The word gets longer with an extra O, while the continuous loop gets shorter.

Hennes & Mauritz AB: the popular Swedish clothing chain known as H&M introduces a machine for recycling used clothes directly in one of its shops open to the public, and more precisely in Stockholm.

In 2017 the Swedish government reformed the tax system so that people could get cheaper repairs on used items, and Swedish clothing giant H&M operates a recycling scheme where customers get a discount upon handing in old clothes.

Meanwhile, researchers are working on finding new clothing materials that are less damaging to the environment.

Returning to Looop, the technology was developed by HRITA: Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel and will be visible in Stockholm’s Drottninggatan Store on October 12.

For 150 Swedish kronor, that is just under 15 euros or just 100 (about 10 euros) for those who are enrolled in the loyalty program, it will be possible to directly witness the transformation of the old garment into a new garment.

The process is divided into 8 phases:

  1. cleaning
  2. shredding
  3. filtering
  4. carding
  5. drawing
  6. spinning
  7. twisting
  8. knitting

It does not involve the use of water or chemical dyes, however, it is necessary to add a yarn of “sustainable origin” to strengthen the fibers obtained from the old shredded dress.

What do you think about it?



The European Green Deal  sets out how to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, boosting the economy, improving people’s health and quality of life, caring for nature, and leaving no one behind.

“Climate neutrality” means zero emissions: that is, the equilibrium point thanks to which the emissions do not exceed the absorption capacity of the earth.

Various strategies fall within the scope of this project, such as Farm to fork  or Biodiversity 2030 all aimed at sustainability, and the protection of the environment and health.

For this reason, also in light of Bayer’s plea bargain  the motion of the senator Elena Cattaneo, in sharp contrast, not only screeches, but raises protests from many sides, primarily the scientific community

The shadow of the notorious Monsanto Papers emerges on the horizon.

Papers means official documents but in reality this expression refers to an investigation by Le Monde  on the ghostwriting used by the multinational to make experts apparently unrelated to Bayer / Monsanto attest statements actually produced by internal scientists, capable of discrediting those who report the toxicity of glyphosate, confirming the thesis according to which there is no evidence found that it is carcinogenic.

Recently, we often walk in the countryside between corn fields and rice fields and in particular one afternoon we happened to be right behind a field where the distribution of the herbicide was in progress.

Beyond attestations and counter-appraisals, the way in which the air breathed at that juncture leaves an unpleasant aftertaste characterized by a strong and disturbing smell and generates a sensation of persistent annoyance, may already be enough …



Glyphosate is a molecule of the family of amino acids, discovered by Monsanto in the early 1970s.
It consists of an amino acid, glycine and a phosphoric acid molecule joined together by a nitrogen bridge.

And it’s the active ingredient in Roundup:
when sprayed on the leaves of the plants, it penetrates through their green parts, is absorbed and then diffused – technically it is said to be translocated – through the tissues and transported from the sap to the roots and organs of propagation and reproduction of the plant (rhizomes, stolons , bulbs, bulbils). Once penetrated, glyphosate inhibits the production of an enzyme called EPSP synthetase, which in turn prevents the plant from producing the aromatic amino acids essential for its growth and development.

Monsanto started selling Roundup in 1974.

At the beginning of the 70s the population had 3 billion 682 million people, destined to reach 4 billion by 1975.

In 1992 the patent expires and Monsanto is ready with more effective new products.
A progressive evolution of the Roundup therefore begins, which becomes an increasingly concentrated product.

With the arrival of the new millennium, the need to limit disposal costs is added to the need for concentration, and both lead to the new Transorb technology based on a mixture of surfactants that reduces the interval between application and sowing in just 6 hours. .

But the escalation continues: Roundup 450plus, Roundup 360power, and then Platinum in 2013.

March 4, 2013 is the date at the bottom of the letter that Marion Copley, a biology graduate with a master’s degree in animal husbandry and veterinary science, serving the EPA’s toxicology department for 30 years, writes to her colleague Jess Rowland nicknamed “Monsanto’s mole” “:

Since I left the Agency with cancer, I have studied the tumor process extensively and I have some mechanism comments which may be very valuable to CARC based on my decades of pathology experience. I’ll pick one chemical to demonstrate my points.

Glyphosate was originally designed as a chelating agent and 1 strongly believe that is the identical process involved in its tumor formation, which is highly supported by the literature.

-Chelators inhibit apoptosis, the process by which our bodies kill tumor cells.

-Chelators are endocrine disruptors, involved in tumorigenesis.

-Glyphosate induces lymphocyte proliferation.

-Glyphosate induces free radical formation.

-Chelators inhibit free radical scavenging enzymes requiring Zn, Mn or Cu for activity (i.e. SODs.

-Chelators bind zinc, necessary for immune system functio.

-Glyphosate is genotoxic, a key cancer mechanis.

-Chelators inhibit DNA repair enzymes requiring metal cofactor.

-Chelators bind Ca, Zn, Mg, etc to make foods deficient for these essential nutrient.

-Chelators bind calcium necessary for calcineurin-mediated immune respons.

-Chelators often damage the kidneys or pancreas, as glyphosate does, a mechanism to tumor formation -Kidney/pancreas damage can lead to clinical chemistry changes to favor tumor growth.

-Glyphosate kills bacteria in the gut and the gastrointestinal system is 80% of the immune system.

-Chelators suppress the immune system making the body susceptible to tumor.

Previously, CARC concluded that glyphosate was a “possible human carcinogen”. The kidney pathology in the animal studies would lead to tumors with other mechanisms listed above. Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously. It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen”. Blood cells arc most exposed to chelators, if any study shows proliferation of lymphocytes, then that is confirmatory that glyphosate is a carcinogen.

Jess, you and I have argued many times on CARC. You often argued about topics outside of your knowledge, which is unethical. Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms. For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry. Chelators clearly disrupt calcium signaling, a key signaling pathway in all cellos and mediates tumor progression. Greg Ackerman is supposed to be our expert on mechanisms, but he never mentioned any of these concepts at CARC and when I tried to discuss it with him he put me off. Is Greg playing your political games as well, incompetent or does he have some conflict of interest of some kind? Your Nebraska colleague took industry funding, he clearly has a conflict of interest. Just promise me not to ever let Anna on the CARC committee, her decisions don’t make rational sense. If anyone in OPP is taking bribes, it is her.

I have cancer and I don’t want these serious issues in MED to go unaddressed before I go to my grave. I have done my duty.
Marion Copley March 4, 2013

This page was created in her memory.

The public debate on carcinogenic risks related to glyphosate begins only two years after her death.

In 2016, in fact, the gardener Dewayne Johnson, following a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto for using Roundup.

Meanwhile Bayer acquires Monsanto.

In October 2018, the popular jury sentenced Bayer and $ 250 million in damages for punitive damages + 39 for damages.
The sentence is then reduced to 78 million in total.

In 2020 Bayer entered into a record deal of over $ 10 billion in plea bargaining for tens of thousands of lawsuits filed for glyphosate-related diseases.

However, the Roundup may continue to be sold.

Today the population has practically doubled since 1975.

Certainly these multinationals speculate and even if ethically questionable progress is unstoppable.

The agri-food market, however, must meet an ever-increasing demand that goes hand in hand and a general impoverishment: many people struggle a quadrant far from the accounts and therefore makes the way of the need to spend as little as possible. Market demand often involves low-cost food, obviously to the detriment of quality and health itself.

So the problem grows and evolves, just like Roundup …

The seeds of life are not what they once were
Mother Nature and God don’t own them anymore

So it ends The Monsanto Years
by Neil Young

PM 2.5

PM 2.5

PM comes from Particulate Matter: and consists of airborne particulate matter, more precisely, according to the definition of the Ministry of the Environment it represents the set of solid and liquid atmospheric particles suspended in ambient air. The term PM2.5 identifies particles with a diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 µm … from here on, however, I dissociate from the description: these particles are too easily incorporated into the PM10 values, especially in the detection ratios, when instead the difference it is substantial.
I always quote verbatim from the Essia i.e. Effects on the Health of Air Pollution project: in particular, the smallest particles manage to penetrate deeper into the respiratory system. Hence, it is important to understand which and how many particles are able to penetrate the human body, how deep they manage to reach and what type of substances they can carry. For example, the toxicity of particulate matter, and therefore its ability to generate damage to health, can be amplified by the ability to absorb gaseous substances such as PAHs (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) and heavy metals, some of which are powerful carcinogens.
The significant relief of environmental pollution in relation to the onset of tumors is also the subject of the open letter published by Isde the increase in tumor incidence and chronic degenerative diseases that occur in the most polluted areas and at an increasingly early age affecting children, adolescents and young adults is the most striking aspect of the link between environment and health.
I disagree with the choice of the adjective: I find this aspect rather terrifying than striking.
Even the OMS declares that in the European Union only the finest particulate matter causes a loss of life expectancy of about 8,6 months.
In light of all this, it would be natural to think that given the high danger, strict monitoring is applied on the emissions of this fine particulate.
Unfortunately, on the other hand, in many cases it is not even distinguished from the PM10 and is very smoky, forgive the play on words, reporting the data of the relief that has a daily index: which oscillates between 9 and 8 while I’m writing, when the term of comparison is according to Ispra is an annual limit of 25 µm, among other things with a reference to 2010: it is difficult even to find updated information, I wonder why.
Personally I consider this topic of the utmost importance and I care about Lomellina: a land battered between mud and waste-to-energy plants, where livability is compromised.
In Italy there are 51 waste-to-energy plants, of which 29 only in northern Italy are reported by the Civil Protection specifying that the fumes generated are treated and purified.
Among other things, the results of a 2017 Inemar study indicates non-industrial combustion as the main responsible for the PM2.5 emission in Lombardy.
What does it consist of in practice? According to the classification “trade, residential, agriculture.”
To put it mildly: “Are we getting too hot?”
It would look just like this: in fact the concentrations are significantly higher in the winter months as visibly demonstrated in the EEA European Environment Agency graphs.
So waste-to-energy plants are innocent?
No, although over the years the incinerators have covered this “enhancement” with control and purification systems that have certainly reduced the percentage of incidence, a quantity of pollutants is still discharged into the atmosphere. The notorious nano-particles are as capable of easily entering our body and reaching blood, tissues and organs as they are partially able to escape the filtering or disposal systems, here you find an analysis about it.
And if you can solve the calculation of the daily / annual thresholds, you deserve a coffee!





What do the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents have in common? First of all a number: they are both level 7.
The Chernobyl accident occurred in 1986 and according to the Greenpeace report thirty years after the catastrophe over ten thousand square kilometers are unusable for economic activity, more than one hundred and fifty thousand square kilometers are the contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and five million people live in areas officially considered contaminated. Due to the high levels of plutonium contamination within 10 kilometers of the plant, the area cannot be repopulated for the next ten thousand years.
The recent HBO series has given us the opportunity to live again through images, those days that have changed everyone’s habits.
Thousands of miles away, we have avoided foods such as vegetables and milk, in addition to special measures for children.
As regards Fukushima, according to the Greenpeace report, the government’s decontamination interventions have been fragmented, inadequate and there is a serious risk of re-contamination of the already decontaminated areas. Despite massive effort and expense, decontamination is likely to become an endless process. Furthermore, decontamination efforts without being able to ‘get rid’ of radioactive contamination, i.e. simply moving it to other places such as temporary storage sites, continue to pose a danger to local communities and the environment.
The risk is that Japan will decide to discharge the contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean.
The water that from the day of the accident, that is, from 11 March 2011, was necessary to pump on the reactor to keep the core temperature low: more than 220 cubic meters per day. Can you figure how big the quantity can be?
According to Tepco’s forecasts, the storage limit will be reached in 2022.
This problem affects the whole world even if only South Korea seems to worry about it for now.
Not to mention the perennial risk that this thousand tanks represent in a seismic area.
Meanwhile, some newspapers are already reporting that tritium is “relatively toxic” and minimizing the impact of disposal at sea since it would have a short life, of course, a decay of just over 12 years is nothing compared to ten thousand …
Recall that tritium was used for fluorescence in watches and that use has been interrupted.
Now the question is simple: if it is really so harmless, why storing it for nine years?
I would say that when we talk about nuclear power plants, even Einstein‘s phrase is no longer enough, we are not even like rats that build a trap for themselves, we went further.
The lightness with which the construction of these plants is allowed, knowing that in case of accidents there is no way to shelter, it is as disgusting as appealing to the causes of force majeure hiding behind the fact that the real effects on health do not appear immediately.
People will get sick and die, but someone will have earned money. As it always happens.

Pin It on Pinterest