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
22 Şubat 2013 Cuma
21 Şubat 2013 Perşembe
Renewables Winning Economic Argument
To contact us Click HERE
Without question the thermal coalindustry is setting up to simply disappear. The hard driver will be the rapid build out of natural gas burningplants. No one can stand up against thattype of competition.
Way more important it that sooneror later we will have super conducting power transmission to send poweranywhere to anywhere at slight cost and we will have effective batteries to storesurplus energy as a huge energy buffer. With that environment, wind is a gift that never stops giving andgeothermal also become highly attractive for base load.
Fuel based systems then becomeunattractive, particularly as presently configured. They were all established on the basis of a logistical compromise whose economic rational evaporates.
The changeover is well underwayand will become more apparent as time progresses.
A NewManhattan
Saturday, 09 February 2013 10:40By Thom Hartmann,
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14445-a-new-manhattan-project
Something interesting is happening inAustralia
A newstudy by the research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance has found thatunsubsidized renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels like coal andgas.
Data shows that wind farms inAustralia
Unlike theUnited States ,where energy companies can pollute and have the costs (from illness toenvironmental degradation) picked up by the taxpayers, Australia
And this is in a nation that relies more heavily on coal than any otherindustrialized nation in the world. But that coal reliance will soon change, ascompanies inAustralia Australia
And, while Australian wind is cheapest now, by 2020 - and maybe sooner- solar power will also be cheaper than coal and gas inAustralia
Michael Liebrich, the chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, noted, “The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date.”
Well, here’s a news flash: That perception has been out of date for awhile now – even right here in the United States.
According to the EnergyInformation Administration, looking ahead to 2016, natural gas is thecheapest energy in theUnited States U.S.
And, unlike inAustralia ,none of those US America
The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay a penny of the cost of rapidlyaccelerating climate change. Or the healthcare costs from exhaust- andrefinery-driven diseases and deaths from air, water, and other pollution. Notto mention the community costs of decreasing property values when a coal plantis put in your backyard. Nor do they put a cent toward the cost of our Navykeeping the oil shipping lanes open or our soldiers “protecting” the countriesthat “produce” all that oil.
All of these externalities come with fossil fuel production, but prettymuch don't exist with renewable energy production. And those externality costsare not only not paid for by the fossil fuel industry – they're never evenmentioned in the corporate-run “news” media inAmerica
Research from the Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences concludes that the total cost ofthese externalities, if paid by the polluters themselves, would raise US fossilfuel prices by as much as nearly $3/MWh. And that’s an extremely conservativeestimate. Which puts wind power on parity with coal inAmerica
The trend lines here are pretty clear: Buggy whip, meet automobile!
Renewables are getting cheaper, and fossil fuels are getting moreexpensive.
Which is why we as a nation need to throw everything we have at makingrenewable energies our primary way of poweringAmerica
Think of it as a newManhattan
Over time, the marketplace will do this for us. But with just aboutevery developed country in the world ahead of us, and our dependence on oilmaking us more and more tightly bound to Middle Eastern dictators and radicals,to wait and hope big transnational corporations will help birth a new Americais both naïve and stupid. Instead of depending on them, we should be recoveringfrom them the cost of those externalities – a carbon tax – that can be used tobuild a new energy infrastructure inAmerica
Let’s take a lesson fromAustralia America
Considering the threats of climate change, war, and disease, only anidiot – or a fossil-fuel billionaire like Charles or David Koch – would want usto bring in more oil with a pipeline or take any other steps to continueAmerica
Renewables now cheaper than coal and gas in Australia
By Giles Parkinson on 7 February 2013
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268
A new analysis from research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance has concluded that electricity from unsubsidised renewable energy is already cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas-fired power stations inAustralia
The modeling from the BNEF team inSydney
These figures include the cost of carbon emissions, but BNEF said evenwithout a carbon price, wind energy remained 14 per cent cheaper than new coaland 18 per cent cheaper than new gas.
“The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables areexpensive is now out of date”, said Michael Liebreich, chief executive ofBloomberg New Energy Finance.
“The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country with some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head,” he said.
But before people, such as the conservative parties, reach for the smelling salts and wonder why renewables need support mechanisms such as the renewable energy target, BNEF said this was because new build renewables had to compete with existing plant, and the large-scale RET was essential to enable the construction of new wind and solar farms.
The study also found thatAustralia
It also said new gas-fired generation is expensive as the massiveexpansion ofAustralia
BNEF’s analysts also conclude that by 2020, large-scale solar PV willalso be cheaper than coal and gas, when carbon prices are factored in.
In fact, it could be sooner than that, as we reportedyesterday, companies such as RatchAustralia Collinsville
The Bloomberg analysis said the Australian economy is likely to be powered extensively by renewable energy in future and that investment in new fossil-fuel power generation may be limited.
“It is very unlikely that new coal-fired power stations will be builtinAustralia Australia
“Even baseload gas may struggle to compete with renewables.Australia
“By 2020-30 we will be finding new and innovative ways to deal with theintermittency of wind and solar, so it is quite conceivable that we couldleapfrog straight from coal to renewables to reduce emissions as carbon pricesrise.” he added.
The analysis by BNEF is significant. Australia relies more on coal thannearly any other industrialised country, but it also has some of the world’sbest renewables resources, which it has been slow to exploit. But is this likelyto prompt a review of the Coalition’s energy policies – which are based on thepremise that renewable energy is expensive and unreliable? Don’t bet onit.
Without question the thermal coalindustry is setting up to simply disappear. The hard driver will be the rapid build out of natural gas burningplants. No one can stand up against thattype of competition.
Way more important it that sooneror later we will have super conducting power transmission to send poweranywhere to anywhere at slight cost and we will have effective batteries to storesurplus energy as a huge energy buffer. With that environment, wind is a gift that never stops giving andgeothermal also become highly attractive for base load.
Fuel based systems then becomeunattractive, particularly as presently configured. They were all established on the basis of a logistical compromise whose economic rational evaporates.
The changeover is well underwayand will become more apparent as time progresses.
A New
Saturday, 09 February 2013 10:40By Thom Hartmann,
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14445-a-new-manhattan-project
Something interesting is happening in
A newstudy by the research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance has found thatunsubsidized renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels like coal andgas.
Data shows that wind farms in
Unlike the
And this is in a nation that relies more heavily on coal than any otherindustrialized nation in the world. But that coal reliance will soon change, ascompanies in
And, while Australian wind is cheapest now, by 2020 - and maybe sooner- solar power will also be cheaper than coal and gas in
Michael Liebrich, the chief executive of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, noted, “The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables are expensive is now out of date.”
Well, here’s a news flash: That perception has been out of date for awhile now – even right here in the United States.
According to the EnergyInformation Administration, looking ahead to 2016, natural gas is thecheapest energy in the
And, unlike in
The fossil fuel industry doesn't pay a penny of the cost of rapidlyaccelerating climate change. Or the healthcare costs from exhaust- andrefinery-driven diseases and deaths from air, water, and other pollution. Notto mention the community costs of decreasing property values when a coal plantis put in your backyard. Nor do they put a cent toward the cost of our Navykeeping the oil shipping lanes open or our soldiers “protecting” the countriesthat “produce” all that oil.
All of these externalities come with fossil fuel production, but prettymuch don't exist with renewable energy production. And those externality costsare not only not paid for by the fossil fuel industry – they're never evenmentioned in the corporate-run “news” media in
Research from the Annalsof the New York Academy of Sciences concludes that the total cost ofthese externalities, if paid by the polluters themselves, would raise US fossilfuel prices by as much as nearly $3/MWh. And that’s an extremely conservativeestimate. Which puts wind power on parity with coal in
The trend lines here are pretty clear: Buggy whip, meet automobile!
Renewables are getting cheaper, and fossil fuels are getting moreexpensive.
Which is why we as a nation need to throw everything we have at makingrenewable energies our primary way of powering
Think of it as a new
Over time, the marketplace will do this for us. But with just aboutevery developed country in the world ahead of us, and our dependence on oilmaking us more and more tightly bound to Middle Eastern dictators and radicals,to wait and hope big transnational corporations will help birth a new Americais both naïve and stupid. Instead of depending on them, we should be recoveringfrom them the cost of those externalities – a carbon tax – that can be used tobuild a new energy infrastructure in
Let’s take a lesson from
Considering the threats of climate change, war, and disease, only anidiot – or a fossil-fuel billionaire like Charles or David Koch – would want usto bring in more oil with a pipeline or take any other steps to continue
Renewables now cheaper than coal and gas in Australia
By Giles Parkinson on 7 February 2013
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/renewables-now-cheaper-than-coal-and-gas-in-australia-62268
A new analysis from research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance has concluded that electricity from unsubsidised renewable energy is already cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas-fired power stations in
The modeling from the BNEF team in
These figures include the cost of carbon emissions, but BNEF said evenwithout a carbon price, wind energy remained 14 per cent cheaper than new coaland 18 per cent cheaper than new gas.
“The perception that fossil fuels are cheap and renewables areexpensive is now out of date”, said Michael Liebreich, chief executive ofBloomberg New Energy Finance.
“The fact that wind power is now cheaper than coal and gas in a country with some of the world’s best fossil fuel resources shows that clean energy is a game changer which promises to turn the economics of power systems on its head,” he said.
But before people, such as the conservative parties, reach for the smelling salts and wonder why renewables need support mechanisms such as the renewable energy target, BNEF said this was because new build renewables had to compete with existing plant, and the large-scale RET was essential to enable the construction of new wind and solar farms.
The study also found that
It also said new gas-fired generation is expensive as the massiveexpansion of
BNEF’s analysts also conclude that by 2020, large-scale solar PV willalso be cheaper than coal and gas, when carbon prices are factored in.
In fact, it could be sooner than that, as we reportedyesterday, companies such as Ratch
The Bloomberg analysis said the Australian economy is likely to be powered extensively by renewable energy in future and that investment in new fossil-fuel power generation may be limited.
“It is very unlikely that new coal-fired power stations will be builtin
“Even baseload gas may struggle to compete with renewables.
“By 2020-30 we will be finding new and innovative ways to deal with theintermittency of wind and solar, so it is quite conceivable that we couldleapfrog straight from coal to renewables to reduce emissions as carbon pricesrise.” he added.
The analysis by BNEF is significant. Australia relies more on coal thannearly any other industrialised country, but it also has some of the world’sbest renewables resources, which it has been slow to exploit. But is this likelyto prompt a review of the Coalition’s energy policies – which are based on thepremise that renewable energy is expensive and unreliable? Don’t bet onit.
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Kills 7 in One Family
To contact us Click HERE
Let us make it simple. Anyone who collapses needs two thingsimmediately. A 911 call for emergency assistanceand CPR now. The breathing will not betoo helpful at all, but the sloshing of the blood will save your life and brainuntil help arrives and has a chance to restart the heart.
Most victims are excellentcandidates for shocking the heart back into action. Thus having the tools available at schoolsand similar situations is only wise. Training available personnel is even better.
At least this spells out why wedo have so many such events out there. It is not just excessive training that kills athletes with an enlargedheart.
If your family has any history ofsudden death outside the usual parameter for heart disease, it is wise to findout if you are at risk. Then live yourlife in close association with others. Alone in your apartment is not a solution.
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Kills 7 in One Family
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES |
http://gma.yahoo.com/hypertrophic-cardiomyopathy-kills-7-one-family-171138717--abc-news-health.html
So far, Lisa Salberg has lost seven family members to an insidious heart disease, a medical mystery that took four generations of tragedy to unravel.
Her great-great uncle, an Irish immigrant, mysteriously dropped dead atthe age of 19 in aNew Jersey
Salberg's grandfather had a heart murmur and died at 43. Her father missed a date with her mother because he had to administer CPR to his dying father. Salberg's aunt died at 36 of "the flu." Another aunt died of a stroke at 52. And an uncle died of heart failure at 48.
Fast forward to the mid-1970s: Salberg's sister Laurie was properly diagnosed with what looked like the cause of death of so many in her family, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), or an enlarged heart.
Her death in 1995 hit Salberg the hardest, as she struggled to raise Laurie's children along with her own newborn daughter.
"I don't know how many there are, but we are dropping like flies," said Salberg. "The pieces came in dribs and drabs, and it took years to get the information imparted. There was no connecting the dots."
Their father was diagnosed with HCM in 1989 and died in 2008.
"It affected generations of people and it's everywhere in my family," said Salberg, 44, who got her diagnosis in 1979.
Salberg's now 17-year-old daughter, as well as Laurie's children, her niece, 28, and nephew, 30, also have HCM. Several cousins also have the disease.
Cardiomyopathy isa familial disease that primarily affects the muscle of the heart. With HCM,the normal alignment of muscle cells is disrupted, a phenomenon known asmyocardial disarray. It also causes disruptions of the electrical functions of the heart and, depending on whether it obstructs the outflow of the heart from the left ventricle, can be obstructive or nonobstructive.
HCM is an autosomal dominant genetic condition, which means themutation only needs to be passed down from one parent. Becausecardiomyopathy is a spectrum of diseases, each person is affected differently.
The disease is "actually pretty common," affecting about 1 in500 Americans, said Dr. Sripal Bangalore, assistant professor in cardiology atNYU Langone Medical Center in New York City
"A lot of people walking around lead a normal life into their 70sand 80s with no problems," he said. "At the other spectrum, youngathletes die while playing sports."
Often there are no symptoms, so the disease is diagnosed byevaluating family history. Children at risk should have an echocardiogram tosee if the heart muscle is enlarged. That must be repeated every five yearsuntil adulthood and is not always conclusive. Many doctors do not recommendgenetic testing because of its complexity – there are more than 1,000 genesassociated with cardiomyopathy.
Treatments may include medications like statins, beta blockers andcalcium channel blockers; surgery to burn away the thick part of the heartmuscle; and implanted defibrillator devices.
HCM is best known as the disease that strikes young athletes intheir prime. It gained attention in 1990 with the death of 23-year-old Hank Gathers,a basketball star atLoyola Marymount University in Los Angeles
According to a 2003 review published in the New England Journal ofMedicine, HCMis the leading cause of sudden death among athletes, accounting for roughlya quarter of deaths.
But it more commonly causes sudden death off the athletic field, according to Salberg, who founded the New Jersey-based Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association (HCMA) to raise awareness of HCM and provide support to those with the condition. For 17 years, Salberg has connected families with leading researchers at academic hospitals and medical centers nationwide.
In theUnited States
Most die in schools, work places and at home, far from hospitals with lifesaving equipment. Salberg has spearheaded successful legislation inNew Jersey
Salberg and NYU's Bangalore don't recommend universal testing of athletes, although those diagnosed with HCM should avoid vigorous activities.Bangalore
Heart Condition Diagnosed in Junior High School
Salberg first knew she had a heart condition in the seventh grade when she lined up to be routinely evaluated for her hearing and scoliosis.
"I get up to the front and a [doctor] sitting on a stool stops andlooks up at me with horror on his face," she said. "He told the nurseto clear the room, and all the girls stood back. He had me squat and stand andsays, 'Listen to this.' Immediately the nurse told me to sit down and call mymother."
The doctor had detected an abnormal heartmurmur. In only 25 percent of all cases of HCM such a murmur will bepresent.
Soon, a cardiologist diagnosed her with the same disease as her brother and sister. He didn't give her much hope, telling Salberg, "I could die any moment -- though I looked fine."
At the time, "there was nothing out there to save me," shesaid. "I wasn't given any treatment."
Salberg ignored symptoms such as chest pain and dizziness.
"On at least two occasions I nearly passed out," she said."And I didn't mention it to anyone at the time, because it wasn't asimportant as going on Saturday afternoons to the roller rink.... I have no ideahow I was lucky enough to survive."
At the age of 21, she had a "full-blown stroke," and todayhas residual paralysis." Soon, her sister's health also declined withincreasing arrhythmias.
"[Laurie] spiraled out of control and we were told she was in heart failure," said Salberg, who at the time was eight months pregnant with her daughter. "I promised to take care of her two kids."
"Standing next to Laurie's bed, watching her struggle for breath, I wondered if the baby I was carrying was also affected," said Salberg. "I thought, 'I can't die now -- I am too busy to die.'"
After suffering heart failure herself after the birth of her son, Salberg began to search the Internet, "looking for answers."
In 1996, she founded the HCMA. Since then, Salberg has worked with more than 5,000 families, "from birth to 95," and in 45 countries.
"We've saved thousands of lives helping people get identified andare now working on legislative approaches."
The association offers a tool to determine who in the family might haveHCM and how to assess for risk of sudden cardiac arrest.
"Our knowledge changes day by day, and you have to maintain follow-up and be educated," Salberg said. "The patient needs to know the risks over time."
Today, Salberg, her daughter and her nephew all wear an implantablecardioverter defibrillator (ICD) that can shock a failing heart backto life. They are also on medication.
Salberg testified for a 2007 task force report in which three of the nine recommendations were turned into legislation called "Janet'sLaw," which was signed into law in September. It requires thateveryNew Jersey
The new law was named for Janet Zilinski, an 11 year-old who collapsed and died of sudden cardiac arrest in 2006.
Salberg is still pushing for drills to educate students and school responders. "We are not prepared for cardiac arrest when it happens," she said. "It's the most common way to die, and we don't drill for it. ...We have fire drills and armed invader drills. You are far more likely to have a child die in a school from sudden cardiac arrest than from a bullet or fire."
Salberg recommends that insurance pay for routine pre-certification physicals for athletes that are typically done today in schools, but not for universal testing specifically for HCM. She agrees with the medical experts.
"There is a lot of talk about athletes and sudden death and it's acomplete and utter myth to go down that path," she said. "Eightypercent of the kids we lose under 24 are non-athletes. It's no panacea and evenif you screen all high school students, there are false positives and falsenegatives.
"You are taking the resources away from those who need it, givingit to those who don't."
Let us make it simple. Anyone who collapses needs two thingsimmediately. A 911 call for emergency assistanceand CPR now. The breathing will not betoo helpful at all, but the sloshing of the blood will save your life and brainuntil help arrives and has a chance to restart the heart.
Most victims are excellentcandidates for shocking the heart back into action. Thus having the tools available at schoolsand similar situations is only wise. Training available personnel is even better.
At least this spells out why wedo have so many such events out there. It is not just excessive training that kills athletes with an enlargedheart.
If your family has any history ofsudden death outside the usual parameter for heart disease, it is wise to findout if you are at risk. Then live yourlife in close association with others. Alone in your apartment is not a solution.
Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Kills 7 in One Family
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES |
http://gma.yahoo.com/hypertrophic-cardiomyopathy-kills-7-one-family-171138717--abc-news-health.html
So far, Lisa Salberg has lost seven family members to an insidious heart disease, a medical mystery that took four generations of tragedy to unravel.
Her great-great uncle, an Irish immigrant, mysteriously dropped dead atthe age of 19 in a
Salberg's grandfather had a heart murmur and died at 43. Her father missed a date with her mother because he had to administer CPR to his dying father. Salberg's aunt died at 36 of "the flu." Another aunt died of a stroke at 52. And an uncle died of heart failure at 48.
Fast forward to the mid-1970s: Salberg's sister Laurie was properly diagnosed with what looked like the cause of death of so many in her family, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), or an enlarged heart.
Her death in 1995 hit Salberg the hardest, as she struggled to raise Laurie's children along with her own newborn daughter.
"I don't know how many there are, but we are dropping like flies," said Salberg. "The pieces came in dribs and drabs, and it took years to get the information imparted. There was no connecting the dots."
Their father was diagnosed with HCM in 1989 and died in 2008.
"It affected generations of people and it's everywhere in my family," said Salberg, 44, who got her diagnosis in 1979.
Salberg's now 17-year-old daughter, as well as Laurie's children, her niece, 28, and nephew, 30, also have HCM. Several cousins also have the disease.
Cardiomyopathy isa familial disease that primarily affects the muscle of the heart. With HCM,the normal alignment of muscle cells is disrupted, a phenomenon known asmyocardial disarray. It also causes disruptions of the electrical functions of the heart and, depending on whether it obstructs the outflow of the heart from the left ventricle, can be obstructive or nonobstructive.
HCM is an autosomal dominant genetic condition, which means themutation only needs to be passed down from one parent. Becausecardiomyopathy is a spectrum of diseases, each person is affected differently.
The disease is "actually pretty common," affecting about 1 in500 Americans, said Dr. Sripal Bangalore, assistant professor in cardiology at
"A lot of people walking around lead a normal life into their 70sand 80s with no problems," he said. "At the other spectrum, youngathletes die while playing sports."
Often there are no symptoms, so the disease is diagnosed byevaluating family history. Children at risk should have an echocardiogram tosee if the heart muscle is enlarged. That must be repeated every five yearsuntil adulthood and is not always conclusive. Many doctors do not recommendgenetic testing because of its complexity – there are more than 1,000 genesassociated with cardiomyopathy.
Treatments may include medications like statins, beta blockers andcalcium channel blockers; surgery to burn away the thick part of the heartmuscle; and implanted defibrillator devices.
HCM is best known as the disease that strikes young athletes intheir prime. It gained attention in 1990 with the death of 23-year-old Hank Gathers,a basketball star at
According to a 2003 review published in the New England Journal ofMedicine, HCMis the leading cause of sudden death among athletes, accounting for roughlya quarter of deaths.
But it more commonly causes sudden death off the athletic field, according to Salberg, who founded the New Jersey-based Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Association (HCMA) to raise awareness of HCM and provide support to those with the condition. For 17 years, Salberg has connected families with leading researchers at academic hospitals and medical centers nationwide.
In the
Most die in schools, work places and at home, far from hospitals with lifesaving equipment. Salberg has spearheaded successful legislation in
Salberg and NYU's Bangalore don't recommend universal testing of athletes, although those diagnosed with HCM should avoid vigorous activities.
Heart Condition Diagnosed in Junior High School
Salberg first knew she had a heart condition in the seventh grade when she lined up to be routinely evaluated for her hearing and scoliosis.
"I get up to the front and a [doctor] sitting on a stool stops andlooks up at me with horror on his face," she said. "He told the nurseto clear the room, and all the girls stood back. He had me squat and stand andsays, 'Listen to this.' Immediately the nurse told me to sit down and call mymother."
The doctor had detected an abnormal heartmurmur. In only 25 percent of all cases of HCM such a murmur will bepresent.
Soon, a cardiologist diagnosed her with the same disease as her brother and sister. He didn't give her much hope, telling Salberg, "I could die any moment -- though I looked fine."
At the time, "there was nothing out there to save me," shesaid. "I wasn't given any treatment."
Salberg ignored symptoms such as chest pain and dizziness.
"On at least two occasions I nearly passed out," she said."And I didn't mention it to anyone at the time, because it wasn't asimportant as going on Saturday afternoons to the roller rink.... I have no ideahow I was lucky enough to survive."
At the age of 21, she had a "full-blown stroke," and todayhas residual paralysis." Soon, her sister's health also declined withincreasing arrhythmias.
"[Laurie] spiraled out of control and we were told she was in heart failure," said Salberg, who at the time was eight months pregnant with her daughter. "I promised to take care of her two kids."
"Standing next to Laurie's bed, watching her struggle for breath, I wondered if the baby I was carrying was also affected," said Salberg. "I thought, 'I can't die now -- I am too busy to die.'"
After suffering heart failure herself after the birth of her son, Salberg began to search the Internet, "looking for answers."
In 1996, she founded the HCMA. Since then, Salberg has worked with more than 5,000 families, "from birth to 95," and in 45 countries.
"We've saved thousands of lives helping people get identified andare now working on legislative approaches."
The association offers a tool to determine who in the family might haveHCM and how to assess for risk of sudden cardiac arrest.
"Our knowledge changes day by day, and you have to maintain follow-up and be educated," Salberg said. "The patient needs to know the risks over time."
Today, Salberg, her daughter and her nephew all wear an implantablecardioverter defibrillator (ICD) that can shock a failing heart backto life. They are also on medication.
Salberg testified for a 2007 task force report in which three of the nine recommendations were turned into legislation called "Janet'sLaw," which was signed into law in September. It requires thatevery
The new law was named for Janet Zilinski, an 11 year-old who collapsed and died of sudden cardiac arrest in 2006.
Salberg is still pushing for drills to educate students and school responders. "We are not prepared for cardiac arrest when it happens," she said. "It's the most common way to die, and we don't drill for it. ...We have fire drills and armed invader drills. You are far more likely to have a child die in a school from sudden cardiac arrest than from a bullet or fire."
Salberg recommends that insurance pay for routine pre-certification physicals for athletes that are typically done today in schools, but not for universal testing specifically for HCM. She agrees with the medical experts.
"There is a lot of talk about athletes and sudden death and it's acomplete and utter myth to go down that path," she said. "Eightypercent of the kids we lose under 24 are non-athletes. It's no panacea and evenif you screen all high school students, there are false positives and falsenegatives.
"You are taking the resources away from those who need it, givingit to those who don't."
Poverty Point Earthen Mound Built In One Season
To contact us Click HERE
What this means it that the main structure was built in one season byan extended community of at least ten thousand. It also clarifies animportant issue. This was an excellent method by which a communitycould demonstrate its power and size while easy to build andmaintain. Other communities would have followed suit as we know fromthe archeological record.
At the same time, poverty Point was the Atlantean factory town thatreceived raw copper from Aztalan by the Mississippi access to LakesMichigan and Superior. Here the copper was smelted and formed intoingots for shipping to Bimini in preparation for its journey to theEuropean market by way of Lewis in Scotland. The massive hearths aresituated here.
Once you understand that a corn based town culture existed alongsidea general hunter gatherer culture, the archeology makes sense. Thiscorn based society was laid out in small plots and likely within aprotective cordon. Any other plan would have simply been overrun bypredation from those local hunters.
The same held true in Eurasia with the mobility afforded by horsedrawn wagons changing the equation and allowing an extended layoutnot easy in the Americas.
Archaic NativeAmericans built massive Louisiana mound in less than 90 days
by Gerry Everding
St. Louis MO (SPX)Feb 12, 2013
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Archaic_Native_Americans_built_massive_Louisiana_mound_in_less_than_90_days_999.html
Nominated early thisyear for recognition on the UNESCO World Heritage List, whichincludes such famous cultural sites as the Taj Mahal, Machu Picchuand Stonehenge, the earthen works at Poverty Point, La., have beendescribed as one of the world's greatest feats of construction by anarchaic civilization of hunters and gatherers.
Now, new research inthe current issue of the journal Geoarchaeology, offers compellingevidence that one of the massive earthen mounds at Poverty Pointwas constructed in less than 90 days, and perhaps as quickly as 30days - an incredible accomplishment for what was thought to be aloosely organized society consisting of small, widely scattered bandsof foragers.
"What'sextraordinary about these findings is that it provides some of thefirst evidence that early American hunter-gatherers were not assimplistic as we've tended to imagine," says study co-authorT.R. Kidder, PhD, professor and chair of anthropology in Arts andSciences at Washington University in St. Louis.
"Our findings goagainst what has long been considered the academic consensus onhunter-gather societies - that they lack the political organizationnecessary to bring together so many people to complete alabor-intensive project in such a short period."
Co-authored by AnthonyOrtmann, PhD, assistant professor of geosciences at Murray StateUniversity in Kentucky, the study offers a detailed analysis of howthe massive mound was constructed some 3,200 years ago along aMississippi River bayou in northeastern Louisiana.
Based on more than adecade of excavations, core samplings and sophisticated sedimentaryanalysis, the study's key assertion is that Mound A at Poverty Pointhad to have been built in a very short period because anexhaustive examination reveals no signs of rainfall or erosion duringits construction.
"We're talkingabout an area of northern Louisiana that now tends to receive a greatdeal of rainfall," Kidder says. "Even in a very dry year,it would seem very unlikely that this location could go more than 90days without experiencing some significant level of rainfall. Yet,the soil in these mounds shows no sign of erosion taking place duringthe construction period. There is no evidence from the region of anepic drought at this time, either."
Part of a much largercomplex of earthen works at Poverty Point, Mound A is believed to bethe final and crowning addition to the sprawling 700-acre site, whichincludes five smaller mounds and a series of six concentric C-shapedembankments that rise in parallel formation surrounding a small flatplaza along the river. At the time of construction, Poverty Point wasthe largest earthworks in North America.Built on the westernedge of the complex, Mound A covers about 538,000 square feet[roughly 50,000 square meters] at its base and rises 72 feet abovethe river. Its construction required an estimated 238,500 cubicmeters - about eight million bushel baskets - of soil to be broughtin from various locations near the site. Kidder figures it would takea modern, 10-wheel dump truck about 31,217 loads to move that muchdirt today.
"The PovertyPoint mounds were built by people who had no access to domesticateddraft animals, no wheelbarrows, no sophisticated tools for movingearth," Kidder explains. "It's likely that these moundswere built using a simple 'bucket brigade' system, with thousands ofpeople passing soil along from one to another using some form ofcrude container, such as a woven basket, a hide sack or a woodenplatter."
To complete such atask within 90 days, the study estimates it would require the fullattention of some 3,000 laborers. Assuming that each worker may havebeen accompanied by at least two other family members, say a wife anda child, the community gathered for the build must have included asmany as 9,000 people, the study suggests.
"Given that aband of 25-30 people is considered quite large for mosthunter-gatherer communities, it's truly amazing that this ancientsociety could bring together a group of nearly 10,000 people, findsome way to feed them and get this mound built in a matter ofmonths," Kidder says.
Soil testing indicatesthat the mound is located on top of land that was once low-lyingswamp or marsh land - evidence of ancient tree roots and swamp lifestill exists in undisturbed soils at the base of the mound. Testsconfirm that the site was first cleared for construction by burningand quickly covered with a layer of fine silt soil. A mix of otherheavier soils then were brought in and dumped in small adjacentpiles, gradually building the mound layer upon layer.
As Kidder notes,previous theories about the construction of most of the world'sancient earthen mounds have suggested that they were laid down slowlyover a period of hundreds of years involving small contributions ofmaterial from many different people spanning generations of asociety. While this may be the case for other earthen structures atPoverty Point, the evidence from Mound A offers a sharp departurefrom this accretional theory. Kidder's home base in St.
Louis is just acrossthe Mississippi River from one of America's best known ancientearthen structures, the Monk Mound at Cahokia, Ill. He notes that theMonk Mound was built many centuries later than the mounds at PovertyPoint by a civilization that was much more reliant on agriculture, afar cry from the hunter-gatherer group that built Poverty Point. Evenso, Mound A at Poverty Point is much larger than almost any othermound found in North America; only Monk's Mound at Cahokia is larger.
"We've come torealize that the social fabric of these socieites must have been muchstronger and more complex that we might previously have given themcredit. These results contradict the popular notion thatpre-agricultural people were socially, politically, and economicallysimple and unable to organize themselves into large groups that couldbuild elaborate architecture or engage in so-called complex socialbehavior," Kidder says.
"The prevailingmodel of hunter-gatherers living a life 'nasty, brutish and short' iscontradicted and our work indicates these people were practicing asophisticated ritual/religious life that involved building thesemonumental mounds."
What this means it that the main structure was built in one season byan extended community of at least ten thousand. It also clarifies animportant issue. This was an excellent method by which a communitycould demonstrate its power and size while easy to build andmaintain. Other communities would have followed suit as we know fromthe archeological record.
At the same time, poverty Point was the Atlantean factory town thatreceived raw copper from Aztalan by the Mississippi access to LakesMichigan and Superior. Here the copper was smelted and formed intoingots for shipping to Bimini in preparation for its journey to theEuropean market by way of Lewis in Scotland. The massive hearths aresituated here.
Once you understand that a corn based town culture existed alongsidea general hunter gatherer culture, the archeology makes sense. Thiscorn based society was laid out in small plots and likely within aprotective cordon. Any other plan would have simply been overrun bypredation from those local hunters.
The same held true in Eurasia with the mobility afforded by horsedrawn wagons changing the equation and allowing an extended layoutnot easy in the Americas.
Archaic NativeAmericans built massive Louisiana mound in less than 90 days
by Gerry Everding
St. Louis MO (SPX)Feb 12, 2013
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Archaic_Native_Americans_built_massive_Louisiana_mound_in_less_than_90_days_999.html
Nominated early thisyear for recognition on the UNESCO World Heritage List, whichincludes such famous cultural sites as the Taj Mahal, Machu Picchuand Stonehenge, the earthen works at Poverty Point, La., have beendescribed as one of the world's greatest feats of construction by anarchaic civilization of hunters and gatherers.
Now, new research inthe current issue of the journal Geoarchaeology, offers compellingevidence that one of the massive earthen mounds at Poverty Pointwas constructed in less than 90 days, and perhaps as quickly as 30days - an incredible accomplishment for what was thought to be aloosely organized society consisting of small, widely scattered bandsof foragers.
"What'sextraordinary about these findings is that it provides some of thefirst evidence that early American hunter-gatherers were not assimplistic as we've tended to imagine," says study co-authorT.R. Kidder, PhD, professor and chair of anthropology in Arts andSciences at Washington University in St. Louis.
"Our findings goagainst what has long been considered the academic consensus onhunter-gather societies - that they lack the political organizationnecessary to bring together so many people to complete alabor-intensive project in such a short period."
Co-authored by AnthonyOrtmann, PhD, assistant professor of geosciences at Murray StateUniversity in Kentucky, the study offers a detailed analysis of howthe massive mound was constructed some 3,200 years ago along aMississippi River bayou in northeastern Louisiana.
Based on more than adecade of excavations, core samplings and sophisticated sedimentaryanalysis, the study's key assertion is that Mound A at Poverty Pointhad to have been built in a very short period because anexhaustive examination reveals no signs of rainfall or erosion duringits construction.
"We're talkingabout an area of northern Louisiana that now tends to receive a greatdeal of rainfall," Kidder says. "Even in a very dry year,it would seem very unlikely that this location could go more than 90days without experiencing some significant level of rainfall. Yet,the soil in these mounds shows no sign of erosion taking place duringthe construction period. There is no evidence from the region of anepic drought at this time, either."
Part of a much largercomplex of earthen works at Poverty Point, Mound A is believed to bethe final and crowning addition to the sprawling 700-acre site, whichincludes five smaller mounds and a series of six concentric C-shapedembankments that rise in parallel formation surrounding a small flatplaza along the river. At the time of construction, Poverty Point wasthe largest earthworks in North America.Built on the westernedge of the complex, Mound A covers about 538,000 square feet[roughly 50,000 square meters] at its base and rises 72 feet abovethe river. Its construction required an estimated 238,500 cubicmeters - about eight million bushel baskets - of soil to be broughtin from various locations near the site. Kidder figures it would takea modern, 10-wheel dump truck about 31,217 loads to move that muchdirt today.
"The PovertyPoint mounds were built by people who had no access to domesticateddraft animals, no wheelbarrows, no sophisticated tools for movingearth," Kidder explains. "It's likely that these moundswere built using a simple 'bucket brigade' system, with thousands ofpeople passing soil along from one to another using some form ofcrude container, such as a woven basket, a hide sack or a woodenplatter."
To complete such atask within 90 days, the study estimates it would require the fullattention of some 3,000 laborers. Assuming that each worker may havebeen accompanied by at least two other family members, say a wife anda child, the community gathered for the build must have included asmany as 9,000 people, the study suggests.
"Given that aband of 25-30 people is considered quite large for mosthunter-gatherer communities, it's truly amazing that this ancientsociety could bring together a group of nearly 10,000 people, findsome way to feed them and get this mound built in a matter ofmonths," Kidder says.
Soil testing indicatesthat the mound is located on top of land that was once low-lyingswamp or marsh land - evidence of ancient tree roots and swamp lifestill exists in undisturbed soils at the base of the mound. Testsconfirm that the site was first cleared for construction by burningand quickly covered with a layer of fine silt soil. A mix of otherheavier soils then were brought in and dumped in small adjacentpiles, gradually building the mound layer upon layer.
As Kidder notes,previous theories about the construction of most of the world'sancient earthen mounds have suggested that they were laid down slowlyover a period of hundreds of years involving small contributions ofmaterial from many different people spanning generations of asociety. While this may be the case for other earthen structures atPoverty Point, the evidence from Mound A offers a sharp departurefrom this accretional theory. Kidder's home base in St.
Louis is just acrossthe Mississippi River from one of America's best known ancientearthen structures, the Monk Mound at Cahokia, Ill. He notes that theMonk Mound was built many centuries later than the mounds at PovertyPoint by a civilization that was much more reliant on agriculture, afar cry from the hunter-gatherer group that built Poverty Point. Evenso, Mound A at Poverty Point is much larger than almost any othermound found in North America; only Monk's Mound at Cahokia is larger.
"We've come torealize that the social fabric of these socieites must have been muchstronger and more complex that we might previously have given themcredit. These results contradict the popular notion thatpre-agricultural people were socially, politically, and economicallysimple and unable to organize themselves into large groups that couldbuild elaborate architecture or engage in so-called complex socialbehavior," Kidder says.
"The prevailingmodel of hunter-gatherers living a life 'nasty, brutish and short' iscontradicted and our work indicates these people were practicing asophisticated ritual/religious life that involved building thesemonumental mounds."
Health Care Privatization in Spain
To contact us Click HERE
Once again the rational behind this escapes me except to assign itall to stupid people who have misplaced authority over others. Thehealth care service can become more efficient and it can becomebetter. What it cannot do is become cheaper except by kicking costsback to consumers and that merely negates the whole premise. It itwants to be come a profit making business, then it must cherry pickand overcharge those who can pay. The ethics of this formula are notworth discussing.
If the only service provided by the insurance industry is cashmanagement, then why are they there? Any coop can do betterwithout executive expectations as to salaries. Perhaps the churchesshould do it. They at least are part of the community.
The whole purpose of universal medical insurance is to sharemandatory costs as they come up. The bigger the pool the better thecapacity to go a little further in solving rare problems. That isall that size provides.
Banksters Rip ApartSpanish Health Care
18 February 2013 13:54
By Thom Hartmann
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14635-banksters-rip-apart-spanish-health-care
According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development's latest healthcare rankings of the 34 most developed nations in the world, theUnited States ranks dead last in male life expectancy.
We also rank near thevery bottom in preventing premature death, infant mortality, totalhealth care coverage, number of practicing doctors, and preventingheart disease deaths.
But, here's some goodnews (at least for those fans of Americanized health care): our worldrankings might soon improve.Not because we'reradically changing our privatized system that puts profits ahead ofpeople's lives. But because banksters in Europe are forcing severalnations that rank ahead of us to ditch their national public healthcare systems, and replace them with more privatized (and profitable)American-style health care systems.
And, despite whatconservatives say about how the American health care system is theenvy of the rest of the world, those Europeans who are watchingbanksters re-make their public health care systems are outraged.
On Sunday, protestsswept across Spain, with thousands of doctors, nurses, and healthprofessionals demonstrating against new conservative austeritymeasures that will privatize more than 40 public hospitals and carecenters.
Spain, like Greece, isindebted to the very foreign banksters who crashed their economy. Andrather than telling those foreign banksters to take a hike likeIceland did, Spain's austerity-happy government is paying off thebanksters by taking money from working people through cutting socialsservices like health care.
Spain's Prime MinisterMariano Rajoy argues the health care reforms will save his nationmore than $9 billion this year, which can then be given to thebanksters.
But, as one protestingnurse, Emilia Becares, told France 24 News, "There is nostudy that shows that privatising the management of hospitals leadsto lower costs. This privatisation hurts patients' health care tobenefit other interests."
Those "otherinterests" are, of course, the banksters and the for-profithealthcare hustlers.
The United Statesproves Emilia right. Privatization here has produced the highesthealth care costs of anywhere else in the developed world; the UnitedStates spends far more money on health care than any other OECDnation. And, although the banksters and the health care hustlers aremaking a fortune, average working people are dying at rates thatshock the rest of the world: we rank near the bottom in health careoutcomes.[ just when arepeople going to come to their senses? arclein]
So while conservativetechnocrats in charge of Spain are willing to use health careprivatization to solve their short-term deficit woes, doing so willonly make them worse over the long term.
Soon, Spanishhospitals, run for a profit, will decide if prescribing certaintreatments and medical tests will boost or cut their quarterly profitgoals. Spanish citizens, who used to have a right to health care,will now have to haggle with privatized corporate death panels thatare more focused crunching numbers than saving lives.
As prices go up,preventative care will decline. There will be fewer visits todoctors. And the overall health of the population will plummet withthe moneychangers in charge.
This means that overthe long term the cost of healthcare to Spain will go up.
This is what Greece isnow dealing with, since their public health care system was rippedapart by the banksters in 2011. Prior to the crisis, Greeks enjoyedcomplete universal health care. But when the banksters shook down theentire nation, they targeted the health care system, and toldunemployed Greeks that they now have to pay for healthcare out ofpocket. And if they don't have the money, then...well...too bad.
Greek doctor, KostasSyrigos, told the New York Times about a woman with a tumor thesize of an orange that had broken through her skin because shecouldn't afford to see a doctor after the austerity cuts to healthcare.
Dr. Syrigos said,"Things like that are described in textbooks, but you never seethem because until now; anybody who got sick in this country couldalways get help...In Greece right now, to be unemployed means death."
Sick and unemployedAmericans face the same fate. According to a 2009 Harvard study,45,000 Americans die every year because they don't have healthinsurance. And half of all bankruptcies in America are due to medicalbills.
Most of the publichealth care systems across Europe were created after World War II, asthe people understood that they needed to rebuild together, andshould at the very least be providing free health care to each other,too.
But, the UnitedStates, triumphant after World War II, never learned this lesson.Instead, we handed the care of our citizens off to corporations andbillionaires, and are today paying dearly for it with budget-bustinghealth care costs, sick populations, and far too many prematuredeaths. But our healthcare banksters, like the CEOs of UnitedHealthcare, are literally billionaires.
And those models forhealth care reform across the Atlantic are now disappearingone-by-one – the latest victims of conservatives and their banksterausterity programs. But at least in places like Greece and Spain, thepeople are putting up a fight against these profiteers. And it's afight that's long overdue in America.
We should all askourselves why is it that thousands are taking to the streets todefend their public health care systems in Europe, but not once hasthere been a legitimate rally in America to defend our privatizedhealth care system that kills tens of thousands of American everysingle year. Deep down inside, we know we're getting ripped off. Justlike the Greeks and the Spaniards know they're getting ripped off.
Let's hope that thedecision banksters made to target universal health care rights inEurope will inspire a new struggle in the United States that affirmswe are indeed our brothers' and our sisters' keepers.
Once again the rational behind this escapes me except to assign itall to stupid people who have misplaced authority over others. Thehealth care service can become more efficient and it can becomebetter. What it cannot do is become cheaper except by kicking costsback to consumers and that merely negates the whole premise. It itwants to be come a profit making business, then it must cherry pickand overcharge those who can pay. The ethics of this formula are notworth discussing.
If the only service provided by the insurance industry is cashmanagement, then why are they there? Any coop can do betterwithout executive expectations as to salaries. Perhaps the churchesshould do it. They at least are part of the community.
The whole purpose of universal medical insurance is to sharemandatory costs as they come up. The bigger the pool the better thecapacity to go a little further in solving rare problems. That isall that size provides.
Banksters Rip ApartSpanish Health Care
18 February 2013 13:54
By Thom Hartmann
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/14635-banksters-rip-apart-spanish-health-care
According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development's latest healthcare rankings of the 34 most developed nations in the world, theUnited States ranks dead last in male life expectancy.
We also rank near thevery bottom in preventing premature death, infant mortality, totalhealth care coverage, number of practicing doctors, and preventingheart disease deaths.
But, here's some goodnews (at least for those fans of Americanized health care): our worldrankings might soon improve.Not because we'reradically changing our privatized system that puts profits ahead ofpeople's lives. But because banksters in Europe are forcing severalnations that rank ahead of us to ditch their national public healthcare systems, and replace them with more privatized (and profitable)American-style health care systems.
And, despite whatconservatives say about how the American health care system is theenvy of the rest of the world, those Europeans who are watchingbanksters re-make their public health care systems are outraged.
On Sunday, protestsswept across Spain, with thousands of doctors, nurses, and healthprofessionals demonstrating against new conservative austeritymeasures that will privatize more than 40 public hospitals and carecenters.
Spain, like Greece, isindebted to the very foreign banksters who crashed their economy. Andrather than telling those foreign banksters to take a hike likeIceland did, Spain's austerity-happy government is paying off thebanksters by taking money from working people through cutting socialsservices like health care.
Spain's Prime MinisterMariano Rajoy argues the health care reforms will save his nationmore than $9 billion this year, which can then be given to thebanksters.
But, as one protestingnurse, Emilia Becares, told France 24 News, "There is nostudy that shows that privatising the management of hospitals leadsto lower costs. This privatisation hurts patients' health care tobenefit other interests."
Those "otherinterests" are, of course, the banksters and the for-profithealthcare hustlers.
The United Statesproves Emilia right. Privatization here has produced the highesthealth care costs of anywhere else in the developed world; the UnitedStates spends far more money on health care than any other OECDnation. And, although the banksters and the health care hustlers aremaking a fortune, average working people are dying at rates thatshock the rest of the world: we rank near the bottom in health careoutcomes.[ just when arepeople going to come to their senses? arclein]
So while conservativetechnocrats in charge of Spain are willing to use health careprivatization to solve their short-term deficit woes, doing so willonly make them worse over the long term.
Soon, Spanishhospitals, run for a profit, will decide if prescribing certaintreatments and medical tests will boost or cut their quarterly profitgoals. Spanish citizens, who used to have a right to health care,will now have to haggle with privatized corporate death panels thatare more focused crunching numbers than saving lives.
As prices go up,preventative care will decline. There will be fewer visits todoctors. And the overall health of the population will plummet withthe moneychangers in charge.
This means that overthe long term the cost of healthcare to Spain will go up.
This is what Greece isnow dealing with, since their public health care system was rippedapart by the banksters in 2011. Prior to the crisis, Greeks enjoyedcomplete universal health care. But when the banksters shook down theentire nation, they targeted the health care system, and toldunemployed Greeks that they now have to pay for healthcare out ofpocket. And if they don't have the money, then...well...too bad.
Greek doctor, KostasSyrigos, told the New York Times about a woman with a tumor thesize of an orange that had broken through her skin because shecouldn't afford to see a doctor after the austerity cuts to healthcare.
Dr. Syrigos said,"Things like that are described in textbooks, but you never seethem because until now; anybody who got sick in this country couldalways get help...In Greece right now, to be unemployed means death."
Sick and unemployedAmericans face the same fate. According to a 2009 Harvard study,45,000 Americans die every year because they don't have healthinsurance. And half of all bankruptcies in America are due to medicalbills.
Most of the publichealth care systems across Europe were created after World War II, asthe people understood that they needed to rebuild together, andshould at the very least be providing free health care to each other,too.
But, the UnitedStates, triumphant after World War II, never learned this lesson.Instead, we handed the care of our citizens off to corporations andbillionaires, and are today paying dearly for it with budget-bustinghealth care costs, sick populations, and far too many prematuredeaths. But our healthcare banksters, like the CEOs of UnitedHealthcare, are literally billionaires.
And those models forhealth care reform across the Atlantic are now disappearingone-by-one – the latest victims of conservatives and their banksterausterity programs. But at least in places like Greece and Spain, thepeople are putting up a fight against these profiteers. And it's afight that's long overdue in America.
We should all askourselves why is it that thousands are taking to the streets todefend their public health care systems in Europe, but not once hasthere been a legitimate rally in America to defend our privatizedhealth care system that kills tens of thousands of American everysingle year. Deep down inside, we know we're getting ripped off. Justlike the Greeks and the Spaniards know they're getting ripped off.
Let's hope that thedecision banksters made to target universal health care rights inEurope will inspire a new struggle in the United States that affirmswe are indeed our brothers' and our sisters' keepers.
Aging Boomer's Blog
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
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 Şubat 2013 Çarşamba
Diet Soda Increases Risk of Diabetes
To contact us Click HERE
Aspartame continues to becontraindicated but this item is the most compelling argument that I have seen. In the past I have posted that there is asolution if we must drink sweetened water.
It consists of sufficient stevia, a grain of sucrose to eliminate any stevia after taste and sufficient glucose to provide safe energy. Otherwise,slightly impure glucose will work fine with a bit of stevia.
Recall that five percent ofsweetening inJapan is Stevia and that is huge, so we are not lacking the knowhow. All the above is natural and safe and with avast pedigree.
In the real world, the sugarlobby will lose several percentage points of its market and we will lose theprimary driver underlying childhood obesity in particular. How do you want to fix this?
The first American beveragecompany that gets on this band wagon is going to decimate its rivals. This is a true new coke formula. The key though is to not be afraid to sell steviasweetened glucose as an energy drink which is why most drink the stuff.
Glucose is safe simply because itpasses directly into your bloodstream for direct energy. And anyone breaking a sweat needs an easily availablesource of energy.
Study: Diet Soda Increases the Risk of Diabetes. Why Do We Still DrinkThis Stuff?
Lylah M. Alphonse,
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/study-diet-soda-increases-risk-diabetes-why-still-192600358.html
Yet another study confirms what people have been saying for ages: Stop drinkingdiet soda. Like, right now. Drinking just one 12-ounce can of an artificiallysweetened fizzy drink per week can increase your risk of Type 2 diabetes by 33 percent, French researchers found. And given thatmost people don't stop at a single weekly serving, your real risk for diabetes couldactually be much higher.
DietSoda May Increase Risk of Depression
The study, which was announcedThursday and will be published in the American Journal of ClinicalNutrition, was conducted by France's National Institute of Health and MedicalResearch and covered 66,118 middle-aged women whose dietary habits and healthwere tracked from 1993 to 2007.
DietSoda May Be Making You Fat
The results were unexpected. Though it's well-known that people who consumea lot of sugar are more likely to develop diabetes, the researchers found thatparticipants who drank "light" or "diet" soft drinks had ahigher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes than those who drank regular,sugar-filled sodas. Those who drank 100 percent natural squeezed fruit juicesinstead had no additional risk.
Women who choose artificially flavored soft drinks usually drink twice as many of them as women who choose regular soda or juice—2.8 glasses per week compared to 1.6 glasses. "Yet when an equal quantity is consumed, the risk of contracting diabetes is higher for 'light' or 'diet' drinks than for 'non-light' or 'non-diet' drinks," the researchers, epidemiologists Francoise Clavel-Chapelon and Guy Fagherazzi, said in a statement. Women who drank up to 500 milliliters (about 12 ounces) of artificially sweetened beverages per week were 33 percent more likely to develop the disease, and women who drank about 600 milliliters (about 20 ounces) per week had a 66 percent increase in risk.
"With respect, in particular, to 'light' or 'diet' drinks, therelationship with diabetes can be explained partially by a greater craving forsugar in general by female consumers of this type of soft drink," theresearchers explained. "Furthermore, aspartame, one of the main artificialsweeteners used today, causes an increase in glycaemia and consequently arise in the insulin level in comparison to that produced by sucrose."
Translation: Drinking artificially sweetened drinks makes you craveother sweet things (hello, chocolate!). And your body reacts to aspartame—also known asNutraSweet and Equal—much in the same way that it reacts to plain old sugar.
According to the AmericanDiabetes Association, about 25.8 million children and adults in theUnited States United States
The study's authors cautioned that more research was needed in order toprove a true causal link between diet sodas and Type 2 diabetes."Information on beverage consumption was not updated during the follow-up,and dietary habits may have changed over time," they admitted in theirreport. "We cannot rule out that factors other than ASB [artificiallysweetened beverages] are responsible for the association with diabetes."
Aspartame continues to becontraindicated but this item is the most compelling argument that I have seen. In the past I have posted that there is asolution if we must drink sweetened water.
It consists of sufficient stevia, a grain of sucrose to eliminate any stevia after taste and sufficient glucose to provide safe energy. Otherwise,slightly impure glucose will work fine with a bit of stevia.
Recall that five percent ofsweetening in
In the real world, the sugarlobby will lose several percentage points of its market and we will lose theprimary driver underlying childhood obesity in particular. How do you want to fix this?
The first American beveragecompany that gets on this band wagon is going to decimate its rivals. This is a true new coke formula. The key though is to not be afraid to sell steviasweetened glucose as an energy drink which is why most drink the stuff.
Glucose is safe simply because itpasses directly into your bloodstream for direct energy. And anyone breaking a sweat needs an easily availablesource of energy.
Study: Diet Soda Increases the Risk of Diabetes. Why Do We Still DrinkThis Stuff?
Lylah M. Alphonse,
http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/study-diet-soda-increases-risk-diabetes-why-still-192600358.html
Yet another study confirms what people have been saying for ages: Stop drinkingdiet soda. Like, right now. Drinking just one 12-ounce can of an artificiallysweetened fizzy drink per week can increase your risk of Type 2 diabetes by 33 percent, French researchers found. And given thatmost people don't stop at a single weekly serving, your real risk for diabetes couldactually be much higher.
DietSoda May Increase Risk of Depression
The study, which was announcedThursday and will be published in the American Journal of ClinicalNutrition, was conducted by France's National Institute of Health and MedicalResearch and covered 66,118 middle-aged women whose dietary habits and healthwere tracked from 1993 to 2007.
DietSoda May Be Making You Fat
The results were unexpected. Though it's well-known that people who consumea lot of sugar are more likely to develop diabetes, the researchers found thatparticipants who drank "light" or "diet" soft drinks had ahigher risk of developing Type 2 diabetes than those who drank regular,sugar-filled sodas. Those who drank 100 percent natural squeezed fruit juicesinstead had no additional risk.
Women who choose artificially flavored soft drinks usually drink twice as many of them as women who choose regular soda or juice—2.8 glasses per week compared to 1.6 glasses. "Yet when an equal quantity is consumed, the risk of contracting diabetes is higher for 'light' or 'diet' drinks than for 'non-light' or 'non-diet' drinks," the researchers, epidemiologists Francoise Clavel-Chapelon and Guy Fagherazzi, said in a statement. Women who drank up to 500 milliliters (about 12 ounces) of artificially sweetened beverages per week were 33 percent more likely to develop the disease, and women who drank about 600 milliliters (about 20 ounces) per week had a 66 percent increase in risk.
"With respect, in particular, to 'light' or 'diet' drinks, therelationship with diabetes can be explained partially by a greater craving forsugar in general by female consumers of this type of soft drink," theresearchers explained. "Furthermore, aspartame, one of the main artificialsweeteners used today, causes an increase in glycaemia and consequently arise in the insulin level in comparison to that produced by sucrose."
Translation: Drinking artificially sweetened drinks makes you craveother sweet things (hello, chocolate!). And your body reacts to aspartame—also known asNutraSweet and Equal—much in the same way that it reacts to plain old sugar.
According to the AmericanDiabetes Association, about 25.8 million children and adults in the
The study's authors cautioned that more research was needed in order toprove a true causal link between diet sodas and Type 2 diabetes."Information on beverage consumption was not updated during the follow-up,and dietary habits may have changed over time," they admitted in theirreport. "We cannot rule out that factors other than ASB [artificiallysweetened beverages] are responsible for the association with diabetes."
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)