Tag Archives: health

The AMA Represents Only About One-Sixth of All Doctors

Mother Jones

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

How do doctors feel about the nomination of Rep. Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services? The New York Times weighs in:

When President-elect Donald J. Trump chose Representative Tom Price of Georgia to be his health and human services secretary, the American Medical Association swiftly endorsed the selection of one of its own, an orthopedic surgeon who has championed the role of physicians throughout his legislative career.

Then the larger world of doctors and nurses weighed in on the beliefs and record of Mr. Price, a suburban Atlanta Republican — and the split among caregivers, especially doctors, quickly grew sharp. “The A.M.A. does not speak for us,” says a petition signed by more than 5,000 doctors.

A faithful reader emails to ask: “I remember reading recently that a shockingly low number of doctors are members of the AMA. So what is it exactly?”

Membership numbers, it turns out, are not a secret, exactly, but neither does the AMA go out of its way to make them easy to find. Their current membership is about 235,000, but you have to adjust this number to remove students, retired doctors, and so forth. Based on publicly available data, and guesstimating that about one-fifth of its members aren’t practicing physicians, here’s what the AMA’s membership looks like. They were indeed a powerhouse in the 50s, but no so much anymore:

Keep this in mind whenever you hear that “the AMA” endorses a political position—regardless of whether it’s one you approve of or not. They represent only about a sixth of all the physicians in the country. The rest may have very different opinions indeed.

Link to article:

The AMA Represents Only About One-Sixth of All Doctors

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The AMA Represents Only About One-Sixth of All Doctors

Is Your Noisy Neighborhood Slowly Killing You?

Mother Jones

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

If you’re a tree frog or an ovenbird in mating season and you happen to live in the 83 percent of the continental United States that lies within 3,500 feet of a road, bummer for you. Not only are you more likely to collide with an SUV, but you’re going to have a harder time finding a mate. Research suggests that human-generated noises also mess with nesting behavior, predator-prey dynamics, and sleep patterns. In other words, wildlife gets stressed out by noise.

So do we, it turns out—and the world is getting louder. Scientists define “noise” as unwanted sound, and the level of background din from human activities has been doubling roughly every three decades, beating population growth. Road traffic in the United States has tripled over the last 30 years. By 2032, the number of passenger flights is expected to be nearly double the 2011 figure—at peak hours, planes are even audible overhead 70 percent of the time in the remote backcountry of Yosemite National Park. And while that’s obviously a nuisance for animals and visitors seeking a restorative experience, this growing anthropophony (a fancy word for the human soundscape) is also contributing to stress-related diseases and early death, especially in and around cities.

By evolutionary necessity, noise triggers a potent stress response. We are more easily startled by unexpected sounds than by objects that come suddenly into our field of vision. Our nervous systems react to noises that are loud and abrupt (gunshots, a backfiring engine), rumbling (airplanes), or whining and chaotic (leaf blowers, coffee grinders) by instructing our bodies to boost the heart rate, breathe less deeply, and release fight-or-flight hormones.

But the physical responses that helped save our asses from predators back on the veldt (and still might prove useful at a busy intersection) have obvious downsides in the middle of a school lesson or while you’re trying to get some sleep—especially if, like me, you live near a major airport. On the flip side, positive sounds like chill music, pleasing birdsong, and the voices of loved ones stimulate the brain’s emotional centers, bringing feelings of joy, calm, and well-being.

To learn more, I paid a visit to biobehavioral psychologist Joshua Smyth, who studies human responses to stress at his Pennsylvania State University laboratory. An affable guy who resembles a younger Al Franken, Smyth first hooked me up to a portable heart monitor and had me spit into a test tube to measure my baseline cortisol levels before giving me what was essentially a personality test to see how sensitive I am to unwanted sounds like, say, a roommate’s loud music. While the results suggested I am neither neurotic nor particularly introverted—both of which can predispose a person to noise annoyance—I scored a high 5.2 (adults average 4, college students 3.5), which put me near the 88th percentile.

Then came the fun part. To see how different types of sound affect my ability to recover from life’s ordinary stresses, Smyth first had to stress me out: Cue public speaking. He asked me to deliver a short extemporaneous speech in front of a large mirror, behind which, Smyth told me, sat a panel of judges. Several times during the five-minute speech, a lab technician interrupted and told me to speak up.

This gauntlet of misery is called the Trier Social Stress Test, and even though I knew there was no “panel of judges,” I exhibited a textbook response. My heart rate climbed from the mid-60s to the mid-90s, and my cortisol, an imperfect but suggestive marker of stress, almost doubled.

Next, Smyth assigned me one of three recovery exercises he uses: a video of a pretty summer meadow featuring chirping birds and a blue sky. As I watched, my heart rate fell to its mid-60s baseline range. A couple of minutes into the video, the abrupt rumbling of a truck engine upped my heart rate by 10 clicks. It took me a while to recover, but the soothing nature scene eventually coaxed my heart rate into the mid-50s—that is, until the sound of a propeller plane shot it up again, though not as high as the truck had. At this point, my cortisol was 8.2 nanomoles per liter—1.5 points over baseline—and the variations in my heart rate indicated similar patterns of stress.

My results were typical of Smyth’s findings, which support complementary psychological theories most of us would recognize as common sense. Namely, that pleasing natural sights and sounds are good for the heart and mind—our human cacophony, not so much. “Your recovery was clearly disrupted,” Smyth told me. “Those noises are violating your experience. It’s half as stressful as doing the speech task. Those aren’t trivial effects.”

It all adds up to a dagger twice thrust: Not only does background noise interfere with our much-needed ability to recuperate, but in the places where we live and play, we have increasingly fewer havens from the onslaught.

Even if you think you’re immune to city noise, it may well be affecting your health. The best research on this comes out of Europe. In one study of 4,861 adults, a 10-decibel increase in nighttime noise was linked to a 14 percent rise in a person’s likelihood of being diagnosed with hypertension. Health experts studying more than 1 million people in the vicinity of Germany’s Cologne Bonn Airport found that people subjected to background noise of greater than 40 decibels were at increased risk of cardiovascular diseases, kidney failure, and dementia compared with those who lived farther from the flight paths, where things were quieter. (For perspective, the legal nighttime noise limit in Washington, DC, is 55 decibels.)

Another study examined how the opening of a new airport in Munich affected nearby children. In the 18 months after flights commenced, the researchers observed soaring levels of stress hormones in their subjects. The children’s epinephrine levels rose 49 percent, their norepinephrine more than doubled, and their systolic blood pressure, on average, went up by five points.

Yet another depressing study examined the cognition of 2,800 students in 89 schools across Europe. Published in The Lancet in 2005, it found that aircraft and road noise had significant impacts on reading comprehension and certain kinds of memory. The results, adjusted for family income, the mother’s education, and other confounding factors, were linear. For every five-decibel noise increase, the reading scores of British children dropped by the equivalent of a two-month delay, so that kids in neighborhoods that were 20 decibels louder than average were almost a year behind.

This was no fluke: “To date, over 20 studies have shown a negative effect of environmental noise exposure on children’s learning outcomes and cognitive performance,” notes a 2013 paper in the Journal of Environmental Psychology. “Studies have demonstrated that children with chronic aircraft, road traffic or rail noise exposure at school have poorer reading ability, memory, and academic performance on national standardised tests.” There’s science behind the saying “You can’t hear yourself think.”

You can probably guess which communities face the greatest sonic barrage: the same ones stuck with the worst air, the shoddiest housing, and so on. Noise as a social justice issue is just beginning to gain traction. But as diseases and cognitive problems are increasingly chalked up to chronic stress, it makes sense to look at all the contributing factors to that stress. Much of what we know about urban noise in the United States actually comes from National Park Service researchers, who have spent the last 14 years collecting 1.5 million hours of ambient sound from loca­tions ranging from remote wilderness areas to urban street corners. What they’re finding is that noise may well be the most pervasive pollutant in America.

Now researchers can estimate people’s noise exposure down to the level of individual city blocks, says Peter James, a researcher at the Harvard school of public health whose team is using Park Service data to explore whether excessive noise is partly responsible for disparities in “cardiovascular outcomes” in disadvantaged communities. People living in such neighborhoods are also the least likely to have access to the restorative benefits of nature, and the granular noise data could help city planners, policymakers, and activists plan accordingly. Groups like Outdoor Afro and NatureBridge—which aim to get urban kids out into natural settings—are already springing up in cities nationwide.

A healthy soundscape, James says, “is not a wishy-washy amenity. It’s a potential public health factor we need to understand to make sure everyone has the same opportunities.” Smyth offers this advice: “We should think about soundscapes as medicine,” he told me. “It’s like a pill. You can prescribe sounds or a walk in the park in much the way we prescribe exercise. Do it 20 minutes a day as a lifetime approach—or you can do it as an acute stress intervention. When you’re stressed, go to a quiet place.” I’m ready.

Taken from:  

Is Your Noisy Neighborhood Slowly Killing You?

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Your Noisy Neighborhood Slowly Killing You?

ERP Blogstorm Part 4: Miscellaneous

Mother Jones

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

The fourth and final part of our series of charts from the Economic Report of the President has no theme. It’s just three unrelated charts that I felt like posting. First up, here is the IMF’s forecast of global growth over the six years since the end of the Great Recession:

Every year they think the decline in growth is over and the global economy will pick up again. And every year they’re wrong. Now they’re forecasting the same thing in 2016. Next year we’ll find out if they’re finally right.

Next up is a chart that shows how oil prices affect national economies in the Middle East:

Kuwait can balance its budget with an oil price of $50 per barrel. Saudi Arabia needs about $70. Bahrain needs $90. And Libya needs to start spending less.

Finally, here’s a chart I’ve put up in various forms several times over the years:

We’ve grown used to thinking of health care costs as spiraling out of control, but that wasn’t a regular fact of life until the early 80s. Then, for the next 20 years, health care inflation ran way higher than overall inflation. However, the gap started narrowing as early as the mid-90s. Here’s a chart of my own that shows the gap directly:

Using a 10-year rolling average helps smooth out the spikes so we can focus on the trend instead. Medical inflation was fairly moderate in the late 50s and then declined fairly steadily to even lower levels until the early 80s. Then it skyrocketed, and this is the era we’re most familiar with. But by the early aughts it had fallen back to its previous level in the 60s and 70s, and it’s stayed there for the past 15 years.

The authors of the report try to make a case that the subdued medical inflation of the past few years is due to Obamacare, but they try too hard. Obamacare has likely had some effect, but basically it just had the good luck to go into effect at a time when medical inflation was already pretty low.

What this all shows is that we should change how we think of medical inflation. Most of us think of it as something that’s out of control, and we hope that the recent slowdown isn’t just a blip. Instead, we should think of the period from 1980-2000 as a blip. Except for those two decades, medical inflation has run steadily at about 1.5 percent above overall inflation, and there’s no special reason to think this will change. That’s the normal rate for the postwar era.

Link:

ERP Blogstorm Part 4: Miscellaneous

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on ERP Blogstorm Part 4: Miscellaneous

Climate Change Is Shrinking Reindeer and Devastating Their Herders

Mother Jones

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

Reindeer are getting smaller and lighter as a result of climate change’s disruption to their food supply, researchers revealed during the British Ecological Society annual meeting in Liverpool this week.

The findings come by way of ecologists from the James Hutton Institute, the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, and the Norwegian University of Life Sciences who have been measuring reindeer in the high Arctic every winter since 1994. According to their measurements, adult reindeer have shown a 12 percent decrease in overall body mass over the years—from 121 pounds in 1994 to 106 pounds in 2010.

JellisV/iStock

Researchers believe the stunted growth of reindeer is directly tied to increasing temperatures in the Arctic—a region particularly vulnerable to warming—over the past two decades. Among several speculated reasons, all linked to climate change, warmer winter temperatures bring more rain, which freezes when it falls onto snow, making it more difficult for reindeer to access food below the ice. For pregnant females, the resultant starvation causes them to abort or give birth to malnourished calves. Over the long term, this could also lead to “extensive die-offs” in the reindeer population, according to lead researcher Steve Albon.

Reindeer aren’t the only victims of a rapidly shifting Arctic climate—those who herd them have also fallen prey. The Sami peoples of northern Scandinavia consider reindeer a linchpin of their cultural identity. Climate change—on top of the existing mental strains that indigenous herders face from social stigma—has contributed to a widespread mental health crisis and mounting suicide rate among the Sami in recent years. According to Sami psychologist and researcher Petter Stoor, half of Sami adults in Sweden suffer from anxiety and depression, and an astonishing one-third of young herders have contemplated or attempted suicide.

Sami herder brings food to reindeer. Dmitry Chulov/iStock

As climate change intensifies, the reindeer herders stand to lose not only their livelihood, but their culture. “We are the nature people,” Frøydis Nystad Nilsen, a Sami psychologist, told the health news site STAT. “When you lose your land, you lose your identity.”

Excerpt from: 

Climate Change Is Shrinking Reindeer and Devastating Their Herders

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate Change Is Shrinking Reindeer and Devastating Their Herders

If Obamacare Is Repealed, 3 Million With Pre-Existing Conditions Will Instantly Lose Health Care

Mother Jones

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

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 52 million Americans have pre-existing conditions. How many of these are in the individual insurance market? “In 2015, about 8% of the non-elderly population had individual market insurance. Over a several-year period, however, a much larger share may seek individual market coverage.”

So let’s say 10 percent as a conservative round number. That’s 5 million people. Since Obamacare requires insurers to cover these people—and this is something Republicans can’t repeal—they will still have access to coverage even if other parts of Obamacare are repealed. However, there will be no subsidies, and the price of insurance will likely be high since this population skews older. At a rough guess, probably around 3 million of these people will be unable to afford insurance.

The full disaster of an Obamacare repeal goes far beyond this, of course, but it’s worth keeping this tidbit in mind. Once Obamacare’s subsidies are repealed, it’s likely that 3 million people with expensive pre-existing conditions will be instantly tossed out of the health care system, unable to get insurance and unable to afford proper care. And that’s just the beginning.

More: 

If Obamacare Is Repealed, 3 Million With Pre-Existing Conditions Will Instantly Lose Health Care

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If Obamacare Is Repealed, 3 Million With Pre-Existing Conditions Will Instantly Lose Health Care

Trump’s Labor Secretary Pick Tried to Overturn Roe v. Wade. He Almost Succeeded.

Mother Jones

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

President-elect Trump is expected to name Andrew Puzder, chief executive of the company that runs fast food giants Carl’s Jr. and Hardees, to head the Department of Labor. This choice has already sparked concern among labor advocates, given Puzder’s frequent commentaries opposing minimum wage increases.

But reproductive rights advocates should also be concerned. Puzder has long opposed abortion rights and even wrote the Missouri abortion law the Supreme Court upheld in its 1989 Webster v. Reproductive Health Services decision. This was a seminal case that allowed states to impose far more restrictions on abortion care than had previously been permitted under Roe v. Wade, including limits on the use of public funds and facilities for abortion care.

Donald Trump has promised to appoint anti-abortion Supreme Court justices, and his vice president-elect Mike Pence has said he wants to “send Roe v. Wade to the ash heap of history.” Back in the ’80s, when he was a lawyer working in St. Louis, Puzder acted on similar convictions. In a 1984 article in the Stetson Law Journal, Puzder and another lawyer proposed that the Missouri legislature pass a law defining life as beginning at conception in broader contexts—in property or contract law, for instance. Puzder saw its purpose as mounting a challenge against Roe, which had legalized abortion a little less than a decade earlier. If the court recognized that a fetus had rights in contexts other than abortion, he reasoned, it created a foundation for challenging legal abortion down the line.

“This is not an abortion statute,” Puzder told the Chicago Tribune in 1989, three months before Webster was heard by the Supreme Court. “It is designed to make the Supreme Court face the question of deciding whether a state can decide when life exists.”

Puzder worked with Sam Lee, a local anti-abortion lobbyist, to move the proposal to the legislature. The two got acquainted because Puzder had often helped get Lee out of jail following his arrests during sit-ins at abortion clinics “by arguing a defense of necessity,” noted the Tribune. “Lee had to break the law and trespass because he believed that life began at conception and that the only way to stop the greater crime was to limit access to the clinic. The defense almost always worked.”

The two added a slew of other abortion restrictions to the bill—including one prohibiting the use of public resources to provide or counsel on abortions—and soon it was signed into law in Missouri. The measure was challenged by a local abortion clinic, Reproductive Health Services, and provisions of the law were subsequently found unconstitutional by several appeals courts. Ultimately, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that none of the bill’s provisions were unconstitutional, dealing a blow to abortion rights advocates—but the high court clarified their ruling should not be taken as a referendum on the original decision in Roe v. Wade. Puzder now will likely join an administration that plans to complete a mission he began thirty years ago.

Read more:  

Trump’s Labor Secretary Pick Tried to Overturn Roe v. Wade. He Almost Succeeded.

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Labor Secretary Pick Tried to Overturn Roe v. Wade. He Almost Succeeded.

What Would Happen if the World’s Soils Disappeared?

The United Nations designated December 5th as World Soil Day to raise awareness about the dangers of soil loss. Youve likely heard about the environmental importance of soils. But how important are they, really? Lets take a quick look at how losing our precious soils would impact the world.

Could soil ever actually run out?

Yes. If we continue to harm and degrade topsoil at the current rate, its estimated that the world could lose all its topsoil within 60 years.

Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil on the surface of the earth. Its the most fertile type of soil that typically contains lots of nutrient-rich organic matter from broken down plants and other organisms. Topsoil is also alive with beneficial microbes, fungi and critters like earth worms, which feed on the organic matter.

The deeper layers of soil beneath the topsoil are not nearly as rich. They are primarily made up of decomposing rock that provides the raw material for future topsoil as well as a substrate for deeply rooted plants to anchor in.

If the delicate ecosystem within topsoil is disrupted, it will essentially die. Plants cant grow in topsoil that doesnt have abundant organic matter and thriving populations of microbes.

Agricultural Affects

Modern agricultural practices often use chemical fertilizers instead of organic matter. This does not feed the soil. It only provides a quick blast of limited nutrients that the plants soon consume. Whereas, plant debris and other organic matter will slowly break down and provide ongoing nutrition for growing plants and soil microorganisms.

The organic matter content that was once naturally high in topsoil is becoming more and more depleted as industrial farming practices continue. Due to this, topsoil is being lost between 10 and 40 times the rate at which it can be naturally replenished.

If this continues, agricultural soils will become less fertile and it will be more difficult to grow food. In areas where this is already happening, forest and wild areas are often being destroyed in order to make more agricultural land. Deforestation like this reduces organic matter in the soil even more, making the problem worse.

The extreme outcome of topsoil degradation would be widespread food shortages because depleted soils cant produce enough crops to provide food for everyone.

Impact on Water

Healthy topsoil will naturally retain water. Organic matter helps to maintain a good structure within soil that can absorb and release water as needed by the plants and surrounding ecosystem.

A few issues can start when topsoil becomes degraded. Flooding is perhaps the most dramatic result. When a landscape cant hold water, rainfall can only run off the surface and eventually wind up in the ocean. It will also cause erosion and take a great deal of soil with it.

Poor topsoil also creates a need for more irrigation. Many parts of the world already have water shortages, so an increased pressure on the local water supplies could lead to serious problems.

Plant and Animal Losses

If we lost the health of our soils, significant amounts of wild plants would die off around the world. This would clearly be a massive blow to biodiversity, habitat for animals and food sources. But it could also have a significant impact on climate change.

Plants naturally take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. This is the primary way carbon is removed from our atmosphere. If plant populations collapsed around the world, there could be a huge increase in the amount of circulating carbon.

Another issue is that all living things release carbon when they die, so any large-scale plant and animal die-offs would produce carbon as the organisms decompose. High levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere have already been linked to climate change and global warming. Mass die-offs would only add to this problem and potentially lead to more severe climate change.

How can we stop all this from happening?

Plant more plants. This is a vital step towards helping the worlds soils. More plants will create more organic matter, which will feed more soil microorganisms and keep soils thriving. You can start in your backyard or volunteer with an organization that reclaims and replants degraded areas.

Learn about soils. A lot of the damage done to our soils has been out of ignorance or simply taking whats under our feet for granted. But the more we can all learn about soil, the better well be able to take care of it.

Minimize hard surfaces. Large areas of pavement or other hard surfaces cause increased soil erosion around the edges and create soil dead spaces underneath. Consider making driveways, decks or sidewalks with paving stones or other materials that allow water to flow through them and the soil underneath to breathe.

Make a rain garden. This is a shallow depression you can create in your yard that will capture excess rain water and prevent soil erosion. You can plant moisture-loving plants in your rain garden, or leave it to provide water for animals.

Support your local farmers. Small-scale agriculture is often better for the health of soil. Many small farmers take the health of their land very seriously and promote fertility by non-chemical, sustainable means. Get to know the farmers at your local market and ask how they support their soils. Or better yet, go to visit their farms and check out the soil yourself.

Recycle human waste. It may be a solution no one wants to talk about, but a huge amount of organic matter that could go back into our soils is currently being flushed down the toilet. This has prompted a movement to make use of whats known as humanure, or human manure. The Humanure Handbook by Joseph Jenkins is a great place to start if youd like to explore this option.

Related
This Search Engine Plants Trees
11 Surprising Animals That Hibernate
What if All the Spiders Disappeared?

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Original link: 

What Would Happen if the World’s Soils Disappeared?

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Would Happen if the World’s Soils Disappeared?

16 Ways to Make Your Bathroom More Eco-Friendly

Making your bathroom more water- and energy-efficient might not seem sexy, but it can make a big difference in your home’s utilitybills and environmental impact. These are somebig and small ways to make your bathroom more eco-friendly.

When we’re talking about making any room more eco-friendly, there are really two things going on:

  1. The things in the room.
  2. Your habits in the room.

The list below looks atboth ways to improve efficiency in the bathroom and good habits you can adopt to conserve water and energy when you’re bathing or using thetoilet. Some are quick and easy fixes while othersrequire a time or cash investment.Have a look through the list and see which options are the best fit for your home and budget!

16 Ways to Make Your Bathroom More Eco-Friendly

1.Stop theleaks. Running toilets and leaky faucets are more than just an annoyance. In fact, when you add up all of the little water wasters like these across the U.S., it adds up to over 1 trillion gallons of water per year. If you have a leak or suspect one, get a plumber in as soon as you can to repair it or take a stab at repairing it yourself.

Related: 20 Ways to Conserve Water in Your Home

2. Go low flow. This is an affordable way to make your bathroom more eco-friendly that almost anyone can do. Installing a low flow faucet on the bathroom sink or your showerhead is incredibly easy. Really, it is. I’ve done it, and if I can do it,I’m betting that you can, too.

3. Go dual flush.If you’ve got the budget,this is a big water saver. Dual flush toilets use around half the water to flush liquid waste compared to standard toilets. If getting a new toilet is not in your price range, you can buy kits like this one to convert a regular toilet to dual flush.

4. Go old school. If you want a really low-tech solution to reduce the water your toilet uses, put a small plastic bottlefull of water into the tank, so it won’t fill withas much water. Back in the 90s, some people put bricks into their tanks to displace some of the water. Do not do this! A brick erodes over time and will mess up your toilet.

5.Skip abath.Unless you take very long showers (16 minutes or more), a bath uses far more water to get you clean than a shower.Take showers instead of baths to rack up the water savings! This will also save energy, since you bathe in hot water. Reducing hot water usage is a double whammy, saving you water and energy.

6. Skip a shower.Showers use less water than baths, but afive minute shower still uses about 12.5 gallons of water. Sure, if youwent for a run or worked in the garden, you probably need a shower. But if you just hung out watching TV or even worked in an office all day, do you really need a daily shower? Even skipping one shower a week makes a difference!

7. Get an efficient water heater. Whether you’re taking showers or baths,you’re taxing your home’s hot water heater. Heating water accounts forabout 20 percent of your home’s energy costs, so getting a better heateris a great way to make your bathroom (and kitchen and laundry room) more eco-friendly. Consumer Reports has a great guide to the best water heaters. If you can swing it, it looks like a tankless is the best bet from an energy-conservation perspective. Tank water heaters store hot water, meaning they’re constantly running to keep the water hot. A tankless heater only turns on when you turn on the hot water tap.

8. Turn down the water heater. It only takes a couple of hours to reduce the temperature on your water heater, and this fix is free! You don’t need it at 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Turn it down to 120 to save money and energy in the bathroom. The video above shows you how to adjust the temperature on your home’s water heater.

9. Try the shower bucket. Whether you have a tank or tankless water heater, it takes a few minutes for your shower to get hot. Rather than let this water go down the drain, you can collect it in a bucket and use it to water house plants. You can also use the shower bucket when you’re dripping faucets during a winter freeze. Drip the tub faucet instead of a sink, and stick that bucket underneath.

10. Ditch the PVC shower curtain liner. Vinyl shower curtain liners are no good for the planet or for your home’sair quality. PVC liners offgas harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are bad news for indoor air quality and your health. Unfortunately, PVC shower curtains are not recyclable. The best thing that you can do is toss the old one and replace it with a non-PVC alternative. Companies like Ty even make non-toxic shower curtain liners that you can recycle.

12. Turn off the tap. When you’re brushing your teeth or washing your hands, you don’t need water running while you scrub. A sink faucet uses 2.5 gallons of water per minute. Turn it off until you really need that water to rinse.

13. Stop with the anti-bacterial soap. Anti-bacterial soap is not necessary, and when it rinses down the drain it is an environmental nightmare. It’s no more effective than regular ol’ soap, and there’s even evidence that it weakens heart and muscle function. No, thank you!

Related: 6 Reasons to Stop Using Antibacterial Soap

14. Choose LEDs. Just like anywhere else in the house, efficient light bulbs add up to big energy savings over time. LED bulbs are a bit of an investment up front, but they last up to50 times longer than incandescents. And unlike CFL bulbs, they don’t contain mercury.

15. Get recycled toilet paper. Do we really need to cut down new trees to wipe our bottoms? No, we don’t. While you’re at it, try to use less toilet paper in general.It still takes energy and water to create a roll of recycled TP.

16. Chooseorganic towels. Next time you have to replace your bath towels, choose organic cotton. Conventional cotton is one of the most water-intensive and polluting crops on the planet. Don’t go out and replace your perfectly good old towels with organic ones, though. The lowest-impact choice you can make is to buy nothing.But when your old towels are starting to fall apart, go organic.

Do you have any tips or tricks you use to save water or energy in the bathroom? Tell us in the comments!

Related:
20 Ways to Conserve Water in Your Home
6 Reasons to Stop Using Antibacterial Soap
14 Tips for Using Less Heat this Season

Image Credits: All images via Thinkstock.

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Excerpt from: 

16 Ways to Make Your Bathroom More Eco-Friendly

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, oven, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 16 Ways to Make Your Bathroom More Eco-Friendly

Science Says Magic Mushrooms Can Help Ease the Horror of Late-Stage Cancer

Mother Jones

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

Cancer doesn’t just ravage bodies. People stricken with life-threatening cancers are also prone to depression and anxiety, which can in turn make them more vulnerable to succumbing to the disease. So any treatment that can ease the psychological toll of cancer not only reduces suffering; it can also prolong lives. Two separate research teams—one at New York University, one at Johns Hopkins—published studies Thursday identifying such a remedy: a single magic-mushroom trip, experienced under controlled conditions with a therapist.

Even though these results are promising, they likely won’t lead to a treatment your doctor can prescribe anytime soon. In a June episode of Bite podcast, author Michael Pollan gave us a brilliant rundown on the history and science of hallucinogenic compounds like LSD and magic mushrooms (which contain psilocybin). Pollan explains how their ability to generate altered mental states has shrouded them in taboo—and made us turn away from their potential as medicines. As the NYU team notes, hallucinogens—including psilocybin—have shown promise for treating cancer stress for decades. But research on them halted in the mid-1970s, after the passage of Controlled Substance Act, which deemed LSD and magic mushrooms illegal substances.

As Pollan explained in a 2015 New Yorker piece, the gradual easing of the federal government’s “war on drugs” has opened space for a small renaissance of research. These two new studies are some of the earliest fruit of that effort. Both the NYU and the Johns Hopkins study focused on a group of cancer patients suffering from anxiety and depression, and used the “double-blind” method, meaning neither the subjects nor their therapists knew who got the real drug and who got the placebo.

The NYU team divided 29 patients into two groups, half of whom got a “single moderate dose” of psilocybin, the compound that brings the magic to psychedelic mushrooms; the other half got a dose of niacin, a common B vitamin. After seven weeks, the groups crossed over—the psilocybin-dosed patients got niacin, and vice-versa. Both also received psychotherapy.

The results were stark: A single dose of psilocybin “produced immediate, substantial, and sustained improvements in anxiety and depression and led to decreases in cancer-related demoralization and hopelessness, improved spiritual well-being, and increased quality of life.” After about six months, these benefits persisted for most of the participants.

The Johns Hopkins study also involved two groups of cancer patients. Instead of niacin, half of them initially got a tiny, “placebo-like” dose of psilocybin, while the other half got doses similar to the ones in the NYU study. After five weeks, they crossed over. “Drug sessions were conducted in an aesthetic living-room-like environment with two monitors present,” the researchers write. They continue:

For most of the time during the session, participants were encouraged to lie down on the couch, use an eye mask to block external visual distraction, and use headphones through which a music program was played. The same music program was played for all participants in both sessions. Participants were encouraged to focus their attention on their inner experiences throughout the session.

And the results were similar to those of the NYU study: After getting a dose of magic mushrooms, patients quickly showed “large decreases” in depression and anxiety, “along with increases in quality of life, life meaning, and optimism, and decreases in death anxiety,” effects that persisted for a majority of the patients six months later.

The decidedly positive results are a big deal, because as the NYU team notes in its study, cancer patients are often treated with conventional pharmaceuticals to treat depression and anxiety, but these drugs don’t take effect very rapidly or last very long, and carry “significant side effects” that make them unpleasant to use. By contrast, a single dose of psilocybin usually produced what might be described in layman’s terms as a “good trip”—what the authors call a “psilocybin-induced mystical experience.” As for unpleasant side effects, the NYU researchers found none. Some of the Johns Hopkins patients did experience elements of what might be called bad trips after their dose—15 percent endured nausea or vomiting, for example, and 32 percent reported some form of “psychological discomfort”—but none of these adverse episodes were deemed serious.

And there were positive side effects. In a press release, Anthony Bossis, one of the NYU researchers, noted study participants reported “going out more, greater energy, getting along better with family members, and doing well at work,” as well as “unusual peacefulness and increased feelings of altruism.” Bossis stressed, though, that no one, including cancer patients, should take psilocybin on their own or “without supervision by a physician and a trained counselor.”

Of course, bringing psilocybin to market as an approved pharmaceutical will likely require years of research and regulatory maneuvering. As Pollan argued on Bite, the paranoia psychedelics can generate is not confined to people on a bad trip. “They’re very threatening substances to institutional power, whether it’s religious institutions or the state,” Pollan said.

Continue reading:  

Science Says Magic Mushrooms Can Help Ease the Horror of Late-Stage Cancer

Posted in alo, Eureka, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Science Says Magic Mushrooms Can Help Ease the Horror of Late-Stage Cancer

After the Election, Trump Maintains His Bizarre Relationship with Conspiracy-Pushing Website

Mother Jones

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

On the Sunday after Thanksgiving, as part of a multi-tweet rant against Green Party candidate Jill Stein’s recount effort in Wisconsin (and perhaps Michigan and Pennsylvania), President-elect Donald Trump questioned the integrity of the 2016 election.

Trump won 306 Electoral College votes to Clinton’s 232 (Michigan’s 16 were called for him today); so his victory was not exactly a landslide. But the bigger lie was that “millions” of people voted illegally, for which there is no evidence. Clinton’s lead of more than 2 million votes in the popular vote, and her campaign’s recent announcement that it would participate in the recount organized by Stein, seemed to have inspired yesterday’s tweet. But its origins trace back to a right-wing conspiracy theory that began to take hold shortly after the election.

According to the Washington Post, on November 13 Gregg Phillips, a former Texas Health and Human Services Commission deputy commissioner, tweeted that he had “verified more than three million votes cast by non-citizens.” He wrote that he was joining with True the Vote, a conservative group, “to initiate legal action.” The day after Phillips’ tweet, his claim was picked up by Infowars and a series of right-wing commentators and websites. True The Vote issued a statement Monday saying it “absolutely supports” Trump’s “recent comment about the impact of illegal voting, as reflected in the national popular vote.” In an email to Mother Jones on Monday, Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, said a study of data was forthcoming. “We do have evidence that non-citizens are being registered and are voting,” she added, but she wouldn’t elaborate.

If Trump got his information for this weekend’s tweet from Infowars, it wouldn’t be the first time Team Trump cited this bizarre and unreliable source. Infowars, a conspiracy theory website run by Alex Jones, has been one of the Trump campaign’s go-to sources of information. On September 8, the candidate’s son Donald Trump Jr. tweeted the Infowars story “Was Hillary Wearing an Earpiece During Last Night’s Presidential Forum?” Trump himself has used the site’s work to bolster way-out claims, including his references to Clinton’s alleged poor health and his false assertion that “thousands and thousands” of American Muslims were celebrating the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey. Trump appeared on Jones’ internet-based talk show in December 2015 and told him, “Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down.” Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and a conspiracy theorist who claims LBJ killed JFK, has often appeared on Infowars, and he held joint events with Jones at the Republican convention in Cleveland in July. At that convention, Jones had “special guest” credentials.

Following the election, Jones claimed that Trump called to thank him and his listeners “for fighting so hard for Americans, and for Americanism.” A spokeswoman for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump relationship to Jones and Infowars is one of the weirdest aspects of the 2016 election. Jones’ Infowars site offers up a steady stream of red meat for the conspiratorial far right. It claims that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks and that the Sandy Hook massacre was “completely fake.” (It claims those children weren’t killed, and the whole thing was a ruse to make it easier for the government to push gun control.) On Monday, the site promoted Jones’ theory that the Stein recount is a means for Democratic donors to make Trump “illegitimate to cause a civil war in this country.” Another post titled “HUGE #PIZZAGATE NEWS COMING” hyped a discredited story about a Washington, DC-based pedophilia ring connected to Clinton operating out of a pizzeria. A third story maintained that Clinton has a plan to overturn Trump’s win.

Put simply, the president-elect is calling into doubt the election because of a conspiracy theory website known for pushing the most outlandish claims. Trump’s connection to Jones did not gather much attention during the campaign. But with this latest tweetstorm, Trump has indicated that he is still hobnobbing with these dark and paranoid forces—one sign that the conspiracy peddlers of Infowars will require close watching in the Trump years ahead.

Original article: 

After the Election, Trump Maintains His Bizarre Relationship with Conspiracy-Pushing Website

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on After the Election, Trump Maintains His Bizarre Relationship with Conspiracy-Pushing Website