or dig in and read the full research article over at PLos, a peer-reviewed open-access journal, and you’ll see what I mean.

I guess money not only doesn’t buy happiness, it also doesn’t guarantee good health!!!

Post from: Healthbolt