ENN: Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment

Just because you’re going on vacation doesn’t mean you have to leave your eco friendly values behind. Nowadays there are a multitude of options for people who want to enjoy a more “eco-friendly” vacation. Options can range from staying in a green certified hotel and eating only local produce to a environmental cleanup themed volunteer-cation. The website GreenTravelerGuides.com is a good starting resource for anyone looking for eco friendly travel advice. After looking at their website I have put together a list of tips and considerations for planning your next vacation.

1. Green Certification

 

When looking where to stay an important aspect to consider is green certification. Green certification relates to a business’s operational and sustainability practices including energy and water conservation, air quality, and housekeeping practices . There is a wide range of certification programs that range from independent verification to programs that require regular recertification and continuous improvement. For a list of trustworthy certifications (both American abroad) click here.

 

 

2. Carbon Offsetting

 

        According to Green Traveler Guides website, a flight from New York to Honolulu emits and average of 2 ½ tons of greenhouse gases. Travel websites like Travelocity, Expedia, and Orbitz now provide options for people interested in offsetting their carbon footprint. Continental Airlines lets travelers keep track of their carbon impact and Delta Airlines sells offsets through their website. For information on how to carbon offset you vacation click here.

 

 

3. Eat Sustainably

If the option is available try to eat organic and locally grown food. Not only does this support local businesses, but organic food is also  healthier for you and growing practices are less destructive to the environment. To minimize your environmental impact when ordering seafood, try to stick to local varieties that are not overfished or varieties that have been responsibly horticultured.

4. If Not Walk

        If you plan on renting a car during your vacation opt for a “greener” model like a hybrid or one that runs on biofuel. Car companies like  Enterprise and Budget now have “green” car options in select US locations. Also instead of taking a taxi or private shuttle service instead use public transportation. Most cities have multiple options (bus, train, subway, streetcar..) that can get you to your destination for a cheap price and with less environmental impact then a private service

These tips can be adapted to a wide span of vacations, whether you plan on traveling by plane to a elaborate exotic destination or just plan on a low key escape from the usual 9 to 5. Though vacations are about fun it is important to consider the impact your vacation will be having on the environment while planning.

Happy Travels!

During the New Year, many people look to refresh the rooms around their house with a fresh coat of paint or new wallpaper in their rooms. Many people are not aware that there are certain materials in some paints and wallpapers that release harmful chemicals into the air you breathe.

According to the Sierra Club, many wallpapers or wall coverings are made with Polyvinyl Chloride (more commonly known as PVC). Manufacturers use this chemical because it prevents moisture from building up and allows for the wallpaper to be cleaned easier. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), it is a leading indoor air pollutant. The U.S. EPA suggests that PVCs are a factor behind indoor air being three times more polluted than outside air. PVC releases volatile organic compounds (or VOCs); when wallpaper decomposes, VOCs may be released into the lungs, causing asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The organization suggests purchasing organic material-based VOC-free wallpaper products. These products are made with materials composed of cellulose and water-based mineral fibers.

Paints are also made with PVCs. In paint, PVCs are released into the air during the drying process, emitting a foul odor and heavy air. Due to consumer demand and new environmental regulations from the U.S. EPA, more low-VOC and VOC-free paints are being made. The majority of paint manufacturers, such as Benjamin Moore and Sherwin-Williams, are creating and distributing at least one variety of environmentally-friendly paint.

Eco-friendly paints and wallpapers are the start of a healthier way to live in homes. According to the Sierra Club, this small start is a large step toward the future of healthy living and to ensure that people do not live in a harmful environment.

We all know that being overweight is the result of various factors – diet, exercise, lifestyle choices, “bad genes”… but a documentary recently aired on CBC (a Canadian TV  network), “Programmed to be Fat”, brought to light the links between obesity and common chemicals in products we use every day. Some of these chemicals (listed below) are found in plastics, food packaging, pesticides, metal cans, flame retardants and cosmetics.

Currently, there is a lot of research out there which clearly explains that obesity problems are partially due to too much caloric intake and too little energy output. However, research into obesogens suggests that common chemicals may be creating more fat cells in our bodies and allowing existing ones to get larger, by altering our hormones.

The scariest part is that being overweight may have been hardwired into our systems from when we were just fetuses. Professor Bruce Blumberg from the University of California, and researcher on how obesogens can trigger increases in body fat says, “When animals are exposed prenatally to these chemicals, their metabolism is reprogrammed so that even if they are never exposed again in their lives, they gain weight.”

These obesogens may be telling a developing fetus in the womb to make more fat cells – setting it up for the rest of its life to be “programmed” for weight gain and retention.

Bruce Mohun, director of the documentary which aired on CBC on January 12^th in Canada, had a one-on-one with the Star:

“How would a mother’s exposure to these chemicals during pregnancy affect the child’s future obesity?

Essentially these endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which mimic hormones, get into the mother’s body and into the fetus through the placenta and tweak the system a wee bit. Receptors receive the hormones which tell how fat or skinny the child should be depending on the environment they’ll be born into, but these receptors are not very precise. They acknowledge anything that looks like a hormone.

What about exposure after birth, does that add to a tendency to gain weight?

These hormone-mimicking chemicals are still capable of affecting the receptors and how the endocrine system works until the end of puberty. They can change how much fat the body stores and how many fat cells are in the body.

The researchers you interviewed devised animal studies to look at these chemicals and obesity. What did these mice studies show?

If you give pregnant mice tiny amounts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, like two parts per billion, their offspring will be fatter than control mice. It was found time and time again.

How solid is this science? Is this still all theory?

Canadian researcher Alison Holloway from McMaster said it best: ‘Is it plausible that these chemicals are causing obesity? Absolutely. Has it been shown unequivocally? No.’

The key players are sure enough that something is going on here that something needs to be done. If we don’t absolutely need these chemicals we should get rid of them.

You say in the documentary that the chemical industry hasn’t been able to reproduce the results.

There seems to be a divide. If you work in industry supported by the chemical companies your studies don’t show the same results as those done by the academic researchers.

The hormone disruption occurs with the tiniest doses, but not the large ones. How could that be?

It’s a gene effect. These systems are set up to respond to very small signals from hormones. The receptors expect just a few hormones. If they get too many signals, if they’re bombarded with endocrine-disruptors, another gene comes into play. It recognizes these aren’t legitimate signals and shuts down the receptors.

Does this mean no matter how hard you diet and exercise, you can’t lose weight?

No. Environmental chemicals would be only one of many reasons we might be overweight. They might exacerbate the effects of overeating and not exercising.

In the whole obesity puzzle, how big a role do environmental chemicals play?

I asked all the researchers that question and they have no idea. They don’t know enough about it yet.

Pregnant women already have a lot to worry about. How concerned should they be? What should they do?

The same things they’re doing to avoid other possible developmental effects from environmental chemicals: try not to handle store receipts, which may contain bisphenol A; avoid food in cans and processed foods; don’t microwave plastic food containers; don’t use plastic water bottles.”

Not only might we be destined to be overweight from the time we are conceived, but we are also eating lots of junk as adults – adding further insult to injury.

“The reality is both are happening,” says Professor Blumberg. “We’re being exposed to obesogens and eating bad food. So it’s a double impact. In the US we’re cutting fats yet obesity has doubled. We’re doing what we’re supposed to be doing yet we are getting fatter and fatter.”

In the U.S., while we have tons of advertising for unhealthy processed foods, a government-sponsored workshop in February of 2011 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences recruited over 135 scientists to evaluate the science linking obesity to these six common chemicals:

1. Arsenic and other metals

2. Bisphenol A

3. Organotins and phthalates

4. Nicotine

5. Pesticides

6. Persistent organic pollutants

There is “good, qualitative evidence” which links maternal smoking, arsenic, and persistent organic pollutants (POPS) exposure to obesity and diabetes, according to workshop chair Michael Gallo, Ph.D.

Putting the scientific evidence aside, it makes common sense that chemicals that aren’t found naturally in our bodies would impact us in some way. Now that we are seeing these impacts are probably negative, it pays to take a few minutes to learn about them, where they’re found, and take action to avoid ingesting them –especially if you are pregnant.

Photo Credits:

Flickr/Ellipsis Sundays

Obese.co

Should the United States National Parks Service ban the use of disposable water bottles as a means to save money and protect our national parks? Yes may seem like an obvious answer but the banning of disposable water bottles has actually become a controversial issue.

It all started in January 2010 when an internal memo circulated the National Parks Service saying that the ban of disposable water bottles would reduce waste, cut recycling costs, and save electricity. The memo, by Shawn Norton, who works on climate change and sustainability issues for the National Parks Service, stated that if the ban was enacted in 15 parks there could be a savings of 18 million kilowatt hours per year. Many of the National Parks, including Grand Canyon National Park, were interested in instituting the water bottle ban.  According to 5 Gyres, a research organization whose work focuses on the global impact of plastic pollution, one third of the waste in America’s National Park is from water bottles.  In preparation for the ban, Grand Canyon National Park spent almost $300,000 installing 10 water-bottle filling stations throughout the park. But in December 2010, 2 weeks before the ban would have began, National Parks Service Director, Jon Jarvis, called off the ban.

Not until November 2011, when an email by Jon Jarvis was obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), did the issue come back into the limelight. Turns out Jarvis had supported the ban but was worried that “there are going to be consequences, since Coke is a major sponsor of our recycling efforts”. Upon finding that the banning had been canceled due to corporate influence, 5 Gyres started a petition on Change.org urging the National Parks Service to move forward in the ban .  The petition currently has over 100,000 signatures.

Finally on December 14, Jarvis released a directive addressing recycling and the reduction of disposable plastic bottles in parks. Though the directive expressed concerns, it also states that parks that want to implement the disposable water bottle ban can if  they first  follow certain guidelines. They must complete an analysis of the waste being eliminated and  the effects on concessionaire’s revenues, as well as work with the parks health office to make sure all health issues are addressed. 

Grand Canyon National Park was not the first park to attempt to instate a disposable water bottle ban. In 2009, Zion National Park instated a water bottle ban and cut waste by around 5,000 pounds. Hawaii Volcano National Park also instated a disposable water bottle ban and instead sold reusable water bottles and raked in $80,000 in profits showing that  National Parks can still be profitable even if they institute a water bottle ban.

Next time you take a trip to a National Park make sure to  leave your bottled water at home. Our National Parks are some of America’s greatest treasures and by opting to use resuable water bottles versus the disposable kind you are making a decision to keep them healthy and beautiful.

To welcome in the New Year, most Americans dream up resolutions that in turn could be beneficial to them for the following 366 days (2012 is a leap year). The most popular resolution for people in our culture is to lose weight. Researchers think that this is true because people always want to be in the best shape; however, being in the best shape means different things for different people. Researcher

Dr. Tim Church of Louisiana State University says that “there is a huge return on a small investment when it comes to exercise and health.” Church and other researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, Louisiana are studying what the majority of people want to do to fulfill their New Year’s wish.

Researchers at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center state that muscular fitness is more important as an individual gets older because adults tend to naturally lose muscle mass starting in their 40s. According to the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), working out muscles such as weight-lifting and weight training can help curb metabolic illnesses such as diabetes. The ACSM also states that cardiorespiratory fitness (more commonly known as cardiovascular fitness or “cardio”) is very important because it increases the increased blood flow during cardio activity helps strengthens muscles. Cardio also affects a person’s body mass index (BMI) which calculates how much of your body is fat, but the ACSM says that even if your BMI is high, people are still able to do walking and running programs to deter diseases such as heart disease and hypertension.

How does BMI Work?

Church’s research team also says that stretching alone will not make a person fitter but it is not as important as cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness. The ACSM says that stretching for 10 to 30 seconds at the point of slight discomfort before and after you exercise is very important because it loosens the muscles and makes a person more limber. However, the ACSM also mentions that static stretching can also cause injury to muscles.

In September of 2010 the FDA approved the first genetically animal safe for eating. The “product” is a genetically modified Atlantic salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which they named AquaAdvantage Salmon (AAS). AAS can grow twice as fast as a normal salmon. This super speedy growth rate was gained by making two changes to the salmon’s genome, the addition of a growth hormone gene, and the addition of an antifreeze gene. AquaBounty see their salmon as an environmentally sustainable alternative to the current farmed salmon. AAS are to be raised in land-based facilities, which would reduce the environmental impact on coastal areas, and eliminate the threat of disease transfer from farms to wild fish. Land-based facilities would also allow people to live closer to their food facilities, reducing some of the costs associated with transporting fish. But many people are still worried about the health and environmental risks posed by genetically modified salmon.

The first worry people have about modified genetically modified salmon is “are they safe to eat?” It’s a known fact that in the United States we’ve been eating genetically modified produce for years. The main health concern with genetically modified foods is allergens. For AAS, the two proteins being introduced into the salmon’s genetic makeup are from other fish, so there’s not the same kind of worry as adding a protein from a peanut or shrimp. But there is still the worry that adding proteins will increase the number of fish allergens inside the salmon.

A bigger concern may be environmental impact if the AAS salmon are accidently introduced into the wild. AAS are designed specially for land based facilities, but precautions have also been taken to reduce their impact if they are accidently introduced into the wild. AAS salmon are all triploid females, which means that they are not only all female, but are sterilized as well. The problem with triploid induction is that there is a very small percentage of fish where the sterilization doesn’t work. There is a failure of sterilization in .1 to 1% of fish, which is a pretty small number, except fish farms usually contain 500,000 to 1 million fish. How this could impact wild fish populations is unknown. Personally this reminds me of the Movie/Book “Jurassic Park”.

Even sterilized fish may have a negative impact on wild salmon populations. AAS salmon grow faster and larger then natural salmon. This would make an AAS salmon more attractive for mating then a natural Atlantic salmon, which could negatively impact wild salmon populations.

When AAS hit the market, farming facilities need to be monitored to make sure there is no way for the salmon to accidently escape into the wild. This is especially important in areas where a salmon population is already present. AAS could be an excellent way to increase the availability of fish without impacting wild salmon populations and the coastal ecosystem but strict monitoring is needed to keep these “mutants” from causing trouble.

For further information on the AAS Salmon Controversy and further concerns check out this story from NPR:

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/09/143453487/debating-genetically-modified-salmon?sc=emaf

Chanukah, however you spell it, is a Jewish holiday known around the world for when one day’s worth of oil lit the menorah for eight nights. Nowadays, it is known for greasy potato pancakes called “latkes,” children getting eight presents and those golden chocolate coins that the kids unwrap in their lunch pails. However, how do we know that the traditional chocolate coins that we enjoy are certified products which are produced in conditions that promote higher social and environmental standards? We don’t.

As typical consumers, we don’t normally think of buying “Fair Trade” products. According to the Global Exchange Human Rights Organization, being certified as a Fair Trade product is important because it means that the people who pick the crop are treated fairly and are not exposed to any harm. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and Raise the Bar Hershey, children as young as nine years old are picking 70 percent of the world’s cacao beans in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. The UNHRC also says that the crops are sprayed with pesticides and that the kids also do not have any protection from the harms of the chemicals. These practices do not exemplify Fair Trade and most people let this happen because they simply do not know where there food comes from.

When a product is Fair Trade, it is properly labeled on the product with a seal that says “Fair Trade Certified.” When you go into the supermarket to prepare your holiday food for whatever you

celebrate, just think about how the food was made and how you can make a difference by purchasing a Fair Trade Certified product to make someone else’s holiday season just as worthwhile as yours.

Shipping is the lifeblood of the modern economy, vital for businesses to stay active and meet the demands of their clients. Often, in the rush to get products out, shippers will overlook practices which may be considered greener, for shipping practices that are easier because “it’s the way it has always been done.” In a world of limited resources, this is an attitude that businesses will have to get away from. It will become ever more important to choose environmentally-friendly shipping practices while also keeping costs down. Here are a few tips in the right direction.

Choose the right size shipping container

Sometimes, shippers find themselves limited by the size of boxes they can use to ship their products. For example, they can have a product that is about 2 cubic inches, but their smallest box is a cubic foot. This equates to 1,726 cubic inches of wasted space. It also equates to a lot of extra cardboard as well as extra packaging material inside to keep the nut, or bolt, or whatever it is from bouncing around. The importance of having the right size shipping containers in stock is crucial for preserving resources and cutting costs.

Choose sustainable packaging materials

Recycled cardboard and paper for shipping are available for the same price as brand new materials. Available recycled materials include corrugated boxes, paper & plastic mailers, packaging papers and cushioning, and padded mailers.

There are no laws in the United States mandating the use of such materials. However, the European Union has passed a measure in 1994 known as the Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC). This directive harmonized actions taken by EU nations to promote reuse and recycling and to manage packaging and packaging wastes. Packaging waste represents 17% of Europe’s municipal waste stream, but this number had previously been much higher. Similar numbers are likely in the US. As in Europe, the percent of packaging going to landfills in the US can be significantly cut with the adoption of sustainable materials and remembering to recycle.

To read rest of article, go to: http://www.enn.com/business/article/43695

The University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and its Program on International Policy Attitudes recently polled nearly 1,500 Americans in a study called “Faith and Global Policy Challenges: How Spiritual Values Shape Views on Poverty, Nuclear Risks, and Environmental Degradation”. This study polled a large amount of Catholics and Evangelicals, and documented their feelings on the environment, greenhouse gas emissions and nuclear war.

The poll was conducted using a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. First, participants were chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Then, an oversample of 330 Catholic individuals were chosen to participate as well. Results were weighted accordingly so there was not bias in the statistics, however since this study was one of the relationship between spiritual obligations and policy preferences, those who were identified as “believers” were the ones who were asked most of the questions.

In the study, “believers” were defined as those who answered ‘yes’ as to whether they believed in God or not. 85% of those interviewed answered that they did believe in God, while 14% said they did not. Additionally, “believers” were also considered those who do not believe in God, but feel spiritually obligated to act certain ways – a mere 4%. When respondents were asked whether they felt “there are spiritual obligations to act in certain ways,” or whether they did “not think in these terms,” 67% said they felt there are spiritual obligations; 32% said they did not think in these terms.

Specific findings from the study:

· Spiritual Obligations and Public Policy Issues: A large majority of believers said that they see a spiritual obligation to seek to reduce poverty and hunger. But when asked initially, only about 1 in 5 believers said they think in terms of a spiritual obligation to protect the environment or to reduce the risk of nuclear war.

· Responding to the Idea of Stewardship of the Environment: Though less than half of all believers and a bare majority of Evangelicals are familiar with the idea of a spiritual obligation to act as good stewards of the environment, when presented with this concept, 3 out of 4 believers embraced it. Most rejected the counter-argument that out of humility one should leave the environment in God’s hands. Among those who embraced the obligation to be good stewards, an overwhelming majority said that it applies to preserving the natural world as well as humans from the effect of environmental degradation. A majority of this group (4 in 10 of all believers) also said that the obligation to be a good steward of the environment includes the obligation to prevent nuclear war.

· Caring for God’s Creation: 4 out of 10 believers said that preventing environmental degradation is part of an obligation to protect God’s creation. However, an overwhelming majority said that it is an important goal. Further, when presented the affirmative argument that there is an obligation to care for God’s creation by supporting environmental laws and regulations, 2 out of 3 believers agreed.

· Spiritual Obligations of Nations: When presented the argument that nations have spiritual obligations, large majorities found the argument convincing. When presented with the counter-argument that nations have only an obligation to protect their own citizens and national interests, views were generally divided, except that a modest majority of Evangelicals rejected it. If a nation fails to act on its spiritual obligations, only 4 in 10 said that this would be a sin, but among Evangelicals, 6 in 10 took this position.

· America’s Spiritual Obligations: When asked about America’s spiritual obligations a large majority endorsed the view that America has some such obligations, especially in regard to alleviating poverty. But less than half said it has such obligations related to protecting the environment or reducing the risk of nuclear war.

· Golden Rule in International Relations: 2 out of 3 believers—and the same number of non-believers—said that America should abide by the Golden Rule in its relations with other countries, while only a third said that this would impose too many limits on America’s options.

· Binding International Agreements: Overwhelming majorities approved of the U.S. entering into binding international agreements aimed at protecting the environment (including by reducing greenhouse gases) and reducing the risk of nuclear war, with support being especially high among Catholics.

· Working to Prevent Nuclear War: As discussed above, overwhelming majorities of believers endorsed binding international agreements to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to generally reduce the risk of nuclear war.

· Working to Prevent Climate Change: Only a small minority of believers said preventing climate change is a spiritual obligation, and 1 in 3 said it is part of an obligation to protect God’s creation. Nonetheless 3 in 4 said it is an important goal to prevent climate change, and two thirds said there is at least a moderate risk that climate change could harm God’s creation. 8 in 10 said it is an important goal to reduce their own carbon footprint.

· Perceptions of Scientific Consensus on Climate Change: Only 4 in 10 (3 in 10 among Evangelicals) think that there is a consensus among scientists that urgent action on climate change is needed and that enough is known to take action. Not surprisingly, those who perceive such a consensus are more supportive of taking action on climate change. Interestingly, those who perceive such a consensus are also more likely to see it as a spiritual obligation.

“This research challenges common political stereotypes that pigeonhole religious Americans as liberal or conservative on environmental and nuclear proliferation issues,” says University of Maryland Public Policy Professor, CISSM director, and co-author of the study John Steinbruner.

The researchers pointed out that historically, Christian religious traditions addressed poverty issues, but have given less attention as to whether and how spiritual values apply to the environment and the issues related to nuclear war.

However one labels or determines their feelings of obligation towards environmental, nuclear, or poverty issues in my opinion, is not as important as the desired goal. As long as we are all working towards a common goal of global safety, reduced poverty, and a healthy environment, I think we are on the right track.

For the full study, see Faith and Global Policy Challenges.

Image Credist:

Shutterstock/Pavelk
Shutterstock/Vitaly Titov & Maria Sidelnikova

According to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission 12,500 people go to the hospital emergency room each year for falls, cuts, shocks, and burns relating to holiday decorating.  Below is a list of some of the most common accidents during the holiday season and ways to avoid them.

1.     Holiday Fires

According to the United States Fire Administration each year holiday fires claim over 400 lives, injure 1,650 others and cause million of dollars worth of damages. Christmas trees account for 250 fires annually and are usually caused by the trees exposure to shorted electrical lights or candle flames. An easy way to make sure your tree does not catch fire is to make sure the tree is properly watered or if you own an artificial tree make sure it is flame retardant.  All tree decorations should be inflammable or flame resistant.

Holiday lights should be checked every year for frayed wires and bare spots and you should never link more than 3 wires unless the directions indicate it is safe.  Once the lights are plugged in, periodically check the wires to make sure they are not warm to the touch.

For more holiday fire safety tips from the US Fire Administration Visit: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/citizens/home_fire_prev/holiday-seasonal/index.shtml 

 

2.   Falls

Falls are the second most common cause of traumatic death and are usually associated with the elderly. During the holiday season there is an increase in injuries due to falling in the age group of 20-49. The leading cause of falling injuries are ladder falls, followed by roof falls, furniture falls, and stair falls. 

To prevent accidents while decorating, the best strategy is to use your common sense. Instead of trying to balance yourself on furniture use a step stool. When using a ladder make sure the ladder is secure before climbing on it. Most importantly do not be afraid to ask for help.

For more safety tips for decorarting visit: http://men.webmd.com/news/20041209/holiday-decorating-can-land-you-in-er or

http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml07/07046.html

3.       Car Accidents

According to the CDC more than 2.3 million Americans were treated in the emergency room in 2009 as a result of motor vehicle accidents, making motor vehicle crashes the leading cause of death for those between the ages of 5 to 34. Driving during the holiday season is especially dangerous. The winter holidays, particularly New Years, are associated with excessive drinking. Drinking is involved in 1 of 3 automobile crash deaths. It is illegal, and dangerous, to drive with a blood alcohol concentration over .08%. So if you plan on partying and drinking, have a designated driver, use public transportation, or plan to stay overnight.

Another peril while driving during the winter holidays are winter hazards like snow and ice. Drivers need to be careful and observant of their surroundings while driving. Driving is especially dangerous at night, which is when most crashes occur. If you are planning on driving make sure to wear a seatbelt, and be aware of your fellow drivers, because they may be driving drunk.

 

Have a Safe and Happy Holiday Season!