Thoughts on a certain teaching

In Britain the medical fraternity would like to ban and drive our what are called alternative medicine.

In particular there is an ongoing campaign to stop anything about this subject being taught in Universities.

Many feel otherwise

Here is one point of view

Of course the practice and principles of alternative medicine should be taught at universities. 

What sort of Big Brother nanny state are we living in when people who don't want to study certain subjects which they abhor, seek to thwart others from teaching them?

This is not even whether alternative medicine 'works', although it most certainly does. 

This is an issue of liberty, democracy and freedom of thought. 

The last thing we need in this increasingly authoritarian society is trumped-up intellectuals 'doing society a service' by getting rid of teachers and university departments that teach things with which they 'disagree'. 

If alternative medicine is a target of these people today, what will be their targets in universities tomorrow? Classics? Theology? Literature?

The people who provided us - or at least the Chinese - with the cultural revolution thought like this. 

The Nazis too were fond of banning art and literature which was not in resonance with their 'philosophy'. 

This is actually quite an important vote which goes further than just being about 'alternative' medicine. 

It is about freedom, choice, liberty and democracy. 

Even if you prefer not to use any form of alternative medicine, but do consider yourself a libertarian, you should vote YES in this vote.

And yes I know I'm speaking about universities rather than medical schools but YES alternative medicine should be taught in medical school. 

Some medical students will be sceptical and not pay much attention - as is their right. 

Others will learn that there is indeed an alternative to deterministic mechanistic medicine in many non-critical situations. 

There is a philosophy of holism that plays a part in medicine too and it always has.

Nothing changes

There is a very funny Harry Enfield sketch that I suggest you all go and look up on YouTube now. 

The sketch, which claims to be a public service announcement, is filmed in flickering black and white, and is narrated by a man with the diction of a Fifties BBC radio announcer. “An ordinary dinner party,” he says, opening the scene. 

The sort of occasion we all enjoy. 

The men are exchanging witty stories, and look at the women.

 Aren’t they pretty? 

Look at the way they laugh. 

Aren't they delightful?

The men at the party discuss the gold standard; the women look on adoringly. 

Then one of the females pipes up with her economic theory, and the whole dinner party is thrown into disarray.

The lady has attempted to enter the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of her own! says the panicked announcer. 

What half-baked drivel! 

See how the men look at her with utter contempt!

Viewers are shown evidence of how over-education in women “leads to ugliness, premature ageing and beard growth”, before the narrator concludes the so-called public service announcement with the following withering words: 

Women, know your limits. 

In thought be plain and simple and let your natural sweetness shine through.

Funny, because many decades ago that used to be true. 

Not today, of course. 

No, no, no. 

Now we can all have a laugh at the little woman role that our grandmothers and great-grandmothers were cast in. 

At dinner parties and other gatherings of both sexes, women are just as vocal as their male counterparts – if not more so. 

We have opinions, not all of them are particularly nice, and we are not afraid to use them.

Right? 

Wrong!

A study published in the American Political Science Review has found that women speak “substantially less” when outnumbered by men in group discussions. 

In fact, when observing 94 groups of at least five people, the political scientist Chris Karpowitz found that “the time that women spoke was significantly less than their proportional representation.

Amounting to less than 75 per cent of the time that men spoke.

The research, conducted by scholars at Princeton and the Brigham Young University’s centre for the study of elections and democracy in the US, also found that women were less likely to speak up when a matter was decided by majority rule. 

Tali Mendelberg, who teaches politics at Princeton, concluded that in school boards, governing boards of organisations and firms, and legislative committees, women are often a minority of members and the group uses majority rule to make its decisions. 

These settings will produce a dramatic inequality in women’s floor time and in many other ways. 

Women are less likely to be viewed and to view themselves as influential in the group and to feel that their 'voice is heard’.

Radio active waste and algae

 

Scientists at R.I.T used algae to synthesize biofuel and recently scientists at Northwestern University and Argonne National have found that freshwater algae can remove Strontium 90 from radioactive wastewater. 

These developments can significantly aid the future effort to clean up radioactive waste at the Fukushima Daichi Plant.

HomeMe.ru

Photo © Apium

Scientists discovered that the process begins when the green algae first absorb strontium, calcium and barium from water. 

The strontium and barium form crystals inside of each algae cell. 

The crystals remain inside the cells, but the algae filters out and excretes calcium and other minerals that may be present. 

The strontium is then isolated, and thus able to be treated.

Researchers are still figuring the best way to harness the algae’s capabilities. 

Since algae doesn't differentiate between radioactive and inactive strontium (they are chemically identical), it is not known how the algae would hold up in a highly radioactive environment. 

But the good news is that they have been able to manipulate the algae’s process to be more strontium-selective, thus removing as much as possible.

The United States already houses over 80 million gallons of untreated radioactive waste, in which strontium 90 is a large component. 

With no sign of nuclear power plants closing anytime soon, there will be increasing volumes to deal with and the threat of accidental spills or crises. 

Even if contained, strontium 90 is very similar to calcium — so long-term exposure to the material greatly increases the risk of cancer as it can be stored in bones.

Although the study has just begun, the discovery of algae’s strontium-sequestering capability makes a giant step in nuclear waste clean up. 

Scientists are confident that algae could be a key factor in radioactive strontium treatment, as it has proven in the past to function under harsh environments.

Cat stuff

House cats

The world’s most popular pet, Felis silvestris catus, was probably first domesticated in ancient Egypt, although a genetic study in 2007 suggested that all modern domestic cats could trace their lineage back to just five female African wildcats living in the Middle East 10,000 years ago. 

The wider cat family is divided into large cats called pantherines, and smaller cats called felines. Pantherines can roar but not purr; felines can purr but not roar.

A cat’s life

Cats spend 85 per cent of their day doing absolutely nothing. 

Eating, drinking, killing, defecating and mating take up just four per cent of their life. 

The other 10 per cent is used to get around. 

Otherwise they are asleep, or dozing. 

Despite this, British cats manage to kill 275 million British mammals every year and the 75 million cats in the United States kill one billion birds and five billion rodents every year.

Domestic life isn’t good for cats: milk gives them diarrhoea, cat food rots their gums and central heating causes them to moult all year round, causing their fur to clog up their digestive system. 

Nevertheless, 35 per cent of American cat owners never allow their cat to go outside.

Owning cats

Only a quarter of American cat “owners” say they deliberately went out to acquire a cat: in 75 per cent of cases, it was the cat that acquired them. 

Studies show that many more people claim to own a cat than there are cats. 

The British government makes itself responsible for feeding 100,000 cats to keep down mice on government property.

Tabby cats

The word “tabby” comes from a cloth: a kind of striped silk taffeta. 

It derived from the Arabic Attabiy, the name of the quarter of old Baghdad where it was originally made. 

The quarter is named after Attab, a prince of the Umayyad caliphate (AD 661-750), the first Muslim empire.

Falling cats

Like many small animals, cats have a non-fatal terminal velocity – in cats this is about 60mph. 

Once they relax, they orient themselves, spread out, and parachute to earth like a squirrel. 

A 1987 paper in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association studied 132 cases of falling cats. 

Ninety per cent survived; the average number of injuries per cat peaked at the seven-storey mark. 

There are cats that have fallen 30 storeys or more without ill effects.

Cats’ whiskers

The technical name for cats’ whiskers is vibrissae, from the Latin vibrare, to vibrate. 

They constantly monitor air currents to provide spatial orientation: cats can operate blindfold using only their whiskers. 

Cats also have whiskers on their front legs to help them land safely and feel for prey when hunting.

Cat hangover

In German, to have a hangover is “einen Kater haben” — “to have a tomcat”. 

Another slang term is Katzenjammer, meaning “the wailing of cats”. 

Germans still eat Katerfrühstück (“tomcat-breakfast”), a meal that often involves herring, pickles and goulash.

Garrison Keillor

UN on bees

The mysterious collapse of honey-bee colonies is becoming a global phenomenon, scientists working for the United Nations have revealed.

Declines in managed bee colonies, seen increasingly in Europe and the US in the past decade, are also now being observed in China and Japan and there are the first signs of African collapses from Egypt, according to the report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The authors, who include some of the world's leading honey-bee experts, issue a stark warning about the disappearance of bees, which are increasingly important as crop pollinators around the globe. 

Without profound changes to the way human beings manage the planet, they say, declines in pollinators needed to feed a growing global population are likely to continue. 

The scientists warn that a number of factors may now be coming together to hit bee colonies around the world, ranging from declines in flowering plants and the use of damaging insecticides, to the worldwide spread of pests and air pollution. 

They call for farmers and landowners to be offered incentives to restore pollinator-friendly habitats, including key flowering plants near crop-producing fields and stress that more care needs to be taken in the choice, timing and application of insecticides and other chemicals. 

While managed hives can be moved out of harm's way, "wild populations (of pollinators) are completely vulnerable", says the report.

The way humanity manages or mismanages its nature-based assets, including pollinators, will in part define our collective future in the 21st century," said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and UNEP Executive Director.

The fact is that of the 100 crop species that provide 90 per cent of the world's food, over 70 are pollinated by bees.

Human beings have fabricated the illusion that in the 21st century they have the technological prowess to be independent of nature.

Bees underline the reality that we are more, not less, dependent on nature's services in a world of close to seven billion people.

Declines in bee colonies date back to the mid 1960s in Europe, but have accelerated since 1998, while in North America, losses of colonies since 2004 have left the continent with fewer managed pollinators than at any time in the past 50 years, says the report.

Now Chinese beekeepers have recently faced several inexplicable and complex symptoms of colony losses in both species, the report says. 

And it has been reported elsewhere that some Chinese farmers have had to resort to pollinating fruit trees by hand because of the lack of insects.

Furthermore, a quarter of beekeepers in Japan have recently been confronted with sudden losses of their bee colonies, while in Africa, beekeepers along the Egyptian Nile have been reporting signs of "colony collapse disorder" – although to date there are no other confirmed reports from the rest of the continent.

The report lists a number of factors which may be coming together to cause the decline and they include:

* Habitat degradation, including the loss of flowering plant species that provide food for bees;

* Some insecticides, including the so-called "systemic" insecticides which can migrate to the entire plant as it grows and be taken in by bees in nectar and pollen;

* Parasites and pests, such as the well-known Varroa mite;

* Air pollution, which may be interfering with the ability of bees to find flowering plants and thus food – scents that could travel more than 800 metres in the 1800s now reach less than 200 metres from a plant.

The transformation of the countryside and rural areas in the past half-century or so has triggered a decline in wild-living bees and other pollinators, said one of the lead authors, Dr Peter Neumann of the Swiss Bee Research Centre.

Society is increasingly investing in 'industrial-scale' hives and managed colonies to make up the shortfall and going so far as to truck bees around to farms and fields in order to maintain our food supplies.

A variety of factors are making these man-made colonies vulnerable to decline and collapse. 

We need to get smarter about how we manage these hives, but perhaps more importantly, we need to better manage the landscape beyond, in order to recover wild bee populations.

And if the UN is finally reporting this then for sure it is late in day for bees.

Nature and culture

Business is on the cusp of a paradigm shift, moving from structures and hierarchies to networks and webs. 

.
Insights from nature can act as inspiration for this transition.

Thinking in terms of systems is difficult, but it is vital to operating successfully in the increasingly interconnected and uncertain business world. 

Observations from nature, which is made up complex systems, can yield important lessons.

The concept of emergence is fundamental to how nature operates. 

Physicist and systems theorist, Fritjof Capra, noted that: Throughout the living world, the creativity of life expresses itself through the process of emergence.

Emergence is a term used to explain how complex patterns or systems emerge from a series of simple interactions. 

Emergent systems create synergy, where the individual components interrelate and lead to the creation of a whole that is greater than the the sum of its parts. 

In nature this synergy leads to the growth of ecosystems. 

Humans also display emergent behaviour, from stock-market trends to online interactivity.

Take the soil beneath our feet as an example. 

It is alive with networking, interconnecting, diverse life; it breaks down matter to create new growth. 

Soil can be likened to organisational culture. 

From a rich culture, employee enthusiasm thrives. 

Like soil, over-exploitation through short-term, KPI-focused approaches erode this richness that is so important to growing a resilient, vibrant business.

Woven within healthy soil are mycelia (networks of fungi threads), which connect plants with each other to share nutrients and encourage diversity within the ecosystem. 

Artificial fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides cause mycelia to retreat and the soil to lose a key part of its vibrancy. 

In the same way that soil can be likened to organisational culture, mycelium networks can be likened to effective communication,collaboration and networking that transcend organisational silos and boundaries. 

It is the power of these networks that drives business adaptation.

For organisations to thrive in increasingly dynamic business environments, they need to connect, collaborate and synergise within diverse systems. 

Organisational culture provides the foundation for collaborative stakeholder engagement. 

Just like healthy soil, a healthy organisational culture is rich in diversity and nutrients. 

Organisational vision and leadership can bring unity within this diversity and a sense of direction which empowers teams to adapt to the rapidly changing business environment.

Just like the soil needs mycelia to enable it to thrive, the healthy organisation needs a vibrant network to facilitate continual emergence within its business ecosystem. 

Encouraging an environment of collaboration for co-creation is a critical success factor for organisations redesigning for resilience.

Giles Hutchin

Climate change

The average global temperature is officially said to have increased by about 0.8°C over the course of the 20th century.

It rose until about 1947, cooled slightly until about 1977, peaked in 1998, and has been essentially flat since 2001, despite rapidly rising CO2 levels.

The IPCC claims that only the warming of the past 50 years is mainly attributable to man-made greenhouse gases.
.
Even though nothing happening today is in any way unprecedented or outside the range of natural climate variability (wattsupwiththat.com; wattsupwiththat.com).
.
The IPCC attributes all earlier warming and cooling periods to natural factors – solar, orbital, oceanic, tectonic, etc.

To support its claim that very recent warming is due to man, the IPCC cites the results of climate computer models programmed by scientists who believe that greenhouse gases are a major driver of climate change.

Other variables are adjusted until the model outputs approximately match the temperature record of the last hundred years or so.

Then the major role assigned to CO2 is removed from the models while all the other settings are left unchanged.

Not surprisingly, the models are now incapable of matching the temperature record.

To cite this as proof that CO2 drives the climate is sheer sophistry.

It goes without saying that if the role assigned to CO2 is reduced while the role of natural factors is increased, the models can still be tuned to match the past.

But the fact that models can be adjusted in different ways to reproduce past temperatures says nothing at all about whether any of the models is an accurate representation of how the climate really works.

In fact the models are well known to have serious shortcomings, particularly in their handling of the hydrological cycle (water vapour, clouds, precipitation), and they have consistently overestimated the rate of warming.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) admitted in 2007 that the current uncertainties in the climate impact of total solar irradiance (TSI) and aerosols (tiny solid particles or liquid droplets suspended in a gas) ‘are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change’ (indarticles.com).

This is a rare admission, but it was made when seeking funding for a new remote-sensing satellite – the Glory satellite, which was launched on 4 March 2011 but failed to reach orbit.

Using long-term projections of future climate made by flawed, unvalidated models as the justification for draconian, trillion-dollar emission-cutting measures seems rather irrational, especially when such models can’t even reliably predict the local weather more than a few days in advance.

Dry air is composed of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, plus various trace gases, such as carbon dioxide.

At present, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is just under 400 parts per million (ppm), i.e. just under four hundredths of one per cent (0.04%).

Man-made warming proponents emphasize that according to the ice-core record, this level is higher than any seen in the past 650,000 years.

Analysis of air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores tends to indicate that the atmospheric CO2 concentration ranged from about 180 to 300 ppm in previous interglacials – even though many of them were several degrees warmer than today.

What receives far less emphasis are the uncertainties surrounding the ice-core record.

First, the presence in ice of liquid water alters the original composition of the air in gas inclusions; this can deplete CO2 by 30 to 50%, mostly in the upper layers of the ice sheets.

There have also been clear instances of data selection and manipulation by man-made warming proponents (Jaworowski, 2009; Schmitt, 2010).

Second, studies of leaf stomata (pores through which plants take in CO2) often show higher and more variable atmospheric CO2 levels than the ice cores.

They suggest that pre-industrial CO2 levels were commonly in the 360 to 390 ppm range.

Third, an analysis by Ernst-Georg Beck and others of about 100,000 direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere made from 1812 to 1961 shows that atmospheric CO2 levels have varied very widely, with peaks of around 360 ppm in the 1820s and 380 ppm in the 1940s, and are closely correlated with sea surface temperatures;

the vast majority of these measurements are rejected by mainstream climatologists (biomind.de; Climate change controversies).

.

It is easy to casually read and accept what the IPCC and others say.

.

Takes a little more effort to put their statements into a wider context.

.

One that shows planet earth to have been much warmer than now in not to distant times.

.

Yes, we should behave better.

.

No, we should not be panicked or bullied into expensive new taxes, often wasted on supporting scientists doing dubiously constructive research.

Some one liners

 Ahhh...I see the fuck-up fairy has visited us again...

I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

 How about never?  Is never good for you?

 I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

 I'm really easy to get along with once you people learn to worship me.

I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

I'm out of my mind, but feel free to leave a message.

I don't work here.  I'm a consultant.

It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying.

I can see your point, but I still think you're full of shit.

I like you. You remind me of me when I was young and stupid.

 You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers.

I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't give a damn.

I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth.

I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view.

The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.

Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.

What am I?  Flypaper for freaks!?

I'm not being rude. You're just insignificant.

It's a thankless job, but I've got a lot of Karma to burn off.

Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.

No, my powers can only be used for good.

You sound reasonable... Time to up the medication.

Who me? I just wander from room to room.

LED everywhere

For over a century, the standard, inefficient incandescent light bulb has been the main source of indoor light for buildings around the world. 

This invention revolutionized illumination—something as simple as having light in your home at night without risking a fire was now possible. 

But, like all inventions that were once considered revolutionary and are subsequently discarded, the incandescent light bulb will soon be no more.

Nearly four years ago, the Energy Independence and Security Act became law, and among the law’s many provisions was the phase out of incandescent bulbs considered inefficient. 

The process begins in 2012 and continues through 2015. 

The law first requires that all standard light bulbs that produce between 310 and 2,600 lumens of light increase their efficiency by a minimum of 30 percent

This is roughly equivalent to the efficiency of halogen lighting. 

In 2012, the sale of 100 watt bulbs that don’t meet the efficiency standard will no longer be permitted, and in 2013, the ban extends to inefficient 75 watt bulbs. 

Finally, in 2014, the standard 40 watt and 60 watt bulbs will be banned.

While the new law has been characterized as a ban or phase out, in reality not all incandescent bulbs will be barred from sale. 

Newer, higher efficiency and more expensive incandescent bulbs are, and will remain, on the market. 

There are also a number of exceptions for specialty bulbs like those used inside ovens.

Some states have also attempted to enact laws achieving to control the phase out on their own pace, but the results have been lackluster.

If you are a business owner that owns commercial real estate, then you have to start planning accordingly. 

Many are going to wait until the last possible minute to transition to LED or compact fluorescent bulbs. 

If this includes you, then think about spending some time on lighting sooner rather than later.

New lighting technology has significant advantages over incandescent bulbs—notably the cost savings. 

LED lights for example, consume one-sixth or less energy to produce the same amount of light as an incandescent bulb. 

They also last up to 25,000 hours or more. 

In many cases, you only need to change an LED bulb once per decade. 

While it’s true that an LED bulb can cost 25 dollars or more, the energy savings alone will more than compensate for the additional cost in a short period of time.

A medium-sized office building could easily have 1,000 or more bulbs in the common areas running up to 24 hours a day. 

Add to this the time savings from not having to change bulbs—plus the reduced liability exposure from not having someone on a ladder every day changing bulbs—to recognize the significant advantages of the new technology.

Rather than wait until the new regulations require you to make the transition, do it voluntarily.

What is the problem?

The medical profession is becoming increasingly worried about the global death toll from infections such as MRSA and E.coli caused by drug resistant bacteria.
.
As they have become widely available, ‘more and more antibiotics have been consumed for less and less benefit in many settings’ Chris Butler, a professor at Cardiff University and dean of research in the School of Medicine, wrote recently.
.
He said this indiscriminate overuse is driving antibiotic resistance, making some infections ‘almost impossible to treat’, adding there is little in the ‘pipeline of new antibiotics’.
.
It is a global concern.
.
We have heard plenty about indiscriminate human use
.
How about misusing with animals?
.
Is farming to blame?
.
A significant contribution comes from over-reliance on routine use of antibiotics in farming.
.
In particular, their ‘inappropriate use’ in intensive, or ‘factory’ farming.
.
Nearly 50 per cent of all antibiotics are used in farming, with most pigs, poultry and dairy cows receiving antibiotics routinely, or prophylactically.
.
Whether or not they are unwell.
.
The practice is ‘a mask for poor animal welfare’, animals are fed antibiotics to compensate for the suppression of their immune systems.
.
And this is brought on by overcrowding, early weaning, high stress and other aspects of these ‘unnatural production systems’.
.
Farm animals are becoming breeding grounds for antibiotic-resistant strains of salmonella, campylobacter and E.coli.
.
Farm animals are harbouring antibiotic-resistant strains of MRSA which could become virulent.
.
There is today a diminishing effectiveness in human medicine of critically important antibiotics such as cephalosporins.
.
There are three ways antibiotic-resistant bacteria can be transmitted from farm animals to humans:
.
Through people working with animals or raw meat.
.
Through the food chain, if meat or eggs are incorrectly cooked.
.
Via the air, water or soil. 
.
Animals excrete a significant amount of the antibiotics they are administered.
.
This makes their manure a potential source of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
.
And this in turn can enter soil and groundwater.
.
The problem is most serious where the same classes of antibiotics are used in animal and human medicine.
.
There is data showing considerable overlap in certain categories, for example, tetracycline, sulphonamides and aminoglycocides.
.
There are also dangers of common usage in the cephalosporin and fluoroquinolone categories.
.
What is the evidence for these statements?
.
The most commonly cited example of transmission of farm antibiotic resistance to humans is the case in Dutch pigs of a new strain of MRSA, the most feared multi-resistant ‘superbug’.
.
The first recorded cases of human colonisation by MRSA ST398, or ‘pig’ MRSA, were in 2004/5 in a Dutch baby girl and her parents, who were pig farmers. 
.
It is now estimated half of Dutch pig farmers are carrying the new strain - 760 times the national average.
.
In June 2011, medical journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases documented a new strain of MRSA in bulk milk from English dairy farms.
.
Tests suggested 27 out of 42 suspected human MRSA cases in England and Scottish cases had been caused by the new MRSA. 
.
And so it goes on the pursuit of money over any other consideration.
.
Anything else to say?
.
No, you have heard it all before.
.
Just make wise choices where you can.