EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Red wine and Green tea may extend human life

    Diet it seems is a major contributory factor.An experiment with the worms proves that sugar turns on a genetic sequence that increases the amount of insulin produced by an organism, which in turn causes the body to demand more sugar. This increases damage to cells in the body, speeding up the slow degradation of cells that contribute to aging. Red wine and green tea have been shown to help repair cells and contribute to an increased lifespan.

    The most significant finding is that the worms remained vigorous till until the very end of their extended lives. In human terms it would mean that a person would remain young for decades, growing old very slowly. It also suggests a radical new method for treating maladies of aging such as Alzheimer’s, Huntington’s and some cancers, which might be put off or eliminated if youth is extended. ‘Age is the single largest risk factor for an enormous number of diseases,’ says Kenyon. ‘So if you can essentially postpone aging, then you can have beneficial effects on a whole wide range of disease.’

    When asked whether it was possible to be immortal Kenyon says ‘I think it might be possible. I’ll tell you why. You can think about the life span of a cell being the integral of two vectors in a sense, the force of destruction and the force of prevention, maintenance and repair. In most animals the force of destruction has still got the edge. But why not bump up the genes just a little bit, the maintenance genes. All you have to do is have the maintenance level a little higher. It doesn’t have to be much higher. It just has to be a little higher, so that it counterbalances the force of destruction. And don’t forget, the germ lineage is immortal. So it’s possible at least in principle.’

  • US Speeds up tide power permits

    At the Portland meeting on October 2, FERC officials stressed that for the pilot program to succeed, state and other federal agencies would have to be on board or the timetable wouldn’t work.

    "We need other agencies to develop their own processes for this to work," said John Katz, an energy attorney in FERC’s office of general counsel.

    During a morning panel, wave company officials wondered whether the 5 MW limit on the project is sufficient and suggested the license might be granted for a period longer than five years.

    "A five-year term is not long enough to get a return on your investment," said Daniel Irwin, president and CEO of Free Flow Power Corporation, a company that designs and manufactures turbines mainly used to harness river energy. "Why not grant a longer-term license and make the investor or company take the risk. If anything meets this threshold it’ll get pulled."

    Irwin also wondered "what thresholds will there be for it to be required to be pulled out?"

    Kevin Bannister, vice president of business development for Finavera Renewables, agreed that the unknowns are a block to more investment in ocean energies. "The investment community looks at regulatory uncertainties as probably the primary barrier to getting involved in this."

    Finavera lowered the first test buoy for wave energy off the Oregon Coast in late August and has a project in the planning process in Makah Bay in Washington. Bannister also wondered whether the same amount of work would be required of a developer for the pilot 5-year license as for a full 30-year commercial one. If that were the case "we’d obviously go for the commercial license."

    Steve Kopf, a consultant with Ocean Power Technologies Inc. (OPT) asked if there would be a reward for positive results. "If there are problems, we take it out. But if not, do we get to build it out?"

    OPT wants to put 14 buoys off the Oregon coast near Reedsport by 2009, which could expand to a wave park of 200 buoys in the area.

    Finavera’s Bannister agreed. "What’s the reward once we’ve proven that our technologies are doing what they do? From our perspective it should be an expedited permitting process."

    Following the meeting FERC’s Katz said he felt the proposal got a mixed reception, with Oregon state regulators more eager to move than Washington ones. "The Oregon folks say: Yeah we’re there. We absolutely want to do this. The Washington folks say there are a lot of problems here. We just don’t know."

    Annie Szvetecz, the southwest regional assistance lead in the Washington Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance, mainly agreed with Katz’s assessment. In a phone conversation following the conference, Szvetecz said Washington is facing different challenges from Oregon.

    Oregon is "being very pro-active about wanting the ocean technology," Szvetcz said. The feedback she’s getting from her agencies is that "the time frame for the permits doesn’t necessarily overlap with the six-month proposal.

    Tim Stearns, senior energy policy specialist with the Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development said one key is that Oregon wants to put its projects in the Pacific Ocean while Washington is looking toward locating them in the Puget Sound "which has a lot of problems as is."

    From FERC’s perspective, Katz said, it’s important that state agencies come on board. "It’s a large part of the battle if a relevant state agency or state government wants to help out because they have authority to make recommendations. They have the Coastal Zone Management Act. Input into all the other stuff. So if the state says, `We’re comfortable with all this stuff. We can do it,’—That really gives a big push, because they are a major player. Yes it’s a federal license, but the states are major players….It’s one of those things—if there’s a will there’s a way. And if there’s not, it won’t happen."

    Miriam Widman has more than 20 years experience as a journalist and has covered the wave and solar industries for Off the Record Research, an investment research group. She also contributes to NPR and to the Willamette Week, a weekly newspaper in Portland, Oregon.

  • PM told to get moving on emissions trading

    One of Australia’s most prominent energy experts says the economy will suffer serious damage unless an emissions trading scheme is rapidly introduced.

    Ian Dunlop is a former chairman of the Australian Coal Association and the Australian Institute of Company Directors and is the head of a CSIRO research centre.

    Mr Dunlop has accused the Prime Minister John Howard of a lack of leadership on climate change.

    He says the technology is available to make change and the extent of the problem is being downplayed.

    "We’ve been very good at managing the sort of incremental improvement of a resource-based economy, where every year we tweak it a little bit," he said.

    "We put in WorkChoices, we do things like that, we make it slightly better, but that’s management.

    "What we need now is leadership that really focuses on the big issue, which is climate change, and how we’re going to address that."

  • Ethanol plant shelved for lack of support

    The development of a $120 million ethanol plant in Condobolin, in central western New South Wales, has been shelved.

    The proponent, Agri Energy Limited, has announced a restructure and will not be going ahead with any of its development plans in Australia.

    Instead, the company say it has decided to invest offshore.

    The announcement, made through the Australian Stock Exchange, says the uncertainty of grain supply and lack of local support for alternative fuels drove the decision.

    Company chief executive officer Wayne Turner has declined to comment on the restructure.

    Approval for the plant at Condobolin had been expected to be announced by the NSW Department of Planning within weeks.

    Lachlan Shire Council general manager George Cowan says the decision will devastate the local community and council.

    He says the council had worked hard to make Condobolin an attractive location for the company to develop its new plant.

    "Council supported it strongly. We have in fact discounted, quite substantially, contributions to infrastructure to try and attract the development to this council, versus some other sites that were talked about in NSW," he said.

    "It was well supported and would be, should it be reinvigorated."

  • Collapse in carbon price halts green schemes

    Doubts were raised about how a state scheme would merge with any national emissions trading scheme when the Prime Minister, John Howard, released his emissions trading report in May, according to The Sydney Morning Herald (11/9/2007, p.2).

    Energy-saving devices no longer economical: The New South Wales carbon price, already languishing around $11 a tonne, had fallen further in July, when Howard appeared to exclude demand management and energy efficiency abatement from the scheme. At $6, it was no longer econ­omical for companies such as Easy Being Green, Neco and Fieldforce to install light bulbs, low-flow showerheads and other energy-saving devices into homes free or at heavily discounted prices. Paul Gilding, CEO of Easy Being Green, said the scheme’s most cost-effective and efficient way of cutting greenhouse gas pollution would disappear. "That will be a tragedy," he said. "This is the scheme that is cutting greenhouse gas pollution at the mass consumer level."

    Certificates too easy to obtain: The NSW Government had been accused by some market partici­pants and green groups of con­tributing to the collapse by making it too easy to generate cer­tificates that did not represent genuine greenhouse gas cuts. The NSW Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, Phil Koperberg, had declined a request for an interview. A spokesperson for him blamed the Federal Government for the market crash. The State Government had formed a taskforce to investigate the price collapse.

    Energy efficiency companies struggling: The head of the NSW advisory panel on climate change, Martijn Wilder, from the law firm Baker & McKenzie, had said he believed a number of energy efficiency companies in the market were "on the edge". He said there were two simple factors: the oversup­ply of certificates and the uncer­tainty in the market since the Federal Government announced its carbon trading scheme. Fieldforce’s managing direc­tor, Craig Bathie, said if the price of carbon remained at $6, more than half of NSW householders would miss out on free or dis­counted energy installations, and his company might have to lay off a couple of hundred em­ployees in rural areas. Neco’s carbon services direc­tor, Ben O’Callaghan, had said his company might have to close its regional Carbon Services Div­ision, and 60 jobs in 10 regional locations would be lost.

    The Sydney Morning Herald, 11/9/2007, p. 2

  • Factory Farms poison our diets

    Conditions inside animal factory farms

    To understand the conditions present in these factory farms, you must first examine what the animals in these factory farms are eating. The factory farmer has redefined what constitutes animal feed in a ‘bottom line’ effort to save money. They seem to care little about the health or the happiness of the animal, and instead treat it like a product. The low quality standards placed on animal feed by these "farmers" prove that little consideration is being taken towards the animal or the consumer.

    For example, some of the "ingredients" commonly used in animal factory feed include: (think hard about this list the next time you order a hamburger…)

    • Excessive grains — Abnormally high amounts can make the animals sick, especially natural grass eaters like cattle. Their bodies are not designed to handle a corn-rich diet; as a result, these animals can form liver abscesses and excessively acidic digestive systems.

    • Plastics — For the many animals whose digestive systems still need roughage to move food through, these factories have turned to the use of plastic pellets instead of plant-based roughage to compensate for a lack of natural fiber in the feed.

    • Meat from members of the same species — The factory farming industry is turning farm animals into cannibals. Scientific research has linked this practice to the spread of both mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy or BSE) and avian bird flu.

    • Manure and animal waste — This can include cattle manure, swine waste, and poultry waste. It can also contain wood, sand, rocks, dirt, sawdust and other non-food substances.

    • Animal byproducts — This is often categorized as "animal protein products" and may appear as rendered feathers, hair, skin, hooves, blood, internal organs, intestines, beaks and bones. These may also include dead horses, euthanized cats and dogs, and road kill.

    • Drugs and chemicals (including dangerous antibiotics) — Drugs are frequently implemented in order to fight disease, control parasites and reduce animals’ stress from overcrowded living conditions. However, the antimicrobials used on some poultry promote the accumulation of arsenic inside their bodies. This is a highly carcinogenic chemical that can then contaminate the water supply near the farm, or emerge in the meat later eaten by consumers.

    In fact, an estimated 13.5 million pounds of antibiotics are used on factory farm animals every year in the U.S. These antibiotics are grossly overused and are especially dangerous because they aid in the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria — an urgent health problem that costs the American taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

    Factories of despair

    Factory farm animals endure great suffering through the entire process of being housed, fed, transported and slaughtered. Approximately 95% of factory-raised animals are subject to deplorable conditions such as overcrowding, hunger, thirst and sometimes-fatal weather extremes. Many times, they are kept conscious or even skinned alive during the process of slaughtering.

    The only significant law regarding the handling of factory animals is the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Although this law does require that slaughtered animals be rendered insensible to pain before the process begins, it is insufficient due to the actual wording of the law, which does not cover the handling of poultry. In addition, all other treatment of factory animals is condoned by default since it is not covered under the law. While many other industrialized nations have enacted restrictions on cruel factory farming practices, the U.S. lags behind other countries on the issue of animal cruelty. The torture of animals is well tolerated in the United States today. (And why not? The U.S. also tolerates the torture of war prisoners. This "civilized" nation has proven itself to be anything but civilized…)

    According to interviews with slaughterhouse workers included in Gail Eisnitz’s book Slaughterhouse, the end of an animal’s life is a torturous and abusive process. One employee elaborates on the abuse that animals endure by reporting, "On the farm where I work, they drag the live ones who can’t stand up anymore out of the crate. They put a metal snare around her ear or foot and drag her the full length of the building. These animals are just screaming in pain. The slaughtering part doesn’t bother me. It’s the way they’re treated when they’re alive. Dying animals unable to walk are tossed into the ‘downer pile,’ and many suffer agonies until, after one or two days, they are finally killed." Animals such as cows, calves, pigs and chickens are made to live truly horrible lives, however short, while being housed in factory farms."

    The routine torture of dairy cows

    Milking cows are treated like machines; confined from all other animals including their calves, they are made to stand on concrete floors in their own waste. In order to manipulate genetics and produce more milk, farmers pump the cows full of chemicals, hormones and antibiotics, many of which may make their way into the milk we drink and the cheese we eat.

    Just like beef cattle, many of these cows suffer from disease, reproductive problems and lameness due to the stress of the factory setting. They produce milk for about eight or nine years until they are no longer able, at which time they are slaughtered. One of the most frequently cited reasons for having to send a cow to slaughter, however, is mastitis — an excruciating swelling and irritation of the mammary glands caused by bacteria.

    It’s not only the adult animals that are treated cruelly: taken away from their mothers shortly after birth, male calves are most often raised for veal from the day after they are born. For anywhere from three to 18 weeks, they are kept chained by the neck in dark, cramped stalls, unable to move in any direction. They are fed a diet consisting mainly of a milk substitute that promotes rapid weight gain but low enough in iron to cause anemia, thus keeping the flesh pale. Many of them suffer from lameness, pneumonia and diarrhea. White veal consistently has been found to contain residues of carcinogenic growth hormones. (Think twice nice time before you order veal. Consuming this is directly promoting the torture of these mammals.)

    Beef cattle don’t have it much better. Many are sent to live in overcrowded feedlots where they are given an average of 14 square feet to roam after being castrated, dehorned and branded.

    Producing pork with yet more animal torture

    Pregnant pigs, also known as sows, are confined to metal crates that are a mere two feet wide. This constriction renders them unable to satisfy their own basic psychological needs or engage in almost any natural behavior. This causes a great deal of stress and suffering for the animal, many times enabling her to do little more than stand up and lie down. The sow rarely even has the capacity to full extend her limbs or turn around.

    This is a process that the sow must go through until she is unable to have children anymore, in which case she will most likely be slaughtered. These methods are inhumane and cause sows to experience frustration, fear, and physical ailments such as lameness, repetitive bar biting, soreness, head waving, sham chewing and crippling joint disorders.

    "Forced to lie and live in their own urine and excrement, the sows chew frenziedly on bars and chains, as foraging animals will do when denied even straw to eat or sleep on, or else engage in stereotypical nest-building with straw that isn’t there. Everywhere you see tumors, ulcers, cysts, lesions, torn ears — these afflictions never examined by a vet, never even noticed anymore by the largely immigrant labor charged with their care. When the sows leave their iron crates after four months of pregnancy, it is only to be driven and dragged into other crates just as small to give birth," according to Matthew Scully, author of the book Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. "Then it’s back to the gestation crate for another four months, and so on, for about eight or nine pregnancies, until they expire from the sheer punishment of it, or are culled as too sick and weak to go on."

    And guess what? All this negative energy goes right into the meat that consumers swallow. Once consumed by a human, the energy of that meat is absorbed into that person’s system, making them feel sick, angry or afraid, just like the emotions of the animal from which the flesh was taken. Is it any wonder that meat eaters are the most angry, violent and war-mongering individuals in society today?

    Atrocious conditions for chickens

    Like pigs, chickens grow up in a similar state of disarray, forced to live through nearly intolerable conditions. Approximately six billion "broiler" chickens are produced and sold each year by the factory farmer to sources like supermarkets and fast food chicken restaurants. As many as 60% of supermarket chickens are infected with Salmonella enteritis. Another pathogen that can be spread from chickens to humans is Campylobacter, which can cause infection, illness or death.

    ###

    About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health researcher and author with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guies, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a maker of energy efficient LED lights that greatly reduce CO2 emissions. He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He’s also a noted pioneer in the email marketing software industry, having been the first to launch an HTML email newsletter technology that has grown to become a standard in the industry. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates.