Here is a very compelling article that I just read about the known effects that food dye has in relation to behavior problems. I usually don't like putting the whole article on here, but I wouldn't do it justice if I only put part of it and that's all you read. I am yet amazed again at what the FDA allows to be in our foods... in particular foods marketed to kids!
Center for Science in the Public Interest
For Immediate Release: June 2, 2008
CSPI Urges FDA to Ban Artificial Food Dyes Linked to Behavior Problems
Dyes Called "Secret Shame" of Food Industry and Regulators
Yellow 5, Red 40, and six other widely used artificial colorings are linked to hyperactivity and behavior problems in children and should be prohibited from use in foods, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. The group today formally petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to ban the dyes, several of which are already being phased out in the United Kingdom. The other six dyes are Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3, and Yellow 6.
Synthetic food dyes have been suspected of disrupting children's behavior since the 1970s, when Dr. Ben Feingold, a San Francisco allergist, reported that his patients improved when their diets were changed. Numerous controlled studies conducted over the next three decades in the United States, Europe, and Australia proved that some children’s behavior is worsened by artificial dyes, but the government did nothing to discourage their use and food manufacturers greatly increased their reliance on them.
A comprehensive 2004 meta-analysis of the medical literature concluded that artificial dyes affect children's behavior, and two recent studies funded by the British government found that dyes (as well as the preservative sodium benzoate) adversely affect kids' behavior. Unlike most previous studies, those British studies tested children in the general population, not children whose parents suspected they were sensitive to dyes. As a result, the British government is successfully pressuring food manufacturers to switch to safer colorings.
"We spent years trying to figure out the cause of our son's behavioral problems," said Judy Mann, of Silver Spring, Md. "For a long time, we thought the culprit was sugar. But when we started carefully monitoring everything he ate we were able to see that artificial dyes and preservatives were the problem. Since eliminating them the change has been positively stunning."
"The continued use of these unnecessary artificial dyes is the secret shame of the food industry and the regulators who watch over it," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "The purpose of these chemicals is often to mask the absence of real food, to increase the appeal of a low-nutrition product to children, or both. Who can tell the parents of kids with behavioral problems that this is truly worth the risk?"
Americans' exposure to artificial food dyes has risen sharply. According to the FDA, the amount of food dye certified for use was 12 milligrams per capita per day in 1955. In 2007, 59 mg per capita per day, or nearly five times as much, was certified for use. Dyes are used in countless foods and are sometimes used to simulate the color of fruits or vegetables. Kraft's Guacamole Dip gets its greenish color not from avocados (there are almost none) but from Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and Blue 1. The blue bits in Aunt Jemima Blueberry Waffles are blue thanks to Red 40 and Blue 2, not real blueberries.
Artificial dyes are particularly prevalent in the sugary cereals, candies, sodas, and snack foods pitched to kids. For instance, General Mills' Fruit Roll-ups and Fruit-by-the-Foot flavored snacks get their fruity colors from Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Red 40, and Blue 1. General Mills' Fruity Cheerios, Lucky Charms, and Trix also contain several of the problematic dyes, as do Kellogg's Froot Loops and Apple Jacks and Post's Fruity Pebbles.
More than a dozen American varieties of Kraft's Oscar Meyer Lunchables kids' meals contain artificial food dyes, but not so the British versions. Starburst Chews, Skittles, and M&M candies—all Mars products—contain the full spectrum of artificial colors in the U.S., but not in the U.K., where the company uses natural colorings. Even foods that aren't particularly brightly colored can contain dyes, including several varieties of macaroni and cheese and mashed potatoes. Betty Crocker's Au Gratin "100% Real" Potatoes are partly not real, colored as they are with Yellow 5 and Yellow 6, both derived from coal tar. Remarkably, in Britain, the color in McDonald's strawberry sauce for sundaes actually comes from strawberries; in the U.S. it comes from Red 40.
"The science shows that kids' behavior improves when these artificial colorings are removed from their diets and worsens when they’re added to the their diets," said Dr. David Schab, a psychiatrist at Columbia University Medical Center, who conducted the 2004 meta-analysis with his colleague Dr. Nhi-Ha T. Trinh. "While not all children seem to be sensitive to these chemicals, it's hard to justify their continued use in foods—especially those foods heavily marketed to young children."
Americans need not travel to Britain to find kid-friendly food without artificial food dyes, though. Everything sold at the Whole Foods and Trader Joe's supermarket chains is free of the controversial chemicals.
"I can't imagine why the Food and Drug Administration still allows these artificial colors in food, knowing what we know," said Beth Tribble, a Fairfax County, VA parent of two boys, whose youngest is sensitive to food dyes. "It's almost impossible for parents to eliminate these chemicals from their kids' diets on their own. The FDA could make life a lot easier for parents and children by just getting rid of them."
"Banning these synthetic chemicals is certainly a far less drastic step than putting so many children on Ritalin or other potentially dangerous and sometimes-abused prescription stimulants," said Jacobson. "The food industry has known about this problem for 30 years, yet few companies have switched to safer colorings. We hope today is the beginning of the end for Yellow 5, Red 40, and these other dubious dyes."
CSPI's petition asks the FDA to require a warning label on foods with artificial dyes while it mulls CSPI's request to ban the dyes outright. CSPI also wants the FDA to correct the information it presents to parents on its web site about the impact of artificial food dyes on behavior. Joining CSPI's call are 19 prominent psychiatrists, toxicologists, and pediatricians who today co-signed letter urging members of Congress to hold hearings on artificial food dyes and behavior, and to fund an Institute of Medicine research project on the issue. Those doctors include L. Eugene Arnold, professor emeritus of psychiatry at Ohio State University; Bernard Weiss, professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry; and Stanley Greenspan, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Pediatrics at George Washington University Medical School.
For more information, contact:
Center for Science in the Public Interest
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
phone 202.332.9110
fax 202.265.4954
The article can be found at: http://www.cspinet.org/new/200806022.html
Monday, July 28, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Home values aren't what they used to be....
Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post about home values... it is refers to both the social value and the economic value. It is actually a very interesting article (well at least in my opinion... hence why I am posting it). Let me know what you think.
Home Values Are Down, and Not Just at the Bank
By Alexander von Hoffman
Sunday, July 20, 2008; Page B01
"The prospect of possessing one's own house," wrote educator George B. Emerson in 1871, "and that a pleasant one, with a garden and trees, and room for the children to play, in safety, must be a strong motive with any man to regularity, good conduct, and economy."
The way our 19th-century forebears saw it, owning a home could shape and improve your moral character. Reformers such as Emerson believed that the home was "the most sacred place for man and for woman, and especially for children" because it developed the Victorian virtues of "truthfulness, industry, order, frugality, reverence, purity, and self-control."
What would Emerson think today? Global investment banks are failing, and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, created over the years to support that unimpeachable moral right of homeownership, are on the brink. Millions face being tossed out of their condos and cul-de-sacs. Home, that most sacred of places, is under assault. We have strayed so far from what made owning a home an unassailable American value -- the place where mother could serve that apple pie -- that a modern-day Emerson would probably find today's American homeowner an entirely different breed from the virtuous, industrious man of his day.
What happened to the American homeowner? How did the refuge of home become part of the problem?
From the 1830s on, moral reformers argued that the family home was a key to a Christian life. In a crass and stormy world, fathers would carry out the grubby business of earning money, and mothers would make the home a refuge where the family could pray and grow spiritually....
Here is a link to to full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/18/AR2008071802559.html?nav=slate
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Would you be willing to keep gas prices at $4 per gallon?
So, this writer thinks that it would be a good thing to keep gas prices at $4... and he gives his reasons. Read below and tell me what you think.
Why we need to keep gas above $4
A new gasoline tax that ensured high prices would accelerate the move toward fuel-efficient vehicles and provide enough revenue to allow a cut in corporate taxes.
On the surface, the market's behavior on certain days of June and July has been so illogical that my brain simply has refused to accept it. Double-digit intraday swings in prices of stocks without any material catalyst have become routine.
But last week's trading has finally explained what should have been clear for a while: Though current economic troubles may have started with lax credit and underwriting standards and the ensuing subprime-mortgage fiasco, they will likely continue or end based on the behavior of another, seemingly unrelated macroeconomic input: oil prices.
Forget the naked short selling hype or the problems of Fannie Mae (FNM, news, msgs) and Freddie Mac (FRE, news, msgs). These are simply headline grabbers and symptoms of the U.S. economy's problems.
The seemingly unstoppable rise of oil prices over the past several years has brought chaos and pain to so many sectors of the economy that even presumably conservative U.S. politicians have called for a gas tax "holiday" to give consumers short-term relief at the pump.
However, the solution to our economic woes lies actually in the opposite direction: making sure prices for gasoline stay high long enough. Let me explain.
An addiction that can be broken
Many economists have argued for years that even a doubling or tripling of oil prices would have little effect on demand because of that demand's inelasticity. U.S. consumers are supposedly so addicted to gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs that pretty much every politician and economist out there has ridiculed suggestions that demand could decline.
One might argue that this notion was supported by hard data. Even when oil prices doubled and tripled from their multiyear lows of the early 2000s, the growth in demand did not really slow. But contrary to the conventional beliefs, the "unthinkable" finally happened this year: Sales of cars overtook truck and SUV sales, and gasoline demand faltered.
According to the data from the Energy Information Administration, gasoline demand in the U.S. has been running consistently below last year's levels. Though it is difficult to pinpoint the exact price level that triggered this seismic change, the demand for the supposedly inelastic product started to decline somewhere around $4 a gallon.
One might say it wasn't just the price at the pump but rather combination of several economic woes that has led consumers to cut back. I agree, but only to a point. I don't think it was by accident that the sectors that have declined the most recently -- auto manufacturers, airlines, convenience stores, casinos, hotels, car rental companies, restaurants, etc. -- have one ingredient in common: They are particularly affected by high energy prices.
Talk back: Is a higher gas tax the answer?
So instead of debating the causes of today's oil prices -- peak oil supply, demand in China or whatever -- we should thank Wall Street and Ben Bernanke and company at the Federal Reserve for finally showing us how this oil dilemma could be solved.
I think it could be accomplished only by making sure the prices for the most widely used petroleum product, gasoline, never again decline below the level that seems to have triggered change, somewhere around $4 a gallon. Raising fuel taxes would likely make things better, not worse. Before sending me an "I hate taxes" e-mail, consider instead sending a letter to your politician asking him or her to raise taxes.
Take a look at the facts: Damage to the most energy-sensitive sectors has been done already, and Americans are already paying a hidden oil tax. But instead sending of our money to Washington, we are now sending it to the other governments around the world, and it's not a small bill. In 2007, the U.S. petroleum import bill came to an astounding $331 billion. In the first five months of 2008, the total was $191 billion.
The upside of a higher gas tax
Yes, even though I believe government intervention is usually a bad thing, establishing a variable gasoline tax that ensured gasoline never declined below $4 a gallon could alter the dynamics of the global economy and help the U.S. maintain its economic leadership status for years to come.
Economist Gregory Mankiw has estimated a $1 tax increase on gasoline could raise $100 billion in revenue that could (and should) be used to reduce the ridiculously high U.S. corporate tax rate. That, in turn, could lead to more jobs and better pay in virtually all domestic industries.
A variable tax on gasoline would accomplish another important objective: Knowing for certain that gas prices would never drop back to $2 a gallon, consumers and manufacturers would rapidly accelerate the shift to more-fuel-efficient vehicles. This would reduce long-term gasoline-demand expectations and could lead to lower short-term energy prices for the struggling energy-sensitive sectors of the U.S. economy.
During this election year, I don't expect any politicians will have enough courage to propose raising gas taxes. But maybe if plenty of us ask, they'll at least listen.
For now, the direction of the U.S. stock market and the economy will likely be determined by the direction oil prices are heading. And given how painful last week's losses must have been to the seemingly bulletproof Wall Street buy-energy, short-financials strategy, one would expect that Goldman Sachs (GS, news, msgs) and company are now busy preparing another "Oil prices to hit $200 by Labor Day" report and writing big donation checks to the powerful ethanol and environmental lobbies that might just lead to another price spike.
Here is a link to the full article: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StrategyLab/Rnd17/P2/TheAmateurJournal20080722.aspx
Why we need to keep gas above $4
A new gasoline tax that ensured high prices would accelerate the move toward fuel-efficient vehicles and provide enough revenue to allow a cut in corporate taxes.
On the surface, the market's behavior on certain days of June and July has been so illogical that my brain simply has refused to accept it. Double-digit intraday swings in prices of stocks without any material catalyst have become routine.
But last week's trading has finally explained what should have been clear for a while: Though current economic troubles may have started with lax credit and underwriting standards and the ensuing subprime-mortgage fiasco, they will likely continue or end based on the behavior of another, seemingly unrelated macroeconomic input: oil prices.
Forget the naked short selling hype or the problems of Fannie Mae (FNM, news, msgs) and Freddie Mac (FRE, news, msgs). These are simply headline grabbers and symptoms of the U.S. economy's problems.
The seemingly unstoppable rise of oil prices over the past several years has brought chaos and pain to so many sectors of the economy that even presumably conservative U.S. politicians have called for a gas tax "holiday" to give consumers short-term relief at the pump.
However, the solution to our economic woes lies actually in the opposite direction: making sure prices for gasoline stay high long enough. Let me explain.
An addiction that can be broken
Many economists have argued for years that even a doubling or tripling of oil prices would have little effect on demand because of that demand's inelasticity. U.S. consumers are supposedly so addicted to gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs that pretty much every politician and economist out there has ridiculed suggestions that demand could decline.
One might argue that this notion was supported by hard data. Even when oil prices doubled and tripled from their multiyear lows of the early 2000s, the growth in demand did not really slow. But contrary to the conventional beliefs, the "unthinkable" finally happened this year: Sales of cars overtook truck and SUV sales, and gasoline demand faltered.
According to the data from the Energy Information Administration, gasoline demand in the U.S. has been running consistently below last year's levels. Though it is difficult to pinpoint the exact price level that triggered this seismic change, the demand for the supposedly inelastic product started to decline somewhere around $4 a gallon.
One might say it wasn't just the price at the pump but rather combination of several economic woes that has led consumers to cut back. I agree, but only to a point. I don't think it was by accident that the sectors that have declined the most recently -- auto manufacturers, airlines, convenience stores, casinos, hotels, car rental companies, restaurants, etc. -- have one ingredient in common: They are particularly affected by high energy prices.
Talk back: Is a higher gas tax the answer?
So instead of debating the causes of today's oil prices -- peak oil supply, demand in China or whatever -- we should thank Wall Street and Ben Bernanke and company at the Federal Reserve for finally showing us how this oil dilemma could be solved.
I think it could be accomplished only by making sure the prices for the most widely used petroleum product, gasoline, never again decline below the level that seems to have triggered change, somewhere around $4 a gallon. Raising fuel taxes would likely make things better, not worse. Before sending me an "I hate taxes" e-mail, consider instead sending a letter to your politician asking him or her to raise taxes.
Take a look at the facts: Damage to the most energy-sensitive sectors has been done already, and Americans are already paying a hidden oil tax. But instead sending of our money to Washington, we are now sending it to the other governments around the world, and it's not a small bill. In 2007, the U.S. petroleum import bill came to an astounding $331 billion. In the first five months of 2008, the total was $191 billion.
The upside of a higher gas tax
Yes, even though I believe government intervention is usually a bad thing, establishing a variable gasoline tax that ensured gasoline never declined below $4 a gallon could alter the dynamics of the global economy and help the U.S. maintain its economic leadership status for years to come.
Economist Gregory Mankiw has estimated a $1 tax increase on gasoline could raise $100 billion in revenue that could (and should) be used to reduce the ridiculously high U.S. corporate tax rate. That, in turn, could lead to more jobs and better pay in virtually all domestic industries.
A variable tax on gasoline would accomplish another important objective: Knowing for certain that gas prices would never drop back to $2 a gallon, consumers and manufacturers would rapidly accelerate the shift to more-fuel-efficient vehicles. This would reduce long-term gasoline-demand expectations and could lead to lower short-term energy prices for the struggling energy-sensitive sectors of the U.S. economy.
During this election year, I don't expect any politicians will have enough courage to propose raising gas taxes. But maybe if plenty of us ask, they'll at least listen.
For now, the direction of the U.S. stock market and the economy will likely be determined by the direction oil prices are heading. And given how painful last week's losses must have been to the seemingly bulletproof Wall Street buy-energy, short-financials strategy, one would expect that Goldman Sachs (GS, news, msgs) and company are now busy preparing another "Oil prices to hit $200 by Labor Day" report and writing big donation checks to the powerful ethanol and environmental lobbies that might just lead to another price spike.
Here is a link to the full article: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StrategyLab/Rnd17/P2/TheAmateurJournal20080722.aspx
Monday, July 21, 2008
Response from my U.S. Senator with regards to gas prices
Here is what my U.S. senator responded with when I sent her an e-mail about high gas prices. What do you think of her response?
"Thank you for contacting me regarding high gasoline prices. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your views on this important issue, and I share your concerns.
Gasoline prices reached an all-time high this year, and costs for food and other basic necessities are rising drastically. As millions of Americans struggle under this increasing burden, oil companies continue to report massive, record-breaking profits - $123 billion last year alone. This is unacceptable, and I want to assure you that I am working hard to lower prices and protect Americans from price gouging.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of S.3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008. This important bill would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies to discourage price gouging and to help consumers offset the high costs of energy products, punish any country or company colluding in setting the price of oil, and limit excessive speculation in oil markets.
S.3044 also includes a provision that is similar to legislation I authored that would require the Federal Trade Commission to investigate possible manipulation of gasoline prices any time prices rise rapidly.
Unfortunately, on June 10, 2008, the Senate minority blocked further consideration of S.3044. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet and having to make the impossible choice between buying food for their families and filling up the gas tank, I am deeply disturbed that some of my colleagues prevented this important bill from moving forward.
Opening up drilling in the United States is not the best way to achieve lower gas prices. For example, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would provide us with six months of oil at most, and at great cost. Furthermore, it would be more than a decade before we saw any of that oil. Ultimately, we need to move away from our dependence on oil and gasoline by developing renewable and efficient energy technologies. Right now, we need to go after the big oil companies that are holding Americans hostage with their exorbitantly high prices.
Americans deserve better than oil companies that gouge consumers in order to make huge profits, and Congress needs to take action to help alleviate this crisis. Rest assured, I will continue working for the passage of S.3044, and I will keep fighting to help Americans enjoy fair and reasonable energy prices.
Again, thank you for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on this or other issues that concern you.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator"
Does anyone have any data that agrees with or contradicts what she wrote?
"Thank you for contacting me regarding high gasoline prices. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your views on this important issue, and I share your concerns.
Gasoline prices reached an all-time high this year, and costs for food and other basic necessities are rising drastically. As millions of Americans struggle under this increasing burden, oil companies continue to report massive, record-breaking profits - $123 billion last year alone. This is unacceptable, and I want to assure you that I am working hard to lower prices and protect Americans from price gouging.
I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of S.3044, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008. This important bill would impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies to discourage price gouging and to help consumers offset the high costs of energy products, punish any country or company colluding in setting the price of oil, and limit excessive speculation in oil markets.
S.3044 also includes a provision that is similar to legislation I authored that would require the Federal Trade Commission to investigate possible manipulation of gasoline prices any time prices rise rapidly.
Unfortunately, on June 10, 2008, the Senate minority blocked further consideration of S.3044. At a time when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet and having to make the impossible choice between buying food for their families and filling up the gas tank, I am deeply disturbed that some of my colleagues prevented this important bill from moving forward.
Opening up drilling in the United States is not the best way to achieve lower gas prices. For example, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would provide us with six months of oil at most, and at great cost. Furthermore, it would be more than a decade before we saw any of that oil. Ultimately, we need to move away from our dependence on oil and gasoline by developing renewable and efficient energy technologies. Right now, we need to go after the big oil companies that are holding Americans hostage with their exorbitantly high prices.
Americans deserve better than oil companies that gouge consumers in order to make huge profits, and Congress needs to take action to help alleviate this crisis. Rest assured, I will continue working for the passage of S.3044, and I will keep fighting to help Americans enjoy fair and reasonable energy prices.
Again, thank you for writing to me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on this or other issues that concern you.
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator"
Does anyone have any data that agrees with or contradicts what she wrote?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
New law in NY City- Calorie labels
I think that this is a great idea... all foods should show how many calories are in them. And for those in the article that say they wish the food didn't show the calories... they need to wake up to reality. I don't think that people should go crazy and start counting every single little calorie, but I think that this would (will in NY City) help people be a bit more health conscience.
New Yorkers try to swallow calorie sticker shock
600 calorie muffins? The first city to adopt law faces unappetizing surprises
By Roni Caryn Rabin
MSNBC contributor
updated 5:34 a.m. PT, Wed., July. 16, 2008
Nora Cara was flabbergasted.
She was about to order her usual morning coffee and muffin at Dunkin’ Donuts when she saw the new calorie labels. The chocolate chip muffin she had her eye on was 630 calories.
“I was blown away,” said Cara, a 27-year-old homemaker from Forest Hills in New York City. “I’m not a no-carb type of person, and I usually don’t even think about it. But you pick up a little muffin with your coffee, and it has 630 calories in it? That’s a bit extreme!”
...Despite the eye-opening revelations, whether New Yorkers will switch to lower calorie meals remains to be seen. They may just switch menus.
That’s what Fowler, the woman who was dining recently with her friends at T.G.I. Friday's, decided to do.
“I’m so upset,” she said, noting some entrees — like the Jack Daniels ribs and shrimp dinner — contain almost 2,000 calories, and the desserts were more of the same (the brownie obsession is 1,500 calories). “I wish they wouldn’t have done this.”
But then Fowler noticed that the waiter had handed her friend an old menu, which didn’t have calorie counts on it.
“You got a menu without anything on it?” she asked her friend. “Can I have yours?”
For the full article go to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987/wid/11915773?GT1=31037
New Yorkers try to swallow calorie sticker shock
600 calorie muffins? The first city to adopt law faces unappetizing surprises
By Roni Caryn Rabin
MSNBC contributor
updated 5:34 a.m. PT, Wed., July. 16, 2008
Nora Cara was flabbergasted.
She was about to order her usual morning coffee and muffin at Dunkin’ Donuts when she saw the new calorie labels. The chocolate chip muffin she had her eye on was 630 calories.
“I was blown away,” said Cara, a 27-year-old homemaker from Forest Hills in New York City. “I’m not a no-carb type of person, and I usually don’t even think about it. But you pick up a little muffin with your coffee, and it has 630 calories in it? That’s a bit extreme!”
...Despite the eye-opening revelations, whether New Yorkers will switch to lower calorie meals remains to be seen. They may just switch menus.
That’s what Fowler, the woman who was dining recently with her friends at T.G.I. Friday's, decided to do.
“I’m so upset,” she said, noting some entrees — like the Jack Daniels ribs and shrimp dinner — contain almost 2,000 calories, and the desserts were more of the same (the brownie obsession is 1,500 calories). “I wish they wouldn’t have done this.”
But then Fowler noticed that the waiter had handed her friend an old menu, which didn’t have calorie counts on it.
“You got a menu without anything on it?” she asked her friend. “Can I have yours?”
For the full article go to: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25464987/wid/11915773?GT1=31037
Monday, July 14, 2008
Is going barefoot healthier?
Here is an excerpt from an article by a Dr. Joseph Mercola, D.O. that I found to be pretty interesting:
Should You Go Barefoot?
Bunions are non-existent in barefoot populations of the world, but from a practical perspective, going barefoot all the time is just not an option for most people. But you can certainly do so inside of your home or backyard -- and you may even feel some benefits, particularly from walking on a natural surface.
If you decide to go barefoot, do it slowly, progressing to more and more time spent without shoes. Also, when you start going barefoot it is best to initiate on naturally softer ground like grass and sand, not cement or hardwood. When the muscles and joints of the foot are “stable” your body can handle progressively more time barefoot.
There have been some very compelling studies suggesting that when you are "grounded" free electrons can easily come up from the earth and essentially nullify free radicals in your body. Ancient philosophies call this life-force energy Chi (also called Qi or Prana) and believe it can be absorbed through the soles of your feet automatically and unconsciously when walking barefoot.
So walking barefoot -- on clean, natural surfaces -- could be an easy way to contribute to your overall health.
For the full article go to: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/10/flip-flops-can-damage-your-foot-structure.aspx?source=nl
Should You Go Barefoot?
Bunions are non-existent in barefoot populations of the world, but from a practical perspective, going barefoot all the time is just not an option for most people. But you can certainly do so inside of your home or backyard -- and you may even feel some benefits, particularly from walking on a natural surface.
If you decide to go barefoot, do it slowly, progressing to more and more time spent without shoes. Also, when you start going barefoot it is best to initiate on naturally softer ground like grass and sand, not cement or hardwood. When the muscles and joints of the foot are “stable” your body can handle progressively more time barefoot.
There have been some very compelling studies suggesting that when you are "grounded" free electrons can easily come up from the earth and essentially nullify free radicals in your body. Ancient philosophies call this life-force energy Chi (also called Qi or Prana) and believe it can be absorbed through the soles of your feet automatically and unconsciously when walking barefoot.
So walking barefoot -- on clean, natural surfaces -- could be an easy way to contribute to your overall health.
For the full article go to: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/10/flip-flops-can-damage-your-foot-structure.aspx?source=nl
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Record paydays for oil executives....
Here is part of an article that I found on MSN. So who's to "blame" for the higher gas prices?
Did oil execs luck into record pay?
Oil stocks and oil company profits are soaring, and their CEOs' compensation is hitting the stratosphere -- even as the companies claim they're not to blame for high oil prices.
By Michael Brush
Many Americans are struggling to make ends meet because of $75 and $100 trips to the gas station.
Executives at oil companies are getting rich because of those same trips. And what do those CEOs have to say for themselves?
"It's not our fault" -- or something along those lines.
Big Oil CEOs are pulling down record pay even as their companies tacitly concede they didn't do anything extra to earn it. When anyone asks why gasoline costs $4.50 a gallon, they cite factors beyond their control, such as speculators or global demand.
That doesn't stop these CEOs from cashing in. Their pay hinges largely on two things: profit and stock price. It's no surprise that an oil company's profit would rise with the price of oil, as would its stock price. The CEO doesn't have to be a genius. A pulse will suffice.
"They are getting a gift for being in the right place and being lucky," said Mark Van Clieaf of MVC Associates International, a consulting company that advises boards on pay for performance.
And don't buy the pleas of innocence. These CEOs negotiated pay packages that compensate them with millions of dollars during normal years -- and during times like now, stock awards propel their pay into the stratosphere.
Chief executives at big oil companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM, news, msgs), Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) and ConocoPhillips (COP, news, msgs) earned from $15 million to $21.7 million last year, well above the $9.9 million median for CEOs at S&P 500 ($INX) companies, according to The Corporate Library. Plus, these energy company CEOs are now sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of incentive stock and options grants.
For the full article go to: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/DidOilExecsLuckIntoRecordPay.aspx
Did oil execs luck into record pay?
Oil stocks and oil company profits are soaring, and their CEOs' compensation is hitting the stratosphere -- even as the companies claim they're not to blame for high oil prices.
By Michael Brush
Many Americans are struggling to make ends meet because of $75 and $100 trips to the gas station.
Executives at oil companies are getting rich because of those same trips. And what do those CEOs have to say for themselves?
"It's not our fault" -- or something along those lines.
Big Oil CEOs are pulling down record pay even as their companies tacitly concede they didn't do anything extra to earn it. When anyone asks why gasoline costs $4.50 a gallon, they cite factors beyond their control, such as speculators or global demand.
That doesn't stop these CEOs from cashing in. Their pay hinges largely on two things: profit and stock price. It's no surprise that an oil company's profit would rise with the price of oil, as would its stock price. The CEO doesn't have to be a genius. A pulse will suffice.
"They are getting a gift for being in the right place and being lucky," said Mark Van Clieaf of MVC Associates International, a consulting company that advises boards on pay for performance.
And don't buy the pleas of innocence. These CEOs negotiated pay packages that compensate them with millions of dollars during normal years -- and during times like now, stock awards propel their pay into the stratosphere.
Chief executives at big oil companies such as ExxonMobil (XOM, news, msgs), Chevron (CVX, news, msgs) and ConocoPhillips (COP, news, msgs) earned from $15 million to $21.7 million last year, well above the $9.9 million median for CEOs at S&P 500 ($INX) companies, according to The Corporate Library. Plus, these energy company CEOs are now sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of incentive stock and options grants.
For the full article go to: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/CompanyFocus/DidOilExecsLuckIntoRecordPay.aspx
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Did you know...?
Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: Feb. 12, 1809.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Cancer, Nutrition, and the Word of Wisdom
Here is a snip-it of an interesting article in the July Ensign (for those who may not know the Ensign is an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). The full article discusses tobacco, "hot drinks and caffeine", alcohol, dietary recommendations, nutrition and cancer prevention, cancer incidence and longevity, and standards for temporal health. I have a link to the full article below if you want to read the whole article.
Cancer, Nutrition, and the Word of Wisdom
By William T. Stephenson, MD
Dr. Stephenson is a physician at Kansas City Cancer Center, Kansas City, Missouri. He also has a degree in nutrition from Brigham Young University and currently serves as a bishop.
Knowing our health and our spirituality are interrelated, I would like to offer a few medical insights into what the scientific world is learning about cancer.
Doctrine and Covenants 89, known commonly as the Word of Wisdom, is a remarkable revelation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith almost 175 years ago—long before there was any scientific proof to influence him on issues of health.
Though at first reading, Doctrine and Covenants 89 may seem to be simply a list of dos and don’ts about such nonspiritual topics as tobacco, alcohol, and diet, it is much more. The Lord says, “all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal” (D&C 29:34)....
On Hot Drinks and Caffeine
“And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly” (D&C 89:9).
The consumption of coffee or tea, whether hot or cold, is recognized by the Church as a violation of the Word of Wisdom. Coffee and tea contain substances such as caffeine, which has been linked to disease. While the Word of Wisdom does not specifically mention caffeine, it is commonly understood in the medical community that higher doses of caffeine are associated with infertility, Meniere’s disease (a disease affecting balance), insomnia, sudden infant death syndrome (with maternal consumption in utero), and fibrocystic disease of the breasts. In addition, gastric acid disease (ulcers of the stomach and duodenum) may also be linked to consumption of both caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee, lending credence to the Word of Wisdom’s advice to avoid “hot drinks.” From the perspective of medical science, most investigators who have examined the effects of caffeine suggest that caffeinated beverages should not be consumed in large quantities.
Here is the full article: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=86c33645a2cba110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
Church Seeks to Address Public Confusion Over Texas Polygamy Group
Here is an article from my Church helping to clarify the difference between us (LDS) and the polygamous group in Texas who call themselves FLDS.
SALT LAKE CITY 26 June 2008 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took steps today to better inform the public about differences between the Salt Lake City-based church and the polygamous group in Texas that calls itself the FLDS.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - whose members are often called "Mormons" - placed a series of video interviews on its web site to illustrate the differences between its own members in Texas and members of the isolated polygamous group.
The Texas Mormons featured on the video interviews include a director of community theater, an orthopedic surgeon, a vice president of a medical manufacturer, a former Houston Oilers quarterback, a news anchor and a young woman with aspirations for medical school.
In addition, the Church made a written appeal this week to the news media to make the important distinctions between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Texas group.
The effort to more clearly distinguish Mormons from the Texas polygamist group follows a survey commissioned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that found a high level of public awareness of stories about the polygamous compound near San Angelo, Texas. Allegations of child abuse led to a raid by the state's Child Protective Services earlier this year. Some 91 percent of respondents had heard or read stories surrounding the religious compound.
However, the survey also found that:
More than a third of those surveyed (36 percent) erroneously thought that the Texas compound was part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or "Mormon Church" based in Salt Lake City
6 percent said the two groups were partly related.
29 percent correctly said the two groups were not connected at all
29 percent were not sure.
In addition, when asked specifically which religious organization members of the polygamous group belonged to:
30 percent said "Mormon," "LDS" or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
14 percent said "FLDS"
6 percent said "Mormon fundamentalists"
Nearly half (44 percent) were unsure
Elder Quentin L. Cook, a Church apostle, said the national survey results confirm what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has found in the experience of its members and missionaries in Texas and elsewhere.
"We'd much rather be talking about who we are than who we aren't," Elder Cook said. "While many news reporters have been careful to distinguish between our Church and this small Texas group, it is clear that confusion still remains."
Elder Cook said the issue is an important one for the worldwide Mormon faith.
“Mormons have nothing whatsoever to do with this polygamous sect in Texas,” he said. "The fact is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially discontinued the practice of polygamy in 1890: 118 years ago. It’s a significant part of our distant past, not of our present.”
"People have the right to worship as they choose, and we aren't interested in attacking someone else's beliefs," Elder Cook said. "At the same time, we have an obligation to define ourselves rather than be defined by events and incidents that have nothing to do with us. It's obvious we need to do more to help people understand the enormous differences that exist between our Church which is a global faith and these small polygamous groups."
Elder Cook said the Church is looking at other ways to better inform the public of the distinctions between the two groups, beginning this week with the Internet video profiles of some of its more than 260,000 members in Texas.
"These members and thousands like them are part of the fabric of Texas and contribute to the warmth and southern hospitality of their communities," Elder Cook said.
On Tuesday, the Church sent letters to the publishers of major national newspapers and magazines, and to the heads of broadcast and cable news networks, asking for their cooperation in making proper distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the FLDS group.
Polygamy was a part of the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some Church members followed the practice for about a 50-year period until 1890, when it was officially stopped. Any member of the Church practicing polygamy today would lose their Church membership.
Here is a link to the Church website for reference: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-seeks-to-address-public-confusion-over-texas-polygamy-group
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
