Reversal of Solar Exposure Risk

The admonition against exposureto sunlight has been ignored by me since it appeared some thirty or forty yearsago.  Having grown up on a working farm,I knew that it was natural to accept a moderate level of sunlight.  This meant a pretty good tan while most ofthe body was at least protected from direct sunlight by hats and lightclothing.  This also was the generalexperience for almost everyone since time immemorial.

The admonition truly only appliedproperly against excessive exposure.  Astark naked seaman who spent all the daylight hours at sea was a glowingexample of excessive. 

Once we look at the urbandweller, a hugely different situation arose. There it was easily possible to be seriously deficient even in themiddle of summer.

Scientists reverse stance on sun andcancer: Now they admit sunlight can prevent skin cancer

Friday, May 27, 2011 by: Tara Green

(NaturalNews) Since the 1980s, physicians and cancer groups have regularlywarned the public against the potential health dangers of direct sunlight onskin. As a result, many people have stayed out of the sunlight completely,covered their limbs even in warm weather or slathered themselves with UVprotection products, all in the interest of lowering their risk of melanomas.

However, more recent findings indicate that this kind of nearly vampiricavoidance of the sun may not benefit your cancer odds after all.

A 2009 study by a group of Leeds University researchersfound that higher levels of Vitamin D were linkedto improved skincancersurvival odds. Other studies have found that Vitamin D has aconnection to a strong immune response in the body. In fact, Vitamin D mayhasten the death of tumor cells.

Unfortunately, most people havelow levels of Vitamin D, leaving them at higher risk for a host ofdiseases including breast cancer,prostate cancer, bowel cancer, cervical cancer, rickets and osteoporosis. (Formore in-depth information on this, see this report:http://www.naturalnews.com/rr-sunli...)

"It's common for the general public to have low levels of vitamin D inmany countries," said Professor Julia Newton Bishop of the Leeds Instituteof Molecular Medicine and author of the Leeds study. "Melanoma patients tend to avoidthe sun as sunburnis known to increase the risk of melanoma. We use sunshineto make vitamin D in the skin,so melanoma patients' levels of vitamin D may be especially low."

Bishop also noted that people can get more Vitamin D through dietary sources such as fattyfish. She points out that balance is key, as extremely high levels of Vitamin Dcan have a negative effect on health.

The mainstream media continues to run stories every summer warning peopleagainst the sun even two years after the Leedsstudy. While hours of sunbathing may be risky behavior for your long-termhealth, receiving a moderate amount of sunlight while outgardening or walking is actually as good for you as eating a low-fat diet andengaging in regular exercise. In fact, laying off the sunscreen may helpyou not only absorb sunshine intoyour skin to help fight tumors, but also helps you avoid the chemicals in mostcommercial sun blockingproducts.Some studies have indicated that these chemicals can actually generate harmfulfree radicals in the body.

So this summer, relax, and enjoy the sunshine.

Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/032533_sun_exposure_skin_cancer.html#ixzz1NcPwDfkf

Yes! A dose of sun CAN protect you against skin cancer

By PROFESSORANGUS DALGLEISH

Last updated at 8:01 AM on 24th May 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1390243/Sun-CAN-protect-skin-cancer.html

As a fair-haired Scot with freckles and pale skin I’m a classic case tobe more at risk from melanoma. Getting quite badly sunburned on my nose yearsago in Spainhas pushed my risk up further.

To say I’ve been wary about the sun is an understatement - I specialisein treating patients with advanced melanoma, a deadly form of skincancer. 

I was also in Australia 30 years ago at the start of the Slip-Slop-Slapcampaign to warn people to keep out of the sun, and for seven years I neverwent swimming without being covered in sun lotion and wearing a T-shirt.

Soak up the sun: Your skin needs vitamin D

But now I believe that rather than reducing the risk of skin cancer,following these sun-avoidance guidelines could actually raise it. That’sbecause we need sun on our skin to make vitamin D - ironically these campaignsmay have made  millions chronically short of it and put them at risk. trather than reducing the risk of skin cancer, following these sun-avoidanceguidelines could actually raise it. 

That’s because we need sun on our skin to make vitamin D - ironicallythese campaigns may have made  millions chronically short of it and putthem at risk. The sun’s effects might even protect against melanoma (asreported in the Mail earlier this month).

I first became interested in vitamin D and its cancer fightingpotential about 15 years ago, when working in a team testing it as a treatmentfor breast cancer. It proved very effective, but the project was abandoned fortechnical reasons. 

I thought this was a mistake because it had become clear that vitamin Dcan target tumours in many different ways, including speeding up the death oftumour cells.

Later, while researching cancer vaccines, I found good vitamin Dlevels in patients triggered a stronger immune response - important because itmakes the vaccine more potent. 

Then, a couple of years ago, researchers at Leeds Universitymade the surprising discovery that a very low level of vitamin D was a majorrisk factor for melanoma. 

Get out in the sun: Earlier reports on the benefit of the sun

This flew in the face of the idea that it was too much sun that pushedup your melanoma risk. Lots of sun actually mean lots of vitamin D - andpotentially a lower risk of melanoma.

I immediately began to test my patients’ vitamin D levels and wasamazed - I’d expected maybe 30 per cent would be deficient; it was closer to 90per cent. That changed everything for me. 

I now test all my new melanoma patients for vitamin D - if their levelsare low, I give them a supplement. The big question is: does this improve theirsurvival rates? 

We don’t know yet - we’ve only been doing it for about six months - butI think this is a sensible response to the evidence so far. As for the rest ofus, we should probably spend more time in the sun. Young girls have developedrickets because their well-meaning parents slathered them in sunscreen frombirth whenever they went out. 

I’m pleased that these days the official advice has changed and a fewminutes in the sun each day without sunscreen is now recommended.  

But this is a long way from acknowledging how vital it is to have ahealthy level of vitamin D.

Research shows that a large percentage of people in the UK aredeficient in vitamin D partly because we can’t make any from the sun for aboutsix months of the year. 

As well as checking the vitamin D levels of my patients I also check myown occasionally and take a supplement of 1000 international units about threetimes a week. 

Meanwhile, I’d like to see all other cancer units automaticallychecking their patients’ blood levels. It’s cheap and quick and I guaranteethey would be amazed at just how low many were.

So how much sun exposure is enough? And if we give supplements, howmuch do people need?

Finding the right answers could bring big benefits for very littlecost. In the meantime, my own approach has changed dramatically since thoseearly days. If I’m playing tennis or skiing I’ll only use sun cream on my faceor arms in very hot or mid-day sun.

Going slightly pink is OK (although at the first tingling sign thatI’ve been too exposed, I’ll put on some block, and I always protect my nosewhere it was burnt).
But my message is: don’t be afraid of the sun - enjoy it!

Read more: 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1390243/Sun-CAN-protect-skin-cancer.html#ixzz1NcQGTu18

Vitamin D new cancer hope

Published Wednesday 23rd September 09

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article/136/vitamin_d_new_cancer_hope

New research shows higher levels of vitamin D may help improve survivalfor both bowel and skin cancer patients.

The results of two studies published in the British Journal of Cancerand Journal of Clinical Oncology found people with higher levels of vitamin D -at the time they were diagnosed - were more likely to survive.

In the first study researchers from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston followed 1017bowel cancer patients for around nine years. 

Using information about UV-B and sunlight exposure, skin type, body-massindex, and vitamin D intake from food and supplements they estimated the amountof vitamin D in patients' blood at the time of diagnosis.

The results showed that those with higher vitamin D scores after beingdiagnosed with cancer were 50 per cent less likely to die from the disease -compared to those with lower vitamin D scores.

Professor Kimmie Ng, study author, said: "Our study shows thatlevels of vitamin D after colorectal cancer diagnosis may be important forsurvival. We are now planning further research in patients with bowel cancer tosee if vitamin D has the same effect, and to investigate how vitamin D workswith molecular and genetic pathways in the cell to fight cancer."

The second study - funded by Cancer Research UK and the National Institutesof Health - found that malignant melanoma patients** with the lowest levels ofvitamin D in their blood at the time they were diagnosed were 30 per cent morelikely to relapse from the disease than those with the highest levels.

The researchers from Leeds also found thatpatients who have higher levels of vitamin D at diagnosis have thinner tumoursat diagnosis.

Professor Julia Newton Bishop, study author at the Leeds Institute ofMolecular Medicine at the University of Leeds, said:"It's common for the general public to have low levels of vitamin D inmany countries. Melanoma patients tend to avoid the sun as sunburn is known toincrease the risk of melanoma. We use sunshine to make vitamin D in the skin,so melanoma patients' levels of vitamin D may be especially low.

"Our results suggest that melanoma patients may need to getvitamin D by eating fatty fish or by taking supplements to ensure they havenormal levels. But we are continuing to carry out research to find out theoptimum level of vitamin D. There's some evidence from other health studiesthat high levels of vitamin D are also harmful - so we should aim for a normallevel rather than a very high one."

Sara Hiom, director of health information at Cancer Research UK, said:"Both these studies support the theory that higher levels of vitamin D canimprove the chance of surviving cancer. The key is to get the right balancebetween the amount of time spent in the sun and the levels of vitamin D neededfor good health.

"But protection from burning in the sun is still vital. CancerResearch UK's SunSmart campaign advises that people with lots of moles, redhair fair skin and a family history of the disease should take extra care inthe sun as they are more at risk of the most dangerous form of skin cancerAnyone who is worried about changes in their moles should go to their GP."

Notes to Editors:

Prospective study of predictors of vitamin D and survival in patientswith colorectal cancer by Kimmie Ng. British Journal of Cancer Published Tuesday8 September, 2009 Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D3 levels are associated with Breslowthickness at presentation, and survival from melanoma by Julia Newton-Bishop.Journal of Clinical Oncology Published Monday 21 September 21.00hrs (BST), 2009

Greenland and Ice Age Agriculture

The sharp climate swing thatwiped out the Vikings is a reminder also just how volatile climate is in iceage conditions.  It was impossible tosustain agriculture and that was agriculture well adapted to take advantage ofa brief growing season and included cattle husbandry.

This is a measure of just howimpossible it was to sustain agriculture away from coastal regions during theIce Age proper when decadal temperature swings played themselves out over afive degree range, unlike the two degree range of the Holocene.

It is very clear that throughoutthe huge landmasses of the northern hemisphere that a hugely variable Ice Age climatepersisted.  This meant that while a spellof good conditions were possible, the bad conditions would be catastrophic toany idea of agriculture.

Thus the full exploitation of theEarth’s landmass was not possible.  Whatremained was Africa and much of the greater South American land mass and Sahuland the Indonesian coastal plain as well as an expanded India.  The problem was that agriculture waseffectively limited to tropical coastal plains and the like which to this dayhave not been properly mastered.  We hadthe working equivalent of perhaps three Indian subcontinents to exploitproperly and a possible developed population base of up to three billion if myconjecture of such a previous development holds up.

Eliminating the Ice Age created awell ordered climate and the potential for a population of between thirty toone hundred billion people.  I haveposted on this in the past.

The Ice Age was ended 13900 yearsago and the present Holocene is now fully settled in pending furtherimprovements by us.

Greenland cold snap linked to Viking disappearance

Reuters – Mon, 30 May, 2011

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/greenland-cold-snap-linked-viking-disappearance-203657244.html

An iceberg floats in the sea ice near the town of Uummannaq in westernGreenland

OSLO (Reuters) - A cold snap in Greenlandin the 12th century may help explain why Viking settlers vanished from theisland, scientists said on Monday.

The report, reconstructing temperatures by examining lake sedimentcores in west Greenland dating back 5,600 years, also indicated that earlier,pre-historic settlers also had to contend with vicious swings in climate on icyGreenland.

"Climate played (a) big role in Vikings' disappearance fromGreenland," Brown University in the United States said in a statementof a finding that average temperatures plunged 4 degrees Celsius (7F) in 80years from about 1100.

Such a shift is roughly the equivalent of the current averagetemperatures in Edinburgh, Scotland, tumbling to match those in Reykjavik, Iceland.It would be a huge setback to crop and livestock production.

"There is a definite cooling trend in the region right before theNorse disappear," said William D'Andrea of Brown University, the leadauthor of the study in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers have scant written or archaeological records to figure outwhy Viking settlers abandoned colonies on the western side of the island in themid-1300s and the eastern side in the early 1400s.

Conflicts with indigenous Inuit, a search for better hunting grounds,economic stresses and natural swings in climate, perhaps caused by shifts inthe sun's output or volcanic eruptions, could all be factors.

LITTLE ICE AGE

Scientists have previously suspected that a cooling toward a"Little Ice Age" from the 1400s gradually shortened growing seasonsand added to sea ice that hampered sailing links with Iceland or theNordic nations.

The study, by scientists in the United States and Britain, added the previouslyunknown 12th century temperature plunge as a possible trigger for the colonies'demise. Vikings arrived in Greenland in the 980s, during a warm period like thepresent.

"You have an interval when the summers are long and balmy and youbuild up the size of your farm, and then suddenly year after year, you go intothis cooling trend, and the summers are getting shorter and colder and youcan't make as much hay," D'Andrea said.

The study also traced even earlier swings in the climate to the riseand fall of pre-historic peoples on Greenlandstarting with the Saqqaq culture, which thrived from about 4,500 years ago to2,800 years ago.

Scientists fear that the 21st century warming is caused by climatechange, stoked by a build-up of greenhouse gases from human activities. Anacceleration of warming could cause a meltdown of the Greenlandice sheet, raising world sea levels.

E Coli and Agriculture

Read the second paragraph,understand that this work has been continually confirmed and that simplechanges in feed protocols equal any benefit from the actual use of antibioticsat all.  The danger from the practice cannot be any starker.

The attempt to blame a singlesource in the EU for the sudden appearance of a new E coli infection isobviously misplaced.  Its existence ispossible only because of the practice of using antibiotics.  Ending the practice as we must do sooner orlater and better sooner is our only real option.

Must we wait for a real nastyproblem to get out there like the SARS event which may also have been anagriculture derived problem?

There are plenty of concerns withfactory farming to start with.  Endingthe risk of disease generation is surely a good decision.

E-I-E-I-Oh no: Decades of antibiotics in farm animals lead to deadlysuperbugs 3

BY BARRYESTABROOK

2 JUN 2011 2:34 PM

http://www.grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-05-31-you-want-superbugs-with-that1

When cows kill. This article was syndicated withpermission from OnEarth.

Stuart Levy once kept a flock of chickens on a farm in the rollingcountryside west of Boston.No ordinary farmer, Levy is a professor of molecular biology and microbiologyand of medicine at Tufts University Schoolof Medicine. This was decades ago, and his chickens were taking part in anever-before-conducted study. Half the birds received feed laced with a lowdose of antibiotics, which U.S.farmers routinely administer to healthy livestock -- not to cure illness, butmerely to increase the animals' rates of growth. The other half of Levy's flockreceived drug-free food.

Results started showing up almost instantly. Within two days, thetreated animals began excreting feces containing E. coli bacteriathat were resistant to tetracycline, the antibiotic in their feed. (E. Coli,most of which are harmless, normally live in the guts of chickens and otherwarm-blooded animals, including humans.) After three months, the chickenswere also excreting bacteria resistant to such potent antibiotics asampicillin, streptomycin, carbenacillin, and sulfonamides. Even though Levy hadadded only tetracycline to the feed, his chickens had somehow developed whatscientists now call "multi-drug resistance" to a host of antibioticsthat play important roles in treating infections in people. Morefrightening, although none of the members of the farm family tending theflock were taking antibiotics, they, too, soon began excreting drug-resistantstrains of E. coli.

When Levy's study was published in The NewEngland Journal of Medicine in 1976, it was met with skepticism."The other side -- industry -- could not believe that this would havehappened. The mood at the time was that what happens in animals does not happenin people," said Levy, who serves as president of the Alliance for thePrudent Use of Antibiotics, in a telephone interview from his office at Tufts."But we had the data. It was obvious to us even then that usingantibiotics this way was an error and should be stopped."

During the intervening 35 years, study after study has confirmed Levy'sfindings and shown that the problem of antibiotic-resistant"superbugs" is even worse than anyone could have imagined. Each year,70,000 Americans in U.S.hospitals die from bacterial infections that drugs are unable to kill. And evenas the number of infectious diseases is on the rise, more antibiotics areadministered to livestock than ever before, from 17.8 million pounds per yearin 1999 according to the AnimalHealth Institute (a trade organization of companies, like Bayer,Novartis, and Pfizer, that manufacture livestock drugs) to 29.8 million poundsin 2009, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Fully 80percent of the antibiotics used in the United States are given tolivestock, and the vast majority are administered to promote growth and staveoff potential infections, not to treat illness.

From his perspective of more than three decades as a resistant-microbewatcher, Levy sounded almost weary when he said, "Proponents of growthpromotion keep asking for more data, and we scientists provide them. But thenthe findings have never led to removal of the practice."

Getting serious

Last month, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Sciencein the Public Interest, Food Animal Concerns Trust, Public Citizen, and the Union of Concerned Scientists joined forces to filea lawsuit against the FDA. The groups want the agency to withdraw itsapproval for most non-therapeutic uses of penicillin and tetracycline in animalfeed. They say that it's something regulatorsshould havedone decades ago.

The FDA first approved the use of low-dose antibiotics in the 1950s.Concerns about the drugs began appearing within a decade, and by the timeLevy's paper was published, the FDA was aware the practice posed a serious riskto human health. The agency proposed to withdraw its approval in 1977, sayingthat new evidence showed that penicillin- and tetracycline-containing productshad not been "shown safe for widespread, sub-therapeutic use."

The proposal drew howls of outrage from two of the most powerfullobbying groups in Washington, agribusinesses and drug manufacturers. Both theHouse and Senate ordered the FDA to "hold in abeyance any and allimplementation of the proposal" until further studies had been conducted."It was the power of the lobby and the money behind that lobby," Levyrecalled.

As requested by Congress, the FDA commissioned three studies during the1980s, all of which supported initial concerns about the risks of feeding farmanimals antibiotics on a daily basis. The FDA received petitions urging it toact from coalitions of scientific and environmental groups in 1999 and 2005.Such respected bodies as the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, and the World Health Organization all identified low-doseantibiotics as the reason antibiotic-resistant bacteria were proliferating inhumans and animals. And the FDA -- which is charged with protecting the healthof Americans -- failed to act, only going so far as to issue a "DraftGuidance" [PDF] report and a draft "Action Plan" proposingvoluntary guidelines. These suggestions have done nothing to stem the deluge ofunnecessary antibiotics through the spigot of agribusiness.

"We've been fighting the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics inlivestock for more than 30 years," Margaret Mellon, director of the foodand environment program at the Union ofConcerned Scientists, said in a press release announcing the lawsuit."And over those decades the problem has steadily worsened. We hope thislawsuit will finally compel the FDA to act with an urgency commensurate withthe magnitude of the problem." (Siobhan Delancey, a spokeswoman for theFDA, declined to comment on the suit.)

The trouble with antibiotics

Bacteria are evolutionary dynamos. Untold trillions of them can live inone confined animal feeding operation, or CAFO -- the technical term for afactory farm. They breed rapidly and mutate readily. Exposure to even minisculelevels of drugs equips bacteria with the genetic resilience to fend off higherlevels of the same drugs.

From the dawn of modern antibiotics, researchers have been aware thatthe seeds of the wonder drugs' destruction had already been sown. In his 1945 Nobel acceptance speech for his discoveriesrelated to penicillin, Sir Alexander Fleming said, "There is a danger thatthe ignorant man may easily under-dose himself and by exposing his microbes tonon-lethal quantities of the drug make them resistant." Fleming'sprediction was prescient -- except the problem wasn't an "ignorantman" but politicians and business executives whose priorities layelsewhere.

During the decades that the FDA dithered, a mountain of scientificresearch accumulated showing that antibiotic-resistant bacteria can not onlyevolve in the guts of farm animals, but can spread from animals to the humanswho tend them, and then be passed on to people who have never been anywherenear a chicken house or hog barn.

In 2004, Dutch doctors discovered a strain ofmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)in a 6-month-old baby. Often fatal, MRSA is the original "superbug"because it can survive treatment by the most powerful antibiotics in modernmedicine's arsenal. At first, the doctors were puzzled. MRSA was primarilyknown as a hospital-acquired infection. But the child, who carried the germsbut never became sick, as is often the case with the asymptomatic carriers ofbacteria, had never been in a hospital. Her parents were pig farmers, andsubsequent investigations showed that the MRSA had been passed from the pigs tothe parents and on to the baby. (Most bacteria are non-infectious, althoughthey may carry resistance genes. The problem is that they can pass theirresistance traits to infectious bacteria.)

Three years later, J. Scott Weese, a professor at the Ontario VeterinaryCollege at the Universityof Guelph near Toronto, found an identical strain of MRSA inCanadian pigs and their owners. The superbug had somehow leapt over the Atlantic Ocean. Further research by Weese revealed thatthe swapping of resistant bacteria between animals and humans can be a two-waystreet. Not only were the farmers affected by MRSA that had originated in pigs,but the pigs carried MRSA that until then had only been found in humans.

For a year or so, American agribusiness continued to claim that MRSAwas a problem that couldn't happen here -- a myth they were able to perpetratebecause no government agency was routinely testing hogs for MRSA. But duringthe summer of 2008, Tara Smith, a microbiologist at the University of Iowa andthe deputy director of the university's Center for Emerging InfectiousDiseases, found that seven out of 10 pigs she and her students tested on farmsin Illinois and Iowa carried MRSA.

A graduate student working with Smith recently uncovered a strainof S. aureus associated with hogs and the people who tend them in aday-care worker who had never been near a hog farm. Fortunately, thatparticular strain was not antibiotic resistant. But the discovery showed thathumans do not have to work with infected animals to pick up the bacteria theycarry. "Whether the pig bacterium was passed on via another human or viacontaminated food products, we can't tell right now," Smith said in anemail.

Making the case

In fact, there are any number of ways antibiotic-resistant bacteria canspread from farm to fork. A recently published study in thejournal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that 47 percent of thebeef, chicken, pork, and turkey sampled from grocery stores in five U.S. citiescarried drug-resistant S. aureus. Superbugs are literally blowing in thewind. According to a 2006 report in the journal Environmental HealthPerspectives, multi-drug-resistant bacteria were found in the air downwindof a confined hog operation. Nearly 90 percent of the E. coli inliquid manure pits associated with pig farms are resistant to drugs, accordingto Kellogg Schwab, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Water andHealth. Manure ponds frequently burst their banks and contaminate nearbystreams, rivers, and wells.

Pharmaceutical companies dispute the assertion that treating animalswith low-dose antibiotics is dangerous to humans. "A lot of people want totalk about antibiotic resistance as if it is a big amorphous issue," saidRon Phillips of the Animal Health Institute, in an interview. "It is, infact, a series of discrete issues where you have to look at specific bug/drugcombinations and figure out what are the potential pathways forantibiotic-resistant material to transfer from animals to humans. Studies havebeen done, and have come to the conclusion that there is a vanishingly smalllevel of risk."

Smith of the University of Iowa says that thespecific studies that the industry suggests are necessary simply cannot be done-- it would be the equivalent of having to have an eyewitness to prosecute anycrime. "But we have DNA from the crime scene that matches that of thesuspect. At some point you have to accept that he is responsible. The bulk ofevidence is overwhelming."

One area where solid scientific evidence is lacking, astonishingly, ison whether changing the industry-wide practice of giving low doses ofantibiotics to livestock would actually make that much of a difference. Theexperience of farmers in the European Union, where dosing animals withsub-therapeutic levels of antibiotics was banned in 1998, suggests otherwise.Denmark is the world's largest pork exporting country, and most of its hogs areraised in large confined operations much like those used by the U.S.pork industry. In that country, the overall use of antibiotics fellby 37 percent [PDF] between 1994 and 2009, according to a study byDenmark's National Food Institute. Correspondingly, levels of resistantbacteria in animals and people plummeted, but production levels of meat eitherstayed the same or increased: The average daily weight gain per pig wasactually higher in 2008 than in 1992 when antibiotics were routinelyadministered.

It's easy to understand why drug companies react so forcefully to anyattempts to cut back on sub-therapeutic antibiotic use -- FDA figures show that60 percent of the antimicrobial drugs they sell are fed to farm animals topromote growth, an enormous chunk of their business -- but given the success offarmers in Europe who've stopped using antibiotics to promote growth, why isthe farm lobby so vehemently against change? Would it spell the end of the hugeCAFOs upon which American agribusiness has come to depend? Steven Roach, thepublic health program director for the Food Animal ConcernsTrust (FACT), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the FDA,has a straightforward answer to that question: No, CAFOs would not go away.European pig farms are as large as those in the U.S., according to Roach. Someof the E.U.'s chicken operations are even larger than those in this country.(And if American farmers feel uncomfortable with examples from foreigncountries, he suggests that they look at Tyson, one of the United States'largest poultry producers, which had no problems raising chickens withoutantibiotics in ways that the suit aims to stop.)

"There are two parts of production where there are small economicbenefits to using low-dose antibiotics," Roach said in an interview."Particularly on young pigs. The challenge for the beef cattle industry isthat when you feed a high-corn diet, cattle have some heath problems, and oneway they manage that is using the antibiotics in the feed. But even so, someproducers are raising them without antibiotics in feedlots now." Roachsaid that European farmers have gotten around these problem areas by weaningpiglets later. Barns are kept cleaner for all animals. And altering dietsallows CAFOs to raise cattle without antibiotics. Of course, says Roach,some farmers simply won't want to change. He believes they are afraid that ifthey allow outside forces to impose even small changes, then other changes arebound to come.

After 35 years on the frontlines in the battle to keep antibioticseffective, though, Levy believes there's cause for optimism. "The mood isnow 180 degrees better than it was for getting rid of this practice," hesaid. "There are more and more scientists and lay people who are urgentlyasking for an end to this use of antibiotics."

It helps that one of those "science people" is also arepresentative. LouiseSlaughter, a Democrat who represents upstate New York, was a microbiologistbefore going into politics. In 2009, she introduced a bill called the Preservationof Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, which calls for the FDA towithdraw its approval of the practice within two years unless there isreasonable certainty that the low-dose antibiotics cause no harm to humanhealth. "We are witnessing a looming public health crisis that is movingfrom farms to grocery stores to dinner tables around the country," shesaid in an email. "As the only microbiologist in Congress, I feel it's myduty to bring public attention to this."

Although Slaughter's bill has yet to pass, it had 127 cosponsors in thelast congressional session, more than double its support in the previousCongress. It looks as though even more legislators will sign on this time, andmany are hopeful that the combined forces of looming legislation and an activelawsuit will finally lead the FDA to act. "If we don't addressit," Slaughter continued, "we risk setting ourselves back to the timebefore antibiotics, when even common infections could kill a person. That's notany kind of world I want my children and their children to inherit."

A former contributing editor to Gourmet magazine, BarryEstabrook is the author of Tomatoland:How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed Our Most Alluring Fruit andblogs at politicsoftheplate.com.

WHO Warns Heavy Cell Usage is Carcinogenic

It appears that the reality ofcell phone risk is now slowly emerging from the shroud of statistical mumboJumbo behind which it has been well hidden.

I have posted a few times on thetopic and I have not been kind.  Theproblem follows the pattern expected for radiation driven tumors.  The first take home is that low exposureactually acts to reduce cancer incidence. This is wonderful to know if you wish to rig experiments to avoid thebad news.  The second take home is thatintensive usage over several years will clearly increase the risk of cancer.

One reason I have a counteragentchip on my own cell phone is to block the established clumping effect on bloodcells which may be related.

In the past five years I havebeen exposed to several deaths from brain tumors.  Prior to that during an active sales careerin which I met thousands of individuals and maintained many individualrelationships, I was aware of no such deaths, although details were likelyomitted anyway.  Most appalling was thedeath of a thirty two year old associate who was the epitome of excessive cellphone usage over a decade long working career. I know that none of this is representative but I am personally seeingcases that should be statistical outliers. This is far too odd to be comfortable.

Needless to say, the industry isfighting disclosure even though I suspect that a counter measure is availablethat may be effective and cheap to implement.

Except it will mean admittingprior knowledge.

 
WHO panel warns that cell phone usemay cause cancer

Saturday, June 04, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

http://www.naturalnews.com/032609_cell_phones_cancer.html

(NaturalNews) Scientists from the International Agency for Research onCancer (IARC), a group affiliated with the World Health Organization (WHO), saythat mobile phones are a "possible" carcinogen that may be a cause ofcancer. The findings, which support previous research on the subject, add to thegrowing body of evidence which suggests that the electromagnetic radiationemitted from mobile phones causes serious health problems.

"A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agentand cancer forwhich a causal interpretation is considered ... to be credible," statesthe IARC. However, in the same train of thought, the agency claims that evidence is"limited" to suggest that mobile phone usageis linked to glioma or acoustic neuroma, two types of brain cancer.

In 2009, IARC published a study in the Journal of ClinicalOncology that linked mobile phone usage to an 18 percent increase in brain tumor risk.And because it was observed that such tumors tended to form onthe sides of brains where mobile phones wereprimarily used, the connection between the two is even more striking

(http://www.naturalnews.com/027448_c...).

Another report issued in 2010 by the International Electromagnetic FieldCooperative (IEFC) also found a link between mobile phone usage and increasedrates of brain tumors. Included in this report is a Swedish study that found a420 percent increase in brain cancer rates among children who began usingmobile and cordless phones as teenagers, as opposed to those that did not (http://www.naturalnews.com/028078_c...).

With all of this research nowavailable and the latest announcement from IARC, one would think more peoplewould be concerned about the risks involved with the excessive use of mobilephones and looking for less-risky alternatives or using hands-free devices atthe very least. But because the period between when a cancer patient is exposedto this radiation andwhen he or she develops tumors typically spans several decades, some expertsclaim that the link between the two is inconclusive and are content to tell thepublic there is really little to worry about.

Sources for this story include:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110531..

Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/032609_cell_phones_cancer.html#ixzz1ONhXudHS

Do cell phones cause cancer?

Saturday, June 04, 2011 by: Kshamica S. Nimalasuriya MD, MPH

(NaturalNews) This week the World Health Organizations officially classifiedcellphones as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

This statement was made from a team of 31 scientists from 14 countries who madethis decision after reviewing the data from previous peer-reviewed studies. Theteam looked for links between cancer and the type of radiation found incellphones.

Their conclusion was to classify cellphones in category 2B which meanscellphones are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Other compounds in the 2Bcategory include lead, nickel, DDT, chloroform and gasoline exhaust.

Dr. Christopher Wild, director of the International Agency for Research onCancer, said this new WHO report is important "first and foremost justbecause of the large number of users worldwide that have access now to thistechnology." Globally, it's estimated there are 5 billion cell phones beingused, that's three fourths of the population on earth.

However, because cellphone usage habits have changed since the early studies, it's difficult toknow whether the conclusions from previous studies are still relevant today.Also, the current studies haven't looked at usage longer than 10 years. So,there is a lot more research tobe conducted to get a clear sense of whether cell phones actually cause cancer.

In the meantime, if you are concerned about any potential health risks ofcellphones the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC)have suggested some steps to take including:

- Use of cell phones mainly for shorter conversations, or for times when alandline phone is not available.

- Switch to a cellphone with a hands-free device that will place more distance betweenthe phone and your head.

Sources:

http://monographs.iarc.fr/
http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/cellu...
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-Emitti
Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/032608_cell_phones_cancer.html#ixzz1ONimdbvk

Brazilian Nickel Expansion

This caught my eye recently andheralds Brazildominance of the iron and nickel industry. Brazil and itsgeological continuation in West Africa haslong since been the sweetest source of iron ore available.  Now rich new lateritic nickel deposits arecoming on stream to complete the mix.

What is clear is that the scopeof the resource assures global needs for decades, if not centuries. Many otherresources will also contribute to the market but this is likely the price setter.

I have lived through a majorrestructuring of the global nickel industry over the past thirty years and ithas been awesome to watch. 

Brazil aims to become key nickel exporter

by Staff Writers

Rio De Janeiro(UPI) May 18, 2011 

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Brazil_aims_to_become_key_nickel_exporter_999.html

Brazil has set its sights on making the most of its nickel deposits and isbeing helped by iron ore giant Vale in reaching higher targets to influence theglobal nickel markets.

Nickel prices remain strong despite slow recovery and abundant supplyfrom world leaders Russiaand Canada.As a steel component, nickel is seen in Brazil as an answer to thecountry's long-term steel-making plans as well as its potential as ahigh-earning export.

Vale is the world's second biggest nickel producer,with operations in Canada, Indonesia and New Caledonia,as well as nickel refineries in Britain,China, Japan and Taiwan.

Brazil's targeted grand entry into the globalnickel market is timed with Vale's plans to maintain its iron ore processing andexport and diversify into other minerals and chemicals. The company announcedits intentions to boost its role in nickel market as it opened its first nickeloperation in Onca Puma, southeast of the northeastern Parastate.

Company officials said they rate the Onca Puma plant as one of thelargest ferronickel production plants in the world with annual nickel production setto exceed 53,000 tons. Once fully operational the plant will have an annualcapacity to produce 220,000 tons of ferronickel.

Vale said it spent $2.84 billion on getting the site up to speed, withmore than 9,500 employees -- 1,500 hired for the early phase.

Company executives hailed the plant as a major stride toward developingBrazil'soverall capacity for nickel processing and exports.

"Onca Puma is a milestone, not only because it is Vale's firstnickel production plant in Brazil, but also as it provides an example of thebuilding of sustainable relations with communities in the municipalities in thearea covered by the project," said Ricardo Carvalho, the company'sdirector of South Atlantic base metal operations.

The first container shipment of 1,078 tons of ferronickel left BrazilMay 11, company officials said. The shipment included 385 tons of nickel boundfor importers in the United States,Europe and Asia.

It has taken Vale more than five years to reach the current stage inits operations since it took over the project in 2005. Mine development workduring the intervening period has involved ore extraction operations in theOnce and Puma mountains, close to the location of the processing plant.

Nickel is resistant to oxidation and corrosion and is used to makealloys with many different industrial applications. More than 60 percent of themetal in production and export is used in stainless steel production.

Brazil aims to build its nickel market around traditional U.S.customers, China, Japanand EU nations.

Sleep Deprivation and Memory Impairment

It is obvious that pulling a latenighter when the objective is to put more information into memory is seriouslycounter productive.  A more appropriateapproach is to complete all memory oriented work during the six hours beforebeginning a full night’s sleep.  Then onawakening, peruse a refresher sheet.

However one is prepared,deviating from this approach will gain you nothing.  The other lesson is that memorization needsto be bracketed by sleep in order for the brain to do its work.  Thus learning is a process of intense workswapped with a sound sleep.  Somehow weprobably did just that but forgot it along the way.

The other obvious take home is toprepare for a class by reviewing the previous class just before going tosleep.  Make that part of your routine.  Doing homework normally forces one toactually do this, but that is not always possible.

The roots of memory impairment resulting from sleep deprivation

by Staff Writers

Philadelphia PA (SPX) May 19, 2011

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_roots_of_memory_impairment_resulting_from_sleep_deprivation_999.html

From high-school students to surgeons, anyone who has pulled an all-nighterknows there is a price to be paid the next day: trouble focusing, a fuzzymemory and other cognitive impairments. Now, researchers at Penn have found thepart of the brain and the neurochemical basis for sleep deprivation's effectson memory.

Ted Abel, a professor of biology in Penn's School of Arts and Sciencesand director of the University's interdisciplinary Biological Basis of Behaviorprogram, led the research team. His partners included Cedrick Florian, a postdoctoralfellow in biology, and Christopher Vecsey, a neuroscience graduate student, aswell as researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Tufts University.

Their research was published in The Journal of Neuroscience.

Abel's group aimed to better understand the role of the nucleosideadenosine in the hippocampus, the part of the brain associated with memoryfunction.

"For a long time, researchers have known that sleep deprivation resultsin increased levels of adenosine in the brain, and has this effect from fruitflies to mice to humans." Abel said. "There is accumulating evidencethat this adenosine is really the source of a number of the deficits and impactof sleep deprivation, including memory loss and attention deficits. Onething that underscores that evidence is that caffeine isa drug that blocks the effects of adenosine, so we sometimes refer to this as'the Starbucks experiment.'"

Abel's research actually involved two parallel experiments onsleep-deprived mice, designed to test adenosine's involvement in memoryimpairment in different ways.

One experiment involved genetically engineered mice. These mice weremissing a gene involved in the production of glial transmitters, chemicalssignals that originate from glia, the brain cells that support the function ofneurons. Without these gliatransmitters, the engineered mice could not producethe adenosine the researchers believed might cause the cognitive effectsassociated sleep deprivation.

The other experiment involved a pharmacological approach. Theresearchers grafted a pump into the brains of mice that hadn't been geneticallyengineered; the pump delivered a drug that blocked a particular adenosinereceptor in the hippocampus. If the receptor was indeed involved in memory impairment,sleep-deprived mice would behave as if the additional adenosine in their brainswas not there.

To see whether these mice showed the effects of sleep deprivation, theresearchers used an object recognition test. On the first day, mice were placedin a box with two objects and were allowed to explore them while beingvideotaped. That night, the researchers woke some of the mice halfway throughtheir normal 12-hour sleep schedule.

On the second day, the mice were placed back in the box, where one ofthe two objects had been moved, and were once again videotaped as they exploredto see how they reacted to the change.

"Mice would normally explore that moved object more than otherobjects, but, with sleep deprivation, they don't," Abel said. "Theyliterally don't know where things are around them."

Both sets of treated mice explored the moved object as if they hadreceived a full night's sleep.

"These mice don't realize they're sleep-deprived," Abelsaid.

Abel and his colleagues also examined the hippocampi of the mice, usingelectrical current to measure their synaptic plasticity, or how strong andresilient their memory-forming synapses were. The pharmacologically andgenetically protected mice showed greater synaptic plasticity after being sleepdeprived than the untreated group.

Combined, the two experiments cover both halves of the chemical pathwayinvolved in sleep deprivation. The genetic engineering experiment shows wherethe adenosine comes from: glia's release of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, thechemical by which cells transfer energy to one another. And the pharmacologicalexperiment shows where the adenosine goes: the A1 receptor in the hippocampus.

The knowledge that interrupting the pathway at either end results inmice that show no memory impairments is a major step forward in understandinghow to manage those impairments in humans.

"To be able to reverse a particular aspect of sleep-deprivation,such as its effect on memory storage, we really want to understand themolecular pathways and targets," Abel said. "Here, we've identifiedthe molecule, the cellular circuit and the brain region by which sleepdeprivation affects memory storage."

Such treatments would be especially enticing, given how sensitive thebrain is to sleep deprivation's effects.

"Our sleep deprivation experiments are the equivalent of losinghalf of a night sleep for a single night," Abel said. "Most of uswould think that's pretty minor, but it shows just how critical the need forsleep is for things like cognition."

In addition to Abel, Florian and Vescey, the research was conducted byMichael M. Halassa of the Department of Psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospitaland the Department of Brain and Cognitive Science at MIT, as well as Philip G.Haydon, of the Department of Neuroscience at the Tufts University School ofMedicine. The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health.

Clearest Alien Photos Known

Dr. Roger Leir Presents The Clearest Alien Photos Known ?

http://parabook.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/dr-roger-leir-presents-the-clearest-alien-photos-known/

Take your time on this one. This is a biblical Ark.  It is also called a MFEV or magnetic fieldexclusion vessel as per my article on the reverse engineering of an UFO.  Yes, I know how to build one and the physics allfell into place over the past two years.

What it is not is anything as yet built on Earth.  Get over it.

The lighting on the craft is from the full moon.

There is enough evidence out there in terms of sightingdensities and specific locales to make certain conjectures.

1                   Although actively gathering information using smallervessels as a matter of common sense business, it is not the reason for the appearanceof the much larger craft.

2                   The larger craft are transports travelling understealth between space habitats and major underground earth bases.

3                   These Earth bases do not interact at all with thesurface or we would have long since been on to them.  They are entered through underwater gates oncoasts and lakes.

4                   This locale in Turkeyis a promising base location, as is southern New Brunswickand Nova Scotiafor starters.  Many others are indicatedand even suggested by prior work.  Isuspect that the bases are huge habitats holding millions of individuals.  ET is merely an elevator trip away and notparticularly deep either.

I suspect that we have several such bases on Earth andpotentially a great number, though I think they are few, or at least continentbased and large in size instead.

These craft either go to space or go to water todisappear.  If water, it is not likely theywould want to go that deep, so we see association with near coastal structuresand lakes.  That may be an artifact ofhuman observation, but then perhaps not.