Cow milk , "Prasāda" and voice of conscience

Clearly this is something, that goes beyond my understanding.

In most Vaishnava and Vedic traditions, "Prasāda" is a food offered to the Lord and ultimately it is distributed to devotees as a blessing. Main objective underlying this practice of eating moderate amounts of food - Prasada- a Sattvic - blessed and sentient diet that can lead humans to attain purity of consciousness, spirituality and longevity. Sattvic tendencies include the ethical principles of non-harm and benevolence.

Use of cow milk in preparation of Prasāda in ancient Vedic and Vaishanava cultures was strongly linked with cow's motherly status. Cows were treated like a part of the family.

Whereas in present era of dairy farming industry, cows are merely more than a milk and meat producing creatures, living extremely painful life in "milk factories" with "right" of living up to milk producing age and "duty" to face slaughter in order to provide meat. Cows and also other "milk-producing" animals are purely considered in terms of their milk-producing capacity. Calves born by the cows are taken away from cows for various uses such as selling them for producing veal. Milk which cow produces for own calf would go for sell. Raising non-milk-producing animals- "stock" means lack of efficiency.

In this scenario of modern extremely efficient "milk-producing" practices is not at all in agreement with fundamental vedic concepts of non-harm and benevolence. Therefore, Prasāda which is prepared from use of milk from dairy induistry should not only be far from being a Sattvic diet by fact and definition, but also appears like a testimonial of being a part of cruel and exploitative treatment of cows and other animals. From scientific aspects, there is a clear evidence that milk, sold today at shelves of shops is not similar to milk 1000-2000 years ago. Since modern dairy farms keep draining milk from a cow approximately 300 days in a year. During times of pregnancy, cows secrete 30 times higher estrogens, which makes milk a potent carcinogen and a kind of Rajsic food.

Even after knowledge about this issue, I have heard several reasons for cow milk being accepted in Prasadam. Such as,

• Cow that provides milk for preparing Prasāda, would be fortunate one to get blessings of the Lord. 
• We don't consume meat and therefore we are not responsible for the slaughter of cows. We have been using cow milk as a part of our tradition and stopping use of milk would not help in preventing slaughter of cows.
  

• It is hard to make any impact by not using cow milk from dairy industry

It looks like trivializing the cruelty on animals and should be in conflict to ethical principles and about justification for having Sattvic food to prepare Prasāda. When I consume milk I feel sometimes like a  person having a share in cruel treatment of animals. It also reminds me of a character of Bhishma in Mahabharata. Despite of being in a perfect position to raise voice against stripping of Draupadi in royal court, he did not act. I do understand that Bhishma was able and enough to prevent stripping of Draupadi, whereas Hindus, jains and Vaishnava have far less ability to prevent exploitation of cows and other animals. To be precise, I think use of milk in Prasadam should be minimized.



Cows at modern Rotary milking parlor
Source : Wikipedia

Care of "Mother" cow"
Source : Wikipedia
Copyright: Himalayan Academy Publications, Kapaa, Kauai, Hawaii.

Above two pictures reveals the sharp contrast between two concepts. Raising few cows at home, offering them status as "holy mother" cow, providing care is one kind of exchange of love, co-existence and positive human-animal relationship. Whereas dairy farming industry primarily treats cows as milk producing machines, and therefore it's no less than exploitation of cows.


How to empathize with the sufferings of animals ?? I am asking myself.

trinad api sunichena
taror api sahishnuna

Let us be more humble than a thread of grass..Let us be more tolerant than trees..

Radon in the air...

It's the middle of June and temperatures are rising. Greenery is in full swing. Lots of bird-chirping around..However, not something that goes as reinvigorating and cherishing life in environment. Yes, I am talking about radon gas emanating from the soil. June is a month, which marks rise in indoor radon levels, achieving peak by August/September. Because radon is not visible, probably most people tend to underestimate the menace of radon exposure. About 9% of lung cancer mortality and 2% of total cancer-mortality in EU is ascribed to radon exposure. In Sweden, every year 400-500 cases of lung cancer are ascribed to radon exposure. All that has to do is not only with its lung carcinogenicity, but also its presence at varying concentrations in water, food, gas released during shower -all that might have some unknown health implications from mutagenic property of radon.

Here is a figure, where domestic sources of radon are displayed nicely.

Last week, I wrote about uranium mining issue. Radon is closely linked with uranium mining. Since mining ores left after mining constitute source of radon gas in surrounding localities. Scientific evidence is not stronger enough. Recently, weaker correlation has been shown to exist between distance from uranium mines to indoor radon gas levels within surrounding localities. Since carcinogenic lung toxicity is cumulative and it depends on duration and intensity of exposures during lifetime, most study methods face difficulties in figuring out direct relationship between uranium mining and community level health impacts. Although it has been know that there is no safe dose for radon exposure. Based on studies, 200 Bq/m³ in a room with normal occupancy has been conventionally used as a reference action level. That does not mean domestic radon level less than this limit is "safe". One recent study(Darby et al, 2005) estimates 16% higher lung cancer risk with every 100 Bq/m³ increase in domestic radon and suggests possible reference level not above 150 Bq/m³. However, national governments around the world have considerable differences in their radon policies and regulations. Within EU, inter-country variations in radon goals exist. Part of variation can be attributed to the fact that radon is unevenly distributed in soil and ambient levels of radon varies according to geography, giving rise to differences in practicality of goals. My opinion is that in scenario where health effects  from radon exposure is similar, geographic differences in air concentrations of radon should be dealt with coherent policy standards.

Over and above this national level policy differences, there is some extent of complacency at public level. More problematic life is for those who live in social housing, since they have to rely on housing landlords for any necessary radon remediation measures.

Talking of permissions for uranium mining is a difficult decision while prevention of associated health risks are in requirement of more effective policy and its implementation.

Sweden has conventionally preferred to rely on imports of uranium for energy production, that has been wise enough to take care of its radon goals. According to latest reports, 9-14% of detached houses in Sweden have radon-level above 200Bq/m³; 394 schools and 218 preschools have been reported with radon level above 200 Bq/m³.

Sweden's latest revival of interest in uranium mining regardless of technological sophistication used, casts doubts on smooth and quick achievability of its radon goals. If uranium mining would start, it would be interesting to see, how far it stays away from causing environmental impacts in Sweden.

Svenska
Juni är en månad, markerar upphov radonnivåer inomhus. Den når en topp i augusti och September.
Eftersom radon syns inte, förmodligen de flesta människor tenderar att underskatta hotet från radon exponering. Cirka 9% av lungcancer dödlighet och 2% av den totala cancerrelaterade dödligheten i EU tillskrivas radon exponering och i Sverige varje år 400-500 fall av lungcancer är tillskrivas radon exponering.

Cancerframkallande lung toxicitet är kumulativa och det beror på varaktighet och intensitet av exponeringar under livstid. Även om, som bygger på studier, 200 Bq/m³ i ett rum med normal beläggning har traditionellt används som en referens nivå. Det betyder inte inhemska radon nivån understiger denna gräns är "säkra". En färsk undersökning (Darby et al, 2005) uppskattar 16% högre risken för lungcancer med 100 Bq/m³ ökad intern radon och föreslår möjliga referensnivån högst 150 Bq/m³. Men nationella regeringar runt om i världen har stora skillnader i deras radon politik och lagstiftning. Inom EU, mellan länder variationer i radon mål finns. Min uppfattning är att i scenario där effekten av radon exponering är liknande, geografiska skillnader i luften av radon bör behandlas med liknande politik ation.

Diskussioner om tillstånd för uranbrytning är ett svårt beslut samtidigt förebygga tillhörande hälsorisker är kravet på en effektivare politik och dess genomförande. Sverige har traditionellt föredragit att förlita sig på import av uran för energiproduktion, som har varit kloka nog att ta hand om sin radon mål. Enligt senaste rapporterna, 9-14% av småhus i Sverige har radon över 200Bq/m3, 394 skolor och 218 förskolor har rapporterats med radon nivå över 200 Bq / m³. Om uranbrytning skulle börja, det skulle vara intressant att se hur långt den förblir borta från orsakar miljöpåverkan i Sverige.

Dangerous business of uranium mining : never-ending battle ?

Uranium-mining has long been known to be associated with environmental hazard. However, concerns over its health hazards to the miners and surrounding populations has continued to remain underestimated to the larger extent.

Uranium mining produces several types of waste (Source :Fact sheet on Uranium mining waste, EPA) :

• overburden : soil and rock that is covering a deposit of ore, such as uranium, usually contains at least trace amounts of the ore plus radioactive decay products
• unreclaimed, subeconomic ores with too little uranium to be profitable
  
• "barren" rock that contains no ore
• drill cuttings

Goliad county, Texas of USA starts facing a menace of safe drinking water following uranium mining operations in the area

Apart from occupational exposure during entire process ranging from mining,  milling to enrichment operations poses severe health risks. However, soils used for uranium mining also consititute high risk to human health. Human health risks to the surrounding populations spans from direct human exposure to mining area due to reasons such as recreational activities or exposure of native indigenous populations, exposure to radioactive substances released during mining processes in surrounding environment or other forms of exposures such as use of building material from mining areas, contamination of ground water and soil by active waste. Several epidemiological studies have concluded increased risk of certain diseases such as leukemia, kidney diseases, lung cancer, diabetes, physical deformities, chromosomal aberrations - in surrounding populations. However, exact quantification of human health risks has been considered a difficult task due to uncertainties existing in nature and extent use of past mining and surrounding regions, mechanisms and extent of consequences of ground-water contamination and effects on drinking water and food, concentrations of radioactive contaminants, effects from contamination of livestock feed and fertilizers.

According to latest reports(EURATOM ann. rep., 2007), Russia, Canada, Niger and Australia are the major uranium suppliers to EU. Whereas EU produces 3% of its uranium demand.

Latest rise in international uranium prices appears to have revived commercial appetite in uranium mining.  Besides this, nuclear energy has been also seen as an option to alleviate climate change associated risks. However, such opinions downplay the risks associated with use of nuclear energy.

Sweden does not seem to be an exception on this phenomenon. Skaraborg and Billingen in Västragötaland and Östersund, Tåsjö and Kläppibäcken of Jämtland have been selected by commercial interests for new uranium exploration projects. Fortunately, such efforts have been met with massive public protests and protests from local bodies. However, some of the legal battles are still going on. There would be new industry plans in future and would require new legal battles to keep up environmental interest at top. Nej till uranbrytning represents a well-coordinated opposition movement to uranium mining in Sweden. We should hope that Sweden's environmental and public health interests would not be compromised in future at any cost.

Svenska:

Uran-brytning har länge varit kända för att vara förknippade med miljörisker. Men oron för sin hälsorisk för gruvarbetarna och omgivande befolkningen har fortsatt att vara underskattade i större utsträckning.

Varje steg i kedjan av tillverka kärnbränsle, från brytning till anrikning, kan leda till föroreningar, olyckor, radioaktivt avfall och hälsorisker för både arbetarna och den lokala befolkningen.Men tidigare använda marken för uranbrytning finns också risk för människors hälsa. Folkhälsorisker till omgivande befolkningen spänner från människors direkta exponering för gruv-område på grund av skäl såsom fritidsaktiviteter eller exponering av infödda urbefolkningar, exponering för radioaktiva ämnen som frigörs vid utvinningsprocesser i omgivningen eller andra former av exponering såsom användning av byggnaden material från gruvområden, förorening av grundvatten och mark från avfall [detaljer]. Flera epidemiologiska studier visar ökad risk för vissa sjukdomar, såsom leukemi, njursjukdomar, lungcancer, diabetes, fysiska missbildningar, kromosomavvikelser - i omgivande befolkningen. Men exakt kvantifiering av folkhälsorisker har ansetts vara en svår uppgift på grund av osäkerheten som finns i natur och omfattning använda tidigare gruvdrift och omgivande regioner, mekanismer och omfattningen av konsekvenserna av marknära vatten och effekter på dricksvatten och livsmedel, koncentrationer av radioaktiva ämnen, effekter av föroreningar i djurfoder och gödningsmedel.

Senast stigande internationella priserna på uran verkar ha återupplivats kommersiella aptit för uranbrytning. Kärnkraft har också ses som ett alternativ till att lindra klimatförändringen risker. Men sådana yttranden tona ned riskerna med användning av kärnenergi.

Sverige verkar inte vara ett undantag för detta fenomen. Skaraborg och Billingen i Västragötaland och Östersund, Tåsjö och Kläppibäcken i Jämtlands Län har lockat kommersiella intressen för nya uranbrytning projekt. Lyckligtvis är sådana insatser har mötts av massiva protester från allmänheten och protester från lokala myndigheter. Men några av de juridiska striderna fortfarande pågår. Det skulle bli ny industri planer i framtiden och skulle kräva en ny rättslig kamp för att hålla miljön i toppen. Nej till uranbrytning är en väl samordnad oppositionsrörelsen att uranbrytning i Sverige. Vi får hoppas att Sverige inte skulle äventyra dess miljö-och folkhälsoområdet intressen till varje pris.

Blogg på engelska och Svenska

Inom senaste dagarna, jag har försökt att bredda läsekrets och få kommentarer om denna nya bloggen. Få läsare föreslog mig att jag skulle skriva liknande blogg på engelska också. Men det är svårt för mig att byta till en annan blogg på engelska inom nuvarande omständigheter.

Därför vill jag ta en möjlighet att skriva mina blogginlägg i engelska och svenska.

Jag ber om ursäkt för eventuella grammatiska fel i mitt inlägg. Jag lära svenska ännu.

Välkomna med kommentarer !