I had fully intended to write a piece today on spontaneous remission and how it influences treatments and results that people choose.
I had, recently, an occasion to be privately messaged by a peddlar of a wieght loss MLM product line to inform me that my information regarding a particular product that appeared in her blog could potentially damage her efforts to sell the multi thousand dollar remedies.
I have to take exception to putting sales before health and wonder how some can sleep at night.
My research to date suggests that the product line leaves much to be desired from the persective of science and the effectivenes of it's main ingredients but that is for another blog.
I found this page while googling and it mirrors what I was about to discuss regarding the association in the mind between cures and disease.
Quackwatch Home Page
Spontaneous Remission and the Placebo Effect
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
When someone feels better after using a product or procedure, it is natural to credit whatever was done. However, this is unwise. Most ailments are self-limiting, and even incurable conditions can have sufficient day-to-day variation to enable quack methods to gain large followings. Taking action often produces temporary relief of symptoms (a placebo effect). In addition, many products and services exert physical or psychologic effects that users misinterpret as evidence that their problem is being cured. These "Dr. Feelgood" modalities include pharmacologically active herbal products, quack formulas adulterated with prescription drugs, colonic irrigations (which some people enjoy), bodywork, and meditation. Scientific experimentation is almost always necessary to establish whether health methods are really effective. Thus it is extremely important for consumers to understand the concepts of spontaneous remission and the placebo effect.
Spontaneous Remission
Recovery from illness, whether it follows self-medication, treatment by a scientific practitioner, or treatment by an unscientific practitioner, may lead individuals to conclude that the treatment received was the cause of the return to good health. As noted by Medical historian James Harvey Young, Ph.D.:
John Doe does not usually realize that most ailments are self-limiting and improve with time regardless of treatment. When a symptom goes away after he doses himself with a remedy, he is likely to credit the remedy with curing him. He does not realize that he would have gotten better just as quickly if he had done nothing! Thousands of well-meaning John and Jane Does have boosted the fame of folk remedies and have signed sincere testimonials for patent medicines, crediting them instead of the body's recuperative power for a return to well-being. . . .
The unscientific healer does not need to observe the restraints of reputable medicine. Where true medical science is complex, the quack can oversimplify. . . . Where ailments are self-limiting, the quack makes nature his secret ally [1].
It is commonly said that if you treat a cold it will disappear in a week, but if you leave it alone it will last for seven days. Even many serious diseases have ups and downs. Rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis are prime examples. On rare occasions, even cancer can inexplicably disappear (although most testimonials for quack cancer remedies are based on faulty original diagnosis or simultaneous administration of effective treatment).
Quackery's victims are not the only ones who can be fooled by the placebo effect, spontaneous remissions, and other coincidental events. The gratitude and adulation of people who think they have been helped can even persuade charlatans that their methods are effective!
The Placebo Effect
The power of suggestion has been demonstrated by many investigators in a variety of settings. In a classroom, for example, a professor sprayed plain water about the room and asked the students to raise their hands as soon as they detected an odor. Seventy-three percent managed to smell a nonexistent odor.
Persons with a dominant or persuasive personality often have considerable impact on others through their ability to create confidence, which enhances suggestibility. Many individuals who are taken in by a charlatan later tell their doctors, "But he talked to me; he explained things; he was so nice."
Individuals who are psychologically susceptible to suggestion often feel better under the influence of counseling or reassurance. Several years ago, an airline flight attendant told me, "I take a multivitamin pill that Consumer Reports says is useless. But I don't care. It makes me happy."
Gullibility and wishful thinking are common human characteristics. People are willing to believe in untrue things in varying ways and to varying degrees. Even scientifically sophisticated people may respond to the power of suggestion.
In medicine the effect of suggestion is referred to as the "placebo effect." The Latin word placebo means "I shall please." A placebo effect is a beneficial response to a substance, device, or procedure that cannot be accounted for on the basis of pharmacologic or other direct physical action. Feeling better when the physician walks into the room is a common example.
A placebo may be used in medicine to satisfy a patient that something is being done. By lessening anxiety, placebo action may alleviate symptoms caused by the body's reaction to tension (psychosomatic symptoms). In certain circumstances, a lactose tablet (sugar pill) may relieve not only anxiety but also pain, nausea, vomiting, palpitations, shortness of breath, and other symptoms. The patient expects the "medication" to cause improvement, and sometimes it does.
Many studies suggest that placebos can relieve a broad range of symptoms. In many disorders, one third or more of patients will get relief from a placebo. Temporary relief has been demonstrated, for example, in arthritis, hay fever, headache, cough, high blood pressure, premenstrual tension, peptic ulcer, and even cancer. The psychologic aspects of many disorders also work to the healer's advantage. A large percentage of symptoms either have a psychologic component or do not arise from organic disease. Hence, treatment offering some lessening of tension can often help. A sympathetic ear or reassurance that no serious disease is involved may prove therapeutic by itself. Psychologist Barry Beyerstein, Ph.D., has observed:
Pain is partly a sensation . . . and partly an emotion. . . . Anything that can allay anxiety, redirect attention, reduce arousal, foster a sense of control, or lead to . . . reinterpretation of symptoms can alleviate the agony component of pain. Modern pain clinics put these strategies to use every day. Successful quacks and faith healers typically have charismatic personalities that make them adept at influencing these psychological variables that can modulate pain. . . . But we must be careful that purely symptomatic relief does not divert people from proven remedies until it is too late for them to be effective [2].
Confidence in the treatment -- on the part of the patient and the practitioner -- makes it more likely that a placebo effect will occur. But the power of suggestion may cause even a nonbeliever to respond favorably. The only requirement for a placebo effect is the awareness that something has been done. It is not possible to predict accurately or easily a particular patient's reaction to a placebo at a particular moment. However, the psychologic predisposition to respond positively to placebos is present to some extent in most people. Some are very likely to obtain relief from placebos in a wide variety of situations, whereas others are very unlikely to do so. Most people's response lies somewhere inbetween.
Another factor that can mislead people is selective affirmation -- a tendency to look for positive responses when improvement is expected. As former National Council Aghainst Health Fraud president William T. Jarvis, Ph.D., has noted:
A culturally significant setting can also produce a potent effect, as folk healers know well. Effective settings can be as divergent as the trappings of an oriental herb shop to Asians, a circle of witchcraft paraphernalia to a primitive tribesman, or the atmosphere of a modern clinic to a modern urban American. Social expectations can also play a role, as occurs in stoic cultures where people are taught to endure pain and suffering without complaining. . . .
Operant conditioning can occur . . . when behavior is rewarded. . . . Thus, people with a history of favorable responses to treatment are more apt to react well to the act of treatment [3].
Moreover, says Dr. Jarvis:
People suffering from chronic symptoms are often depressed, and depression often produces symptoms that the patient attributes to the underlying disease. If the quack's promises make the patient feel hopeful, the depressive symptoms may resolve, leading the patient to conclude -- at least temporarily -- that the quack's approach has been effective against the disease [4].
Responses to the treatment setting can also be negative ("nocebo effects"). In one experiment, for example, some subjects who were warned of possible side effects of a drug were given injections of a placebo instead. Many of them reported dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and even mental depression. A recent review of 109 double-blind drug trials found that the overall incidence of adverse events in healthy volunteers during placebo administration was 19% [5].
Placebo responses, such as feeling less pain or more energy, do not affect the actual course of the disease. Thus placebo responses can obscure real disease, which can lead to delay in obtaining appropriate diagnosis or treatment.
The placebo effect is not limited to drugs but may also result from procedures [6]. Devices and physical techniques often have a significant psychologic impact. Chiropractors, naturopaths, and various other nonmedical practitioners use heat, light, diathermy, hydrotherapy, manipulation, massage, and a variety of gadgets. In addition to any physiologic effects, their use can exert a psychologic force that may be reinforced by the relationship between the patient and the practitioner. Of course, devices and procedures used by scientific practitioners can also have placebo effects.
Ethical Considerations
Doctors are confronted by many people who complain of tiredness or a variety of vague symptoms that are reactions to nervous tension. Far too often, instead of finding out what is bothering them, doctors tell them to take a tonic, a vitamin, or some other type of placebo.
A recent study has challenged the widely held view that the placebo effect is a major factor in the outcome of clinical trials. Most placebo-controlled trials compare the active treatment with a placebo, not with no treatment. This design cannot distinguish an effect of placebo from the natural course of the disease, regression to the mean (the tendency for random increases or decreases to be followed by observations closer to the average), or the effects of other factors. After analyzing 114 randomized trials that had a "no-treatment" group in addition to active treatment and placebo groups, the authors concluded:
Placebos appeared to produce modest benefit in studies of pain and in other studies where the outcome being measured was similarly subjective.
Some of the reported benefit may be the result of placebos may be the result of patients wishing to please their doctors.
There is no justifiable placebo use outside of clinical trials [7].
An accompanying editorial stated that placebo use should be sharply reduced but may still be justified in carefully selected situations where pain relief is needed [8]. The study also casts doubt on the widely promoted notion that "alternative methods" may work by stimulating a placebo effect
Quacks who rely on the placebo effect pretend that (a) they know what they are doing, (b) they can tell what is wrong with you, and (c) their treatment is effective for just about everything. Many of their patients play the equivalent of Russian roulette. Medical doctors who use vitamins as placebos may not be as dangerous, but they encourage people to habitually use products they don't need. Because most people who use placebos do not get relief from them, their use is also a financial rip-off.
References
Young JH. Why quackery persists. In Barrett S, Jarvis WT, editors. The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America. Amherst, N.Y., 1993, Prometheus Books.
Beyerstein BL. Testing claims of therapeutic efficacy. Rational Enquirer 7(4):1-2, 8, 1995.
Jarvis WT. Arthritis: Folk remedies and quackery. Nutrition Forum 7:1-3, 1990.
Jarvis WT. Personal communication to Dr. Stephen Barrett, Dec 18, 2001.
Rosensweig P and others. The placebo effect in healthy volunteers: Influence of experimental conditions on the adverse events profile during phase I studies. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 54:578-583, 1993.
Turner JA and others. The importance of placebo effects in pain treatment and research. JAMA 271:1609-1614, 1994.
Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. NEJM 344:1594-1602, 2001.
Bailar JC III. The powerful placebo and the Wizard of Oz. NEJM 344:1630-1632, 2001.
Quackwatch Home Page
This article was posted on December 18, 2001.
another resource for a specific critique of product is Dr. Harriet Hall:
http://healthfraudoz.blogspot.com/2006/11/critique-of-isagenix.html
I found the information provided not only interesting but somewhat distrubing.
Kootenay lake near Nakusp
Friday, September 10, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Arguing just to win is counter productive
http://dumbscientist.com/archives/people-who-argue-to-win-annoy-me
Posted December 1st, 2008 in Philosophy. Tags: Introductory-Phil., No Equations, Quickie.
I enjoy civilized debates, but I rarely get the chance to engage in them. That’s because in my experience nearly everyone assumes they’re correct, so they only debate to beat their viewpoint into the other person’s head at all costs.
In other words, most people argue to win… and I can’t stand it. Whenever I mention this pet peeve, the response is almost always “Oh, so you argue to lose, huh?”
Not exactly. I see a third alternative, one that seems more productive. I argue to learn.
In fact, I think the best possible outcome of a debate is when my opponent convinces me that he’s right and I’m wrong. That way, I’ve learned something new or improved my worldview by fixing a mistake. It’s just boring to convince someone else that I’m right. What do I gain from a debate that I “win” in that manner? Very little, I think.
That’s the point of this website. I’ve decided that I can no longer develop my ideas in isolation. I’m blind to the flaws in my own ideas because I’m simply too biased towards believing they’re true.
It might seem like I shouldn’t be annoyed with people who argue to win, because they’re doing me a favor by enthusiastically attacking my ideas. While it’s true that I desperately want people to attack my ideas in order to identify flaws in my reasoning, the problem is that people who argue to win generally aren’t very persuasive. They’re certainly motivated to attack my ideas (which I appreciate), but the resulting arguments have always been much less enlightening than conversations with people who disagree with me in a calm, non-confrontational manner.
That’s because you have to understand another person’s position at least a little bit before you criticize it. Otherwise your attacks might not be aimed at their central point, or you may misinterpret their position altogether. Your arguments must also serve as a “bridge” between the other person’s position and your own, to show the other person how to cross the intellectual distance that separates your positions. Finally, you can’t simply grab the first argument that appears to support your position or attack your opponent’s. This happens most often in verbal debates where there isn’t much time for research or introspection between intellectual salvos. But it also occurs in written debates with depressing frequency, and the resulting arguments simply aren’t challenging enough.
For me, debating means to seriously entertain my opponent’s viewpoint, to examine the world through the lens of his assumptions. If I happen to like his viewpoint better than mine (which happens occasionally) I cheerfully say “thank you for correcting me” and drop my old position like the proverbial hot potato. I’m not on anyone’s side but my own, and sometimes I’m not even on my own side…
Posted December 1st, 2008 in Philosophy. Tags: Introductory-Phil., No Equations, Quickie.
I enjoy civilized debates, but I rarely get the chance to engage in them. That’s because in my experience nearly everyone assumes they’re correct, so they only debate to beat their viewpoint into the other person’s head at all costs.
In other words, most people argue to win… and I can’t stand it. Whenever I mention this pet peeve, the response is almost always “Oh, so you argue to lose, huh?”
Not exactly. I see a third alternative, one that seems more productive. I argue to learn.
In fact, I think the best possible outcome of a debate is when my opponent convinces me that he’s right and I’m wrong. That way, I’ve learned something new or improved my worldview by fixing a mistake. It’s just boring to convince someone else that I’m right. What do I gain from a debate that I “win” in that manner? Very little, I think.
That’s the point of this website. I’ve decided that I can no longer develop my ideas in isolation. I’m blind to the flaws in my own ideas because I’m simply too biased towards believing they’re true.
It might seem like I shouldn’t be annoyed with people who argue to win, because they’re doing me a favor by enthusiastically attacking my ideas. While it’s true that I desperately want people to attack my ideas in order to identify flaws in my reasoning, the problem is that people who argue to win generally aren’t very persuasive. They’re certainly motivated to attack my ideas (which I appreciate), but the resulting arguments have always been much less enlightening than conversations with people who disagree with me in a calm, non-confrontational manner.
That’s because you have to understand another person’s position at least a little bit before you criticize it. Otherwise your attacks might not be aimed at their central point, or you may misinterpret their position altogether. Your arguments must also serve as a “bridge” between the other person’s position and your own, to show the other person how to cross the intellectual distance that separates your positions. Finally, you can’t simply grab the first argument that appears to support your position or attack your opponent’s. This happens most often in verbal debates where there isn’t much time for research or introspection between intellectual salvos. But it also occurs in written debates with depressing frequency, and the resulting arguments simply aren’t challenging enough.
For me, debating means to seriously entertain my opponent’s viewpoint, to examine the world through the lens of his assumptions. If I happen to like his viewpoint better than mine (which happens occasionally) I cheerfully say “thank you for correcting me” and drop my old position like the proverbial hot potato. I’m not on anyone’s side but my own, and sometimes I’m not even on my own side…
Sunday, September 5, 2010
God did not create the universe, says Hawking
NewsDaily: God did not create the universe, says Hawking
NewsDaily (2010-09-05) -- God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book. ... > read full article
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Benefits of Buying Local Can Be a Far-Off Fantasy
This information seems to provide more "food for thought" about different approaches to sustainabilty.
There's some pretty outrageous assumptions out there coming from the misinformed.
There must be a decent balance that preseves the environment without impacting the lives of our neighbours.
Benefits of Buying Local Can Be a Far-Off Fantasy
There's some pretty outrageous assumptions out there coming from the misinformed.
There must be a decent balance that preseves the environment without impacting the lives of our neighbours.
Benefits of Buying Local Can Be a Far-Off Fantasy
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Organic Food Miles Take Toll On Environment
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070606113311.htm
ScienceDaily (June 7, 2007) — Organic fruit and vegetables may be healthier for the dinner table, but not necessarily for the environment, a University of Alberta study shows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study, conducted by a team of student researchers in the Department of Rural Economy at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, showed that the greenhouse gas emitted when the produce is transported from great distances mitigates the environmental benefits of growing the food organically.
"If you're buying 'green', you should consider the distance the food travels. If it's travelling further, then some of the benefits of organic crops are cancelled out by extra environmental costs," said researcher Vicki Burtt.
Burtt and her fellow researchers compared the cost of 'food miles' between organic and conventionally grown produce, and found that there was little difference in the cost to the environment.
Food miles are defined as the distance that food travels from the field to the grocery store. The study found that the environmental cost of greenhouse gas (CO2) emitted to transport 20 tonnes of organically grown produce was comparable to that of bringing the same amount of conventional fruit and vegetables to market.
For the study, the team collected retail price data from six grocery stores and interviewed suppliers about their shipping methods. They created comparable food baskets of both organic and conventionally-grown fruit and vegetables being transported to Edmonton stores by truck, train or ship, and found that most travels by truck. Since 1970 truck shipping has increased, replacing more energy-efficient rail and water transport.
The researchers calculated that the annual environmental costs for a city the size of Edmonton were $135,000 to $183,000 (5,492-7,426 tonnes CO2) for conventional produce and $156,000 to $175,000 (6,348-7,124 tonnes CO2) for organic produce. Many of the organic products are travelling further than the conventional food. Two items in particular, mangoes and green peppers, were shipped much further than their conventional counterparts (4,217 and 1,476 kilometres, respectively). The mangoes were shipped from Ecuador and Peru as opposed to Mexico, and the peppers came from Mexico as opposed to Canada or the United States.
To help reduce greenhouse gases, Burtt recommends that shoppers switch to buying locally produced food at grocery stores or farmers' markets when possible, and that any future government policy on the environment should consider the reduction of CO2 emissions associated with food transport. The study also found that a large gap between total costs to the consumer and the price paid in the store for organic produce indicates that retailers could cover the environmental costs without passing those costs on to the consumer.
ScienceDaily (June 7, 2007) — Organic fruit and vegetables may be healthier for the dinner table, but not necessarily for the environment, a University of Alberta study shows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study, conducted by a team of student researchers in the Department of Rural Economy at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, showed that the greenhouse gas emitted when the produce is transported from great distances mitigates the environmental benefits of growing the food organically.
"If you're buying 'green', you should consider the distance the food travels. If it's travelling further, then some of the benefits of organic crops are cancelled out by extra environmental costs," said researcher Vicki Burtt.
Burtt and her fellow researchers compared the cost of 'food miles' between organic and conventionally grown produce, and found that there was little difference in the cost to the environment.
Food miles are defined as the distance that food travels from the field to the grocery store. The study found that the environmental cost of greenhouse gas (CO2) emitted to transport 20 tonnes of organically grown produce was comparable to that of bringing the same amount of conventional fruit and vegetables to market.
For the study, the team collected retail price data from six grocery stores and interviewed suppliers about their shipping methods. They created comparable food baskets of both organic and conventionally-grown fruit and vegetables being transported to Edmonton stores by truck, train or ship, and found that most travels by truck. Since 1970 truck shipping has increased, replacing more energy-efficient rail and water transport.
The researchers calculated that the annual environmental costs for a city the size of Edmonton were $135,000 to $183,000 (5,492-7,426 tonnes CO2) for conventional produce and $156,000 to $175,000 (6,348-7,124 tonnes CO2) for organic produce. Many of the organic products are travelling further than the conventional food. Two items in particular, mangoes and green peppers, were shipped much further than their conventional counterparts (4,217 and 1,476 kilometres, respectively). The mangoes were shipped from Ecuador and Peru as opposed to Mexico, and the peppers came from Mexico as opposed to Canada or the United States.
To help reduce greenhouse gases, Burtt recommends that shoppers switch to buying locally produced food at grocery stores or farmers' markets when possible, and that any future government policy on the environment should consider the reduction of CO2 emissions associated with food transport. The study also found that a large gap between total costs to the consumer and the price paid in the store for organic produce indicates that retailers could cover the environmental costs without passing those costs on to the consumer.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Anti oil sands groups urge Americans to boycott Alberta
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Billboards+warn+Americans+travel+dirty+Alberta/3276898/story.html
From my perspective Americans can whine and complain and print banner ads and bill boards all they like the but fact of the matter is we Canadians in particular we Albertans did not get them into the mess that they are currently dealing with.
Obama and the White House might be shocked that the US federal court overturned a six-month drilling moratorium but it's not that surprising.
It seems the political posturing missed a very important detail... , the US oil industry is on the brink of collapse.
It's not just America's oil supply and energy security that's in danger, it's not just BP oil and the spill and the subsequently stupid drilling ban, it's the entire gulf economy that's hanging by a thread and it won't take much more to toss it over the cliff.
Truth is thousands and thousands of rig workers were effectively laid off in the 33 rigs operating in the Gulf stopped drilling.
There's a very real possibility that lost wages alone are running $330 million per month.
If you look at the BP 100 million-dollar compensation fund it looks rather paltry.
That's not the end of it. Each rig job supports jobs for four additional jobs for trucks, supply ships, operator service industries, telephones etc.
This work stoppage is huge.
If the drilling ban became permanent which it won't of course, the consequences could be dire and just like the towns that died out in the upper Midwest after the demise of the auto plants the steel mills the entire Gulf Coast in deep water drilling which is so crucial to the US economy could just... fade... away.
At best, we could call this economy fragile.
Recently the Chinese stepped forward to call this economy no longer a AAA credit risk but now a AA credit risk placing the United States of America number 13 on the list of viable creditors on this planet.
If in fact the Gulf accounts for 30% of all the oil produced in the US and should the Gulf be put off-limits that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
Viable options are few and far between.
Russia may be a friend now but history tells us they're fond of turning off the taps and screwing customers present and past and will most likely do so again should the opportunity present.
The Middle East is hardly America's best friend and royalty structures there leave a hell a lot to be desired.
In Venezuela Hugo Chavez nationalized 11 oil rigs belonging to the US. -- how lovely!
Now, let's consider option number two, our friendly neighbour to the north, the little country that already plays a big role in US energy market. Truth is one of every six barrels of oil consumed daily in the United States comes from Alberta Canada and oil sands have taken a pretty controversial hit by uninformed and ill-informed and had been presented as if there are like broken landscapes wreaking carbon emissions. I humbly ask compared to what?
They can whine and belly ache all they want but the oil sands are going to change and change very soon. They are cost effective and they're becoming increasingly green. Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) pumps steam into the ground to liquify bitumen and stiff crude oil and makes it thin enough to be pulled out of the ground. No giant holes no toxic pale plummes just two horizontal pipes one above the other puffing away efficiently. There's no question that the Gulf oil spill has become a game changer.
If the US court allows a somewhat watered-down version of the drilling ban that have occurred and will drive the price of US oil stocks to unheard-of low levels pushing the US ever closer to a financial collapse.
In the end, only two real options are left in the hands of the US - the oil sands of Canada or rethinking the drilling ban.
So I say respectfully to Americans who choose to ban the import of the very product that will keep your financial ship afloat, fire away!
The very best you could expect from this unjustified and unneighbourly behavior might be to find yourself without a supplier for the lifeblood of the American economy.
It might seem at this point in time there no are purchasers for this oil sand product but all over the world there is a demand for oil and, as might be expected, the contracts that will be set out will be long-term and might very well preclude a change of heart from our American friends.
So be very sure of who you boycott and the reasons for doing so.
Make sure you have your facts straight and your ducks all in a row.
This is not your fathers’ planet.
http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/blog/alberta-oil-sands-are-going-green/
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/More+bitumen+fewer+emissions/3221396/story.html
From my perspective Americans can whine and complain and print banner ads and bill boards all they like the but fact of the matter is we Canadians in particular we Albertans did not get them into the mess that they are currently dealing with.
Obama and the White House might be shocked that the US federal court overturned a six-month drilling moratorium but it's not that surprising.
It seems the political posturing missed a very important detail... , the US oil industry is on the brink of collapse.
It's not just America's oil supply and energy security that's in danger, it's not just BP oil and the spill and the subsequently stupid drilling ban, it's the entire gulf economy that's hanging by a thread and it won't take much more to toss it over the cliff.
Truth is thousands and thousands of rig workers were effectively laid off in the 33 rigs operating in the Gulf stopped drilling.
There's a very real possibility that lost wages alone are running $330 million per month.
If you look at the BP 100 million-dollar compensation fund it looks rather paltry.
That's not the end of it. Each rig job supports jobs for four additional jobs for trucks, supply ships, operator service industries, telephones etc.
This work stoppage is huge.
If the drilling ban became permanent which it won't of course, the consequences could be dire and just like the towns that died out in the upper Midwest after the demise of the auto plants the steel mills the entire Gulf Coast in deep water drilling which is so crucial to the US economy could just... fade... away.
At best, we could call this economy fragile.
Recently the Chinese stepped forward to call this economy no longer a AAA credit risk but now a AA credit risk placing the United States of America number 13 on the list of viable creditors on this planet.
If in fact the Gulf accounts for 30% of all the oil produced in the US and should the Gulf be put off-limits that shortfall has to be made up somewhere.
Viable options are few and far between.
Russia may be a friend now but history tells us they're fond of turning off the taps and screwing customers present and past and will most likely do so again should the opportunity present.
The Middle East is hardly America's best friend and royalty structures there leave a hell a lot to be desired.
In Venezuela Hugo Chavez nationalized 11 oil rigs belonging to the US. -- how lovely!
Now, let's consider option number two, our friendly neighbour to the north, the little country that already plays a big role in US energy market. Truth is one of every six barrels of oil consumed daily in the United States comes from Alberta Canada and oil sands have taken a pretty controversial hit by uninformed and ill-informed and had been presented as if there are like broken landscapes wreaking carbon emissions. I humbly ask compared to what?
They can whine and belly ache all they want but the oil sands are going to change and change very soon. They are cost effective and they're becoming increasingly green. Steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) pumps steam into the ground to liquify bitumen and stiff crude oil and makes it thin enough to be pulled out of the ground. No giant holes no toxic pale plummes just two horizontal pipes one above the other puffing away efficiently. There's no question that the Gulf oil spill has become a game changer.
If the US court allows a somewhat watered-down version of the drilling ban that have occurred and will drive the price of US oil stocks to unheard-of low levels pushing the US ever closer to a financial collapse.
In the end, only two real options are left in the hands of the US - the oil sands of Canada or rethinking the drilling ban.
So I say respectfully to Americans who choose to ban the import of the very product that will keep your financial ship afloat, fire away!
The very best you could expect from this unjustified and unneighbourly behavior might be to find yourself without a supplier for the lifeblood of the American economy.
It might seem at this point in time there no are purchasers for this oil sand product but all over the world there is a demand for oil and, as might be expected, the contracts that will be set out will be long-term and might very well preclude a change of heart from our American friends.
So be very sure of who you boycott and the reasons for doing so.
Make sure you have your facts straight and your ducks all in a row.
This is not your fathers’ planet.
http://ge.geglobalresearch.com/blog/alberta-oil-sands-are-going-green/
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/More+bitumen+fewer+emissions/3221396/story.html
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Nutraceuticals -- what are they?
This is a relatively new term for me and I was curious enough to research a bit of the background as to how this term came about.
Definition is at Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraceutical
According to one report, it's the consumer that's driving growth in nutraceuticals. In the last 10 years people have become more concerned for their health and are increasingly inclined to self medicate. Health providers too are keen to shift some of the burden of health care costs on individuals and recognize that functional foods may provide alternatives for medication.
With the ever burgeoning government regulatory bodies popping up like dandelions is becoming increasingly difficult for beneficial products to reach the market without incurring huge costs in order to substantiate any health benefits.
Conducting studies to syndicate health claim applications in the European Union costs in excess of $7 million dollars per product.
Without question, those costs are similar if not higher here in North America where we have 2 bureaucracies doing the same task independently of each other and without any reciprocity whatsoever.
It should come as no surprise that getting a $1.50 a 1/2 pint of blueberries freeze-dried crumbled and encapsulated into a pill drives the cost of this beneficial fruit up to the $25-$30 level.
Partly because of our belief in folklore, most Westerners have a strong attraction to any "potion" that can be manufactured in pill or capsule form. Most recently new health claims are popping up in the form of soft drinks, green teas, strange berries, even gum and the list goes on.
If their benefits could be considered cumulative one could consider living a healthy life for 1000 years just like Methuselah.
As always, there has been keen interest by charlatans, pseudo-health practitioners, snake oil salesman, and of late, both the food and the drug industry.
I'm not in a position to say that what they are encapsulating, bottling and selling does not have a health benefit but I must question why those benefits are not clearly identified in the "public domain" by these bureaucracies who claim to administrate them.
Unless of course this is just another tax grab by greedy government. It seems, increasingly, that big government thinks it knows what's best for you.
What was designed as a "Service" has become a "Regulatory body" with the full force of the law behind it. I believe that with that should come responsibility. They are on the lawn, how much longer till they are in our gardeesn?
Definition is at Wiki here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraceutical
According to one report, it's the consumer that's driving growth in nutraceuticals. In the last 10 years people have become more concerned for their health and are increasingly inclined to self medicate. Health providers too are keen to shift some of the burden of health care costs on individuals and recognize that functional foods may provide alternatives for medication.
With the ever burgeoning government regulatory bodies popping up like dandelions is becoming increasingly difficult for beneficial products to reach the market without incurring huge costs in order to substantiate any health benefits.
Conducting studies to syndicate health claim applications in the European Union costs in excess of $7 million dollars per product.
Without question, those costs are similar if not higher here in North America where we have 2 bureaucracies doing the same task independently of each other and without any reciprocity whatsoever.
It should come as no surprise that getting a $1.50 a 1/2 pint of blueberries freeze-dried crumbled and encapsulated into a pill drives the cost of this beneficial fruit up to the $25-$30 level.
Partly because of our belief in folklore, most Westerners have a strong attraction to any "potion" that can be manufactured in pill or capsule form. Most recently new health claims are popping up in the form of soft drinks, green teas, strange berries, even gum and the list goes on.
If their benefits could be considered cumulative one could consider living a healthy life for 1000 years just like Methuselah.
As always, there has been keen interest by charlatans, pseudo-health practitioners, snake oil salesman, and of late, both the food and the drug industry.
I'm not in a position to say that what they are encapsulating, bottling and selling does not have a health benefit but I must question why those benefits are not clearly identified in the "public domain" by these bureaucracies who claim to administrate them.
Unless of course this is just another tax grab by greedy government. It seems, increasingly, that big government thinks it knows what's best for you.
What was designed as a "Service" has become a "Regulatory body" with the full force of the law behind it. I believe that with that should come responsibility. They are on the lawn, how much longer till they are in our gardeesn?
Friday, July 2, 2010
"Parent blaming" and it's just rewards
If you feel that your childhood wasn't up to your standards its probably time you got over it.
Dwelling on this is pathetic and pointless and, for the rest of us innocent bystanders, it's very annoying.
I grow weary of all this whining and complaining at all this anger and victim mentality and your inability see that your current attitude is your biggest problem.
I'm also sick of blaming your bad behavior on your parents.
The thing standing between you and success right now is you, not your parents, not your history, not your education, just you. To harbour the fact that they have sabotaged your life and are somehow responsible for your current stupid behaviors and less than desirable outcomes reeks of denial, immaturity and delusion.
We, all of course, do understand that your childhood and parts of it didn't measure up to your high standards.
Is it even remotely possible that you could wrap your head around the fact that much of life doesn't meet with anyone's high standards? Perhaps your parents lives were affected by the same problems that you seem to be complaining of except they buried their problems in work and an effort to try and make a decent home, put food on the table, and even provide the odd holiday while you judged them.
Now you may have a very good reason to be pissed off at your parents.
I'm just saying let it go anyway and move on.
You can't be the judge of what they deserve and don't deserve.
If what you want is to destroy your own potential and your own enthusiasm ,your own optimism and your hope then become a chronic parent blamer. Hang onto that hurt no matter what. No matter how much you think your parents deserve your anger, vitriol and resentment.
I’m telling you it serves no positive purpose it will hurt you more than them stop being a big, immature, stupid baby and you and only you, are responsible for your current reality – no matter what your parents have or haven’t done to you, or for you.
Even though you may have a very good reason to be eternally pissed at your folks, I’m saying let it go anyway.
The other thing you could do is get on with your life and be careful not to waste your time on parent blaming it will destroy you from the inside out. It's an ugly fact that some people will die angry, bitter,resentful and tortured because they never found a way to let go of the self perpetuated - read that clearly, self perpetuated - misery.
If you're still hanging onto emotional crap from years ago it's you that's the problem.
When you're 20,30,40,50 and you're still thinking of talking and behaving like a teenager it is not the parents but -you- repeat -you- need a really big reality check.
The one thing you can change about the past is how you let it affect you now.
The problem as that parenting is a flawed process. You learned your skill or lack there of from your parents. Most of us add and subtract to the information we have as the situation presents.
Sometimes we do a real good job and sometimes not, this is not a perfect world!
This parental blaming game is a slippery slope of self-pity, self-
destruction and futility that's played by far too many people to their own detriment.
It's a game you're advised to avoid.
For better or worse, parents have limited power to influence their children. That is why they should not be so fast to take all the blame — or credit — for everything that their children become.
Dwelling on this is pathetic and pointless and, for the rest of us innocent bystanders, it's very annoying.
I grow weary of all this whining and complaining at all this anger and victim mentality and your inability see that your current attitude is your biggest problem.
I'm also sick of blaming your bad behavior on your parents.
The thing standing between you and success right now is you, not your parents, not your history, not your education, just you. To harbour the fact that they have sabotaged your life and are somehow responsible for your current stupid behaviors and less than desirable outcomes reeks of denial, immaturity and delusion.
We, all of course, do understand that your childhood and parts of it didn't measure up to your high standards.
Is it even remotely possible that you could wrap your head around the fact that much of life doesn't meet with anyone's high standards? Perhaps your parents lives were affected by the same problems that you seem to be complaining of except they buried their problems in work and an effort to try and make a decent home, put food on the table, and even provide the odd holiday while you judged them.
Now you may have a very good reason to be pissed off at your parents.
I'm just saying let it go anyway and move on.
You can't be the judge of what they deserve and don't deserve.
If what you want is to destroy your own potential and your own enthusiasm ,your own optimism and your hope then become a chronic parent blamer. Hang onto that hurt no matter what. No matter how much you think your parents deserve your anger, vitriol and resentment.
I’m telling you it serves no positive purpose it will hurt you more than them stop being a big, immature, stupid baby and you and only you, are responsible for your current reality – no matter what your parents have or haven’t done to you, or for you.
Even though you may have a very good reason to be eternally pissed at your folks, I’m saying let it go anyway.
The other thing you could do is get on with your life and be careful not to waste your time on parent blaming it will destroy you from the inside out. It's an ugly fact that some people will die angry, bitter,resentful and tortured because they never found a way to let go of the self perpetuated - read that clearly, self perpetuated - misery.
If you're still hanging onto emotional crap from years ago it's you that's the problem.
When you're 20,30,40,50 and you're still thinking of talking and behaving like a teenager it is not the parents but -you- repeat -you- need a really big reality check.
The one thing you can change about the past is how you let it affect you now.
The problem as that parenting is a flawed process. You learned your skill or lack there of from your parents. Most of us add and subtract to the information we have as the situation presents.
Sometimes we do a real good job and sometimes not, this is not a perfect world!
This parental blaming game is a slippery slope of self-pity, self-
destruction and futility that's played by far too many people to their own detriment.
It's a game you're advised to avoid.
For better or worse, parents have limited power to influence their children. That is why they should not be so fast to take all the blame — or credit — for everything that their children become.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Organic Pesticides Not Always 'Greener' Choice, U of G Study Finds
Despite the incessant clap trap from the uniformed masses the truth slowly emerges from the hype.
Consumers shouldn't assume that because a product is organic it's also environmentally friendly.
A new University of Guelph study reveals some organic pesticides can have a higher environmental impact than conventional pesticides because the organic product may require larger doses.
Environmental sciences professor Rebecca Hallett and PhD candidate Christine Bahlai compared the effectiveness and environmental impact of organic pesticides with those of conventional and novel reduced-risk synthetic products on soybean crops.
“The consumer demand for organic products is increasing partly because of a concern for the environment,” said Hallett. “But it’s too simplistic to say that because it’s organic it’s better for the environment. Organic growers are permitted to use pesticides that are of natural origin, and in some cases, these organic pesticides can have higher environmental impacts than synthetic pesticides, often because they have to be used in large doses.”
The study, which is published this week in the journal PloS One, involved testing six pesticides and comparing their environmental impact and effectiveness in killing soybean aphids — the main pest of soybean crops across North America.
The scientists examined four synthetic pesticides: two conventional products commonly used by soybean farmers and two new reduced-risk pesticides. They also examined a mineral oil-based organic pesticide that smothers aphids and another product containing a fungus that infects and kills insects.
The two researchers used the environmental impact quotient, a database indicating impact of active ingredients based on such factors as leaching rate into soil, runoff, toxicity from skin exposure, consumer risk, toxicity to birds and fish, and duration of the chemical in the soil and on the plant.
They also conducted field tests on how well each pesticide targeted aphids while leaving their predators — ladybugs and flower bugs — unharmed.
“We found the mineral oil organic pesticide had the most impact on the environment because it works by smothering the aphids and therefore requires large amounts to be applied to the plants,” said Hallett.
Compared with the synthetic pesticides, the mineral oil-based and fungal products were less effective because they also killed ladybugs and flower bugs, which are important regulators of aphid population and growth.
These predator insects reduce environmental impact because they naturally protect the crop, reducing the amount of pesticides that are needed, she added.
“Ultimately, the organic products were much less effective than the novel and conventional pesticides at killing the aphids, and they have a potentially higher environmental impact. In terms of making pest-management decisions and trying to do what is best for the environment, it’s important to look at every compound and make a selection based on the environmental impact quotient rather than if it’s simply natural or synthetic. It’s a simplification that just doesn’t work when it comes to minimizing environmental impact.”
here's the original source
Consumers shouldn't assume that because a product is organic it's also environmentally friendly.
A new University of Guelph study reveals some organic pesticides can have a higher environmental impact than conventional pesticides because the organic product may require larger doses.
Environmental sciences professor Rebecca Hallett and PhD candidate Christine Bahlai compared the effectiveness and environmental impact of organic pesticides with those of conventional and novel reduced-risk synthetic products on soybean crops.
“The consumer demand for organic products is increasing partly because of a concern for the environment,” said Hallett. “But it’s too simplistic to say that because it’s organic it’s better for the environment. Organic growers are permitted to use pesticides that are of natural origin, and in some cases, these organic pesticides can have higher environmental impacts than synthetic pesticides, often because they have to be used in large doses.”
The study, which is published this week in the journal PloS One, involved testing six pesticides and comparing their environmental impact and effectiveness in killing soybean aphids — the main pest of soybean crops across North America.
The scientists examined four synthetic pesticides: two conventional products commonly used by soybean farmers and two new reduced-risk pesticides. They also examined a mineral oil-based organic pesticide that smothers aphids and another product containing a fungus that infects and kills insects.
The two researchers used the environmental impact quotient, a database indicating impact of active ingredients based on such factors as leaching rate into soil, runoff, toxicity from skin exposure, consumer risk, toxicity to birds and fish, and duration of the chemical in the soil and on the plant.
They also conducted field tests on how well each pesticide targeted aphids while leaving their predators — ladybugs and flower bugs — unharmed.
“We found the mineral oil organic pesticide had the most impact on the environment because it works by smothering the aphids and therefore requires large amounts to be applied to the plants,” said Hallett.
Compared with the synthetic pesticides, the mineral oil-based and fungal products were less effective because they also killed ladybugs and flower bugs, which are important regulators of aphid population and growth.
These predator insects reduce environmental impact because they naturally protect the crop, reducing the amount of pesticides that are needed, she added.
“Ultimately, the organic products were much less effective than the novel and conventional pesticides at killing the aphids, and they have a potentially higher environmental impact. In terms of making pest-management decisions and trying to do what is best for the environment, it’s important to look at every compound and make a selection based on the environmental impact quotient rather than if it’s simply natural or synthetic. It’s a simplification that just doesn’t work when it comes to minimizing environmental impact.”
here's the original source
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Food fadisms and why they persist in our society
The folklore and superstition of cultures throughout history have attributed healing or harmful properties to certain foods. This tendency has not disappeared with the advent of the sciences of nutrition and medicine. Food folklore continues today, although in many instances it is inconsistent with scientific evidence.
Nutrition fraud is a comprehensive term used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to describe the abuses that occur as a result of the misleading claims for traditional foods, dietary supplements, and dietary products and of the deceptive promotion of other food substances, processes, and devices.
Food faddism is a dietary practice based upon an exaggerated belief in the effects of food or nutrition on health and disease.
Food fads derive from three beliefs:
1.That special attributes of a particular food may cure disease.
2. That certain foods should be eliminated from the diet because they are harmful.
3.That certain foods convey special health benefits.
Food faddists are those who follow a particular nutritional practice with zeal and whose claims for its benefits are substantially more than science has substantiated.
Food quackery, which involves the exploitive, entrepreneurial aspects of food faddism, is the promotion for profit of special foods, products, processes, or appliances with false or misleading health or therapeutic claims. A food quack is one who pretends to have medical or nutritional knowledge and who promotes special foods, products, or appliances with false or misleading claims, usually for personal financial gain.
Nutrition fraud flourishes today because of the diversity of cultures, the historical tradition of concern for health and the use of natural remedies, and the introduction of advanced communication technologies.
Food faddism has its roots in Great Britain, where patent medicines were advertised and sold by everyone from hawkers to goldsmiths. In the colonies, legal protection of consumers against fraudulent claims was first recorded in Massachusetts Bayin 1630. Nicholas Knopp, was whipped and fined five pounds for selling a cure for scurvy that had "no worth nor value" and was "solde att a very deare rate". [Young, J.H. The toadstool millionaires: a social history of patent medicines in America before federal regulation. 1961.]
It should be noted that processed foods should not necessarily be eliminated from a persons diet because of this belief, it is true that without fortification the more a food is processed and thus differs from its natural form the less nutrient dense it will be.
Some groups such as fruitarians actually go a step further, they don't eat processed or cooked foods. The reason being that when a food is cooked it is not able to be digested and becomes toxic. There is no scientific evidence to back this argument to its fullest extent.
Popular interest in nutrition, coupled with concern about food shortages during World War I, was fostered by the increasing promotion of the health properties of foods in the early 20th century. Vitamins, by the very nature of their discovery, became associated with the prevention or cure of disease and were soon promoted as curative agents.
Today the travelling patent medical man has been largely replaced by the highly skilled and organized use of electronic means to promote fraudulent marketing - computers, customized mailing lists, national advertisements, and other mass media. The medium and the details have changed, but the message and the goals remain. It is difficult for consumers to evaluate the validity of the health claims perpetrated by quacks and faddists.
Purveyors of nutrition fraud capitalize on people's desire to be healthy and on the lack of certainty in many areas of nutrition and health. No writer for a lay audience has any special insights into nutrition which are not known by a substantial part of the scientific community. Magic and sensational diets are nothing more than exaggerations of one facet of nutrition at the expense of another, often to the detriment of the willing victims.
Regulation of Nutrition Fraud
The first Federal legislation, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906, made it unlawful to manufacture or introduce into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded food or drug products.
Currently, numerous Government, medical and consumer-oriented organizations are responsible for preventing and controlling fraud. These agencies work cooperatively, and their antifraud activities have become more visible in recent years.
Private agencies and organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and other health professional groups are also active against food fraud.
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act empowers the FDA to prohibit the introduction of any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. Only factual and nonmisleading information is allowed on food labels. Most false promotional claims, therefore, are not made on labels. Instead, they appear in books, lectures, and mass media that are protected by constitutional rights. The FDA has the authority to use its food additive and drug approval processes to control food products allowed on the market and to remove fraudulent products.
Most fraudulent food products are classified as foods, but when therapeutic claims are made for them, they are also considered to be drugs.
If a food product is also classified as a drug and is considered by the FDA to be ineffective for its claimed use, it will not have an approved New Drug Application. For example, if it is promoted for treating a disease that is not amenable to lay diagnosis, it cannot have adequate directions for use and will not be approved.
Health Consequences of Fraud
Nutrition fraud may lead to deleterious health consequences, caused by the failure to seek legitimate medical care, by potentially toxic components of foods and products, by nutrient toxicities and deficiencies, by diversion of monies from essential treatments, and by interference with sound nutrition education.
Public health and safety can be jeopardized by false promises that divert or deter individuals from pursuing sound forms of medical treatment or that encourage them to abandon beneficial therapy for a disease. Fraud may encourage people to reject legitimate medical advice and to practice inappropriate self-medication that is less likely to be helpful, and more likely to be directly harmful, than the medical technology based on a sound understanding of human biology and nutrition.
The FDA's annual reports document numerous instances of fraud-induced failure to obtain appropriate health care. Because early detection and treatment improve prognosis for many illnesses, unproven "nutritional" therapies may unnecessarily delay beneficial intervention. Some diet regimens recommended by health faddists to treat cancer, for example, are so nutritionally deficient or toxic that adherence to them has caused death or serious illness.
Public injury can occur when foods and unproven remedies are toxic. Just because a substance occurs naturally in food does not mean that it is necessarily safe. Many of the chemicals known to be present in herbs have never been tested for safety. Some plant foods contain potentially unsafe pharmacologically active ingredients such as aflatoxin, one of the most potent carcinogens known.
There has been a substantial increase in the use of herbal products that contain pharmacologically active ingredients that can possibly produce undesirable effects such as an increase in blood pressure. Occasional poisonings and clinical intoxications are reported after the use of herbal tea products. Ginseng, one of the most popular herbs, has been reported to produce oestro-like effects in some people. From present evidence, it cannot be concluded that all herbal products can be consumed safely over extended periods of time. [Larkin, T. Herbs are often more toxic than magical. FDA Consumer: 4-11, October, 1983.]
Potentially harmful ingredients have been identified in samples of other food supplements, such as an oestroic hormone in commercial alfalfa tablets, arsenic in kelp tablets, and cadmium in dolomite have caused the FDA to caution against use of these products, particularly by pregnant women and children.
Frauds and fads may induce nutrient toxicities or deficiencies. Many people take vitamins as self-medication for the prevention or treatment of health problems. The use of these products varies with such demographic factors as geographic region, education, income, and race. Women are more frequent consumers than men. Intakes range widely, extending up to 50 times the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for individual nutrients.
Nutrient supplements are usually safe in amounts corresponding to the RDA, but the RDA's are already set to provide maximum benefit consistent with safety. Thus, there is no reason to think that larger doses will improve health in already healthy people, and excess intake can be harmful. Mega-dose intakes can have seriously harmful effects. The toxicity of high dosages of vitamin A and D is well established. Because the margin is narrow between a safe and a toxic dose of most trace elements, excessive supplementation with these substances may be particularly hazardous.
Excessively restrictive dietary practices can also induce serious medical problems or even death. Popular weight reduction products often provide very low calorie intakes. Because such products have been associated with the deaths of some young women, the FDA now requires warnings on labels to alert consumers of such products.
Many popular diets are potentially harmful because they eliminate food groups or severely limit food variety. Examples include those that drastically reduce carbohydrate intake, or advocate excessive fruit consumption, and those that claim that a person cannot digest protein and carbohydrates at the same time. This is not true, it has been shown that different parts of the digestive tract deal with different nutrients and will absorb those nutrients, besides most foods usually contain both protein and carbohydrates (eg. legumes which are often 50% protein and 50% carbohydrate).
Fad diets seldom produce long-lasting weight control. Highly restricted diets, such as the more extreme forms of Zen macrobiotics, have led to nutritional deficiencies, starvation, and even death in a few individuals. [Council on Foods and Nutrition, Journal American Medical Association. Zen macrobiotic diets. 218:397, 1971.] Such diets have also been associated with retarded fetal development and childhood growth or other nutritional problems in young children.
Commercial interests have capitalized on a heightened public awareness of nutrition and health issues, but much of the public cannot evaluate the validity of available weight reduction schemes, supplements, and services. Self-appointed health and nutrition advisors have expressed distrust of proven public health measures such as fluoridation and pasteurization and, instead, have promoted treatment alternatives that are not supported by accepted medical practice. The public also may be misled by extravagant claims of health benefits from the use of certain foods or nutrient supplements.
Economic Consequences of Fraud
People experience economic injury when purported remedies and cures do not work, are untrue, or are greatly exaggerated or when purchased products are not needed. Fraudulent products are known to be extremely profitable to those who sell them.
Quackery has become big business and costs the deluded consumers in excess of $10 billion a year!
Most fraudulent products and services can be very costly yet are promoted as having nutritional or health benefits that have not been substantiated in scientific literature. [The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health,1988.]
A vast array of substances are available for a variety of different purposes. some of them may even appear to work owing to the power of the placebo effect - if you expect product X will make you feel better, then it probably will. But these supplements must not be dismissed as placebos in the sense of being inert pieces of chalk. These substances are what they say they are, and many of them have powerful pharmacological effects (though not necessarily those claimed for them). The dangers of hypervitaminosis is an obvious example. The effects of excess quantities of isolated amino acid supplements, minerals such asselenium and substances such as ginseng have never been fully explored and may be no less hazardous.
Even if consumed at a level which is not harmful, their use is still undesirable. In most instances they are unnecessary; either providing nutrients which are surplus to requirements or supposed nutrients which are probably not needed at all. Furthermore, those who are most susceptible to health food claims are perhaps those who can least afford to be. [Health Foods and Fad Diets, Manual of Dietetic Practice, British Dietetic Association. Pg 229. 1989.]
The public incurs other costs because many products labelled as "natural" or "organic" sell for higher prices than their "regular" counterparts, although their special benefits are not generally demonstrable. "Natural" vitamins often sell at double the price of synthetic products even though they are chemically identical. In some products labelled as "natural," only a minor fraction of the vitamin is actually derived from natural sources.
What is also very difficult to understand is why more natural foods, like whole wheat bread or unpolished rice, often cost more than their refined counterparts, white bread or par-boiled white rice, that have undergone costly processing and packaging which should make them more, not less expensive.
Most of what is printed here has been accumulated from what I feel are reliable sources and edited to make the information as clear and undrstandable as is within my current abilities.
Nutrition fraud is a comprehensive term used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to describe the abuses that occur as a result of the misleading claims for traditional foods, dietary supplements, and dietary products and of the deceptive promotion of other food substances, processes, and devices.
Food faddism is a dietary practice based upon an exaggerated belief in the effects of food or nutrition on health and disease.
Food fads derive from three beliefs:
1.That special attributes of a particular food may cure disease.
2. That certain foods should be eliminated from the diet because they are harmful.
3.That certain foods convey special health benefits.
Food faddists are those who follow a particular nutritional practice with zeal and whose claims for its benefits are substantially more than science has substantiated.
Food quackery, which involves the exploitive, entrepreneurial aspects of food faddism, is the promotion for profit of special foods, products, processes, or appliances with false or misleading health or therapeutic claims. A food quack is one who pretends to have medical or nutritional knowledge and who promotes special foods, products, or appliances with false or misleading claims, usually for personal financial gain.
Nutrition fraud flourishes today because of the diversity of cultures, the historical tradition of concern for health and the use of natural remedies, and the introduction of advanced communication technologies.
Food faddism has its roots in Great Britain, where patent medicines were advertised and sold by everyone from hawkers to goldsmiths. In the colonies, legal protection of consumers against fraudulent claims was first recorded in Massachusetts Bayin 1630. Nicholas Knopp, was whipped and fined five pounds for selling a cure for scurvy that had "no worth nor value" and was "solde att a very deare rate". [Young, J.H. The toadstool millionaires: a social history of patent medicines in America before federal regulation. 1961.]
It should be noted that processed foods should not necessarily be eliminated from a persons diet because of this belief, it is true that without fortification the more a food is processed and thus differs from its natural form the less nutrient dense it will be.
Some groups such as fruitarians actually go a step further, they don't eat processed or cooked foods. The reason being that when a food is cooked it is not able to be digested and becomes toxic. There is no scientific evidence to back this argument to its fullest extent.
Popular interest in nutrition, coupled with concern about food shortages during World War I, was fostered by the increasing promotion of the health properties of foods in the early 20th century. Vitamins, by the very nature of their discovery, became associated with the prevention or cure of disease and were soon promoted as curative agents.
Today the travelling patent medical man has been largely replaced by the highly skilled and organized use of electronic means to promote fraudulent marketing - computers, customized mailing lists, national advertisements, and other mass media. The medium and the details have changed, but the message and the goals remain. It is difficult for consumers to evaluate the validity of the health claims perpetrated by quacks and faddists.
Purveyors of nutrition fraud capitalize on people's desire to be healthy and on the lack of certainty in many areas of nutrition and health. No writer for a lay audience has any special insights into nutrition which are not known by a substantial part of the scientific community. Magic and sensational diets are nothing more than exaggerations of one facet of nutrition at the expense of another, often to the detriment of the willing victims.
Regulation of Nutrition Fraud
The first Federal legislation, the Pure Food and Drug act of 1906, made it unlawful to manufacture or introduce into interstate commerce adulterated or misbranded food or drug products.
Currently, numerous Government, medical and consumer-oriented organizations are responsible for preventing and controlling fraud. These agencies work cooperatively, and their antifraud activities have become more visible in recent years.
Private agencies and organizations such as the American Dietetic Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and other health professional groups are also active against food fraud.
The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act empowers the FDA to prohibit the introduction of any food, drug, device or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded. Only factual and nonmisleading information is allowed on food labels. Most false promotional claims, therefore, are not made on labels. Instead, they appear in books, lectures, and mass media that are protected by constitutional rights. The FDA has the authority to use its food additive and drug approval processes to control food products allowed on the market and to remove fraudulent products.
Most fraudulent food products are classified as foods, but when therapeutic claims are made for them, they are also considered to be drugs.
If a food product is also classified as a drug and is considered by the FDA to be ineffective for its claimed use, it will not have an approved New Drug Application. For example, if it is promoted for treating a disease that is not amenable to lay diagnosis, it cannot have adequate directions for use and will not be approved.
Health Consequences of Fraud
Nutrition fraud may lead to deleterious health consequences, caused by the failure to seek legitimate medical care, by potentially toxic components of foods and products, by nutrient toxicities and deficiencies, by diversion of monies from essential treatments, and by interference with sound nutrition education.
Public health and safety can be jeopardized by false promises that divert or deter individuals from pursuing sound forms of medical treatment or that encourage them to abandon beneficial therapy for a disease. Fraud may encourage people to reject legitimate medical advice and to practice inappropriate self-medication that is less likely to be helpful, and more likely to be directly harmful, than the medical technology based on a sound understanding of human biology and nutrition.
The FDA's annual reports document numerous instances of fraud-induced failure to obtain appropriate health care. Because early detection and treatment improve prognosis for many illnesses, unproven "nutritional" therapies may unnecessarily delay beneficial intervention. Some diet regimens recommended by health faddists to treat cancer, for example, are so nutritionally deficient or toxic that adherence to them has caused death or serious illness.
Public injury can occur when foods and unproven remedies are toxic. Just because a substance occurs naturally in food does not mean that it is necessarily safe. Many of the chemicals known to be present in herbs have never been tested for safety. Some plant foods contain potentially unsafe pharmacologically active ingredients such as aflatoxin, one of the most potent carcinogens known.
There has been a substantial increase in the use of herbal products that contain pharmacologically active ingredients that can possibly produce undesirable effects such as an increase in blood pressure. Occasional poisonings and clinical intoxications are reported after the use of herbal tea products. Ginseng, one of the most popular herbs, has been reported to produce oestro-like effects in some people. From present evidence, it cannot be concluded that all herbal products can be consumed safely over extended periods of time. [Larkin, T. Herbs are often more toxic than magical. FDA Consumer: 4-11, October, 1983.]
Potentially harmful ingredients have been identified in samples of other food supplements, such as an oestroic hormone in commercial alfalfa tablets, arsenic in kelp tablets, and cadmium in dolomite have caused the FDA to caution against use of these products, particularly by pregnant women and children.
Frauds and fads may induce nutrient toxicities or deficiencies. Many people take vitamins as self-medication for the prevention or treatment of health problems. The use of these products varies with such demographic factors as geographic region, education, income, and race. Women are more frequent consumers than men. Intakes range widely, extending up to 50 times the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for individual nutrients.
Nutrient supplements are usually safe in amounts corresponding to the RDA, but the RDA's are already set to provide maximum benefit consistent with safety. Thus, there is no reason to think that larger doses will improve health in already healthy people, and excess intake can be harmful. Mega-dose intakes can have seriously harmful effects. The toxicity of high dosages of vitamin A and D is well established. Because the margin is narrow between a safe and a toxic dose of most trace elements, excessive supplementation with these substances may be particularly hazardous.
Excessively restrictive dietary practices can also induce serious medical problems or even death. Popular weight reduction products often provide very low calorie intakes. Because such products have been associated with the deaths of some young women, the FDA now requires warnings on labels to alert consumers of such products.
Many popular diets are potentially harmful because they eliminate food groups or severely limit food variety. Examples include those that drastically reduce carbohydrate intake, or advocate excessive fruit consumption, and those that claim that a person cannot digest protein and carbohydrates at the same time. This is not true, it has been shown that different parts of the digestive tract deal with different nutrients and will absorb those nutrients, besides most foods usually contain both protein and carbohydrates (eg. legumes which are often 50% protein and 50% carbohydrate).
Fad diets seldom produce long-lasting weight control. Highly restricted diets, such as the more extreme forms of Zen macrobiotics, have led to nutritional deficiencies, starvation, and even death in a few individuals. [Council on Foods and Nutrition, Journal American Medical Association. Zen macrobiotic diets. 218:397, 1971.] Such diets have also been associated with retarded fetal development and childhood growth or other nutritional problems in young children.
Commercial interests have capitalized on a heightened public awareness of nutrition and health issues, but much of the public cannot evaluate the validity of available weight reduction schemes, supplements, and services. Self-appointed health and nutrition advisors have expressed distrust of proven public health measures such as fluoridation and pasteurization and, instead, have promoted treatment alternatives that are not supported by accepted medical practice. The public also may be misled by extravagant claims of health benefits from the use of certain foods or nutrient supplements.
Economic Consequences of Fraud
People experience economic injury when purported remedies and cures do not work, are untrue, or are greatly exaggerated or when purchased products are not needed. Fraudulent products are known to be extremely profitable to those who sell them.
Quackery has become big business and costs the deluded consumers in excess of $10 billion a year!
Most fraudulent products and services can be very costly yet are promoted as having nutritional or health benefits that have not been substantiated in scientific literature. [The Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health,1988.]
A vast array of substances are available for a variety of different purposes. some of them may even appear to work owing to the power of the placebo effect - if you expect product X will make you feel better, then it probably will. But these supplements must not be dismissed as placebos in the sense of being inert pieces of chalk. These substances are what they say they are, and many of them have powerful pharmacological effects (though not necessarily those claimed for them). The dangers of hypervitaminosis is an obvious example. The effects of excess quantities of isolated amino acid supplements, minerals such asselenium and substances such as ginseng have never been fully explored and may be no less hazardous.
Even if consumed at a level which is not harmful, their use is still undesirable. In most instances they are unnecessary; either providing nutrients which are surplus to requirements or supposed nutrients which are probably not needed at all. Furthermore, those who are most susceptible to health food claims are perhaps those who can least afford to be. [Health Foods and Fad Diets, Manual of Dietetic Practice, British Dietetic Association. Pg 229. 1989.]
The public incurs other costs because many products labelled as "natural" or "organic" sell for higher prices than their "regular" counterparts, although their special benefits are not generally demonstrable. "Natural" vitamins often sell at double the price of synthetic products even though they are chemically identical. In some products labelled as "natural," only a minor fraction of the vitamin is actually derived from natural sources.
What is also very difficult to understand is why more natural foods, like whole wheat bread or unpolished rice, often cost more than their refined counterparts, white bread or par-boiled white rice, that have undergone costly processing and packaging which should make them more, not less expensive.
Most of what is printed here has been accumulated from what I feel are reliable sources and edited to make the information as clear and undrstandable as is within my current abilities.
Spraying Context on Organic’s Pesticide Claims
Spraying Context on Organic’s Pesticide Claims
Some say that this source has questionable funding and that may affect the content.
I maintian that the information provided is a starting point for anyone interested to begin doing a bit of research themselves and discover where the truth lies and perhaps even how it becomes distorted by greed and avarice in todays complex world.
My experiences with Organic activists has been personally unrewarding but that should not prevent my dear readers from gathering their own experiences and forming their own conclusions.
Some say that this source has questionable funding and that may affect the content.
I maintian that the information provided is a starting point for anyone interested to begin doing a bit of research themselves and discover where the truth lies and perhaps even how it becomes distorted by greed and avarice in todays complex world.
My experiences with Organic activists has been personally unrewarding but that should not prevent my dear readers from gathering their own experiences and forming their own conclusions.
So... Organic farming can feed the world's population?
Food prices on the world market tell us very little about global hunger. The majority of truly undernourished people -- 62 percent, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization -- live in either Africa or South Asia, and most are small farmers or rural landless laborers living in the countryside of Africa and South Asia.
They are significantly shielded from global price fluctuations both by the trade policies of their own governments and by poor roads and infrastructure. In Africa, more than 70 percent of rural households are cut off from the closest urban markets because, for instance, they live more than a 30-minute walk from the nearest all-weather road.
Now along come the organic movements with their short sighted science:
Organic crops can feed the world and totally eliminate dependence on pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, irrigation etc etc.
So,let’s just dispose of the ridiculous idea that the whole world could go organic if we all agreed to do it.
Limited crop yields mean organic agriculture simply can’t feed the world.
University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen (widely used today) with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock).
That’s the size of the lower 48 states.
In other words, the organic niche is just that—a niche, and a feel-good boutique system for those who can afford it.
But the idea that its widespread use would bring widespread benefits to humanity belongs in the compost.
What about nutritive value of Organic Food?
Rutgers University professor Joseph Rosen analyzed the marketing and health claims made by organic proponents. After noting that experts at the Mayo Clinic and American Dietetic Association don’t find any real benefits in organic food, Rosen concludes:
Much of the proof advanced by both the Soil Association and the Organic Center are based on research articles that have not been reviewed by independent scientists and data that are not statistically significant. Nonexistent or incomplete data are nevertheless “published” in the media. In some cases, organic food proponents omit data that do not support their views… Consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money.
Here's similar findings from yet another accredited group of scientists:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N3O920100524
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
They are significantly shielded from global price fluctuations both by the trade policies of their own governments and by poor roads and infrastructure. In Africa, more than 70 percent of rural households are cut off from the closest urban markets because, for instance, they live more than a 30-minute walk from the nearest all-weather road.
Now along come the organic movements with their short sighted science:
Organic crops can feed the world and totally eliminate dependence on pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, irrigation etc etc.
So,let’s just dispose of the ridiculous idea that the whole world could go organic if we all agreed to do it.
Limited crop yields mean organic agriculture simply can’t feed the world.
University of Manitoba agronomist Vaclav Smil calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen (widely used today) with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock).
That’s the size of the lower 48 states.
In other words, the organic niche is just that—a niche, and a feel-good boutique system for those who can afford it.
But the idea that its widespread use would bring widespread benefits to humanity belongs in the compost.
What about nutritive value of Organic Food?
Rutgers University professor Joseph Rosen analyzed the marketing and health claims made by organic proponents. After noting that experts at the Mayo Clinic and American Dietetic Association don’t find any real benefits in organic food, Rosen concludes:
Much of the proof advanced by both the Soil Association and the Organic Center are based on research articles that have not been reviewed by independent scientists and data that are not statistically significant. Nonexistent or incomplete data are nevertheless “published” in the media. In some cases, organic food proponents omit data that do not support their views… Consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money.
Here's similar findings from yet another accredited group of scientists:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64N3O920100524
What's so tragic about this is that we know from experience how to fix the problem. Wherever the rural poor have gained access to improved roads, modern seeds, less expensive fertilizer, electrical power, and better schools and clinics, their productivity and their income have increased. But recent efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided (if sometimes well-meaning) advocacy against agricultural modernization and foreign aid.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Sustainability goals for the average Canadian
Listening to all the arguments for and against environmental controls and sustainability of resources I was struck by the fact that so much of our food supply is energy dependent not only for its production but also transportation storage and ultimately consumed by our population.
So I propose an experiment:
Suppose we all take this spring to grow the following items:
10 pounds tomatoes (that's about one plant)
10 pounds of potatoes (that's about 2 plants)
10 heads of lettuce. (that's always 10 plants)
Assuming that there is a ~31 million of us up here in Lotus land that means that the transportation for 10 pounds of tomatoes to each of us would amount to a cargo of 310,000,000 pounds the same for the potatoes at about the same for lettuce. That works out to about 1,000,000,000(Billion) pounds of produce that have to be grown somewhere else and brought to your local store in refrigerated trucks and railcars then transported home by whatever you use to shop.
Try to put your mind around the amount of energy required to disperse that billion pounds of rather innocuous vegetables to 31 million people.
So while we're running around turning the lights off and trying to use a push scooter to go to work in the morning I suggest that we begin looking at what we can do locally to offset the carbon footprint that we have the option of not using.
This is just one idea I'm sure you all have several of your own but often said charity starts at home.You could also try buying these three products from local suppliers but somehow they haven't been able to calculate in that reasonable discount that people should expect from not having to truck the products from the deep South all the way up our little town.
So I propose an experiment:
Suppose we all take this spring to grow the following items:
10 pounds tomatoes (that's about one plant)
10 pounds of potatoes (that's about 2 plants)
10 heads of lettuce. (that's always 10 plants)
Assuming that there is a ~31 million of us up here in Lotus land that means that the transportation for 10 pounds of tomatoes to each of us would amount to a cargo of 310,000,000 pounds the same for the potatoes at about the same for lettuce. That works out to about 1,000,000,000(Billion) pounds of produce that have to be grown somewhere else and brought to your local store in refrigerated trucks and railcars then transported home by whatever you use to shop.
Try to put your mind around the amount of energy required to disperse that billion pounds of rather innocuous vegetables to 31 million people.
So while we're running around turning the lights off and trying to use a push scooter to go to work in the morning I suggest that we begin looking at what we can do locally to offset the carbon footprint that we have the option of not using.
This is just one idea I'm sure you all have several of your own but often said charity starts at home.You could also try buying these three products from local suppliers but somehow they haven't been able to calculate in that reasonable discount that people should expect from not having to truck the products from the deep South all the way up our little town.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Bureaucratic Acronyms ,Initialisms and Bafflekak
I had occasion yesterday to run into yet again a thinly veiled bureaucrat (or wannabee) on a political forum. These people seem to patrol such venues as if on guard duty to protect and extend their turf by obfuscating almost every idea that is contrary to the guidelines of their drab little bureaucratic departments.
Acronyms pile up everywhere today BLT's, PB&J's and OJ in the kitchen; GTO's, RV's, and SUV's in the garage,
We turn on the VCR or put on a CD by REM, ELO or UB40; in the bedroom we slip out of our BVD's and cop some Z's. Yuppies and WASPS, LSD and PCP, TGIF and BYOB, CBGB's and MTV , well you get the idea.
Most of them barely save any syllables over their spelled-out equivalents.
Back to yesterday's brief interlude with the modern day luddite:
His remark was- "Yes, cause a big piece of property like that right on the Avenue and right on the LRT line would never be used for... oh, I dunno... something like a TOD? NEVER!!! Note the sarcasm."
O.K. I say, what is a TOD?
The next bureauclod says: "TOD = transit-oriented development"
and goes on to add that "everybody knows that"
Well for the rest of us that's simply not true.
We know "parking lot" pretty well but TOD???
Come on, give us all a break and stop with the initialisms.
For the sake of brevity, give us the full words and meaning if necessary and then use the initalisms etc in the body of your sentences. (if you must!)
That's called common sense and it's akin to common decency, exemplary communication skills and will most likely bring you more respect than the current use of bafflekak.
"acronyms are the slang of a textual world" To quote this worthy scholar:
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/acronyms.html
Acronyms pile up everywhere today BLT's, PB&J's and OJ in the kitchen; GTO's, RV's, and SUV's in the garage,
We turn on the VCR or put on a CD by REM, ELO or UB40; in the bedroom we slip out of our BVD's and cop some Z's. Yuppies and WASPS, LSD and PCP, TGIF and BYOB, CBGB's and MTV , well you get the idea.
Most of them barely save any syllables over their spelled-out equivalents.
Back to yesterday's brief interlude with the modern day luddite:
His remark was- "Yes, cause a big piece of property like that right on the Avenue and right on the LRT line would never be used for... oh, I dunno... something like a TOD? NEVER!!! Note the sarcasm."
O.K. I say, what is a TOD?
The next bureauclod says: "TOD = transit-oriented development"
and goes on to add that "everybody knows that"
Well for the rest of us that's simply not true.
We know "parking lot" pretty well but TOD???
Come on, give us all a break and stop with the initialisms.
For the sake of brevity, give us the full words and meaning if necessary and then use the initalisms etc in the body of your sentences. (if you must!)
That's called common sense and it's akin to common decency, exemplary communication skills and will most likely bring you more respect than the current use of bafflekak.
"acronyms are the slang of a textual world" To quote this worthy scholar:
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/acronyms.html
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Is it climate change or just us?
One of the most sensitive topics today is that of global warming and its effects on the human environment. It seems there are several different camps each one blaming the others for what could be either a real or imagined change in climate. I say real or imagined because recently we have discovered a lot of the data related to climate is either destroyed missing or manipulated to produce results more suitable to its users.
Through all this there is one salient thing I'm almost certain we can all agree upon is we are burning through our resources faster than we are able to replenish them.
In many cases those resources are finite and cannot be restored.
One of the first concepts that needs to be understood is that both oxygen and carbon make up the serious part of our planet i.e. all of lifeforms currently existing and those that came before. Without carbon and oxygen there can be no life on this planet.
The size of this planet shrinks under the unrelenting expansion of the human population and the tremendous impact that growth puts on plants animals atmosphere and sequestered carbon (oil gas wood). We are consuming and converting these materials at a rate far beyond our abilities to replenish them or have nature do that same thing for us.
We must learn to maximize the use of these products while at the same time curbing our ever-increasing population to balance with our abilities to survive without further changes.
One of the proposals that simply cannot work is that of converting the fertile land that we currently use to produce food supplies into sources of alcohol to supplement the current automobile engines. Here again we have a limited number of acres of farmland available today without further destroying the natural forests that give us the ability to sequester and store carbon from CO2 for centuries. They are mother nature's carbon filters.
Forests
Guinness Book of Records, states that an average two million hectares are disappearing every year, double the annual loss in the 1980s. ... The idea that replacing these forests with grassland is the equvalent of a natural forest is astounding and sadly, not true.
Even one of the fastest-growing, quickest-sequestering trees that sprout up today would require 50 years or more to absorb the carbon emitted by burning a single cord (128 cubic feet) of wood (about the amount in a foot-thick 40-foot-long log). With slower growers, we’re talking a century or so. The twin morals of this story are: 1) Be sure to turn your heat down to 55 or lower when you’re out of the house or asleep, and 2) Beware of exaggerated promises about carbon offsets.
As we force the planet to produce more and more food crops for humans and domestic animals we destroy the planets' ability to deal with the mounting CO2 levels that these forests used to control by sequestration.
In addition, a population of 2 1/2 billion with predictions of 5 to 6,000,000,000 in the next generation there is little likelihood that there'll be a scrap of forest remaining is not under cultivation and every square inch of this planet will have a human life form dependent on it for survival.
Common sense would tell you this can't work.
Often overlooked is the fact that those of us that live north of the 49th parallel i.e Canada and most parts of Russia ,europe,Manchuria ets. are dependent on oil reserves currently to protect us from the severe climate that we have endured for centuries. It becomes a question of whether or not we should all pack our belongings to move further south and closer to the equator to avoid the use of fossil fuels or should we attempt to reduce our dependency on these two products with innovation and perhaps a few too maximizing those energy resources by virtue of more efficient vehicles of transportation.
One thing is certain, at this juncture we cannot all move closer to the equator There is simply not enough water or sustainable growth in that area to feed cloth, water and shelter the people currently living on this planet.
We quite obviously need the northern climates to produce an abundance of cereal crops as well as root crops for our sustenance .This is undeniable it will not go away, Doubling the population of the planet will simply exacerbate the situation.
I strongly disagree with the Al Gore camp that merely taxing individuals for corporate profits will do anything concrete to slow or halt the population explosion that will most assurdly destroy the planet far in advance of even the most bizzarre predictions of global warming.
For further reading check this:
http://www.co2science.org/CarbonSequestration/Vol4.php
Through all this there is one salient thing I'm almost certain we can all agree upon is we are burning through our resources faster than we are able to replenish them.
In many cases those resources are finite and cannot be restored.
One of the first concepts that needs to be understood is that both oxygen and carbon make up the serious part of our planet i.e. all of lifeforms currently existing and those that came before. Without carbon and oxygen there can be no life on this planet.
The size of this planet shrinks under the unrelenting expansion of the human population and the tremendous impact that growth puts on plants animals atmosphere and sequestered carbon (oil gas wood). We are consuming and converting these materials at a rate far beyond our abilities to replenish them or have nature do that same thing for us.
We must learn to maximize the use of these products while at the same time curbing our ever-increasing population to balance with our abilities to survive without further changes.
One of the proposals that simply cannot work is that of converting the fertile land that we currently use to produce food supplies into sources of alcohol to supplement the current automobile engines. Here again we have a limited number of acres of farmland available today without further destroying the natural forests that give us the ability to sequester and store carbon from CO2 for centuries. They are mother nature's carbon filters.
Forests
Guinness Book of Records, states that an average two million hectares are disappearing every year, double the annual loss in the 1980s. ... The idea that replacing these forests with grassland is the equvalent of a natural forest is astounding and sadly, not true.
Even one of the fastest-growing, quickest-sequestering trees that sprout up today would require 50 years or more to absorb the carbon emitted by burning a single cord (128 cubic feet) of wood (about the amount in a foot-thick 40-foot-long log). With slower growers, we’re talking a century or so. The twin morals of this story are: 1) Be sure to turn your heat down to 55 or lower when you’re out of the house or asleep, and 2) Beware of exaggerated promises about carbon offsets.
As we force the planet to produce more and more food crops for humans and domestic animals we destroy the planets' ability to deal with the mounting CO2 levels that these forests used to control by sequestration.
In addition, a population of 2 1/2 billion with predictions of 5 to 6,000,000,000 in the next generation there is little likelihood that there'll be a scrap of forest remaining is not under cultivation and every square inch of this planet will have a human life form dependent on it for survival.
Common sense would tell you this can't work.
Often overlooked is the fact that those of us that live north of the 49th parallel i.e Canada and most parts of Russia ,europe,Manchuria ets. are dependent on oil reserves currently to protect us from the severe climate that we have endured for centuries. It becomes a question of whether or not we should all pack our belongings to move further south and closer to the equator to avoid the use of fossil fuels or should we attempt to reduce our dependency on these two products with innovation and perhaps a few too maximizing those energy resources by virtue of more efficient vehicles of transportation.
One thing is certain, at this juncture we cannot all move closer to the equator There is simply not enough water or sustainable growth in that area to feed cloth, water and shelter the people currently living on this planet.
We quite obviously need the northern climates to produce an abundance of cereal crops as well as root crops for our sustenance .This is undeniable it will not go away, Doubling the population of the planet will simply exacerbate the situation.
I strongly disagree with the Al Gore camp that merely taxing individuals for corporate profits will do anything concrete to slow or halt the population explosion that will most assurdly destroy the planet far in advance of even the most bizzarre predictions of global warming.
For further reading check this:
http://www.co2science.org/CarbonSequestration/Vol4.php
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Is heating your home with trees carbon neutral?
The folks over at Burning Issues website have calculated that to heat a small home for a year of approximately 2 acres woodland are required for each year feeding.
Over the period of 30 years such a home would require in the neighborhood of 60 to 65 acres in order to sustain the growth that selective logging would require.
It's pretty obvious to me that that's just not happening here in North America and definitely not happening in the Third World.
It's been shown that the so-called high-efficiency wood stoves can actually create more greenhouse gases than a traditional fire. In addition,other gasses--carbon monoxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc.--are produced in much greater quantities than previously thought.
Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer.
EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What's in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions).
Excerpt from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services website:
Compounds released during the combustion process interfere with normal lung development and function. Indoor and outdoor air quality can be degraded significantly by the use of poorly designed, non-certified wood stoves. Poor burning processes, lack of maintenance, improper stove installation, and burning wet wood create excessive amounts of pollution. Fires left smoldering to keep a house warm during the night can also be particularly harmful. Smoldering wood burns slower and incompletely, thereby releasing more smoke and gas into the air.
Excerpted from Citizens for Environmental Health
Smoke produced from residential wood burning costs 24% of the total green house gases in Canada each year. In Quebec , where emissions have grown 20% in the last five years, this smoke causes 55% of particulate matter, a deadly molecular soot pollution that enters deep into the lungs. And, all that smoke, people know very little about. People deserve and have the right to know.
We think differently, we act more responsibly, when we know the facts.
Over the period of 30 years such a home would require in the neighborhood of 60 to 65 acres in order to sustain the growth that selective logging would require.
It's pretty obvious to me that that's just not happening here in North America and definitely not happening in the Third World.
It's been shown that the so-called high-efficiency wood stoves can actually create more greenhouse gases than a traditional fire. In addition,other gasses--carbon monoxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, etc.--are produced in much greater quantities than previously thought.
Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer.
EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What's in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions).
Excerpt from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services website:
Compounds released during the combustion process interfere with normal lung development and function. Indoor and outdoor air quality can be degraded significantly by the use of poorly designed, non-certified wood stoves. Poor burning processes, lack of maintenance, improper stove installation, and burning wet wood create excessive amounts of pollution. Fires left smoldering to keep a house warm during the night can also be particularly harmful. Smoldering wood burns slower and incompletely, thereby releasing more smoke and gas into the air.
Excerpted from Citizens for Environmental Health
Smoke produced from residential wood burning costs 24% of the total green house gases in Canada each year. In Quebec , where emissions have grown 20% in the last five years, this smoke causes 55% of particulate matter, a deadly molecular soot pollution that enters deep into the lungs. And, all that smoke, people know very little about. People deserve and have the right to know.
We think differently, we act more responsibly, when we know the facts.
| From future projects 2010 |
Friday, March 12, 2010
I'm fed up with "Organic" this and that
When somebody tells you that something is a 100% Organic are they saying to you that if it were not 100% organic that there's something wrong with it?
Unless someone comes up with something real fast to show scientifically, that there's an absolute difference I will have to say I'm totally fed up with these folks.
I think this is a racket.
I will never buy another product with organic on the label.
Modern science and agriculture have expanded the food crops around the world sufficiently to feed a world more than twice the size it was in 1950. They continue to expand our horizons with new breakthroughs. Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, top quality meats, cheese, milk products. I could go on but we all know.
I am left with the feeling that the food and human commodities market is under siege by those folks who would undermine it in order to control the distribution of both food and commodities.
I do, on the other hand, endorse good stewardship of the planet and careful consideration for the environmental variables. I do not condone the use of arable land to produce 60 to 70% smaller crops in order to satisfy the "organic whim".
Unless someone comes up with something real fast to show scientifically, that there's an absolute difference I will have to say I'm totally fed up with these folks.
I think this is a racket.
I will never buy another product with organic on the label.
Modern science and agriculture have expanded the food crops around the world sufficiently to feed a world more than twice the size it was in 1950. They continue to expand our horizons with new breakthroughs. Fresh fruit, fresh vegetables, top quality meats, cheese, milk products. I could go on but we all know.
I am left with the feeling that the food and human commodities market is under siege by those folks who would undermine it in order to control the distribution of both food and commodities.
I do, on the other hand, endorse good stewardship of the planet and careful consideration for the environmental variables. I do not condone the use of arable land to produce 60 to 70% smaller crops in order to satisfy the "organic whim".
I grow weary of Facebook
The continuous and unending drivel that passes for intelligent conversation. The constant requests for artificial friendships.
The silence that occurs when one posts anything of consequence.
The thinly veiled searches for personal data.
The terse, unjointed and unrecognizable broken sentences and comments.
The constant lack of response to comments that in normal conversation would require one.
A message from FB arrives in your mailbox suggesting one of your "acquaintances" has posted some information of value that you should be aware of.
You read it and are unable to decrypt the message.
You reply, "this message makes no sense to me"
The author repies that it does to people who should know the circumstances. --- I feel a pigeon hole starting to form.
The shallow and bizarre biographies of the life and times of acquaintances.
The tick tick tick of the clock that consumes us all.
The silence that occurs when one posts anything of consequence.
The thinly veiled searches for personal data.
The terse, unjointed and unrecognizable broken sentences and comments.
The constant lack of response to comments that in normal conversation would require one.
A message from FB arrives in your mailbox suggesting one of your "acquaintances" has posted some information of value that you should be aware of.
You read it and are unable to decrypt the message.
You reply, "this message makes no sense to me"
The author repies that it does to people who should know the circumstances. --- I feel a pigeon hole starting to form.
The shallow and bizarre biographies of the life and times of acquaintances.
The tick tick tick of the clock that consumes us all.
Organic this and that
I'm really topped up with the organic movement.
These organic environmentalists have come out of the woodwork recently demanding and receiving everything from organic baums, ointments and fruit organic pesticides mitecides,books and pencils.
The word natural is now reworked to mean not manufactured or industrially made.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The long and the short of it is it's a marketing tool and as the story unfolds the products sold under these buzzword labels offered no more benefit than food products and remedies already registered in our countries and in several cases contain contaminants not normally found in our daily food intake.
The quest for pure food and basic human supplements has opened the door for thousands of untrained and scientifically illiterate individuals to ply their trade on the unsuspecting public.
Like most of you, I want my food to be nutritious and free from toxicity. Until proven otherwise, I'm unwilling to accept organic and or natural foods and substances that have not undergone like and similar testing to that which I am accustomed to using.
I'm also unwilling to pay a premium to farmers to produce products for me without the benefit of some proven advantage to my well-being.
These organic environmentalists have come out of the woodwork recently demanding and receiving everything from organic baums, ointments and fruit organic pesticides mitecides,books and pencils.
The word natural is now reworked to mean not manufactured or industrially made.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. The long and the short of it is it's a marketing tool and as the story unfolds the products sold under these buzzword labels offered no more benefit than food products and remedies already registered in our countries and in several cases contain contaminants not normally found in our daily food intake.
The quest for pure food and basic human supplements has opened the door for thousands of untrained and scientifically illiterate individuals to ply their trade on the unsuspecting public.
Like most of you, I want my food to be nutritious and free from toxicity. Until proven otherwise, I'm unwilling to accept organic and or natural foods and substances that have not undergone like and similar testing to that which I am accustomed to using.
I'm also unwilling to pay a premium to farmers to produce products for me without the benefit of some proven advantage to my well-being.
Thoughts about opinions
Recently, during a rather superficial and meaningless conversation I was subjected to, that recurrent statement that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion".
Well, I have to agree with that.
Unfortunately, opinions are like shape shifters and take on a body and essence of their own dependent entirely on the knowledge and experience of the individual possessing the opinion.
That's where the problem begins:
We have literally billions of individual minds on the planet today, each one possessing a set of opinions.
These opinions are based on environmental, cultural, ethical, religious, political, and scientific experiences. Individuals with retained memory stored from these experiences generally put forward the most logical hypotheses related to those experiences we are trying to explore and understand.
Where this system breaks down is the socialistic perspective that every individual, by right of passage, is entitled to an opinion regardless of their lack experience required to formulate same.
With the advent of the Internet and the ability to communicate with those of like and similar views we are developing pockets of low-level thinking wrapped in some form of visible banners such as political movements, environmentalists, religious fundamentalists.
Well, I have to agree with that.
Unfortunately, opinions are like shape shifters and take on a body and essence of their own dependent entirely on the knowledge and experience of the individual possessing the opinion.
That's where the problem begins:
We have literally billions of individual minds on the planet today, each one possessing a set of opinions.
These opinions are based on environmental, cultural, ethical, religious, political, and scientific experiences. Individuals with retained memory stored from these experiences generally put forward the most logical hypotheses related to those experiences we are trying to explore and understand.
Where this system breaks down is the socialistic perspective that every individual, by right of passage, is entitled to an opinion regardless of their lack experience required to formulate same.
With the advent of the Internet and the ability to communicate with those of like and similar views we are developing pockets of low-level thinking wrapped in some form of visible banners such as political movements, environmentalists, religious fundamentalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)