(NaturalNews) Doctors from Cambridge University are testing a technique that
they believe may functionally cure people who suffer from inconvenient and
dangerous peanut allergies, researcher Andrew Clark announced at the annual
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San
Diego.
Clark and colleagues have had success in a pilot study of their technique, which involves giving children slowly increasing doses of peanut flour. They emphasized that trials are only in an early stage, however, and that people should not try the technique at home without the supervision of a doctor.
More than 1.5 million people in the United States suffer from peanut or other tree nut allergies, and the number appears to be rising. These allergies can be so severe that exposure to even trace amounts can send some sufferers into potentially fatal anaphylactic shock, in which their air passages close up and make it impossible to breathe.
In their initial study, the researchers gave 23 people suffering from peanut allergies a daily dose of peanut flour, starting at about 1 milligram and increasing a little each day. When the participants could tolerate 800 milligrams per day (equivalent to five nuts), the researchers instructed them to maintain this daily dose for another six weeks.
After a year, twenty of the participants were able to safely tolerate doses of 32 peanuts a day, meaning they no longer had to read food labels or worry about trace nut contamination in their environments. In a followup study, the researchers will now test the technique on 104 British children between the ages of seven and 17.
"This is going to be the largest trial of its kind in the world and it should give us a definitive idea of whether the approach works and whether it's safe," Clark said.
The "cure" works on a principle called desensitization, in which the body becomes used to progressively higher doses. It does not actually eliminate the allergy. If successful, however, it would provide an important technique for managing a potentially debilitating condition.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8527530.stm ; www.examiner.com/x-11648-DC-Parenti....
Clark and colleagues have had success in a pilot study of their technique, which involves giving children slowly increasing doses of peanut flour. They emphasized that trials are only in an early stage, however, and that people should not try the technique at home without the supervision of a doctor.
More than 1.5 million people in the United States suffer from peanut or other tree nut allergies, and the number appears to be rising. These allergies can be so severe that exposure to even trace amounts can send some sufferers into potentially fatal anaphylactic shock, in which their air passages close up and make it impossible to breathe.
In their initial study, the researchers gave 23 people suffering from peanut allergies a daily dose of peanut flour, starting at about 1 milligram and increasing a little each day. When the participants could tolerate 800 milligrams per day (equivalent to five nuts), the researchers instructed them to maintain this daily dose for another six weeks.
After a year, twenty of the participants were able to safely tolerate doses of 32 peanuts a day, meaning they no longer had to read food labels or worry about trace nut contamination in their environments. In a followup study, the researchers will now test the technique on 104 British children between the ages of seven and 17.
"This is going to be the largest trial of its kind in the world and it should give us a definitive idea of whether the approach works and whether it's safe," Clark said.
The "cure" works on a principle called desensitization, in which the body becomes used to progressively higher doses. It does not actually eliminate the allergy. If successful, however, it would provide an important technique for managing a potentially debilitating condition.
Sources for this story include: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8527530.stm ; www.examiner.com/x-11648-DC-Parenti....
(NaturalNews) In its never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out
of every human activity, the psychiatric industry is now pushing the most
ridiculous disease they've invented yet: Healthy eating
disorder.
This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."
But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").
Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."
Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.
But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.
The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."
Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!
That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.
But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.
Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.
In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.
This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.
But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.
But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.
If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.
But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.
Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.
In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...
Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...
This is no joke: If you focus on eating healthy foods, you're "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."
But they can't just called it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart (even though it isn't). That's where most disease names come from: Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a name like osteoporosis (which means "bones with holes in them").
Getting back to this fabricated "orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."
Wait a second. So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes you a mental health patient? Yep. According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you.
But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic, natural foods, apparently.
What is "normal" when it comes to foods?
I told you this was coming. Years ago, I warned NaturalNews readers that an attempt might soon be under way to outlaw broccoli because of its anti-cancer phytonutrients. This mental health assault on health-conscious consumers is part of that agenda. It's an effort to marginalize healthy eaters by declaring them to be mentally unstable and therefore justify carting them off to mental institutions where they will be injected with psychiatric drugs and fed institutional food that's all processed, dead and full of toxic chemicals.The Guardian even goes to the ridiculous extreme of saying, "The obsession about which foods are "good" and which are "bad" means orthorexics can end up malnourished."
Follow the non-logic on this, if you can: Eating "good" foods will cause malnutrition! Eating bad foods, I suppose, is assumed to provide all the nutrients you need. That's about as crazy a statement on nutrition as I've ever read. No wonder people are so diseased today: The mainstream media is telling them that eating health food is a mental disorder that will cause malnutrition!
Shut up and swallow your Soylent Green
It's just like I reported years ago: You're not supposed to question your food, folks. Sit down, shut up, dig in and chow down. Stop thinking about what you're eating and just do what you're told by the mainstream media and its processed food advertisers. Questioning the health properties of your junk food is a mental disorder, didn't you know? And if you "obsess" over foods (by doing such things as reading the ingredients labels, for example), then you're weird. Maybe even sick.That's the message they're broadcasting now. Junk food eaters are "normal" and "sane" and "nourished." But health food eaters are diseased, abnormal and malnourished.
But why, you ask, would they attack healthy eaters? People like Dr. Gabriel Cousens can tell you why: Because increased mental and spiritual awareness is only possible while on a diet of living, natural foods.
Eating junk foods keeps you dumbed down and easy to control, you see. It literally messes with your mind, numbing your senses with MSG, aspartame and yeast extract. People who subsist on junk foods are docile and quickly lose the ability to think for themselves. They go along with whatever they're told by the TV or those in apparent positions of authority, never questioning their actions or what's really happening in the world around them.
In contrast to that, people who eat health-enhancing natural foods -- with all the medicinal nutrients still intact -- begin to awaken their minds and spirits. Over time, they begin to question the reality around them and they pursue more enlightened explorations of topics like community, nature, ethics, philosophy and the big picture of things that are happening in the world. They become "aware" and can start to see the very fabric of the Matrix, so to speak.
This, of course, is a huge danger to those who run our consumption-based society because consumption depends on ignorance combined with suggestibility. For people to keep blindly buying foods, medicines, health insurance and consumer goods, they need to have their higher brain functions switched off. Processed junk foods laced with toxic chemicals just happens to achieve that rather nicely. Why do you think dead, processed foods remain the default meals in public schools, hospitals and prisons? It's because dead foods turn off higher levels of awareness and keep people focused on whatever distractions you can feed their brains: Television, violence, fear, sports, sex and so on.
But living as a zombie is, in one way quite "normal" in society today because so many people are doing it. But that doesn't make it normal in my book: The real "normal" is an empowered, healthy, awakened person nourished with living foods and operating as a sovereign citizen in a free world. Eating living foods is like taking the red pill because over time it opens up a whole new perspective on the fabric of reality. It sets you free to think for yourself.
But eating processed junk foods is like taking the blue pill because it keeps you trapped in a fabricated reality where your life experiences are fabricated by consumer product companies who hijack your senses with designer chemicals (like MSG) that fool your brain into thinking you're eating real food.
If you want to be alive, aware and in control of your own life, eat more healthy living foods. But don't expect to be popular with mainstream mental health "experts" or dieticians -- they're all being programmed to consider you to be "crazy" because you don't follow their mainstream diets of dead foods laced with synthetic chemicals.
But you and I know the truth here: We are the normal ones. The junk food eaters are the real mental patients, and the only way to wake them up to the real world is to start feeding them living foods.
Some people are ready to take the red pill, and others aren't. All you can do is show them the door. They must open it themselves.
In the mean time, try to avoid the mental health agents who are trying to label you as having a mental disorder just because you pay attention to what you put in your body. There's nothing wrong with avoiding sugar, soy, MSG, aspartame, HFCS and other toxic chemicals in the food supply. In fact, your very life depends on it.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to join the health experts who keep inventing new fictitious diseases and disorders, check out my popular Disease Mongering Engine web page where you can invent your own new diseases at the click of a button! You'll find it at: http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...
Sources for this story include:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2...
(NaturalNews) Lung cancer, which usually develops in the cells lining air
passages, will be diagnosed in about 222,520 Americans this year, according to
the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In addition, the NCI says nearly half that
many people -- about 157,300 -- will die from the disease in 2010.
Although lung cancer is notoriously difficult to treat successfully, French scientists have discovered several natural substances that offer substantial protection from the malignancy. In a huge study of almost 400,000 participants, those who had higher blood levels of vitamin B6 and the essential amino acid methionine (found in many forms of protein) had the lowest risk of lung cancer -- even those who were former or current smokers.
For the study, which was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Paul Brennan, Ph.D., of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues documented B vitamins and methionine levels based on serum samples from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study. In all, they investigated 385,747 research subjects from 10 European countries. By 2006, 899 had been diagnosed with lung cancer; they were compared to 1,770 control participants and all were individually matched by country, sex, date of birth, and date of blood collection.
The results of the researchers' analysis revealed a dramatically lower risk for lung cancer among participants with the highest blood levels of B6 and methionine. In addition, a moderately lower risk for lung cancer in former and current smokers was observed in those with higher serum levels of folate.
"Similar and consistent decreases in risk were observed in never, former, and current smokers, indicating that results were not due to confounding (factors that can influence outcomes) by smoking. The magnitude of risk was also constant with increasing length of follow-up, indicating that the associations were not explained by preclinical disease," the researchers stated in their JAMA article.
So how could these natural substances keep lung cancer at bay? The key may be found in previous research which has shown that B vitamin deficiencies likely increase the probability of DNA damage and subsequent gene mutations. "Given their involvement in maintaining DNA integrity and gene expression, these nutrients have a potentially important role in inhibiting cancer development, and offer the possibility of modifying cancer risk through dietary changes," the authors concluded. They also pointed out that B vitamin deficiencies are known to be high in many western populations.
Additional good news about lung protection was presented earlier this year at the American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research Conference. Scientists have found eating a handful of pistachios daily may offer significant protection from lung cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/027732_p...).
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/lung_can...
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/...
Although lung cancer is notoriously difficult to treat successfully, French scientists have discovered several natural substances that offer substantial protection from the malignancy. In a huge study of almost 400,000 participants, those who had higher blood levels of vitamin B6 and the essential amino acid methionine (found in many forms of protein) had the lowest risk of lung cancer -- even those who were former or current smokers.
For the study, which was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Paul Brennan, Ph.D., of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France, and colleagues documented B vitamins and methionine levels based on serum samples from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort study. In all, they investigated 385,747 research subjects from 10 European countries. By 2006, 899 had been diagnosed with lung cancer; they were compared to 1,770 control participants and all were individually matched by country, sex, date of birth, and date of blood collection.
The results of the researchers' analysis revealed a dramatically lower risk for lung cancer among participants with the highest blood levels of B6 and methionine. In addition, a moderately lower risk for lung cancer in former and current smokers was observed in those with higher serum levels of folate.
"Similar and consistent decreases in risk were observed in never, former, and current smokers, indicating that results were not due to confounding (factors that can influence outcomes) by smoking. The magnitude of risk was also constant with increasing length of follow-up, indicating that the associations were not explained by preclinical disease," the researchers stated in their JAMA article.
50 percent reduction in lung cancer
"Our results suggest that above-median serum measures of both B6 and methionine, assessed on average five years prior to disease onset, are associated with a reduction of at least 50 percent on the risk of developing lung cancer. An additional association for serum levels of folate was present, that when combined with B6 and methionine, was associated with a two-thirds lower risk of lung cancer," the scientists wrote.So how could these natural substances keep lung cancer at bay? The key may be found in previous research which has shown that B vitamin deficiencies likely increase the probability of DNA damage and subsequent gene mutations. "Given their involvement in maintaining DNA integrity and gene expression, these nutrients have a potentially important role in inhibiting cancer development, and offer the possibility of modifying cancer risk through dietary changes," the authors concluded. They also pointed out that B vitamin deficiencies are known to be high in many western populations.
Additional good news about lung protection was presented earlier this year at the American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research Conference. Scientists have found eating a handful of pistachios daily may offer significant protection from lung cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/027732_p...).
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/lung_can...
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/...
(NaturalNews) Writing in Forbes magazine, Yale cardiologist Harlan
Krumholz notes that in spite of his desire to believe in the good intentions of
the pharmaceutical industry, the actions of companies such as GlaxoSmithKline
continue to disappoint him.
"I want to believe in America's pharmaceutical companies," Krumholz wrote on Feb.25. "I want to believe that people in these companies believe that the best strategy for success is to do what is best for patients. I want to believe that they are interested in scientific truth and eager to know of any safety issues and ready to share that information with the public.
"This week I was disappointed again."
Krumholz was referring to a report, issued by the Senate Finance Committee, concluding that even as Glaxo scientists were voicing warnings about the safety of the blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, the company was taking aggressive measures to discredit critics who publicly raised similar concerns.
"The pages of the Senate report read like a spy novel: Glaxo receiving confidential documents leaked by a sympathetic academic who consulted for the company; the company embarking on a campaign to intimidate critics who warned about potential safety issues with the drug; and executives pulling strings to release data early from a scientific study that was supposedly controlled by an 'independent' committee of researchers," Krumholz said.
The report drew on more than 250,000 internal company documents.
In his article, Krumholz calls for an end to secrecy and intimidation in pharmaceutical research. He calls for all studies conducted on a drug to be made public for independent review once that drug secures FDA approval. He calls for an end to company interference in the studies they finance, and an end to intimidation of academics who question drugs' safety.
"The free flow of information about the effects of drugs . . . will best serve the public's interest," he concludes.
Sources for this story include: http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/24/di....
"I want to believe in America's pharmaceutical companies," Krumholz wrote on Feb.25. "I want to believe that people in these companies believe that the best strategy for success is to do what is best for patients. I want to believe that they are interested in scientific truth and eager to know of any safety issues and ready to share that information with the public.
"This week I was disappointed again."
Krumholz was referring to a report, issued by the Senate Finance Committee, concluding that even as Glaxo scientists were voicing warnings about the safety of the blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, the company was taking aggressive measures to discredit critics who publicly raised similar concerns.
"The pages of the Senate report read like a spy novel: Glaxo receiving confidential documents leaked by a sympathetic academic who consulted for the company; the company embarking on a campaign to intimidate critics who warned about potential safety issues with the drug; and executives pulling strings to release data early from a scientific study that was supposedly controlled by an 'independent' committee of researchers," Krumholz said.
The report drew on more than 250,000 internal company documents.
In his article, Krumholz calls for an end to secrecy and intimidation in pharmaceutical research. He calls for all studies conducted on a drug to be made public for independent review once that drug secures FDA approval. He calls for an end to company interference in the studies they finance, and an end to intimidation of academics who question drugs' safety.
"The free flow of information about the effects of drugs . . . will best serve the public's interest," he concludes.
Sources for this story include: http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/24/di....
(NaturalNews) A recent study conducted by researchers at Columbia University in
New York has found that people who eat a diet rich in olive oil, fish, nuts,
poultry, and fruits and vegetables, lower their risk of developing Alzheimer's
disease by 40 percent.
Dr. Yian Gu, one of the researchers involved in the study, commented on what most in the natural health community already know. "Diet is probably the easiest way to modify disease risk," she explained concerning the research.
In comparison to other Alzheimer's studies that focus on isolated nutrients, this study focused on food groups that are commonly associated with lowering Alzheimer's disease risk. These include brain-boosting foods that are rich in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, B vitamins, folate and vitamin E.
"People who adhered mostly to this dietary pattern compared to others have about a 40 percent reduction in the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease," explained Gu in a Reuters interview.
The team evaluated more than 2,100 people over the age of 65 for about four years. Every 18 months, they checked patients for Alzheimer's disease, and they discovered that those who ate best were least likely to have developed the illness.
People in the healthier category ate less red meat and dairy products, and more fruits, nuts, fish, cruciferous vegetables, and dark, leafy greens.
The researchers determined that a heart-healthy diet protects the brain from strokes, which in turn protect people from developing Alzheimer's disease. The isolated nutrients also work to promote brain health and protect it from degenerative disease.
The researchers did insist the diet only works preventatively and that there is no cure for Alzheimer's, however other research seems to indicate that high doses of certain nutrients and foods may actually reverse the serious form of dementia that afflicts more than 26 million people around the world.
Some of the things that are commonly attributed to causing Alzheimer's include aluminum in anti-perspirant deodorants, artificial nitrates and nitrites added to meat, food additives and preservatives like MSG, and foods in general that are high in bad fats and processed sugars.
Eating a Mediterranean diet like the one evaluated in the study is a good start, but there are additional ways to help ensure that you never get Alzheimer's disease. Some examples include juicing fresh, organic fruits and vegetables everyday and supplementing your diet with a wide variety of antioxidant-rich superfoods.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
Dr. Yian Gu, one of the researchers involved in the study, commented on what most in the natural health community already know. "Diet is probably the easiest way to modify disease risk," she explained concerning the research.
In comparison to other Alzheimer's studies that focus on isolated nutrients, this study focused on food groups that are commonly associated with lowering Alzheimer's disease risk. These include brain-boosting foods that are rich in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids, B vitamins, folate and vitamin E.
"People who adhered mostly to this dietary pattern compared to others have about a 40 percent reduction in the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease," explained Gu in a Reuters interview.
The team evaluated more than 2,100 people over the age of 65 for about four years. Every 18 months, they checked patients for Alzheimer's disease, and they discovered that those who ate best were least likely to have developed the illness.
People in the healthier category ate less red meat and dairy products, and more fruits, nuts, fish, cruciferous vegetables, and dark, leafy greens.
The researchers determined that a heart-healthy diet protects the brain from strokes, which in turn protect people from developing Alzheimer's disease. The isolated nutrients also work to promote brain health and protect it from degenerative disease.
The researchers did insist the diet only works preventatively and that there is no cure for Alzheimer's, however other research seems to indicate that high doses of certain nutrients and foods may actually reverse the serious form of dementia that afflicts more than 26 million people around the world.
Some of the things that are commonly attributed to causing Alzheimer's include aluminum in anti-perspirant deodorants, artificial nitrates and nitrites added to meat, food additives and preservatives like MSG, and foods in general that are high in bad fats and processed sugars.
Eating a Mediterranean diet like the one evaluated in the study is a good start, but there are additional ways to help ensure that you never get Alzheimer's disease. Some examples include juicing fresh, organic fruits and vegetables everyday and supplementing your diet with a wide variety of antioxidant-rich superfoods.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...
(NaturalNews) Hundreds of kangaroos have been euthanized due to acute fluoride
poisoning in the Australian state of Victoria, the country's Environment
Protection Authority (EPA) has announced.
The poisonings appear to be occurring due to emissions of fluoride from the Alcoa aluminum smelter at Portland and the Austral Bricks factory at Craigieburn, the state's first and second biggest emitters of fluoride dust, respectively. According to Bruce Dawson of the EPA, the toxic chemical is being absorbed by nearby plants that kangaroos and other animals forage on. The animals may also be breathing in the chemical directly.
The levels of fluoride being emitted by Alcoa and Austral are fully legal under Australian law. The smelter emits 120 tons of the dust per year, while the factory emits 66 tons.
Fluoride can produce discoloration and deformity of teeth and bones, a problem known as "fluorosis" that has been well documented in cattle and humans. According to the Sunday Age, more than 200 kangaroos in Victoria have been euthanized after suffering from lameness caused by fluorosis.
The EPA was first alerted to the problem in 2005, although wildlife workers had noticed lameness in kangaroos in the area as early as 2001. According to Jenny Charles of Melbourne University, 90 percent of 130 kangaroos living near the Alcoa smelter showed signs of dental fluorosis, and 25 percent had visible lumps in their legs or arms.
Forty-eight of 49 kangaroos autopsied after being culled from the smelter area in a single day were suffering from excessive bone growth and lesions on their ankles, calves and paws.
''They were in real pain,'' said wildlife shelter operator Manfred Zabinskas, recounting his horror at seeing so many sick kangaroos.
Although the kangaroos at the brick factory site had lower levels of fluoride in their bodies, their fluorosis symptoms were even worse than those seen near the smelter.
Sources for this story include: www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02... www.theage.com.au/victoria/roos-vic....
The poisonings appear to be occurring due to emissions of fluoride from the Alcoa aluminum smelter at Portland and the Austral Bricks factory at Craigieburn, the state's first and second biggest emitters of fluoride dust, respectively. According to Bruce Dawson of the EPA, the toxic chemical is being absorbed by nearby plants that kangaroos and other animals forage on. The animals may also be breathing in the chemical directly.
The levels of fluoride being emitted by Alcoa and Austral are fully legal under Australian law. The smelter emits 120 tons of the dust per year, while the factory emits 66 tons.
Fluoride can produce discoloration and deformity of teeth and bones, a problem known as "fluorosis" that has been well documented in cattle and humans. According to the Sunday Age, more than 200 kangaroos in Victoria have been euthanized after suffering from lameness caused by fluorosis.
The EPA was first alerted to the problem in 2005, although wildlife workers had noticed lameness in kangaroos in the area as early as 2001. According to Jenny Charles of Melbourne University, 90 percent of 130 kangaroos living near the Alcoa smelter showed signs of dental fluorosis, and 25 percent had visible lumps in their legs or arms.
Forty-eight of 49 kangaroos autopsied after being culled from the smelter area in a single day were suffering from excessive bone growth and lesions on their ankles, calves and paws.
''They were in real pain,'' said wildlife shelter operator Manfred Zabinskas, recounting his horror at seeing so many sick kangaroos.
Although the kangaroos at the brick factory site had lower levels of fluoride in their bodies, their fluorosis symptoms were even worse than those seen near the smelter.
Sources for this story include: www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02... www.theage.com.au/victoria/roos-vic....
(NaturalNews) The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the Center
for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is planning to sue fast-food giant
McDonald's if the company does not comply with its demands to remove toys from
"Happy Meals". CSPI claims that marketing unhealthy food with toys is
contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic and should be stopped
immediately.
The announcement by CSPI comes just weeks after a California county banned not only toys but all other promotions aimed at children that involve McDonald's Happy Meals. By doing this, the county believes that children will be less attracted to fatty foods that are high in salt and calories.
According to the same article, back in April, Santa Clara County, California, also banned toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county.
Spokesmen from McDonald's denied that Happy Meals are inherently unhealthy, citing the fact that the meals are of an appropriate size and that children have the option to swap out the fries and soda for apples and juice. They also explained that giving away toys with children's meals is part of the fun of a family dining experience.
Since 2008 when apples were first introduced as an option in Happy Meals, customers have ordered them more than 100 million times, illustrating that when given healthier options, customers often choose them for their children instead.
But those opposed to the toys insist that including them in Happy Meals is contributing directly to the obesity epidemic because it makes the generally unhealthy meals highly attractive to children who do not know any better.
And while acknowledging that parents ultimately bear the responsibility of controlling their children's food choices, CSPI believes that using toys to lure kids into McDonald's is so powerful and "predatory" as a form of marketing that parents often have a difficult time resisting their children's nagging
Still others say that placing heavy restrictions on what McDonald's can include in Happy Meals may be a bit severe and overbearing, and that it will do little to effectively reverse the nation's obesity epidemic.
Some are even suggesting a compromise in which McDonald's limit its new toy offerings to once a month rather than once a week, in order to reduce the number of times children want to go to McDonald's to get a new toy.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.latimes.com/news/health/...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ch...
The announcement by CSPI comes just weeks after a California county banned not only toys but all other promotions aimed at children that involve McDonald's Happy Meals. By doing this, the county believes that children will be less attracted to fatty foods that are high in salt and calories.
According to the same article, back in April, Santa Clara County, California, also banned toy promotions from fast food meals sold in unincorporated parts of the county.
Spokesmen from McDonald's denied that Happy Meals are inherently unhealthy, citing the fact that the meals are of an appropriate size and that children have the option to swap out the fries and soda for apples and juice. They also explained that giving away toys with children's meals is part of the fun of a family dining experience.
Since 2008 when apples were first introduced as an option in Happy Meals, customers have ordered them more than 100 million times, illustrating that when given healthier options, customers often choose them for their children instead.
But those opposed to the toys insist that including them in Happy Meals is contributing directly to the obesity epidemic because it makes the generally unhealthy meals highly attractive to children who do not know any better.
And while acknowledging that parents ultimately bear the responsibility of controlling their children's food choices, CSPI believes that using toys to lure kids into McDonald's is so powerful and "predatory" as a form of marketing that parents often have a difficult time resisting their children's nagging
Still others say that placing heavy restrictions on what McDonald's can include in Happy Meals may be a bit severe and overbearing, and that it will do little to effectively reverse the nation's obesity epidemic.
Some are even suggesting a compromise in which McDonald's limit its new toy offerings to once a month rather than once a week, in order to reduce the number of times children want to go to McDonald's to get a new toy.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.latimes.com/news/health/...
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ch...
(NaturalNews) An obese doctor comes home to his wife at dinner time carrying
yet another bag full of drive-through junk food from a local restaurant.
Worried about his health, his wife asks, "Don't you realize all that junk food you keep eating is destroying your entire body?"
"That's not my concern," the doctor replies. "I'm only an ear, nose and throat specialist."
This joke illustrates an important point: That even the most brilliant scientists, doctors and researchers can seem downright clueless when it comes to their own health. And this joke isn't really a joke at all: It's a sad but true commentary about the blind spots in the knowledge of those who are among society's most intelligent thinkers.
I've known many brilliant people. Even a few geniuses. But rarely do I meet anyone whose knowledge of food and nutrition rises very far above outright ignorance. Perhaps one in a hundred people in the western world today have taken it upon themselves to actually learn about foods and health -- the rest simply wing it, going along with the mainstream. (And the mainstream is diseased...)
Making matters even worse, really smart people are especially susceptible to strategies of non-conscious persuasion -- such as those used by food advertisers. Food companies don't appeal to logic and reason when advertising their junk foods because there really isn't much logic or reason behind consuming their products at all. Instead, they use emotional anchoring to unconsciously attach feelings to brands. That way, when you're in the store shopping, you unconsciously experience a preference for a particular product or brand without knowing why.
This gets the smart people every time, it seems. They may have superior logic and intellect compared to the rest of the world, but when you examine their grocery store receipts, they're buying all the same junk as the guy with an IQ of 70 who lives next door.
Having brains, it seems, doesn't necessarily translate into making good decisions about food and health. And yet these people should know better.
Most people acknowledge this universal truth, and yet when it comes to foods and health, there's a bizarre disconnect about this. People have been trained by the big food companies -- and even government regulators to a large extent -- that what they choose to eat has almost no bearing on their health outcomes. The establishment would rather have you believe that your genes control your health while glossing over the far more important point that it is your diet that controls the expression of your genes.
They would rather ignore the truthful fact that vitamin D prevents infectious disease 500% better than a vaccine because this allows them to promote vaccines rather than teach nutritional responsibility. Even mainstream dieticians from the American Dietetic Association are taught that there is no difference between dead foods and living foods. A calorie is a calorie, they're taught, no matter where it comes from or whether it's in a plant from Mother Nature or a sugar factory made by Man.
The nutritional ignorance in our culture is astounding, and as long as such ignorance remains so widespread, we will never achieve a health care system that's both effective and affordable. As long as our doctors remain nutritionally illiterate, we will never have a health care system that values educating patients about what they put in their mouths.
Ignorance is the enemy of lasting health, and sadly our own government institutions such as the FDA maintain policies of enforced ignorance that outlaw companies selling natural products from linking to scientific studies that discuss the health benefits of their products. Everything from cherries, green tea and walnuts have been under relentless attacks by the FDA, which threatens company founders with arrest and prosecution unless they remove their website links that point to scientific studies published in peer-reviewed science journals. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)
One important victory over FDA censorship has just been achieved in the courts (http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_F...), but the FDA's campaign of enforced ignorance continues.
Even our public schools reinforce nutritional illiteracy among our children. While nearly everyone agrees it's important to teach our children how to read, write and understand math and science, there is no real effort to teach children how to feed themselves in a healthy manner. Health class is a nutritional joke, and school lunch programs actually teach students precisely the wrong message by serving up dead, processed "institutional" foods that promote diabetes, cancer, heart disease and behavioral disorders. (You can also find McDonald's restaurants in many U.S. hospitals, by the way, but that's another story...)
Nutritional ignorance may be fantastic for generating obscene profits for the drug companies, but it's a terrible policy for public health. Americans will only achieve true lasting health when they are granted open access to truthful information about the healing capabilities of natural foods, superfoods, nutritonal supplements and herbal remedies.
Until that day comes, we will remain a nation locked in a cycle of ignorance and disease that will ultimately bankrupt us at every level. Nutrition can help us break that cycle, but only if we can get past the ignorance and unleash a new era of nutritional literacy for our people.
Read my related report, "Nutrition Can Save America!" for more details on how this might work: http://www.naturalnews.com/report_N...
And keep reading NaturalNews.com to stay informed. We'll keep bringing you more news about natural remedies, nutritional cures, and the dangers of synthetic chemicals.
If you'd like these stories brought to your attention via email, just subscribe to our free daily email newsletter using the subscription form below. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any time.
Worried about his health, his wife asks, "Don't you realize all that junk food you keep eating is destroying your entire body?"
"That's not my concern," the doctor replies. "I'm only an ear, nose and throat specialist."
This joke illustrates an important point: That even the most brilliant scientists, doctors and researchers can seem downright clueless when it comes to their own health. And this joke isn't really a joke at all: It's a sad but true commentary about the blind spots in the knowledge of those who are among society's most intelligent thinkers.
I've known many brilliant people. Even a few geniuses. But rarely do I meet anyone whose knowledge of food and nutrition rises very far above outright ignorance. Perhaps one in a hundred people in the western world today have taken it upon themselves to actually learn about foods and health -- the rest simply wing it, going along with the mainstream. (And the mainstream is diseased...)
Brilliance in one field doesn't always translate into nutrition
But here's the really interesting part: The more intelligent a person is in their own field of specialty, the more informed they think they are about foods and nutrition (even if they aren't). A typical rocket scientist, for example, is so used to being right that when it comes to his dietary decisions and food shopping habits, he thinks he is right by the mere fact that he is the one making his food consumption decisions. Because he's always right, then whatever decision he makes -- whether it deals with food, finances or relationships -- must also be the right decision.Making matters even worse, really smart people are especially susceptible to strategies of non-conscious persuasion -- such as those used by food advertisers. Food companies don't appeal to logic and reason when advertising their junk foods because there really isn't much logic or reason behind consuming their products at all. Instead, they use emotional anchoring to unconsciously attach feelings to brands. That way, when you're in the store shopping, you unconsciously experience a preference for a particular product or brand without knowing why.
This gets the smart people every time, it seems. They may have superior logic and intellect compared to the rest of the world, but when you examine their grocery store receipts, they're buying all the same junk as the guy with an IQ of 70 who lives next door.
Having brains, it seems, doesn't necessarily translate into making good decisions about food and health. And yet these people should know better.
Food and consequences
Most scientists, doctors and high-IQ people believe in The Law of Cause and Effect. Every action (a cause) results in some reaction (an effect). Every input has an output.Most people acknowledge this universal truth, and yet when it comes to foods and health, there's a bizarre disconnect about this. People have been trained by the big food companies -- and even government regulators to a large extent -- that what they choose to eat has almost no bearing on their health outcomes. The establishment would rather have you believe that your genes control your health while glossing over the far more important point that it is your diet that controls the expression of your genes.
They would rather ignore the truthful fact that vitamin D prevents infectious disease 500% better than a vaccine because this allows them to promote vaccines rather than teach nutritional responsibility. Even mainstream dieticians from the American Dietetic Association are taught that there is no difference between dead foods and living foods. A calorie is a calorie, they're taught, no matter where it comes from or whether it's in a plant from Mother Nature or a sugar factory made by Man.
The nutritional ignorance in our culture is astounding, and as long as such ignorance remains so widespread, we will never achieve a health care system that's both effective and affordable. As long as our doctors remain nutritionally illiterate, we will never have a health care system that values educating patients about what they put in their mouths.
Ignorance is the enemy of lasting health, and sadly our own government institutions such as the FDA maintain policies of enforced ignorance that outlaw companies selling natural products from linking to scientific studies that discuss the health benefits of their products. Everything from cherries, green tea and walnuts have been under relentless attacks by the FDA, which threatens company founders with arrest and prosecution unless they remove their website links that point to scientific studies published in peer-reviewed science journals. (http://www.naturalnews.com/019366.html)
One important victory over FDA censorship has just been achieved in the courts (http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_F...), but the FDA's campaign of enforced ignorance continues.
Even our public schools reinforce nutritional illiteracy among our children. While nearly everyone agrees it's important to teach our children how to read, write and understand math and science, there is no real effort to teach children how to feed themselves in a healthy manner. Health class is a nutritional joke, and school lunch programs actually teach students precisely the wrong message by serving up dead, processed "institutional" foods that promote diabetes, cancer, heart disease and behavioral disorders. (You can also find McDonald's restaurants in many U.S. hospitals, by the way, but that's another story...)
Nutritional ignorance may be fantastic for generating obscene profits for the drug companies, but it's a terrible policy for public health. Americans will only achieve true lasting health when they are granted open access to truthful information about the healing capabilities of natural foods, superfoods, nutritonal supplements and herbal remedies.
Until that day comes, we will remain a nation locked in a cycle of ignorance and disease that will ultimately bankrupt us at every level. Nutrition can help us break that cycle, but only if we can get past the ignorance and unleash a new era of nutritional literacy for our people.
Read my related report, "Nutrition Can Save America!" for more details on how this might work: http://www.naturalnews.com/report_N...
And keep reading NaturalNews.com to stay informed. We'll keep bringing you more news about natural remedies, nutritional cures, and the dangers of synthetic chemicals.
If you'd like these stories brought to your attention via email, just subscribe to our free daily email newsletter using the subscription form below. It's free and you can unsubscribe at any time.
(NaturalNews) Modern psychiatry went wrong when it embraced the idea that the
mind should be treated with drugs, says Edward Shorter of the University of
Toronto, writing in the Wall Street Journal.
Shorter studies the history of psychiatry and medicine.
Modern U.S. psychiatry has adopted a philosophy that psychological diseases arise from chemical imbalances and therefore have a very specific cluster of symptoms, he says, in spite of evidence that the difference between many so-called disorders is minimal or nonexistent. These "disorders" are then treated with expensive drugs that are no more effective than a placebo.
"Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications," he writes.
Shorter calls for U.S. psychiatry to abandon its emphasis on "psychopathology" and instead adopt the European approach, which focuses on the symptoms and needs of people as individuals. Yet the draft of the latest edition of psychiatric diagnostic "Bible," the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), shows that U.S. psychiatry has no intention of changing course.
"With DSM-V, American psychiatry is headed in exactly the opposite direction: defining ever-widening circles of the population as mentally ill with vague and undifferentiated diagnoses and treating them with powerful drugs," Shorter writes.
U.S. psychiatry was not always obsessed with psychopharmacology, he notes. Its early years were marked by a psychoanalytic approach that categorized mental disorders in broad, fluid categories such as "nerves," "melancholia" or "manic-depressive illness." These categories sufficed because similar treatments would work for people suffering from any version thereof: lithium treated both mania and severe depression, for example, while the specific symptoms experienced by an anxious person had little influence on the therapies needed.
"Our psychopathological lingo today offers little improvement on these sturdy terms," Shorter said. "A patient with the same symptoms today might be told he has 'social anxiety disorder' or 'seasonal affective disorder.' ... The new disorders all respond to the same drugs, so in terms of treatment, the differentiation is meaningless and of benefit mainly to pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for these niches."
In the 1950s and '60s, a new wave of psychiatrists sought to turn away from psychoanalysis -- perceiving it as focusing excessively on "unconscious psychic conflicts" -- and toward a more "scientific" model instead. As a result, the DSM-III introduced the vague new categories of "major depression" and "bipolar disorder," even though evidence suggests that there is no substantial difference between the two conditions. At the same time, "major depression" absorbed what Shorter calls two very different conditions, "neurotic depression" and "melancholia."
"This would be like incorporating tuberculosis and mumps into the same diagnosis, simply because they are both infectious diseases," he writes.
DSM-V only continues the trend of extending the disordered label to more and more normal people, Shorter warns: "To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline's floundering writ large."
For example, the new disorder of "psychosis risk syndrome" associates a whole new class of people with full-blown schizophrenia, under the logic, Shorter says, that "even if you aren't floridly psychotic with hallucinations and delusions, eccentric behavior can nonetheless awaken the suspicion that you might someday become psychotic." The implication, of course, is that such people should be treated with antipsychotics.
Symptoms of "psychosis risk syndrome" include such vague descriptors as "disorganized speech."
Other new "disorders" include hoarding, mixed anxiety-depression and binge eating. "Minor neurocognitive disorder" describes a reduction in cognitive function over time, such as that normally experienced by people over the age of 50, while "temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria" refers to children who suffer from outbursts of temper.
"DSM-V accelerates the trend of making variants on the spectrum of everyday behavior into diseases," Shorter says, "turning grief into depression, apprehension into anxiety, and boyishness into hyperactivity."
Sources for this story include: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100....
Shorter studies the history of psychiatry and medicine.
Modern U.S. psychiatry has adopted a philosophy that psychological diseases arise from chemical imbalances and therefore have a very specific cluster of symptoms, he says, in spite of evidence that the difference between many so-called disorders is minimal or nonexistent. These "disorders" are then treated with expensive drugs that are no more effective than a placebo.
"Psychiatry seems to have lost its way in a forest of poorly verified diagnoses and ineffectual medications," he writes.
Shorter calls for U.S. psychiatry to abandon its emphasis on "psychopathology" and instead adopt the European approach, which focuses on the symptoms and needs of people as individuals. Yet the draft of the latest edition of psychiatric diagnostic "Bible," the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), shows that U.S. psychiatry has no intention of changing course.
"With DSM-V, American psychiatry is headed in exactly the opposite direction: defining ever-widening circles of the population as mentally ill with vague and undifferentiated diagnoses and treating them with powerful drugs," Shorter writes.
U.S. psychiatry was not always obsessed with psychopharmacology, he notes. Its early years were marked by a psychoanalytic approach that categorized mental disorders in broad, fluid categories such as "nerves," "melancholia" or "manic-depressive illness." These categories sufficed because similar treatments would work for people suffering from any version thereof: lithium treated both mania and severe depression, for example, while the specific symptoms experienced by an anxious person had little influence on the therapies needed.
"Our psychopathological lingo today offers little improvement on these sturdy terms," Shorter said. "A patient with the same symptoms today might be told he has 'social anxiety disorder' or 'seasonal affective disorder.' ... The new disorders all respond to the same drugs, so in terms of treatment, the differentiation is meaningless and of benefit mainly to pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for these niches."
In the 1950s and '60s, a new wave of psychiatrists sought to turn away from psychoanalysis -- perceiving it as focusing excessively on "unconscious psychic conflicts" -- and toward a more "scientific" model instead. As a result, the DSM-III introduced the vague new categories of "major depression" and "bipolar disorder," even though evidence suggests that there is no substantial difference between the two conditions. At the same time, "major depression" absorbed what Shorter calls two very different conditions, "neurotic depression" and "melancholia."
"This would be like incorporating tuberculosis and mumps into the same diagnosis, simply because they are both infectious diseases," he writes.
DSM-V only continues the trend of extending the disordered label to more and more normal people, Shorter warns: "To flip through the latest draft of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, in the works for seven years now, is to see the discipline's floundering writ large."
For example, the new disorder of "psychosis risk syndrome" associates a whole new class of people with full-blown schizophrenia, under the logic, Shorter says, that "even if you aren't floridly psychotic with hallucinations and delusions, eccentric behavior can nonetheless awaken the suspicion that you might someday become psychotic." The implication, of course, is that such people should be treated with antipsychotics.
Symptoms of "psychosis risk syndrome" include such vague descriptors as "disorganized speech."
Other new "disorders" include hoarding, mixed anxiety-depression and binge eating. "Minor neurocognitive disorder" describes a reduction in cognitive function over time, such as that normally experienced by people over the age of 50, while "temper dysregulation disorder with dysphoria" refers to children who suffer from outbursts of temper.
"DSM-V accelerates the trend of making variants on the spectrum of everyday behavior into diseases," Shorter says, "turning grief into depression, apprehension into anxiety, and boyishness into hyperactivity."
Sources for this story include: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100....
(NaturalNews) The race to develop alternative energy sources to offset
traditional ones has been intensifying as states look to take advantage of
federal incentives. Wind energy in particular is quickly becoming a hot new
market, and none other than Texas is ahead of the game in this particular
sector.
Texas tops Iowa, Washington and California in wind energy generation, harboring a capacity of nearly 10,000 megawatts in 2009. According to data, roughly five percent of Texas energy is now produced by wind, an impressive statistic considering that it has been achieved in less than a decade.
When Texas first deregulated electricity in 1999, it established a requirement that 2,000 megawatts of power be derived from wind by 2009. It was the first state to make such a move. Texas achieved – and exceeded – this goal by 2005, and is set to reach production of 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2025.
Texas' Public Utility Commission is currently working on constructing a matrix of new transmission lines across the state that will accommodate the full capacity of the state's wind power potential. Since the grid can only handle a certain amount of wind energy in its current format, the system has to be expanded in order to handle the load.
The network is expected to be finished sometime between 2013 and 2015, and by the time it reaches completion, it will be able to handle up to 18,000 megawatts of wind power at its peak output.
But because wind energy can be fickle, literally "changing with the wind," it is difficult to rely solely on it for energy production. But Texas is forging the way in developing technologies that help to forecast the weather and control the storage of wind energy to accommodate changing weather patterns.
Interestingly, Texas is having considerable success with wind because it cut itself off from the rest of the nation during the New Deal of the 1930s. While other states were partnering to share energy and transmission lines with one another, Texas exempted itself from partnerships and remained independent.
Other energy providers in Texas are not so pleased with the success of wind power, particularly because it is heavily subsidized by federal grants that keep it artificially inexpensive. Many of them, including natural gas providers, are having a tough time competing and think that wind energy should have to survive on its own without the need for subsidies.
They also believe that wind energy providers should help pay for the cost of meeting reserve requirements when the wind is not blowing. Basically, the consensus is that the wind industry should have to abide by the same standards as everyone else in the energy sector.
The good news is that legislators are working with the industry to establish fair guidelines that will keep everyone happy and allow for the continued growth of clean, renewable energy.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...
Texas tops Iowa, Washington and California in wind energy generation, harboring a capacity of nearly 10,000 megawatts in 2009. According to data, roughly five percent of Texas energy is now produced by wind, an impressive statistic considering that it has been achieved in less than a decade.
When Texas first deregulated electricity in 1999, it established a requirement that 2,000 megawatts of power be derived from wind by 2009. It was the first state to make such a move. Texas achieved – and exceeded – this goal by 2005, and is set to reach production of 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2025.
Texas' Public Utility Commission is currently working on constructing a matrix of new transmission lines across the state that will accommodate the full capacity of the state's wind power potential. Since the grid can only handle a certain amount of wind energy in its current format, the system has to be expanded in order to handle the load.
The network is expected to be finished sometime between 2013 and 2015, and by the time it reaches completion, it will be able to handle up to 18,000 megawatts of wind power at its peak output.
But because wind energy can be fickle, literally "changing with the wind," it is difficult to rely solely on it for energy production. But Texas is forging the way in developing technologies that help to forecast the weather and control the storage of wind energy to accommodate changing weather patterns.
Interestingly, Texas is having considerable success with wind because it cut itself off from the rest of the nation during the New Deal of the 1930s. While other states were partnering to share energy and transmission lines with one another, Texas exempted itself from partnerships and remained independent.
Other energy providers in Texas are not so pleased with the success of wind power, particularly because it is heavily subsidized by federal grants that keep it artificially inexpensive. Many of them, including natural gas providers, are having a tough time competing and think that wind energy should have to survive on its own without the need for subsidies.
They also believe that wind energy providers should help pay for the cost of meeting reserve requirements when the wind is not blowing. Basically, the consensus is that the wind industry should have to abide by the same standards as everyone else in the energy sector.
The good news is that legislators are working with the industry to establish fair guidelines that will keep everyone happy and allow for the continued growth of clean, renewable energy.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/0...
Navigate
Feeds
Latest Activity
added a new blog entry.
22 months ago
22 months ago
added a new blog entry.
22 months ago
22 months ago
added a new blog entry.
22 months ago
22 months ago
added a new blog entry.
22 months ago
22 months ago
added a new blog entry.
22 months ago
22 months ago
Top Contributors
Share
Powered by
