Tag Archives: disease

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change

The Pentagon on Monday released a report asserting that climate change poses an immediate threat to national security, with increased risks from terrorism, infectious disease, global poverty and food shortages. Link to article –  Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change ; ; ;

Link:

Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, oven, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pentagon Signals Security Risks of Climate Change

A Closer Look at the Ebola Epidemic in the Context of Ecological Health

There’s a chance the Ebola outbreak could spur increased conservation and surveillance in ecosystems that might harbor dangerous pathogens. Original article: A Closer Look at the Ebola Epidemic in the Context of Ecological Health ; ; ;

Taken from – 

A Closer Look at the Ebola Epidemic in the Context of Ecological Health

Posted in alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, growing marijuana, horticulture, Monterey, Omega, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Closer Look at the Ebola Epidemic in the Context of Ecological Health

Why the World Health Organization Doesn’t Have Enough Funds to Fight Ebola

Mother Jones

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

With the Ebola virus continuing its spread throughout West Africa—and landing this week in a fifth country, Senegal—the custodians of global health are becoming more adamant that the world is not doing enough to stop the deadly pathogen. That is, the rich nations of the world are not providing sufficient resources for the fight against Ebola. World Health Organization leaders came to Washington last week to ask for $600 million to build and administer new treatment centers in Liberia, Guinea, and Sierra Leone—the three countries with the most infections—and provide safe burials for victims in those countries. This is essential, given that the killer virus spreads via bodily fluids, and many people have contracted the disease through contact with the bodies of dead Ebola victims.

Due to budget constraints, the WHO had only a limited presence in West Africa at the time of the outbreak and it failed to detect and contain the virus before it got out of control. These poor countries had to deal with the crisis on their own during the epidemic’s earliest stages. The WHO’s earlier budget cuts also caused the organization to lose some of the senior staff most qualified to lead a response.

Continue Reading »

Read this article – 

Why the World Health Organization Doesn’t Have Enough Funds to Fight Ebola

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why the World Health Organization Doesn’t Have Enough Funds to Fight Ebola

Stock Buybacks Are a Symptom, Not a Disease

Mother Jones

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

Paul Roberts writes in the LA Times today about stock buybacks:

Here’s a depressing statistic: Last year, U.S. companies spent a whopping $598 billion — not to develop new technologies, open new markets or to hire new workers but to buy up their own shares. By removing shares from circulation, companies made remaining shares pricier, thus creating the impression of a healthier business without the risks of actual business activity.

I agree: that statistic is depressing. In fact, back in the days of my foolish youth, when I dabbled a bit in stock picking, one of my rules was never to invest in a company that had done a share buyback. I figured it was a sign of tired management. If they couldn’t think of anything better to do with their money than that, what kind of future did they have? Moving on:

Share buybacks aren’t illegal, and, to be fair, they make sense when companies truly don’t have something better to reinvest their profits in. But U.S. companies do have something better: They could be reinvesting in the U.S. economy in ways that spur growth and generate jobs. The fact that they’re not explains a lot about the weakness of the job market and the sliding prospects of the American middle class.

….Without a more socially engaged corporate culture, the U.S. economy will continue to lose the capacity to generate long-term prosperity, compete globally or solve complicated economic challenges, such as climate change. We need to restore a broader sense of the corporation as a social citizen — no less focused on profit but far more cognizant of the fact that, in an interconnected economic world, there is no such thing as narrow self-interest.

I agree with some of what Roberts says about American corporations increasingly being obsessed with short-term stock gains rather than long-term growth. It’s also true that stock buybacks are partly driven by CEO pay packages that are pegged to share price. Those have been standard complaints for decades. But it’s misleading to suggest that US companies could be spurring the economy if only they’d invest more of their profits in growth. That gets it backwards. Companies will invest if they think they’ll get a good return on that investment, and that decision depends on the likely trajectory of the macroeconomy. If it looks like economic growth will be strong, they’ll invest more money in new plants and better equipment. If not, they won’t.

The macroeconomy doesn’t depend on either companies or individuals acting altruistically. You can’t pass a law banning stock buybacks and expect that companies will invest in plant expansion and worker training instead. They’ll only do it if those investments look likely to pay off. Conversely, forcing them to make investments that will lose money does nothing for the economy except light lots of money on fire.

You want companies to invest in the future? The first step is supporting economic policies that will grow the economy. If we were willing to do that, corporate investment would follow. If we don’t, all the laws in the world won’t keep the tide from coming in.

Read this article:

Stock Buybacks Are a Symptom, Not a Disease

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Stock Buybacks Are a Symptom, Not a Disease

Dear New York, Don’t Freak Out About Ebola. You’re Going to Be Fine.

Mother Jones

A man who was recently in West Africa is being tested for the deadly Ebola virus at Mount Sinai hospital in Manhattan, hospital officials confirmed on Monday, after he arrived overnight with symptoms that may be consistent with the virus.

“All necessary steps are being taken to ensure the safety of all patients, visitors and staff,” Mount Sinai officials said in a statement.

But that didn’t stop the inevitable rush of panic on Twitter from New Yorkers and others around the country worried about a potential spread of the disease, which has claimed 887 lives, mainly in West Africa. But, unlike African countries already suffering the misery of the biggest outbreak ever recorded, the American public has little to fear, says Dr. Jonathan Epstein, an Ebola expert and a veterinary epidemiologist with EcoHealth Alliance, an international organization of scientists that studies biodiversity and conservation.

Here is an edited transcript of our conversation about how New Yorkers, and the rest of the country, should think about this news. In short: Don’t freak out. They’ve totally got this.

Mother Jones: What happens now? Should we be worried?

Jonathan Epstein: We certainly shouldn’t be overly surprised if additional cases inadvertently make their way to the United States from Africa. We know that there are direct travel routes from countries in West Africa to the United States. So it’s certainly well within the realm of reason that people who have been exposed to Ebola would board a plane to get to the United States, even without knowing that they are infected.

Dr. Jonathan Epstein, Associate Vice President of Conservation Medicine at EcoHealth Alliance EcoHealth Alliance

Now, once they are detected and hospitalized, our public health systems here are really good. We have exactly what’s needed to control Ebola, and that is to rapidly identify a case with confirmatory diagnostic testing. Those tests are truly available here, whether it’s through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, or state health agencies, or the hospitals themselves.

Isolation is critically important with Ebola, and infectious disease wards in major hospitals have the ability to isolate patients. So, provided that the patient is isolated, and the doctors and nurses take appropriate precautions in terms of their own personal protective equipment—”barrier nursing”, wearing gloves, protective clothing, that sort of thing—all of the things are in place at hospitals in the United States to really limit the ability of Ebola to be spread from person to person. I really do have a high confidence that if cases do make it to the United States that they’ll be identified, and traced back, and addressed.

MJ: The mind instantly goes to the situation before a patient reaches the emergency room, or even in the emergency room itself, or those that may have shared a subway stop. How do we assess the level of risk on that front?

JE: The fortunate thing about Ebola virus, as opposed to other viral infections which are easily transmitted through respiratory routes and are airborne like influenza, is that it doesn’t become transmissible until a person is symptomatic, and feeling pretty sick. That’s not to say they still might not go out into the public or have interactions with people, but at the point at which they do get identified by a health care provider, their contacts, their history since they became symptomatic in the past few days or so, will then be traced back by public health authorities.

We’re paying very careful attention to flights coming in from West Africa, and people who are already symptomatic who might arrive at the airport would be detected by public health screens there. There’s high confidence that we’d identify people.

MJ: Tell me more specially about New York City. It’s obviously prepared for big things. Is the city prepared for infectious diseases?

JE: We’ve experienced an infectious disease outbreak. If you remember the influenza H1N1 outbreak of 2009, there were cases in New York City. Public health systems were in place, and very well-equipped to diagnose them rapidly, and a lot of education and outreach campaigns were set in motion to limit the possibility of people getting infected with influenza. There was a lot of activity with respect to prevention. New York City specifically is prepared for infectious disease outbreaks of this nature.

MJ: What should people be aware of if this case escalates in such a big city like New York?

JE: What people need to realize is that even though Ebola is a virus that can have scary symptoms, and has this scary reputation, it’s not extremely transmissible. You need very close contact with a sick, clinically symptomatic patient, so it’s very unlikely that a person arriving with Ebola would set off a huge chain-reaction and cause a massive outbreak, that’s just not a likely scenario. We have very good people conducting surveillance both in New York and nationally to make sure that something like that doesn’t happen. So the conditions here are entirely different than they are in rural Africa, or Central or West Africa where Ebola outbreaks have occurred.

Read article here:  

Dear New York, Don’t Freak Out About Ebola. You’re Going to Be Fine.

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dear New York, Don’t Freak Out About Ebola. You’re Going to Be Fine.

Mysterious Starfish ‘Goo’ Problem Is Getting Worse

Read more: 

Mysterious Starfish ‘Goo’ Problem Is Getting Worse

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Mysterious Starfish ‘Goo’ Problem Is Getting Worse

Teenagers Are No Longer the Scary Delinquents of 30 Years Ago

Mother Jones

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

Sarah Kliff says today’s teenagers are “the best-behaved generation on record”:

The Centers for Disease Control released a monster report last week on the state of Americans’ health. The 511-page report makes one thing abundantly clear: teens are behaving better right now than pretty much any other time since the federal government began collecting data.

The teen birth rate is at an all-time low….High school seniors are drinking less, smoking less, and barely using cocaine….

And, of course, the rate of violent crime has plummeted among teenagers, as Dick Mendel documents here. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’d suggest that all of this is at least partially the result of the end of leaded gasoline in America.

What’s happening today isn’t an aberration. Teenagers from the mid-60s through the mid-90s were the aberration. We managed to convince ourselves during that era that something had gone permanently wrong, but it wasn’t so. The ultra-violent gangs and reckless behavior that became so widespread simply wasn’t normal, any more than expecting teenagers to sit around in kumbaya circles would be normal. Nor had anything gone fundamentally wrong with our culture. It was the result of defective brain development caused by early exposure to lead.

I’ll never be able to prove this. No one ever will. The data is simply not rich enough, and it never will be. Nevertheless, what evidence we do have sure points in this direction. And here’s why it’s important. Even if we never clean up another microgram of lead, we’ve nonetheless cleaned up most of the lead that we poisoned our atmosphere with in the postwar years. So if the lead hypothesis is true, it means that our default fear of teenagers—beaten into us during the scary lead years—is no longer accurate. They simply aren’t as dangerous or as reckless as they used to be, and that isn’t going to change. We don’t need to be as frightened of them as we used to be. In the same way that we have to get over economic fears rooted in the 70s or the Great Depression that are no longer meaningful, we need to get over our widespread fear of teenagers that’s no longer meaningful either.

Today’s teenagers have grown up with more or less normal brain development. Some will be nice kids, some will become gang leaders. That’s always the case. But speaking generally, if you meet a group of teenagers today, they’re no more likely to be especially scary than they were in the 40s or 50s. They’re just teenagers. It’s probably going to take a while for everyone to adjust to this, but the time to start is now. Decently behaved teenagers are here to stay.

Original post: 

Teenagers Are No Longer the Scary Delinquents of 30 Years Ago

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Teenagers Are No Longer the Scary Delinquents of 30 Years Ago

The Truth About Bug Spray

Mother Jones

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

If you’re planning on spending time outdoors this summer, you’ll find that the insect repellent aisle of your local pharmacy offers a dazzling array of options to protect you from hungry bugs. Hardcore DEET-based sprays like Off! Deep Woods ($6.79 for 6 oz.) promise to ward off ticks, mosquitoes, flies, chiggers, and gnats for an entire day. Other products—such as Avon Skin So Soft Bug Guard Plus ($6.99 for 4 oz.)—contain sunscreen in addition to insect repellent. There are plenty of plant-based potions—Aromaflage ($30 for 8 ml) claims that its proprietary blend of “citrus fruit, warm cedarwood, and silken vanilla” makes for “a sophisticated, uplifting fragrance that also repels insects.” So do any of them get the job done? And do they cause problems for more than just bugs?

What’s the big deal? I can handle a few mosquito bites.
Scientists believe that mosquitoes choose their human victims by the scent of the bacteria on our skin and in our sweat. Because our bacterial communities vary, some of us are more prone to bites than others. To anyone who has scratched herself silly after a camping trip, the importance of an effective repellent is obvious. But even if you’re lucky enough to be unappetizing to mosquitoes, there’s another reason to choose your bug defense carefully: Insect-borne illnesses are on the rise, and some can be serious, even deadly. Lyme disease, which is transmitted by deer ticks, causes debilitating symptoms in more than 20,000 people every year. In 2013, 2,374 people in 48 states contracted the mosquito-borne disease West Nile virus, and 114 of them died. As climate change intensifies, public health experts expect that more breeds of mosquito will thrive in the United States. As a result, they predict an uptick in West Nile and other insect-borne illnesses, such as yellow fever. Since 2001, Florida, Hawaii, and Texas have had outbreaks of dengue, another mosquito-borne disease that had been considered eliminated in the United States since 1945.

What should I look for in a repellent?
Good question. Despite massive industry lobbying, sunscreen manufacturers must now state clearly on the packaging how well and how long a product works. Repellent companies, however, are hardly required to follow any rules at all. In 2013, when the health watchdog Environmental Working Group analyzed various repellents, researchers found that manufacturers’ claims about how long products last varied widely—even with the same active ingredient in the same concentrations. Some manufacturers claimed that their products were waterproof, even though—beachgoers beware—they did not offer proof. Others boasted exotic active ingredients—like clove oil and lemongrass oil—that have not been adequately tested and may contain high concentrations of allergens. “There should be a way for consumers to compare products,” says EWG senior scientist David Andrews. “And right now, there is really not.”

Doesn’t the government have some basic rules about what they can put on the labels?
Not really. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency drafted a label template that tells consumers what kinds of insects a product protects against and how often it needs to be reapplied. But it’s completely voluntary. What’s more, the graphic will only apply to repellents that you apply to your skin, not wristbands, patches, candles, sonic devices, or any other products that claim to deter bugs.

So do those wristbands work?
Not as well as skin-applied repellents. In 2011, Australian medical entomologist Cameron Webb tested mosquito repellent wristbands and found them much less effective than skin-applied products containing DEET; they only offered protection in a very small area around the wrist. “There is no product—candles, fans, coils, patches, or anything else—that I am aware of that provides comparable protection to a DEET skin-based repellent,” he says. “Even if they work a little bit, they’re not going to protect all of your exposed skin.” Spatial products such as candles, coils, and smoke do drive away bugs, though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that they “have not yet been adequately evaluated in peer-reviewed studies for their efficacy in preventing vectorborne disease.”

Wait, isn’t DEET toxic?
No. In the ’80s, there were reports of children having seizures after using DEET-based products, but the exact cause of the seizures was never determined. Subsequent studies have found virtually no health risks associated with the ingredient at the concentrations found in commercial repellents.

Anything else I should steer clear of?
EWG suggests skipping products with plant-based active ingredients, even though they sound greener; the EPA does not require registration of these substances, and no one knows how safe or effective they are. The CDC recommends avoiding combined sunscreen-repellents because sunscreen requires much more frequent application than repellent—and the effect of overapplication of repellent hasn’t been well studied. And don’t trust label claims about how long a product can last. That’s determined by the percentage of its active ingredients—but without any way to compare, consumers are left to trial and error.

So what does work? For the best protection against both mosquitoes and ticks, the CDC recommends products containing DEET. For just mosquitoes, the agency also approves of products with the active ingredients picaridin (the active ingredient in most Avon Skin So Soft products), IR3535, and oil of lemon eucalyptus—which, despite its natural-sounding name, is actually a synthetic formulation. EWG found all three of these ingredients to be just as effective as DEET. “You don’t really want to mess around with a product that might or might not work,” says Webb, the Australian entomologist. “Where insect-borne diseases are concerned, it only takes one bite.” And as for the sheer itchy misery of being a mosquito’s idea of a five-star restaurant? Well, you probably don’t want to mess around with that, either.

Visit site: 

The Truth About Bug Spray

Posted in Anchor, Aroma, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Truth About Bug Spray

Dot Earth Blog: Research on Malaria-Resistant Children in Tanzania Leads to Promising New Vaccine Target

A new malaria vaccine strategy emerges from studies of blood in resistant Tanzanian toddlers. More:  Dot Earth Blog: Research on Malaria-Resistant Children in Tanzania Leads to Promising New Vaccine Target ; ;Related ArticlesExtreme Weather: How El Niño Might Alter the Political ClimateThe Big Melt AcceleratesIn California, Climate Issues Moved to Fore by Governor ;

Link – 

Dot Earth Blog: Research on Malaria-Resistant Children in Tanzania Leads to Promising New Vaccine Target

Posted in Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Dot Earth Blog: Research on Malaria-Resistant Children in Tanzania Leads to Promising New Vaccine Target

We Don’t Know How Many Americans Are Shot Each Year. This Bill Could Help Us Find Out.

Mother Jones

This story first appeared on the ProPublica website.

Updated 05/21/2014 1:56 p.m.: This story has been updated to include comments from the National Rifle Association and Rep. Maloney.

Two Congressional Democrats are unveiling legislation this morning that would restart the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s gun violence research efforts.

Since 1996, when a small CDC-funded study on the risks of owning a firearm ignited opposition from Republicans, the CDC’s budget for research on firearms injuries has shrunk to zero.

The result, as we’ve detailed, is that many basic questions about gun violence—such as how many Americans are shot each year—remain unanswered.

The new legislation, which will be introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) in the House, and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in the Senate, would give the CDC $10 million a year “for the purpose of conducting or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence prevention.”

“In America, gun violence kills twice as many children as cancer, and yet political grandstanding has halted funding for public health research to understand this crisis,” Maloney said in a statement.

A National Rifle Association spokeswoman called the push for new CDC funding “unethical.”

“The abuse of taxpayer funds for anti-gun political propaganda under the guise of ‘research’ is unethical,” spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said in a statement to ProPublica. “That is why Congress should stand firm against President Obama’s scheme to undermine a fundamental constitutional right.”

Maloney, who co-sponsored the 1994 assault weapons ban, is a long-time gun control advocate. Earlier this year, she and Markey encouraged President Obama to include CDC funding in his proposed 2015 budget, which he did.

Obama’s proposal has been opposed by key Republicans, and so far, Markey and Maloney’s legislation has not attracted any Republican support. “On the House side, we have over 20 co-sponsors already. We do not have a Republican,” Maloney said at a press conference this morning.

“The President’s request to fund propaganda for his gun-grabbing initiatives though the CDC will not be included in the FY2015 appropriations bill,” Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that traditionally sets CDC funding, told ProPublica last month.

The CDC sponsors a wide variety of disease and injury prevention programs, focusing on everything from HIV/AIDS to averting falls by elderly people. Since 2007, the CDC has spent less than $100,000 a year on firearms-focused work, according to a CDC spokeswoman. The money goes not for research but for a very rough, annual estimate of the number of Americans injured by shootings.

The NRA’s director of public affairs told CNN last year that more government-funded gun research is not needed.

“What works to reduce gun violence is to make sure that criminals are prosecuted and those who have been found to be a danger to themselves or others don’t have access to firearms,” Andrew Arulanandam said. “Not to carry out more studies.”

Professional groups that represent doctors, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, support the push for more research funding. In a letter last summer, the associations wrote that “the dearth of gun violence research has contributed to the lack of meaningful progress in reducing firearm injuries,” and noted that “firearm injuries are one of the top three causes of death among youth.”

The CDC is not the only source of federal funding for gun violence research. The Justice Department—which has funded gun violence prevention studies since the 1980s—gave nearly $2 million to firearms violence projects last year, and is offering as much as $1.5 million in research funding this year.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which invests $30 billion in medical research each year, put out a call last fall for new research projects on gun violence prevention. It’s not yet clear how much money the NIH will devote to the research. The NIH will announce the gun violence projects it will fund in September and December, a spokeswoman said.

A report last year from experts convened by the federally funded Institute of Medicine outlined the current priorities for research on reducing gun violence. Among the questions that need answers, according to the report: How often do Americans successfully use guns to protect themselves each year? Could improved “smart gun” technologies reduce gun deaths and injuries, and will consumers be willing to adopt them? And would universal background checks—the most popular and prominent gun control policy proposal—actually reduce gun violence?

Original link:

We Don’t Know How Many Americans Are Shot Each Year. This Bill Could Help Us Find Out.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, ProPublica, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Don’t Know How Many Americans Are Shot Each Year. This Bill Could Help Us Find Out.