English: Pineal gland. Images are from Anatomography maintained by Life Science Databases(LSDB). 日本語: 松果腺。 画像はLife Science Databases(LSDB)のAnatomographyというサイトより。 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

More and more people are wearing sunglasses, even if the sun is not shining bright and I see also that little children (toddlers) have sunglasses on. I remember an article by Dr. Ornstein in the Let’s live Magazine in October 1980 were it is explained that Sunlight is very important, day light is very vital. The Creator provided for our emotional and physical health by giving us the Pineal Gland and commanding “Let there be Light “

The Pineal Gland is an active, secreting gland throughout life. Natural, unfiltered sunlight is necessary for the proper functioning of this gland. Light as conscious electromagnetic energy from the sun enters the body through the optic nerves of the eyes which, in turn, directly stimulates the pineal gland, a photo reactive organ. The pineal gland converts light energy into an electrochemical impulse which feeds directly into the hypothalamus.

The hypothalamus is that part of the brain which mediates all of the vital processes of the body via its immediate and direct connections to the pituitary gland and the autonomic nervous system. The hypothalamus is filled with light sensitive cells which convert the electromagnetic signal of light into a neurochemical impulse which is then carried directly into the pituitary Gland. The pituitary , in turn, elaborates and secretes hormones within the body, thereby maintaining homeostasis. Learning all this makes us think when to wear sunglasses and also not to put them at little children’s eyes.

The eyes are able to adjust to sunlight much more then we give them credit for. When we work in facilities with artificial light during the day then we can agree that people are not getting enough natural light. One statement that Dr. Ornstein made in his article mentioned before.

source

Another source also questions the correlation between sunglasses and the pineal gland.

In the book Nature‘s Detox Plan – A Program for Physical and Emotional Detoxification By Roy Mankovitz, it is stated that “The downside to wearing sunglasses is that it interferes with a portion of the endocrine system involving the pineal gland, which is light responsive. We do not fully understand the operation of the pineal gland, but from what we do know, you do not want to mess with it.” (page 145)

The following was published in a recent article on Seasonal Affective Disorder:

Limit the amount of time you wear sunglasses because sunglasses limit the light traveling from the eyes to the pineal gland.

Eyeglasses and contact lenses rob you of energy by blocking some of the ultra violet rays that travel through the eyes to the pineal gland, writes Patricia McCormac.

More documentation: The Pineal gland is the switch for the pituitary gland, which controls aging. Melatonin is the key hormone the Pineal gland produces.

More sunlight exposure during the day is one approach for increasing melatonin production. Be sure to take off your glasses including sun glasses when getting sun light because the Pineal gland is stimulated by the light through the eyes.

Besides giving you raccoon eyes, have you ever wondered about the correlation between wearing sunglasses and the amount of light that reaches your pineal gland?

Read More

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

Related articles

• Pineal Gland & The Third Eye [Video] (shiftfrequency.com)

By Israel Shamir

Who said the filthy rich are good for nothing? Their antics are very entertaining! The Nouveau Riche have always been notorious headline-providers, and the newest crop of Russian oligarchs make the robber barons of previous generations look timid and colorless. As money ages, it becomes anaemic; divided and subdivided by careful lawyers into a maze of corporate entities. New money is still good fun; they pull their stunts right in public, and they don’t pull their punches. These hometown heroes fill the vacuum left by the maharajas and sheiks in a way that our drab bureaucrats never could; they parade their Humvee Jeeps through the Moscow crouds, as sure and proud as the Indian kings who once rode their battle elephants in the jungle.

They are more powerful and less restrained in their choice of action than ever were Scorsese’s Mafia dons. Brutal, unscrupulous, overriding, often overreaching, these are characters made for a Shakespearean drama. They are lawless; they freely trample upon other people until somebody finally tramples upon them. They are full-bloodied villains or generous benefactors, or both. Their habit of using London as their litigation headquarters has given their other habits an international audience.

Recently two mighty tycoons, Berezovsky and Abramovich, jousted in a London court for the prize of billions — and incidentally disclosed how they stripped the Russian public of its most valuable assets during Yeltsin’s privatization regime. These courtroom warriors do not flinch at revealing their base crimes to achieve victory; in this case another Neoliberal myth has been destroyed, and another dark chapter in Russian history has been illuminated.

The looting of a country is heavy fare; the public hungered for some light farce. The Polonsky vs. Lebedev case came to the fore, publicized internationally via the London court system. This is the hilarious story of a media mogul and a real estate baron who go full smackdown on live TV. Only the mighty pen of Nikolai Gogol, the mid-19^th century Russian author of The Squabble  (You can read the plot here) could have done it justice; he might have called it Why Alexander Lebedevich Punched Sergei Polonovich, but you’ll have to bear with my humble efforts.

BelleNews gives us a blow by blow description of the live smackdown action:

1. In front of an astonished studio audience, Alexander Lebedev (the Russian mogul) rains a series of blows onto the head of Sergei Polonsky (the real-estate baron), knocking him off his chair. This is during a TV debate on the global economic crisis.
2. Images of the dramatic scene, which have been posted on YouTube, show Lebedev losing control and standing over Polonsky in a threatening manner.
3. Polonsky appears to attempt to calm him down and Lebedev takes his seat once more.
4. After few seconds, without warning, as Polonsky gently pats him on the arm, Lebedev again decides it’s time to let his fists do the talking.
5. Lebedev suddenly hits Polonsky several times on the side of the head, sending him sprawling to the floor.
6. Polonsky stands back up, seemingly unharmed, and the two men stare hard at each other as studio flunkies defuse the situation.

Note: Alexander Lebedev is one of the richest men in the world, with a fortune that’s estimated to be in the region of $3.1 billion.

In fact, Polonsky and Lebedev are two mid-sized Russian tycoons; neither of them could buy Minnesota cash on the nail. They could have become great pals, toasting each other’s successes in turn; for both are given to real estate development, both love swimming, both wear casual more often than formal, both are rather vain, and both are facing a sharp decline in their fortunes. But instead they have come to blows, for they are doomed to be opposing characters. Which is the protagonist and which the antagonist? None.

Sergei Polonsky is forty, a young man as tycoons go, the first post-Soviet generation of Russian businessmen. He is still big and broad like the Blue Beret commando he once was, but years of soft living have robbed him of his waist; now he looks more like a jolly, well-fed dolphin. His lady friend is a prominent businesswoman by her own right, and a swimming champion.

Alexander Lebedev is 12 years older; his was the generation that privatised the USSR. He is a shape-shifter; he has modernized his appearance over the years from a hard-muscled, disciplined, business-suit-wearing ex-KGB-man into a metrosexual guitar player with an alluring haircut, light shirts and blue jeans. He traded in his old Soviet-era wife for a newer, more camera-friendly model.

Lebedev lives in downtown Moscow, in a former Scout Youth Club built in glorious Stalinesque imperial style with columns and portico, and transformed – after its privatisation – into a minor manor, with an Olympic-size swimming pool where he spends much of his time. He escapes the Moscow autumnal gloom at his Cote d’Azure villa and in his London mansion.

Polonsky lives in a futuristic penthouse, perched like a ship’s bridge atop a skyscraper with a 360° view, high above Moscow. He designed and built the skyscraper and his own apartment himself, being an architect by education and profession. He spends his weekends floating in a converted barge, moored just beyond the city limits, in the company of a tame racoon, doing chi kung – Chinese meditation practice – and voraciously reading arbitrarily-chosen books. In winter he drives a slim, high-tech sled pulled by snow-white blue-eyed huskies; in summer he glides through the deeps on a sea-bob, or hang-glides over blissful hills.

Lebedev built a resort in Crimea; he lavished his generosity on the city, restoring the historic Chekhov theatre, but he prefers to spend his time in London, hobnobbing with Harry Potter’s creator, Ms Rowling, Sir Elton John and other worthies. He plays guitar, and supports DDT, a Russian rock group. He also owns a quality British newspaper, The Independent, as well as a tabloid, the Evening Standard, and the Russian Novaya Gazeta.

Polonsky, in contrast, has built himself a fortress of solitude, a stone and glass castle rising from the waves of a lonely island off the shores of Sihanoukville, not far from Alain Delon’s home in remote Cambodia. He meets with Sufi teachers, receives instructions from Zen monks and chi gung adepts. He is into esoteric knowledge and mystic experiences.

The two men are from very different cities and backgrounds. Lebedev grew up a child of privilege; his father was a professor of the prestigious Foreign Service School. As a young man he joined the KGB and the Communist Party. He graduated from his father’s school, proceeded into the KGB college, and then entered the diplomatic service. He was stationed at the Soviet Embassy in Kensington, London; his assignment: stop the money fleeing Russia.  In eight years he learned the ropes, and with the fall of the USSR the gamekeeper turned poacher.

Lt.-Col. (KGB) Lebedev left the service in 1992 and used his professional insider knowledge of Soviet debts to make a fortune and direct fleeing money to safe havens.  Not many Russians knew the banking system like he did. There was a lot of money that could be made by a person with the right connections: he bought cut-rate loans cheap and cashed them in at full value with a friendly Treasury official. He made a deal with Gazprom that made the Russian state two hundred millions poorer and himself and his collaborators that much richer. He befriended Victor Chernomyrdin, then Prime Minister, and Chernomyrdin channelled state funds into Lebedev’s recently-opened bank. Lebedev used his connections to capture positions in state-sponsored companies like Ilyushin and Aeroflot: the profits went to Lebedev, while the expenses went to the state.

Polonsky hailed from St Petersburg, of humble origin. He grew up as the USSR collapsed around him; he studied architecture, went into construction and building, hired Ukrainian builders while they were still inexpensive, and built himself into a real estate developer. He is proud of being a self-made man; he obtained nothing from the state, and never sought anything, he says. He did not privatise government factories, but instead established good connections with City Hall and catered to newly-prosperous Muscovites. He looks honest enough to buy a used car from, though such trustworthy guys do not become billionaires. People in the know say that he had to cut backroom deals with Mme Baturina, wife of the Moscow Mayor and one of the richest women in the world: no building was erected in Moscow without a nod from her.

Polonsky has tried to avoid politics; he professes a lack of knowledge and interest in things political. He is a builder, he says, no more. He puts his soul into huge projects spreading from Moscow to Switzerland and from London to Croatia. He is democratic in the Russian style: he mixes easily with all kinds of ordinary folks, but they’d better follow his orders or else. He is a petty tyrant, his (dismissed) employees say: he forbids texting during board meetings! Violators have their precious iPhones smashed against the wall (a feat I myself have only dreamed of). His ambitions lie in the spiritual sphere, and business often takes a back seat to his search for God.

Lebedev has a penchant for politics. He has tried on for size several political factions, varying from the ultra-nationalist Rodina (“Motherland”) to the socialist SR and to the ruling ER, being torn between political ambitions and the desire to make a fast buck. Sometimes the two go together.

In 1996, in the run-up to the fateful elections, Lebedev supported Boris Yeltsin, the then-president of Russia, a dissipated alcoholic who embezzled Russian national wealth and enriched the oligarchs. Lebedev’s bank was used by Yeltsin’s Treasury in order to channel state funds into piles of greenbacks all wrapped up for bribes. It was some of Lebedev’s cash that was seized by security in the infamous Case of the Xerox Paper Box, when an activist tried to carry out millions of dollars for Yeltsin’s bribe fund in a cardboard box. Lebedev did not shy away from this deed; he was rather proud of it, and even paid the dirt-digging magazine Kompromat (“Compromising Matters”) to produce a special issue containing a sanitised version of this, and other exploits.

Lebedev’s daring misdeeds inevitably attracted the attention of law enforcement, and a case against him was eventually drawn up by the State Attorney General. Lebedev, by his own boast, set the Attorney General up with two easy-going girls in a sauna, and filmed the frolics. The film has been broadcasted on a fellow oligarch’s private NTV channel and the Attorney General abruptly resigned.

Some people say that Lebedev was not responsible for the setup. If true, this speaks volumes. Might Mr. Lebedev think that bad publicity is much better than no publicity at all? The facts support the theory. Lebedev produced a book ominously entitled 666 or The Beast Is Born, full of prosaic smackdowns targeting nearly every public personality in Russia. He humbly refers to himself as the “ideal capitalist” and claims credit for these and other dashing criminal exploits.

Lebedev is always quick with an explanation as to why each crime was a good deed: it was either to save Russia from the clutches of the commies (he conveniently misplaces his own Party credentials), or to save the world from the KGB (again he is silent about his own history in the very same service). He openly despises Putin’s working class roots and rise to power. It galls him that they once had the same rank in the KGB. But the real reason behind Lebedev’s opposition is that Putin fearlessly prosecutes the oligarchs. Or is it “persecutes”?

Oligarchs have a persecution complex: any and all interference is unjust. They think of themselves as omnipotent, though they are only powerful, and they bristle against even the most minor efforts to curtail their power. Their money buys them power over life and death, but this power saps their mental health. They start to believe the hype offered by sycophants. They begin to reject trusted advisors. They end up alone and unhinged, pursued by the law. Too much power corrupts, and the Russian oligarchs have more power than any of Stalin’s satraps ever had.

Mr Putin does not approve of oligarchs meddling in politics. He does not punish them arbitrarily, nor does he rewrite the laws to target them. Putin’s Russia allows these tycoons to get away with many things, but it does draw the line at crime – sometimes. This is Putin’s great sacrilege; he holds the oligarchs accountable to the letter of the law. This level of independence comes as a great shock to them. They are getting whiplash trying to readjust after the total freedom of lapdog Yeltsin’s day. The oligarchs wistfully recall the days when they employed their powers over life and death with impunity, like viceroys of India in Clive’s time.

Alas, Mr Lebedev’s political ambitions have remained unfulfilled. He reduced his lofty goals to something more achievable, and decided to become the Mayor of Moscow. He failed. Worried now, he set his sights upon becoming the Mayor of Sochi (the Miami of Russia). Again, he failed. The sharks, sensing blood, began to circle. His dashing exploits belatedly began to attract the attention of the law, especially his alleged appropriation of $300 million in state bailout funds meant to shore up his bank. He accepted the money, but it soon became apparent that his bank’s coffers were empty, or rather stuffed with fictitious promissory notes. His dealings in the aircraft industry also have come under scrutiny and it appears that the state, the main shareholder, might have been swindled in a major way.

In response, the canny Mr Lebedev activated his long term insurance policy. If he were a Russian Jew, he would have claimed he was being attacked by authoritarian Russian anti-Semites; but Mr Lebedev is not a Russian Jew. Instead, Mr Lebedev claims he is being attacked by authoritarian KGB thugs like Mr Putin. This insurance was effective but expensive: for many years he had been forced to heavily subsidise the anti-Putin newspaper Novaya Gazeta, widely read in the central borough of Moscow and unheard of elsewhere. To influence the international set, he purchased two British newspapers and strenuously promoted his new image as a sort of Khodorkovsky: just another wealthy man victimized by Putin’s KGB thugs. He claimed that he was poisoned like Litvinenko, but he miraculously survived. The British were only too happy to cooperate with Lebedev’s propaganda campaigns; the establishment was (and is) willing to support any and all anti-Putin elements, including the Chechen separatists.

It was during his campaign for Moscow Mayor, that Mr Lebedev became aware of Mr Polonsky, who happened to be on good terms with the incumbent Mayor. At that time, Polonsky was busy erecting the tallest twin skyscrapers in Europe, the Federation Towers – the gem of Moscow City. Polonsky immediately became the next target for Lebedev’s hate: another low-caste self-made man, definitely not a pukka sahib. It was also an opportune moment for a quick and easy kill, because Polonsky’s star was falling fast.

Polonsky had gotten himself into trouble, as do all the oligarchs at one point or another. He was not thorough and he was not prudent. He rejected his trusted advisors and surrounded himself with yes-men. He believed his hunch instead of counting odds. He jumped into multimillion deals with a bow and a handshake, and his partners walked away with chunks of his empire. His dreams of samurai honour were shattered by modern Russian business pragmatism.

He relied upon his assistants, and they robbed him blind. The more he empowered them, the faster they would vamoose with his money. His vast capital (assessed at over three billion dollars at the peak) began to shrink precipitously; cash flow became a problem for him, he was over-extended and had difficulty completing his most ambitious projects. Ordinary people who invested in his projects had become justifiably angry.

It was at this moment that the cunning Lebedev unveiled his ingenuous device to break Polonsky. The media mogul spread a malicious (and apparently false) rumour that the foundations of Federation Towers had cracked. Polonsky was already on the defensive, now his back was against the wall. He invited Moscow journalists to come and look for themselves: they were allowed to roam freely some forty yards below the surface, trying to locate the crack, refusing to admit its absence. He offered a million roubles to anyone who could find it. Nobody found anything, but the rumour persisted, supported by Mr Lebedev and his newspapers.

Alone and unhinged, Polonsky began to claim that he himself invented the crack story in order to promote public awareness of the project. There were no buyers for this weird story. His projects continued to suffer setbacks, raiders continued to seize his developments, his companions continued to rob him blind. The crack story cracked his empire.

This is the backstory to the Oligarch Smackdown on live TV. It was ostensibly going to be about global economics. They had exchanged only a few words when Mr Polonsky brought up the painful subject of the crack. The whole world awaited Lebedev’s reply. He looked into the eyes of his victim. What did Mr Lebedev feel at that moment? Pride? Hatred? In any case, alone and unhinged, he rose and landed a few well-aimed jabs upon Polonsky’s jaw. The sitting ex-commando was knocked down, decisively proving the superiority of KGB training over that of Airborne Troopers. The programme was a global success; after delighting the viewers, who had been prepared for a dry recitation of global doom, it went on to become an all-time favourite on YouTube.

But the story did not end there. In face of millions who had watched the assault live, Lebedev denied he hit Polonsky. Standing just outside of the studio, Lebedev insisted stubbornly to the journalists: “I did not touch him; Polonsky assaulted me, because I am in opposition to Putin.” Yes, Lebedev is amazing: he is one man who is prepared to deny anything. Years ago, he had fought to ban gambling in St Petersburg, an ostensibly noble purpose. When it came out that his bank had heavily invested in the lotteries (the main competitor to gaming machines), Lebedev denied all motives of self-interest. Even after his own bank manager proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the strategy was Lebedev’s own idea, he continued to deny all knowledge with a straight face. I wonder if even James Bond could equal this feat.

During the race for the Moscow City Hall, Lebedev bought a newspaper (the Moscow Correspondent) and turned it into a fighting machine. They soon printed a scurrilous rumour that Mr Putin was involved in an extra-marital affair. Lebedev could not imagine that Putin would react as he did. Usually quite complacent to rumours, accusations and attacks, the President became furious. Fearing Putin’s fury, Lebedev immediately shut down the newspaper, fired the editor and said on air that the baseless article was created by the current Mayor of Moscow and inserted by the editor in return for a bribe. This brazen lie cost the editor his career; Lebedev never recanted.

Since his televised assault, Lebedev has been asked many times why he did it. Some of his explanations are so off the wall that one has difficulty believing he actually offered them as true statements. The palm probably should go to “I thought that I would become a popular hero because I struck out against that hateful oligarch”. This is rich coming from him. Polonsky seems genuinely at a loss to explain Lebedev’s behaviour. Not only has Lebedev refused to apologise, he is continuing to deny he even did it. Is he claiming the insanity defence? More likely he is claiming his rights of oligarchic power: the impunity defence.

Polonsky has not benefited from his public humiliation; in fact, the story only further injured his already suffering business reputation, and a project he had planned to do in London collapsed soon afterwards. It was for this reason that he brought civil charges against Lebedev in a London court, and retired to his Cambodian island, posting his daily catch of barracudas on the Facebook.

Almost a year had passed before the exceedingly slow-grinding mills of Russian criminal justice charged Mr Lebedev, but eventually the media baron was charged with “hooliganism” and “assault”. His lawyers claim that Lebedev had felt threatened and was forced to defend himself; Lebedev (with a straight face) claims that he is being persecuted by the bloody Putin regime for his “love of freedom”.  A bald-faced liar is always more entertaining than a talented ingénue, so we will not be too surprised if Mr Lebedev walks away with a slap on the wrist. Anyway, the bloody Putin regime is soft on the oligarchs. However, this Oligarch Smackdown is far from over. We await Mr Lebedev’s elevation to the voice of Russia’s conscience by his own British hacks!

Language edited by Paul Bennett

Israel Shamir reports from Moscow, and can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

November 27, 2012

By Fred Reed

This column may bore most readers. Bear with me. I offer it as a warning to the public.

On April 26, 2010, I went to see Dr. Philip Stanley, an eye surgeon at the Eye Clinic of Bethesda Naval Hospital of Bethesda, Maryland, for what he described as a routine removal of sutures following a corneal transplant at Johns Hopkins. In less than a half hour he ripped my eye wide open, inducing a massive choroidal hemorrhage and total detachment of the retina, leaving the eye blind. My attorney filed a malpractice suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act to Robert Thomas, of the Office of the Judge Advocate General in Norfolk, Va. The following are documents submitted under the FTCA. Stanley has since been at the Wilmer Eye Clinic of Johns Hopkins, which is aware of the malpractice suit. This sugests that despite good reputation–both Johns Hopkins and Bethesda Naval are thought to be of high quality–it is wise to research very, very carefully the physician who will attned you.

Robert Thomas of the Office of the Judge Advocate General’s office simply didn’t respond to the suit despite repeated requests.

Form 95 (2) Expert Witness (3) Email from Stanley

Medical Records

What Happened: Statement of Fred Reed

Dr. Stanley told me that the remaining visual problems in the eye were caused by astigmatism due to wrinkles in the cornea which were caused by the sutures that were used in the transplant. He suggested to me in an email on January 20, 2010 that I come in and see him between 29 March and 1 April “to take out sutures.”  At that point I understood that only a few sutures would be removed.  I made an appointment to see Dr. Stanley at April 26, 2010.

At around 9:00 AM I arrived at Dr. Stanley’s office at Bethesda Naval Hospital.  Dr. Stanley briefly examined me before a slit lamp and stated, “It’s been more than a year and the cornea is transparent and healthy, so we might as well take them all out.” He then said that “I want to make sure that removing the sutures will resolve the problem, since if it won’t help the vision there was no reason to do it.”  To this end he had a corpsman take me to another room, fit me with a hard contact lens, have me read an eye chart to check my vision.  It was explained that the lens covers the wrinkles in the cornea which fill with tears negating the astigmatism.  This was the only time a contact lens had been tried as a solution to the problem.  The results were excellent as the letters were sharply defined and clear. I easily read the 20/80 line and was reading the 20/60 line when an employee of the hospital interrupted stating, “Dr. Stanley is ready for you.”  I was then ushered back into Dr. Stanley’s office.

As I was sitting at the slit lamp Dr. Stanley produced a permission form for me to sign.  Since I could not read it, I specifically inquired what the risks in fact were because I had only the eye with the transplant that was capable of good vision. In response to this inquiry Dr. Stanley gave the unmistakable impression that he regarded this suture removal as very minor, jokingly stating that, “removing the sutures somewhat weakens the cornea and you should avoid being punched in the eye.” He said nothing whatever to suggest the possibility of losing the eye, which would have led me to reconsider the whole procedure. Had I known of the risks I would certainly have chosen any other solution, such as a contact lens, but Dr. Stanley did not tell me that a contact lens was an option.

Dr. Stanley then numbed the eye at the slit lamp and went around the periphery of the cornea, cutting the sutures. I knew that was being done because Dr. Stanley explained what he was going to do, and as he proceeded it was obvious that was what he was doing. He then tried to pull the sutures out, at one point stating that he wanted to use another instrument and going into another room to get it. He pulled harder and harder, which I could easily feel.  Dr. Stanley stated that the stitches were, “very tight,” “tight,” and, verbatim, “I’ve never seen this before.”  Soon he was pulling hard enough that I could feel the eye moving out of position, a fact Dr. Stanley commented on. I then felt a distinct pain in the back of the eye” From time to time heard, or felt, a tiny “pop” and the eye would settle back into position. I remember thinking, “This can’t be right. It feels like he is going to pull the front of the eye out.”

Dr. Stanley then said, “We may have a leak,” followed a few minutes later by an assertion that there was, “definitely a leak.”  I felt liquid running down my cheek and asked if it were tears or aqueous humor pouring from the eye.  Dr. Stanley responded “aqueous,” said that surgery would be needed to reseal the eye,  and left me, saying he had to get a gurney and make arrangements for assistance and an OR.

He left me sitting at the slit lamp with no bandage, contact lens to prevent loss of aqueous, clear shield, or other protective measure or bandage over the eye.  He did not tell me not to strain, squeeze, or touch the eye.  However at no point did I touch or squeeze the eye, having been through far too much eye surgery over the years to do such a thing.  In five or ten minutes a gurney was brought in. He placed me flat on my back on it.  I lay there for an extended period of time while Dr. Stanley tried to assemble the necessary personnel to undertake surgery to close the eye.  He did not place any sort of shield or bandage over the eye. In about a half hour or forty-five minutes Dr. Stanley put drops in the eye and suddenly I felt the most intense pain I had ever experienced. Someone said, “There’s blood coming from the eye.”  I had suffered a choroidal hemorrhage.  This hemorrhage has left the eye totally blind.

They were able to use general anesthesia since by chance I had been fasting in the expectation of having unrelated blood work done after the removal of the sutures.

I saw Dr. Stanley at Bethesda about a week later. He examined the eye, told me that I could go back to Mexico, and gave me antibiotic drops and a large supply of oxycontin, telling me to take two tablets every four hours. He gave me no instructions to seek follow-ups with an ophthalmologist in Mexico, and never communicated with me again, though he had my emaill address.

The loss of the eye was a terrible shock to me. I had expected to have normal or nearly normal vision in the eye and had planned to return to my work in journalism, having for example made tentative plans with Kara Hopkins, then the editor of The American Conservative, to go to Afghanistan for the magazine. Having been blinded, and thus unable to travel without my wife to help me, my reporting days were over. I became extremely depressed.  The effects of losing one’s vision are hard to describe. Loss of a leg would be a nuisance, but losing one’s sight is ghastly.

I began to drink more than I should, tried not to take my moods out on my wife, and tried to force myself to follow a normal routine. I had previously been diagnosed by the Veterans Administration as fifty percent disabled by PTSD resulting from service with the Marines in Viet Nam. The loss of the eye made the PTSD symptoms much worse.

Read more

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

Smoking “rots” the brain by damaging memory, learning and reasoning, according to researchers at King’s College London.

A study of 8,800 people over 50 showed high blood pressure and being overweight also seemed to affect the brain, but to a lesser extent.

Scientists involved said people needed to be aware that lifestyles could damage the mind as well as the body.

Their study was published in the journal Age and Ageing.

Researchers at King’s were investigating links between the likelihood of a heart attack or stroke and the state of the brain.

Data about the health and lifestyle of a group of over-50s was collected and brain tests, such as making participants learn new words or name as many animals as they could in a minute, were also performed.

They were all tested again after four and then eight years.

Decline

The results showed that the overall risk of a heart attack or stroke was “significantly associated with cognitive decline” with those at the highest risk showing the greatest decline.

It also said there was a “consistent association” between smoking and lower scores in the tests.

One of the researchers, Dr Alex Dregan, said: “Cognitive decline becomes more common with ageing and for an increasing number of people interferes with daily functioning and well-being.

“We have identified a number of risk factors which could be associated with accelerated cognitive decline, all of which, could be modifiable.”

He added: “We need to make people aware of the need to do some lifestyle changes because of the risk of cognitive decline.”

The researchers do not know how such a decline could affect people going about their daily life. They are also unsure whether the early drop in brain function could lead to conditions such as dementia.

Heart and brain

Dr Simon Ridley, from Alzheimer’s Research UK, said: “Research has repeatedly linked smoking and high blood pressure to a greater risk of cognitive decline and dementia, and this study adds further weight to that evidence.

“Cognitive decline as we age can develop into dementia, and unravelling the factors that are linked to this decline could be crucial for finding ways to prevent the condition.

“These results underline the importance of looking after your cardiovascular health from mid-life.”

The Alzheimer’s Society said: “We all know smoking, a high blood pressure, high cholesterol levels and a high BMI [Body Mass Index] is bad for our heart. This research adds to the huge amount of evidence that also suggests they can be bad for our head too.

“One in three people over 65 will develop dementia but there are things people can do to reduce their risk.

“Eating a balanced diet, maintaining a healthy weight, exercising regularly, getting your blood pressure and cholesterol checked and not smoking can all make a difference.”

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

Published on Friday, November 9, 2012 by Common Dreams

Fracking for gas not only uses toxic chemicals that can contaminate drinking and groundwater — it also releases substantial quantities of radioactive poison from the ground that will remain hot and deadly for thousands of years.Image: 8020 Vision

Issuing a report yesterday exposing major radioactive impacts of hydraulic fracturing known as fracking — was Grassroots Environmental Education, an organization in New York, where extensive fracking is proposed.

The Marcellus Shale region which covers much of upstate New York is seen as loaded with gas that can be released through the fracking process. It involves injecting fluid and chemicals under high pressure to fracture shale formations and release the gas captured in them.

But also released, notes the report, is radioactive material in the shale including Radium-226 with a half-life of 1,600 years. A half-life is how long it takes for a radioactive substance to lose half its radiation. It is multiplied by between 10 and 20 to determine the “hazardous lifetime” of a radioactive material, how long it takes for it to lose its radioactivity. Thus Radium-226 remains radioactive for between 16,000 and 32,000 years.

“Horizontal hydrofracking for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale region of New York State has the potential to result in the production of large amounts of waste materials containing Radium-226 and Radium-228 in both solid and liquid mediums,” states the report by E. Ivan White. For 30 years he was a staff scientist for the Congressionally-chartered National Council on Radiation Protection.

“Importantly, the type of radioactive material found in the Marcellus Shale and brought to the surface by horizontal hydrofracking is the type that is particularly long-lived, and could easily bio-accumulate over time and deliver a dangerous radiation dose to potentially millions of people long after the drilling is over,” the report goes on.

“Radioactivity in the environment, especially the presence of the known carcinogen radium, poses a potentially significant threat to human health,” it says. “Therefore, any activity that has the potential to increase that exposure must be carefully analyzed prior to its commencement so that the risks can be fully understood.”

The report lays out “potential pathways of the radiation” through the air, water and soil. Through soil it would get into crops and animals eaten by people.

Examined in the report are a 1999 study done by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation “assisted by representatives from 16 oil and gas companies” on hydrofracking and radioactivity and a 2011 Environmental Impact Statement the agency did on the issue. It says both present a “cavalier attitude toward human exposure to radioactive material.”

Radium causes cancer in people largely because it is treated as calcium by the body and becomes deposited in bones. It can mutate bones cells causing cancer and also impact on bone marrow. It can cause aplastic anemia an inability of bone marrow to produce sufficient new cells to replenish blood cells. Marie Curie, who discovered radium in 1893 and felt comfortable physically handling it, died of aplastic anemia.

Once radium was used in self-luminous paint for watch dials and even as an additive in products such as toothpaste and hair creams for purported “curative powers.”

There are “no specific treatments for radium poisoning,” advises the Delaware Health and Social Services Division of Public Health in its information sheet on radium. When first discovered, “no one knew that it was dangerous,” it mentions.

White’s report, entitled “Consideration of Radiation in Hazardous Waste Produced from Horizontal Hydrofracking,” notes that “radioactive materials and chemical wastes do not just go away when they are released into the environment. They remain active and potentially lethal, and can show up years later in unexpected places. They bio-accumulate in the food chain, eventually reaching humans.”

Under the fracking plan for New York State, “there are insufficient precautions for monitoring potential pathways or to even know what is being released into the environment,” it states.

The Department of Environmental Conservation “has not proposed sufficient regulations for tracking radioactive waste from horizontal hydrofracking,” it says. “Neither New York State nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would permit a nuclear power plant to handle radioactive material in this manner.”

Doug Wood, associate director of Grassroots Environmental Education, which is based in Port Washington, New York, and also editor of the report, commented as it was issued: “Once radioactive material comes out of the ground along with the gas, the problem is what to do with it. The radioactivity lasts for thousands of years, and it is virtually impossible to eliminate or mitigate. Sooner or later, it’s going to end up in our environment and eventually our food chain. It’s a problem with no good solution – and the DEC is unequipped to handle it.”

As for “various disposal methods…contemplated” by the agency “for the thousands of tons of radioactive waste expected to be produced by fracking,” Wood said that “none…adequately protect New Yorkers from eventual exposure to this radioactive material. Spread it on the ground and it will become airborne with dust or wash off into surface waters; dilute it before discharge into rivers and it will raise radiation levels in those rivers for everyone downstream; bury it underground and it will eventually find its way into someone’s drinking water. No matter how hard you try, you can’t put the radioactive genie back into the bottle.”

Furthermore, said Wood in an interview, in releasing radioactive radium from the ground, “a terrible burden would be placed on everybody that comes after us. As a moral issue, we must not burden future generations with this. We must say no to fracking — and implement the use of sustainable forms of energy that don’t kill.”

The prospects of unleashing, through fracking, radium, a silvery-white metal, has a parallel in the mining of uranium on the Navajo Nation.

The mining began on the Navajo Nation, which encompasses parts of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, during World War II as the Manhattan Project, the American crash program to build atomic weapons, sought uranium to fuel them. The Navajos weren’t told that mining the uranium, yellow in color, could lead to lung cancer. And lung cancer became epidemic among the miners and then spread across the Navajo Nation from piles of contaminated uranium tailings and other remnants of the mining.

The Navajos gave the uranium a name: Leetso or yellow monster.

Left in the ground, it would do no harm. But taken from the earth, it has caused disease. That is why the Navajo Nation outlawed uranium mining in 2005. “This legislation just chopped the legs off the uranium monster,” said Norman Brown, a Navajo leader.

Similarly, radium, a silvery-white monster, must be left in the earth, not unleashed, with fracking, to inflict disease on people today and many, many generations into the future.

Karl Grossman has been a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury for 32 years. He is a specialist in investigative reporting. He is the author of Fracking and a Radioactive Silvery-White Monster: Radium Must be Left in the Earth; Fracking and a Radioactive Silvery-White Monster: Radium Must be Left in the Earth

Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed to Know About Nuclear Power. He is the host of the nationally aired TV program, Enviro Close-Up.

Source

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

> Updated with video here

Source: TEPCO Press Release
Date: Oct 19, 2012

At around 10:59 AM on October 19, 2012, a TEPCO employee on patrol found a fire occurring near Unit 1-2 ultrahigh voltage switchyard* (outdoor) at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. The fire was reported to the fire department at 11:02 AM.

The employee performed a first-aid fire fighting and the fire was confirmed to have been put out at 11:12 AM. The fire department will investigate the site.

There was no injury due to the fire and no significant change has been found with the monitoring post data and plant condition.

Follow-up Report: “As a result of the site investigation by the fire department, the fire was confirmed to be extinguished at 12:07 PM. The area affected by the fire is estimated to be approx. 20m x approx. 20m. [~65ft x ~65ft] The cause of the fire will be investigated.”

Watch webcam video filmed during this time here

Tuesday, September 25, 2012 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer for NaturalNews.com

Intense industry pressure to continue mass medicating Americans with fluoride chemicals via public has apparently influenced Harvard University researchers to backtrack on a recent study they conducted that verified fluoride chemicals lower IQ levels in children. We are now being told the absurd lie that fluoride is only detrimental to people in other countries, and that Americans need not worry about ingesting and bathing in the toxic brew here in the states.

A recent pro-fluoride article published by the industry-backed Wichita Eagle petitions Wichitans, who will soon vote on whether or not to fluoridate their local water supply, not to oppose the city’s upcoming fluoride measure based on the Harvard study because the study’s findings allegedly only apply to Chinese children.

The piece encourages Wichitans to essentially ignore this and other science showing the dangers of fluoride, or at least pretend as though none of it applies to them.And the reason these pro-fluoride fanatics are using to make the ridiculous claim that the Harvard study’s findings do not apply in the U.S. is that the fluoride levels evaluated in China were supposedly far higher than they typically are in domestic water supplies. Thus, consuming or bathing in fluoridated municipal water poses little risk, they say, so drink up!Fluoride levels used in Harvard study comparable to those used in U.S.But is this even true?

The Harvard review, which was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, includes a comparison of IQ levels among children living in a village with an average fluoride concentration of 0.36 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to the IQ levels of children in another village with a fluoride concentration of 2.47 mg/L.

Clearly, neither of these levels is above the federal government’s maximum allowable concentration of 4 mg/L. (http://www.prnewswire.com)A 2.47 mg/L concentration of fluoride, which is considered “high,” is hardly “ten times what we see here in the U.S.,” an erroneous claim made by pro-fluoride fanatic Larry Hund, a Wichita-based pediatrician and leader of Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, the primary group in Wichita pushing for water fluoridation.

Some U.S. cities, in fact, have fluoride levels that exceed the 2.47 mg/L level of fluoride evaluated in the Harvard study, which means it most definitely has relevance in the current debate over whether or not to fluoridate. (http://www.thenewamerican.com)

Even if you buy into the claim that the roughly 0.7 mg/L of fluoride that Wichita plans to add to its water supply is less than what was used in the Harvard fluoride study, there is still no solid evidence proving that even this lower level is safe. Since fluoride tends to accumulate in glands and tissue over time, any level of repeated exposure appears to be dangerous, not to mention the fact that the jury is still out about whether or not ingesting fluoride provides any legitimate oral health benefits whatsoever.”The key takeaway for me in the (Harvard) study is, one, they didn’t rule out the danger (of fluoride), and two, they said further research is necessary,” said Don Landis, a spokesman for the group Wichitans Opposed to Fluoridation.
,br>

“That’s what we’re saying; the science is not settled. No research is done on low-dosage fluoride, (and) the Harvard study is very valuable in pointing that out.”To learn more about the dangers of fluoride, visit:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037313_fluoride_lower_IQ_Harvard.html#ixzz27UXUUTCx

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

What is often in shredded cheese besides cheese?

Powdered cellulose: minuscule pieces of wood pulp or other plant fibers that coat the cheese and keep it from clumping by blocking out moisture.

Enlarge Image

Erica Beckman/The Wall Street Journal

Cellulose can improve the texture of packaged food products, including bottled chocolate milk shakes.

One of an array of factory-made additives, cellulose is increasingly used by the processed-food industry, producers say. Food-product makers use it to thicken or stabilize foods, replace fat and boost fiber content, and cut the need for ingredients like oil or flour, which are getting more expensive.

Cellulose products, gums and fibers allow food manufactures to offer white bread with high dietary fiber content, low-fat ice cream that still feels creamy on the tongue, and allow cooks to sprinkle cheese over their dinner without taking time to shred.

Cellulose additives belong to a family of substances known as hydrocolloids that act in various ways with water, such as creating gels.

The rising cost of raw materials like flour, sugar and oil is helping boost the popularity of these additives, producers of the ingredients say.

Demand for cellulose is also rising because of the growing popularity of processed food products in China, India and other countries, and because consumers are demanding low-fat or nonfat foods that still have a creamy texture.

While some food manufactures say they aren’t increasing the percentage of cellulose in their products, others are boosting the amount of fiber in their foods with cellulose and other ingredients. Companies can save money by using it, even though it costs more by weight than conventional ingredients. Cellulose gives food “more water, more air, a creamy feeling in [the] mouth with less of other ingredients,” and only a very small amount is needed, says Niels Thestrup, vice president of the hydrocolloids department for Danisco AS. The Copenhagen-based company makes ingredients and enzymes for food, cleaning supplies and other products.

Cellulose is especially popular because it can be used in many ways in food and is relatively inexpensive at about $2.50 to $3 a pound for one type his company makes, says Mr. Thestrup. The company’s sales of hydrocolloids had been rising 3% to 5% a year over the past decade, but in the past two years, sales are up about 6% to 8%.

Even organic-food products can contain cellulose.

Organic Valley uses powdered cellulose made from wood pulp in its shredded-cheese products. The company would prefer not to use a synthetic ingredient, but cellulose is bland, white and repels moisture, making it the favored choice over products such as potato starch, says Tripp Hughes, director of product marketing for Organic Valley.

Only powdered cellulose in its least manipulated form can be used in foods labeled “organic” or “made with organic” ingredients by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Erica Beckman/The Wall Street Journal

Even packaged food products labeled as organic can contain cellulose.

Cellulose comes in various forms, each with a specific use. Beyond powdered cellulose, two other modified forms are common in food. Microcrystalline cellulose is either listed as such on labels, as MCC, or in some cases as cellulose gel. Carboxymethyl cellulose or cellulose gum, another modified version, is listed as such on labels. Each gives foods a slightly different texture—from gelatinous to more liquid-like—because they trap varying amounts of air or water.

Powdered cellulose is made by cooking raw plant fiber—usually wood—in various chemicals to separate the cellulose, and then purified. Modified versions go through extra processing, such as exposing them to acid to further break down the fiber.

Although the notion of eating fine grains of wood pulp might make some consumers blanch, nutritionists say cellulose—which gives plants their structure—is a harmless fiber that can often cut calories in food. Insoluble dietary fibers like cellulose aren’t digestible by humans so add bulk to food without making it more fattening.

In the U.S., cutting calories from food doesn’t cause a problem because the country is in the grip of an obesity epidemic, says Joanne Slavin, professor of food science and nutrition at the University of Minnesota. She served as chairwoman the carbohydrate committee of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

Cellulose can serve as a good source of dietary fiber for people who don’t eat enough fruits, vegetables or whole grains, Ms. Slavin says. The USDA’s most recent dietary guidelines recommend young women get 28 grams a day of fiber and young men consume 38 grams.

“Cellulose is cellulose,” regardless of if whether it comes from wood pulp or celery, says Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a group that advocates healthier, more nutritious food. He says no research points to health problems related to consuming cellulose.

The Food and Drug Administration sets limits on the amount of cellulose in certain foods like cheese spreads and jams. The USDA also limits the amount of cellulose in meat products to about 1% to 4%, depending on the type, in order to meet the agency’s standards for protein content.

Kraft Foods Inc. KFT +0.95% uses forms of cellulose made from wood pulp and cotton in products including shredded cheese and salad dressing. “Cellulose has unique properties making it the best choice to perform certain functions, such as anticaking, thickening and replacing fat,” says spokeswoman Susan Davison.

Kraft and Organic Valley say cellulose makes up less than 1% of their shredded-cheese products. A Nestlé SA spokeswoman says the company uses various types of cellulose to improve the texture of some products.

Meat processor Tyson Foods Inc. TSN +0.82% uses cellulose on some cooked products to help maintain glazes or breading, but doesn’t use it as a filler, a spokesman says. Kellogg Co. is raising the amount of dietary fiber in its products with cellulose and other fibers like psyllium and bran, says a spokeswoman.

Write to Sarah Nassauer at sarah.nassauer@wsj.com

BACK to margotbworldnews.com

As the Chinese Internet sensation readies for its IPO, its success or failure comes down to the State

• By: John Gruetzner
• From: Business without Borders

When and where Alibaba.com will launch its IPO has not been announced. But a larger question looms: Will it resemble another Facebook?

Ma Yun, founder and chief operating
officer of China’s Alibaba.com
Photo: Getty Images

The Chinese Internet sensation has built itself into a diversified e-commerce player in a protected market. Alibaba now works in various ways as an EBay, Amazon and PayPal. So, the question really is, will the underwriter link the company’s IPO share price to actual revenues or to the hyped potential of China’s Internet and economic growth?

That ultimately depends on how China’s new state leaders address systemic macro-economic challenges, specifically the state’s ongoing role in the economy and China’s commitment to globalization. The Alibaba IPO could be the litmus test for economic policymaking in China.

If the Chinese economy under Xi Jingping and Li Keqiang retains its strong support for state owned enterprises, then Alipay, part of the Alibaba group, could face ramped-up competition from China’s UnionPay, a state-owned bankcard system that is expanding in the Internet payment market

On the flipside, if globalization is genuinely embraced by the new leadership, then Alibaba will face increased competition from other players of scale as a new wave of foreign investment comes to China’s Internet sector.  Companies like EBay, Amazon.com and PayPal, or next-generation Panjiva, are waiting in the wings to move on alibaba.com’s traditional revenue base.

Meanwhile, Jack Ma, founder and chairman of Alibaba Group, is seeing continuing disruption to his domestic stronghold from a range of local competitors such as 360Buy or Baidu. Alibaba may have to fight a multi-front war against foreign competitors as well as local rivals. That involves heavy spending with the accompanying risks to earnings per share. And history proves that fighting on more than one front usually results in defeat.

There are other risks for Alibaba, such as the management challenges of running a complex e-commerce empire — a good breeding ground for conflicts of interests and corruption.

Alternatively, Ma, the self-proclaimed Vietcong Guerrilla of the Internet, may retain his hold and beat his competitors by being smarter and faster to adapt. If not, the Alibaba IPO could become the Ali-fail — and Ma the next Mark Zuckerberg.

John Gruetzner is the principal and founder of Intercedent, an advisory firm established in Toronto with offices in Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore and Toronto. The firm executes cross-border trade and investment projects focused on Asia, provides planning and research, business development strategies  and capital advisory services. Gruetzner has been based in Beijing for more than 20 years.

 BACK to margotbworldnews.com