Featured Blogs
Those who don’t lay arms, will be destroyed - Ukrainian military op commander
Posted by Tatiana

Those who don’t lay arms, will be destroyed - Ukrainian military op commander

Ukrainian soldiers are seen near a MI-8 military helicopter and armored personnel carrier at a checkpoint near the town of Izium in Eastern Ukraine, April 15, 2014. (Reuters / Dmitry Madorsky)

Ukrainian soldiers are seen near a MI-8 military helicopter and armored personnel carrier at a checkpoint near the town of Izium in Eastern Ukraine, April 15, 2014. (Reuters / Dmitry Madorsky)

A Ukrainian general leading the operation against protesters in the east of the country has warned that activists who refuse to lay down their arms will be “destroyed.”

Follow LIVE updates as military operation unfolding in eastern Ukraine

“They must be warned that if they do not lay down their arms,...Read More

Tagged with "John"
John Kerry: Climate Change
Category: GEOENGINEERING
Tags: John Kerry Climate Change

John Kerry: Climate Change Is 'Perhaps The World's Most Fearsome Weapon Of  Mass Destruction' Main Entry Image

By Arshad Mohammed

JAKARTA, Feb 16 (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry warned Indonesians on Sunday that man-made climate change could threaten their entire way of life, deriding those who doubted the existence of "perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction".

Kerry described those who do not accept that human activity causes global warming as "shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues", and said big companies and special interests should not be allowed to "hijack" the climate debate.

Aides said Kerry had chosen Indonesia for the first of what is to be a series of speeches on the topic this year partly because, as an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands, it is particularly at risk from rising sea levels.

"Because of climate change, it's no secret that today Indonesia is ... one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth," Kerry told an audience of students at a high-tech U.S.-funded cultural center at a Jakarta mall.

"It's not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk."

In the middle of a trip to Asia and the Middle East, Kerry argued that it made no sense for some nations to act to stem climate change while others did nothing.

"Think about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't keep us safe if the United States secures its nuclear arsenal while other countries fail to prevent theirs from falling into the hands of terrorists," he said.

"The bottom line is this: it is the same thing with climate change. In a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction."

Kerry's public push takes place against a backdrop of a negotiation among nearly 200 nations about a possible new global treaty on climate change that is scheduled to be agreed next year and to address greenhouse gas emissions from 2020.


U.S.-CHINESE COOPERATION

In Beijing on Friday, Kerry announced that China and the United States, the world's largest emitters of such gases, had agreed to intensify information-sharing and policy discussions on their plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions after 2020.

U.S. officials made clear they hope that the example of two countries historically on different sides of the debate working together might inspire other nations to do more.

The global scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have said it is at least 95 percent probable that human activities, led by the burning of fossil fuels, are the dominant cause of global warming since the 1950s.

However, some sceptics argue that a rise in global temperatures is due to natural variability or other non-human factors.

The fact that temperatures have risen more slowly in the past 15 years despite a continued rise in greenhouse gas emissions has also emboldened those who question the need for urgent action.

Kerry, who faces a politically tricky decision at home on whether to allow Canada's TransCanada Corp to build the Keystone XL pipeline over the opposition of environmental groups, had little patience for such sceptics in his speech.

"We just don't have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation," he said. "I'm talking about big companies that like it the way it is, that don't want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.

"We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists ... and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact," he said. "The science is unequivocal and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand."

(Reporting By Arshad Mohammed; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/16/john-kerry-climate-change_n_4798963.html

John Yudkin: The Man Who Tried to Warn Us About Sugar Tags: Health Hazard John Yudkin Sugar

pure_white_and_deadly-193x300A British professor’s 1972 book about the dangers of sugar is now seen as prophetic. Then why did it lead to the end of his career?

Julia Llewellyn Smith SMH.com  – February 12, 2014

http://tinyurl.com/k9fxkpj

A couple of years ago, an out-of-print book published in 1972 by a long-dead British professor suddenly became a collector’s item.

Copies that had been lying dusty on bookshelves were selling for hundreds of pounds, while copies were also being pirated online. Alongside such rarities as Madonna’s Sex, Stephen King’s Rage (written as Richard Bachman) and Promise Me Tomorrow by Nora Roberts; Pure, White and Deadly by John Yudkin, a book widely derided at the time of publication, was listed as one of the most coveted out-of-print works in the world.

How exactly did a long-forgotten book suddenly become so prized? The cause was a ground-breaking lecture called Sugar: the Bitter Truth by Robert Lustig, professor of paediatric endocrinology at the University of California, in which Lustig hailed Yudkin’s work as ”prophetic”.

”Without even knowing it, I was a Yudkin acolyte,” says Lustig, who tracked down the book after a tip from a colleague via an interlibrary loan. ”Everything this man said in 1972 was the God’s honest truth and if you want to read a true prophecy you find this book… I’m telling you every single thing this guy said has come to pass. I’m in awe.”

Posted on YouTube in 2009, Lustig’s 90-minute talk has received more than 4.1 million hits and is credited with kick-starting the anti-sugar movement, a campaign that calls for sugar to be treated as a toxin, like alcohol and tobacco, and for sugar-laden foods to be taxed, labelled with health warnings and banned for anyone under 18.

Lustig is one of a growing number of scientists who don’t just believe sugar makes you fat and rots teeth. They’re convinced it’s the cause of several chronic and very common illnesses, including heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s and diabetes. It’s also addictive, since it interferes with our appetites and creates an irresistible urge to eat.

This year, Lustig’s message has gone mainstream; many of the New Year diet books focused not on fat or carbohydrates, but on cutting out sugar and the everyday foods (soups, fruit juices, bread) that contain high levels of sucrose. The anti-sugar camp is not celebrating yet, however. They know what happened to Yudkin and what a ruthless and unscrupulous adversary the sugar industry proved to be.

The tale begins in the Sixties. That decade, nutritionists in university laboratories all over America and Western Europe were scrabbling to work out the reasons for an alarming rise in heart disease levels. By 1970, there were 520 deaths per 100,000 per year in England and Wales caused by coronary heart disease and 700 per 100,000 in America. After a while, a consensus emerged: the culprit was the high level of fat in our diets.

One scientist in particular grabbed the headlines: a nutritionist from the University of Minnesota called Ancel Keys. Keys, famous for inventing the K-ration – 12,000 calories packed in a little box for use by troops during the Second World War – declared fat to be public enemy number one and recommended that anyone who was worried about heart disease should switch to a low-fat ”Mediterranean” diet.

Instead of treating the findings as a threat, the food industry spied an opportunity. Market research showed there was a great deal of public enthusiasm for ”healthy” products and low-fat foods would prove incredibly popular. By the start of the Seventies, supermarket shelves were awash with low-fat yogurts, spreads, and even desserts and biscuits.

yudkinBut, amid this new craze, one voice stood out in opposition. John Yudkin, founder of the nutrition department at the University of London’s Queen Elizabeth College, had been doing his own experiments and, instead of laying the blame at the door of fat, he claimed there was a much clearer correlation between the rise in heart disease and a rise in the consumption of sugar. Rodents, chickens, rabbits, pigs and students fed sugar and carbohydrates, he said, invariably showed raised blood levels of triglycerides (a technical term for fat), which was then, as now, considered a risk factor for heart disease. Sugar also raised insulin levels, linking it directly to type 2 diabetes.

When he outlined these results in Pure, White and Deadly, in 1972, he questioned whether there was any causal link at all between fat and heart disease. After all, he said, we had been eating substances like butter for centuries, while sugar, had, up until the 1850s, been something of a rare treat for most people. ”If only a small fraction of what we know about the effects of sugar were to be revealed in relation to any other material used as a food additive,” he wrote, ”that material would promptly be banned.”

This was not what the food industry wanted to hear. When devising their low-fat products, manufacturers had needed a fat substitute to stop the food tasting like cardboard, and they had plumped for sugar. The new ”healthy” foods were low-fat but had sugar by the spoonful and Yudkin’s findings threatened to disrupt a very profitable business.

As a result, says Lustig, there was a concerted campaign by the food industry and several scientists to discredit Yudkin’s work. The most vocal critic was Ancel Keys.

Keys loathed Yudkin and, even before Pure, White and Deadly appeared, he published an article, describing Yudkin’s evidence as ”flimsy indeed”.

”Yudkin always maintained his equanimity, but Keys was a real a——-, who stooped to name-calling and character assassination,” says Lustig, speaking from New York, where he’s just recorded yet another television interview.

The British Sugar Bureau put out a press release dismissing Yudkin’s claims as ”emotional assertions” and the World Sugar Research Organisation described his book as ”science fiction”. When Yudkin sued, it printed a mealy-mouthed retraction, concluding: ”Professor Yudkin recognises that we do not agree with [his] views and accepts that we are entitled to express our disagreement.”

Yudkin was ”uninvited” to international conferences. Others he organised were cancelled at the last minute, after pressure from sponsors, including, on one occasion, Coca-Cola. When he did contribute, papers he gave attacking sugar were omitted from publications. The British Nutrition Foundation, one of whose sponsors was Tate & Lyle, never invited anyone from Yudkin’s internationally acclaimed department to sit on its committees. Even Queen Elizabeth College reneged on a promise to allow the professor to use its research facilities when he retired in 1970 (to write Pure, White and Deadly). Only after a letter from Yudkin’s solicitor was he offered a small room in a separate building.

”Can you wonder that one sometimes becomes quite despondent about whether it is worthwhile trying to do scientific research in matters of health?” he wrote. ”The results may be of great importance in helping people to avoid disease, but you then find they are being misled by propaganda designed to support commercial interests in a way you thought only existed in bad B films.”

And this ”propaganda” didn’t just affect Yudkin. By the end of the Seventies, he had been so discredited that few scientists dared publish anything negative about sugar for fear of being similarly attacked. As a result, the low-fat industry, with its products laden with sugar, boomed.

Yudkin’s detractors had one trump card: his evidence often relied on observations, rather than on explanations, of rising obesity, heart disease and diabetes rates. ”He could tell you these things were happening but not why, or at least not in a scientifically acceptable way,” says David Gillespie, author of the bestselling Sweet Poison. ”Three or four of the hormones that would explain his theories had not been discovered.”

”Yudkin knew a lot more data was needed to support his theories, but what’s important about his book is its historical significance,” says Lustig. ”It helps us understand how a concept can be bastardised by dark forces of industry.”

From the Eighties onwards, several discoveries gave new credence to Yudkin’s theories. Researchers found fructose, one of the two main carbohydrates in refined sugar, is primarily metabolised by the liver; while glucose (found in starchy food like bread and potatoes) is metabolised by all cells. This means consuming excessive fructose puts extra strain on the liver, which then converts fructose to fat.

This induces a condition known as insulin resistance, or metabolic syndrome, which doctors now generally acknowledge to be the major risk factor for heart disease, diabetes and obesity, as well as a possible factor for many cancers. Yudkin’s son, Michael, a former professor of biochemistry at Oxford, says his father was never bitter about the way he was treated, but, ”he was hurt personally”.

”More than that,” says Michael, ”he was such an enthusiast of public health, it saddened him to see damage being done to us all, because of vested interests in the food industry.”

One of the problems with the anti-sugar message – then and now – is how depressing it is. The substance is so much part of our culture, that to be told buying children an ice cream may be tantamount to poisoning them, is most unwelcome. But Yudkin, who grew up in dire poverty in east London and went on to win a scholarship to Cambridge, was no killjoy.

”He didn’t ban sugar from his house, and certainly didn’t deprive his grandchildren of ice cream or cake,” recalls his granddaughter, Ruth, a psychotherapist. ”He was hugely fun-loving and would never have wanted to be deprived of a pleasure, partly, perhaps, because he grew up in poverty and had worked so hard to escape that level of deprivation.”

”My father certainly wasn’t fanatical,” adds Michael. ”If he was invited to tea and offered cake, he’d accept it. But at home, it’s easy to say no to sugar in your tea. He believed if you educated the public to avoid sugar, they’d understand that.”

Thanks to Lustig and the rehabilitation of Yudkin’s reputation, Penguin republished Pure, White and Deadly 18 months ago. Obesity rates in the UK are now 10 times what they were when it was first published and the amount of sugar we eat has increased 31.5 per cent since 1990 (thanks to all the ”invisible” sugar in everything from processed food and orange juice to coleslaw and yogurt). The number of diabetics in the world has nearly trebled. The numbers dying of heart disease has decreased, thanks to improved drugs, but the number living with the disease is growing steadily.

As a result, the World Health Organisation is set to recommend a cut in the amount of sugar in our diets from 22 teaspoons per day to almost half that. But its director-general, Margaret Chan, has warned that, while it might be on the back foot at last, the sugar industry remains a formidable adversary, determined to safeguard its market position.

Recently, UK food campaigners have complained that they’re being shunned by ministers who are more than willing to take meetings with representatives from the food industry. ”It is not just Big Tobacco any more,” Chan said last year. ”Public health must also contend with Big Food, Big Soda and Big Alcohol. All of these industries fear regulation and protect themselves by using the same tactics. They include front groups, lobbies, promises of self-regulation, lawsuits and industry-funded research that confuses the evidence and keeps the public in doubt.”

Dr Julian Cooper, head of research at AB Sugar, insists the increase in the incidence of obesity in Britain is a result of, ”a range of complex factors”.

”Reviews of the body of scientific evidence by expert committees have concluded that consuming sugar as part of a balanced diet does not induce lifestyle diseases such as diabetes and heart disease,” he says.If you look up Robert Lustig on Wikipedia, nearly two-thirds of the studies cited there to repudiate Lustig’s views were funded by Coca-Cola.

But Gillespie believes the message is getting through. ”More people are avoiding sugar, and when this happens companies adjust what they’re selling,” he says. It’s just a shame, he adds, that a warning that could have been taken on board 40 years ago went unheeded: ”Science took a disastrous detour in ignoring Yudkin. It was to the detriment of the health of millions.”

 

John Stainbeck on Love. A Letter to his son. Tags: John Stainbeck on Love.
 
 

“Don’t worry about losing. If it is right, it happens. The main thing is not to hurry. Nothing good gets away.” 

In 1958, John Steinbeck—Nobel prize winner and one of he most celebrated American writers of the twentieth century—receives a letter. It was from his son Thom, who, while away at boarding school, had fallen in love with a girl named Susan. John answered his son that same day.

As an old correspondence enthusiast, I cannot help but archive this letter in theBeautiful, Tender & Wise file and pull it out every couple months, when the forever-young and always-hopeful side of my heart has had enough cynicism for breakfast.

 

New York

November 10, 1958

 

Dear Thom:

 

We had your letter this morning. I will answer it from my point of view and of course Elaine will from hers.

 

First—if you are in love—that’s a good thing—that’s about the best thing that can happen to anyone. Don’t let anyone make it small or light to you.

 

Second—There are several kinds of love. One is a selfish, mean, grasping, egotistical thing which uses love for self-importance. This is the ugly and crippling kind.

The other is an outpouring of everything good in you—of kindness and consideration and respect—not only the social respect of manners but the greater respect which is recognition of another person as unique and valuable.

The first kind can make you sick and small and weak but the second can release in you strength, and courage and goodness and even wisdom you didn’t know you had.

 

You say this is not puppy love. If you feel so deeply—of course it isn’t puppy love.

 

But I don’t think you were asking me what you feel. You know better than anyone. What you wanted me to help you with is what to do about it—and that I can tell you.

 

Glory in it for one thing and be very glad and grateful for it.

 

The object of love is the best and most beautiful. Try to live up to it.

 

If you love someone—there is no possible harm in saying so—only you must remember that some people are very shy and sometimes the saying must take that shyness into consideration.

 

Girls have a way of knowing or feeling what you feel, but they usually like to hear it also.

 

It sometimes happens that what you feel is not returned for one reason or another—but that does not make your feeling less valuable and good.

 

Lastly, I know your feeling because I have it and I’m glad you have it.

 

We will be glad to meet Susan. She will be very welcome. But Elaine will make all such arrangements because that is her province and she will be very glad to. She knows about love too and maybe she can give you more help than I can.

 

And don’t worry about losing. If it is right, it happens—The main thing is not to hurry. Nothing good gets away.

 

Love,

 

Fa

 

 
 

John Steinbeck hated the telephone and used letters as his main outlet for communication.

You can find this letter along with many others, that open a timeless door into his life and work, in Steinbeck, A Life in Letters.

RSS
Search a Blog

May 2014 (1)
April 2014 (377)
March 2014 (692)
February 2014 (747)
January 2014 (962)
December 2013 (852)
November 2013 (858)
October 2013 (858)
September 2013 (781)
August 2013 (692)
July 2013 (692)
June 2013 (678)
May 2013 (687)
April 2013 (313)
Blog Categories

WHO IS ONLINE
Support B.O.L.E. in two ways

Your support to have the B.O.L.E. (incl.all articles) open and free for everyone is much appreciated.

Shop with us by AMAZON

or by clicking on

In Your Service

B.O.L.E.

 

 

A Time To Act - One Step

UNIVERSAL ONENESS


This website is powered by Spruz