A new study shows that mothers who use acetaminophen during pregnancy may increase their child’s risk of developing childhood attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and other emotional and behavior issues. This new study was published in JAMA Pediatrics.
The self-proclaimed (and generally accepted) gold standard of the pharmaceutical industry is the double-blind, placebo-controlled study (a placebo being a neutral, ineffective substance; in the case of vaccinations, a saline solution). There is a lot wrong with this gold standard, but let’s just accept that it is the standard that a drug’s claims to effectiveness and safety are expected to meet. Without positive studies like this, drugs will rarely be accepted by the government regulators.
Vaccines are drugs, and they are made by the pharmaceutical industry. But they are the exception to the rule, for the abovementioned gold standard is NOT applied to vaccines. There is no double-blind, placebo-controlled study that shows that vaccines are either safe or effective, let alone a study that shows the effects of multiple vaccines given, as is common practice, simultaneously. Those studies simply are not done. The reason the pharmaceutical industry gives for that is that it would be unethical to withhold a vaccine from the children in the placebo group. It seems to bother nobody that this means that children (and adults) are injected with drugs that have in no way been proven to be either safe or effective.
Vaccine efficacy is fatally flawed as a substitute for vaccine effectiveness. A vaccine’s efficacy is measured by the proportion of vaccinees developing a certain concentration of antibodies, a concentration believed to be protective. But scientists have already known for three decades that antibodies do NOT equal immunity. The only way to measure vaccine efficacy in a lab is completely useless for measuring its effectiveness in an epidemic. But that too seems to bother nobody; in lieu of its effectiveness at protection, the drug’s efficacy in antibody production is still used universally to sell it.
Coalition climate numbskulls back again flogging CCS at a cost of $209 billion Lachlan Barker, Independent Australia 25 August 2016, The Coalition’s latest brainsnap of flogging Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) as a solution to CO2 emissions from coal-fired power stations will set the taxpayer back an eye-watering $209 billion, says Lachlan Barker. “…… the utterly ludicrous notion of Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), as a solution to CO2 emissions from coal fired power stations has raised its idiot head once more.The CCS process involves capturing the CO2 emitted from the burner chamber, compressing it, and sequestering it underground.Resources Minister Matt Canavan recently handed out $23.7 million to various bodies around the country to (once more) discover CCS can never work. So I can tell you right here, right now, CCS is not feasible in any way — financially, ecologically or in an engineering sense.
The Unlimited Power of Ocean Winds, NYT By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, AUG. 27, 2016 The first offshore wind farm in American waters, near Block Island, R.I., was completed this month. With just five turbines, the farm won’t make much of a dent in the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels, but it shows the promise this renewable energy source could have. When the turbines start spinning in November, they will power the island, which currently relies on diesel generators, and will also send electricity to the rest of Rhode Island.Putting windmills offshore, where the wind is stronger and more reliable than on land, could theoretically provide about four times the amount of electricity as is generated on the American grid today from all sources. This resource could be readily accessible to areas on the coasts, where 53 percent of Americans live.This technology is already used extensively in Britain, Denmark, Germany and other European countries, which have in the last 15 years invested billions of dollars in offshore wind farms in the North, Baltic and Irish Seas. In 2013, offshore wind accounted for 1.5 percent of all electricity used in the European Union, with all wind sources contributing 9.9 percent of electricity. By contrast, wind power made up only 4.7 percent of electricity in the United States last year.
Elsewhere, the government spent ¥1.38 trillion on projects including the decommissioning of reactors at the disaster-crippled Fukushima No. 1 plant, checks on food for radioactive contamination and building a research and development facility.Tepco and six other power utilities charged their customers at least ¥327 billion in electricity rate hikes after Japan’s worst-ever nuclear accident. Moreover, consumers paid ¥219.3 billion or more for Tepco, chiefly to finance the maintenance of equipment to clean up radioactive water at the plant and the operation of call centers to deal with inquiries about compensation payments.http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/08/28/national/public-cost-fukushima-nuclear-accident-cleanup-topped-4-2-trillion-end-march/#.V8MWHTXKO-c
Five years after the twin catastrophes of the tsunami and nuclear meltdown, villages sit silent and empty.Thousands of workers still toil to clean up the radioactive material but it could be decades before their work is finished.As Japan continues to suffer the toxic aftermath of one of its worst ever disasters, 101 East reveals that the countryside may never again be safe.http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2016/08/fukushima-time-bomb-160824122108827.html
Nuclear scientists push for freedom to express views without fear of reprisals http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nuclear-scientists-push-for-freedom-to-express-views-without-fear-of-reprisals/article31219139/ — The Globe and Mail, Aug. 01, 2016
Scientists working for the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission have asked their union to negotiate a policy on scientific integrity that would allow them to express their views about nuclear-safety issues without fear of reprisals from management.
Why is there a difference between men showing their nipples in public being legal and approved, but for women to show even ONE nipple is illegal and subject to fines or prison? Somehow this sex distinction does not make logical sense, just because of a little bit of red skin pigment. Why is the skin on women illegal, but the same skin on men is legal?
Source: NATIONAL GO TOPLESS DAY; Why Can Men Show Their Nipples, But Women Can’t? Why Is Public Nudity Legal In EU Countries But Illegal In America, Supposedly The Most Free Country On Earth? | A Green Road Journal
While international efforts are underway to help keep dwindling populations of monarch butterflies from disappearing, scientists are raising concerns about how
A few of its best known therapeutic roles today include treating chronic health conditions like asthma, arthritis, cancer, and gastrointestinal issues. It has also been shown to reduce edema (swelling) from brain tumors after patients underwent radiotherapy [Kirste, 2011].