Tag Archives: between

Apollo Confidential – Lukas Viglietti

by Myrna Posted on January 31, 2020

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Apollo Confidential

Memories of Men On the Moon

Lukas Viglietti

Genre: History

Price: $11.99

Publish Date: July 30, 2019

Publisher: Morgan James Publishing

Seller: OpenRoad Integrated Media, LLC


The inside stories of the Apollo program and the live of astronauts, as told to the author by the men themselves—with a forward by astronaut Charlie Duke.   Between 1969 and 1972, twelve people walked on the surface of the Moon. Twelve others flew over its majestic surface. They were the sons of ordinary individuals. But they believed anything was possible―and they proved it to the entire world.   Fascinated by these men—heroes such as Alan Shepard, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and many others—airline pilot Lukas Viglietti personally recorded their testimonies, becoming a close friend and confidant to many of them in the process. Now he shares his exclusive and unprecedented insight into their adventures and the Apollo program overall in Apollo Confidential .

Source: 

Apollo Confidential – Lukas Viglietti

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Apollo Confidential – Lukas Viglietti

Is red meat bad for you? Climate change sure is.

by AlfredoEldersha Posted on October 1, 2019

Everyone knows that eating lots of red meat is bad for your health. Doctors and public health experts have been advising us to cut down on the hamburgers and steaks for years and years. And people listened: Red meat consumption in the United States has been on the decline for the better part of a decade. But the evidence behind that advice might not be as solid as we thought, according to a controversial analysis released on Monday.

An international coalition of researchers assessed pretty much every single quality study and randomized trial that looked at connections between red meat, cancer, and death. The researchers used a stricter method for evaluating the evidence than is usually used for nutrition, a notoriously tricky topic to study. In the end, they weren’t convinced that reducing red meat consumption is beneficial to the individual, because the methodology behind the studies they assessed was so flawed it was impossible to come to a sound conclusion.

The analysis has prompted quite a bit of disagreement in the nutritional community, with other nutritionists and doctors calling it “perplexing” and “nutritional nihilism.” But you know what scientists agree is bad for your health? Climate change. Rising temperatures will lead to a spike in heat-related deaths and illnesses, like heat stroke and hyperthermia, and exacerbate chronic conditions like diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Changing weather patterns associated with warming affect pollutants like ground-level ozone, which can cause emphysema, a chronic lung disease that can be deadly.

In all the uproar over whether or not red meat is healthy for individuals, the big picture of what greenhouse gas emissions mean for all of us is getting overlooked. Agriculture is a big slice of America’s emissions pie, representing 9 percent of total emissions in 2017. Cows, unfortunately, are part of the problem, because they emit large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Beef is 20 times more land- and greenhouse gas-intensive than beans, for example.

So if you do decide to fire up the grill and stack up on T-bones tonight to celebrate the new research, just know that you’re not getting a free pass. More beef means more methane. And a big ol’ spike in methane emissions from beef production is pretty much the last thing we need right now, seeing as we’re on track to warm the planet a crispy 3.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels by the end of the century.

But the good news is that cutting down on red meat can have big payoffs from an environmental standpoint. Between 2005 and 2014, a 19 percent decline in American beef consumption led to a 10 percent decrease in diet-related carbon emissions.

And as for the question of whether eating red meat is OK for your personal health, we’ll leave that one to the experts to duke out.

View post: 

Is red meat bad for you? Climate change sure is.

Posted in Accent, alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is red meat bad for you? Climate change sure is.

Erasing Death – Sam Parnia & Josh Young

by Myrna Posted on April 29, 2018

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Erasing Death

The Science That Is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death

Sam Parnia & Josh Young

Genre: Science & Nature

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: February 26, 2013

Publisher: HarperOne

Seller: HarperCollins


Erasing Death: The Science That Is Rewriting the Boundaries Between Life and Death reveals that death is not a moment in time. Death, rather, is a process—a process that can be interrupted well after it has begun. Innovative techniques have proven to be effective in revitalizing both the body and mind, but they are only employed in approximately half of the hospitals throughout the United States and Europe.   Dr. Sam Parnia, Director of the AWARE Study (AWAreness during REsuscitation) and one of the world’s leading experts on the scientific study of death and near-death experiences (NDE), presents cutting-edge research from the front lines of critical care and resuscitation medicine while also shedding light on the ultimate mystery: What happens to human consciousness during and after death? Dr. Parnia reveals how some form of “afterlife” may be uniquely ours, as evidenced by the continuation of the human mind and psyche after the brain stops functioning.   With physicians such as Dr. Parnia at the forefront, we are on the verge of discovering a new universal science of consciousness that reveals the nature of mind and a future where death is not the final defeat, but is, in fact, reversible.

Link:

Erasing Death – Sam Parnia & Josh Young

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, oven, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Erasing Death – Sam Parnia & Josh Young

Stop Staring at Your Backup Camera!

by RodgerQuinonez Posted on June 20, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jacob Bogage tells us that backup cameras in cars aren’t really helping that much:

Backup cameras have been around longer than other car safety tech, so the federal government has years of data on their effect. Between 2008 and 2011 — the most recent years for which data was made available by NHTSA — backup cameras more than doubled from 32% to 68% of all new cars sold. But injuries fell less than 8%, from about 13,000 down to 12,000. The improvement in safety has been very gradual from year to year.

The fatality rate has improved somewhat, dropping 31% over the same period. But the sample size is small — deaths from cars moving in reverse are relatively rare. NHTSA’s research shows deaths declined from 274 to 189 between 2008 and 2011, and the number was volatile year to year.

My current car is the first I’ve driven that has a backup camera, and this story doesn’t surprise me. As near as I can tell, using a backup camera requires you to change your driving habits, and it took me a while to figure that out. The most basic problem is that backup cameras—like most video screens—beg for your attention, and if you give in to that temptation you might very well be driving less safely than without a camera. The problems are pretty obvious:

If your attention is focused on the camera, you aren’t checking the traffic in front of you. But when you back out of a parking spot, for example, cross traffic is coming at you in both directions.
Backup cameras have an extreme wide-angle view, which is obviously useful. However, it also makes any object more than a few yards away look tiny. Even cars can be easy to miss sometimes, and smaller objects like children, dogs, and so forth can be all but invisible.
Despite their wide angle, sometimes cars don’t enter the camera’s sightlines until they’re quite close.
Most backup cameras just aren’t very good. Their imaging starts out mediocre just by virtue of using tiny lenses and sensors. And it only gets worse from there. Their imaging is poor at night. Their imaging is poor when the camera faces the sun. Their imaging is poor in bad weather. Their imaging is poor when the background is busy. Their imaging is poor when the lens gets dirty.

So how should you drive with a backup camera? Ironically, you need to change your driving habits back to what they were before you got a backup camera. That is, you should treat it as simply another window. Don’t obsess over it. Crane your neck and check all your windows and your rearview mirror and your backup camera. In other words, drive just like you used to except with one additional window. Too many people treat backup cameras as a substitute for all their other windows, instead of an addition to them.

Read this article:

Stop Staring at Your Backup Camera!

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stop Staring at Your Backup Camera!

Trees lining California streets are worth an extra $1 billion a year

by MirandaI21 Posted on June 16, 2016

tree-total-ers

Trees lining California streets are worth an extra $1 billion a year

By on Jun 16, 2016Share

It’s not easy to price a tree, but a group of researchers from the U.S. Forest Service and U.C. Davis have tried to do exactly that.

Working with a dataset of about 900,000 trees that line California’s public streets, the group sought to place a dollar value on the services those trees perform, which include “energy savings, carbon storage, air pollutant uptake, and rainfall interception.”

All told, the researchers estimate the trees contribute about $1 billion annually — nearly $111 per tree for each of the state’s 9.1 million street trees.

They found that the trees are worth $839 million annually alone based on the value they add to property, by providing more privacy and better views.

Trees help us fight climate change, too. The study values their carbon-storage abilities at $10 million each year and their energy savings (from the shade they provide) at $101 million. Between carbon sequestration and emissions reductions from energy savings, the state’s street trees avoid nearly 600,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions annually, which is like removing 120,000 cars from the road.

Trees also take pollutants like ozone and particulate matter out of the air — adding another $18 million to the tally.

Going forward, urban foresters can use the study to help guide what types of trees pack the maximum economic and environmental impact and, importantly, where to plant more of our leafy friends. Tree-lined streets and public green spaces tend to be located in the affluent, whiter parts of town.

The researchers write that there’s enough vacant space for another 16 million street trees to be planted in the state.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Excerpt from – 

Trees lining California streets are worth an extra $1 billion a year

Posted in alo, Anchor, Brita, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trees lining California streets are worth an extra $1 billion a year

California’s Almonds Suck as Much Water Annually as Los Angeles Uses in Three Years

by minecrafty Posted on January 12, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

More stories about the almond boom and what it means for California.


Invasion of the Hedge Fund Almonds


Charts: Almonds Suck as Much Water Annually as LA Uses in 3 Years


Photos: The Story Behind California’s Nut Boom


It Takes How Much Water to Grow an Almond?!


Lay Off the Almond Milk, You Ignorant Hipsters

California’s worst drought on record isn’t stopping the state from growing massive amounts of nuts: The state produces over 80 percent of the world’s almonds and 43 and 28 percent of the world’s pistachios and walnuts, respectively. As Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott details in this longread, the state’s almond market in particular has taken off: What was a $1.2 billion market in 2002 became $4.8 billion market by 2012.

Why are the almond growth rates so…nuts? (Sorry.) One reason is that the average American now eats two pounds of the crunchy snack per year—more than twice as much as a decade ago. But the biggest demand is coming from abroad: The US now exports 70 percent of almonds.

The thing is, nuts use a whole lot of water: it takes about a gallon of water to grow one almond, and nearly five gallons to produce a walnut. Residents across the state are being told to take shorter showers and stop watering their lawns, but the acreage devoted to the state’s almond orchards have doubled in the past decade. The amount of water that California uses annually to produce almond exports would provide water for all Los Angeles homes and businesses for almost three years.

China and Hong Kong together are the top buyers of US almonds; as Philpott writes, “Between 2007 and 2013, US almond exports to China and Hong Kong more than quadrupled, feeding a growing middle class’ appetite for high-protein, healthy food.”

Yet the center of almond farming—and the farming of lots of the US’s fruits and veggies—is exactly where the worst the most extreme drought is taking place. To make up for the water shortage, farmers are pumping groundwater—the underground water that feeds aquifers, serving as a savings account of sorts for the state’s water supply.

As the value of treenuts soars, the water required to support crops is pumped from a groundwater supply that has been shrinking for decades.

So how does the amount of water used to create nuts stack up with the water we use in our daily life? Check out the graphic below:

See original article:  

California’s Almonds Suck as Much Water Annually as Los Angeles Uses in Three Years

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California’s Almonds Suck as Much Water Annually as Los Angeles Uses in Three Years