Léalo en Español The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Illinois EPA or Agency) is committed to protecting the health of the citizens of Illinois and its environment, and to promoting environmental equity in the administration of its programs to the extent it may do so legally and practicably. The Illinois EPA supports the objectives of achieving environmental equity for all of the citizens of Illinois. "Environmental Justice" is based on the principle that all people should be protected from environmental pollution and have the right to a clean and healthy environment. Environmental justice is the protection of the health of the people of Illinois and its environment, equity in the administration of the State's environmental programs, and the provision of adequate opportunities for meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The assumption of this policy is that it is evolutionary. Environmental Justice policies and activities will continue to develop, as appropriate, through the normal course of the Agency's regulatory and programmatic duties. In addition to the normal evolution of the policy, the Agency is planning outreach activities to gather comments and public input for this spring. The Illinois EPA recognizes that this policy alone will not achieve environmental equity in all instances. Moreover, public and private commitment to the implementation of this policy is needed to achieve the goals of this policy and to promote environmental equity in this State.

An aerial view of an open-pit phosphate mine. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is walking away from an area in central Florida where it had raised fears that residents living on top of former mines were being exposed to dangerous radiation levels. (Shutterstock/B. Brown) The Environmental Protection Agency is walking away after a decades-long battle with Florida politicians and industry officials over cleaning up phosphate-mining waste in an area that could expose more than 100, 000 residents to cancer-causing radiation levels. Under a decision quietly finalized two weeks ago, the federal agency will leave it to state officials to decide the fate of the sites in and around Lakeland, an approximately 10-square-mile residential area midway between Orlando and Tampa. However, Florida officials have long argued that the affected area need not be cleaned up in the absence of radiation levels well above what EPA policy would normally permit. The decision not to enforce the usual federal rules could have far-reaching implications for how the United States deals with future radioactive contamination anywhere across the country - regardless of whether it is caused by conventional industrial activities or illicit radiological weapons, critics say. In a joint statement to Global Security Newswire , the Florida health and environment departments say they have no plans to examine the sites further, despite prior recommendations by federal officials that an aerial radiation survey of the area is needed. The state officials say they already have enough historical data pertaining to the sites, and that additional monitoring is not necessary. The statement, provided to GSN by Florida environmental protection spokeswoman Mara Burger, suggests the EPA decision not to clean up the sites under its Superfund program indicated that the federal agency did not consider the Lakeland area "problematic" from a public health standpoint. Under Superfund law, the federal agency is authorized to remediate contaminated sites that pose a threat to public health and the environment. Internal documents released under the Freedom of Information Act in recent years show, however, that the federal agency's lack of action was the result of state and industry opposition, and that EPA officials did in fact believe the sites could pose a serious public health threat.

The energy emitted from lasers is highly concentrated and can cause permanent eye injury. Although engineering controls are preferred to reduce hazards from the laser beam, it may be necessary to use laser safety eyewear when engineering controls are inadequate. Laser safety eyewear must be worn in areas where unenclosed Class 3b or 4 lasers are operated. Laser eyewear filters or absorbs light of a specific wavelengths, while maintaining adequate light transmission for other wavelengths. The absorption capability of the filtering media is called the optical density (OD). The OD is always expressed as a factor of 10. An OD of 5 means the filter has reduced the power of the beam to 1/100, 000 of its original power. The required OD is the minimum OD necessary to reduce the beam to a non-hazardous level. The OD of the eyewear has to be at least equal to, or greater, than the required OD for each wavelength. The eyewear must be labeled with the optical density of the lens and the wavelength that it protects against. When choosing appropriate laser eyewear, time is also a consideration. The length of time the eyewear will protect your eye before the beam goes through, and how much time you will have to react if you are hit with a direct beam are factors. According to ANSI, protective eyewear shall exhibit a damage threshold for a specified exposure time (typically 10 seconds). The eyewear shall be used in a manner so that the damage threshold is not exceeded in the worst case exposure situation. Main points to consider when selecting eyewear for a specific laser includes: Wavelength Optical density Laser beam intensity Luminous transmittance Damage threshold Comfort Lenses For more information on selecting laser protective eyewear, refer to the laser manufacturer's recommendations and instructions and/or review EHSS's Laser Safety Program. Safety Goggles Vinyl-framed goggles of soft pliable body design provide adequate eye protection from many hazards, such as impact, chemical splash, dust, sand, and debris. Goggles are available with perforated, port-vented, or non-vented frames. Single lens goggles provide similar protection to spectacles and may be worn in combination with spectacles or corrective (prescription) lenses to ensure protection along with proper vision. Like safety glasses, goggles are impact resistant and are available with tinted lenses. EHS strongly recommends the use of safety goggles, rather than safety glasses, for all personnel working in laboratories with chemicals or human bodily fluids. Welders/chippers goggles provide protection from sparking, scaling, or splashing metals and harmful light rays. Lenses are impact resistant and are available in graduated shades of filtration. Filter lenses must meet the requirements for shade designations as outlines in the OSHA regulations and ANSI standards. Tinted and shaded lenses are not filter lenses. Face Shields Face shields provide general protection to the entire face for a variety of hazards, such as flying debris, chemical splash, arc flash, UV radiation, and extreme heat. Face shields must be used in combination with goggles when there is a potentially significant chemical splash hazard, especially where highly toxic chemicals or corrosives are used. Face shields must be worn over primary eye protection (safety glasses or goggles) when is a potentially severe exposure to flying fragments or objects, hot sparks from furnace operations, potential splash from molten metal, or extreme temperatures. Welding Helmets Welding Helmets Welding helmets/shields must be provided to protect worker's eyes and face from infrared or radiant light burns, flying sparks, metal splatter, and slag chips encountered during welding, torch brazing, torch soldering, resistance welding, bare or shielded electrical arc welding, and oxy-acetylene work. The shield assemblies consist of a vulcanized fiber or glass-fiber body, a ratchet or button type adjustable headgear or cap attachment, and a filter and cover plate holder. Newer technology offers auto-darkening lens capabilities. For manual filtered lens selection, start with a shade that is too dark to see the weld zone, then switch to a lighter shade which gives sufficient view of the weld zone without going below the minimum shade allowed. In oxy-fuel gas welding or cutting where the torch produces a high yellow light, use a filter lens that absorbs the yellow (sodium line) in the visual light of the (spectrum) operation. Guidance on appropriate filtered shades for various operations is available here. Welding helmets or filtered face shields should only be used over primary eye protection (i.e. safety glasses or goggles). Follow the manufacturer's instructions. Storage and Care Safety glasses and other eye and face protection should be stored carefully to prevent scratching and damage. In general, do not store this equipment where it would be exposed to high heat or direct sunlight. Eye and face protection should be inspected prior to use. If the equipment is damaged or broken, do not use it because it may not be able to fully resist impact. Pitted lenses, as well as dirty lenses, make it more difficult for an employee to see and should be replaced. Lenses that are pitted or deeply scratched are more prone to break under impact and should be replaced. Clean eye and face protection according to the manufacturer's instructions. If the manufacturer's instructions are not available, clean with a mild soap and water solution (maintained at 120°) by soaking for 10 minutes. Rinse thoroughly and allow to air dry. PPE that has been previously used by other personnel should be disinfected before issuing to another person. Completely immerse all parts in solution of germicidal fungicide for 10 minutes. Remove parts and air dry at room temperature. Selection of Eye and Face Protection Guide The following chart provides general guidance for the proper selection of eye and face protection for hazards associated with the listed hazard "source" operations.

"Above all, China's economic growth is strongly powered by cheap coal. The same holds true for India, South Africa, as well as some Eastern European countries, " he added. When coal or other fossil fuels are burned, CO2 is emitted, polluting the atmosphere - and contributing to making climate change more likely. Projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA) say that annual medium temperatures could rise 5.3 degrees by the end of the century, if countries across the world don't take action. But negotiations towards a new international agreement on climate protection have been a failure. Whether it's about limiting greenhouse gas emissions or agreeing on emission rights trading, the interests of the various countries are simply too different. Devaluing resources "A global climate agreement would probably lead to a reduction of coal and oil consumption, " said Carl Christian von Weizsäcker of the Bonn-based Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods. That, in turn constitutes a problem for countries with large fossil fuel resources. "A climate agreement would lead to decreasing prices for the resources in these countries, " Weizsäcker said. "That makes it even harder to reach an agreement." To complicate things further, some countries are changing their negotiation positions. Since new oil and gas fields were discovered in Kenya, and Canada found ways to make tar sands exploitation more lucrative, these countries have practically lost interest in a achieving climate agreement; Any limitation to pollution would reduce the value of their resources. After the failure of the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, the chances of reaching a quick agreement are slim, many experts fear. And it's even more unlikely to expect countries to agree to less, or no, economic growth. Even so, many environmental activists in western industrial nations dream of a world in which economic growth is unnecessary. Improvements without growth? From a global perspective, zero-percent economic growth is not a serious option. "The huge disparities, for instance between Africa and Europe, or between Africa and the Americas would be not acceptable, " Ottmar Edenhofer said, referring to calculations he undertook for the Potsdam Institute on Climate Impact Research. Few, if any, countries in the world are likely to agree to limit their own economic growth "For Africa to reach living standards similar to those in Latin America, the United States would have to reduce its per capita incomes by 80 percent, " he said. "Resulting social conflicts would be severe." Thus, it seems unlikely there will be a conscious limit to economic growth, just as it's unlikely universal targets for climate protection will be agreed anytime soon. Regional efforts, such as the trading of emissions rights within Europe, only work partially or not at all. That's why many experts see humanity steering towards an apocalypse. Economist Karl-Heinz Paque, however, is cautious when it comes to such scenarios, pointing out that reliable predictions about the future are simply impossible to make. "Imagine you had made a prediction in 1913, exactly 100 years ago, about the future of the world - but starting from the state of technological development back then, " he said. "What has happened since, within less than three generations, would have been completely beyond your imagination. That's why we have to be very careful about our predictions." Don't panic, humanity will come up with solutions - that seems to be the bottom line to this argument. Paque, who has been active in politics with the liberal FDP party, believes such technological progress can be reached with as little state regulation as possible. Yet Gerd Wagner, who heads the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) in Berlin, argues that regulations set by nation states will indeed be necessary. "If you want to reduce environmental exploitation you need regulations."

A Quick Guide to the Environmental Protection Act Qld The Environmental Protection Act (1994) is primarily concerned with environmental pollution. While the legislation has an extremely broad objective "to achieve ecologically sustainable development in Queensland" in practice the legislation concentrates primarily on point-source pollution and land contamination. This is partly due to the existence of a range of other legislation (most notably the Nature Conservation Act) which deals with protection of other aspects of the environment. The EP Act seeks to achieve its objective by setting out a program for the identification and protection of important elements of the environment (environmental values) and by creating a range of regulatory tools for controlling the activities of individuals or companies. The Act was also originally intended to provide public notification and appeal rights for proposed developments which have the potential to harm the environment. For a number of reasons, these public involvement provisions were never proclaimed. There are now some opportunities for public involvement under the Integrated Planning Act although it is unclear what licences will fall under these provisions.

The Supreme Court on Monday mostly validated the Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to regulate major sources of greenhouse-gas emissions such as power plants and factories but said the agency had gone too far in interpreting its power. The court’s bifurcated opinion on one hand criticized the agency for trying to rewrite provisions of the Clean Air Act. But it nevertheless granted the Obama administration and environmentalists a big victory by agreeing that there are other ways for the EPA to reach its goal of regulating the gases that contribute to global warming. “It bears mention that EPA is getting almost everything it wanted in this case, ” Justice Antonin Scalia said in announcing his opinion from the bench. “It sought to regulate sources that it said were responsible for 86 percent of all the greenhouse gases emitted from stationary sources nationwide. Under our holdings, EPA will be able to regulate sources responsible for 83 percent of those emissions.” The decision concerns rules separate from the more comprehensive plan the EPA proposed this month to cut carbon emissions from existing plants by as much as 30 percent over 15 years. And the ruling follows another decision this term that upheld the EPA’s authority to regulate air pollution that drifts across state borders, one of the administration’s top environmental goals. “Today is a good day for all supporters of clean air and public health and those concerned with creating a better environment for future generations, ” the EPA said in a statement. Environmentalists focused on the practical impact of the decision. And Sean H. Donahue, who represented environmental agencies in the case, welcomed an affirmation from seven of the nine justices that the Clean Air Act gives the agency the authority to act on greenhouse gases. “It’s settled law, ” he said. Industry opponents of the Obama administration’s aggressive use of executive power to push new regulations said they are encouraged by warnings in the opinion that the EPA’s power is limited. Laura Sheehan, senior vice president for communications of the coal-industry-backed American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, said she is “hopeful EPA’s massive mission creep will be subject to the scrutiny it deserves and stricken down by the judiciary in the future.” Scalia’s opinion, which was joined in full only by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, gave both sides something to like. What made the case complex is that even the EPA acknowledged that certain provisions in the Clean Air Act do not easily lend themselves to regulating greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, which is ubiquitous in the environment. Although the law said emissions of certain pollutants of 100 to 250 tons per year triggered permitting requirements, the EPA had to raise those to 75, 000 to 100, 000 tons per year for greenhouse gases to identify the facilities most in need of regulation. But Scalia wrote that agencies are not free to “revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” He also said that emissions of greenhouse gases alone are not enough to trigger EPA enforcement — that would sweep in too many small sources, such as schools, churches and shopping centers. Scalia, Roberts and Kennedy were joined in that part of the opinion by fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

New York State's Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) is a source of funding for capital projects that protect the environment and enhance communities. Capital projects are usually large projects that purchase land or construct facilities. Most projects that receive grants of EPF money combine it with other funding sources that require matching funds. Some examples of projects using EPF money are: Purchasing land for the NYS Forest Preserve Restoring historic sites Conserving farmland Restoring habitat Controlling invasive species Upgrading municipal sewage treatment plants Cleaning up waterfront property and creating a public park Helping business develop ways to recycle material Kids learning to become environmental stewards at one of DEC's environmental education camps The EPF also supports the stewardship of public lands, including state parks and millions of acres of public lands throughout the state. Through partnerships with volunteer organizations, state agencies use stewardship funding to manage trails and lands, protect natural resources, preserve wildlife habitats, make critical capital improvements at parks and campgrounds, educate students about conservation and provide access to persons with disabilities. Read the EPF 20th Anniversary Report (PDF) (2.86 MB) to learn about all the great projects that have been accomplished using this dedicated funding. History Created by the state legislature in 1993, the Environmental Protection Fund is financed primarily through a dedicated portion of real estate transfer taxes. The EPF has gradually grown from its original appropriation of $31 million in fiscal year 1994-1995. Over the past 20 years, the EPF has provided more than $2.7 billion for a variety of environmental projects. As a trust fund created in state law, these resources must be kept separate from other state monies. Governor Andrew Cuomo recognized the 20th anniversary of the Environmental Protection Fund in a Governor's press release (link leaves DEC website) stating "Smart EPF investments in communities across the state are protecting New York's air, land, water and natural resources, helping to expand recreation opportunities that attract tens of millions of visitors each year and promote economic development." The Process Each year, during the budget negotiations, the legislature and governor negotiate the level of funding that will go into the EPF and assign amounts to specific categories within three accounts: Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Solid Waste Stream restoration projects are eligible for Water Quality Improvement Project grants funded by the EPF Each category has legislatively designated uses per Section 92-S of the State Finance Law, described in detail in Article 54 of State Environmental Conservation Law. Additionally, some purposes are authorized in other sections of state law (i.e.; the Farmland Protection Program), as well as spending authorizations included in year-to-year budget appropriations. Projects selected to receive resources are chosen based on a number of variable criteria, depending on the category. Several New York State agencies administer the funds and award grants to eligible state-led projects, or to partnerships, either between state agencies and municipalities or between state agencies and nonprofit organizations: Department of Environmental Conservation Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Empire State Development Corporation Department of Agriculture and Markets Department of State

EPA's Criminal Investigation Division (EPA CID) Special Agents are fully authorized law enforcement officers empowered to enforce our nation's environmental laws as well as any other federal law in accordance with the guidelines established by the Attorney General of the United States (18 U.S.C. 3063). EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program agents are highly trained men and women dedicated to the enforcement of federal laws protecting our environment; specifically, our air, water, and land resources. EPA CID Special Agents work within a structure of sophisticated environmental science and technology. EPA's CID Special Agents bring with them diverse backgrounds and a variety of work experience. An EPA CID Special Agent is a career position in the federal government with stringent qualification requirements. What are the qualifications of EPA CID Special Agents? Video - EPA Special Agents: Trained to Fight Environmental CrimeApplicants for the position of EPA CID Special Agent must be a United States citizen, between the ages of 21 and 37 years old, and in excellent physical condition. EPA CID Special Agents receive eight weeks of basic federal law enforcement and Criminal Investigator training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center located in Glynco, Georgia. In addition to the basic law enforcement training, EPA CID Special Agents receive an additional eight weeks of training in conducting investigations of the criminal provisions of our federal environmental laws. Our Special Agents receive periodic in-service training, as well as advanced training in various investigative techniques.

"Natural Resource Conservation History in the Commonwealth and the Establishment of the Massachusetts Environmental Police" Conservation Laws in 1600s Massachusetts has had a long history of protecting its natural resources. Some of the earliest hunting and fishing laws date back to 1627 when the Colony of New Plymouth created a law that declared hunting, fowling, and fishing shall be free2. The Massachusetts Bay Colony also declared hunting and fishing to be free in 1641. “Every inhabitant who is an house-holder shall have free fishing and fowling in any great ponds, bays, coves, and rivers so far as the sea ebbs and flows within the precinct of the town where they dwell unless the freeman of the same town or general court have otherwise appropriated them1.” The colony also created many laws that paid bounties for killing wolves. In 1630, the Colony created a law that paid one schilling to any colonist who killed a wolf. In 1640, the Massachusetts Bay Colony passed a law which gave forty schillings to any man who killed a wolf with hounds. Many colonists hunted wolves because forty schillings was a sizeable bounty in 1640. The 1640 bounty was equivalent to twenty seven days of a laborers pay6. “[E]arly Massachusetts laws encouraged residents to keep dogs, such as mastiffs and greyhounds, to use in hunting wolves and authorized town governments to use public funds to purchase and keep wolf-hunting dogs. Towns were also required to set out and bait specific numbers of wolf traps. Any town that neglected its obligation to trap wolves was assessed a fine6.” Map reproduction courtesy of the Norman B. Leventhal Map Center at the Boston Public Library In 1636, a law was created which stated that no guns or iron traps could be used near the highway4. During the colonial period, alewives were a very important fish used for food and fertilizer. Plymouth colony created some of the country’s earliest fishing regulations to protect the alewives. In 1645, the colony created a law that prohibited the use of nets to catch alewives in the Sandwich river with a fine of ten pounds. In 1661, the Plymouth Colony banned any foreigner without permission from fishing on Cape Cod. In 1668, to protect cod, haddock, and pollock during spawning the Massachusetts Bay Colony banned all fishing in December and January. Fishing of mackerel was also banned in May and June. The penalty for fishing during the spawning period was 5 schillings per barrel. In 1670, the position of Water Bailiff was created to regulate the Cape Cod Fisheries. Thomas Paine was appointed as the first Water Bailiff. The law required residents of the colony to pay a duty of six pence per barrel of mackerel caught. The duty on mackerel caught by foreigners was one schilling and 6 pence per barrel3. Water Bailiff Oath “You shall faithfully serve in the office of Water Bailiff in the Jurisdiction of New Plymouth and shall carefully observe such orders of Court as concerns your said office with special reference unto the improvement thereof at Cape Cod and places adjacent. You shall faithfully discharge the trust imposed upon you in demanding and receiving whatsoever shall be due unto the Colony by such fish as shall be there taken; and shall seasonably give in a true account thereof unto the Treasurer yearly3.” In 1672, a new law was created which gave the Water Bailiff authority to seize any fish caught by a vessel in Cape Cod Bay that did not pay its duty. “It is enacted by the Court that if any person or person that shall at any time hereafter ship or load on board any fish, caught at Cape Cod but such as he or they shall give an account of to the water bailiff: All such fish shall be forfeited to the colony’s use. The water bailiff is herby empowered to make seizure of all such fish as shall at any time become forfeit and is to give account thereof to the Treasurer or such as shall be appointed by the magistrates or any four of them to take the said account2.” In 1673, a law passed which said that all profits from the Cape Cod fishery would be used to fund a public school. In 1684, the taking of mackerel ashore with seines or nets was prohibited under the forfeiture of the seines nets vessels and boats employed. The forfeitures were to be divided between the informer and the colony. Magistrates were authorized to issue warrants to persons empowering them as water bailiffs to make such seizures5.The Massachusetts Bay Colony (situated around present day Boston and Salem) and the Colony of New Plymouth (situated around present day Barnstable County, Plymouth county and Bristol county) unified in 1692 to form the Province of Massachusetts Bay. In 1693, deer hunting was prohibited between January 1st to July 1st. The first offense forty schillings, second offense three pounds, third offense five pounds. In 1710, a law was passed that banned the hunting of waterfowl from any boat, canoe, float, raft, or vessel. The penalty for breaking the law was a fine of forty schillings and a three year prohibition from hunting any waterfowl7. In 1727, the law was revised to include the prohibition of hunting waterfowl at night. The penalty from the crime was split between the person reporting the crime and the poor. In 1717, to increase the deer population, a law was passed which prohibited any killing of bucks, does, and fawns until August 1st, 1721. “Whereas the depth of snow in some late winters hath been so great as hath occasioned the destruction of a great part of the deer in this province; to the intent that the said creature (which is both harmless and profitable) may be preserved and increased8”.

0 Stories of kindness throughout the ages (Shutterstock) The phrases ‘Random Acts of Kindness’ and ‘Pay it Forward’ are used often in the modern age - especially in the circles of people and organizations who want to make the world a better place. And this month on March 15, people from all corners of the earth will come together for a global celebration of doing good - Good Deeds Day. But kindness isn’t a new fad - it goes way back. These five inspiring stories take us through religious traditions, sporting events and hard times for humanity - revealing the love, kindness and compassion that underlies the human experience. 1. AN ACT OF SPORTSMANSHIP WHO: Ivan Fernandez Anaya WHEN: 2012 WHAT: In December 2012, Kenyan runner Abel Mutai was in first place during a cross-country race in Burlada, Spain. When he was some 10 meters away from the end of the race, he mistakenly thought he had crossed the finish line and won the race - so he slowed down - giving Spanish runner Ivan Fernandez Anaya the chance to overtake him and claim victory. Instead, Fernandez caught up to his rival and guided him to the finish line - choosing honesty and sportsmanship over victory. Watch the good deed play out in this video from the event. 2. AN ACT OF FORGIVENESS WHO: Pope John Paul II WHEN: 1981 WHAT: On May 13, 1981 Pope John Paul II survived an attempt on his life in St. Peter’s Square, Vatican City. Just four days later, John Paul publicly forgave his would-be assassin, saying that he’d actually already forgiven the Turkish man - Mehmet Ali Agca - when he was in the ambulance on the way to the hospital in a serious condition. This historical good deed shows that forgiveness is always possible. Pope John Paul II greets pilgrims, 2004 (giulio napolitano / Shutterstock.com) 3. AN ACT OF HUMANITY WHO: Captain Wilm Hosenfeld WHEN: 1944 WHAT: Wladyslaw Szpilman, the talented Polish pianist on whom the movie The Piano was based, was rounded up and transported to Treblinka (a concentration camp) in 1942 after the Germans invaded Poland. He survived via a series of lucky incidents and was somehow left behind in Warsaw, where he stayed in hiding throughout the following years of World War II. In 1944, he was discovered by a German officer, Captain Wilm Hosenfeld. Szpilman expected to be turned in, but in an act of kindness, Hosenfeld did the exact opposite - he helped Szpilman evade capture, bringing him food for sustenance and giving him a safe refuge. The surprising act of kindness at the end of this story reminds us that there is good in everyone. 4. AN ACT OF COMPASSION WHO: The Prophet Muhammad WHEN: Around 600 CE WHAT: According to the Muslim tradition, Muhammad once saw a man working on a grinding mill, sobbing to himself all the while. Muhammad asked the man why he was crying, and he replied that he was sick and couldn’t work well - but he was worried about the repercussions if his master were to find out. Muhammad stepped forward and ground the grain in his place, saying: "Always call me if you have any grain to grind. I will do it for you." This classic good deed shows how the simple act of relating to other human beings can present opportunities to show compassion and help out. An ancient hand mill (Shutterstock) 5. AN ACT OF GUIDANCE WHO: Jesus WHEN: Around 30 CD WHAT: Among the many stories of Jesus’ acts of kindness from the Christian tradition is this story from the Gospel of Luke, which saw the central religious figure speaking to his followers about helping others. “And the crowds asked him, "What then shall we do?" And he answered them, "Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise." This story shows the importance of giving positive, compassionate advice to those who follow our example. A classical depiction of Jesus and his followers (Shutterstock) As well as managing Goodnet.org, Elana writes happy headlines with a particular focus on yoga, meditation and family matters. She has a background in online journalism and web content.