Obesity - A threat to national security...

One of the most popular posts to date for this blog has been about obesity.  That's right, about being over weight.

Now it would appear that obesity is threatening our national security.

As Pogo used to say "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Back in 1971 I entered high school.  I lived in the rural mid west at the time and high school was a 15 mile bus ride.  When I started there the graduating seniors were going to Vietnam via the draft.  Its probably hard to imagine for you kiddies reading this but this was real serious business in those days.

The commies where threatening our security - our freedom and way of life.

Now its our own laziness.

I recall sitting in study hall and lunch with seniors my first year of high school.  Though not much explicitly was said the potential trip to southeast Asia was always the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

In those days you were a man at 18.  A lot of guys lived on their own and went to high school where I lived.  I rode on the bus each day with girls who would get married when the graduated.  Some left early, which you could do in those days, to get married at 16.  They raised families.  They were grown up.

Families were large in those days, too.  You'd sit in church and see a family take up the entire pew - mom, dad, 8-10 brothers and sisters - usually from 18 or 19 down to infants in arms.

Mom worked in those days - at home.  Cleaning, feeding kids, canning, you name it.  She had no time for your kiddie bullshit either.  My buddy - see below - had married brothers - she was probably about 7 years old at the time.  Mom worked the garden and farm with dad.  My buddy was lucky - some of our peers sat in the truck all day while dad ran the plow because mom was too busy to watch them working around the house.

But back to obesity...

In those days no one to speak of was overweight.  I think there were many reasons for this.

One was that you didn't eat the crap you do now: sugary soda, candy bars, fatty chips of all sorts.  And you didn't eat it all day long either.  One of my pals in those early days (probably the mid 1960's) lived on a farm.  It was a two mile trip to her house on my bicycle so I didn't get there much.  I was a weenie.  She road over on her bike.

She used to come over with other kids after school - but she always left on time.  One day I asked why.  She said "If I'm home late I don't get dinner - its all gone."  I was astounded.  "What do you mean", I asked.  She said when dinner goes on the table its in big bowls.  If you're not there to grab a helping you don't get any.  Needless to say she always left on time.

There was no eating extra food in my house for the most part either.  Maybe you could have an afternoon snack after school but in general you ate only at meal times.

If I wanted soda or a candy bar it had to buy it myself - as part of my $1 allowance per week.  In those days a soda machine charged $.10 USD for soda and the same for a candy bar.  These machines weren't ubiquitous like they are now.

If I wanted a snack before dinner I got celery.

Another reason is that you didn't just sit around as a kid.

My other buddy lived about a mile away on another farm.  I used to ride my bike down there after school and work for his dad - I was probably 7 or 8.  We plowed fields, put corn in the corn crib, milked cows, whatever his dad needed us to do.  I got paid in change.  This guy could drive the tractor over to my house on the road - I was impressed - he was my age.

If I wasn't doing that we were busy outside basically year round - playing baseball or kick the can or ice skating.  (In those days it was your fault if the ice broke an you fell through.)

We were also taught that what you see advertised on TV was probably bad for you - especially junk food.  Today advertising has been lifted to fine art - but not then.  It was something to be suspicious of.  Why, if the product was sooo gooood did they need to push it on TV?  We were taught it was a commie conspiracy to take over the country. (Most of our dads had been in wars or the military.  WW II hung like a pal over us - Nazi's in particular.)

This wasn't just "out on the farm" either - my cousin lived "in town" - same deal as me - more to do, more trouble to get into, but you didn't sit around the house all day eating and doing nothing.

The only comparison I have to this experience is my own grandchildren.  They are now in the age range I am reminiscing about.  There lives are much different.

They don't go outside off of the property alone because its dangerous.  So no running, no bike riding, none of that.

They are glued to the television.  (Yes I know this is cliche but its still true.)  They come over and often as not there they sit with movies playing over and over.  The kids immobile.

They always need to have food while all this goes on.  Snacks and goodies - all sugar and fat.

This is not new and has been going on since I was probably in high school.  Kids I new that had younger brothers and sisters exhibited this same behavior - probably starting in the late 1960's.

My guess is that this more or less parallels the introduction of "color TV" and working mom.  With no one there to watch over things things went down the tubes.

Well, from where I set today I think the commies succeeded - just like we were told.

Our national security trashed by us and our own very own laziness - all for a tube Pringle's and can of Coke.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Antibiotics - A Scourge on Humanity

Antibiotics kill bacteria - right?  Everyone knows this.

Well, did you know that each of us has thousands of species of bacteria on and in our body - that's species - most not know until recently by their only by their DNA, if at all.  There are on the order of 10^14 (ten with fourteen zeros after it) bacteria in our bodies - yet our bodies are made up of only about 10^13 cells.

Some bacteria are so specialized that they can only live on our elbows.

But the bigger picture seems to be that we are not just human, but in fact human-bacteria hybrids.   What I mean by this is that, as humans, without bacteria in and on our bodies would could not live.  That's right - apply enough bleach and Lysol and you will die - not because these are potential poisons, but because they will kill off the bacteria in your body you need to live.

And what do antibiotics do to these bacteria - they kill them.

(That's right.  Think about it.  Penicillin doesn't have a little dictionary of healthy human bacteria it carries around to check if the bacteria that's about to die is necessary for your life.  It just kills all bacteria regardless.)

So let's think about this.  When little Johnny runs in the house with his nose running mommy wisks him off to the doctor to get a prescription of penicillin.  After all, little Johnny is sick, right?  (Never mind the cold is caused by a virus - which antibiotics don't affect.)  Perhaps so, but that prescription of penicillin may do a lot more harm to little Johnny than good.

In fact, a whole generation of children have been raised to adulthood this way.  In fact, not just humans, but most food animals as well.

Their gut or skin flora killed off by well meaning idiots without a clue as to the consequences. And there are many insidious digestive and other problems that people and vets do not associate with antibiotics that science is just beginning to recognize

I believe that there is a lot of evidence now (and more so to come as modern medicine and business wakes up from its "What Happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas" mentality about antibiotics) that will show that we have inflicted huge and unnecessary pain and suffering across the face of the planet.  (I can see the lawyers rubbing their hands together with excitement - this is way bigger than the Mesothelioma shake down - hell, everyone in the modern world has used antibiotics.)

Dr. John Pitt, on Penicillum in 1979 stated (from):

"It is very ironic that this humbled fungus, hailed as a benefactor of mankind, may by its very success prove to be a deciding factor in the decline of the present civilization". 

Simply stated, antibiotics are dangerous mycotoxins, fungal metabolites, that kill bacteria, even the good bacteria that is present in our intestines and essential for good health. This upsets the delicate balance of the yeast to bacteria ratio in your digestive system, giving the yeast fungi the upper hand in creating a yeast infection. Without the good bacteria in your system to control yeast, it spreads and becomes a toxic fungal parasite known as candida.

Penicillin is a good example of a fungal by-product called a mycotoxin. It was discovered from a mold (mold is a fungus) experiment that Dr. Fleming was performing on a bacteria colony. He added some mold from bread to the colony and observed that the fungus killed all the bacteria; producing the substance he later named penicillin.

The number one cause of yeast infection was born in 1928 and is so over-prescribed today that yeast infection is a growing epidemic.

Before you reach for those handy antibiotics do a little research.

Do I really need antibiotics?

What will the antibiotics do to me?

Trojan Whores - A new twist on an old tail.

Over on Lone Wolf...  Sort of works on both blogs.

Sexual Devolution...

So I was down at the local U the other day working on some math stuff (and no, its not maths or university, its mathematics and the (or "a") university, unless you don't know how to spell).  It was a beautiful day - sun shining, temperature was around 65-70, light wind, fall colors - just stunning.

Now, in the olden days when I was at another U this always brought out the love birds - happy couples necking, holding hands walking to their classes, laying the sun or under a shade tree, that sort of thing.

So I arrived a few minutes early for my appointment so I had time to walk around and get something to eat.  As I was walking back to my meeting it struck me - there was not a single "couple" to be seen.  Not one.  Not anywhere.

On the drive back I had some time to reflect on this - how odd - beautiful weather always puts "love in the air" - or so I thought.

Apparently, a lot has changed in the intervening decades since I was in school...

For one thing, it looks like feminism has given the "male on the prowl" his dream as scientifically documented here. Some related posts here and here.

Full PDF here.

No strings attached love (as in "free" of obligation of any kind) (called NSAL) - well this is a new development - at least since the wild and free 1970's.

Or is it...

A quick read of the article reveals that while there is plenty of NSAL in the air on your local U campus, but "free", as is usually the case, turns out to be not so "free" after all.

(In case you are wondering, those that had sex, starting say around 17, without any casual intentions or with the "intent of a lasting relationship" do not suffer what I will describe below.  This is science - created at the same institutions which I describe - I am not making this up and no, its not fanatical right-wing religious Nazism.)

So the idea is that we can separate love and sex, and, having divided things up, freely go about one without the other.  Seems like a good idea, right?  Well, as the research documents, no, its not.

The first thing you see is that while the great "feminine mistake", er, mystique, didn't get the memo out to either gender about the "falling in love" part - as in how to not do it.  So, yes, we (as in "we the collective of kiddies" - not me personally) can all have free sex but, low and behold, and according to scientific research, secret expectations of love and relationships muck up the fun after the fact.  Usually this happens with depression - though there are other negative consequences as well.  One of them, in fact, is having more casual sex.

So, let me get this straight.  Casual sex (particularly in women according to the study) causes depression.   Depression causes more casual sex (as documented here) which in turn causes even more depression...  This would not appear to be a positive thing for those involved - or am I wrong?

As we all know in these modern times the big "D" depression = prescriptions happy pills.  So, following the maths as it were, we get casual sex = depression = happy pill prescriptions.

So, let's look at this.  (Try Googling "antidepressants sex").

Looks to me that happy pill perscriptions = unhappy/no sex.

This leaves us with our final equation: "casual sex = depression = happy pill presriptions = no sex/unhappy sex".

So what have we done to ourselves (me personally excluded as I have been with the same wife for going on 35 years) and our children?

(And no, I don't think women should be back in the kitchen without a vote or equal pay.  My wife thinks that feminism has robbed her of much (see, science backs you up) - particularly as it relates to our daughters - but, as they say, that's for another time.)

To my original comment on the "U".  Today's kids have been over-exposed.  They've lost the magic, as it were.  No need to hold hands or fall in love when a simple text "booty call" will reel in a casual partner.

Is this fair to them?  After all our generation created feminism in the first place.

Sadly it looks like this is robbing our sons and daughters of happy, fulfilled relationships and sex lives.

Robo-signing...

From forbes.com regarding the mortgage "robo-signing" scandal:

"In a joint statement, the officials said they would review evidence that legal documents were signed by mortgage company employees who "did not have personal knowledge of the facts asserted in the documents. They also said that many of those documents appear to have been signed without a notary public witnessing that signature - a violation of most state laws."

"What we have seen are not mere technicalities," said Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray. "This is about the private property rights of homeowners facing foreclosure and the integrity of our court system, which cannot enter judgments based on fraudulent evidence."

(Let's not confuse this with a different problem as outlined here.   This is the problem that liens associated with the mortgage were transferred improperly when rolled up into investments.  So "robo-signing", if done without proper ownership, will be a problem, and, if done right, won't be.  But this is a court issue - only the court can decide if the lien-holder who appears in a foreclosure has standing.  Basically its up to the foreclosee to handle this... they signed the mortgage - which is also really just a legal agreement.)

This is insane:  "did not have personal knowledge of the facts asserted in the documents".

Like there hasn't ever been a foreclosure before? Are all the past foreclosed mortgages invalid?  Oh please!

Does anyone reading here think that they ever had all the facts required on something like a loan document?

This will come back to bite everyone if it gets taken seriously. 

Its a court issue - let the banks show up and fail to prove standing - after one or two the'll get things figured out.  That's why there is law.

Anyone can make this same claim - for anything:

"Yes, your honor - I never understood that paragraph."

Poof - car loan gone!  Mortgage gone!  Business agreement gone!

Don't think some clever lawyer will figure this out...

Irresponsible responsibility...

I saw an old friend last night.  He's in a bad way.

His adult child (30ish) lives at home having lost his job, the adult child's child (my friends granddaughter) is emotionally abandoned by her dad leaving my friend (grandpa) to take care of her.  The adult child is lazy, sleeps all day, burns through family resources by the boat load (food, gas, etc.), and brings home "bed pigs" every night while leaving his little daughter to fall asleep on the couch in front of the TV.

My friend's job is killing him.  Outside consultants come in and tell him they can't believe how much he gets done and tell him to hire three more people in order to reduce his workload.  He takes care of all his underlings and helps them do their jobs right.  His boss spends his day ordering useless crap online and telling my friend he needs to "step it up a notch".

I haven't seen him in four months because he's too busy - he has zero time for himself.  He's got serious health problems that aren't being addressed because he doesn't have time.

Sound familiar?  Sound like someone you know?  It does at least to me because that's how I used to be.

He's my age - we grew up in the 50's and 60's - we learned to be responsible, to take care of ourselves, to do what was right, to put others before ourselves, to sacrifice our needs before those of others, to be compassionate for those in need, blah, blah. blah.

I know where my friend is in his life.  We're like the old plough horses of the 1800's (that's funny - Google spelling doesn't even know the word "plough").  Solid, strong, quiet, reliable, dependable, always ready for work. 

Of course, everyone loves the plough horse - he never complains, always pulls his load no matter what it is, and without him the farm would fail.   Sounds too good to be true for the farmer's family, doesn't it...?  After all they never have to pull the plough themselves and when they want more, the old plough horse obliges.

So what does the family do - it becomes more and more reliant upon the plough horse - day after day, year after year: adding a bigger blow, fancier harnesses, more comfortable wheels and seats, larger fields.  Does the plough horse complain?

No.

He just keeps on pulling the load.  That is, he just keeps on pulling the load until the day he simply falls over dead in the field.  Why?  Because to do less would be irresponsible.

As I said - I used to be there too - in fact, I still am in some ways and probably always will be, but that's not important here.

My friend, you, just like the plough horse, suffer from what I call "irresponsible responsibility". 

Responsibility - you know what that is.  Its why you are where you are.  Its what your mom and dad made you - its as it should be.  And, like the plough horse, you just keep pulling that ever-growing load. But, I doubt you made your mom and dad take care of you when you were thirty.  Why?  Because you are responsible - and responsibility works both ways.

I know you feel responsible for your little granddaughter.  But ask yourself this - if you in fact ARE responsible for her who will be there for her when you fall over dead in the field?  Junior?

I say taking on a level of responsibility you cannot manage is in fact irresponsible.

How so, you ask?  I ask would you go to jail for your son?  Would you pay all his fines?  His taxes?  Where do you draw the line?  If you destroy your life for his (or for your boss) - how is that meeting your definition of responsibility?

The solution is actually easier than you think - you're responsible to your own child.  Did you go to your mom and dad and ask them to raise your kid?  No.  If you truly want to help your granddaughter you're going to have to "man up" with some tough love for junior and kick him in the ass.

That's your responsibility.  Kicking his ass.  How will you know when you're getting somewhere?  Junior will start to pick up the slack.

(Unless he's on dope - in which case just send him to jail ASAP - six months will do it - otherwise you'll spend six years.)

Taking on his "load" of responsibility for his daughter simply delays his growing up.  If he doesn't grow up eventually your granddaughter will - in fact she will outgrow him.

I know how responsible you are and I am willing to bet that a lot you rubbed off on junior.  Its in there somewhere - all you have to do is figure out how to bring it to the surface.

Right now your level of responsibility is irresponsible because it jeopardizes your granddaughter's future.

If you die before junior learns to grow up where will she be then?
 
You're thrashing right now because you're making junior dependent on you instead of himself.

If you die, where does that leave him?

Though it doesn't seem like it the right thing to do is to use some "tough love" on old junior and get him to man up to his responsibilities.  That doesn't mean your granddaughter has to live in a cardboard box with junior under the highway - it just means junior has to think that your okay with that.

As for your boss?  Well, your enabling all this there too.  We he says "step it up a notch" you'll have to push back.  Again - its irresponsible not too - because dropping dead in the fields will f*ck up all you've accomplished there.

Hey - don't be a stranger any more...  If you need a hand let me know.  That's why I'm here.

Taking time for you recharges your resources - it lets you get a better grip on shit - let's you see where you need to go to - let's you psyche up for the ass whooping for junior - it makes you more responsible to see things as they should be and be prepared to steer the bad things in a new direction.

BTW - I hate to have to use this same tough love on your scrawny ass but you know, that's what needs to be done.

Rehab? - I said "no, no, no"...

My mom lives in an "over 55" apartment.

She's in her eighties now.

Her generation has always had a lot of "respect" for doctors and the medical community.  I suppose this comes from growing up in the Great Depression in the 1930's when someone like a doctor had a huge standing in the community and society in general.  You always "trusted" the doctor because he had "scientific training", etc.

In that era Doctors dealt with whooping cough, TB, and all sorts of other diseases with treatments we would today consider primitive.  Penicillin didn't start in common use until about 1945 when its chemical structure was first figured out.  Once penicillin was prevalent doctors, at least in the view of my mother's generation, were elevated to god-like status.

Until fairly recently medicine had a relatively narrow focus. What I mean by this is that doctors dealt with concrete things: broken bones, treatable disease, simple operations (appendix, etc.) and so on.

But today things are far different - and that's what I want to talk about.  For one, pain is a no-no.

Fortunately mom is reasonably healthy.  But that's not the case for he neighbors.  So here's one little scenario that I heard about...

Let's take the case of H.  This is someone my mom has known since childhood.  I talk with my mom frequently and a while back we were discussing pain medication.  So there we are, talking away, and she mentions that H. is on 3 x OC-80 a day for her "pain" from doctor A (OC-80 = Oxycontin 80mg), plus more for doctors B, C, D and E and she is constantly shopping for new doctors (H. is also in her eighties).

So I point out that this is very bad - that this much pain medication on a regular basis is bad - its effects are bad - and on and on.  I tell her that H. is basically a heroin addict and needs help.

My mother say, yes, she understands because her neighbor B. is using fentanyl suckers for her pain.  I ask how that's working out for B. She says "oh, she's a little loopy".

So some time later my mom mentions that H. is going to the "pain doctor".  H. has always suffered from a variety of unexplained pain and is always seeking medical treatment.  Then she says

"Well, H. got to the pain doctors office.  The doctor took a look at all her medications and called the ambulance.  The ambulance took her directly to hospital X and checked her in.  She's not allowed to get out for a week - and she can't have any visitors."  What she meant and didn't quite understand was that H. was in the rehab.

So I explained that this much pain medication was like a 20-bag a day heroin habit.  BTW - most street heroin you buy from the local dealer, we'll call him G. for the purposes of this blog, is probably fentanyl as opposed to true heroin - but that's another story.

So about a week later H. gets out of rehab, comes home, and, near as I can tell, goes back to the doctor shopping.

Meanwhile B. apparently figures out that fentanyl suckers are not such a good idea for pain and manages to get off of them on her own.

Apparently in this apartment complex the "little old ladies," as she sometimes calls her neighbors, swap all sorts of these "pain medications" on a daily basis.  Now, this is one apartment in one small urban area in the midwest.

So what's going on here?

Well, for one thing it seems pretty clear what the deal is on Oxycontin.  Why is this around your child's school, your work place, your watering hole, and everywhere else? Because grandma needs it for her pain.  

Sadly, it would appear that doping grandma up to a minimum 5-bag a day heroin habit is the new status quo for medical science.  Apparently doctors will happily prescribe as many pills as grandma needs - if grandma needs more than another doctor will cover it.  Not enough pills to cover you till next week, then just swap S. down the hall for a few dozen extra OC-80's.

Does anyone, like Medicaid (meaning you and I), bother to check or control this situation?  Nope.

Does anyone but me even see this going on?

And most of these folks believe that this stuff is good for them.  Not that their pain goes completely away - it doesn't.  Is it numbed a bit - sure.  But now they suffer all the side effects from opioid addiction like

• Loss of appetite
• Weight loss
• Nausea
• Headache
• Paranoia
• Hallucinations
• Confusion and Forgetfulness
• Runny nose
• Glazed or red eyes
• Anxiety, mood swings

Now, once these good folks a are on this stuff and exhibiting these new symptoms what does the good doctor do?  Why prescribe event more pills to address the new symptoms.

Does the drug company making this stuff care - sure they do - that's why they send the profession drug dealers (as opposed to G.) to the local doctor's office to push these pills and offer free samples - so the doctor will prescribe more - not less. 

(A comparison of a pro drug dealer to G. will probably make another good post.)

When little Johnny goes to grandma's apartment next time for a visit  it will be easy to scoop 10 OC-80's for that next middle school party.  Grandma will probably just think she lost them and get more and little Johnny will soon be singing the rehab song...

Obesity - It's what's for dinner...

Well, the big research dollars for global warming are probably on the wain so it time to switch horses and "obesity" is probably going to be the winner (from the WSJ): "An international research consortium says it has identified 18 new gene sites linked to obesity and 13 others associated with how fat is distributed in the body, advances that shed new light on the complex biology underlying one of the world's most pressing public-health problems."

and

"About a third of U.S. adults are obese, as measured by a ratio of height and weight known as body mass index, or BMI. Around the world, developed nations and emerging economies alike have seen alarming rises in the prevalence of obesity, which is associated with higher risks of heart disease, cancer and other serious ailments as well as soaring health-care costs."

Before you read further dig out some old photos of your family and friends from 50 years ago and look at them.  Notice anything (like they are all, on average, much thinner)?  Hint: the people in those photos have the same "obesity" genes as you and they weren't over weight.

So let's think about this study and what its telling us. 

First, there's the incredibly stupid BMI.  This one size fits all indicator will probably determine your fate under ObamaCare - but that's another story.

BMI is a total failure because it doesn't account for the composition of your body, i.e., it can't tell if your all muscle or all fat or anything in between.  Muscle is denser than fat.  Comparing one pound of each you will find the fat takes up more space (about 18% I think - Google this for your self if you are interested).

Now I'm 6 feet tall and I weigh around 200 pounds (and no, I never get on a scale - last time was probably several years ago - but not much has changed since then - I've had the same waist size on my pants for a decade - in fact I shrank some.  When I was 18 I wore a size 32" waist.  Today I wear size 36".).

I am also 53 years old.  My BMI of 27 says I am obese - which is absolute nonsense because I am reasonably muscular.  BMI cannot tell the difference.  So, someone with the same BMI as me might have a larger waste and correspondingly more fat, or a smaller waste and correspondingly less fat, than I.

So look at some quotes from the "research" - they use BMI to test for "higher risks of heart disease, cancer and other serious ailments as well as soaring health-care costs".

Let's think about heart disease.  Well - instead of a useless measure of height vs weight how about measuring heart "function".

My personal heart function test (don't try this - it might be dangerous): take 1/4 your body weight and carry it up and down a full flight of stairs three times within two minutes.  Can you do it?  Are you winded?  Breathing hard? Sweating?   Answer yes to any of these and you should be concerned about your heart health.

To go along with the bogus BMI test there is now the "high blood pressure test": Blood pressure greater than 119/79?  You're prehypertensive so you must need a drug to lower your blood pressure.

Bullshit.

My blood pressure has been the old standard of "normal" at 120/80 for my entire adult life (35 years or so).  Suddenly, due to a change in measurement, I am suffering from "prehypertension".

This new measurement system is not designed to help me.  It's designed to sell drugs like Lipitor to lower blood pressure - nothing more.

Then there is the cholesterol myth that cholesterol causes heart attacks which is nothing more than an additional scheme to sell drugs.  If you bother to look at the side effects of these drugs you would see how bad and dangerous they are.

So after all this what's the real reason for all this obesity?

Consuming too much high-calorie food.  Just like muscle and fat food has a caloric density and choosing foods with the right caloric density (lower) is good and reduces obesity.

Think about this:  Drink 3 cans of soda each day = 3 x 180 calories = 540 calories x 7 days a week = 3,780 calories a week = one full day of normal eating.  So just three cans of soda a day = 8 days a week of eating.  More than enough to go "obese" <-- see for your self.

Now add desert, lots of goodies, and see where it goes.

My simple rule for obesity prevention:  Eat one week's worth of calories in one week.

People don't know this - and don't expect the FDA or the drug companies to waste time telling you what to do - if they did they wouldn't have jobs.

Why are things like this?

Because of MONEY.

Big government and big drug companies don't want obesity to go away - they want more of it - why?  So you or the government can buy more drugs.

Why do we need the BMI and blood pressure values to make you obese and unhealthy - so you or the government can buy more drugs.

I don't need to go on...

You are getting ripped off by the government/health care/media complex - both financially and health wise.

If you value your health do the research - that's what Google is for - and find things out for you self.

Look at what your prescriptions are or can do to you.

Where has all the Iodine gone...?

Beerzoids and the sinus flush are years old now and have made such an amazing impact on my life its really hard to express it.   

This time you'll get a chance to start at the ground floor.

So check out this list of symptoms:

• Fatigue
• Depression
• Modest weight gain
• Cold intolerance
• Excessive sleepiness
• Dry, coarse hair
• Constipation
• Dry skin
• Muscle cramps
• Increased cholesterol levels
• Decreased concentration
• Vague aches and pains
• Swelling of the legs 

Sound familiar?  Probably 90% of humanity has several of these according to any number of measures.  This list is from a University of Michigan web site on health and iodine deficiency.   My wife has always suffered from a number of these, cold intolerance and muscle cramps in particular.  And lately a few more starting rearing their heads.


According to the old U of M iodine deficiency is "now rare in the U.S. as a result of widespread distribution of foods from iodine sufficient areas. The incidence of iodine deficiency occurs in certain geographical areas at higher altitudes with iodine depleted soil - usually in areas away from the seacoast and in countries where salt is not fortified with iodine." 

So she tells me "these symptoms sure sound like me" so she starts digging.  Eventually she comes up with this:

Most people have serious iodine deficiencies.  While what's recommended (RDA level) is "19 years and older, 150 micrograms of  Iodine per day" many people, for example the Japanese, have much higher intakes (in the 12mg range - note 150 MICRO grams versus 12 MILLI grams - probably 100 times more).  Then she tells me she found a test to tell her if she's iodine deficient - it's called iodine painting (some examples are here and here - I prefer this second site).

So she gives it a try and sure enough she comes up short.

So she tells me she can keep on paining this stuff on herself and it will increase her iodine daily iodine intake.

We're about a month into this now and I have to say it really seems to be doing positive things for her.  Her complaint level on the various symptoms is way down, she has A LOT more energy, sleeps better, and on and on.  

So here I sit now with my painted on patch to see what it does...

Tea, Crackpots and A Rolling Stone

I don't read the magazine "The Rolling Stone" any more.  Actually I probably haven't looked at one except now and then for probably twenty years.

I find this unfortunate because I really like music journalism and I am always interested in what goes on with it.  In my early days in the 1970's it was something of interesting to read.

But I guess I grew up.

So I happened upon this article written by Matt Taibbi in upcoming addition while doing some research for this blog.  (It's long but I linked to the page in question - please read the rest for yourself.)

"Buried deep in the anus of the Bible Belt, in a little place called Petersburg, Kentucky, is one of the world's most extraordinary tourist attractions: the Creation Museum,  ..."

Well, that's a polite intro - I guess he doesn't like Kentucky much...

But then we find this paragraph:

"Even more disturbing is an exhibit designed to show how the world has changed since the Scopes trial eradicated religion from popular culture. Visitors to the museum enter a darkened urban scene full of graffiti and garbage, and through a series of windows view video scenes of families in a state of collapse. A teenager, rolling a giant doobie as his God-fearing little brother looks on in horror, surfs porn on the Web instead of reading the Bible. ("A Wide World of Women!" the older brother chuckles.) A girl stares at her home pregnancy test and says into the telephone, "My parents are not going to know!" As you go farther into the exhibit, you find a wooden door, into which an eerie inscription has been carved: "The World's Not Safe Anymore."

Well, Matt Taibbi, I have to agree about the disturbing nature of the exhibit but I suspect we disagree on exactly why this exhibit is disturbing.

Now any responsible adult raising children knows these issues all too well and that, in fact, for your kids and grand kids "the world's not safe anymore" is true.  I could post links to any number of stories about the tragedy kids suffer today - but what's the point - since this guy no doubt believes that today's society and its effect on children is progress.

As you read on further into the article you see the real point is "The Tea Party is many things at once, but one way or another, it almost always comes back to a campaign against that unsafe urban hellscape of godless liberalism we call our modern world." (I struck out the world "godless" because, after all, we need to banish God from society... at least that what I think the point of the "Scopes trial" comment is.)

Which leaves us with the truth - that our kids must live in a "unsafe urban hellscape of liberalism we call our modern world".

Its sad to see this guy writing sarcastically about the difficult world our children have inherited.

Too bad it thinks its all a sad joke.

Sinus Flushing with Beerzoids

Many years ago I stumbled onto Beerzoids and sinus flushing.

I had had periodic sinus pain over the years and would routinely get a bad cold or two over the winter which would always end up in some kind of long-lasting sinus misery.

This misery would usually manifest itself as sharp pains in my sinus area.  It would take weeks to go away on its own and it seemed to be getting worse year to year.

I searched in vain for a solution - tried all the usual over the counter stuff which never worked right - and finally I ended up in some sort of Health Forum with this 40-page series of posts by a guy named Beerzoids.  Apparently he had had it far worse than me but had somehow, due to extensive experimentation, figured out that if you knelt down, put your head on the floor, and poured a diluted hydrogen peroxide solution into your nose it fixed your sinus problems.

(As a side note the original chain of posts seems to have been rolled up in to some sort of summary posting.)

Now I was not interested in the usual heavy duty antibiotic and surgical treatments because of their side effects (more on the side effects of antibiotics in future posts) so this seemed like an attractive option.

(I am not squeamish about this sort of thing though I know that others are so please bear with me.)

Following the instructions from the site I whipped up a batch of diluted peroxide and, armed with a little blue dropper bottle from my lovely wife set about fixing my sinus problem.  It did take some nerve the first time to do this because they talked about "bad things" like burning your eustachian tubes.

So, as per instructions, I knelt down in front of the bath tube, bent over and stuck my head onto the bottom of the bath tube, and shot the stuff into my nostrils. 

They were right - there is a burning sensations.  Now, I have a high tolerance for pain, but this stung like hell.  Plus, you could feel it foaming and gurgling just like pouring peroxide onto an infected wound or cut.  After the bubbling and burning die down I stood up and blew my nose.

The point here is that the diluted peroxide gets up into your sinuses. Sort like getting water up you nose when swimming.

You know your doing it right when you can swing you head around and feel it running into the various parts of your sinuses.

Out came the first bits of a long standing sinus infection (no need for further description, at least at this point).

I struggled to do this regularly for a while and within a couple of days the sinus pain was gone.  I was able to work out when and how to do it and soon I ended my sinus suffering completely.

I was able to dispose of a whole medicine cabinet full of "Cold Remedies", Zicam, and such.

I would still get the yearly flues but I was always able to clear the sinus infection quickly there after.

So now the gears are turning and I think to myself - I wonder what will happen if I use this during a cold or flu?  I was now in uncharted territory relative to my hero Beerzoids but I figured what the hell.

The next time I felt a cold coming on I doused my sinuses - probably two to three times a day. 

Something magical happened.  My colds and flues was never really able to "take hold" like it usually did.  Generally I would start out with a sore throat, then a runny nose, then a cough, then misery for a several days, then a week or two of getting over it.

With my new experiments I was able to bypass 95% of the usual cold and flu misery - usually just feeling a bit feverish for two days.

So I started to think about why this was so.  The only conclusions I could come to was this:  Colds and flues (though not all flues as will cover in another post) don't work like you (or modern medical science) think they do.

When you start a cold it begins in your sinuses producing lots of mucus.  Pre-1970's or so you would blow your nose until the cold was over.  Starting the 70's people began taking decongestants that "dried up" their cold.  So let's think about that.

Here's a normal  bodily function that, when we get sick, we halt instead of letting it run its course - with the side effect that all the crud and nastiness is backed up and compacted inside our body - in this case our sinuses.   Does this really make any kind of sense?

So what if we applied this principle with any other bodily function?  (Say, treating a stomach flu by not expelling from either end until it was over.) How would that feel and what would it do to you?  Nothing good, I imagine.

I think colds and flues start in your sinuses by filling them with mucus.  Naturally your tendency is to blow your nose to clear them (that's why grandma always told you not to "sniff").  But these days your first reaction is to "dry up" the cold with some over the counter medication.  Unfortunately, instead of fixing the problem it compacts all the junk in your sinuses and it gets infected.  This is why you blow out all that colorful crud over the usual course of cold or flu.

As the infection expands post-nasal drip carries that infection down into your lungs and viola - you now now have a cough.

So my theory, born out by my own personal experimentation, is that if you break the cycle of letting that crud in your sinuses get infected in the first place by sinus flushing you end up with only the cold and none of the rest.

Modern medicine has, in my opinion, made this sort of cold and flu far worse by creating tools to compact this infection in your sinuses.  Coupled with over prescribing antibiotics to try and clear the infection once it takes root you have a prescription (no pun intended) for misery.

So for me, in the last five years, including one really nasty case which I will talk about another time (known as the "nasty yellow mucus flu" around my house) I have not missed a single day of work, music, or anything else due to either a cold or flu and I have not had one cough - not one - including the during the "nasty yellow flu".   Have I been sick over that time with a cold or flu - sure - but its no longer debilitating and it no longer lingers for more than a couple of days.

Now there is more here to cover but that's all for this post.

California Pot and Federal Law

An article appeared in the opinion pages of the WSJ today regarding California and its attempt to legalized pot.

The authors are former US DEA Administrators.

-------------------

This is an open post in response to the article.

Marijuana is ubiquitous in our society and its freely available to virtually everyone.  It is commonly used by grandmothers to reduce glaucoma, soccer moms to relax after a days work and grade school children seeking thrills or relief from boredom.  Growing up in the 60's and 70's the usage was not nearly as accepted or widespread.

In the intervening forty years the expansion of acceptance and the present widespread use has come under your collective watches.

You make the claim that federal law will trump California states rights.  But I view this statement as a righteous justification for what is left unsaid in the article: that federal marijuana law is a complete and utter failure.

The question is why and the answer is simple:  The acceptance of marijuana has followed the liberal ideals of college educated flower children from their free and easy lives in the sixties and seventies to virtually every power center in today's society including all levels of government where those in power can easily turn a blind eye and, because of their position, escape scrutiny and investigation.

If you want to eliminate drug use from our society you must start at the top, not the bottom.  Use your powers to investigate and raid federal, state and local offices in all branches of government and prosecute those you find their breaking federal drug laws.  Marijuana's ubiquitous nature, the liberal nature of those often employed by government, and the lack of enthusiastic enforcement by federal officials will guarantee your investigations and raids to be a success (that is, if no one is tipped off).

Make an example of those you find breaking the law at the very top - not some laid-off California working man taking a drag on his CA-approved and taxed joint with his buddies in his car after work. 

Righteous indignation is a symptom of the problem - not a solution.   The working man follows leadership, not rhetoric, and big speeches from the top server merely to "tip off" the offenders so they have time to hide.

I got burned...

My laptop burned my legs?  Do we really need to fund this sort of "health research"?

I have to say that intentionally letting something hot sit on your legs for a long enough period of time to cause measurable damage is beyond stupid.

Why it was just five years ago or so that the real threat of using a laptop in your lap, at least if you were male, was thought to be the heating of testicles to the point of failure as discussed here.

Of course, the real list of laptop danger also includes eyestrain, posture related stuff like arm, shoulder and neck problems, and stress.

On the other hand these injuries are not caused by the laptop, i.e., I was working on my laptop and, like a giant rat trap, it snapped shut on my hand.  Now, at least in my mind, that is what I would call "caused by a laptop".

So after finding this article I became curios - why do people use computers and video games to the point of injury?

I found this site which was quite a good start.  In part the article says:  "The United States bureau of Labor Statistics reported more than three hundred thousand cases of cumulative trauma in American business in 1993, up from a steady annual rate of around seventy thousand in the early 80s. Some of those include work settings with a history of the problem such as meat packing houses, grocery clerks, sign interpreters, and others. But looking at the numbers it is clear that the level of reported cases has dramatically increased beginning in 1984 when desktop computers began to appear. As processing speed increased, prices came down, and the software market matured, computers spread into our work environment at an amazing pace."

Now this is not scientific but it points to at least an element of the problem - there are a lot more computers than their used to by - 50 million by an estimate in the same article - all with people sitting for long periods in front of them.

So I understand about the work aspect of this - I have to sit there for my job - but what about the video gamers out there?

So I did some research and found this site - Video Games and Politics - where they talk about injuries - but these are "hard' injuries like cases where I wack my buddy in the head with the game controller while playing video tennis.


The "I burned my legs with my laptop" problems seems to me best described by this site.  Basically doing something this long so that it results in injury is covered by behavioral addiction disease - the warning signs are these: A demonstrated “lack of control” when trying to stop or limit the amount of time your loved one spends on the video game or laptop.  There's a whole long list of "symptoms" at the bottom.

Personally calling this a disease seems a bit much.  People spend a lot of time on things and have done so over the years - often to very good results, e.g., practicing a sport, art, writing, and so forth.

I think the real issue is one of perspective.  In my youth doing something like getting burned with a laptop for using it far to long would have resulted in ridicule by older cousins or siblings or gotten me a good swift kick in the ass by a parent or uncle.

Inaccurate Weather...

I used to like the weather.com site.  As a runner it was very convenient have a browser tab set up to my local radar.  That way on rainy days I could wait for a break in the green "rain" area and hit the road. 

At least that was true back in 2005 when I started this blog.

In the intervening years the accuracy of this has changed dramatically for the worse - which to me is a remarkable thing.

I used to be able to time the passing of the "green" rain areas very accurately - down to a few minutes either coming or going.  In those days "green" meant actual on the ground rain.

Fast forward to 2010. 

Now the radar output is basically meaningless.  You can see the "green" rain areas but they are often completely missing from the display while we're getting a good rain and you can see a heavy rain over the house and outside there is no rain at all.

Now I have check this out at both weather.com and accuweather.com and the results seem to be about the same.

The only reasons I can see for this kind of change would be money and dumb.  As in charge some customers more for the accurate weather or report things like rain "in the air" as green.

Either way it makes both sites pretty useless for anything other than just checking the basic conditions.

Don't get me wrong - there is still some small value here.  I have the AccuWeather iPhone app and its nice for watching big, nasty thunderstorms roll in on picnics in the summer - and you can see big gaps between parts of storms fairly reliably.  But you can't rely on the "green" = "rain".

Five years ago... (Report #1)

I posted this related to health.

For the last two decades or so I have been an runner.  Nothing big - a few 10K's (40:40 was my best ever) - some 5K's - but, most of the time, just grinding out the miles every day - which amount to about 2.5 a day these days.

In my original post I talk about exercise and vitamins.  In the intervening years I have learned a lot more - much from experimenting on myself.

Probably the key item has been my discovery of pomegranate juice.  I drink probably one of those large POM bottles (either pomegranate or pomegranate with blue berry) every two weeks plus a bottle of Welch's grape/pomegranate/blue berry stuff.

At first it tasted like shit - nasty - very hard to take.  It took a few years to really get to appreciate the taste - and some times it still tastes bad - I guess the taste is seasonally dependent.

So why did I drink it?

I was getting close to 50 years old and my brain was not as sharp as it used to be - I felt dull - like stuck under a sheet or something - it was getting harder to concentrate for long periods - I didn't feel as mentally productive - that sort of thing.

So I stuck with this for about 6 months before I really started to notice anything.

(Now I am rather scientific so I was careful not to change anything else I was doing in this regard - diet, exercise, all of that.)

Things started to become clearer - not a lot - but some - enough to be encouraged that over all the pomegranate was probably doing something good for my brain.  I kept at it - for several more years.  All the while things became incrementally clearer.

Its sort of like being in "Flowers for Algernon" - which was a staple of high school English in the early 1970's.  In summary from Wikipedia: "The titular Algernon is a laboratory mouse who has undergone surgery to increase his intelligence by artificial means.  The story is told as a series of progress reports written by Charlie, the first human test subject for the surgery, and touches upon many different ethical and moral themes such as the treatment of the mentally disabled."

(Does this mean I was becoming mentally disabled?  The book was apparently banned in the US and Canada over the years according to Wikipedia (foot note #6).  I remember nothing about "ethical and moral themes" for the treatment of the mentally disabled.  B.S. I think....)

So in the last five years my mental acuity has increased substantially - to the point where I feel as able as I ever have been mentally.

So what happens the the FTC bans the stuff?  I guess you'll have to wait for the last report from Charlie.

The last time I felt as I do now was about 1998 when I wrote the first version of pdfExpress.

Fecal Transplants, er, I mean bacteriotherapy

And, more detailed, here, though you might need a login (and a strong stomache) to read this...

Its been some years since I posted here - I suppose near death by neglect - but, with a topic like this how could I resist?  (And I've been quite busy over at the Lone Wolf blog so I figured why not add to the blogging fun.)

And yes, you read the title correctly.  I will spare you with the ghastly details of how, precisely, this is accomplished - feel free to read the above article at Medipage to learn about that.

The concept here is actually quite good and makes a lot of sense - at least in theory.  Let me explain...

Your intestines play host to a variety of bacteria that assist your body in digestion.  Now, as for bacteria on humans, there are apparently many specialized types (see this for some ideas).  The theory is that if these bacteria get killed off (say via antibiotics) or suffer other calamity your health can suffer severely.

The good news here is that there are many other ways to reboot your intestinal flora besides fecal transplants - various probiotic supplements are designed to the same thing.

I've had personal experience with this ... drum roll ... through my dog.  Poor old Mugs (a giant Boston Terrier) came to me in mid-life suffering from all the usual mid-life misery - chief among the misery - screwed up bowels (I'm sure you can imagine the details).   When I first got him he had been on antibiotics most of his life for his ear problems.  Long story short he would scratch his ears, they would get full of cuts and infections, and he'd get antibiotics.  This went on for years.

The antibiotics killed off his intestinal flora - they were kaput.  My lovely wife recommended that we "fix" this with some probiotics she happened to have laying around the house.  So, for about a month, each meal old Mugs got a shot of probiotics.  And, sure enough, the results of his food digestion process significantly improved.

(Of course we also stopped the antibiotics and figured out how to fix his ears homeopathically.)

It took a few more years of tinkering with his ear problems to finally get him back to full health, but we did, and now he is as spry as our 2 year old Boston Terrier/Pug mix - leaping vertically about 3 feet when needed.  These days old Mugs can eat trash, garbage, paper, plastic, you name it, with the best of them and by next morning everything has been passed on.

I am glad that this new fecal transplant thing came about after Mugs had his problems...

I guess I am really tired..

I keep hearing about how someone's private life is separate from their public life: "Oh, let's not judge Bill Clinton by his actions with Monica, they're personal."

Well, let's see... Elliot Spitzer - can't seem to keep his wedding vow, and, oops, out soliciting prostititues...

Kwame Kilpatrick... oops, a sex and lying scandal... can't seem to keep a vow either...

And on it goes...

Oh, and let's not judge others either. Well, as a voter what are we supposed to do? Not judge the candidate? Only judge the candidate on what they "say" they should be judged on?

So, what criteria are fair game for "judging" a candidate that will a) run for office and b) get sworn in if they win. Isn't it fair to judge them on how they handle their other vows?

Google - what nonsense...

I haven't logged in a while... So when I do I suddenly have to have a "google account"...

Then, just like all the other big companies I go through a painful, stupid, non-deterministic process to "transfer" my account to a "new" google account. I have to bail out and re-log in after spending five minutes trying to log in during the transfer... and then "ta da" - magically my account works - after it tells me five times my password is bad...

[Sigh]

What can I say...

I titled this image "No Room (even at the Inn)". Lots of heavy symbolism here, lots of metaphors, and so on....

Why is society failing? Why is there no respect? What is the PC crowed doing to our society....

Well, here you go - all summed up in a single image.

Criminal Acts Admitted by Utah Attorney General

I recently sent the following email to friends@foxnews.com. I think it speaks for itself. Let's see if we get an answer.

I was extremely troubled by a segment on your show Wednesday, August 30th.

Your guest, the attorney general of Utah, admitted that his office had known for 5 1/2 years about polygamists under his jurisdiction and only now had chosen to act against them (trggered by a recently arrested polygamist from Utah in Nevada).

An attorney general is sworn to uphold the law. Is he not breaking the law by failing to act on this information?

The subject of preventing the abused of women is an important issue in our home. Don't you think that for the taxpayer's prosecutorial dollars we would do much better by forcing this criminal (the attorney general) out of office through prosecution and replacing him with someone who will actually enforce the existing polygamy laws?

Wouldn't far fewer girls and women be abused at the hands of the polygamists with an attorney general who actually enforced the laws regarding polygamy?

It seems like this attorney general is making a showcase of prosecuting the "polygamist of the day" rather that doing his job on a regular basis.

Sincerely
todd@just-got-lucky.com

Engineering Leadership

An article from volume twelve, issue six, August 2006 of the Pittsburgh TEQ magazine titled "America Need not Cede Engineering Leadership". The author? Pradeep K. Khosla.

Gender Incompetence

My wife's friend thinks that today's twenty-somethings and thirty-somethings are gender confused. By this she of course means that society tells them through the marketing of gay activism, equality of the sexes, etc. that concept of gender is all in their minds and that they are whatever gender (or combination thereof) they imagine they might want to be. She reasons that these messages are confusing them.

Evidence of this can be seen today on virtually any social web site where there are much larger collections than expected of bisexual, androgynous and gay youths.

I respectfully disagree with my wife's friend. Instead, it seems to me that these youths suffer from gender incompetence. I define gender incompetence as "the act of functioning against ones biological gender." A simple example of this would be someone that sees a television story or reads a story or visits a web site glorifying some alternate gender choice and subsequently acts as if they themselves are now a person of that alternate gender.

(Note that I do not attempt to define "biological gender" and that one first has to have determined their biological gender in order to act against it.)

Confusion vs. Incompetence

The definitions of incompetence, according to Merriam-Webster is 1) not legally qualified, 2) inadequate or unsuitable for a particular purpose, 3) lacking qualities needed for effective action, and 4) unable to function properly. Confusion, on the other hand, is a mental state where one fails to make appropriate distinctions or differentiations (see Merriam-Webster here). So I argue that being confused about anything, much less gender, is a common human occurrence but that choosing to act in a confused manner regarding gender renders one incompetent.

Your biological gender is what you are. You may not like it but it is what you were endowed with by your creator.

Teaching Your Child

I participated in a remarkable conversion a few days ago. An experienced teacher had recently participated in a workshop on the differences between boys and girls (the instructor is supposedly to appear on a John Stossel 20/20 episode on September 15, 2006). The instructor was not identified, but it may have been Michael Gurian or his logical equivalent.

The teacher was shocked to learn there are differences in how the two sexes learn. Apparently this workshop struck a chord because many common problem classroom situations, with boys in particular, where elucidated.

From the conversation I gathered that since the 1970's teachers have been instructed that boys and girls are "the same" relative to how they learn (supposedly due to "woman's lib"). The teacher was beside herself because it was completely clear that whatever had been going on in his classroom was highly stilted toward favoring the "female" learning model. He realized that the boys were being "made into girls".

(As an example: Little Johnny scribbles outside the lines. Little Suzy colors neatly inside the lines. Little Suzy is praised for doing a good job while little Johnny is chastised for his coloring ineptness. Johnny subsequently tries to emulate little Suzy. As time goes by little Johnny realizes he is inferior to Suzy as a boy and hence works to emulate her due is native male competitiveness. The point being that little Johnny learns coloring differently and coloring outside the lines may not (no pun intended) outside the lines of Johnny's ability relative to little Suzy and their respectively equal numerical ages.)

The conversation expanded into how much this teacher was expected to do in the classroom already and that making up for the lack of teaching skills shown by the younger teachers was now also becoming a problem. An example of this was a situation where newly graduated teachers were unsuccessful at teaching junior high school grammar and spelling - apparently because they (the newly graduated teachers) themselves did not have a good grasp of these subjects.

This combination of revelations lead the teacher to lament his future survival - particularly in retirement.

Well, its about time! Sadly no connection was made relating the product of the educational system and the skill levels of newly graduated teachers - nor was a connection evident between the "sissifying" of boys and the educational system.

I suspect its too late for hope....

TSA Fun

According to today's Wall Street Journal gel-filled bras will no longer be allowed on airplanes. We do we go from here? Certainly lubricated condoms cannot be far behind (no pun intended); no doubt to be followed by breasts or penises containing liquid implants - though removing those prior to boarding might be a problem.

I suppose that one could conceivably have to remove one's blood as it might actually be a concoction of explosive and artificial hemoglobin. Hmmm... You could probably make a sub-critical mix of uranium or plutonium and artificial hemoglobin and transfuse enough into two children so that when they came into proximity to each other a critical mass would be created - so blood has to be out.

(Note: Yes the +Enlarge tag at the bottom of the image is really there.)

So to, probably with artificial bones, limbs metal plates - same problem.

But wait! Singling out the handicapped (or large breasted women or well-hung men) for special searches just because the prosthetic parts just might be considered profiling or discriminating.

So, soon everyone will have to line up next to the giant portable atom-smasher that bombards your body with "special" radiation to illuminate your insides - lest someone be lying about the nature of your underwear or your breast or penis implant.

Global Dimming

Below is an excerpt from a BBC programme called Horizon (link here). It discusses the effect of having all US airplanes (as well as airplanes from other countries as well, I suppose) grounded for three days right after 9/11. They discuss some unquantified temperature measurements from 48 states (about 5,000 measuring stations) from areas "that was[sic] most dominantly affected by the grounding".

Excerpted from the previous link

DR DAVID TRAVIS (University of Wisconsin, Whitewater) We found that the change in temperature range during those three days was just over one degrees C. And you have to realise that from a layman's perspective that doesn't sound like much, but from a climate perspective that is huge.

BCC NARRATOR One degree in just three days no one had ever seen such a big climatic change happen so fast. This was a new kind of climate change. Scientists call it Global Dimming.

Follow the link for a complete context to the comments below.

Hmmmm..... this sounds like a very subjective measurement (areas dominantly affected by the grounding). Though it seems obvious that fewer jets means less pollution and contrails; hence more sunlight reaches the earth's surface; hence more of the sun's energy reaches the earth. Particulates (like coulds) help keep the heat absorbed by the earths surface from radiating back into the sky (this is why, all things being equal, cloudy winter days are usually much warmer that days without clouds). So without the layer of particulates, the earth heats and cools more quickly.

There are several troubling aspects to this. First, its hard to imaging the "global warming" scientists missing out on something this important (see previous posts). Second, what does this do to the "standard" climate models, i.e., is it accounted for?? Third, maybe carbon dioxide is keeping the planet habitable while the climate is really being destroyed (thrown into an ice age) by aircraft contrails.

Another troubling aspect is that somehow these local effects are thought of by scientists as "climatic". What is described in the BBC article is an extremely temporary, local effect which affects the "temperature" of the earth by a degree or more C (temporary because things go back to "normal" when air traffic returns). This effect can be generated by flying a few thousand (not sure on the exact number) airplanes at high altitude for a few hours each day. This means that someone could easily control the amount of energy reaching the earth's surface.

Over all, this seems to create a "hole" in the "climate models".

Global Dimming!?!

Apparently its a surprise to scientists that as the amount of pollution (particulates in particular (no pun intended)) increases less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth. This remarkable fact is now called "global dimming". Global dimming means less solar energy is reaching the surface of the earth. Where does it go if not to the surface? Why, its reflected back into space.

Maybe the fact that since the 1970's the amount of particulates has decreased (due, for example, to the clean air act) - hence the dramatic increases "global warming".

Bottom line - no one really knows....

MRSA (Mer SaH)

Troubling medical news - not for what the story says (see story here), but for what the story implies, particularly about parents and doctors and how they care for children.

MRSA is a serious staph infection. This article describes research into how common MRSA is becoming in the community. MRSA had generally been a problem only in nursing homes and hospitals, but now community acquired MRSA (acquired outside of these places) is becoming more common. This particular article covers staph skin infections (which can be serious should the infection enter the blood stream). For older folks, this is the old "watch for red streaks around an infection".

Over prescription of antibiotics, i.e., prescribing antibiotics when an non-antibiotic treatment will work just as well or better, has created drug resistant strains of staph that can cause "flesh eating" wounds and pneumonia... (but I paraphrase the article here).

Now for the troubling part. Parents apparently bring their children to hospitals with what they describe as "a spider bite that's not getting better or a pimple that's not getting better.” What do doctors do (and apparently have been doing) - prescribe antibiotics.

Why is this troubling? Because its unnecessary, as the article goes on to point out. Simply cleaning out the area (and draining the pus) offers the cure most of the time.

(For those to young to know - what this (cleaning out the area) means is opening an infected area, e.g., breaking open a pimple and picking off a scab, and flushing the area thoroughly with something like over-the-counter hydrogen peroxide. Usually several treatments are required. Other "home remedy" style treatments can include soaking the infected area in boric acid water or using something like iodine in place of peroxide.

Why is this not done? Well, for one thing it hurts. So little Suzy or Johnny will cry and all the adults will feel bad - and we can't have that. Much better to prescribe a fruity tasting pill.

Another reason is that things like boric acid are harder to buy than they used to be. Why? Because they are dangerous or, in this case, poisionous. So little Suzy or Johnny will eat the stuff and die. So the medical community has replaced a $.02 cure (a 1/4 pound of boric acid costs are around $5.00 US and will last a decade) with expensive prescription drugs.)

You have to ask yourself:

1) Why don't the parents clean out the area themselves (using iodine, mercurochrome, peroxide, boric acid, etc.)?

2) Why don't the doctors (or nurses) clean it out at the hospital?

3) Are the doctors simply prescribing antibiotics to do their (or the parents) job for them?

I have personally noticed that simple cuts don't heal quickly unless their cleaned thoroughly as described above. In the past I did not notice this - it could be because the pesky bacteria are more stubborn now or it could be because I am older and don't heal as quickly. In any case, these treatments have so far not failed me.

Creative Outlets...

For those that are interested (and there are few) some of my music can be heard at here and here and my photography can be seen at here.

Global Warming Science...

Someone in the global warming research department forgot something... the sun! Yes, its true. Current global warming models apparently consider the global warming contribution of the sun's as constant over time (centuries). Apparently some people have a problem with this at www.space.com.

The reflectivity of the planet's surface (a thank's to my friend Rob for the heads up on this) is also not part of the model. Some things, like clouds, reflect more or less light than others.

As for the sun, well, suprise, its measurable output is increasing (a good reason to ignore it, I think). The apropo comment from the previous www.space.com link is Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods. Hmmm...

Discipline, the Other White Meat

What is an IED? Apparently its a new mental disorder (seems like the three letter acronym space is getting crowded) - not an Improvised Explosive Device.

The state is characterized by "a mental state marked by anger, violent outbursts and abuse of spouses" known in medical parlance as intermittent explosive disorder (IED).

Here's the surprising conclusion - "Experts think the treatment should be a combination of talk therapy and medication" - at least according to the article. The proposed drugs (Zoloft and Prosiac, of course) "in 70 percent of cases [the] drugs give patients a longer fuse before they blow up".

"IED can happen in childhood and it is a challenge to detect it and treat it in children, says Kessler." - Ronald Kessler, the author of the study on which this is based is, surprise, a professor of health-care policy at Harvard Medical School.

Now, this is scary. This guy every spend time with two-year-olds? IED is the standard currency of every and any tired two-year-old.

Throwing toys on the floor, throwing themselves onto the floor in a fits of crying rage, etc. Hmm... Has he ever heard of discipline? The cure for this "disorder" is simple - discipline - and its never too late to start (even into adulthood).

Around the house we often say an adult with this problem is "not grown up." But this guy thinks that rather than concern ourselves with discipline or making some one "grow up" we should drug them - then it just takes longer for us to piss them off.

I personally have cured individuals with this problem by "getting them to grow up." Its easy, really, simply, as they say, let them "twist in the wind" whenever an IED situation comes up. Someone beating their spouse - call the police - time in the slammer will help them out. Someone acting like an ass in your car - put them out at the side of the road and let them walk. Someone breaking things - make them pay to fix them.

Another effective solution is "shame" and "embarrassment". Put the person in a situation where people they respect can observe the IED in action. Publicize the consequences of the IED - "oh look grandma, there's little Johnny being hauled away in the paddy wagon."



Finally, of course, there is, for small children, the spanking. Having grown up with a generation of "spanked" children, why, there is no more to say...

But wait, anyone who tries these "cures" must be "mean" or "intolerant", or, god forbid, a child abuser. But then again, there were far fewer problems in the olden days - I mean, after all, if you ran out into the street from between parked cars you died - and it was your fault.

The full links to the quoted articles can be found here and here.

New Posion Ivy Risks...

It was reported today in this weeks Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that posion ivy will be getting "meaner" as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases over the next forty or fifty years. Why is this? Apparently because when you provide the plant more nutrients (such as CO2) it grows larger. (Of course, this will be caused by global warming. Of course, the "amount" of CO2 added is based on "estimated" increases in CO2 related to man descruction of the environment. Hmmm... Seems like we're doing poison ivy a favor.)

The lead author of the study, one Jacqueline E. Mohan, a post-doctoral scientist at the Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, at Woods Hole, Mass. said "It makes the forest an even scarier place, but not just forest -- backyards too. Poison ivy is a remarkable plant. It can grow just about anywhere." (Hmmm, just like weeds...)

(Just in case you were interested, the oil (urushiol - from the Japanese word "urushi" for lacquer) produced by the various related poison plants such as poison ivy and sumac is composed of a saturated and unsaturated component. The saturated component causing more irritation than the unsaturated component. Apparently the larger plant produces more of the staturated component than today's varieties.)

I bet the Poison Ivy pictured above would also get larger (and perhaps meaner as well) if her nutrition were significantly increased over the same six year study.

I recall solving problems similar to this in third grade as part of my "politically incorrect" education.

Question: Given more food a plant will (1) grow larger, (2) stay the same, or (3) not grow as large.

Answer: (1)

I distinctly recall the sarcasim of the nuns when students would not correctly answer questions such as this.

More troubling, however, is that this passes for science in today's world. (And Google found 245 related articles - all which more or less reprint the basic press release.)

Thoughts on myspace.com...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Live!

Playing live music for the last half year or so has been a great experience.

Special thanks to Fran, Marcy, the Genuine Pub, Tex, Gil, the Witches and of course, Donna, for all the support along the way.

Its easy to see how this plays with your head - you start playing, look up and hours have passed.

It's really not as scary as it might seem - at least for me. The only stage fright I experience is soloing on things I don't know...

Perspective is important, too. There are always incredible players out there - but who cares. You do your thing and they do theirs... Learn what you can from them.

How Big Companies Profit from Illegal Drugs...

In case you haven't noticed, there are ever more penalties, restrictions and service fees on bank accounts, cell phones, and any other personal service that can be turned into quick cash.

For example, someone I know (let's call her Cindy) has a relative (let's call him Bob) involved in drugs. Cindy ordered a second phone (in her name) for Bob, who was to pay the bill. Unfortunately, the Bob fell off the wagon and began using the cell phone to get drugs - calling in for pick ups, loaning it to the dealer for quick cash, etc. When Cindy tried to have the phone provided to Bob "shut off" the cell phone company declined - even though the phone was in Cindy's name.

Another example, Joe has a teenage daugher Melinda. Joe trusts Melinda and provides her ready access to cash and bank cards for trips to the mall. Melinda's friend Tina, a drug user, discovers Joe's bank card in Melinda's purse, "borrow's" theh cards and overdraw's Joe's account. The bank is happy to profit from this by dinging Joe for each overdrawn check. Joe, embarrased by what's happened, end's up paying for Tina's drug use because he can't prove what actually happened.

Personally, I believe that banks want people with drug problems turning their credit cards over to drug dealers for quick cash. Why? Because everyone profits. I loan my dealer my credit card. The dealer runs out and buys a thousand dollars worth of fencible goods - TV's, DVD players, etc. The dealer then provides drugs. The merchant sells goods. The bank makes money on the merchant fees, and, if its a debit card, the overdraft fees. (Why, if I owned a bank and was unscrupulous, I would make sure every dealer in town suggest this use of a bank card to all their clients.) And, if its a responsible persons bank card - so much the better.

More Wisdom...

To quote my father-inlaw - "A sober man's thoughts are a drunken man's words."

Made up myself - "Watch out what you say - the microphone might still be on."