The Great American Smokeout Tomorrow!

Yes sir! The annual Great American Smokeout is tomorrow!

For any of the smokers out there, maybe today is the day to take this push and try to quit, if even for a day. There are so many benefits, too, as you may well already know. There are many benefits to your health but saving money factors in and more.

So good luck tomorrow and have fun with it! (If possible).

This Sunday: Prostate Cancer Awareness Day at the K

Reasons to go, buy and eat organic

11. You'll have less insecticides (read: poison) in your body

12. You'll be as least somewhat less likely to contract cancer since you'll have less insecticides in your body.

13. However more costly initially, organic is less expensive than cancer.

14. No one really likes hospitals all that much.

This got me

4 years old.  Fighting cancer.



Wow.

Freaking wow.

Quote of the day

"I'm crazy about the food chain and love being at the top of it..." 

--David Rakoff, writer, contributor to NPR's "This American Life" who passed this year.

Links:  343: Poultry Slam 2007

David Rakoff | This American Life

David Rakoff, Award-Winning Humorist, Dies at 47 - NYTimes.com

David Rakoff - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

David Rakoff: 'There Is No Answer As To Why Me' : NPR

Go here, REALLY do something to help cancer victims and research

Instead of posting some inane note on Facebook or Twitter or some such, however heartfelt or well-intended, you can actually go to a British research organization's website and help do some research for them and for cancer victims across the world. I saw it in the Star today but, as usual, couldn't find it on their online website. (I swear, the Kansas City Star has the worst internal search engine quite possibly in the world):

Charity creates world's first citizen science project to speed up cancer research

Cancer Research UK Press Release

TeenagersCancer Research UK has launched the first ever interactive website - http://www.clicktocure.net - that will allow the public to delve into real-life cancer data from research archives and speed up lifesaving research, outside of the laboratory.

At the moment, cancer samples are given special stains that highlight certain molecules as part of research. These molecules could reveal how a patient will respond to treatment. But this process is slow and analysis is mostly done by trained pathologists, who are often also cancer researchers.

The new website – Cell SliderTM – is the first time real cancer data has been turned into a format that can be analysed by the public. By getting as many people as possible to take part, more samples will be analysed faster and more effectively, freeing up scientists to carry out other cancer research.



More from the article:

Cell SliderTM presents real images of tumour samples to the world for analysis in the form of a simple game of snap. Users will be guided through a tutorial that explains which cells to analyse and which ones to ignore.

Once cancer cells have been spotted by their irregular shape, users will be asked to record how many have been stained yellow and how bright that yellow is by simply clicking on another image that closely matches the sample they are viewing.

This information will be fed back to researchers who will look for trends between types of cells and a patient’s response to treatment.

So go to the website and help cancer research. Then, go again and again, as many times as you can, whenever you can to really help in the fight against cancer.

Link to full press release: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/news/archive/pressrelease/2012-10-23-worlds-first-citizen-science?view=rss

Not fun to be Lance Armstrong or David Glass right now

First, David Glass got rather a "comeuppance" today (that I will address tomorrow morning, first thing) and now this, just now, breaking in the news:

USADA says it will ban Lance Armstrong, strip 7 Tour titles

Declaring "enough is enough," Lance Armstrong says he will not fight charges brought by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, which said it will ban Armstrong from competition for life and strip him of the seven Tour de France titles that turned him into an American hero.

Armstrong said his decision did not mean he would accept USADA's sanctions. His lawyers threatened a lawsuit if USADA proceeded, arguing the agency must first resolve a dispute with the International Cycling Union over whether the case should be pursued.
"It is a sad day for all of us who love sport and our athletic heroes," USADA CEO Travis Tygart said. "This is a heartbreaking example of how the win-at-all-costs culture of sport, if left unchecked, will overtake fair, safe and honest competition."

Who knows what to think but it certainly doesn't look good for Mr. Armstrong right now.

Odd, isn't it?

He was the "golden boy" of cycling, for years.

And he made boodles of money, because of it.

And now, all the trophies and accolades are wiped away.

Really odd.

Link: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/cycling/story/2012-08-23/Armstrong-doping-charges/57258616/1

What the heck did we ever do to food?

I ask again, what the heck did we ever do to food?

And then, why?

First, we added pesticides and chemicals and have made it cancerous and who knows what.

Then we created "supplements." How the heck are supplements supposed to be an improvement on grown food?

For starters, they're not a meal. Some of them have flavors, like if they're in a smoothie or shake, heaven forbid. Then there are the vitamins and pills.

Instead of food?

Does this makes sense?

Is that somehow an improvement on having 3 balanced, intelligent, delicious meals a day?

Put me in the corner of saying heck no, absolutely not.

I'll stick with my broccoli and vegetables, thank you.

Great question, really

Missouri River: One of American's "most polluted"

Yessiree, our own Missouri River is ranked as one of "America's Top 10 Most Polluted Waterways." To anyone who knows anything about it, that should come as no surprise. I once heard a statistic--I'll have to verify it--that once the water gets here, it's already been through 5 human systems. If true, that's the least of our concers. Anyway it's in the latest edition of "Mother Jones" but the original data is from the Environment America Research and Policy Center. (Both links below). Why the Missouri, you ask? Well, it gets 4,887,971 pounds of total toxic discharges put into it every year and 19,553,305 pounds of toxic discharges put into it from its entire watershed region. Unfortunately, the "Big Muddy" isn't the only river in the region that is cited in the report. It seems the Kansas River also gets 10,485 pounds of "developmental and reproductive toxicant releases" put into it, too. These are "those shown toimpede the proper physical and mental development of fetuses and children" so if we can't do this for ourselves and/or the fish and wildlife, as we ought, maybe we can and should do it for our children and grandchildren.

There are two more rivers, too, in Missouri that receive these developmental and reproductive toxicant releases. They are Crooked Creek and Bee Fork Creek. They're getting these "...because of heavy discharges of lead from mines and smelters operated by the Renco Group and Doe Run Resources Corp." The name of the original report gives you an idea, I think, of just what we're talking about here, too: "Wasting Our Waterways 2012; Toxic Industrial Pollution and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Clean Water Act" The report goes on to emphasize that the Federal Government needs to both follow the original Clean Water Act but also toughen it. We need it. Besides creating fish kills, the discharges we're talking about here are frequently highly carcinogenic, again, no surprise. Corporations won't want it but it's what we need to do, for all of us. In the current environment, I just don't see that happening but there's always hope. This is one more thing we will have to demand of our government representatives and government, in order to get what is needed. It has to come from us. Links: http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/03/top-10-polluted-rivers-waterways; http://www.environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/wasting-our-waterways-2012

Missouri: 2nd worst number of smokers per capita, nationwide

The latest study is out from Gallup, on the numbers of smokers nationwide, on a state-by-state basis and Missouri has the 2nd worst (meaning, most) number of smokers as a percentage of the state. Only Kentucky is worse--they're at 29% of the population, we're at 26%. Ugh. Surprisingly and happily, Kansas is on the "lowest percentage" list at only 19% of the population so good on you, Kansas. Links: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150779/Smoking-Rates-Remain-Highest-Kentucky-Lowest-Utah.aspx#1;

What I've said all along

Honestly, I knew they'd come to this conclusion, eventually:

Cancer experts say cell phones are possibly carcinogenic

The scientists, anyway, not the companies involved with making them or making them available.

Some of the article:

By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer

LONDON – An international panel of experts says cellphones are possibly carcinogenic to humans after reviewing details from dozens of published studies.

The statement was issued in Lyon, France, on Tuesday by the International Agency for Research on Cancer after a weeklong meeting of experts. They reviewed possible links between cancer and the type of electromagnetic radiation found in cellphones, microwaves and radar.

The agency is the cancer arm of the World Health Organization and the assessment now goes to WHO and national health agencies for possible guidance on cellphone use.

And here's the good part.  Just how cancerous is it, you ask?  Check this out:

The group classified cellphones in category 2B, meaning they are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Other substances in that category include the pesticide DDT and gasoline engine exhaust.

DDT.  And gasoline exhaust.

Nice.

More:  Since many cancerous tumors take decades to develop, experts say it's impossible to conclude cellphones have no long-term health risks.

The cell phone industry telling us that they don't cause any cancer problems seemed far too quick and predictable.

It reminds me of the old Joe Jackson song:

Except in this case, I think it really does.

It's Spring: What you should know about strawberries

Sure, it's Spring and with it comes warm weather and fresh, new, Spring asparagus and--what else?--strawberries, of course.

But instead of just blindly running to the grocery store and buying them up, day after day and/or week after week, it seems there's plenty we need to know about corporate America's strawberries.  To wit:

Strawberries may be a superfood—but they pose a potential risk unless you go organic. In addition to having up to 13 pesticides detected on the fruit, according to an Environmental Working Group (EWG) analysis, conventional "strawberries have a large surface area and all those tiny bumps, which makes the pesticides hard to wash off, so you’re ingesting more of those chemicals," explains Marion Nestle, PhD, a professor of nutrition and public health at New York University and author of What to Eat.


Not to be done there, unfortunately...

If you can, also skip conventional peaches, apples, blueberries, and cherries, which are typically treated with multiple pesticides and usually eaten skins-on.


And then there's...


Beef
You’ve probably read plenty of stories about the risks of eating chicken. But the most important protein to buy organic may well be beef. "Research suggests a strong connection between some of the hormones given to cattle and cancer in humans, particularly breast cancer," says Samuel Epstein, MD, professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health. Specifically, the concern is that the estrogen-like agents used on cattle could increase your cancer risk, adds Ted Schettler, MD, science director at the Science and Environmental Health Network.

Though there are strong regulations about the use of hormones in cattle, "not all beef producers are following those regulations strictly, and some studies continue to find hormone residue in cattle," Dr. Schettler says. When you buy beef that’s been certified organic by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), you’re not only cutting out those hormones, you’re also avoiding the massive doses of antibiotics cows typically receive, which the USDA says may lead to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in people


As they used to say on the old TV show "Hill Street Blues"-- "Let's be careful out there..."


You might want to read the entire article since it's about "11 things you should buy organic":  http://shine.yahoo.com/event/green/11-things-you-should-buy-organic-2467411/

Ladies and Gentlemen: St. Louis, Missouri's own Monsanto Corporation

There is a terrific article on Yahoo! News right now I'm going to quote, below, for y'all, as a bit of an education.

This St. Louis, Missouri company is just God's gift to mankind, I'm telling you:

Eight ways Monsanto is destroying our health

Lots of talk these days about the bullying of young boys and girls in school by more aggressive students. This brings to my mind the biggest bully of all: the biotech company, Monsanto Corporation.

Taken in context, Monsanto’s list of corporate crimes should have been enough to pull their corporate charter years ago. And yet we allow them to continue to destroy our food supply, our health and the planet. Monsanto or Monsatan?

Take a look at the company’s track record and decide for yourself.

--Agent Orange: Monsanto was the major financial beneficiary of this herbicide used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam and destroy the health of American troops and their offspring. It also allowed Monsanto and other chemical companies to appeal for and receive protection from veterans seeking damages for their exposure to Agent Orange and any future biotech creations.

--Aspartame: As far back as 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by aspartame. It has been shown to cause slow but serious damage to the human body and yet it is used extensively in many commercial products.

--Saccharin: Studies have shown that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice; and in six human studies, including one done by the National Cancer Institute, that consuming artificial sweeteners, such as saccharin and cyclamate, resulted in bladder cancer.

--Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH): A genetically modified hormone injected into dairy cows to produce more milk, despite the fact that more milk was needed. The cows suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis. The pus from the infection enters the milk supply requiring more antibiotics to be given to the cows. BST milk may also cause breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer in humans.

--RoundUp: The world's most commonly used herbicide and weed killer has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, in a study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden. Used on genetically modified crops resistant to RoundUp's active ingredient glyphosate, environmentalists and health professionals are concerned that far from reducing herbicide use, glyphosate-resistant crops may result in increased residues in food to which consumers will be exposed.

--Genetically Modified Crops (GMO): Monsanto created Frankenfoods by gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from a foreign source. Consequently these crops are resistant to massive doses of the herbicide, RoundUp, but in turn herbicide-resistant superweeds are taking over. After running into resistance in the west, Monsanto is pushing GMO crops in third-world countries.

According to physicist, ecologist, and activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, “Syugenta and Monsanto are rushing ahead with the mapping and patenting of the rice genome. If they could, they would own rice and its genes, even though the 200,000 rice varieties that give us diverse traits have been bred and evolved by rice farmers of Asia collectively over millennia. Their claim to inventing rice is a violence against the integrity of biodiversity and life forms; it is a violence against the knowledge of third-world farmers.”

This one, to me, is one of the worst and it's impacting us into the future:

--Terminator Seeds: A technology that produces sterile grains unable to germinate, forcing farmers to buy seeds from Monsanto rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest. Terminators can cross-pollinate and contaminate local non-sterile crops putting in danger the future seed supply and eventually giving control of the world’s food supply to Monsanto and the GM industry.

--Standard American Diet: According to the Organic Consumers Association, “There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the U.S. spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases.

Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, U.S. factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. Low fruit and vegetable consumption is directly costing the United States $56 billion a year in diet-related chronic diseases.”

How do you NOT love those guys--Monsanto?  (Of course, it's too bad they exist at all but at least, thank God, they're over in St. Louis and not here on this side of the state).

For that matter, how do you not love Corporate America?  Sure, they have a stranglehold on our government and our lives, individually and collectively but aren't they just a super-dee-duper group of people?

It seems as though Yahoo! Green is turning into a kind of Mother Earth News, too.  All I can say is Yahoo!

Have a great, healthy, beautiful and natural weekend, y'all.

Links:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ygreen/20110331/sc_ygreen/eightwaysmonsantoisdestroyingourhealth;_ylt=Ajz3D_0l5lEbKrldlIyP9BFv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTNzY2hiOGQ3BGFzc2V0A3lncmVlbi8yMDExMDMzMS9laWdodHdheXNtb25zYW50b2lzZGVzdHJveWluZ291cmhlYWx0aARjY29kZQNnbXByZG5iZQRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawNlaWdodHdheXNtb24-;  www.motherearthnews.com

The "disease cluster" in our backyard

A report came out Monday tells of possible "disease clusters" occurring in the US:

Report: 42 disease clusters in 13 U.S. states identified

At least 42 disease clusters have occurred in 13 U.S. states since 1976, according to a report Monday by environmentalists calling for further study of the cause of these health problems."Communities all around the country struggle with unexplained epidemics of cancers, birth defects and neurological diseases," report co-author Gina Solomon, a senior scientist at the Naural Resources Defense Council, said in announcing the findings. "The faster we can identify such clusters, and the sooner we can figure out the causes, the better we can protect residents living in the affected communities."  

On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled an oversight hearing on the issue.

The 13 states, you ask?  They include:  Texas, California, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Delaware, Louisiana, Montana, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas.  (Go to the first link, below, to read of some examples.  The one on Camp Lejeune, North Carolina was a stunner since it was happening to males and with breast cancer.  You have to figure the federal government would possibly be responsible for that one, what with a huge military base there). 

I thought you'd want to know.

Now, I'd like to know where in Missouri this "disease cluster" is.  Is it in Sugar Creek?  Cameron, as some people have claimed up there?  Across the state in the St. Louis area?  Where, exactly?

Having Googled it, I can tell you it's in Herculaneum.  (see link below)

At least that's the one in the state that is recognized.  Who knows?  There may be more than one.

Further proof, as though we needed it, that the way we live is unsustainable.

Links:  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2011/03/42-disease-clusters-13-states-toxics-environment/1?csp=34

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_382c4b9a-c075-5aa6-9275-60eed4f543f9.html

Quote of the day--on corporate power

"Few would argue that corporations today are not only ubiquitous but have enormous power over our lives. Was it always like this? How did it get to be this way? And what are the implications of this situation for democracy? … Indeed, so much power and wealth has been amassed by corporations that they can be said to govern, presenting a mortal threat to our body politic. To use a medical analogy, when a surgeon cuts out a cancer, it's not to punish the cancer, it's to save the body. If we wish to prevent the total demise of democracy - rule by the people - then we must return corporations to their subservient role."    – Women's International League for Peace and Freedom


Quote appropriated here from a blog of which I've just become aware:   http://www.nocorprule.blogspot.com/

Liberalism vs Libertarian philosopy

I just took this from a friend's Facebook page, frankly:


"...just swiped this from the comment section over at Truthout:
Genuine freedom includes two components:
1. Freedom to


and


2. Freedom from

Libertarian ideology only recognizes the first component--which is why it's inadequate.

The two often come into conflict.
Take smoking. Smokers' freedom to smoke in public conflicts with non-smokers' freedom from harm (cancer, etc.). Society initially supported the former but as evidence of harm mounted, shifted to the latter.
Take the environment. A company's freedom to pollute conflicts with citizens' freedom from harm (in various forms, including cancer and global warming). We've addressed this issue only in an adequate way to date.
The free market alone can only support "freedom to." It takes government regulation to support "freedom from."


That's why the liberal theory of freedom is much more powerful and ultimately beneficial than the libertarian theory of freedom.
Libertarianism = the greatest good for the rich & well-connected


Liberalism = the greatest good for the greatest number"

Food for thought, for sure.

Have a great day, y'all, and enjoy that terrific, continuing stretch of wonderful weather.

Further proof of why we shouldn't have smoking in public areas

I still see and hear, once in a while, someone complain that they can't smoke in public. Last week, someone wrote in to The Kansas City Star, sarcastically ripping our smoking bans, saying life will be perfect one of these days, if we just keep passing laws similar to this one. And to this I say, you need to read the following scientific information on what smoking does to us, just released this morning: Scientists led by Dr. Ronald Crystal at Weill Cornell Medical College documented changes in genetic activity among nonsmokers triggered by exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke. Public-health bans on smoking have been fueled by strong population-based data that links exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke and a higher incidence of lung diseases such as emphysema and even lung cancer, but do not establish a biological cause for the correlation. Now, for the first time, researchers can point to one possible cause: the passive recipient's genes are actually being affected. The results suggest that the genetic changes among the low-exposure volunteers, some of whose exposure is exclusively secondhand, mimicked those of smokers and represent the first molecular steps toward later lung disease. ...the latest findings should reinforce public-health messages about the dangers of cigarette smoke, even if it is secondhand, says Dr. Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. "When you look at the biology, there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke," he says. "This [study] adds an important piece of evidence that inhaling secondhand smoke is deleterious and does things to the airway that are not good." Okay? Got that? It's bad enough your cigarettes make us stink. We could live with that. And the scientific data told us years ago that secondhand smoke does cause cancer, even though you may not want to believe it. But here is further proof of just what you, smoking in public, in restaurants and so on, does to us--all of us. Could we get over this now? Link to original post: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599201210300;_ylt=AiwAHJetTqWiLcUjXzd7otHpCcB_;_ylu=X3oDMTM1dTVqMjI1BGFzc2V0A3RpbWUvMjAxMDA4MjAvMDg1OTkyMDEyMTAzMDAEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM4BHBvcwM4BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDc2Vjb25kaGFuZGNp

Now, there's a thought

Put Oil Firm Chiefs on Trial, Says Leading Climate Change Scientist
Monday 23 June 2008

by: Ed Pilkington, The Guardian UK

Testimony to US Congress will also criticize lobbyists. "Revolutionary" policies needed to tackle crisis.

New York - James Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".

He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.

The current concentration is 385 parts per million and is rising by 2ppm a year. Hansen, who heads Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, says 2009 will be a crucial year, with a new US president and talks on how to follow the Kyoto agreement.

He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing. "The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon."

His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."

A group seeking to increase pressure on international leaders is launching a campaign today called 350.org. It is taking out full-page adverts in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350ppm. The advert has been backed by 150 signatories, including Hansen.