To contact us Click HERE
Hey, a short entry today to plug my relatively new website where I'm blogging on a regular basis about getting older and all the trappings that come with it.
I named the site cleverly...
AgingBoomersBlog.com
Okay, so that's not so clever. But it was an available domain name that more-or-less reflected what it was going to be about.
Anyway, if you're an aging boomer, surf on over and bookmark my new site. Then spend some time there reading the many posts already up and then spending some more time commenting and moving the discussions forward.
I promise my AgingBoomersBlog.com will never be dull or boring or politically correct!
Chet "Aging Boomer" Day
Editor, The Natural Health Circus
http://chetday.com/blog
20 Aralık 2012 Perşembe
16 Aralık 2012 Pazar
The Next Twenty Years
To contact us Click HERE
It is easy to project visible trends into the future and assume thatthey matter. It is generally a flawed methodology. New trendsemerge and grow exponentially until they achieve equilibrium. Recallthat twenty years ago that the internet was not even imagined. Twenty years before, the core protocols of the computer age werestill been test driven and Exxon was advertising how they had driventhe price of oil down for years. Twenty years before that we hardlyunderstood labor saving devices and lived with the tyranny ofyouthful sexuality and the necessary early pregnancies.
Let me make a couple of bold suggestions.
1 In twenty years the entire global population will live what weunderstand to be a modest middle class lifeway in modest communitiesdesigned to provides a full spectrum of services and support for allits members and tightly tied to the land. That is the objective ofthis blog and its implementation this quickly is feasible and likely. We are helping set these exponential trends in motion here.
2 Energy will be universally available from either geothermal, safethermal or fusion powered. The system will be hyper-efficient andlose little. Personal transportation will be universally electric. The oil industry will be a shadow of itself while coal will beextinct. It will change over that quickly.
3 Centralized political power will be waning except to focus globalefforts on Space development.
4 Global military power will be hugely diminished and be set up inthe form of crusader corps able to confront any remnant belligerence.
5 Huge nuclear powered air-cushioned icebreakers will dominate globalcontainer traffic and huge airships will dominate long distance landhaulage. Air cushion rail will begin to emerge to handle bulkhaulage.
6 The Holodec will become available.
7 The Magnetic Field Exclusion Vessel will be well on the way toreality allowing easy operations in the Solar System. (Google MFEV myblog)
8 Our diets will convert to a protocol that effectively eliminatescancers and chronic heart disease allowing a natural lifespan toreach 100. Access to telomere protocols will begin extending thoselifespans for the worthy.
9 The global internal growth rate will mature at around 3 to 4 % by2050. We will all master the art of happiness.
The really big change though will be the slow disappearance of Statepower as an end in itself. We are reaching a tipping point here andI hope that it does not become too bloody before a global resolutionasserts itself.
Intel report seesU.S. losing superpower status by 2030
Doug Stanglin, USATODAYShare
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/10/us-global-trend-intelligence-report-superpower-2030/1758465/
It predicts no countrywill have hegemonic power in a shift to "networks and coalitionsin a multipolar world."
11:29AM EST December10. 2012 - A report by theNational Intelligence Council predictsthat the United States will lose its superpower status by 2030, butthat no country -- including China -- will be a hegemonic power.
Instead, the reportsays, power will shift to "networks and coalitions in amultipolar world."
The council, whichwrote Global Trends 2030, was established in 1979. It supportsthe U.S. director of National Intelligence and is the intelligencecommunity's center for long-term strategic analysis.
The council'sintelligence officers are drawn from government, academia and theprivate sector.
"The world of2030 will be radically transformed from our world today," thereport concludes. "By 2030, no country -- whether the U.S.,China, or any other large country -- will be a hegemonic power."The report also findsthat the empowerment of individuals and a diffusion of power amongstates -- and from states -- to informal networks will have a"dramatic impact."
This development, thereport finds, will largely reverse the historic rise of the Westsince 1750, "restoring Asia's weight in the global economy andushering in a new era of 'democratization' at the international anddomestic level."
The report furtherexpects the rapid aging of the world population to continue as wellas a growing demand on resources, which might lead to scarcities offood and water.
Among its assessment,the report looks at plausible worst-case and best-case scenarios overthe next two decades.
In the formercategory, it sees the risk of interstate conflict increasing and theU.S. "draws inward and globalization stalls."
In the best-casescenario, China and the U.S. collaborate on a range of issues,leading to a broader global cooperation.
The world of 2030:U.S. declines; food, water may be scarce
By Olivier Knox,
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/world-2030-u-declines-food-water-may-scarce-162757458--politics.html
Sorry, everyone, butflying cars don't appear in the "Global Trends 2030:Alternative Worlds"report that the director of nationalintelligence's office made public on Monday.
Instead, the NationalIntelligence Council paints the picture of a world in which the U.S.is no longer the unquestionably dominant global player; individualsand small groups may carry out devastating cyber or bioterrorattacks; oh, and food and water may be running short in some places.
The 160-page report isa great read for anyone in the business of crafting the script forthe next James Bond movie, a treasure trove of potential scenariosfor international intrigue, not to mention super-villainy. But thecouncil took pains to say that what it foresees is not set in stone.The goal is to provide policymakers with some idea of what the futureholds in order to help them steer the right economic and militarycourses.
"We do not seekto predict the future—which would be an impossible feat—butinstead provide a framework for thinking about possible futures andtheir implications," the report cautioned.
Other ideas thefuturists reported: Global population will reach "somewhereclose to 8.3 billion people," and food and water may be runningscarce in some areas, especially regions like Africa and the MiddleEast.
"Climatechange will worsen the outlook for the availability of these criticalresources," the report said. "Climate change analysissuggests that the severity of existing weather patterns willintensify, with wet areas getting wetter, and dry and arid areasbecoming more so."We are not necessarily headed into a world ofscarcities, but policymakers and their private sector partners willneed to be proactive to avoid such a future."
What about America in2030? The report predicts that the U.S. "most likely will remain'first among equals' among the other great powers." But "withthe rapid rise of other countries, the 'unipolar moment' is over andPax Americana—the era of American ascendancy in internationalpolitics that began in 1945—is fast winding down."
Also, "Asia willhave surpassed North America and Europe combined in terms of globalpower, based upon GDP [Gross Domestic Product], population size,military spending and technological investment," the reportsaid.
It also suggests thatIslamist extremism may be a thing of the past in 2030. But thatdoesn't mean small groups won't try to wreak havoc.
"With morewidespread access to lethal and disruptive technologies, individualswho are experts in such niche areas as cyber systems might sell theirservices to the highest bidder, including terrorists who would focusless on causing mass casualties and more on creating widespreadeconomic and financial disruptions," said the report.
Four "megatrends"shaping the world were cited: growing individual empowerment;diffusion of power; major shifts in demographics; and rising demandfor food, water and energy.
The report also seesthe potential for "black swan" shocks to the system. Theseinclude: a severe pandemic; faster-than-forecast climate change; thecollapse of the European Union; the collapse of China (or its embraceof democracy); and a reformed Iran that abandons its suspectednuclear weapons program. They also include a conflict using nuclear,chemical, or biological weapons, or a large-scale cyber-attack; solargeomagnetic storms that may knock out satellites and the electricgrid; or a sudden retreat of the U.S. from global affairs.
So what about theflying cars, a staple of science fiction? The report is mum on thatfront, but it does raise the intriguing possibility that"self-driving cars could begin to address the worseningcongestion in urban areas, reduce roadway accidents, and improveindividuals' productivity (by allowing drivers the freedom to workthrough their commutes)."
And the cool cats overat Wired magazine's "Danger Room" national security bloghave underlined how the report sees the growth of other technologies,including "superhumans" potentially roaming thelandscape.
It is easy to project visible trends into the future and assume thatthey matter. It is generally a flawed methodology. New trendsemerge and grow exponentially until they achieve equilibrium. Recallthat twenty years ago that the internet was not even imagined. Twenty years before, the core protocols of the computer age werestill been test driven and Exxon was advertising how they had driventhe price of oil down for years. Twenty years before that we hardlyunderstood labor saving devices and lived with the tyranny ofyouthful sexuality and the necessary early pregnancies.
Let me make a couple of bold suggestions.
1 In twenty years the entire global population will live what weunderstand to be a modest middle class lifeway in modest communitiesdesigned to provides a full spectrum of services and support for allits members and tightly tied to the land. That is the objective ofthis blog and its implementation this quickly is feasible and likely. We are helping set these exponential trends in motion here.
2 Energy will be universally available from either geothermal, safethermal or fusion powered. The system will be hyper-efficient andlose little. Personal transportation will be universally electric. The oil industry will be a shadow of itself while coal will beextinct. It will change over that quickly.
3 Centralized political power will be waning except to focus globalefforts on Space development.
4 Global military power will be hugely diminished and be set up inthe form of crusader corps able to confront any remnant belligerence.
5 Huge nuclear powered air-cushioned icebreakers will dominate globalcontainer traffic and huge airships will dominate long distance landhaulage. Air cushion rail will begin to emerge to handle bulkhaulage.
6 The Holodec will become available.
7 The Magnetic Field Exclusion Vessel will be well on the way toreality allowing easy operations in the Solar System. (Google MFEV myblog)
8 Our diets will convert to a protocol that effectively eliminatescancers and chronic heart disease allowing a natural lifespan toreach 100. Access to telomere protocols will begin extending thoselifespans for the worthy.
9 The global internal growth rate will mature at around 3 to 4 % by2050. We will all master the art of happiness.
The really big change though will be the slow disappearance of Statepower as an end in itself. We are reaching a tipping point here andI hope that it does not become too bloody before a global resolutionasserts itself.
Intel report seesU.S. losing superpower status by 2030
Doug Stanglin, USATODAYShare
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/10/us-global-trend-intelligence-report-superpower-2030/1758465/
It predicts no countrywill have hegemonic power in a shift to "networks and coalitionsin a multipolar world."
11:29AM EST December10. 2012 - A report by theNational Intelligence Council predictsthat the United States will lose its superpower status by 2030, butthat no country -- including China -- will be a hegemonic power.
Instead, the reportsays, power will shift to "networks and coalitions in amultipolar world."
The council, whichwrote Global Trends 2030, was established in 1979. It supportsthe U.S. director of National Intelligence and is the intelligencecommunity's center for long-term strategic analysis.
The council'sintelligence officers are drawn from government, academia and theprivate sector.
"The world of2030 will be radically transformed from our world today," thereport concludes. "By 2030, no country -- whether the U.S.,China, or any other large country -- will be a hegemonic power."The report also findsthat the empowerment of individuals and a diffusion of power amongstates -- and from states -- to informal networks will have a"dramatic impact."
This development, thereport finds, will largely reverse the historic rise of the Westsince 1750, "restoring Asia's weight in the global economy andushering in a new era of 'democratization' at the international anddomestic level."
The report furtherexpects the rapid aging of the world population to continue as wellas a growing demand on resources, which might lead to scarcities offood and water.
Among its assessment,the report looks at plausible worst-case and best-case scenarios overthe next two decades.
In the formercategory, it sees the risk of interstate conflict increasing and theU.S. "draws inward and globalization stalls."
In the best-casescenario, China and the U.S. collaborate on a range of issues,leading to a broader global cooperation.
The world of 2030:U.S. declines; food, water may be scarce
By Olivier Knox,
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/world-2030-u-declines-food-water-may-scarce-162757458--politics.html
Sorry, everyone, butflying cars don't appear in the "Global Trends 2030:Alternative Worlds"report that the director of nationalintelligence's office made public on Monday.
Instead, the NationalIntelligence Council paints the picture of a world in which the U.S.is no longer the unquestionably dominant global player; individualsand small groups may carry out devastating cyber or bioterrorattacks; oh, and food and water may be running short in some places.
The 160-page report isa great read for anyone in the business of crafting the script forthe next James Bond movie, a treasure trove of potential scenariosfor international intrigue, not to mention super-villainy. But thecouncil took pains to say that what it foresees is not set in stone.The goal is to provide policymakers with some idea of what the futureholds in order to help them steer the right economic and militarycourses.
"We do not seekto predict the future—which would be an impossible feat—butinstead provide a framework for thinking about possible futures andtheir implications," the report cautioned.
Other ideas thefuturists reported: Global population will reach "somewhereclose to 8.3 billion people," and food and water may be runningscarce in some areas, especially regions like Africa and the MiddleEast.
"Climatechange will worsen the outlook for the availability of these criticalresources," the report said. "Climate change analysissuggests that the severity of existing weather patterns willintensify, with wet areas getting wetter, and dry and arid areasbecoming more so."We are not necessarily headed into a world ofscarcities, but policymakers and their private sector partners willneed to be proactive to avoid such a future."
What about America in2030? The report predicts that the U.S. "most likely will remain'first among equals' among the other great powers." But "withthe rapid rise of other countries, the 'unipolar moment' is over andPax Americana—the era of American ascendancy in internationalpolitics that began in 1945—is fast winding down."
Also, "Asia willhave surpassed North America and Europe combined in terms of globalpower, based upon GDP [Gross Domestic Product], population size,military spending and technological investment," the reportsaid.
It also suggests thatIslamist extremism may be a thing of the past in 2030. But thatdoesn't mean small groups won't try to wreak havoc.
"With morewidespread access to lethal and disruptive technologies, individualswho are experts in such niche areas as cyber systems might sell theirservices to the highest bidder, including terrorists who would focusless on causing mass casualties and more on creating widespreadeconomic and financial disruptions," said the report.
Four "megatrends"shaping the world were cited: growing individual empowerment;diffusion of power; major shifts in demographics; and rising demandfor food, water and energy.
The report also seesthe potential for "black swan" shocks to the system. Theseinclude: a severe pandemic; faster-than-forecast climate change; thecollapse of the European Union; the collapse of China (or its embraceof democracy); and a reformed Iran that abandons its suspectednuclear weapons program. They also include a conflict using nuclear,chemical, or biological weapons, or a large-scale cyber-attack; solargeomagnetic storms that may knock out satellites and the electricgrid; or a sudden retreat of the U.S. from global affairs.
So what about theflying cars, a staple of science fiction? The report is mum on thatfront, but it does raise the intriguing possibility that"self-driving cars could begin to address the worseningcongestion in urban areas, reduce roadway accidents, and improveindividuals' productivity (by allowing drivers the freedom to workthrough their commutes)."
And the cool cats overat Wired magazine's "Danger Room" national security bloghave underlined how the report sees the growth of other technologies,including "superhumans" potentially roaming thelandscape.
Greenland Ice Loss up Five Fold in Two Decades
To contact us Click HERE
So what has reallychanged? The data has been adjusted better this time around? Antarctica is presently at maximum ice extent or pulse.
Of course the Northernhemisphere remains half a degree warmer and this allows a blanketloss of ice. Could someone explain just what part of Greenland ispresently losing more ice than snow is adding and the reverse? Howfar has this boundary retreated?
Historically, these warmperiods usually are good for a couple of decades at least before theyreverse. Since it has become clear that CO2 is not a driver, itremains to the historical record to inform us.
What would really ruin myday is to see an abrupt return to conditions of two centuries ago.
Polar Ice Loss Increased‘Five-Fold’ in 20 Years
Researchers say study is mostaccurate to date
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/polar-ice-loss-increased-five-fold-in-20-years-320224.html
Over the past twodecades, ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica caused an11-millimeter rise in the world’s sea levels, according to a newstudy compiled by researchers who say it is the most accuratemeasurement of ice loss to date.
“Both ice sheetsappear to be losing more ice now than 20 years ago, but the paceof ice loss from Greenland is extraordinary, with nearly a fivefoldincrease since the mid-1990s,” stated Erik Ivins ofNASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who helped lead the study. “Incontrast, the overall loss of ice in Antarctica has remained fairlyconstant, with the data suggesting a 50 percent increase inAntarctic ice loss during the last decade.”[? - arclein]
Published in thejournal Science on Thursday, led by scientists at the Universityof Leeds, and involving 47 researchers, the study used aircraftand 10 different satellites to measure the ice and its rate of melt.The research was backed by the European Space Agency and NASA.
The 11.1-millimeter,or 0.47-inch rise in sea levels from the polar ice sheets makes up afifth of the total rise over the survey period. The remaining sealevel rise was caused by ice melt in other places, such as glaciersand ice caps, the expansion of the warming oceans, and by groundwatermining, according to the release.
The overall rate ofmelting of the ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica hasincreased over time. They are now shedding more than three times asmuch ice—contributing to 0.95 mm rise in sea level per year—thanin the 1990s, when both were losing the equivalent of 0.27 mm peryear.Advertisement
Together, the two areas lose around 344 billion tons of iceeach year, researchers estimate, and of that, Greenland’s share isaround 263 billion tons, which was about what they expected. Theremainder was lost in Antarctica.
In previous years,there was a disagreement about the amount of ice lost, especiallyin Antarctica. Some studies showed massive ice loss and others evenshowed a gain in ice.
In this latest study,researchers were able to “reconcile the differences” amongnumerous previous studies on the matter, a release from LeedsUniversity states.
One of the issues withmeasuring ice loss is the remoteness of the locations—Greenland ismostly uninhabited and Antarctica is entirely uninhabited, save a fewscientists—and the massive size of the ice sheets. Scientists alsohave to differentiate between snow and ice.
The scientists saidthe newest study’s data is consistent with climate changepredictions laid out in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. However, the latest data offers clarity that the 2007 studydid not.
“Without theseefforts, we would not be in a position to tell people with confidencehow Earth’s ice sheets have changed, and to end the uncertaintythat has existed for many years,” said professor Andrew Shepherd,head of the study.
So what has reallychanged? The data has been adjusted better this time around? Antarctica is presently at maximum ice extent or pulse.
Of course the Northernhemisphere remains half a degree warmer and this allows a blanketloss of ice. Could someone explain just what part of Greenland ispresently losing more ice than snow is adding and the reverse? Howfar has this boundary retreated?
Historically, these warmperiods usually are good for a couple of decades at least before theyreverse. Since it has become clear that CO2 is not a driver, itremains to the historical record to inform us.
What would really ruin myday is to see an abrupt return to conditions of two centuries ago.
Polar Ice Loss Increased‘Five-Fold’ in 20 Years
Researchers say study is mostaccurate to date
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/polar-ice-loss-increased-five-fold-in-20-years-320224.html
Over the past twodecades, ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica caused an11-millimeter rise in the world’s sea levels, according to a newstudy compiled by researchers who say it is the most accuratemeasurement of ice loss to date.
“Both ice sheetsappear to be losing more ice now than 20 years ago, but the paceof ice loss from Greenland is extraordinary, with nearly a fivefoldincrease since the mid-1990s,” stated Erik Ivins ofNASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who helped lead the study. “Incontrast, the overall loss of ice in Antarctica has remained fairlyconstant, with the data suggesting a 50 percent increase inAntarctic ice loss during the last decade.”[? - arclein]
Published in thejournal Science on Thursday, led by scientists at the Universityof Leeds, and involving 47 researchers, the study used aircraftand 10 different satellites to measure the ice and its rate of melt.The research was backed by the European Space Agency and NASA.
The 11.1-millimeter,or 0.47-inch rise in sea levels from the polar ice sheets makes up afifth of the total rise over the survey period. The remaining sealevel rise was caused by ice melt in other places, such as glaciersand ice caps, the expansion of the warming oceans, and by groundwatermining, according to the release.
The overall rate ofmelting of the ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica hasincreased over time. They are now shedding more than three times asmuch ice—contributing to 0.95 mm rise in sea level per year—thanin the 1990s, when both were losing the equivalent of 0.27 mm peryear.Advertisement
Together, the two areas lose around 344 billion tons of iceeach year, researchers estimate, and of that, Greenland’s share isaround 263 billion tons, which was about what they expected. Theremainder was lost in Antarctica.
In previous years,there was a disagreement about the amount of ice lost, especiallyin Antarctica. Some studies showed massive ice loss and others evenshowed a gain in ice.
In this latest study,researchers were able to “reconcile the differences” amongnumerous previous studies on the matter, a release from LeedsUniversity states.
One of the issues withmeasuring ice loss is the remoteness of the locations—Greenland ismostly uninhabited and Antarctica is entirely uninhabited, save a fewscientists—and the massive size of the ice sheets. Scientists alsohave to differentiate between snow and ice.
The scientists saidthe newest study’s data is consistent with climate changepredictions laid out in the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. However, the latest data offers clarity that the 2007 studydid not.
“Without theseefforts, we would not be in a position to tell people with confidencehow Earth’s ice sheets have changed, and to end the uncertaintythat has existed for many years,” said professor Andrew Shepherd,head of the study.
Heart Health Eating
To contact us Click HERE
I will not say thatthis is applied common sense and has been practiced for years as ithas been, but it still needs statistical testing to understand itseffects.
The real take homeis that you should never wait to switch out burgers and cakes fornuts and cabbage and all that. We are all victims of the terriblehabits we pick up young and carry into our years.
I have personallysurvived a major Heart Attack for seven years and it meant giving upany excess of the usual culprits. I have discovered a that onemouthful portion of a cake at a birthday is quite sufficient fortriggering personal enjoyment. I have also noticed that the secondmouthful you are actually experiencing a blend of sugar and fat thatis not so nearly wonderful since all your taste buds are wiped out. Try it.
It'snever too late to eat your way to heart health, study says
A newinternational study spearheaded by researchers in Hamilton suggestseating well improves health outcomes for people who already sufferfrom heart disease.
ByCory Ruf, CBC News Posted:Dec 3, 2012 4:03 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/12/03/hamilton-international-health-study.html
Therole of healthy eating in preventing heart disease is wellestablished, but a new international study spearheaded by researchersin Hamilton suggests that chowing down on wholesome foods improveshealth outcomes even for people who already suffer fromcardiovascular disease.
“Themain findings of the study was that a diet rich in fruit, vegetablesand fish significantly reduces the chance of a second heart attack,”said Dr. Mahshid Dehghan, a research associate with Hamilton'sPopulation Health Research Institute, which coordinated the effort.
Eatinghealthfully, she added, provides additional benefit
PHRIcollaborated with researchers to track the eating habits of more than30,000 subjects over the age of 55 who suffer from cardiovasculardisease or diabetes. Participants from 40 countries filled outquestionnaires about their lifestyles at the beginning of the study.
Fiveyears later, researchers checked up on the health outcomes of theirsubjects, many of whom were being treated with medication.
Researchersfound that participants who had diets that were high in fibre and lowin saturated fats carried about a 30 per cent lower risk ofsuffering a heart attack or stroke.
“Wefound similar associations in all regions of the world, indifferent countries with different levels of income," Dehghansaid.
Prevention
Thesefindings don't come as surprise to Cory Ma, a registered dietitian atthe North Hamilton Community Health Centre, who facilitates programsfor seniors who suffer from — or are at a high risk of developing —diabetes or heart disease.
“Ifmy clients don't eat enough fruit and vegetables, when they start, itreally helps to relax their blood vessels,” he said.
Mateaches a diet program called D.A.S.H., which stands for DietaryApproach to Stop Hypertension.
Thefocus of the regime, Ma said, "is to have high-fibre wholegrains instead of white flour products, lots of plant-based foods,more vegetable proteins, like beans, nuts seed and chickpeas, lessred meat, less alcohol and less refined sugars.”
“There'snot going to be much salt in those foods. And because there's lessred meat, there's less saturated fat.”
Thediet isn't just useful for high-risk seniors, Ma noted.
“Alot of times, we only see people when they already have [heartdisease]. The diet can be followed by anybody and may actually helpto prevent it.”
I will not say thatthis is applied common sense and has been practiced for years as ithas been, but it still needs statistical testing to understand itseffects.
The real take homeis that you should never wait to switch out burgers and cakes fornuts and cabbage and all that. We are all victims of the terriblehabits we pick up young and carry into our years.
I have personallysurvived a major Heart Attack for seven years and it meant giving upany excess of the usual culprits. I have discovered a that onemouthful portion of a cake at a birthday is quite sufficient fortriggering personal enjoyment. I have also noticed that the secondmouthful you are actually experiencing a blend of sugar and fat thatis not so nearly wonderful since all your taste buds are wiped out. Try it.
It'snever too late to eat your way to heart health, study says
A newinternational study spearheaded by researchers in Hamilton suggestseating well improves health outcomes for people who already sufferfrom heart disease.
ByCory Ruf, CBC News Posted:Dec 3, 2012 4:03 PM ET
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2012/12/03/hamilton-international-health-study.html
Therole of healthy eating in preventing heart disease is wellestablished, but a new international study spearheaded by researchersin Hamilton suggests that chowing down on wholesome foods improveshealth outcomes even for people who already suffer fromcardiovascular disease.
“Themain findings of the study was that a diet rich in fruit, vegetablesand fish significantly reduces the chance of a second heart attack,”said Dr. Mahshid Dehghan, a research associate with Hamilton'sPopulation Health Research Institute, which coordinated the effort.
Eatinghealthfully, she added, provides additional benefit
PHRIcollaborated with researchers to track the eating habits of more than30,000 subjects over the age of 55 who suffer from cardiovasculardisease or diabetes. Participants from 40 countries filled outquestionnaires about their lifestyles at the beginning of the study.
Fiveyears later, researchers checked up on the health outcomes of theirsubjects, many of whom were being treated with medication.
Researchersfound that participants who had diets that were high in fibre and lowin saturated fats carried about a 30 per cent lower risk ofsuffering a heart attack or stroke.
“Wefound similar associations in all regions of the world, indifferent countries with different levels of income," Dehghansaid.
Prevention
Thesefindings don't come as surprise to Cory Ma, a registered dietitian atthe North Hamilton Community Health Centre, who facilitates programsfor seniors who suffer from — or are at a high risk of developing —diabetes or heart disease.
“Ifmy clients don't eat enough fruit and vegetables, when they start, itreally helps to relax their blood vessels,” he said.
Mateaches a diet program called D.A.S.H., which stands for DietaryApproach to Stop Hypertension.
Thefocus of the regime, Ma said, "is to have high-fibre wholegrains instead of white flour products, lots of plant-based foods,more vegetable proteins, like beans, nuts seed and chickpeas, lessred meat, less alcohol and less refined sugars.”
“There'snot going to be much salt in those foods. And because there's lessred meat, there's less saturated fat.”
Thediet isn't just useful for high-risk seniors, Ma noted.
“Alot of times, we only see people when they already have [heartdisease]. The diet can be followed by anybody and may actually helpto prevent it.”
Union Taming in Michigan
To contact us Click HERE
The union movement is properly about a century old. It arose as anatural response to predatory management. It evolved into anenterprise led by predatory union bosses. The first brought about agenerally leveled playing field allowing fair protection for labor. The second began to destroy wealth an d the jobs themselves. Back towork legislation restores the balance of power to a large degree. Yet it is still a long way from satisfactory.
Superior dispensations have been arrived at in other places and worseones as well.
What is lacking is a natural agency able to speak to the worker'sneeds that can respond at multiple levels. Featherbedding is wrongand all understand this, but gets trapped behind more seriouspriorities and a futile chase for more money.
As I have posted here in the past, our culture will evolve toengineered communities in what we know as condo towers but attacheddirectly to a block of farm land that it maintains and uses to supplybaseline economies unique to the implied community. Such a communityacts as a natural agency for perhaps thirty or more employees of alarge manufactury nearby. This provides a natural source of agencyand balance. What is more, labor becomes optional and a premium mustbe paid to access it to the individual and the community itself.
Thus any contemplated factory would negotiate the labor availabilitywith any number of such communities and their mutual relationshipbefore building.
In the meantime we have a destructive cycle of unionization ofgenerally powerless workers ultimately followed by union excess thatmakes the business uncompetitive which leads to either outright unionbusting or out sourcing. Recall the auto industry has been gutted ofmost of its actual parts manufacturing simply because of union abuseduring those times that the industry had an effective monopoly inNorth America.
In the long term globalization will mean that workers will have equalrewards and benefits globally. Detroit's problem has beenpositioning on the wrong end of the bell curve while this sortsitself out.
Union Violence andMob Mayhem in Michigan
December 12,2012 By Arnold Ahlert
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/union-violence-and-mob-mayhem-in-michigan/
Yesterday, in a movemany considered impossible in a state characterized as the “cradle”of America’s organized labor movement, Michigan became the 24thright-to-work state in the nation. Gov. Rick Snyder signed twobills, one dealing with private sector workers and the other withgovernment employees, hours after the state House passed bothmeasures.
Leading up to thehistoric moment, the reaction of the pro-union crowd, numberingaround 10,000 by late afternoon, was predictably thuggish. The mobdestroyed an Americans For Prosperity tent on the lawn of theMichigan State Capitol. An invective-filled diatribe followed by avicious assault on Fox News contributor and conservativecomedian Steven Crowder was captured on camera. 26,000children missed school because their teachers called insick, or took a vacation day, to join the protests. Police in riotgear clashed with angry demonstrators, even as someunion members shouted “traitors” at the officers. Two arrestswere made. Even a legislator, Democrat Douglas Geiss, behaved likea mobster. “There will be blood,” he threatened as he stood onthe floor of the Michigan House of Representatives.
Unions and theirsupporters may be furious, but they have no one but themselves toblame. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder explained. “I asked[the unions] not to go forward,” Snyder said. “And the reason Isaid is, ‘You’re going to start a very divisive discussion. It’llbe about collective bargaining first, but it’ll create a big stirabout right-to-work in addition to collective bargaining.’”Snyder is referring to an effort by unions to enshrinecollective bargaining rights in the state’s constitution during thelast election. Such a move would have completely insulated unionsfrom any attempt by the legislature, barring a constitutionalamendment, to enact a right-to-work law. Proposition 2, as it wasdubbed, failed spectacularly, with 58 percent of the voters rejectingthe measure in the same state Barack Obama won handily onNovember 6.
Before that efforttook place, Snyder had asked the legislature to hold backon a right-to-work measure because “it would be a divisive issue,and it’s not something we should debate,” said RepresentativeJase Bolger, speaker of the Michigan House. Bolger and his fellowlawmakers initially honored the governor’s request. Snyder wasapparently also prepared to deal with thefrustrationilluminated by Detroit Free Press columnist TomWalsh, who contended the Governor was upset by union opposition tostricter emergency manager laws that would enable swifter action torescue cities and school districts that had bungled their way to thebrink of insolvency. Walsh cited Detroit as an example. The city ison the verge of bankruptcy, due in large part to unionintransigence. Yet all of it might have remained status quo–untilBig Labor decided to go for the kill.
Greg McNeilly, whoruns Michigan Freedom Fund, a political action committee in favor ofright-to-work legislation, noted the connection between the defeat ofProposition 2, and a GOP-controlled legislature emboldened by thatdefeat. “[UAW president] Bob King put this on theagenda,” McNeilly contended. “He threatened this state.He tried to bully and intimidate the state with this disastrousproposal that was so bad a majority of his members didn’t even backit. The whole state had a conversation. They lost,” he added.
In an interview, Kingblamed the defeat on the Koch brothers and multimillionaireconservative activist Dick DeVos, describing them as wealthybenefactors who “bullied and bought their way to get thislegislation in Michigan.”
Hardly. Despite beinga state where 17.5 percent of workers are still unionized, comparedto a nationwide average of 11.8 percent, several polls takenin the state over the last few years reveal an electorate decidedlyin favor of a law that guarantees no one can be forced to join aunion, or pay union dues or a fee to cover costs associated withunion bargaining, as a condition of employment.
Furthermore, theelectorate may have noticed what occurred in the neighboring state ofIndiana, when it became a right-to-work state last February: thestate moved up 18 rankings to 5th place on the PollinaCorp.’s Top Pro-Business States List, attracting 90 new companieswilling to do business there. Michigan, by contrast, is ranked35th in overall prosperity as measured by per capita income, has thenation’s sixth highest state jobless rate at 9.1 percent, and hashad one of the lowest rates of personal income growth from1977-2011. An analysis by the Taxpayers Protection Alliancereveals that if Michigan had adopted right-to-work laws in 1977, percapita income for a family of four would have been $13,556 higher by2008.
None of it matters tothe unionists and their supporters, who converged on Lansing in anattempt to intimidate lawmakers. Even Democrats in the MichiganCongressional delegation, who met privately with Snyder on Monday,attempted to intimidate the Governor, promising him yearsof “discord and division” if he signed the bill. And just as theyattempted to do in Wisconsin, labor leaders are talking about stagingrecall elections for Republican legislators and Gov. Snyder. They areinspired by what occurred last year in Ohio, where Democratactivists successfully overturned a measure to curb collectivebargaining. In Michigan however, spending bills cannot be overturnedvia referendum. Since an appropriation measure was added to the bill,a referendum to overturn it becomes impossible.
On Monday, PresidentObama weighed in on the legislation. ”What weshouldn’t be doing is try to take away your rights to bargain forbetter wages and working conditions,” he said. “We don’t want arace to the bottom.” Right-to-work laws “have nothing to dowith economics and they have everything to do with politics,” Obamaadded. “They mean you have the right to work for less money.”
No one is taking awayanyone’s right to collectively bargain. This law simply curbs thepower of union bosses to extract dues from those workers who don’twish to pay them. But the president is correct when he says there ispolitical aspect to this legislation. Mark Mix, president of theNational Right to Work Committee, illuminates the obviousconnection. “President Obama was the recipient of literallyhundreds of millions of dollars from union officials,” he says. “Ifunion officials can’t compel union workers to pay dues as acondition of their employment, the fees that they use for politicalactivity would dry up very quickly.”
As well they should.Nothing illustrates this better than an “education” videoproduced by the California Teachers’ union that depicts “therich” urinating on “the poor.” It is exactly this kind ofover-the-top propaganda that is underwritten by union dues–even asthe individual teachers’ political beliefs arerendered totally irrelevant in the process. And makeno mistake: it is the loss of union leaders’ power to shape apolitical agenda, underwritten by the coercion of mandatory dues,that scares those leaders the most.
When Wisconsin didaway with mandatory dues, 6,000 out of 17,000 members of theAmerican Federation of Teachers–Wisconsin left its ranks. Morethan 30,000 out of 68,218 members also opted out of that Wisconsin’schapter of AFSCME, the union that represents state, county, andmunicipal workers. In other words, when union “solidarity”becomes voluntary, it becomes far less solid.
Michigan joins 23other states that prize individual freedom and genuine economicprosperity for struggling workers. Absolutely nothing is preventingunions from making their case to workers in Michigan. In reality, itnow becomes necessary for them to do so, in order to keep as manydues-paying members as possible. Nonetheless, UAW president BobKing characterized the passages of the right-to-work lawsas a “deep disappointment.” ”Symbolically, it’s ahuge setback,” he said in an interview. “Practically, maybe no.Maybe it will awaken a sleeping giant.” That’s exactly whathappened on election day, when the “sleeping giant” known as thepublic was awakened by union arrogance and overreach. Thatoverreach led directly to the passage of right-to-worklegislation.
The union movement is properly about a century old. It arose as anatural response to predatory management. It evolved into anenterprise led by predatory union bosses. The first brought about agenerally leveled playing field allowing fair protection for labor. The second began to destroy wealth an d the jobs themselves. Back towork legislation restores the balance of power to a large degree. Yet it is still a long way from satisfactory.
Superior dispensations have been arrived at in other places and worseones as well.
What is lacking is a natural agency able to speak to the worker'sneeds that can respond at multiple levels. Featherbedding is wrongand all understand this, but gets trapped behind more seriouspriorities and a futile chase for more money.
As I have posted here in the past, our culture will evolve toengineered communities in what we know as condo towers but attacheddirectly to a block of farm land that it maintains and uses to supplybaseline economies unique to the implied community. Such a communityacts as a natural agency for perhaps thirty or more employees of alarge manufactury nearby. This provides a natural source of agencyand balance. What is more, labor becomes optional and a premium mustbe paid to access it to the individual and the community itself.
Thus any contemplated factory would negotiate the labor availabilitywith any number of such communities and their mutual relationshipbefore building.
In the meantime we have a destructive cycle of unionization ofgenerally powerless workers ultimately followed by union excess thatmakes the business uncompetitive which leads to either outright unionbusting or out sourcing. Recall the auto industry has been gutted ofmost of its actual parts manufacturing simply because of union abuseduring those times that the industry had an effective monopoly inNorth America.
In the long term globalization will mean that workers will have equalrewards and benefits globally. Detroit's problem has beenpositioning on the wrong end of the bell curve while this sortsitself out.
Union Violence andMob Mayhem in Michigan
December 12,2012 By Arnold Ahlert
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/union-violence-and-mob-mayhem-in-michigan/
Yesterday, in a movemany considered impossible in a state characterized as the “cradle”of America’s organized labor movement, Michigan became the 24thright-to-work state in the nation. Gov. Rick Snyder signed twobills, one dealing with private sector workers and the other withgovernment employees, hours after the state House passed bothmeasures.
Leading up to thehistoric moment, the reaction of the pro-union crowd, numberingaround 10,000 by late afternoon, was predictably thuggish. The mobdestroyed an Americans For Prosperity tent on the lawn of theMichigan State Capitol. An invective-filled diatribe followed by avicious assault on Fox News contributor and conservativecomedian Steven Crowder was captured on camera. 26,000children missed school because their teachers called insick, or took a vacation day, to join the protests. Police in riotgear clashed with angry demonstrators, even as someunion members shouted “traitors” at the officers. Two arrestswere made. Even a legislator, Democrat Douglas Geiss, behaved likea mobster. “There will be blood,” he threatened as he stood onthe floor of the Michigan House of Representatives.
Unions and theirsupporters may be furious, but they have no one but themselves toblame. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder explained. “I asked[the unions] not to go forward,” Snyder said. “And the reason Isaid is, ‘You’re going to start a very divisive discussion. It’llbe about collective bargaining first, but it’ll create a big stirabout right-to-work in addition to collective bargaining.’”Snyder is referring to an effort by unions to enshrinecollective bargaining rights in the state’s constitution during thelast election. Such a move would have completely insulated unionsfrom any attempt by the legislature, barring a constitutionalamendment, to enact a right-to-work law. Proposition 2, as it wasdubbed, failed spectacularly, with 58 percent of the voters rejectingthe measure in the same state Barack Obama won handily onNovember 6.
Before that efforttook place, Snyder had asked the legislature to hold backon a right-to-work measure because “it would be a divisive issue,and it’s not something we should debate,” said RepresentativeJase Bolger, speaker of the Michigan House. Bolger and his fellowlawmakers initially honored the governor’s request. Snyder wasapparently also prepared to deal with thefrustrationilluminated by Detroit Free Press columnist TomWalsh, who contended the Governor was upset by union opposition tostricter emergency manager laws that would enable swifter action torescue cities and school districts that had bungled their way to thebrink of insolvency. Walsh cited Detroit as an example. The city ison the verge of bankruptcy, due in large part to unionintransigence. Yet all of it might have remained status quo–untilBig Labor decided to go for the kill.
Greg McNeilly, whoruns Michigan Freedom Fund, a political action committee in favor ofright-to-work legislation, noted the connection between the defeat ofProposition 2, and a GOP-controlled legislature emboldened by thatdefeat. “[UAW president] Bob King put this on theagenda,” McNeilly contended. “He threatened this state.He tried to bully and intimidate the state with this disastrousproposal that was so bad a majority of his members didn’t even backit. The whole state had a conversation. They lost,” he added.
In an interview, Kingblamed the defeat on the Koch brothers and multimillionaireconservative activist Dick DeVos, describing them as wealthybenefactors who “bullied and bought their way to get thislegislation in Michigan.”
Hardly. Despite beinga state where 17.5 percent of workers are still unionized, comparedto a nationwide average of 11.8 percent, several polls takenin the state over the last few years reveal an electorate decidedlyin favor of a law that guarantees no one can be forced to join aunion, or pay union dues or a fee to cover costs associated withunion bargaining, as a condition of employment.
Furthermore, theelectorate may have noticed what occurred in the neighboring state ofIndiana, when it became a right-to-work state last February: thestate moved up 18 rankings to 5th place on the PollinaCorp.’s Top Pro-Business States List, attracting 90 new companieswilling to do business there. Michigan, by contrast, is ranked35th in overall prosperity as measured by per capita income, has thenation’s sixth highest state jobless rate at 9.1 percent, and hashad one of the lowest rates of personal income growth from1977-2011. An analysis by the Taxpayers Protection Alliancereveals that if Michigan had adopted right-to-work laws in 1977, percapita income for a family of four would have been $13,556 higher by2008.
None of it matters tothe unionists and their supporters, who converged on Lansing in anattempt to intimidate lawmakers. Even Democrats in the MichiganCongressional delegation, who met privately with Snyder on Monday,attempted to intimidate the Governor, promising him yearsof “discord and division” if he signed the bill. And just as theyattempted to do in Wisconsin, labor leaders are talking about stagingrecall elections for Republican legislators and Gov. Snyder. They areinspired by what occurred last year in Ohio, where Democratactivists successfully overturned a measure to curb collectivebargaining. In Michigan however, spending bills cannot be overturnedvia referendum. Since an appropriation measure was added to the bill,a referendum to overturn it becomes impossible.
On Monday, PresidentObama weighed in on the legislation. ”What weshouldn’t be doing is try to take away your rights to bargain forbetter wages and working conditions,” he said. “We don’t want arace to the bottom.” Right-to-work laws “have nothing to dowith economics and they have everything to do with politics,” Obamaadded. “They mean you have the right to work for less money.”
No one is taking awayanyone’s right to collectively bargain. This law simply curbs thepower of union bosses to extract dues from those workers who don’twish to pay them. But the president is correct when he says there ispolitical aspect to this legislation. Mark Mix, president of theNational Right to Work Committee, illuminates the obviousconnection. “President Obama was the recipient of literallyhundreds of millions of dollars from union officials,” he says. “Ifunion officials can’t compel union workers to pay dues as acondition of their employment, the fees that they use for politicalactivity would dry up very quickly.”
As well they should.Nothing illustrates this better than an “education” videoproduced by the California Teachers’ union that depicts “therich” urinating on “the poor.” It is exactly this kind ofover-the-top propaganda that is underwritten by union dues–even asthe individual teachers’ political beliefs arerendered totally irrelevant in the process. And makeno mistake: it is the loss of union leaders’ power to shape apolitical agenda, underwritten by the coercion of mandatory dues,that scares those leaders the most.
When Wisconsin didaway with mandatory dues, 6,000 out of 17,000 members of theAmerican Federation of Teachers–Wisconsin left its ranks. Morethan 30,000 out of 68,218 members also opted out of that Wisconsin’schapter of AFSCME, the union that represents state, county, andmunicipal workers. In other words, when union “solidarity”becomes voluntary, it becomes far less solid.
Michigan joins 23other states that prize individual freedom and genuine economicprosperity for struggling workers. Absolutely nothing is preventingunions from making their case to workers in Michigan. In reality, itnow becomes necessary for them to do so, in order to keep as manydues-paying members as possible. Nonetheless, UAW president BobKing characterized the passages of the right-to-work lawsas a “deep disappointment.” ”Symbolically, it’s ahuge setback,” he said in an interview. “Practically, maybe no.Maybe it will awaken a sleeping giant.” That’s exactly whathappened on election day, when the “sleeping giant” known as thepublic was awakened by union arrogance and overreach. Thatoverreach led directly to the passage of right-to-worklegislation.
Grand Canyon Now 70,000,000 Years Old
To contact us Click HERE
Ifyou become conversant with Geology, you soon learn to treat all agesuggestions as tentative at best. You have to be always readyfor outright reconsideration. This is particularly true when itcomes to understanding physically reshaped rock. There is a reasonthat you can artificially age an artifact by treating it toaccelerated weathering.
Letme give you a great example. The Sphinx experienced intenseweathering. It has been suggested that this means we have to go backseveral thousands of years. Let me propose something else. It wasbuilt inside a thousand years of the Great Pyramid or during thethousand year run up to the beginning of the fully mature EuropeanBronze Age that culminated in the actual building of the GreatPyramid.
Whythen? Because that period is the period in which agriculturedeforested the Sahara. A forested Sahara would have brought humidconditions and ample rainfall more that sufficient to give us ourweathering history. We have simply forgotten to connect the dots andhave possibly misdated the desiccation of the Sahara likely becausesomeone made the assumption that it was driven by a slow naturalchange that needed centuries of desiccation.
Withan already established population, the advent of the goat would havedone its work inside of a century.
Physicalgeology is profoundly altered by storm surges, freshets, and floods,all of which do all the work and then go away. Left to its devices,Hurricane Sandy has left a new sedimentary layer that is feet thickin places. Prior to that the underlying ground went untouched fordecades.
Inthe end it requires the type of detailed sleuthing as shown here tobegin to approach a correct answer. It usually does not happen andall such claims are always tentative. An outsider does not reallyknow that.
Grand Canyon 70million years old, formed during era of dinosaurs, new study claims
The canyon isn’t6 million years old, some scientists say, but more like 70 millionyears old. If this order-of-magnitude challenge to the othodoxy holdsup, it would mean the Grand Canyon has been around since the days ofT. rex.By Joel Achenbach, Published: November 29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/grand-canyon-70-million-years-old-formed-during-era-of-dinosaurs-new-study-claims/2012/11/29/5788b9d0-3a45-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html
To stand on the SouthRim and gaze into the Grand Canyon is to behold an awesome immensityof time. The serpentine Colorado River has relentlessly incised a280-mile-long chasm that in some places stretches 18 miles wide andmore than a mile deep. Visitors to Grand Canyon National Park willencounter an exhibit titled the Trail of Time, and learn thatscientists believe the canyon is about 6 million years old —relatively young by geological standards.
Now a few contrarianscientists want to call time out. The canyon isn’t 6 million yearsold, they say, but more like 70 million years old. If thisorder-of-magnitude challenge to the orthodoxy holds up, it would meanthe Grand Canyon has been around since the days of T. rex.
“Our data detects amajor canyon sitting there about 70 million years ago,” saidRebecca Flowers, 36, a geologist at the University of Colorado andthe lead author of a paper published online Thursday by the journalScience. “We know it’s going to be controversial.”
About that she isquite correct. Her research, which reconstructs the ancient landscapeusing a technique called thermochronology, is being met with a coolreception from veteran geologists who study the Colorado Plateau.
“It is simplyludicrous,” said Karl Karlstrom, 61, a professor of geology at theUniversity of New Mexico who has made more than 50 river tripsthrough the canyon — one with Flowers, when she chipped her samplesoff the canyon walls — and helped create the Trail of Time exhibitfor the National Park Service.
“We can’t put acanyon where they want to put it at the time they want to put it,”said Richard Young, a geologist at SUNY Geneseo who has been studyingthe Grand Canyon for four decades.
Wondrous though it is,Grand Canyon doesn’t seem terribly mysterious at first glance. It’sa gash in the landscape with a river at the bottom. The causalityseems obvious. But Flowers and her fellow Old Canyon theorists saythat what we see today in northern Arizona was originally carved, inlarge degree, by two rivers — neither of which was the ColoradoRiver.
The western part ofthe canyon, they say, was largely incised about 70 million years agoby what has been dubbed the California River, which drained amountain range to the west and flowed to the east, in the oppositedirection from today’s Colorado River. The eastern part of thecanyon, they say, was created later, around 55 million years ago, bya different river.
Under the Old Canyonscenario, the Colorado River, which originates in the RockyMountains, is a bit of an opportunist, and about 6 million years agotook advantage of the pre-existing canyons and linked them in afashion that creates the sinuous canyon of today.
The debate to someextent hinges on the semantic question of whether “an Ancient GrandCanyon” (as the Science paper calls it) is the same thing as theGrand Canyon of today. The Flowers paper says the depth of theancient canyon was within a “few hundred” meters — roughly athousand feet — of today’s canyon.
Karlstrom warns thatthe Old Canyon theory threatens to confuse the park’s 5 millionannual visitors: “To them, it seems like dinosaurs might have livedwith humans (like the Flintstones) and that geologists do not know ifGrand Canyon was carved by the Colorado River or not (it was),” hewrote in an informal note crafted in response to the new paper.
Flowers beganadvancing the Old Canyon scenario in 2008, and the idea has beenchampioned by Brian Wernicke, a geologist at Caltech.
“I see all the dataas aligning very nicely for an Old Canyon model,” Wernicke said.
Thermochronologystudies the interiors of tiny crystals of phosphate minerals known asapatite. The crystals contain a record of uranium and thoriumdecaying into helium. If the temperature of the crystals is above 158degrees, as would be expected in rock buried deep in the warm crustof the Earth, they retain no hint of helium. But if the rock has beencooler, below 86 degrees — as you’d expect if it was relativelyclose to the surface — the helium is abundant.
Scientists interviewedfor this article believe the technique is a robust method forreconstructing ancient landscapes. But there are multi-foldobjections to the interpretation advanced by Flowers and Wernicke.
The consensus estimatefor the age of the Grand Canyon is based on multiple factors,including well-dated gravel deposits on the western mouth of thecanyon where the river exits the Colorado Plateau and river sedimentsdeposited into the Gulf of California.
The river incises thecanyon at a known rate — about 150 meters per million years, orabout the thickness of a piece of paper annually, Karlstrom said. TheOld Canyon scenario doesn’t claim that the Colorado has beengrinding away in the canyon bottom for 70 million years, but it doesrequire that ancient, abandoned canyons remain dry for long periodsof time, Karlstrom said.
“Rugged topographylike that fills in with erosion in way less than a million years,”he said.
Professor Young,meanwhile, has an objection based on boulders and gravel that arefound on the south side of today’s canyon. They come from the cliffface of the Shivwits Plateau at the canyon’s north rim. Thematerial eroded from that cliff face at least 24 million years ago,Young said; in the years since, the cliff has receded to the north,and the Grand Canyon formed as the river ran along the bottom of thecliff.
In that scenario,there can’t have been a canyon in that spot 70 million years ago;the boulder and gravel from the Shivwits cliff would have had to jumpthe canyon like Evel Knievel.
Young — who hasspent more than 40 years studying another paleocanyon, the HinduCanyon, which runs parallel to the Grand Canyon and is now filledwith sediment — believes the new Flowers research is recording thegradual recession of the cliff, not the carving of a deep canyon.
“I think what’shappened is the recession of the cliff is what’s caused the cooling[of the minerals] to occur,” Young said. “Their calculation isreally measuring the fact that the surface was being erodedbackward.”
Joel Pederson, anassociate professor of geology at Utah State, applauds the new paper,though he makes a semantic distinction when discussing the age of theGrand Canyon.
“They are looking ata really awesome precursor canyon that the Colorado River later intime took advantage of,” Pederson said. “This new study reallyadds teeth to the realization that those paleocanyons, they werebigger and they were older than we thought they were.”
But as for the age ofGrand Canyon proper, Pederson is emphatic: “It is 6 million yearsold.”
The Grand Canyoncontroversy is in many respects a case of science at its mostvigorous, notwithstanding the grousing. Geologists have to find thenarrative in landscapes that do not always speak clearly. The GrandCanyon provides a wonderful stratigraphic record, revealingsedimentary rock that formed hundreds of millions of years ago, butgeologists struggle to discern the timing of the erosion that exposedthe formations.
“Erosion’s alwaysbeen the toughest problem in geology,” Wernicke said, “becausewhat you’re trying to study is all gone now.”
As for why it mattersat all — why we should care about when, and how, the canyon formed— Wernicke has a ready answer: “It’s a fundamental question ofhuman curiosity. It’s about as basic a scientific thing as one canimagine.”
Flowers will give atalk next Wednesday in San Francisco at the big fall meeting of theAmerican Geophysical Union, as will her ally, Wernicke — and theircritic, Karlstrom. Back to back to back.
Ifyou become conversant with Geology, you soon learn to treat all agesuggestions as tentative at best. You have to be always readyfor outright reconsideration. This is particularly true when itcomes to understanding physically reshaped rock. There is a reasonthat you can artificially age an artifact by treating it toaccelerated weathering.
Letme give you a great example. The Sphinx experienced intenseweathering. It has been suggested that this means we have to go backseveral thousands of years. Let me propose something else. It wasbuilt inside a thousand years of the Great Pyramid or during thethousand year run up to the beginning of the fully mature EuropeanBronze Age that culminated in the actual building of the GreatPyramid.
Whythen? Because that period is the period in which agriculturedeforested the Sahara. A forested Sahara would have brought humidconditions and ample rainfall more that sufficient to give us ourweathering history. We have simply forgotten to connect the dots andhave possibly misdated the desiccation of the Sahara likely becausesomeone made the assumption that it was driven by a slow naturalchange that needed centuries of desiccation.
Withan already established population, the advent of the goat would havedone its work inside of a century.
Physicalgeology is profoundly altered by storm surges, freshets, and floods,all of which do all the work and then go away. Left to its devices,Hurricane Sandy has left a new sedimentary layer that is feet thickin places. Prior to that the underlying ground went untouched fordecades.
Inthe end it requires the type of detailed sleuthing as shown here tobegin to approach a correct answer. It usually does not happen andall such claims are always tentative. An outsider does not reallyknow that.
Grand Canyon 70million years old, formed during era of dinosaurs, new study claims
The canyon isn’t6 million years old, some scientists say, but more like 70 millionyears old. If this order-of-magnitude challenge to the othodoxy holdsup, it would mean the Grand Canyon has been around since the days ofT. rex.By Joel Achenbach, Published: November 29
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/grand-canyon-70-million-years-old-formed-during-era-of-dinosaurs-new-study-claims/2012/11/29/5788b9d0-3a45-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html
To stand on the SouthRim and gaze into the Grand Canyon is to behold an awesome immensityof time. The serpentine Colorado River has relentlessly incised a280-mile-long chasm that in some places stretches 18 miles wide andmore than a mile deep. Visitors to Grand Canyon National Park willencounter an exhibit titled the Trail of Time, and learn thatscientists believe the canyon is about 6 million years old —relatively young by geological standards.
Now a few contrarianscientists want to call time out. The canyon isn’t 6 million yearsold, they say, but more like 70 million years old. If thisorder-of-magnitude challenge to the orthodoxy holds up, it would meanthe Grand Canyon has been around since the days of T. rex.
“Our data detects amajor canyon sitting there about 70 million years ago,” saidRebecca Flowers, 36, a geologist at the University of Colorado andthe lead author of a paper published online Thursday by the journalScience. “We know it’s going to be controversial.”
About that she isquite correct. Her research, which reconstructs the ancient landscapeusing a technique called thermochronology, is being met with a coolreception from veteran geologists who study the Colorado Plateau.
“It is simplyludicrous,” said Karl Karlstrom, 61, a professor of geology at theUniversity of New Mexico who has made more than 50 river tripsthrough the canyon — one with Flowers, when she chipped her samplesoff the canyon walls — and helped create the Trail of Time exhibitfor the National Park Service.
“We can’t put acanyon where they want to put it at the time they want to put it,”said Richard Young, a geologist at SUNY Geneseo who has been studyingthe Grand Canyon for four decades.
Wondrous though it is,Grand Canyon doesn’t seem terribly mysterious at first glance. It’sa gash in the landscape with a river at the bottom. The causalityseems obvious. But Flowers and her fellow Old Canyon theorists saythat what we see today in northern Arizona was originally carved, inlarge degree, by two rivers — neither of which was the ColoradoRiver.
The western part ofthe canyon, they say, was largely incised about 70 million years agoby what has been dubbed the California River, which drained amountain range to the west and flowed to the east, in the oppositedirection from today’s Colorado River. The eastern part of thecanyon, they say, was created later, around 55 million years ago, bya different river.
Under the Old Canyonscenario, the Colorado River, which originates in the RockyMountains, is a bit of an opportunist, and about 6 million years agotook advantage of the pre-existing canyons and linked them in afashion that creates the sinuous canyon of today.
The debate to someextent hinges on the semantic question of whether “an Ancient GrandCanyon” (as the Science paper calls it) is the same thing as theGrand Canyon of today. The Flowers paper says the depth of theancient canyon was within a “few hundred” meters — roughly athousand feet — of today’s canyon.
Karlstrom warns thatthe Old Canyon theory threatens to confuse the park’s 5 millionannual visitors: “To them, it seems like dinosaurs might have livedwith humans (like the Flintstones) and that geologists do not know ifGrand Canyon was carved by the Colorado River or not (it was),” hewrote in an informal note crafted in response to the new paper.
Flowers beganadvancing the Old Canyon scenario in 2008, and the idea has beenchampioned by Brian Wernicke, a geologist at Caltech.
“I see all the dataas aligning very nicely for an Old Canyon model,” Wernicke said.
Thermochronologystudies the interiors of tiny crystals of phosphate minerals known asapatite. The crystals contain a record of uranium and thoriumdecaying into helium. If the temperature of the crystals is above 158degrees, as would be expected in rock buried deep in the warm crustof the Earth, they retain no hint of helium. But if the rock has beencooler, below 86 degrees — as you’d expect if it was relativelyclose to the surface — the helium is abundant.
Scientists interviewedfor this article believe the technique is a robust method forreconstructing ancient landscapes. But there are multi-foldobjections to the interpretation advanced by Flowers and Wernicke.
The consensus estimatefor the age of the Grand Canyon is based on multiple factors,including well-dated gravel deposits on the western mouth of thecanyon where the river exits the Colorado Plateau and river sedimentsdeposited into the Gulf of California.
The river incises thecanyon at a known rate — about 150 meters per million years, orabout the thickness of a piece of paper annually, Karlstrom said. TheOld Canyon scenario doesn’t claim that the Colorado has beengrinding away in the canyon bottom for 70 million years, but it doesrequire that ancient, abandoned canyons remain dry for long periodsof time, Karlstrom said.
“Rugged topographylike that fills in with erosion in way less than a million years,”he said.
Professor Young,meanwhile, has an objection based on boulders and gravel that arefound on the south side of today’s canyon. They come from the cliffface of the Shivwits Plateau at the canyon’s north rim. Thematerial eroded from that cliff face at least 24 million years ago,Young said; in the years since, the cliff has receded to the north,and the Grand Canyon formed as the river ran along the bottom of thecliff.
In that scenario,there can’t have been a canyon in that spot 70 million years ago;the boulder and gravel from the Shivwits cliff would have had to jumpthe canyon like Evel Knievel.
Young — who hasspent more than 40 years studying another paleocanyon, the HinduCanyon, which runs parallel to the Grand Canyon and is now filledwith sediment — believes the new Flowers research is recording thegradual recession of the cliff, not the carving of a deep canyon.
“I think what’shappened is the recession of the cliff is what’s caused the cooling[of the minerals] to occur,” Young said. “Their calculation isreally measuring the fact that the surface was being erodedbackward.”
Joel Pederson, anassociate professor of geology at Utah State, applauds the new paper,though he makes a semantic distinction when discussing the age of theGrand Canyon.
“They are looking ata really awesome precursor canyon that the Colorado River later intime took advantage of,” Pederson said. “This new study reallyadds teeth to the realization that those paleocanyons, they werebigger and they were older than we thought they were.”
But as for the age ofGrand Canyon proper, Pederson is emphatic: “It is 6 million yearsold.”
The Grand Canyoncontroversy is in many respects a case of science at its mostvigorous, notwithstanding the grousing. Geologists have to find thenarrative in landscapes that do not always speak clearly. The GrandCanyon provides a wonderful stratigraphic record, revealingsedimentary rock that formed hundreds of millions of years ago, butgeologists struggle to discern the timing of the erosion that exposedthe formations.
“Erosion’s alwaysbeen the toughest problem in geology,” Wernicke said, “becausewhat you’re trying to study is all gone now.”
As for why it mattersat all — why we should care about when, and how, the canyon formed— Wernicke has a ready answer: “It’s a fundamental question ofhuman curiosity. It’s about as basic a scientific thing as one canimagine.”
Flowers will give atalk next Wednesday in San Francisco at the big fall meeting of theAmerican Geophysical Union, as will her ally, Wernicke — and theircritic, Karlstrom. Back to back to back.
12 Aralık 2012 Çarşamba
Sonic Weapons?
To contact us Click HERE
This is a good overview of the topicand the correct conclusion is that it is completely ineffective as apotential weapon and remains a solution in search of a meaningfulproblem. Otherwise good scientific fun and well worth the read.
Even the legend of brown sound isdebunked as non existent and can be tossed into the bins of urbanlegends. Some things are just too good to be true.
Otherwise this is a primer of the topicthat is useful to have seen.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/acoustic-weapons-book-excerpt
There’san elevator in the Brown University Biomed building (hopefully fixedby now) that I’ve heard called “the elevator to hell,” notbecause of destination but because there is a bent blade in theoverhead fan. The elevator is typical of older models, a box 2 metersby 2 meters by 3 meters with requisite buzzing fluorescent, making ita perfect resonator for low-frequency sounds. As soon as the doorsclose, you don’t really hear anything different, but you can feelyour ears (and body, if you’re not wearing a coat) pulsing aboutfour times per second. Even going only two floors can leave youpretty nauseated. The fan isn’t particularly powerful, but thedamage to one of the blades just happens to change the air flow at arate that is matched by the dimensions of the car. This is the basisof what is called vibroacoustic syndrome—the effect of infrasonicoutput not on your hearing but on the various fluid-filled parts ofyour body.
Peopledon’t usually think of infrasound as sound at all. You can hearvery low-frequency sounds at levels above 88–100 dB down to a fewcycles per second, but you can’t get any tonal information out ofit below about 20Hz—it mostly just feels like beating pressurewaves. And like any other sound, if presented at levels above 140 dB,it is going to cause pain. But the primary effects of infrasoundare not on your ears but on the rest of your body.
Becauseinfrasound can affect people’s whole bodies, it has been underserious investigation by military and research organizations sincethe 1950s, largely the Navy and NASA, to figure out the effects oflow-frequency vibration on people stuck on large, noisy ships withhuge throbbing motors or on top of rockets launching into space. Aswith seemingly any bit of military research, it is the subject ofspeculation and devious rumors. Among the most infamous developers ofinfrasonic weapons was a Russian-born French researcher namedVladimir Gavreau. According to popular media at the time (and far toomany current under-fact-checked web pages), Gavreau started toinvestigate reports of nausea in his lab that supposedly disappearedonce a ventilator fan was disabled. He then launched into a series ofexperiments on the effects of infrasound on human subjects, withresults (as reported in the press) ranging from subjects needing tobe saved in the nick of time from an infrasonic “envelope of death”that damaged their internal organs to people having their organs“converted to jelly” by exposure to an infrasonic whistle.
SupposedlyGavreau had patented these, and they were the basis of secretgovernment programs into infrasonic weapons. These would definitelyqualify as acoustic weapons if you believe easily accessible webreferences. However, when I started digging deeper, I found thatwhile Gavreau did exist and did do acoustic research, he had actuallyonly written a few minor papers in the 1960s that describe humanexposure to low-frequency (not infrasonic) sound, and none of thesupposed patents existed. Subsequent and contemporary papers ininfrasonic research that cite his work at all do so in the context ofpointing out the problems of letting the press get hold of complexwork. My personal theory is that the reason that his work survivedeven in the annals of conspiracy is that “Vladimir Gavreau” isjust such a great moniker for a mad scientist that he had to be up tosomething.
Conspiracytheories aside, the characteristics of infrasound do lend it certainpossibilities as a weapon. The low frequency of infrasonic sound andits corresponding long wavelength makes it much more capable ofbending around or penetrating your body, creating an oscillatingpressure system. Depending on the frequency, different parts of yourbody will resonate, which can have very unusual non-auditory effects.For example, one of the ones that occur at relatively safe soundlevels (< 100 dB) occurs at 19Hz. If you sit in front of a verygood-quality subwoofer and play a 19Hz sound (or have access to asound programmer and get an audible sound to modulate at 19Hz), trytaking off your glasses or removing your contacts. Your eyes willtwitch. If you turn up the volume so you start approaching 110 dB,you may even start seeing colored lights at the periphery of yourvision or ghostly gray regions in the center. This is because 19Hz isthe resonant frequency of the human eyeball. The low-frequencypulsations start distorting the eyeball’s shape and pushing on theretina, activating the rods and cones by pressure rather than light.*This non-auditory effect may be the basis of some supernaturalfolklore. In 1998, Tony Lawrence and Vic Tandy wrote a paper forthe Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (not myusual fare) called “Ghosts in the Machine,” in which theydescribe how they got to the root of stories of a “haunted”laboratory. People in the lab had described seeing “ghostly” grayshapes that disappeared when they turned to face them. Upon examiningthe area, it turned out that a fan was resonating the room at18.98Hz, almost exactly the resonant frequency of the human eyeball.When the fan was turned off, so did all stories of ghostlyapparitions.
Almostany part of your body, based on its volume and makeup, will vibrateat specific frequencies with enough power. Human eyeballs arefluid-filled ovoids, lungs are gas-filled membranes, and the humanabdomen contains a variety of liquid-, solid-, and gas-filledpockets. All of these structures have limits to how much they canstretch when subjected to force, so if you provide enough powerbehind a vibration, they will stretch and shrink in time with thelow-frequency vibrations of the air molecules around them. Since wedon’t hear infrasonic frequencies very well, we are often unawareof exactly how loud the sounds are. At 130 dB, the inner ear willstart undergoing direct pressure distortions unrelated to normalhearing, which can affect your ability to understand speech. At about150 dB, people start complaining about nausea and whole bodyvibrations, usually in the chest and abdomen. By the time 166 dB isreached, people start noticing problems breathing, as thelow-frequency pulses start impacting the lungs, reaching a criticalpoint at about 177 dB, when infrasound from 0.5 to 8Hz can actuallydrive sonically induced artificial respiration at an abnormal rhythm.In addition, vibrations through a substrate such as the ground can bepassed throughout your body via your skeleton, which in turn cancause your whole body to vibrate at 4–8Hz vertically and 1–2Hzside to side. The effects of this type of whole-body vibration cancause many problems, ranging from bone and joint damage with shortexposure to nausea and visual damage with chronic exposure. Thecommonality of infrasonic vibration, especially in the realm of heavyequipment operation, has led federal and international health andsafety organizations to create guidelines to limit people’sexposure to this type of infrasonic stimulus.
Sincedifferent body parts all do resonate and resonance can be highlydestructive, could you build a practical infrasonic weapon bytargeting a specific low-frequency resonance and thus not have tocarry around a heavy amplifier or lock your victim in an elevatorcar? For example, imagine I am a mad scientist (a total stretch, Iknow) who wants to build a weapon using sound to make people’sheads explode. Resonance frequencies of human skulls have beencalculated as part of studies looking at bone conduction for certaintypes of hearing aid devices. A dry (i.e., removed from the body andon a table) human skull has prominent acoustic resonances at about 9and 12kHz, slightly lesser ones at 14 and 17kHz, and even smallerones at 32 and 38kHz. These are convenient sounds because I won’thave to lug around a really big emitter for low frequencies, and mostof them are not ultrasonic, so I don’t have to worry about smearinggel on the skull to get it to blow up. So how about if I just use asonic emitter that puts out two peaks at the two highest resonancepoints, 9 and 12kHz, at 140 dB and wait until your head explodes?Well, it’ll be a while. In fact, it’s not likely to do anythingother than possibly make a nice dry skull shimmy on the desk a bit,and it will do nothing to a live head other than make it turn towardyou to see where that irritating sound is coming from.
Theproblem is that while your skull may vibrate maximally at thosefrequencies, it is surrounded by soft wet muscular and connectivetissue and filled with gloppy brains and blood that do not resonateat those frequencies and thus damp out the resonant vibration like arug placed in front of your stereo speakers. In fact, when a livinghuman head was substituted for a dry skull in the same study, the12kHz resonance peak was 70 dB lower, with the strongest resonancenow at about 200Hz, and even that was 30 dB lower than the highestresonance of the dry skull. You would probably have to use somethingon the order of a 240 dB source to get the head to resonatedestructively, and at that point it would be much faster to just hitthe person over the head with the emitter and be done with it. Sowhile we still cannot use infrasound to defend ourselves againstdangerous severed heads and have not found the "brownsound"that would allow us to embarrass our friends, infrasound can causepotentially dangerous effects on living bodies—as long as you havea very high-powered pneumatic displacement source or operate in avery contained environment for a long time.
Sorryto be a spoilsport about sonic weapons. I’ve always wanted to beable to wire up a couple of speakers in my basement lab and runaround blowing holes in things and chasing away supervillains, butmost sonic weapons are more hype than hyper. Devices such as the LRADexist and make effective deterrents, but even these have pronouncedlimitations. A handheld sonic disruptor will have to wait for somemajor breakthroughs in power source and transducer technologies. Butthe uses of sound in the future probably hold more interestingpromise than the ability to destroy things.
This is a good overview of the topicand the correct conclusion is that it is completely ineffective as apotential weapon and remains a solution in search of a meaningfulproblem. Otherwise good scientific fun and well worth the read.
Even the legend of brown sound isdebunked as non existent and can be tossed into the bins of urbanlegends. Some things are just too good to be true.
Otherwise this is a primer of the topicthat is useful to have seen.
CouldA Sonic Weapon Make Your Head Explode?
Infrasonicsound can have very unusual non-auditory effects on the body. Butdoes it kill?BySeth S. HorowitzPosted 11.20.2012http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/acoustic-weapons-book-excerpt
There’san elevator in the Brown University Biomed building (hopefully fixedby now) that I’ve heard called “the elevator to hell,” notbecause of destination but because there is a bent blade in theoverhead fan. The elevator is typical of older models, a box 2 metersby 2 meters by 3 meters with requisite buzzing fluorescent, making ita perfect resonator for low-frequency sounds. As soon as the doorsclose, you don’t really hear anything different, but you can feelyour ears (and body, if you’re not wearing a coat) pulsing aboutfour times per second. Even going only two floors can leave youpretty nauseated. The fan isn’t particularly powerful, but thedamage to one of the blades just happens to change the air flow at arate that is matched by the dimensions of the car. This is the basisof what is called vibroacoustic syndrome—the effect of infrasonicoutput not on your hearing but on the various fluid-filled parts ofyour body.
Peopledon’t usually think of infrasound as sound at all. You can hearvery low-frequency sounds at levels above 88–100 dB down to a fewcycles per second, but you can’t get any tonal information out ofit below about 20Hz—it mostly just feels like beating pressurewaves. And like any other sound, if presented at levels above 140 dB,it is going to cause pain. But the primary effects of infrasoundare not on your ears but on the rest of your body.
Becauseinfrasound can affect people’s whole bodies, it has been underserious investigation by military and research organizations sincethe 1950s, largely the Navy and NASA, to figure out the effects oflow-frequency vibration on people stuck on large, noisy ships withhuge throbbing motors or on top of rockets launching into space. Aswith seemingly any bit of military research, it is the subject ofspeculation and devious rumors. Among the most infamous developers ofinfrasonic weapons was a Russian-born French researcher namedVladimir Gavreau. According to popular media at the time (and far toomany current under-fact-checked web pages), Gavreau started toinvestigate reports of nausea in his lab that supposedly disappearedonce a ventilator fan was disabled. He then launched into a series ofexperiments on the effects of infrasound on human subjects, withresults (as reported in the press) ranging from subjects needing tobe saved in the nick of time from an infrasonic “envelope of death”that damaged their internal organs to people having their organs“converted to jelly” by exposure to an infrasonic whistle.
SupposedlyGavreau had patented these, and they were the basis of secretgovernment programs into infrasonic weapons. These would definitelyqualify as acoustic weapons if you believe easily accessible webreferences. However, when I started digging deeper, I found thatwhile Gavreau did exist and did do acoustic research, he had actuallyonly written a few minor papers in the 1960s that describe humanexposure to low-frequency (not infrasonic) sound, and none of thesupposed patents existed. Subsequent and contemporary papers ininfrasonic research that cite his work at all do so in the context ofpointing out the problems of letting the press get hold of complexwork. My personal theory is that the reason that his work survivedeven in the annals of conspiracy is that “Vladimir Gavreau” isjust such a great moniker for a mad scientist that he had to be up tosomething.
Conspiracytheories aside, the characteristics of infrasound do lend it certainpossibilities as a weapon. The low frequency of infrasonic sound andits corresponding long wavelength makes it much more capable ofbending around or penetrating your body, creating an oscillatingpressure system. Depending on the frequency, different parts of yourbody will resonate, which can have very unusual non-auditory effects.For example, one of the ones that occur at relatively safe soundlevels (< 100 dB) occurs at 19Hz. If you sit in front of a verygood-quality subwoofer and play a 19Hz sound (or have access to asound programmer and get an audible sound to modulate at 19Hz), trytaking off your glasses or removing your contacts. Your eyes willtwitch. If you turn up the volume so you start approaching 110 dB,you may even start seeing colored lights at the periphery of yourvision or ghostly gray regions in the center. This is because 19Hz isthe resonant frequency of the human eyeball. The low-frequencypulsations start distorting the eyeball’s shape and pushing on theretina, activating the rods and cones by pressure rather than light.*This non-auditory effect may be the basis of some supernaturalfolklore. In 1998, Tony Lawrence and Vic Tandy wrote a paper forthe Journal of the Society for Psychical Research (not myusual fare) called “Ghosts in the Machine,” in which theydescribe how they got to the root of stories of a “haunted”laboratory. People in the lab had described seeing “ghostly” grayshapes that disappeared when they turned to face them. Upon examiningthe area, it turned out that a fan was resonating the room at18.98Hz, almost exactly the resonant frequency of the human eyeball.When the fan was turned off, so did all stories of ghostlyapparitions.
Almostany part of your body, based on its volume and makeup, will vibrateat specific frequencies with enough power. Human eyeballs arefluid-filled ovoids, lungs are gas-filled membranes, and the humanabdomen contains a variety of liquid-, solid-, and gas-filledpockets. All of these structures have limits to how much they canstretch when subjected to force, so if you provide enough powerbehind a vibration, they will stretch and shrink in time with thelow-frequency vibrations of the air molecules around them. Since wedon’t hear infrasonic frequencies very well, we are often unawareof exactly how loud the sounds are. At 130 dB, the inner ear willstart undergoing direct pressure distortions unrelated to normalhearing, which can affect your ability to understand speech. At about150 dB, people start complaining about nausea and whole bodyvibrations, usually in the chest and abdomen. By the time 166 dB isreached, people start noticing problems breathing, as thelow-frequency pulses start impacting the lungs, reaching a criticalpoint at about 177 dB, when infrasound from 0.5 to 8Hz can actuallydrive sonically induced artificial respiration at an abnormal rhythm.In addition, vibrations through a substrate such as the ground can bepassed throughout your body via your skeleton, which in turn cancause your whole body to vibrate at 4–8Hz vertically and 1–2Hzside to side. The effects of this type of whole-body vibration cancause many problems, ranging from bone and joint damage with shortexposure to nausea and visual damage with chronic exposure. Thecommonality of infrasonic vibration, especially in the realm of heavyequipment operation, has led federal and international health andsafety organizations to create guidelines to limit people’sexposure to this type of infrasonic stimulus.
Sincedifferent body parts all do resonate and resonance can be highlydestructive, could you build a practical infrasonic weapon bytargeting a specific low-frequency resonance and thus not have tocarry around a heavy amplifier or lock your victim in an elevatorcar? For example, imagine I am a mad scientist (a total stretch, Iknow) who wants to build a weapon using sound to make people’sheads explode. Resonance frequencies of human skulls have beencalculated as part of studies looking at bone conduction for certaintypes of hearing aid devices. A dry (i.e., removed from the body andon a table) human skull has prominent acoustic resonances at about 9and 12kHz, slightly lesser ones at 14 and 17kHz, and even smallerones at 32 and 38kHz. These are convenient sounds because I won’thave to lug around a really big emitter for low frequencies, and mostof them are not ultrasonic, so I don’t have to worry about smearinggel on the skull to get it to blow up. So how about if I just use asonic emitter that puts out two peaks at the two highest resonancepoints, 9 and 12kHz, at 140 dB and wait until your head explodes?Well, it’ll be a while. In fact, it’s not likely to do anythingother than possibly make a nice dry skull shimmy on the desk a bit,and it will do nothing to a live head other than make it turn towardyou to see where that irritating sound is coming from.
Theproblem is that while your skull may vibrate maximally at thosefrequencies, it is surrounded by soft wet muscular and connectivetissue and filled with gloppy brains and blood that do not resonateat those frequencies and thus damp out the resonant vibration like arug placed in front of your stereo speakers. In fact, when a livinghuman head was substituted for a dry skull in the same study, the12kHz resonance peak was 70 dB lower, with the strongest resonancenow at about 200Hz, and even that was 30 dB lower than the highestresonance of the dry skull. You would probably have to use somethingon the order of a 240 dB source to get the head to resonatedestructively, and at that point it would be much faster to just hitthe person over the head with the emitter and be done with it. Sowhile we still cannot use infrasound to defend ourselves againstdangerous severed heads and have not found the "brownsound"that would allow us to embarrass our friends, infrasound can causepotentially dangerous effects on living bodies—as long as you havea very high-powered pneumatic displacement source or operate in avery contained environment for a long time.
Sorryto be a spoilsport about sonic weapons. I’ve always wanted to beable to wire up a couple of speakers in my basement lab and runaround blowing holes in things and chasing away supervillains, butmost sonic weapons are more hype than hyper. Devices such as the LRADexist and make effective deterrents, but even these have pronouncedlimitations. A handheld sonic disruptor will have to wait for somemajor breakthroughs in power source and transducer technologies. Butthe uses of sound in the future probably hold more interestingpromise than the ability to destroy things.
- You can get a similar visual display, called phosphenes, by rubbing your eyes in a dark room.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)