Kunyit Hitam Ubat Kanser

CURCUMA CAESIA ROXB. AND IT’S MEDICINAL USES: A REVIEW

Sonjit Das, ProdyutMondal and Md. Kamaruz Zaman*

Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dibrugarh University, Assam-786 004. India.

(PDF) CURCUMA CAESIA ROXB. AND IT’S MEDICINAL USES: A REVIEW. Available from:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292721948_CURCUMA_CAESIA_ROXB_AND_IT'S_MEDICINAL_USES_A_REVIEW [accessed Oct 02 2018].

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292721948_CURCUMA_CAESIA_ROXB_AND_IT'S_MEDICINAL_USES_A_REVIEW

ABSTRACT

Curcuma caesia is commonly known as kali haldi and it belongs to the family Zingiberaceae. This herb is available throughout north-east, central India, Papi Hills of East Godavari, West Godavari, and Andhra Pradesh. In the traditional system of medicine, fresh and dried rhizomes of Curcuma caesia Roxb are used in treating leucoderma, asthma, tumours, piles, bronchitis, bruises etc. In this review article various established facts related to the plant Curcuma caesia have been compiled so that proper scientific methods can be initiated to validate its traditional uses and open the door for a source of potential drugs in near future.

Keywords: Curcumacaesia, traditional uses, bioactivity.

INTRODUCTION

India has long history of using plants for medicinal purposes as mention in Ayurveda. The significance of medicinal plants for prevention,mitigationt and cure of diseases are always recognized.

History revealed that plants have been a valuable sourceof natural products for maintaining human health at all thetimes. Their importance is continuously growing now days. Most of the people now prefer natural therapies to get ridof from serious side effects of some of the present day medication. Curcuma Linn.is a large genus belonging to the family Zingiberaceae.

It comprises about 70 species of rhizomatous herbs distributed mostly in Southeast Asia as wild and cultivated plants1.Curcuma species have a great importance for its medicinal value and Curcuma caesiahas been using by various tribal communities from long before. Kali haldi(Curcuma caesia) is a perennial herb with bluish-black rhizomenative to North- Eastand Central India.

Black Turmeric is also sparsely found in Papi Hills of East Godavari, West Godavari, and Khammam Districts of Andhra Pradesh. The rhizomes of kali haldi have a high economical importance because of its putative medicinal properties. The rhizomes are used in the treatment of smooth muscle relaxant activity2.haemorrhoids, leprosy, asthma, cancer, epilepsy, fever, wound, vomiting, menstrual disorder, anthelmentic, aphrodisiac, inflammation, gonorrhoeal discharges, etc3.

In Madhya Pradesh, the plant is regarded asvery auspicious and is stated that a person who possess it will never experience shortage of cereals and food .The rhizomes of the plant are aromatic in nature .The inner part of the rhizome is bluish-black in colour and emits a characteristic sweet smell, due to presence of essential oil4. Traditionally, the rhizomes of Curcuma caesiaRoxb. are used in treating leucoderma, asthma, tumours, piles, bronchitis etc.

The paste is applied on bruises, contusions and rheumatic pains in Manipur5.In Arunachal Pradesh, Adi tribes use decoction of fresh rhizome as anti-diarrhoetic. The Khamti tribe of Lohit district applied the paste of fresh rhizome in case of snake and scorpion bite6,7.

METHODS  Botanical description8  

Morphology

The plant is normally erect with height ranging from 0.5 to 1.0 m.It is divided into underground large ovoid tuberous rhizome often called root-stock and an erect aerial shoot along with leaves (Fig-1) and reproductive part. Root As the plant propagates with rhizome, the primary roots are not seen; however, yellow brown long fibrous and tapering

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292721948_CURCUMA_CAESIA_ROXB_AND_IT'S_MEDICINAL_USES_A_REVIEW

.

http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Black%20Turmeric.html

http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Black%20Turmeric.html

.

No Plastic

No Plastic

.

Haramkan Plastik

Call to ban import of plastic waste

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/09/27/call-to-ban-import-of-plastic-waste-imposing-rm15-levy-will-not-help-to-solve-garbage-disposal-issue/#APQRL6klzwyUJoXp.99

KLANG: The government should stop the import of plastic waste instead of imposing a RM15 levy for every tonne of the scrap brought into Malaysia, says the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP).

“CAP calls for a total ban on the import of plastic waste to protect public health and our environment.

“CAP is very frustrated with the Malaysian government because it does not recognise the scale of the problem,” association president S.M. Mohamed Idris said in a statement yesterday.

On Tuesday, Housing and Local Government Minister Zuraida Kamarudin said a RM15 levy would be imposed when the freeze on approved permits (APs) on plastic waste import ends on Oct 23.

Zuraida made the announcement after visiting several landfills and garbage recycling outlets in Telok Panglima Garang, Selangor.

The imported garbage, mostly plastic, is believed to be imported from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

Malaysia is slowly becoming a recycling hub for foreign trash material since China banned the import of plastic waste.

Mohamed Idris said CAP had anticipated such issues arising in Malaysia after the China ban and had written to several ministries and the National Solid Waste Man­agement Department about its concerns.

According to him, the department had talked about a ruling to control plastic waste import and imposing stringent requirements on premises and import licences.

“However, the control measures and enforcement have proven inadequate, based on the pollution and mushrooming of illegal recycling factories in many parts of Malay­sia,” he said.

Fomca president Datuk N. Mari­muthu said Malaysia already had problems with domestic garbage disposal and should not take on additional trash from other countries.

“We have a clear food wastage issue in our country with people dumping it all over the place. This is threatening to contaminate our water sources,” he said.

Marimuthu said the government must take a clear stand and do what was right for the nation.

“Why talk about imposing the RM15 levy? Just stop importing garbage. Malaysia cannot be a dumping ground as we already have far too much of our own trash,” he said.

Sahabat Alam Malaysia honorary secretary Meenakshi Raman concurred, saying: “It is not about imposing levies; it is about not allowing the waste to come into the country at all.”

If other countries banned garbage import, she added, there was no reason for Malaysia to become an importer of waste.

The government’s priority should be protecting the environment and public health, she said.

Bahaya bakar plastik

http://www.wecf.eu/cms/download/2004-2005/homeburning_plastics.pdf

Bahaya bakar plastik

http://www.no-burn.org/burning-plastic-incineration-causes-air-pollution-dioxin-emissions-cost-overruns/

Burning Plastic: Incineration Causes Air Pollution, Dioxin Emissions, Cost Overruns.

 

Plastic waste constitutes between 60% and 80% of marine debris and is “one of the world’s most pervasive pollution problems impacting our oceans and waterways,” according to the U.N.

Over the past 60 years, plastics production and waste have dramatically increased, part of a global waste crisis whose drivers have included rapid urbanization, increasing consumption in both high- and low-income countries, and increased production of “throw-away” products. Indeed, the vast majority of plastics are not recycled at the end of their useful life, ensuring that this multiplication in production results in multiplication of harmful waste. From raw material extraction through to plastic polluting the ocean, plastics represent the failure of a predominantly fossil fuel based, linear economic system.

A problem this complex and embedded in our societies and economies requires solutions that address the cross-sector nature of the problem and are built upon sustainable and environmentally just frameworks that deliver permanent solutions and the deep changes we need.

For those new to waste issues, incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc may appear appealing. But our network’s experiences in countries around the world have shown that these approaches are at best a distraction from real solutions, and at worst a source of serious climate and toxic pollution. As part of the Break Free From Plastics movement, we know that this isn’t just about managing the problem. It’s about preventing it in the first place.

Incineration — including gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc — is not a viable solution for plastic pollution, and is harmful.

·         Dangerous for marine life and human health. Burning plastic and other wastes releases dangerous substances such as heavy metals, Persistent Organic Pollutants, and other toxics into the air and ash waste residues. Experience looking at the few commercial-scale gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc facilities that have actually processed municipal solid wastes (as opposed to processing other materials) shows that these approaches can emit the same pollutants as mass-burn incinerators.  Such pollutants contribute to the development of asthma, cancer, endocrine disruption, and the global burden of disease. Persistent Organic Pollutants travel long distances, and ultimately deposit into the ocean and polar ice caps, where they can adsorb onto other plastic marine debris and microplastics, bioaccumulating up the food chain, threatening marine and human health.

·         New incinerator technologies are prone to failure and ineffective at eliminating plastic pollution.  Many companies claim to heat plastic to turn them into oil or energy using new incinerator technologies such as gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc. Yet despite their impressive claims, these technologies have failed repeatedly in country after country. They can also be exorbitantly expensive. In many coastal countries in Asia — where issues of poverty, open dumping, and a lack of waste management infrastructure and services contribute to the release of significant quantities of plastic waste into the oceans — it would cost between $5-53 billion per year to operate large-scale incinerators built to European standards of health and safety — which still allow the release the  release of dangerous plastic waste pollutants to air and into the ash residues.

·         Smaller scale and cheaper options raise many additional questions: what types of pollution filtration is provided? What happens to any filtered toxics? Are combustion sites monitored for emissions? If any fuel made from plastics is used off site, how is monitoring possible?

·         Bad for the climate and oceans. Plastic is a petroleum-based material, and when burned it’s like any other fossil fuel: it releases climate pollution. This in turn leads to rising sea levels, increased ocean and air toxicity, and destruction of coral reefs and other marine life. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, burning plastics is notably the worst possible end-of-life management approach for plastics from a climate perspective. Gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma incinerators are even less efficient at generating electricity than mass burn incinerators, and often supplement waste with coal and other fossil fuels in order to produce energy. Climate change is a major threat to our oceans and marine health.

·         Violate the principles of environmental justice. Incinerators cause environmental injustices in the communities where they are built, which carry the disproportionate burden of the air  pollution and toxic ash.  These places — often in the global south or communities of color in the global north — are also disproportionately impacted by the climate change that incinerators contribute to. People around the world are developing real solutions to our waste and climate crisis, based on the principles of zero waste and environmental justice. For more information, see our blog on the power of community-based solutions to plastic in the global south.

Plastic Pollution Solutions:
Zero Waste + Redesign

The most cost effective, reliable, and proven solutions for immediate marine plastic pollution are found in zero waste models that are being implemented in many cities around the world already. Community-based approaches of decentralized waste separation and collection, increased resource recovery, composting, recycling and waste reduction, have opened economic opportunities for millions of waste workers and are being sustained at costs that are a fraction of what it would take to build any incinerator.  Now is the time to support the expansion of sustainable zero waste practices to address plastic marine pollution and walk away from false solutions like plastic waste incineration, gasification, pyrolysis, and plasma arc.

Bahaya Plastik

Danger posed by microbeads

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2018/10/418079/danger-posed-microbeads

By Badrul Kamal Zakaria - October 5, 2018 @ 10:33am

Pollution caused by plastic waste materials in our oceans, regardless of size, poses a threat to marine life and humans.

Oceanography expert Datuk Dr Sukarno Wagiman said a major problem had been occurring in the oceans worldwide due to the existence of marine debris comprising microplastic or microbeads.

He said the garbage that polluted the world’s oceans was divided into two categories: biodegradable garbage that included things such as logs and wood and non-biodegradable garbage consisting of plastic, microplastic and microbeads.

“Scientists worldwide are worried about non-biodegradable garbage, especially plastic, which are made from chemicals. These items take a very long time to decompose.

 “What is more worrying is that the garbage, categorised as marine debris, will be drifted at sea according to currents or the wind direction. In Malaysia, areas in the peninsula’s west coast will have a lot of garbage concentrated along its coastlines when the southwestern monsoon winds blow.

“A similar thing will occur along the peninsula’s east coast during the northeastern monsoon season.

“Garbage will be blown towards the coastline.

“When there are no winds, the garbage will drift according to ocean currents and it could end up anywhere,” he told the New Straits Times Press.

Sukarno, who is a former department of marine park Malaysia director-general, said the drifted garbage could kill any life form in the ocean.

“The plastic is made from chemical substances. These plastic-based garbage will be torn apart, but they will not disintegrate totally in the water. Instead, it will become smaller particles. At a glance, we do not see these particles, but it is there in the water.

“Scientiests are concerned about how these small particles of plastic will become food for marine life such as fish. This situation is referred to as bio accumulation and (the waste) will be absorbed into the tissue of marine life.”

Sukarno said when people consumed seafood such as fish, the garbage or plastic would enter the people’s body or the body of other marine life that fed on those fish.

He said in addition to microplastic pollution in the ocean, the existence of microbeads had become the latest concern among scientists.

“Microbeads are largely used in cosmetics such as sunblock and body lotions. Many countries have banned this substance in toiletry products.

“These bans are due to concerns over microbeads entering the water system and disturbing marine life such as plankton, which is eaten by other marine life.

“The dangers of these micro beads is similar to the dangers of microplastic,” he said.

Sukarno urged the government to conduct awareness campaigns for the community to ensure that people would take better care of the environment, especially the oceans.

“We cannot take this matter lightly. There is no data on this issue. There are some countries which are not concerned about such environmental matter and they may regard the ocean as their garbage dumps.

“What’s worse is that ships contribute to the garbage problem in oceans.

“This garbage could drift out to anywhere, even to our country’s coastline,” he said, adding that efforts needed to be done to correct people’s perception about garbage disposal and to step up efforts to promote recycling.

“There must be more awareness as this problem leads to pollution. It poses a danger to shipping activities too as it could become the cause of accidents at sea.

“Big and small debris from garbage can harm marine organisms, either in the open seas or along the coast.”

https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2018/10/418079/danger-posed-microbeads

.

.

Mereka janjikan adilan terbaik bagi Lynas

Committee promises fair review of Lynas rare earth plant

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/09/27/committee-promises-fair-review-of-lynas-rare-earth-plant/

KUANTAN: A fair review of the Lynas rare earth refinery is one that looks out for the best interest of Kuantan residents, says Lynas evaluation committee chairman Fuziah Salleh.

Lynas had nothing to worry about if it had complied with regulatory requirements, she said, adding that those requirements were consistent with the best practices of radioactive waste management that Pakatan Harapan believed in.

“They should only worry if there is bending of rules by the previous government to accommodate them (Lynas) for whatever reasons, or if there exists non-compliance to requirements stipulated in the safety standards set out by the government and those requirements are modified later,” she said when contacted yesterday.

Fuziah, who is Kuantan MP and Deputy Minister in the Prime Min­ister’s Department, was made the chairman of a Lynas evaluation committee last week.

“I am representing the Pakatan government, specifically the Energy, Science, Technology, Environment and Climate Change Minister, and we have every right to look into Lynas’ records from day one.

“I am here not just as an anti-Lynas campaigner, otherwise the minister would not have appointed me as the chairman. The minister needed someone with comprehensive knowledge of the matter.

“If this was an independent panel, my appointment would be an issue, but this is an executive committee. We are now in a position to examine Lynas,” she said.

Asked if Lynas could expect a fair review due to her stance, Fuziah said the benchmark should be finding the best outcome for the people of Kuantan.

“What is fair is what is the best policy for the people of Kuantan. They do not deserve a plant with radioactive waste in their backyard,” she said.

On the scope of the review, she said the committee would be looking at the previous government’s policies regarding Lynas.

“We are going to open the files and find out what happened to those plans of managing the rare earth waste processing. The previous government said it would be sent back, then the plan changed to a permanent disposal facility and now Lynas wants to recycle its waste.

“We want to know what happened in between all those plans,” said Fuziah.

The committee is made up of 10 members who are experts in public health, chemical process engineering and international law, among others. It will hold its first meeting today.today.

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/09/27/committee-promises-fair-review-of-lynas-rare-earth-plant/#7ykzWSzGQ4HCwieP.99

.

. 

.

Plastik Bahaya

Plastics’ Effect on Waste: The Answer Might Surprise You

https://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/waste_not/tony_kingsbury/plastics%E2%80%99_effect_waste_answer_might_surprise_you

The latest plastic product to come under fire is plastic straws. Before that, it was bags; and before that, foam foodservice items. Have you ever stopped to ask, why do we use so much plastic, especially plastic packaging? The answer depends on the type of packaging, but one of the overriding answers is that plastic is more resource efficient than its competing materials. In other words, it takes less energy (a key resource) to do the job. Less energy and resources mean less money, and less money means that it is often the desired choice for a given package or consumer good.

I remember as a kid getting potato chips in a box, with a bag inside, and getting deodorant in a steel spray can. Now I get both in just plastic. We used to get our milk exclusively in glass and our motor oil in a steel and paperboard canister. Now we get milk in plastic or plastic-coated paperboard and motor oil in plastic bottles. All of this plastic means a whole lot of waste. Some of it we recycle and most of it we don’t. Regardless of the waste we create, we could all do a better job of recycling. But with all of the plastic we now use, are we creating more waste?

If you are like most people, you missed the publication in the journal, Waste Management, of a peer-reviewed article entitled, “Role of plastics in decoupling municipal solid waste and economic growth in the U.S.” This article by researchers from City College of New York’s Chemical Engineering Department explored the historic drivers of municipal solid waste (MSW) and the links to the materials that make up the waste. Typically, we would expect that waste would track with population and economic growth. As the economy grows, people buy more goods and services, which economists express as personal consumption expenditure (PCE). This takes population growth out of the picture, which seems fair. As we buy more, you would expect we would throw more away. The US EPA tracks all of this MSW by material and categories, and determines what we recycle, incinerate for energy and landfill.

It turns out that as plastic grew as a material of choice, the percentage of waste that is paper, metals and glass was reduced. Since many of these other materials are recycled at a higher current rate than plastics, you might think this is bad. But in fact, the researchers determined there would be 30 percent more waste if we didn’t have plastic:

"The correlation with PCE demonstrates that since the late 1990s, there has been a decoupling of MSW generation rates with PCE or economic growth. Plastics play a role in the decoupling due to materials substitution that reduce the overall weight of MSW and down-gauging that reduces the amount of material needed."

This may seem sort of boring — admittedly, it is — but it is also important. As we consider banning plastic materials, we need to think about what we replace it with. Replacing commonly used plastic items with heavier, more resource-inefficient materials will cause an increase in energy use that correlates to greenhouse gases and climate change.

As the article states:

“To put the plastic substitution into an environmental context, information reported by Franklin et al. on six categories … determined a significant reduction in energy demand and global warming potential. The six categories are (1) caps & closures, (2) beverage containers, (3) stretch & shrink, (4) carrier bags, (5) other flexible and (6) other rigid. Thus, for example, beverage containers that normally would be glass were replaced with plastic and caps & closures that would be metal were replaced with plastic. The environmental impact in the US, where the total material weight replaced was 49.6 million kg (109 million pounds) over the six categories, resulted in an 80 percent reduced energy demand and a 130 percent reduced global warming potential impact.”

This same Franklin study also notes that while replacement reduces weight and resource use, plastics continue to be source reduced after they replace other materials such as metals or glass. Between 2000 and 2014, they averaged a 3 percent per year reduction in weight.

Another way to look at this is to consider the consequences of shifting back to non-plastic materials. A 2016 Trucost study estimated that moving away from plastics, back to historic alternatives in consumer products and packaging would increase environmental costs by 3.8 times (from $139 billion to a total of $533 billion).

My conclusions from this decoupling paper and the Trucost study are that when we can stop using something altogether, that is great. For example, if I don’t need a straw, I won’t take one. If I do need one, I need to make sure it is disposed of properly. If I need the function that a plastic item performs — such as to hold my salad or a drink — I need to think long and hard about what other materials would be used if I moved away from plastics. Besides creating 30 percent more waste, will more energy be required to make and process it and thus contribute more to global warming?

Sitting here now in burning California, the literal hotbed of climate change, I vote to manage my plastic waste properly.