Tag Archives: podcasts

The Instant Pot Is a Phenomenon—and Indian Cooks Are Using It in the Most Creative Ways

Mother Jones

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

Perhaps you’ve heard by now about the Instant Pot, a slow cooker, rice cooker, food warmer, pressure cooker, sauté pan, and yogurt maker all rolled into one slightly unwieldy programmable metal contraption. Over the last few months, this kitchen gadget has garnered a lot of attention. It’s a bestseller on Amazon. The New York Times took it for a spin, as did NPR’s The Salt. Bon Appétit claimed it “will change your life.”

But there’s one group that applies exceptional creativity to the Instant Pot: people who cook Indian food. On a private Facebook group called Instant Pot for Indian Cooking, home chefs adapt traditional dishes—dals, biryanis, curries, and more—and post the photos and recipes to 70,000 members. They also poll each other for advice—questions like “How much paneer do you get from a gallon of whole milk” in the Instant Pot? and “Has anyone used packaged fried onion from the store for Instant Pot biryani?”

These folks are devoted to their Instant Pots. Many members boast that they’ve thrown away their traditional Indian pressure cookers. Someone recently posted a photo of her Instant Pot overlooking a scenic mountain vista. Yes, the Instant Pot went camping.

So what makes the Instant Pot so good for Indian cuisine? On the last episode of Bite, our food politics podcast, I had a quick lesson with Pooja Verma, who cooks a lot of Indian food for her family in Fremont, California. (The segment starts at 02:28)

Pooja told me she now does an impressive 80 percent of her cooking in the Instant Pot. One reason she likes it, she says, is that it’s great for recipes that usually only work in India’s hot climate. Take idlis—dumplings made from fermented rice and lentil flour. The key to making great idlis, Pooja explained, is that the batter must ferment without the addition of yeast. “So some smart people have figured out that the yogurt function in the Instant Pot emanates just the right amount of heat to get the batter fermented overnight.” For more Instant Pot cooking tips from Pooja, listen to our latest episode of Bite.

Bite is Mother Jones‘ food politics podcast. Listen to all our episodes here, or by subscribing in iTunes or Stitcher or via RSS.

View article: 

The Instant Pot Is a Phenomenon—and Indian Cooks Are Using It in the Most Creative Ways

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Instant Pot Is a Phenomenon—and Indian Cooks Are Using It in the Most Creative Ways

What the Heck Is a Placebo Anyway?

Mother Jones

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

Anton Mesmer, an 18th-century German physician, believed a mysterious force he called “animal magnetism” could be used to cure people. Mesmer’s theory was that there was invisible fluid in the body that could be controlled by magnetized objects and that disease was a result of “obstacles” to those fluids’ flow. To fight the disease, Mesmer used hypnotic procedures on his patients. At times, he would give people water he had “mesmerized” in order to cure them.

While Mesmer claimed some success with patients, he had critics. One was Benjamin Franklin, who saw Mesmer’s healing techniques for what they were: placebos. In modern medicine, a placebo is a fake medical treatment used to test out the results of real medications. The placebo effect is, essentially, the body’s response (in some instances, a very real response) to this fake treatment. In other words, Mesmer’s medications weren’t scientifically sound, but they may have made patients feel better through the power of suggestion.

Award-winning science writer Erik Vance has spent a lot of time thinking about the placebo effect. In his book, Suggestible You: The Curious Science of Your Brain’s Ability to Deceive, Transform, and Heal, Vance explores placebos, hypnosis, and how beliefs influence bodily responses to pain. “Placebos and beliefs generally is so much a part of our lives,” he tells Kishore Hari on a recent episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. “It has an amazing power to change our bodies.”

Vance has a unique perspective on the topic: He was raised in a Christian Science household and saw a doctor for the first time when he was 18 years old. “Belief was basically my health care,” he says.

Today, placebos are used by researchers to test whether drugs are actually effective in treating medical conditions—that is, whether patients who are taking an experimental medication see better results than patients who just think they are taking one. For some conditions—Parkinson’s disease, for instance—placebos can actually be an effective treatment.

It’s hard to figure out what the precise mechanisms of the placebo effect are and how they work. But as Vance explains, we now know that they often involve real chemicals produced by the body—real drugs from your “internal pharmacy.” Some of these chemicals are used by the brain to make sure that your expectation meets reality. When expectation doesn’t meet reality, the brain steps in and forces it to fit. Parkinson’s is caused by a lack of dopamine, a chemical that, among other things, is involved in reward processing in our brains. “Expectation drives placebos,” Vance explained to National Geographic. “And dopamine is a chemical that’s very responsive to our expectations. Parkinson’s happens to be a deficiency in the very chemical that’s very important in placebo effects and rewards.”

But while the mind is powerful, it can’t do everything. Vance says there are rules at play. Many serious diseases, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, don’t respond well to sugar pills—patients need actual medicine that has been proven more effective than placebos. “There are some places where the role of the mind to affect the body is profound,” says Vance, “and other places where it is not.”

Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook.

See original article here – 

What the Heck Is a Placebo Anyway?

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What the Heck Is a Placebo Anyway?

The One Thing Obama Could Have Done to Fix Food—But Didn’t

Mother Jones

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

Like a huge plow roaring through a prairie, the 2016 presidential election has broken plenty of new ground. We’ve had a national conversation about a nonexistent sex tape involving a former Miss Universe; we’ve debated whether boasting of groping women’s genitals amounts to “locker room talk” or the admission of a crime; and we’ve entertained the idea that one of the major candidates might, if his campaign is successful, have the other one tossed in jail.

Mark Bittman David Cooper/Zuma

But like nearly every election before it, the current one has been nearly 100 percent free of any debate around the federal government’s massive role in shaping and regulating the food system. To get a grip on the vital food and farm issues we’re not hearing about, I interviewed Mark Bittman, the legendary home-cooking master and pundit. Back in 2015, Bittman stepped away from a four-year stint as an editorial columnist for the New York Times—a forum he used almost exclusively to weigh in on food and farm policy. He remains deeply involved with the topic, though, serving as a fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists Food & Environment Program.

Bittman’s political analysis is as direct and pungent as that classic “Minimalist” dish of his, fried chickpeas with chorizo and spinach. He offered a harsh analysis of how President Barack Obama dealt with food and farm issues, echoing a recent New York Times Magazine piece by Michael Pollan. The current president once “talked a fairly decent game on changing the food system,” Bittman said, “but did virtually nothing in eight years.”

Not everyone agrees, of course. Sam Kass, former White House chef and food policy adviser to the Obamas, had a spicy reaction to Pollan’s story:

Bittman defends Pollan’s criticism of Obama, revealing that there was one “way, way easy” thing the president could have done without congressional interference, but didn’t, to take on the meat industry and protect public health:

Removing antibiotics from the routine use and production of animals is something that there’s precedent for. It’s happened in other countries. It’s something the FDA could have done by mandate; it didn’t need to go through Congress. And it wasn’t done. And I think that was the lowest-hanging fruit imaginable.

Yet Bittman pushed back against Pollan’s notion that Obama didn’t do more to challenge Big Food partially because the “food movement” isn’t powerful or cohesive enough. “Do you want to do the right thing, or do you not want to do the right thing? That’s the question,” he said, adding that Obama shouldn’t have needed a push from anyone to make certain overhauls.

The recipe czar also delivered blunt takes on the possibilities and perils of a Trump or Clinton administration—always with a dash of classic Bittman real-talk. He said he never expected Clinton or Trump to use their candidacies to shine a light on the food system. If Clinton wins, will she take on things like GMO labeling and antibiotics as president? “It sort of depends where her soul is at,” he said.

As for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who mounted a surprisingly strong challenge to Clinton in the Democratic primary, Bittman said, “I love Bernie, but what he knows about food comes from the perspective of a Vermont dairy farmer—not that there’s anything wrong with that, but that’s not big picture, exactly.”

Bite is Mother Jones‘ new food politics podcast. Listen to all our episodes here, or by subscribing in iTunes or Stitcher or via RSS.

Excerpt from: 

The One Thing Obama Could Have Done to Fix Food—But Didn’t

Posted in Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The One Thing Obama Could Have Done to Fix Food—But Didn’t

Can Future Global Warming Matter Today?

Scientists studying past and current climate conditions mull the challenges in making future warming matter today. Originally posted here:   Can Future Global Warming Matter Today? ; ; ;

Continue reading – 

Can Future Global Warming Matter Today?

Posted in alo, alternative energy, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Holmes, Monterey, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can Future Global Warming Matter Today?

How Global Warming Is Making Some Diseases Even Scarier

Mother Jones

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

Americans should expect a surge in deaths from heat waves, flooding, and respiratory disease as the climate warms, according to a wide-ranging White House report released last month. And what spells disaster for humans could also be a boon to infectious microbes and the animals that transmit them.

The guest on this week’s episode of Inquiring Minds is Ben Beard, associate director for climate change at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He’s one of more than 100 researchers who contributed to the report, and his specialty is vector-borne diseases. These illnesses—which include Lyme disease, dengue fever, and Zika virus—are transmitted by other animals, especially insects such as mosquitos and ticks. Beard talks with co-host Indre Viskontas about how global warming is poised to alter their spread and whether the changes we’re already seeing can be attributed to climate change. “These diseases are emerging in the United States,” he says. “There are more and more cases every year.” You can listen to the full interview with Beard below:

It’s no coincidence that vector-borne illnesses are among the most “climate-sensitive” diseases, he adds, increasing in range and incidence when environmental conditions are favorable to the critters that harbor them. In some regions of the United States, recent decades have brought longer, warmer summers and shorter, milder winters. That’s played a role in the northward creep of tick-transmitted Lyme disease and seasonal flare-ups of the West Nile virus, which is carried by mosquitos. But the issue isn’t simply the expanding range of those diseases; at warmer temperatures, mosquitos can speed up their life cycles, Beard explains. Under hotter conditions, viruses like West Nile will typically replicate faster in the cold-blooded mosquito, making it more likely to be transmitted through each bite.

US Global Change Research Program

There’s also concern, Beard says, about local transmission of diseases typically associated with the tropics—he points to recent cases of dengue and chikungunya in Florida (both are transmitted by mosquitos). But he cautions that the precise causes remain poorly understood; the recent uptick could be linked as much to increases in global trade and travel as it is to changes in the climate.

But one takeaway is clear. “The brunt of this will be borne by the poorer, more tropical regions of the world,” Beard says. These are communities with climates that are already hospitable to disease-bearing insects, and in which the basic layers of prevention—from air conditioning to insect repellent—are scarce. They’re also less likely to have access to quick diagnosis and treatment, he says, which can increase the likelihood that mosquitos or other vectors will spread the illness from one infected individual to an entire household.

Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow, like us on Facebook, and check out show notes and other cool stuff on Tumblr.

See original article here – 

How Global Warming Is Making Some Diseases Even Scarier

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Global Warming Is Making Some Diseases Even Scarier

Science Has Some Awesome News for Coffee Drinkers

Mother Jones

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

It’s a familiar feeling for any caffeine addict: a racing heart, fluttering away after one too many espresso shots. For years, that’s been enough to steer people with certain heart conditions away from coffee. But as it turns out, there’s little evidence that a caffeine habit could send us into cardiac arrest.

That’s according to Dr. Greg Marcus, a professor at the University of California-San Francisco and this week’s guest on the Inquiring Minds podcast. Marcus specializes in the treatment of arrhythmias, or irregular heartbeats—the fast, sluggish, or off-kilter rhythms that can trigger sudden cardiac arrest, an unexpected loss of heart function. The condition is different from a heart attack, which is caused by blockages to blood vessels leading to the heart, and it has seen comparatively little progress in treatment and prevention, Marcus says. In the United States, sudden cardiac arrest kills 325,000 adults each year.

`

Last year, Marcus’ research team looked into the relationship between caffeine and a type of arrhythmia called early beats, which can be a risk factor for developing heart failure. You can think of this condition as individual heart cells gone rogue. “If you take a heart cell out of the heart, put it in a petri dish, and keep it alive, it will beat on its own,” Marcus tells co-host Kishore Hari. Sometimes those cells will jump the gun, beating a little earlier than the rest of the heart.

“There’s this conventional wisdom that more caffeine leads to these early beats,” Marcus says. To find out if that’s really the case, his the team monitored heart rhythms along with consumption of common caffeine fixes such as tea, coffee, and chocolate. What they discovered might surprise you. “We could find no evidence of a relationship,” says Marcus. The results were published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.

Still, Marcus cautions that the heart risks of caffeine may depend on the individual and that more work needs to be done to unpack the role of a patient’s unique genetics and environmental exposures. This ties into a broader need for more precision medicine, he says—highly personalized treatments that take those specific factors into account. “The hope is that with modern techniques to sequence genes as well as to potentially monitor activity using technology, maybe we can really get down to that level,” he says.

Cue Health eHeart, a pioneering Big Data approach to develop strategies to prevent and treat all aspects of heart disease. The goal of the project is to use personal technology to free large-scale clinical research from its traditional home in brick-and-mortar hospitals, where researchers capture a controlled, artificial snapshot of participants’ health and behaviors. By gathering information from online surveys and personal gadgets (anything from smartphones to Bluetooth-enabled blood pressure cuffs), Marcus’ team at UCSF is able to study a continuous stream of health data as participants go about their daily activities. “That’s what I like to call real-time, real-life data,” he says.

Participants are given the option to get involved in a variety of studies depending on their backgrounds and the devices they use. Owners of a smart watch, for example, might be asked to opt into an ongoing study on atrial fibrillation—an irregular beat in the heart’s upper chambers that’s an important risk factor for stroke. The study attempts to develop a more nuanced understanding of what triggers the condition, making use of the watch’s heart rate monitor to interlace rhythmic data with other instantaneous measures of health and physical activity.

While the Health eHeart project aims to unpack the individualized factors that carry risk for heart disease, Marcus also hopes it will play a more foundational role for further research—”separating the wheat from the chaff,” as he puts it, by helping to figure out whether wearable devices are as beneficial to public health research as their makers chalk them up to be. Fitbit and the Apple Watch are examples, he says, of devices with savvy health and fitness marketing but still-untested claims: “Is it useful for health? We make that assumption, but how valid is it? And if it is valid, what is the best way to use it?”

UCSF hopes to enroll 1 million people in Health eHeart. If you want to take part in this ambitious study, you can sign up for the special Inquiring Minds Health eHeart group. Anyone over 18 years old is eligible, including those who are completely healthy, have heart disease, or are patients with cardiovascular conditions that we don’t yet know how to treat. Participation requires a few hours over the course of the year. (Note: Inquiring Minds co-host Kishore Hari is an academic staff member of UCSF, but he’s not affiliated in any way with the Health eHeart study.)

Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow, like us on Facebook, and check out show notes and other cool stuff on Tumblr.

See original:  

Science Has Some Awesome News for Coffee Drinkers

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Science Has Some Awesome News for Coffee Drinkers

It’s Not Just Flint. There’s an Ugly History of Lead Poisoning and the Poor in the US.

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

“I know if I was a parent up there, I would be beside myself if my kids’ health could be at risk,” said President Obama on a recent trip to Michigan.

“Up there” was Flint, a rusting industrial city in the grip of a “water crisis” brought on by a government austerity scheme. To save a couple of million dollars, that city switched its source of water from Lake Huron to the Flint River, a long-time industrial dumping ground for the toxic industries that had once made their home along its banks. Now, the city is enveloped in a public health emergency, with elevated levels of lead in its water supply and in the blood of its children.

The price tag for replacing the lead pipes that contaminated its drinking water, thanks to the corrosive toxins found in the Flint River, is now estimated at up to $1.5 billion. No one knows where that money will come from or when it will arrive. In the meantime, the cost to the children of Flint has been and will be incalculable. As little as a few specks of lead in the water children drink or in flakes of paint that come off the walls of old houses and are ingested can change the course of a life. The amount of lead dust that covers a thumbnail is enough to send a child into a coma or into convulsions leading to death. It takes less than a tenth of that amount to cause IQ loss, hearing loss, or behavioral problems like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the government agency responsible for tracking and protecting the nation’s health, says simply, “No safe blood lead level in children has been identified.”

President Obama would have good reason to worry if his kids lived in Flint. But the city’s children are hardly the only ones threatened by this public health crisis. There’s a lead crisis for children in Baltimore, Maryland, Herculaneum, Missouri, Sebring, Ohio, and even the nation’s capital, Washington, DC, and that’s just to begin a list. State reports suggest, for instance, that “18 cities in Pennsylvania and 11 in New Jersey may have an even higher share of children with dangerously elevated levels of lead than does Flint.” Today, scientists agree that there is no safe level of lead for children and at least half of American children have some of this neurotoxin in their blood. The CDC is especially concerned about the more than 500,000 American children who have substantial amounts of lead in their bodies. Over the past century, an untold number have had their IQs reduced, their school performances limited, their behaviors altered, and their neurological development undermined. From coast to coast, from the Sun Belt to the Rust Belt, children have been and continue to be imperiled by a century of industrial production, commercial gluttony, and abandonment by the local, state, and federal governments that should have protected them. Unlike in Flint, the “crisis” seldom comes to public attention.

Two, Three… Many Flints

In Flint, the origins of the current crisis lay in the history of auto giant General Motors (GM) and its rise in the middle decades of the twentieth century to the status of the world’s largest corporation. GM’s Buick plant alone once occupied “an area almost a mile and a half long and half a mile wide,” according to the Chicago Tribune, and several Chevrolet and other GM plants literally covered the waterfront of “this automotive city.” Into the Flint River went the toxic wastes of factories large and small, which once supplied batteries, paints, solders, glass, fabrics, oils, lubricating fluids, and a multitude of other materials that made up the modern car. In these plants strung out along the banks of the Flint and Saginaw rivers and their detritus lay the origins of the present public health emergency.

The crisis that attracted President Obama’s attention is certainly horrifying, but the children of Flint have been poisoned in one way or another for at least 80 years. Three generations of those children living around Chevrolet Avenue in the old industrial heart of the city experienced an environment filled with heavy metal toxins that cause neurological conditions in them and cardiovascular problems in adults.

As Michael Moore documented in his film Roger and Me, GM abandoned Flint in a vain attempt to stave off financial disaster. Having sucked its people dry, the company ditched the city, leaving it to deal with a polluted hell without the means to do so. Like other industrial cities that have suffered this kind of abandonment, Flint’s population is majority African American and Latino, and has a disproportionate number of families living below the poverty line. Of its 100,000 residents, 65 percent are African American and Latino and 42 percent are mired in poverty.

The president should be worried about Flint’s children and local, state, and federal authorities need to fix the pipes, sewers, and water supply of the city. Technically, this is a feasible, if expensive, proposition. It’s already clear, however, that the political will is just not there even for this one community. Gina McCarthy, the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrator, has refused to provide Flint’s residents with even a prospective timetable for replacing their pipes and making their water safe. There is, however, a far graver problem that is even less easy to fix: the mix of racism and corporate greed that have put lead and other pollutants into millions of homes in the United States. The scores of endangered kids in Flint are just the tip of a vast, toxic iceberg. Even Baltimore, which first identified its lead poisoning epidemic in the 1930s, still faces a crisis, especially in largely African American communities, when it comes to the lead paint in its older housing stock.

Just this month, Maryland’s secretary of housing, community, and development, Kenneth C. Holt, dismissed the never-ending lead crisis in Baltimore by callously suggesting that it might all be a shuck. A mother, he said, might fake such poisoning by putting “a lead fishing weight in her child’s mouth and then take the child in for testing.” Such a tactic, he indicated, without any kind of proof, was aimed at making landlords “liable for providing the child with better housing.” Unfortunately, the attitudes of Holt and Governor Rick Snyder of Michigan have proven all too typical of the ways in which America’s civic and state leaders have tended to ignore, dismiss, or simply deny the real suffering of children, especially those who are black and Latino, when it comes to lead and other toxic chemicals.

There is, in fact, a grim broader history of lead poisoning in America. It was probably the most widely dispersed environmental toxin that affected children in this country. In part, this was because, for decades during the middle of the twentieth century, it was marketed as an essential ingredient in industrial society, something without which none of us could get along comfortably. Those toxic pipes in Flint are hardly the only, or even the primary, source of danger to children left over from that era.

In the 1920s, tetraethyl lead was introduced as an additive for gasoline. It was lauded at the time as a “gift of God” by a representative of the Ethyl Corporation, a creation of GM, Standard Oil, and Dupont, the companies that invented, produced, and marketed the stuff. Despite warnings that this industrial toxin might pollute the planet, which it did, almost three-quarters of a century would pass before it was removed from gasoline in the United States. During that time, spewed out of the tailpipes of hundreds of millions of cars and trucks, it tainted the soil that children played in and was tracked onto floors that toddlers touched. Banned from use in the 1980s, it still lurks in the environment today.

Meanwhile, homes across the country were tainted by lead in quite a different way. Lead carbonate, a white powder, was mixed with linseed oil to create the paint that was used in the nation’s homes, hospitals, schools, and other buildings until 1978. Though its power to harm and even kill children who sucked on lead-painted windowsills, toys, cribs, and woodwork had long been known, it was only in that year that the federal government banned its use in household paints.

Hundreds of tons of the lead in paint that covered the walls of houses, apartment buildings, and workplaces across the United States remains in place almost four decades later, especially in poorer neighborhoods where millions of African American and Latino children currently live. Right now, most middle class white families feel relatively immune from the dangers of lead, although the gentrification of old neighborhoods and the renovation of old homes can still expose their children to dangerous levels of lead dust from the old paint on those walls. However, economically and politically vulnerable black and Hispanic children, many of whom inhabit dilapidated older housing, still suffer disproportionately from the devastating effects of the toxin. This is the meaning of institutional racism in action today. As with the water flowing into homes from the pipes of Flint’s water system, so the walls of its apartment complexes, not to mention those in poor neighborhoods of Detroit, Baltimore, Washington, and virtually every other older urban center in the country, continue to poison children exposed to lead-polluted dust, chips, soil, and air.

Over the course of the past century, tens of millions of children have been poisoned by lead and millions more remain in danger of it today. Add to this the risks these same children face from industrial toxins like mercury, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (better known as PCBs) and you have an ongoing recipe for a Flint-like disaster but on a national scale.

In truth, the United States has scores of “Flints” awaiting their moments. Think of them as ticking toxic time bombs — just an austerity scheme or some official’s poor decision away from a public health disaster. Given this, it’s remarkable, even in the wake of Flint, how little attention or publicity such threats receive. Not surprisingly, then, there seems to be virtually no political will to ensure that future generations of children will not suffer the same fate as those in Flint.

The Future of America’s Toxic Past

A series of decisions by state and local officials turned Flint’s chronic post-industrial crisis into a total public health disaster. If clueless, corrupt, or heartless government officials get all the blame for this (and blame they do deserve), the larger point will unfortunately be missed — that there are many post-industrial Flints, many other hidden tragedies affecting America’s children that await their moments in the news. Treat Flint as an anomaly and you condemn families nationwide to bear the damage to their children alone, abandoned by a society unwilling to invest in cleaning up a century of industrial pollution, or even to acknowledge the injustice involved.

Flint may be years away from a solution to its current crisis, but in a few cities elsewhere in the country there is at least a modicum of hope when it comes to developing ways to begin to address this country’s poisonous past. In California, for example, 10 cities and counties, including San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Oakland, have successfully sued and won an initial judgment against three lead pigment manufacturers for $1.15 billion. That money will be invested in removing lead paint from the walls of homes in these cities. If this judgment is upheld on appeal, it would be an unprecedented and pathbreaking victory, since it would force a polluting industry to clean up the mess it created and from which it profited.
There have been other partial victories, too. In Herculaneum, Missouri, for instance, where half the children within a mile of the nation’s largest lead smelter suffered lead poisoning, jurors returned a $320 million verdict against Fluor Corporation, one of the world’s largest construction and engineering firms. That verdict is also on appeal, while the company has moved its smelter to Peru where whole new populations are undoubtedly being poisoned.

President Obama hit the nail on the head with his recent comments on Flint, but he also missed the larger point. There he was just a few dozen miles from that city’s damaged water system when he spoke in Detroit, another symbol of corporate abandonment with its own grim toxic legacy. Thousands of homes in the Motor City, the former capital of the auto industry, are still lead paint disaster areas. Perhaps it’s time to widen the canvas when it comes to the poisoning of America’s children and face the terrible human toll caused by “the American century.”

David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, TomDispatch regulars, are co-authors and co-editors of seven books and 85 articles on a variety of industrial and occupational hazards, including Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution and, most recently, Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children. Rosner is a professor of sociomedical sciences and history at Columbia University and co-director of the Center for the History of Public Health at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health. Markowitz is a professor of history at John Jay College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Both have been awarded a certificate of appreciation by the United States Senate through the office of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has recognized the importance of their work on lead and industrial poisoning.

Read the article: 

It’s Not Just Flint. There’s an Ugly History of Lead Poisoning and the Poor in the US.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Not Just Flint. There’s an Ugly History of Lead Poisoning and the Poor in the US.

5 Ways You Can Live Forever

Mother Jones

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

Last summer, at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California, I sat in a room full of scientists, innovators, and thought leaders. Someone asked how long everyone would like to live. To my great surprise, most people agreed that somewhere in one’s 90s was a good time to kick the bucket. Given that this was a collection of curious and optimistic people whose religion is science, I was shocked that—unlike me—more of them didn’t want to live forever.

I later found out that this reaction is actually representative of the general population: Among the attendees was fellow science writer David Ewing Duncan, who has asked this question online and at the beginning of numerous talks, collecting more than 30,000 responses. The consensus? About 85 percent of people wouldn’t want to live past 120, and more than half agreed that 80 years was about how long they’d like to live. The number of people who would like to live forever? Less than 5 percent.

Bill Gifford is in that mortal majority, despite the title of his most recent book, Spring Chicken: Stay Young Forever (or Die Trying). Aging, explained Gifford on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast, “kind of sucks.”

In his book, Gifford points out that the quest to find a cure for aging has permeated our thoughts for as long as there’s been a written record. “The oldest existing great work of literature,” writes Gifford, “the nearly four-thousand-year-old Epic of Gilgamesh, in part chronicles a man’s quest for the elixir of eternal life.”

And, given the fact that—according to Gifford—we spend some “eleventy bajillion dollars” on anti-aging creams alone, surely we must be close to discovering the formula for age-reversal. Well not quite yet. But here are some promising lines of research that might eventually lead to a hack that works forever. Or at least for a few extra decades.

1. Follow Michael Pollan’s advice to eat real food, not too much, and mostly plants: In the 1930s, a nutritionist at Cornell named Clive McCay discovered the writings of a 16th-century diabetic who, at a time when diabetes was poorly understood, voluntarily put himself on a strict diet and within a week began to feel much better. Nearly dead in his 40s, the man experienced a complete turnaround. “Even in his eighties, he was still bounding up and down the stairs of his estate,” writes Gifford. McCay read his treatise with fascination, noting that the Italian’s secret to a long life—he ultimately lived to 98—seemed to be contained in a simple message: Don’t eat so much.

For a nutritionist like McCay, this message was intriguing to say the least. So he decided to test it—by underfeeding a group of baby rats. And sure enough, his scrawny, half-starved experimental group lived almost twice as long as the portly but satisfied control group—in some cases, up to four years. Caloric restriction, as it came to be called, has been shown to increase the life spans of mice, rats, and monkeys, and to decrease the incidence of age-related diseases.

There’s still some controversy, however, as to whether the beneficial effects of caloric restriction result from fewer calories total or just fewer “bad” calories coming from junk food. A 2012 study from the National Institutes of Aging compared groups of rhesus monkeys who were fed healthy diets—similar to what Pollan might recommend—and in this case, a 30 percent reduction in calories did not seem to have much of an effect. So some scientists have suggested that in earlier studies, the experimenters were comparing animals fed what we humans would consider junk food with those whose diets included less sugar and fat. But the NIA study is still ongoing, and there’s some new evidence that even if the monkeys ate healthy food, there still might be a benefit in showing some restraint.

So what’s going on? Are the hungry animals simply less likely to get diabetes? “When you’re not eating, your cells actually do go into a different state,” explains Gifford. “It’s like they have a different engine.” Eating less puts your body into a “conservation” mode, in which you’re not growing and metabolizing food in the same way. And—if scientists like McCay are correct—animals in this mode can live longer.

An important note of caution, though. Eating too little can of course lead to malnutrition, which has its own negative side effects and is quite common in the elderly. And restricting calories in children is particularly dangerous, as development stalls in the conservation mode.

2. Metformin: There’s actually a treatment for diabetes that also shows promise in terms of increasing our longevity. Metformin, a drug commonly prescribed to treat patients with type 2 diabetes, has been shown to extend the health span—that is, how long someone remains healthy—and the life span of male mice. “Diabetics who are on metformin actually seem to be living longer than nondiabetics who are not on it,” says Gifford, “when in fact the reverse should be true. The diabetics should be dying sooner.” It turns out that taking metformin provides some of the benefits of caloric restriction, such as improved physical performance and better cholesterol levels. In your cells, metformin increases antioxidant protection and reduces chronic inflammation, one of the mechanisms by which aging ravages our bodies.

3. Exchange your old blood for young blood: The vampires were on to something: The fountain of “youthiness,” as Gifford calls it, might be found in our circulatory system. One of the things that sucks about aging is the way in which our ability to recover from injury and fend off illness declines. Blood has long been a candidate for élan vital—or the essence of life—and even back in the 16th century, Sir Francis Bacon transfused blood from a young dog to an old one, which seemed to rejuvenate him. In the 1970s, a scientist at the University of California-Irvine cut open young rats and sewed them to old rats, a method called parabiosis, essentially combining their circulatory systems. These rats lived much longer than those who were paired with rats of the same age—four to five months longer, which, given that the average life span for a lab rat is about two years, is an enormous difference.

Even more exciting is research coming from the lab of Tony Wyss-Coray and his colleagues at Stanford University, who infused older mice with the blood of younger animals and found that the older mice were indeed rejuvenated. Their brains became more plastic and malleable—a hallmark of youth. The procedure enabled them to learn and remember information like their younger donors and helped them perform much better on tests of mouse cognition. Below, you can watch an older mouse show improvement on a maze test after being infused with young blood.

4. Train for the Senior Olympics: If someone told you that there was an absolutely free treatment that hundreds of studies had shown to be effective in combating many different age-related diseases, you probably wouldn’t believe them. But this miracle drug really does exist—in the form of exercise. “Between 50 and 70, we say goodbye to about 15 percent of our lean muscle,” says Simon Melov, a professor at the Buck Institute for Research on Aging, who is quoted in Gifford’s book. “After that, it jumps to 30 percent per decade. You could make the case that aging starts in muscle.” As we age, this muscle turns to fat. And because muscles burn more calories than fat, your metabolism—the process by which your cells turn food into fuel—slows down, leaving more sugar in your blood and making you more vulnerable to diabetes. Staving off the metabolic changes that accompany this shift from muscle to fat will help keep your body young. Many pharmaceutical companies are developing drugs to promote muscle growth, but thus far, staying active seems to be just as effective.

Part of the effect that exercise has on our metabolism has to do with how our genes are expressed. Throughout your lifetime, different genes are turned on and off depending on things like your age, your behavior, and your environment. So although you might have a genetic predisposition for smoking-related cancers, for example, you might be able to stave off the disease by not smoking. (Even if you’ve never smoked, however, it’s still possible to get lung cancer.)

Similarly, exercising seems to turn off some genes while turning on others. In a remarkable study from 2007, a bunch of Canadians were placed on a strict exercise regimen for six months. Half of them were old, and half were young. Scientists then compared biopsies of their muscles taken before and after the regimen. And they found that the older Canadians had activated many of the genes that were active in their younger counterparts but that had been inactive before they began to exercise. Exercise seemed to have switched on young genes, and switched off older ones—particularly genes that were involved in metabolism.

Think you’re already too old to start exercising? Many medal winners in the Senior Olympics start training after retiring from their jobs, like 89-year-old Dr. Granville Coggs, who ran his first race when he was 77. For some more inspiration, watch the women’s 400-meter sprint from the 76-80 age group at the 2013 Senior Olympics, complete with commentary by the friends of the competitors in this video.

5. Be small: While height might give you many advantages during your working years, it may also contribute to your early demise. The taller you are, the more likely you are to develop cancer, among other problems. Why height is a risk factor for cancer remains unclear, but it might have to do with the fact that the taller you are, the more cells you have and the higher your likelihood of developing a cancer-causing mutation in them. In fact, people who live past 100 aren’t just small because they’ve shrunk with age—they actually tend to have started out on the smaller side. Just like for dogs, whose life span negatively correlates with size—that is, the smaller the dog, the longer its life expectancy—being short has its advantages.

To listen to my full interview with Bill Gifford, stream below:

Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook.

Link:  

5 Ways You Can Live Forever

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Ways You Can Live Forever

Inside the Bizarre Cow Trials of the 1920s

Mother Jones

From a 1920 USDA publication titled, “Runts—and the Remedy”

A version of this article was originally published on Gastropod.

Something extremely bizarre took place in the early decades of the 20th century, inspired by a confluence of trends. Scientists had recently developed a deeper understanding of genetics and inherited traits; at the same time, the very first eugenics policies were being enacted in the United States. And, as the population grew, the public wanted cheaper meat and milk. As a result, in the 1920s, the USDA encouraged rural communities around the United States to put bulls on the witness stand—to hold a legal trial, complete with lawyers and witnesses and a watching public—to determine whether the bull was fit to breed.

In 1900, the average dairy cow in America produced 424 gallons of milk each year. By 2000, that figure had more than quadrupled, to 2,116 gallons. In the latest episode of Gastropod—a podcast that looks at food through the lens of science and history—we explore the incredible science that transformed the American cow into a milk machine. But we also uncover the disturbing history of prejudice and animal cruelty that accompanied it.

Livestock breeding was a normal part of American life at the dawn of the 20th century, according to historian Gabriel Rosenberg. The United States, he told Gastropod, was “still largely a rural and agricultural society,” and farm animals—and thus some more-or-less scientific forms of selective breeding—were ubiquitous in American life.

Meanwhile, the eugenics movement was on the rise. Founded by Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, eugenics held that the human race could improve itself by guided evolution—which meant that criminals, the mentally ill, and others of “inferior stock” should not be allowed to procreate and pass on their defective genes. America led the way, passing the first eugenic policies in the world. By the Second World War, 29 states had passed legislation that empowered officials to forcibly sterilize “unfit” individuals.

Combine the growing population, the desire for cheap meat and milk, and the increasing popularity of eugenics, and the result, Rosenberg said, was the “Better Sires: Better Stock” program, launched by the USDA in 1919. In an accompanying essay, “Harnessing Heredity to Improve the Nation’s Live Stock,” the USDA’s Bureau of Animal Industry proclaimed that, each year, “a round billion dollars is lost because heredity has been permitted to work with too little control.” The implication: Humans needed to take control—and stop letting inferior or “scrub” bulls reproduce!

The “Better Sires: Better Stock” campaign included a variety of elements to encourage farmers to mate “purebred” rather than “scrub” or “degenerate” sires with their female animals. Anyone who pledged to only use purebred stock to expand their herd was awarded a handsome certificate. USDA field agents distributed pamphlets entitled “Runts—and the Remedy” and “From Scrubs to Quality Stock,” packed with charts showing incremental increases of dollar value with each improved generation as well as testimonials from enrolled farmers.

The USDA’s script for prosecuting an inferior bull. The document was unearthed by Duke historian Gabriel Rosenberg, who is writing a book on the subject.

By far the most peculiar aspect of the campaign, however, came in 1924, when the USDA published its “Outline for Conducting a Scrub-Sire Trial.” This mimeographed pamphlet, which Rosenberg recently unearthed, contained detailed instructions on how to hold a legal trial of a non-purebred bull, in order to publicly condemn it as unfit to reproduce. The pamphlet calls for a cast of characters to include a judge, a jury, attorneys, and witnesses for the prosecution and the defense, as well as a sheriff, who should “wear a large metal star and carry a gun,” and whose role, given the trial’s foregone conclusion, was “to have charge of the slaughter of the condemned scrub sire and to superintend the barbecue.”

In addition to an optional funeral oration for the scrub sire and detailed instructions regarding the barbecue or other refreshments (“bologna sandwiches, boiled wieners, or similar products related to bull meat” are recommended), the pamphlet also includes a script that begins with the immortal lines: “Hear ye! Hear ye! The honorable court of bovine justice of ___ County is now in session.” The county’s case against the scrub bull is laid out: that he is a thief for consuming “valuable provender” while providing no value in return, that he is an “unworthy father,” and that his very existence is “detrimental to the progress and prosperity of the public at large.” Several pages and roughly two hours later, the trial concludes with the following stage direction: “The bull is led away and a few moments later a shot is fired.”

Within a month of publication, the USDA reported receiving more than 500 requests for its scrub-sire trial pamphlets. Across the country, the court of bovine justice was convened at county fairs, cattle auctions, and regional farmers’ association meetings, forming a popular and educational entertainment.

These bull trials may seem like a forgotten, bizarre, and ultimately amusing quirk of history, but, as Rosenberg reminded Gastropod, “They are talking about a lot more than just cattle genetics here.”

Indeed, the very same year—1924—that the USDA published its “Outline for Conducting a Scrub-Sire Trial,” the state of Virginia passed its Eugenical Sterilization Act. Immediately, Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, Director of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a petition to sterilize Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old whom he claimed had a mental age of 9, and who had already given birth to a supposedly feeble-minded daughter (following a rape). Buck’s case went all the way to the Supreme Court, with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. upholding the decision in a 1927 ruling that concluded: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Historians estimate that more than 60,000 Americans were sterilized in the decades leading up to the Second World War, with many more persecuted under racist immigration laws and marriage restrictions.

Eugenics, with its philosophical kinship to Nazism, largely fell out of favor in the United States by World War II. But the ideas promoted in the bull trials—that humans can and should take increasing control of animal genetics in order to design the perfect milk machine—have gained ground throughout the past century, as breeding has become ever more technologically advanced. As we discuss in this episode of Gastropod, the drive to improve dairy cattle through livestock breeding has led to huge innovations—in IVF, in genomics, and in big-data analysis—as well as much more milk. But it has also continued, for better and for worse, to highlight the ethical problems that stem from this kind of techno-utopian approach to reproduction.

In this episode of Gastropod, we find out about the bull trials of the 1920s and meet the most valuable bull in the world, as we explore the history and the high-tech genomic science behind livestock breeding today. Along the way, we tease out its larger, thought-provoking, and frequently deeply troubling implications for animal welfare and society in general. Listen below.

Gastropod is a podcast about the science and history of food. Each episode looks at the hidden history and surprising science behind a different food and/or farming-related topic—from aquaculture to ancient feasts, from cutlery to chili peppers, and from microbes to Malbec. It’s hosted by Cynthia Graber, an award-winning science reporter, and Nicola Twilley, author of the popular blog Edible Geography. You can subscribe via iTunes, email, Stitcher, or RSS for a new episode every two weeks.

Continued: 

Inside the Bizarre Cow Trials of the 1920s

Posted in alo, Anchor, aquaculture, FF, G & F, GE, Holmes, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Inside the Bizarre Cow Trials of the 1920s

Listen to the Real Stephen Colbert Explain How He Maintained His Flawless Character for 9 Years

Mother Jones

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

The curtain comes down on The Colbert Report Thursday night after a spectacular nine-year run on Comedy Central. But a big question remains: How on Earth did Colbert stay in character for so long?

“Stephen Colbert,” the character, is indisputably a brilliant creation. I watched every week because “Stephen Colbert” attacked right-wing media by embodying its most outlandish traits; the more sincere he was, the more searing and audacious the satire. He was sophisticated and simple at the same time. He gave viewers an amazing gift: temporary relief from the political divide by skewering idiocy at its source. (My colleague Inae Oh has compiled some of his best segments today).

It was a wildly impressive formula, in part for the stamina it required from Stephen Colbert, the comic. As fellow performer Jimmy Fallon told the New York Times this week: “I was one of those who said, ‘He’ll do it for six months and then he’ll move on.’…It’s gets old. But not this. He’s a genius.”

That’s what makes the above podcast, Working, With David Plotz, so fascinating: It’s Colbert, in his own words, out of character, describing his daily routine of getting into character; a real craftsman. It also reveals the vulnerable human performer within; a real artist.

Broadcaster and media critic Brooke Gladstone said back in April that Colbert “seems to be a modest man, too modest perhaps, to see that by lightly shedding the cap of his creation, he’s depriving us all of a national treasure.”

Long live Colbert.

More here: 

Listen to the Real Stephen Colbert Explain How He Maintained His Flawless Character for 9 Years

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Listen to the Real Stephen Colbert Explain How He Maintained His Flawless Character for 9 Years