I found this awesome image at Absolute China Tours.
“Earlier this summer a friend said they were going to vote for Trump.
I turned bright red, I kid you not. Bright bright red. Even I thought it was funny. They said, ‘I take it you’re a Hillary fan,’ and I said, truthfully, that it wasn’t so much that I was pro-Hillary as I was vehemently anti-Trump. (This has changed: I’ve really had to examine my prejudices against Hillary and question how many of them were instilled by 30 years of media telling me she was evil and corrupt, but that’s another post.)
My friend said, ‘Why?’ and I said, ‘Because Trump thinks that women are things, not people, and if he’s elected President he’s going to be the person appointing at least two, up to probably five, Supreme Court justices, and every right women have will get rolled under. If you think, for example, that there are any circumstances ever under which a woman should be able to have an abortion, you should not vote for Trump.’
(I don’t know if I had the clarity of mind at that moment to actually say ‘You in fact need to vote for Clinton if you think women are people,’ because a vote for a third party in a two-party system isn’t a protest vote, it’s taking support away from whichever major party, whether you like it or not, aligns more closely with your values, hopes and expectations of your country. Which is also another post.)”
“This study shows no evidence of a correlation between low level mercury exposure and autism spectrum-like behaviors among children whose mothers ate, on average, up to 12 meals of fish each week during pregnancy,” said Edwin van Wijngaarden, Ph.D., an associate professor in the University of Rochester Medical Center‘s (URMC) Department of Public Health Sciences and lead author of the study which appears online today in the journal Epidemiology. “These findings contribute to the growing body of literature that suggest that exposure to the chemical does not play an important role in the onset of these behaviors.”
The debate over fish consumption has long created a dilemma for expecting mothers and physicians. Fish are high in beneficial nutrients such as, selenium, vitamin E, lean protein, and omega-3 fatty acids; the latter are essential to brain development. At the same time, exposure to high levels of mercury has been shown to lead to developmental problems, leading to the claim that mothers are exposing their unborn children to serious neurological impairment by eating fish during pregnancy. Despite the fact that the developmental consequences of low level exposure remain unknown, some organizations, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have recommended that pregnant women limit their consumption of fish.
“The Seychelles study was designed to follow a population over a very long period of time and focus on relevant mercury exposure,” said Philip Davidson, Ph.D., principal investigator of the Seychelles Child Development Study and professor emeritus in Pediatrics at URMC. “While the amount of fish consumed in the Seychelles is significantly higher than other countries in the industrialized world, it is still considered low level exposure.”
… lends further evidence to an emerging belief that the “good” may outweigh the possible “bad” when it comes to fish consumption during pregnancy. Specifically, if mercury does adversely influence child development at these levels of exposure then the benefits of the nutrients found in the fish may counteract or perhaps even supersede the potential negative effects of the mercury.
“This study shows no consistent association in children with mothers with mercury level that were six to ten times higher than those found in the U.S. and Europe,” said Davidson. “This is a sentinel population and if it does not exist here than it probably does not exist.”
Read entire article at ScienceDaily.
… to keep your cool.
It is surprisingly easy to lose your cool, and to react to minor stresses and to irritating people.
However, most of us would rather feel relaxed and in control, and the following guidelines can
help us reach this goal.
1. Keep things in perspective: Often we catastrophise or over-react when the issue or
offense is insignificant. Here, it is best to force yourself to take a balanced approach and remind
yourself, “it’s minor, and not worth the energy!”
2. Visualise yourself coping: Take a few deep breaths and let your feelings settle down. Draw
a mental picture of a calm, unflustered “you”, who takes their time to respond and is able to
cope. Then, in a calm, low voice – with a few well chosen words – respond as you would like, so
you maintain your self-respect.
3. Be aware of your triggers: When someone pushes our buttons we generally react.
However, if we know what those are then we can regain control, and can practice how to cope
when our feelings are stirred. Also, if we’re tired or hungry, feeling cold, or over-stretched then
we’re much more likely to over-react.
4. Create a calm environment: Stay one step ahead by preparing yourself for inevitable
setbacks and infuriating people. For example, play some music in the car, or take a walk during
lunch, or keep some photos in your office of the people that you love.
5. Distract yourself: When you feel the pressure building, or you start to ruminate, think of
something that’s amusing, or a fun event you’ve planned.
These are just a few suggestions to help you stay detached so that stresses and people don’t
make you lose your cool.
Found at onlinecounsellingcollege.tumblr.com.
Gold nugget forming bacteria: http://bit.ly/14C1QIK
Bionic eye: http://bit.ly/WTitKo
Sea urchins: http://bit.ly/WbLZNl
Mammal ancestor: http://bbc.in/YZKkie
Stem cells: http://bit.ly/Y3s94C
Earth like planets: http://hvrd.me/12iA29h
via I fucking love science .
IT’S becoming clear that we can grow all the food we need, and profitably, with far fewer chemicals. And I’m not talking about imposing some utopian vision of small organic farms on the world. Conventional agriculture can shed much of its chemical use — if it wants to.
This was hammered home once again in what may be the most important agricultural study this year, although it has been largely ignored by the media, two of the leading science journals and even one of the study’s sponsors, the often hapless Department of Agriculture.
The study was done on land owned by Iowa State University called the Marsden Farm. On 22 acres of it, beginning in 2003, researchers set up three plots: one replicated the typical Midwestern cycle of planting corn one year and then soybeans the next, along with its routine mix of chemicals. On another, they planted a three-year cycle that included oats; the third plot added a four-year cycle and alfalfa. The longer rotations also integrated the raising of livestock, whose manure was used as fertilizer.
The results were stunning: The longer rotations produced better yields of both corn and soy, reduced the need for nitrogen fertilizer and herbicides by up to 88 percent, reduced the amounts of toxins in groundwater 200-fold and didn’t reduce profits by a single cent.
In short, there was only upside — and no downside at all — associated with the longer rotations. There was an increase in labor costs, but remember that profits were stable. So this is a matter of paying people for their knowledge and smart work instead of paying chemical companies for poisons.
And though critics of this path can be predictably counted on to say it’s moving backward, the increased yields, markedly decreased input of chemicals, reduced energy costs and stable profits tell another story, one of serious progress.
About Orbital Objects
The skies above Earth are teeming with manmade objects large and small. The U.S. Space Surveillance Network uses radar to track more than 13,000 such items that are larger than four inches (ten centimeters). This celestial clutter includes everything from the International Space Station (ISS) and the Hubble Space Telescope to defunct satellites, rocket stages, or nuts and bolts left behind by astronauts. And there are millions of smaller, harder-to-track objects such as flecks of paint and bits of plastic.
Gravitational pull will ensure that anything we’ve ever put in orbit will eventually make its way back to Earth. And though thus far no one has ever been killed by reentering space debris, NASA estimates on average one piece returns to Earth each day.
NASA and other national space agencies have identified orbital debris as a serious problem and are currently devising plans to mitigate existing space junk and curb future debris.
- Let’s Destroy Space Junk! By Putting Tons of Metal Dust into Orbit? (blogs.discovermagazine.com)
- Simulations Will Help Keep Track of Remote Space Junk (wired.com)
- Space Junk: Ideas for Cleaning up Earth Orbit (universetoday.com)
- Space Junk Hazards Force International Response (space.com)