Transgendered...does it really exist?

The idea of being transgender is that a person prefers activities and clothing usually seen in the opposite se/x and begins to feel that she or he was born in the wrong body. And of course, surgeons are willing to mutilate the body to allow the person to dress in costume to look like the opposite gender. However, I have yet to meet a transgendered person who really acts like the gender they think they are. And there is a good biological reason for this.

If you have a kid who feels this way, here's how to talk to them and tell them, "how the hog eats the cabbage" so to speak.

Transgendered? NOT

1. Each cell has a "central computer" called DNA. 2. Your gender is encoded in this central computer in each cell of your body. Males have an XY chromosome combination and females, an XX combination. All the billions of cells in your body have this encoded thusly. Therefore you cannot really change your gender...all you can do is have your body mutilated and dress in costume. Now, do you really want to do that?  Especially in our society, fact is, you can change roles, dress in whatever you want etc. I've had short crew cut hair most of my life and I don't really own a skirt. I was a Tom boy and loved cars and riding bicycles and only used my dolls, my hopeful Mum kept buying me, to tie up when I was playing cowboys with the boys. In school, and since we moved a lot, I went to a new school every 6 months to a year, the kids tried to bully me because I looked like a geek but I stood up to them and did a fist fight when called for, usually getting the bully in big trouble and after that they left me alone.  Be what you are but be true to yourself.   I still love riding bicycles and motorcycles, love wearing pants, wear no makeup etc. And, I don't even own any skirts, but I love being a wife, loved being a mother and raising our son and love being a grandma and a great grandma. Each of us is a total individual so we don't have to fit into any mold except OUR mold!  The only "normal" for us is OUR normal and that will be different for every person!

Campaign Notes

This well researched thought provoking blog is really worth reading!

Well, this two year campaign season has finally come to a head. Through all of the debates, all of the press interviews, all of the talking heads, all of the newspaper ink spilled, all of the social media chatter, we have finally crystallized the most vital issue of the day, the greatest threat to the security and prosperity of the nation.

It isn't Benghazi.

It isn't the fact that we have the largest number of Americans not participating in the workforce--ever.

It isn't the Democrats' Obamacare plans with $6K premiums AND $6K annual deductibles.

It isn't the fact that we have had a string of Islamic mass murders on our own soil over the past eight years.

It isn't the fact that the Secretary of State allowed the entire world to read our most classified emails by having them on an unencrypted private server in her home.

It isn't the fact that Clinton erased all of those emails AFTER the server was subpeonaed by Congress.

It isn't that the FBI gave immunity to her coconspirators and then agreed to destroy THEIR records on laptops.

It isn't that the FBI and Justice Department failed to indict on all of this.

It isn't Obama and Clinton funneling almost a billion dollars to Iran in cash.

It isn't the loss of American power and prestige around the world under Clinton and Obama.

It isn't the rise of ISIS because of Clinton and Obama's disastrous foreign policies.

It isn't the war on the Catholic Church by Obama and Clinton's acolytes.

It isn't the commitment by Clinton to strengthen Planned Parenthood and increase access to abortion and force taxpayer funding of abortions.

It isn't that under this administration 1 out of every six Americans now relies on Food Stamps.

No. It's none of these things.

The most important issue driving the electorate now is the fact that Donald Trump spoke like a pig twelve years ago, and good Christians everywhere simply cannot abide such behavior. Ever.

Never mind that Clinton orchestrated intimidation and character assassination against her husband's victims of sexual assault.

Nope. Trump has a potty mouth, and had a bad attitude toward women, and that matters more than national and economic security, more than religious liberty, and more than the right to life itself. We cannot have a pig in the White House! Not until Bill moves back with Hillary.

Guest blog by Dr Gerard Nadal, PhD (reprinted with the kind permission of the author)

New Yorker article does not prove allegations about Trump

Apparently Tony Schwartz the writer, detailed in the New Yorker article, was contracted to write Donald Trump's autobiography.  Mr. Trump allowed Schwartz to shadow him for 18 months (which is impressive because obviously, Trump was not trying to hide anything).  But lately, Schwartz, a lifetime liberal, has turned against Trump publicly in the an article in the New Yorker entitled "Trump's ghost writer tells all". 

Trouble is,  IMO, Schwartz failed to prove his allegations that Trump is a "sociopath" etc.  On the contrary, in the lengthy article, Trump comes out as a rather nice individual.  While reading the article, I got to thinking that Schwartz's biggest beef against the GOP presidential candidate was possibly rooted in a bit of envy, that Trump has continued to be so successful in business.  (It should be noted that one of the criticisms often leveled against Trump is that he had several bankruptcies however, this seems to have been true of most who have made a success in business - including greats like Wanamaker and Macy, and is where the term "fourth time" comes from, i.e. after three bankruptcies, the fourth time might be the success.

Most writers, if being honest, will describe the many rejections they received, before they finally got their first chance at being published.  Hemingway described wall papering one of the walls in his home with rejection slips!

In the following analysis, I give details on why, I feel that Schwartz did not prove his allegations about Trump.

First, in his attempt to "prove" that Trump is a "sociopath", Schwartz alleged that:

"Trump  prefers TV as news source"... well, newsflash, all the presidents and busy people do that, in addition to a great percentage of the American public.  If this makes Trump a "sociopath" then, most of us other Americans are also guilty as charged.

"Trump has a short attention span" states Schwartz...My answer to this is that Trump is probably doing a lot of multi level processing in handling his businesses, and has what Dr Ted Hallowell, PhD, calls a "race car brain" which appears as a short attention span but is capable of thinking through many things simultaneously, a talent only observed in a small number of intelligent individuals (including Dr Hallowell, himself). Dr Hallowell says another name for this, is "a dose of American life"

"Trump hasn't read a book straight through his adult life" is the next allegation... Schwartz bases this on seeing no books on Trump's desk however, many highly intelligent, but busy people, read audio books or read on the computer (including our son who has a PhD and is very busy)... No basis for this allegation either...

As for Donald Trump being incorrect in citing a book title, that is a common error, especially for a very busy person.  I keep a database of books I read - if I didn't, I would find it difficult to remember titles and authors and I read A LOT.

It seemed to me that despite Donald Trump allowing Schwartz to shadow him for 18 months, Schwartz understood neither Donald Trump nor what it takes to run big businesses as Trump does and that Trump allowed Schwartz to shadow him, suggests Trump had nothing to hide which impressed me.

Schwartz admitted not being honest in his book about Trump ... which leads me to wonder how I would know if he's being honest now. 

Schwartz describes Trump as having an "insatiable hunger for money, praise and celebrity"  but this again, describes most Americans and probably is true of Schwartz himself.

When Schwartz  quoted Trump as saying that it was "Possible that the president [Obama] was born in Africa" as a "proof" of his allegation that Mr Trump is ignorant, this again falls greatly short of proving the allegation and suggests it is Mr Schwartz who is lacking in facts.  In fact, it is likely true, that Mr Obama was born in Africa - at least, this was what the President claimed in his book, DREAMS of MY FATHER written a few years before he became president... however, the common conservative allegation that this makes Mr Obama not a native born American is false - those of us who studied "government" know that if born to an American mother even if the birth takes place in another country, the baby is considered a natural American.

The New Yorker article stated that Mr Trump was angry because Schwartz spoke out negatively about him   - well who wouldn't be - Schwartz a life long liberal, has an agenda - Trump allowed him to shadow him for 18 months, and now, with the election in the horizon, Mr Schwartz basically turned on Trump, a move which is a bit, ethically challenged to say the least.

If the article was trying to prove what a "sociopath" (Schwartz's allegation) Trump is, it failed miserably.  Schwartz did NOT, in any shape or form, prove his allegations and actually, Trump comes out looking like a kind of a nice guy and a rather impressive person in the article. 

Just saying...

Source article......
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all

Gender specific restrooms - are they really protective?

So I have been following the latest news and outrage, so to speak. I am referring to the "interpretation" of the law which suggests the changing of gender specific public restrooms to be - what we used to call - "unise/x" i.e. 1 washroom for men, women, transgender and whatever.

Why this ruling now?  I wonder if it isn't just to annoy conservatives in order to divert their attention from more important issues.  If so, that ruling certainly has accomplished this end.  Many conservatives are extremely upset about this and social media like Facebook is filled with cries of outrage.

What are we forgetting?  That transgender folks probably, at present, use the restroom of the gender they feel they are, rather than the restroom for the gender in which they were born (and in which many still remain, since gender change surgery is risky, and expensive and obviously not covered by insurance).

What I am wondering is, why has this whole thing morphed into some folks feeling that - well, I'm not sure what they feel - do they think that folks who are transgender are all perverts?  That certainly is not true!  I've known many transgender folks and I feel although that they might be confused, to call them perverts is more than a bit "over the top".

 Confused? - yes - because our gender is in our genes and no matter how we change our bodies or what clothing and/or makeup we wear, we will always remain the gender of our birth - that's hard coded, into every cell of our bodies.  But to assume that because folks are gender confused, they must be perverts, is a leap I simply cannot, in any way, make.

They are, just like the rest of us humans, just trying to make sense of their lives and doing their best to be whom they are.  To dress in the clothing of the opposite gender or even take hormones, is to me, possibly, foolish because it really doesn't change anything hard coded in every cell of our bodies and poses some health risks to the individuals involved but, perverted?  Certainly not!

In thinking about this phenomena, I think it might be a holdover from earlier times where dress codes and behavior were extremely rigidly prescribed, for each gender - for instance, when I was a young 'un, a lady DID NOT wear pants and of course, males did not wear dresses ... although I thought back then, was a bit strange since, for example, the Scottish "kilt", worn exclusively by men, is, essentially a skirt!  I remember times when I, in rejecting makeup (I didn't like how it felt on my face), was horribly, going against the tide, this action considered more than, a bit strange by some around me.  Although this "rule" of makeup was NOT applied to guys! :)  (Now the tables have turned and lots of ladies don't wear makeup and  some guys DO wear makeup.) :)

Conservatism, is to me, the holding up of a Christian moral code, including important things like abstinence outside of marriage etc. and not, diverting our attention to possibly, non-issues like defining (or re-defining) public bathrooms, which seems a waste of time, and weakening our stance on more important moral issues for which we stand.  Just saying.

Did George Washington convert to Catholicism on his death bed?

George Washington - deathbed conversion?

I researched the claim that our first president, George Washington, converted to the Catholic church on his death bed.  Although most sources mentioned that he was friendly to Catholics and even discontinued the celebration of "Guy Fawkes Day" which apparently was anti Catholic, the first link, I found, claimed there was no evidence of Washington turning Catholic. This article (below) was written by a secular historian .... It seems several sources don't WANT this to be true that Washington died a Catholic.  It also is assumed that since Washington was a Mason, this might have been a stumbling block for his conversion to the Faith - but of course, his membership in the Masons would not have been a problem on his death bed! 

http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_007_WashingtonCatholic.html

However, on the site, Catholic.org, they had some more info...this site is run by Catholic Answers which is a reliable source...

Apparently, the evidence of Washington's conversion is in Jesuit historical documents which are pretty reliable...

Here's the quote and link:

"Our first President, George Washington, died a Catholic. While he lay on his deathbed he sent his slaves across the Potomac to bring back his close friend, Father Leonard Neal, S.J. Neal spent some time alone in the President's sick room. When he returned to the Jesuit house, his fellow religious asked him the outcome of his visit and he simply answered, "Everything has been taken care of." The entire story is related in the Jesuit annals. The Negro slaves, who had been imbued with Baptist anti-Catholic bigotry, passed on the story that "Master George had been seduced by the scarlet woman of Rome". Our first President had always kept a beautiful picture of Our Lady in His living room; he adopted the Catholic practice of blessing himself before meals; he was largest contributor, giving more than even Bishop Carroll, to the building of St. Augustine's church in Philadelphia; he very often attended Mass; and he often told his troops that if they did not refrain from abusing the Holy Name of Jesus they would surely lose the war."

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=217658

Source URL:

http://catholicism.org/george-washington-died-a-catholic.html

More Technology?

Gerry taking photo of me - new car is behind him!

So, our car that we got in 2006 was beginning to show wear.  Then, one day, the front end started coming off (it has a large plastic front end fastened with a couple of plastic clips).  A local shop did a sort of chewing gum fix on it a year ago, which lasted a year but it was starting to come loose again so I decided to visit the local car dealer and have them fix it.  I drove in the driveway.  But unbeknownst to me, the same group owns the dealership on the corner which apparently shares the driveway.  A nice looking middle aged man walked up and motioned for me to open the window.

Little did I know that would begin a huge lifechange.  Instead of going to the dealership which supported our car, we ended up going to the other dealership.  At first I thought "no way" but he showed us a very nice new car - a sort of small SUV and then, we spent the day haggling over payments etc.  The fatal flaw (for me) was when he invited me to take the car for a test drive.

Wow.  The ride was smooth, bumps in the road disappeared and it handled wonderfully. Never thought I could get hooked on a car but....

Bottom line, we drove it home that day.

So it has all kinds of new stuff on it.  Things I'd never heard of like "climate control" (really? in a car?) and more.  Since we had a lot of church this week (Holy Week), and Friday we visit shut in folks, I was just getting used to it. (OK I'm an old dog and this is a very new trick).

Then today, this really nice gentleman came out from the dealer to run through some of the technical things like the radio (it has every which type of radio and also there is a way you can play all the music in your phone and more.)  When he asked about the phone, I told him I didn't have music in my new iPhone - it was in my iPod.  

"Oh", he said, the music is on the "cloud" (when I was a kid,  clouds were fluffy white cotten-y things in the sky that rained on you sometimes) and it naturally downloaded to my new iPhone when I switched.  I looked and sure enough, there it was.

I'm amazed at all the things just the radio stereo does - I mean we had a 2006 car - but the technology difference between that car and this car is like the difference between a horse n' buggy and a speed racer.

Even the drive has several modes... a regular mode, a "economy" mode - that puts a bit of resistance on the gas pedal so you tend to go slower, and a "sports" mode - that turns your gas pedal into a mode where you can play like you have a race car. (huh?)

That's just what I remember.  I've already forgotten all the stuff you can do with the stereo. Even the windshield wipers are complex. 

So right now, I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed.  My hubby said I'll get used to it.  I guess. And I'm sure if I forget how to do something, I can ask my 6 year old great granddaughter to show me how.  ** sigh **  Generation gap?  Try generation chasm!!!

Technology is biting me!

Remember back in the old days (like the 1960's and 1970's) when you drove into a gas station, and a nice attendant asked "fill er' up" and you said "please" and then he handled the pump, washed the windows, checked the oil, and took your card to complete the sale?  Then in the 1980's the do-it-yourself pumps appeared and if you used them, you got a discount on gas, but still large stations had attendants. Now, it's all self-service (and gasoline costs several times as much as the days when a gas station was a service station!) Since hubby's third stroke which put me in the driver's seat of our car, I've been trying to learn how to pump gas. And despite trying to do it several times, I'm STILL having a rough time.  The directions are not clear - nothing is clear.  Finally in utter frustration, I went into the store part and was going to pay that way but now, you have to "prepay" (estimate how much gas you will use) and the excess is SUPPOSED to go back to your debit card. 

So I had the lady come out and stand next to me.... but it not only asks you for your PIN but also for your zip code - we have a PO box but I guessed the bank which sends me everything electronically had our house zip and it kept rejecting the card when finally I got the idea to put in our PO box zip... Took me a half hour of utter frustration to complete the transaction... ** sigh **

After my frustrating adventure at the pump, I decided to type the multi-step process into my tablet computer, (which I dropped 3 times... thank heavens I have a strong protective cover on it) and then email it to myself so it's in my phone also (iPhone).

Then there is the food store - the so called Super Market wasn't that big when I first got married and it was relatively easy to go shopping, easy to find things etc - now they have EVERYTHING including a fully stocked drug store and probably all the merchandise which you used to go to Woolworth's to get (remember Woolworth's?) and several isles of frozen dinners etc.  We older arthritic folks (I'm 70) have to use the scooters because it seems one walks MILES in the food store.  Luckily we can do most of our shopping on the web and have it delivered but today, after the gas station "adventure", we had to go to a large market to get some stuff not available on the web.  And that was another "adventure".





And after all of this, the "fraud protection" at our bank called and sent emails to insist we confirm transactions on our debit card (luckily can do this in email).  ** sigh **


I guess young folks don't mind all of this but wow, for those of us elderly - it's rough... can anyone relate?

Suicide watch in Junior High school?

My mother, Mary Schweitzer Baker who ended her life at the age of 68, by swallowing the business end of her gun. She was intelligent and articulate and talented but also was bipolar

In sorting through some old papers (of which we have a lot of since we've lived in this house for almost 40 years), I came across a poster I saw in a Junior High School - the school our son attended in the 1980's.  Even then, apparently suicide in young folks was a rising cause of death in our youth - today in 2014, more young folks die in suicide than in auto accidents (auto crashes were the most prevalent cause of death of youth in the 1960's when I graduated High School).  I will share the bullets on the poster as follows:

Suicide - think...

• Your mother loves you
• Your friends will miss you
• People DO care
• Counselors can help
• Teachers will listen
• You're not alone
• Suicide is a cop out
• Think of those who need you...

Before you act...

As I typed this out, I began to see problems with it...  the young person who is contemplating suicide, thinks his/her parents don't love him/her and that people don't care and that they won't be missed. They don't care if they are contemplating a "cop-out" (although actually that reason may be a stronger deterrent than some of the others as young folks are very sensitive about what others think of them).

With many families having both parents very involved in their jobs, kids are often lonely and depressed. And in fact, it's quite easy to become lonely in our busy society of today especially if one is a kid or at the other end of the spectrum, aging.  Having experienced some clinical depression myself, I know that when a person is depressed, they almost think they are doing the world a favor in exiting it.

We have had more than a few suicides in our family (much too many - my mother - my grandmother - etc).

Bottom line, is the greatest deterrent to suicide for me, is my Catholic faith - I know that if God feels I should be living, my committing suicide is a direct affront to God and I don't want to go there.

But life gets hard at times... especially when one is aging...

"Still, there were those moments so seemingly hopeless that I would cry out to God in anguish. Having journaled many of those desperate cries, I realize in retrospect how hope had sustained me through my knowing there was purpose in suffering..."

from EMBRACING DEMENTIA- A CALL TO LOVE by Ellen Marie Edmonds

Free Thought Lady thinks she can break the law

Very often people seem to assume the police are "against us" without provocation (that often is the message given on TV).  The following case is typical.  The video at the website was shared several times on Facebook - I cast the video to the TV so I could hear what the Police Officers were saying which I couldn't hear when listening on my computer.... a couple of facts totally change the picture which you can hear when you watch this on TV.  (1)  The citizens running the Lemonade stand were breaking the law by "vending commodities on the grounds of the Capital building without a permit" which the police officers patiently and politely, told them about.  (2) the citizens were given the option of giving away the lemonade about which the police also informed them.  When they ignored the warnings and defied the police, rudely shouting about their lack of freedom (and there is a difference between "freedom" and "license") after being politely warned several times, the police officers arrested them as was proper.  Breaking the law is breaking the law regardless of who does it.  BTW, an ad on this website which carried this story, asks people to report if they have been a victim of "police brutality".  People from other countries laugh at us - we Americans don't know what REAL "police brutality" is!

Possible Malware carrier Supposedly from the Post Office

With all the virus warnings I regularly get in email (most of which are hoaxes), I never heard of the email I received today which was most obviously a virus or worm carrier.  Here's what it looks like:

As for what the attachment does, there seems to be a difference of opinion in the "blog-o-sphere".

One blogger said it was something called "malvertising" software which was downloaded when the unsuspecting recipient opens the email. He said he almost fell for it. It, according to him, installs fake "spyware" which tells you that your computer is full of viruses and then, tries to sell you a solution.

Another blogger identifies it as a worm/trojan carrier but he doesn't specify what mischief it might do.  

The Microsoft website identifies the payload as a worm but again doesn't specify much about what it does.

Whatever the case, there is a really good chance you do not want it in your computer so if you get an email looking like the one above, don't open the attachment! :)

Sue

Fast Food Playgrounds - a place you really want your kid to play in?

When scientist - developmental psychologist, Dr Erin Carr-Jordan, college professor, visited a McDonald's playground with her 4 children, she was appalled at the fact that the playground tubes, kids routinely crawl around in, were covered with filth. Some of what she found in the tubes were paper, rotting and dried food, and a lot of dirt - they looked like they had not been washed in a long time. Shocked, she approached the manager about this and raised zero interest in the problem. After talking to another three managers with the same reaction, she crawled up into the tubes herself and made a video. That made the news although the link published on the news website was broken. If I was a more suspicious person, I would wonder if it was broken on purpose (obviously MickyD's is a big advertiser on the networks etc). I managed to put repair the link and watched the video and it was disgusting to the point of making me a bit nauseous.

I get that kids crawl in these things daily with seemingly no repercussions i.e. kids do have strong immune systems and most places they crawl are covered with pathogens, (although no one's really done any studies on whether the pathogens present in the indoor playgrounds are more abundant than in other places) but still, the idea and how the tubes look, is so revolting (some of the dirt in there looks like fecal matter!) that after viewing Dr Carr-Jordan's video, I would not want my kids playing there.

Carr-Jordan found there were no regulations on keeping these playgrounds cleaner and at least one scientist, told the news service that many scientists were well aware of the lack of cleanliness of indoor playgrounds:

"Charles Gerba, a University of Arizona professor with a Ph.D. in microbiology, doesn't know Dr Carr-Jordan but said it was well-known among experts in his field that children's playgrounds are one of the most germ-plagued environments and the pathogens can cause disease. Indoor playgrounds that tend to be warm and moist promote bacterial growth."

Dr Gerba added that if he had a small child, he would not allow him/her to play in those playgrounds.

It should be noted that outside playgrounds are probably less populated with pathogens due to being exposed to sunlight.

If McDonald's doesn't want to put any provisions for regular cleaning of the indoor playgrounds into place (so far they seem to have treated the issue like it was limited to the fast food restaurants Dr Carr-Jordan visited), then the Board of Health should take over and require daily (or even twice daily) cleaning of these!

Cancer and Cell phones?

The latest flap in the news is that a meta study has found an increased risk of brain cancer among people who regularly use cell phones and scary articles make great headlines for the news services.

The metastudy was done by a scientist named Leonart Hardell and has not been published yet (nor peer reviewed). However, Hardell did another similar metastudy of the research about cell phones and cancer in 2007 which is available on line.

The studies reviewed were mostly survey studies and did not control for known risks of brain cancer like Nutrasweet/aspartame. The relative risk factors in much of the research presented was less than 1.8 (has to be over 2.0 to be significant) and only in a couple, was higher like 3.x.

A bit intrigued, I went to the Environmental Health Trust Organization website to look for all this evidence they claim is available. They have safety precautions for the use of cell phones. They have videos. What they do not have any of, are actually study cites.

I watched one of the videos which presented three scientists (none of whom were biologists). The Title is: Expert EMF Workshop at San Leandro High School. It's the second video on the page. The speakers compared cell phones and cigarettes. "The ads encouraged people to smoke" said Dr. Magda Havas, showing the ad from the 1960's, "claiming more doctors smoked that brand!" Problem in logic there - in the 1960's we were only beginning to have an inkling that smoking posed serious risks. That is, now that smoking has been proven to have bad effects on health, one does not see those ads anymore.

During the video, one of the speakers showed a cutsie video of people dressed in white suits (looked like teletubby outfits) supposedly illustrating what cell phones do to our DNA (the video didn't make much sense to me).

But all of the over 30 minute presentation was devoid of any real research except the mention of Lennart Hardell, mentioned previously.

The kids who listened to the talk (looked like High School age) seemed extremely bored and totally unconvinced.

And they are not the only ones who are questioning these claims. Scientists in the UK are also questioning it, according to the BBC News which called Leonart's research, flawed.

"The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which advises the government on safety levels, said the study "lacks statistical precision" to draw such conclusions. "

Meanwhile, Dr Lennart stated more research is needed (for which he is, undoubtedly, looking for funding which perhaps might be, at least, some of his underlying motivation for the sensational claims - people do funny things for money and scientists are definitely humans!).

Even the "green folks" say if you use the speaker phone on your cell or portable phone or text (rather than hold the phone against your head), the danger, if at all, is greatly minimized, so that seems like a good solution.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that cancer and other diseases which seem to be 'on the rise' these days, are aging diseases. At the turn of the 20th century, very few cases of cancer were diagnosed, but the average age of death was 45. And now, the average age of death is around 78-80. Oddly though, no one seems to take that aspect in consideration.

As for radiation, it has been pointed out that we receive more radiation from the sun than we do from microwaves and cell phones. We also are exposed to a lot of radiation from some of the tests routinely done like mammograms. Mammograms deliver 3 times the radiation of a chest X-ray to each breast and yet, most medical providers are still highly recommending them. (I don't do mammograms either)

I remain open to definitive research but for now, take the current cell phone fear mongering with a huge grain of salt.

Cell phones and brain cancer?

The latest flap in the news is that a meta study has found an increased risk of brain cancer among people who regularly use cell phones and scary articles make great headlines for the news services.

The metastudy was done by a scientist named Leonart Hardell and has not been published yet (nor peer reviewed). However, Hardell did another similar metastudy of the research about cell phones and cancer in 2007 which is available on line.

The studies reviewed were mostly survey studies and did not control for known risks of brain cancer like Nutrasweet/aspartame. The relative risk factors in much of the research presented was less than 1.8 (has to be over 2.0 to be significant) and only in a couple, was higher like 3.x.

A bit intrigued, I went to the Environmental Health Trust Organization website to look for all this evidence they claim is available. They have safety precautions for the use of cell phones. They have videos. What they do not have any of, are actually study cites.

I watched one of the videos which presented three scientists (none of whom were biologists). The Title is: Expert EMF Workshop at San Leandro High School. It's the second video on the page. The speakers compared cell phones and cigarettes. "The ads encouraged people to smoke" said Dr. Magda Havas, showing the ad from the 1960's, "claiming more doctors smoked that brand!" Problem in logic there - in the 1960's we were only beginning to have an inkling that smoking posed serious risks. That is, now that smoking has been proven to have bad effects on health, one does not see those ads anymore.

During the video, one of the speakers showed a cutsie video of people dressed in white suits (looked like teletubby outfits) supposedly illustrating what cell phones do to our DNA (the video didn't make much sense to me).

But all of the over 30 minute presentation was devoid of any real research except the mention of Lennart Hardell, mentioned previously.

The kids who listened to the talk (looked like High School age) seemed extremely bored and totally unconvinced.

And they are not the only ones who are questioning these claims. Scientists in the UK are also questioning it, according to the BBC News which called Leonart's research, flawed.

"The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), which advises the government on safety levels, said the study "lacks statistical precision" to draw such conclusions. "

Meanwhile, Dr Lennart stated more research is needed (for which he is, undoubtedly, looking for funding which perhaps might be, at least, some of his underlying motivation for the sensational claims - people do funny things for money and scientists are definitely humans!).

Even the "green folks" say if you use the speaker phone on your cell or portable phone or text (rather than hold the phone against your head), the danger, if at all, is greatly minimized, so that seems like a good solution.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that cancer and other diseases which seem to be 'on the rise' these days, are aging diseases. At the turn of the 20th century, very few cases of cancer were diagnosed, but the average age of death was 45. And now, the average age of death is around 78-80. Oddly though, no one seems to take that aspect in consideration.

As for radiation, it has been pointed out that we receive more radiation from the sun than we do from microwaves and cell phones. We also are exposed to a lot of radiation from some of the tests routinely done like mammograms. Mammograms deliver 3 times the radiation of a chest X-ray to each breast and yet, most medical providers are still highly recommending them. (I don't do mammograms either)

I remain open to definitive research but for now, take the current cell phone fear mongering with a huge grain of salt.

Microwaving - Examining the claimed risks

I had an inquiry about "the recent discussion about the dangers of microwaves" as a comment in another blog of mine and decided to do a bit of research. The questioner asked me what I thought of the stated dangers. I only found a couple of articles in a search of Google.

One article details the claimed risks of microwaving. This article, found on a website called "global research" (but apparently from an article in "Natural News") included a photo of two plants, supposedly a student science project - the one watered with microwaved water was dead, so went the story. (A student science project where we don't know all the facts? Not exactly hard evidence!) Don't do microwaving, concludes the author. Well, that's fine if you have all the time in the world to cook the slow way but will avoiding the microwave oven really protect from cancer?

To review a couple of the claims from the article:

"Microwaved prepared meats cause the formation of d-Nitrosodienthanolamines, a well-known carcinogen"

Fact remains, cooking meat can cause the formation of carcinogens. For example, if you barbecue your meat, and char the meat, that is considered a carcinogen also.

But is eating small amounts of a carcingen, going to cause cancer? No proof of this. And evidence suggests not - things like heredity, smoking and even consuming trans fat etc are likely, much greater risks. And by the way, the article does not explain how the "d-nitro..." is formed either nor does it give any cites for further study. FYI, giving up fast food, would probably much sooner lower the cancer risk (though probably only slightly) than giving up your microwave, and doing cardio exercise daily can actually lower your cancer risk by 40%!

"Studies have shown that human breast milk heated in microwave ovens is altered and that not only is its vitamin content depleted, but some of the amino acids are also rendered biologically inactive. Some of the altered amino acids are poisons to both the nervous system and the kidneys."

Another undocumented and un-cited statement and fact remains, any time you heat milk, some of the vitamins are altered - regardless of how you heat it which was why even when I was bottle feeding our son in the 1970's, the books suggested it was best to mix the formula from powder in room temperature water (I used bottled water) to preserve the vitamins (rather than preparing a larger amount, keeping it in the fridge and reheating it.

The author also claims that when you microwave broccoli, 97% of the Vitamin C was destroyed. First of all, Broccoli is not that good a source of Vitamin C and then, anytime you cook it, it destroys the vitamin C but few of us can stomach it raw.

A conversation on the Snopes message boards expressed that all of the posters were very skeptical of these claims and several pointed out that there are no studies backing the claims up. Another conversation on the "Physics" message base is also good source reading. Again, the consensus is, the "death by cancer" claims about microwaving are likely not true but there, a person can read some explanations of the nuts and bolts of microwaves which are enlightening.

Microwaves have been around for a long time - and it's good to remember that cancer is not a single cause disease. It's likely that moderate use of the microwave isn't a real danger - and no studies have been done to support the "sky is falling claims" one reads on some of the natural websites.

Cancer update email forward

You might have gotten an email entitled "Cancer update email" or "Johns Hopkins update - very good article", which claims to be from an article sent out by the Johns Hopkins newsletter. The email gets stranger and stranger as you read it. Chemotherapy doesn't work to help cancer, it claims but changing your diet will do it. By the time you get down to the bottom which informs you that milk produces mucus which "feeds the cancer", you might be wondering about it.

This article of unknown origin never went out on Johns Hopkins newsletter according to Snopes and Hoaxslayer, the latter which suggests that especially with medical forwards, it's best to check them out before sending to friends.

Johns Hopkins, not real impressed (to put it mildly) about the email stating so many myths about cancer being attributed to them, dedicated a page on their website to deny and debunk the email, point by point.

To "Google" a forward, take the title and put it in quotes. In the case of this, since the title was more generalized, I also took a few key words like "cancer" and "alternate" and "Johns Hopkins" and added them to my search. With the search engines being so comprehensive and computers being so fast, it only takes a couple of seconds to check out a forward and it's really worth doing rather than sending out wrong information especially in the medical arena.

The Krispy Kreme Challenge

Taking place in North Carolina, is a fun run which seems right on the edge.

Sponsored by the manufacturers of artery clogging Krispy Kreme donuts, and raising money for a children's hospital, this competition draws thousands of participants every year.

In 2009, they logged over 5000 runners and in 2011, the expectation was over 7500 runners.

The race, which seems to draw people of all sizes and all ages (although it takes place in a college town and originated with 5 college students) consists of running two miles from the start to the Krispy Kreme store, consuming one dozen Krispy Kreme donuts and then, running back, all in one hour or under, if possible.

The reality of the race from a youtube video, filmed by a participant, seemed less pretty than MSNBC news made it appear. The only concern the news media had was perhaps the runners won't run off the calories contained in 12 donuts.

The video maker described squishing three donuts together in order to gulp them down more quickly. This morphed the donuts into a concoction which was anything but appetizing. He also said to get back into the race, to finish it, he had to walk over several piles of vomit from those less successful in consuming the dozen.

"Some of the participants just did the run and only ate 1 or 2 Krispy Kremes", he commented.

Considerably less people appeared to finish the race than were at the start line and those coming in all looked like they'd been sucked through a keyhole backwards.

Were those who just ate a couple of Krispy Kremes wiser than those who attempted the eating contest? Considering that donuts are among the most artery clogging foods available, probably not.

The race seems the epitomy of American insanity - combining a healthy activity like running with eating the type of food which would seem to negate any good health effects of the exercise.

From regularly reading Runner's magazines for several years, I found that quite often they had articles about folks who had heart attacks or cancer, unusual for regular exercisers. (Many studies suggest those who exercise have a 40 percent lower risk of heart disease, than non exercisers.)

Could it be that the underlying message of such events as the Krispy Kreme Challenge i.e. if one can "run off the calories" than one can consume unhealthy foods with abandon, is very misleading? I vote yes on that question.

A better idea would seem to be to exercise with abandon and skip the donuts. According to a PBS news story video, participants are not required to eat any donuts.

One of the reporters who participated commented that "they have pills for people who do things like this."

Related video: how Krispy Kremes are made.

Bias against female athleticism and muscle again on TV

This is Lauren Powers. She is a gorgeous bodybuilder, 48 years old who has won 30 competitions. She's totally ripped and symmetrical. Naturally she is an awesome athlete who puts in the hours, working out. She was featured on "My strange Addiction" and sorry but I object! Why don't they say Olympian, Michael Phelps has a "strange addiction" when he works out more than Lauren does. To me, this is the typical bias against female muscle in specific and female athletes in general. That is if a female athlete has too many muscles, this is "bad". But if a female is bone slim that is good. Lauren who is 5'5", weighs 180 lbs and is a very low bodyfat percentage. She is a person who should be spoken about with utter respect! Would you believe, later on in the show, they have her going to a psychologist who tells her how "unhealthy" her "strange addiction" i.e. athleticism and successfully winning 30 competitions, is?

Here is a clip from the discovery channel show:

"My Strange Addiction - Lauren"

Here is a partial list of the 30 competitions she has won:

1st place Open Heavyweight in the NPC Orange County Classic, then 1st Place and Overall at the NPC Jan Tana show, and also Overall Ms. Muscle Beach Classic in Venice Beach.

I know she probably did the show to create awareness of female bodybuilding with the idea that "there is no such thing as bad publicity, only publicity". I hope it works in a positive way for her but the jist of the show was that there must be something wrong with her for being an awesome athlete because she is a bodybuilder!

Lauren's official website:

http://www.laurenpowers.com/

Please write to TLC and let them know your feelings. (Click on email address below)

tlc@discovery.com

Do they put dead dogs and cats in dog food?

Lately a forward (really a video) has crossed my desk (or computer?) about how when they euthanize animals at animal shelters etc, they send them out, in a semi rotting condition, also diseased animals (they get graphic) for rendering into dog and cat food. Of course, this author, Andrew Lewis, is not giving away his book - he's selling it and then, you don't even get a hard copy... you pay to download it. Great for his overhead - maybe not so good for you?

Because this is a difficult one to check up on, Mr Andrews' video is upsetting dog and cat lovers all over the place. Mr Lewis is apparently some kind of vegan who suggests giving all veggies to your four footed friends.

This is not a good idea since dogs and cats are carnivores which mean they only can digest meat. Things like kibbles are given to clean and exercise their teeth and provide roughage but dogs and cats should also be fed a goodly portion of meat as their staple food (cats have a habit of catching their own meat like mice etc - occasionally they will, to be nice to their owners, bring in a freshly killed mouse or rat for their human to admire and enjoy!) :)

So are Andrew Lewis' claims true? From my research, I would say, definitely no, they are not true!

He claims that since there was a study which found traces of sodium pentobarbital in dogfood (the sedative medication used to euthanize dogs and cats), that "proves" that dog food is made out of euthanized pets.

Actually, when the scientists at the FDA found the trace amounts of this drug in dog food, they wondered about the same thing, so they devised a test to look for dog or cat DNA in dog food:

CVM scientists also developed a test to detect dog and cat DNA in the protein of dog food. Since pentobarbital is used to euthanize dogs and cats at animal shelters, finding pentobarbital in rendered feed ingredients could suggest that pets were rendered and used in pet food. Test results indicated a complete absence of protein material that would have been derived from euthanized dogs or cats. As a result of their study, CVM scientists assume the source of the pentobarbital in dog food is cattle or horses euthanized and then rendered.

It should be noted that small amounts of pentobarbital are not lethal, even for humans - to euthanize an animal, an overdose of this medication must be administered. Otherwise, it's just a sedative (although it's likely the trace amounts found in dog food don't have much of an effect on the animals).

Andrew's first claim is easily disproved by this study! But I decided to look into it further since Andrew seems so passionate about his claims.

I called several animal shelters run by the state or county, both in my state and in New Jersy. All of them told me that they try hard to find homes for pets and if they have to euthanize them, it's done by injection i.e. an overdose of sedative (apparently no more decompression chambers!). The carcasses are buried in a mass grave (in my state) or sent out to be mass cremated in New Jersey.

Checking up on rendering plants (which would be guilty of recycling the animals), I found that they only get dead farm animals, and the leftovers from the slaughter-houses. This is sterilized and cooked into mush and dried into powder and made into tallow used in candles etc as well as feed for swine and chickens. Apparently it's no longer given to cows for fear of "mad cow disease" since cows are included in the dead farm animals and also from the slaughtering plants.

Since those farm animals are apparently euthanized by injection, some of what goes to the rendering plant includes the euthanizing drug. However, I would like to point out that in regular tap water, there are also traces of drugs including female hormones. And no, house water filters do not filter this out - they only filter particulates ( stuff floating in the water) and if you don't change them every two weeks or so, they do not filter out any impurities - two reasons. First, the water does not sit long enough in the filter for reverse osmosis to work well for that and second, the filters get saturated quickly. But if you do change them every two weeks, it gets prohibitively expensive and it's way cheaper to buy bottled water which is more efficiently filtered and sanitized than the best of home filters could do.

Bottom line, anything in which tap water is used in the processing, contains all kinds of traces of medications.

Final claim of Mr Lewis: plastic collars etc are rendered along with the dead animals. Keep in mind, this is not in the dog food but in the feed given to chickens and swine. And according to my research this is true but then, it's also true of human food that there are trace amounts of "other" in it. Other can contain all kinds of things and it's well known that the human body has a good tolerance for the "other" stuff. If we cannot digest it, we pass it on through. Since most of us eat fast and processed food at least some of the time but are living longer than ever, there is no evidence that the "other" in food is lethal as some would want us to believe. So it certainly isn't going to be lethal in the feed for chickens and swine either.

More expensive dog food has more meat and less "filler" like starchy stuff in it. If you want to cook hamburger for your dog, your dog will like it but we've raised healthy dogs on both hamburger and good dog food and found neither was more healthy than the other. The jury seems to be out on whether a part of the dog diet should include kibble type food. Health in dogs seems to be how much you love them and how much exercise they get and not whether you feed them hamburger or dog food. Dogs need cardio once a day just like humans - best is to have a place for them to run or there are available, dog treadmills. Turns out our animals are often as under-exercised as we are. Cardio is the only way to exercise the heart muscle - whether you are a dog or a human.

That being said, I know folks who feed their dogs, garbage from the table and kibbles only and still have healthy dogs with good coats and great longevity - go figure.

Much as we like to think of our dogs as human, they are not - they do like to drink out of toilets and will eat their own feces without any seemingly bad side effects. They also eat human feces and it has been said that this is how dogs and humans first formed an alliance - the dogs would hover around the caves where humans dwelled and eat the human feces, eventually becoming friendly with their human "food suppliers".

So when you look at your pampered pet, which has just finished its carefully prepared meal, comfortably sitting on its own easy chair or your lap, you can definitely say (like the commercial) "You've come a long way baby!"