Saturday 09-17-16

 How Google is helping to crack down on illegal fishing — from space

 Illegal and unreported fishing is a multibillion-dollar business around the globe, and one that has proven notoriously difficult to combat. In part, that’s because it involves a constant stream of renegade fishermen being pursued by countries that have only limited resources to carry out a perpetual cat-and-mouse game on the high seas.
But a new satellite-based surveillance system powered by Google, which will be publicly unveiled Thursday at a global oceans conference at the State Department, aims to help alter that equation. Global Fishing Watch, as it is called, is designed to act as an eye in the sky, constantly scouring the globe in search of those illegally plundering the oceans. The organizations that partnered to develop it, which include the marine-advocacy group Oceana and West Virginia-based nonprofit SkyTruth, say the free platform will help governments, journalists and everyday citizens monitor roughly 35,000 commercial fishing vessels nearly in real time.
“We will be able to see a lot of information about who is fishing where,” said Jacqueline Savitz, vice president for U.S. oceans at Oceana, adding that the platform will help “revolutionize the way the world views commercial fishing.”

[SkyTruth, the environment and the satellite revolution]

The technology uses public broadcast data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS), which uses satellite and land-based receivers to track the movement of ships over time. Not all fishing vessels willingly broadcast their location, of course — particularly those intent on breaking the law — and vessels can switch off their trackers, potentially hindering the usefulness of the new technology. The United States and other countries already require vessels of a certain size to use the locator system, partly as a safety measure to avoid collisions at sea, and more countries are beginning to follow suit. Global Fishing Watch allows users to access that information to track specific vessels over time, going back to 2012. Savitz said she believes the tool will have an array of uses. Governments could use it to monitor and enforce fishing restrictions in their waters. Journalists and the public can use it to search for suspicious fishing activity, such as vessel that suddenly seems to disappear or one that rarely comes to port, and to make sure officials are safeguarding marine protected areas. Insurance companies can track the vessels they insure.
“We’re hoping it will be useful to a lot of different sectors,” Savitz said.
The use of satellites to patrol environmental activities both on land and at sea has grown steadily in recent years. Early last year, the Pew Charitable Trusts launched a similar technology aimed at helping authorities detect and respond to pirate fishing in the oceans. Known as Project Eyes on the Seas, it was developed alongside a British company and uses various satellite tracking data to help track suspicious vessel movements of fishing ships at sea.
“You can track anything in the world from anywhere in the world,” SkyTruth’s president, John Amos, whose work has helped reshape environmental watchdog efforts, told The Washington Post for a magazine story in 2013.
Global Fishing Watch, which has been under development for two years, has shown flickers of success. The government of the Pacific island nation of Kiribati used it to document how a tuna-fishing vessel had operated illegally inside the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, which had been declared off-limits to commercial fishing in early 2015. The episode resulted in a $1 million fine — a large sum for such a tiny government. Using satellite-based technology, Global Fishing Watch is a new system keeping tabs on fishing vessels to prevent illegal and unreported fishing. Using satellite-based technology, Global Fishing Watch is a new system keeping tabs on fishing vessels to prevent illegal and unreported fishing. (Oceana) The new technology being unveiled Thursday is one piece of a much broader international push to reduce overfishing in the oceans and cut back in particular on illegal fishing, which can deplete fish populations, harm local habitats and have serious economic consequences.
“The problem is just gigantic,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said in an interview this week with The Post. “A third of the world’s fisheries are overfished, and the ones that aren’t overfished are at max, with more and more demand. Half the world’s population, basically, relies on protein from the ocean to survive. It’s an ecosystem that requires sustainability to survive, and we’re not treating it in a sustainable fashion.” 

 

Earlier this year, a first-of-its-kind international treaty designed to help stop illegal fishing entered into force after being ratified by dozens of countries. The accord, known as the Port State Measures Agreement, is aimed at improving the ability to detect illegal fishing, stop illegally caught fish from reaching ports and markets and sharing information about illicit fishing vessels among nations.
Under the agreement, a country can deny ships suspected of illegal fishing entry into port or refuse to let them offload fish or refuel. Fishing vessels that want to enter a given port also must request permission ahead of time, detail what fish they have on board and verify that it was caught legally.

In addition, U.S. and international officials have been coordinating on ways to better share information in an effort to detect and halt illegal fishing around the globe, and to prosecute those involved. Officials plan to release more specifics  about those efforts at this week’s “Our Ocean” conference. At the same time, individual countries are taking their own actions. Indonesia, for example, recently sank 60 boats that it had impounded for illegally fishing in its waters, part of an aggressive campaign to deter the practice and assert sovereignty over one of its key resources. Kerry said both new technologies and more aggressive efforts to fight the problem are essential, because demand for fish will continue to increase as populations grow and massive numbers of people in countries such as China and India escape poverty. For the oceans to continue to provide food and livelihoods for billions of people each day, he said, the world has to treat them like the fragile resource they are. “We have to find a way to enforce [fishing laws]. We have to find a way to monitor it. And that’s very difficult in vast oceans with resources that are [limited],” Kerry said, adding, “We’re trying to create accountability where there is very little. You can’t have impunity on this and expect to win this battle.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/15/from-space-a-new-effort-to-crack-down-on-illegal-fishing-across-the-globe/?utm_term=.f06e4e351d31

 

Zika spraying kills millions of honeybees

(CNN)The pictures are heartbreaking: Millions of honeybees lie dead after being sprayed with an insecticide targeting Zika-carrying mosquitoes.

"On Saturday, it was total energy, millions of bees foraging, pollinating, making honey for winter," beekeeper Juanita Stanley said. "Today, it stinks of death. Maggots and other insects are feeding on the honey and the baby bees who are still in the hives. It's heartbreaking."

Stanley, co-owner of Flowertown Bee Farm and Supply in Summerville, South Carolina, said she lost 46 beehives -- more than 3 million bees -- in mere minutes after the spraying began Sunday morning.

Juanita Stanley says she lost more than 3 million bees.

"Those that didn't die immediately were poisoned trying to drag out the dead," Stanley said. "Now, I'm going to have to destroy my hives, the honey, all my equipment. It's all contaminated."

Stanley said Summerville Fire Capt. Andrew Macke, who keeps bees as a hobby, also lost thousands of bees. She said neither of them had protected their hives because they didn't know about the aerial spraying.

 

"Andrew has two hives," Stanley said. "He didn't know they were going to spray. His wife called him. His bees are at their porch right by their home, and she saw dead bees everywhere."

It's a tragedy that could be repeated across the country as cases of Zika continue to rise and local mosquito control districts struggle to protect their residents and ease local fears.

The spray fell from the skies between 6:30 and 8:30 a.m. Sunday. It was the first aerial spraying in 14 years, according to Dorchester County Administrator Jason Ward, part of the county's efforts to combat Zika after four local residents were diagnosed with the virus.

"We chose Sunday morning because few people would be out and about that early on a weekend," Ward said. "To protect the bees, you don't want to spray after the sun has been up more two hours, so we scheduled it early."

What are mosquito-control workers spraying in Miami?

The county used a product called Trumpet, which contains the pesticide naled, recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for control of adult Aedes aegypti, the mosquito that transmits Zika.

According to the manufacturer's label (PDF), Trumpet is "highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment on blooming crops or weeds. To minimize hazard to bees, it is recommended that the product is not applied more than two hours after sunrise or two hours before sunset, limiting application to times when bees are least active."

"We followed that recommendation," said Ward, "which is also the policy laid out by the state, using a pesticide the state has approved for use."

Ward says the county also notified residents of the spraying by posting a notice on its website at 9 a.m. Friday, two days before the spraying. He added that it alerted beekeepers who were on the local mosquito control registry by phone or email, a common practice before truck spraying.

The loss of her "honey girls" is devastating, says Juanita Stanley.

"That's true when they sprayed by trucks; they told me in advance, and we talked about it so I could protect my bees," Stanley said. "But nobody called me about the aerial spraying; nobody told me at all."

Stanley said she "would have been screaming and pleading on their doorstep if they had."

" 'Do it at night when bees are done foraging,' I would have told them," she added, breaking into tears. "But they sprayed at 8 a.m. Sunday, and all of my bees were out, doing their work by then."

Macke was also not informed, Ward said, because he, like many hobby beekeepers, is not on the local mosquito control registry.

Join the conversation

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

"We are obviously saddened by the fact people have lost their hives, and we have gone back and looked at our procedures," Ward said. "We will now give up to five days of advance notice, and we have expanded our list to include more local beekeepers."

Stanley says she doesn't think there was malice involved, but that doesn't make the loss of her "honey girls" any less painful.

"This wasn't about the honey," she said. "It was about raising bees and selling them to other people, and spreading the honey girls out there into the world. Now, I can't help anyone anymore, because all of them are dead."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/01/health/zika-spraying-honeybees/

Thursday 01-14-16

A Hardier Honeybee That Fights Back By Biting Back

i

Maryann Frazier, a researcher at Penn State's Center for Pollinator Research, checks on one of her experimental honeybee hives. Frazier is testing the effects of pesticides on honeybee colonies. Lou Blouin for NPR hide caption

toggle caption Lou Blouin for NPR

Maryann Frazier, a researcher at Penn State's Center for Pollinator Research, checks on one of her experimental honeybee hives. Frazier is testing the effects of pesticides on honeybee colonies.

Lou Blouin for NPR

Keeping honeybees healthy has become a challenge for beekeepers. One main reason is a threat that has been wiping out bees since the late 1980s: the varroa mite.
"It's a parasitic mite that feeds on the blood of adult bees and on the brood. It also transmits virus, and it suppresses the immune system of the bees," explains Penn State honeybee expert Maryann Frazier.
It's basically like having a 6-pound house cat attached to your side, sucking the life out of you. These mites wiped out colonies across the world. And treatments were, and still are, pretty limited. In fact, the way most beekeepers treat bees for mites sounds a little crazy: They actually spray bees — which are, of course, insects — with low-dose insecticides. The hope is they'll kill the mites, but not the bees.
"But you can imagine how difficult it is to control a mite on a bee with a pesticide," Frazier says. Still, the strategy has worked well enough to at least give colonies a fighting chance.

But a co-op of about 100 beekeepers stretching from Michigan to Tennessee is trying a different approach. On his farm near Slippery Rock in Western Pennsylvania, beekeeper Jeff Berta lights a smoker to check on one of his all-star queen bees. This queen, he says, could be the future of honeybees in Pennsylvania.      

"No. 18, there," Berta says, pointing to a queen with a little fluorescent yellow tag on it. "That little disc there with the '18' on it, we call those our NASCAR bees because they have numbers on them."
No. 18 is bit of a science experiment, funded with money from the USDA. This queen's mother is from a Vermont colony that survived disease and cold winters. And then Berta had her artificially inseminated by Purdue University scientists who were raising bees that demonstrated a unique, mite-fighting grooming behavior.
"The bees will take the mite and they will bite the legs and will chew on the mite," Berta says. "And if they bite a leg off of the mite, the mite will bleed to death. So the bees are actually fighting back. That's the type of genetic line we're after right now."
So now with every egg No. 18 lays, she passes on those leg-biting behaviors — making a colony that can rid itself of mites naturally, with no help from pesticides. It's a huge breakthrough.

i

Bucking the paradigm in the beekeeping world, beekeeper and breeder Jeff Berta doesn't use pesticides to control mites on his honeybee colonies near Slippery Rock, Pa. Instead, he breeds bees that have natural grooming behaviors that keep colonies free of mites. Lou Blouin for NPR hide caption

toggle caption Lou Blouin for NPR

Bucking the paradigm in the beekeeping world, beekeeper and breeder Jeff Berta doesn't use pesticides to control mites on his honeybee colonies near Slippery Rock, Pa. Instead, he breeds bees that have natural grooming behaviors that keep colonies free of mites.

Lou Blouin for NPR

But the breeding project can't end there. Because Berta can't artificially inseminate every queen, any descendants of No. 18 that turn into queens themselves will most likely just fly off and mate with any old drones within a few miles. That means if Berta's beekeeping neighbors don't have strong bees, too, they can easily dilute his carefully selected lines.
"So you can't produce a stock and say, 'Now I'm done! And that was it! Now we can sell it everywhere!' " says Penn State bee geneticist Christina Grozinger, who works with Berta. "You have to constantly re-select and constantly have to have people very interested in working as part of this effort."
That's why Berta and the co-op of beekeepers happily give eggs from their best colonies to their neighbors and swap queens to try out new genetics. It's all part of shifting the paradigm from a system where beekeepers simply buy new bees every year to a lasting neighborhood of bees that can slowly create real survivors.
"There really isn't any bee that laid the golden egg," Berta says. "Genetics with honeybees is more like a river, and the river is always changing."

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/01/11/462391470/a-hardier-honeybee-that-fights-back-by-biting-back

Pretty sure this idea was already posted, but worth a second look

Government Software Calculates Your ‘Threat Score’ And Categorizes Citizens As Red, Yellow Or Green

Do you know what your “threat score” is? Today, more than 90 percent of all local police departments and nearly all government agencies employ some sort of technological surveillance. One of the most common applications is called “Beware”, and it scans billions of “arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep Web searches” and social media postings to give authorities an idea of who they are dealing with. So the next time that police pull up in front of your home, it is likely that what you have posted on Facebook will be searched. If you have said things that could be construed as “anti-government” or “anti-police”, there is a very good chance that you will have a very high “threat score” and you will be on “the red list”.
I understand that this sounds like something that comes directly out of a science fiction movie, but I assure you that it is very real. In fact, the Washington Post reported on this just the other day…

While officers raced to a recent 911 call about a man threatening his ex-girlfriend, a police operator in headquarters consulted software that scored the suspect’s potential for violence the way a bank might run a credit report.
The program scoured billions of data points, including arrest reports, property records, commercial databases, deep Web searches and the man’s social media postings. It calculated his threat level as the highest of three color-coded scores: a bright red warning.

“Beware” was created by a corporation known as “Intrado”, and police departments around the nation began using it back in 2012. When police officers using this software roll up to your home, they will instantly know which residents are on the “green list”, which are on the “yellow list”, and which are on the “red list”. Here is more from the Washington Post…

As officers respond to calls, Beware automatically runs the address. The searches return the names of residents and scans them against a range of publicly available data to generate a color-coded threat level for each person or address: green, yellow or red.
Exactly how Beware calculates threat scores is something that its maker, Intrado, considers a trade secret, so it is unclear how much weight is given to a misdemeanor, felony or threatening comment on Facebook. However, the program flags issues and provides a report to the user.
In promotional materials, Intrado writes that Beware could reveal that the resident of a particular address was a war veteran suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, had criminal convictions for assault and had posted worrisome messages about his battle experiences on social media.

Everything that you have ever done on the Internet could potentially be used to calculate your “threat score”. So if you made some ill-advised comments on Facebook or in an Internet forum five years ago, there is still probably a record of that somewhere, and “Beware” will probably find it.
The next time you get pulled over or a police officer comes to your home, things that you may have completely forgotten that you ever said may come back to haunt you. With that in mind, I would like you to read the following excerpt from an article by Matt Agorist…

Imagine the following scenario: You are on your way home from work, driving down the road when you notice police lights in your rearview mirror. You are being pulled over.
As you sit there, on the shoulder, adrenaline rushing, simultaneously angry and nervous, the police officer, in his patrol car behind you, is sizing you up based on an algorithm that determines your “threat rating.”
The officer enters your license plate into a mobile application on his laptop. In a matter of seconds, this application crawls over billions of records in commercial and public databases, including all available social media engagement, recent purchases and “any comments that could be construed as offensive.” The application then determines if your “threat rating” is green, yellow, or red.
Imagine that you are one of our informed and frequent readers and understand the importance of police accountability and are unafraid to voice your entirely peaceful, yet strong opinion about police misconduct. Imagine that you left a comment on Facebook this morning about a particular officer’s misconduct; imagine that it is this particular officer who just pulled you over.

We live in a society that has become absolutely obsessed with surveillance.
A “Big Brother police state control grid” is being systematically constructed all around us, and we are being watched, tracked, monitored and controlled in hundreds of different ways.
So what can we do about this?
Is there any hope for change?
Well, John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute believes that the key is grassroots activism and non-violent resistance…

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there is only one feasible solution left to us short of fleeing the country for parts unknown: grassroots activism that strives to reform the government locally and trickles up.
Unfortunately, such a solution requires activism, engagement, vigilance, sacrifice, individualism, community-building, nullification and a communal willingness to reject the federal government’s handouts and, when needed, respond with what Martin Luther King Jr. referred to as “militant nonviolent resistance.”
That means forgoing Monday night football in order to actively voice your concerns at city council meetings, turning off the television and spending an hour reading your local newspaper (if you still have one that reports local news) from front to back, showing your displeasure by picketing in front of government offices, risking your reputation by speaking up and disagreeing with the majority when necessary, refusing to meekly accept whatever the government dictates, reminding government officials—including law enforcement—that they work for you, and working together with your neighbors to present a united front against an overreaching government.

So what do you think?
Will we ever be able to get our privacy back, or has government surveillance become too entrenched?

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/government-software-calculates-your-threat-score-and-categorizes-citizens-as-red-yellow-or-green

Tuesday 09-01-15

Food items you should never buy in bulk

                  

• 
  

  iStock
• 
  

  iStock
• 
  

  iStock
• 
  

  iStock
• 
  

  iStock
• 
  

  iStock

 

It may seem like a great idea to buy everything you can in bulk, but that's not necessarily the case. Often buying bulk foods mean saving money and cutting down on wasteful packaging, but a handful of items can go bad well before you've had a chance to work your way through them.

"Be realistic," says Epicurious Food Editor Rhoda Boone. "Check the expiration date. If the item has one, think about if you'll really use the amount you're buying in that time. You're not really saving money if you're going to throw spoiled food away."

Here are a few things you're better off buying in small doses:

• 1. Nuts and Seeds

  
  

  iStock
  Both contain lots of oil, which come from healthy unsaturated fats. But these fats unfortunately can go rancid quickly, resulting in stale nuts and seeds. Even when stored properly—in airtight containers in a cool, dark spot—they'll only keep for a couple of months. To extend that shelf life, keep those containers in the fridge or freezer, where they'll keep for up to 6 months or a year, respectively.

• 2. Flour

  
  

  iStock
  Whether it's all-purpose, whole wheat, or another variety, flour attracts moisture, so it can go rancid quickly. While refined flour like all-purpose can keep for up to a year, whole grain and nut flours only have a couple of months before they can start to turn. Your best bet is to buy in small quantities and store it in a cool, dark spot or even better, the refrigerator or freezer.

• 3. Spices

  
  

  iStock
  Though they actually don't go bad, spices go stale, and they go stale fast. Ground spices actually will start to loose their flavor after only 6 months, while whole spices have about a year. Since you're likely only using a small amount each time you cook, only buy what you think you'll use in a short period of time.

• 4. Brown Rice and Other Whole Grains

  
  

  iStock
  Just like nuts and seeds, whole grains are high in oils that go rancid quickly. These oils are in the grain's bran and germ, which are removed in processed grains like white rice but remain attached in whole grains. Only buy what you think you'll use in six months and keep it in an airtight container in a cool, dark spot.

• 5. Bread

  
  

  iStock
  If you've ever left a baguette on the counter for a few too many hours, you know it gets rock hard fast. Though you can prevent bread from going stale by freezing it, no one has room for a freezerful of loaves. So while it may be tempting to stock up when your favorite bakery is having its end of day sale, try to be practical.

• 6. Oils

  
  

  iStock
  See a trend here? If nuts, seeds, and grains that contain oil go bad fast, pure oil is no different. No matter the oil—olive, sesame, canola, peanut—its shelf life is limited. While it's tempting to pick up one of those big jugs that are sold at the grocery store, unless you are deep-frying everything in your kitchen, there's no way you'll get through the container before it starts to go rancid in 3 to 6 months.

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2015/08/25/food-items-should-never-buy-in-bulk/?intcmp=hpffo&intcmp=obnetwork

 

 

Everything You Know About Cholesterol Is Wrong

 

Back in 2013 when I published the results of my testosterone-boosting experiment, I got chided by many commenters for recommending a diet high in cholesterol and fat. According to them, I was promoting a dangerous diet that would lead to heart disease and obesity, despite the fact that I also published the results of my blood test which showed stellar cholesterol numbers.
I don’t blame these guys for their criticisms. Like me, most of them probably grew up during the 80s and 90s when it was an article of faith that diets high in cholesterol and fat would result in heart disease and other health problems.
But everything most everyone knew about cholesterol has turned out to be wrong. (And that includes me and what I thought was a conclusive link between this lipid molecule and testosterone!)
In truth, cholesterol isn’t a bad guy. He’s just misunderstood. And today we’re going to share everything you need to know about Mr. Cholesterol and offer the real dope on this right old molecular chap.

The Benefits of Cholesterol

Without cholesterol, you would die.
Simple as that.
That’s because cholesterol is the raw material your body uses for a whole host of functions. For example, did you know that the membrane of all your cells consists of a good amount of cholesterol? Without it, we’d be gelatinous blobs because our cells wouldn’t have any structure to them.
Besides keeping us from melting into puddles of goop, cholesterol also provides the following benefits:
Sex hormones are made from cholesterol. Testosterone — the hormone that puts hair on your chest and makes you strong like bull — is made from cholesterol. And it’s not just T. Estrogen, and the sex hormones needed for female sex traits, are made from cholesterol, too.
Because cholesterol is a precursor to testosterone, a common side effect found among men taking statins (cholesterol-lowering drugs) is a drop in libido as well as an increase in erectile dysfunction. Several studies have confirmed the connection between lowered cholesterol levels and lowered testosterone levels.
So is the inverse also true? Will increasing your cholesterol consumption increase your testosterone levels? During my testosterone-boosting experiment, I assumed the answer was yes, which is why I wolfed down eggs and red meat for three months. However, after researching more, I haven’t been able to find a single study on whether or not increasing dietary cholesterol will indeed increase T levels, which is truly surprising. Researchers know that the Leydig cells in your testicles — the cells that create testosterone — have extra cholesterol requirements compared to other cells. Yet where they get that extra cholesterol isn’t entirely clear. Leydig cells can create their own cholesterol for testosterone when overall levels are down; however, when Leydig cells are forced to do so, T levels begin to drop. So perhaps dietary cholesterol fills the gap? (Note: one study has shown that olive oil allows Leydig cells to absorb more cholesterol, thus resulting in increased T levels. Be generous with that olive oil on your salad!)
Tim Ferriss experimented with increasing his T levels by ingesting large amounts of cholesterol — in the form of a shake made from whole milk and four raw eggs — right before he went to sleep. His personal experiment resulted in increased T levels in the mornings after he had drunk the shake compared to the mornings when he hadn’t. Yes, it’s an n+1 experiment and doesn’t have the authority of more rigorous studies, but it’s an interesting result to consider.
Bottom line: increasing dietary cholesterol may or may not increase T levels. (If you know of a study that has looked at that question, I’d love to hear about it!) But regardless of whether or not it does, eating a diet low in processed carbs and high in protein, which is also a typical byproduct of trying to ingest more cholesterol, may have other health benefits. This includes weight loss and muscle gain — effects which do conclusively raise your T.
Vitamin D is made from cholesterol. “Vitamin D” is actually a misnomer because it’s not a vitamin, but rather a hormone. And just as cholesterol serves as the precursor to sex hormones, it’s also necessary to the production of the hormone Vitamin D. Whenever the cholesterol in your skin is exposed to sunlight, particularly UV-B rays, a chemical reaction occurs which results in the production of Vitamin D3. Sure, you can take an oral supplement to get the same result, but if your body can make it free from just cholesterol and sunlight, you might as well take advantage of it.
Our bodies use Vitamin D for a variety of important functions such as immune response, regulation of calcium and phosphate, inflammation reduction, and even gene expression. Increased levels of it are associated with better mental and emotional health as well as increased testosterone levels.
So what are you waiting for? Put that cholesterol to use by catching some rays.
Bile acids are made from cholesterol. That steak you ate last night had to be broken down so your body could use it for nutrients. Bile acids play an important role in that breakdown process. And yep, bile acids are made from our handy friend, Mr. Cholesterol.
Cholesterol is vital for brain health. Your brain is filled with cholesterol. Not only does your noodle use it to make new neural cells, it’s also used to maintain their integrity and facilitate cellular communication by helping form the myelin sheaths that coat the cells.
Studies have found that low cholesterol levels (around 160 mg/dL or less) are linked to memory loss, depression, and aggression. Research has shown that cholesterol may play a role in the effective release of neurotransmitters; without it, your brain just can’t make all the cellular connections it needs to maintain its sharpness and vibrancy.
If you’re looking for a quick way to up your cholesterol intake to maintain a healthy brain, eat the brains of other animals. No, really. Apparently noshing on squirrel brains mixed with scrambled eggs is a thing. That’s a cholesterol mega-dose right there.
Cholesterol may help fight infections. Research has shown an inverse correlation between cholesterol levels and infections — the lower your cholesterol levels, the greater your vulnerability to getting sick. So how does cholesterol fight infections? Studies suggest that LDL (the so-called “bad” cholesterol — more on LDL below) plays a role in stimulating our immune system to fight off infection. When cholesterol levels are low, there’s a decrease in the production of certain antibodies.

Why Cholesterol Got a Bad Rap

If cholesterol provides so many health benefits, how did it get such a bad rap?
It was a mixture of bad science and politics as usual.
Back in the 1950s, Ancel Keys, the scientist who created the K-ration for WWII soldiers, noticed that well-fed American business executives had high rates of heart disease, while malnourished individuals living in post-war Europe had lower rates of it. Keys hypothesized that the American diet — which was filled with high fat, high cholesterol foods — was responsible, and he concocted a study to prove it.
His famous “Seven Countries” study was one of the first longitudinal studies to test the effect of diet on health. Keys examined saturated fat and cholesterol consumption in seven countries (hence the name) and found a seemingly perfect relationship between rates of heart disease and rates of cholesterol and saturated fat consumption. His data showed exactly what he had predicted it would.
Right away, other researchers questioned the validity of the study. A British doctor named John Yudkin was particularly skeptical. Yudkin had done similar research and found several countries that had above average intake of saturated fat consumption but low rates of heart disease. Yudkin, along with other scientists, basically accused Keys of cherry-picking the countries in his study in order to prove his conclusion. They argued that it wasn’t cholesterol and fat that caused heart disease, but rather increased sugar consumption that was the true culprit.
But because of Keys’ role in developing nutrition standards for soldiers during WWII, he had tremendous political clout with congressmen, agency bureaucrats, and the media. Encouraged by the results of his study, Keys began to lobby heavily for the U.S. government to recommend low fat, low cholesterol diets. In 1977, Senator George McGovern, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs, published dietary guidelines based on Keys’ research that would radically change how Americans ate. The guidelines called for a diet low in fat and cholesterol and high in carbohydrates from vegetables and grains. The USDA issued guidelines recommending only 300 mg of dietary cholesterol a day. Which isn’t very much. Just two whole eggs contain 374 mg of cholesterol.

Turn that frown upside down! Cholesterol is a-okay!

The result was a boom in food products marketed as “Low Fat” and “Heart Healthy.” Low-fat Snackwell cookies, cholesterol-free margarine, and non-fat potato chips lined the shelves of grocery stores. Americans replaced natural foods that had been common fare for centuries with these lab-produced, factory-made products. They stopped eating eggs and butter, switched from whole to skim milk, and gave up on bacon.
What’s more, pharmaceutical companies jumped on this bandwagon and created cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins. Statins work by blocking a substance your body needs to create cholesterol. Doctors began prescribing these drugs by the boatloads to any patient who walked in with higher than normal cholesterol levels.
But a funny thing happened.
Despite the fact that more Americans were eating low-fat and cholesterol-free foods, heart disease rates and obesity continued to climb. What gives?
Well, come to find out Yudkin and his colleagues were right. It wasn’t cholesterol and fat that caused people to gain weight and get heart disease; it was sugar and processed carbs. And guess what food manufacturers often replaced the missing fat with in their “heart healthy foods”? Sugar and processed carbs, of course. And that cholesterol-free margarine? It was made from hydrogenated vegetable oil that created trans fat, a type of fat that actually is linked to heart disease and stroke.
Those supposedly heart-healthy diet guidelines from the 70s were wreaking havoc on the circulatory systems of tens of millions of Americans.
And all those statin prescriptions? They worked wonderfully at lowering cholesterol…but probably a little too wonderfully. Many patients began complaining about symptoms like memory loss, depression, increased infections, erectile dysfunction, and lowered testosterone levels. Researchers discovered that in many patients, statins lowered cholesterol levels so much that the body wasn’t getting enough of the cholesterol it needed for healthy functioning.
Thankfully, in the past few years, we’ve regained some sanity when it comes to fat and cholesterol. Recent research has confirmed what scientists 60 years ago knew. It’s not dietary cholesterol and saturated fat that causes heart disease, it’s sugar combined with other lifestyle factors — like stress and being sedentary — that promote inflammation.
Consequently, government agencies and health organizations are backtracking on their stringent dietary cholesterol limits. In fact, earlier this year, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee issued a draft document stating that dietary cholesterol plays little or no role in heart disease and that most folks probably shouldn’t worry about how much cholesterol they’re eating. While the panel doesn’t issue official guidelines, agencies responsible for food guidelines usually adhere very closely to them.
When it comes to statin prescriptions, many doctors are now using much more discretion. Instead of prescribing them to anyone with above average cholesterol levels, doctors now only do so for high-risk heart disease patients. Who’s a high-risk patient? Basically, those who already have existing heart disease.

How Your Body Gets the Cholesterol It Needs

Your body produces about 80% of the cholesterol it needs during the day; the other 20% comes from food.
About 20% to 25% of the cholesterol that your body produces is created in the liver from fatty acids. Other places where your body manufactures cholesterol include your intestines, adrenal glands, and reproductive organs.
When you consume foods with cholesterol, your body uses it. If you consume a lot of cholesterol, your body will just decrease the amount that it produces itself. If you don’t consume much cholesterol, your body will simply increase the amount it produces on its own. So even if you eat all the bacon and eggs you can stomach (like I do), your overall cholesterol levels will probably stay about the same (as mine have).
Genetics, not diet, seems to play a larger role in your overall cholesterol levels.

Beyond Good and Bad Cholesterol: HDL and LDL Cholesterol

Cholesterol is transported in the blood attached to carrier proteins. These cholesterol-protein combos are called lipoproteins. Lipoproteins are typically broken up into two groups based on their density: high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and low-density lipoproteins (LDL).
For years, researchers and doctors have called HDL “good cholesterol” and LDL “bad cholesterol.” While that’s roughly accurate, recent research has given us a much more nuanced look at HDL and LDL cholesterol. For example, not all HDL is good and not all LDL is bad. Below, we break down everything you need to know about these two groups.
HDL Cholesterol. The reason doctors call HDL “good cholesterol” is because HDL removes the so-called bad LDL cholesterol from the body. HDL does this by transporting cholesterol away from the body’s tissues and back to the liver where it’s turned into bile and excreted out of your body. HDL is what gets rid of excess cholesterol in your body and prevents build-up in your arteries.
Because HDL is your body’s cholesterol garbage truck, the more you have, the better. Recent research suggests that your HDL should be more than 60 mg/dL.
While HDL as a broad category is good for you, recent research has shown that not all HDL is the same. There are two subtypes; one is good for you, the other not so much. HDL-2 particles are large, buoyant, and provide the most protection from the build-up of LDL cholesterol. These particles are also anti-inflammatory. HDL-3, on the other hand, is small, dense, and possibly inflammatory. So while you want a high overall HDL number, you’ll want to have more HDL-2 than HDL-3 in your system. Newer tests can suss out the difference between the two, and researchers are developing therapies to target lowering just HDL-3. However, for most folks, you don’t need to worry too much about the two sub-types. Just knowing your overall HDL will do.
To increase your HDL levels, get plenty of exercise, don’t smoke, and increase your consumption of healthy monosaturated fats that you’ll find in foods like olive oil, avocados, fish, and nuts.
LDL Cholesterol. LDL is considered “bad” cholesterol because it can build up in the arteries, blocking blood flow. Unlike HDL that transports cholesterol away from body tissue and to the liver, LDL delivers cholesterol to the body after the liver produces it.
While our body needs the cholesterol that LDL delivers, too much of it could create health problems by building up in the arteries. Consequently, researchers and doctors recommend that folks shoot for an LDL that’s lower than 100 mg/dL.
Just as with HDL, not all LDL is the same. There are two types of LDL particles. One is terrible for you and the other only causes problems when it’s oxidized. LDL-A is a big, fluffy molecule that won’t cause any harm to your system so long as it’s not damaged by oxidation, which occurs when free radicals attach to the LDL. When this happens, the cholesterol converts to plaque. Researchers believe LDL-A levels play little or no role in heart disease or other circulatory problems.
LDL-B, on the other hand, is the bad kind. It’s a small, hard, and dense molecule that causes your arteries to harden. While you should focus on lowering your overall LDL levels, you’re better off having more LDL-A and less LDL-B. Blood tests can measure both of these.
To lower your LDL levels, get rid of excess body fat and increase your HDL levels with the lifestyle suggestions above. Research has shown that increased consumption of saturated fat can help decrease the amount of LDL-B particles in your system.
Lp(a): The Alpha Wolf Cholesterol Particle. While HDL and LDL levels get the lion’s share of attention, there’s a third type of lipoprotein that likely has more of an influence on your risk for heart disease than both HDL and LDL levels. Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is a very small, yet highly inflammatory particle that promotes the blood clotting that can lead to coronary heart disease and stroke. Lp(a) is so patently bad for you, cholesterol expert Dr. Stephen Sinatra calls it the “alpha wolf cholesterol particle.”
Lp(a) isn’t a problem in low amounts. In fact, it serves a useful purpose in that it helps repair and restore damaged blood vessels. The problems start whenever your body has to use Lp(a) frequently to perform this function, as often happens when folks have chronic inflammation.
Most cholesterol blood tests don’t measure Lp(a) levels so if you want to know yours, you’ll have to ask for a test that specifically measures it. Ideally Lp(a) levels should stay below 30 mg/dL. Lp(a) levels are primarily determined by genetics, so if you have a family history of early arterial diseases, you should get your Lp(a) levels checked.
The current recommended treatment for high levels of Lp(a) is 1-3 grams daily of niacin, also known as Vitamin B3. When you take niacin at such high levels, you’ll experience what’s called a “niacin flush,” a harmless yet uncomfortable reddening and warming of your skin. To manage the flush, start off your niacin supplementation at 100 mg and very slowly increase the dosage.

Give It to Me Straight Doc: Is It Okay to Eat Cholesterol?

First, I’m not a doctor, I just play one on TV. And by TV I mean online.
With that said, based on my research on the current studies out there about cholesterol, most folks can wolf down Ron Swanson-amounts of cholesterol without increasing their levels or putting themselves at risk for heart disease. A very small percentage of the population has genes that cause their cholesterol levels to rise significantly when they eat diets high in it. These folks will need to watch their cholesterol intake. To find out if you’re what scientists call “hyper-responsive” to cholesterol, you’ll need to take a test with your doctor.
What goes for cholesterol goes for fat as well. Research has found little connection between heart disease and fat — both the saturated and unsaturated varieties. You do want to stay away from trans fat, though. That’s the man-made fat that has been shown to cause heart disease and other circulatory problems. Keep your foods as whole and natural as possible.
Now you know there’s no need to keep old Mr. Cholesterol at arm’s length. Invite him in for a bacon and egg breakfast and tip your hat to his brain-boosting, infection-fighting, possibly T-raising ways.

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2015/08/25/everything-you-know-about-cholesterol-is-wrong/


If you have any interest in keeping Bees, here is a free Kindle (you can read it on your computer also) book  
Langstroth on the Hive and the Honey-Bee A Bee Keeper's Manual

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0082RV49Y/

Sunday 06-07-15

A Smelling Bee?

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY


MSU research reveals that Varroa mites, the most-serious threat to honeybees
worldwide, are infiltrating hives by smelling like bees. Credit Photo by Zachary Huang
 

EAST LANSING, Mich. - If there were an international smelling bee, a deadly mite would be a favorite to win.
New research has revealed that Varroa mites, the most-serious threat to honeybees worldwide, are infiltrating hives by smelling like bees.
The Michigan State University-led study, appearing in the current issue of Biology Letters, shows that being able to smell like their hostess reduces the chance that the parasite is found and killed.
The parasites were originally found on Asian honeybees. The invasive species, however, revealed their versatility when they began infesting and killing European honeybees.
"The mites from Asian honeybees, or the original host, are more efficient in mimicking both Asian and European honeybees," said Zachary Huang, MSU entomologist and one of the papers' lead authors. "This remarkable adaptability may explain their relatively recent host shift from Asian to European honeybees."
Chemical camouflage isn't a new weapon in insects' arsenals. Bolas spiders, for example, emit not one but three chemicals to emulate a sex pheromone to attract moths to eat. However, fooling socially sophisticated insects, such as honeybees, requires the faux scents to be spot-on.
That's because the complex society of bees comprises tens of thousands of individuals divided by a sophisticated caste system. So, the mites aren't simply tricking a solitary bee collecting pollen from a flower; they're fooling an entire society. The stealthy mites do this by not only by being able to smell like bees, but also by effectively emitting the specific scents of small, individual colonies.
"They are essentially getting through the door and reaching the inner sanctum by using bees' own complex communication codes against them," Huang said.
The codes in which they communicate are hydrocarbons, the simplest of organic compounds. By tweaking the proportions of these chemical colognes, the mites give off the correct scents to fool their enemies.
Specifically, it's the cuticular hydrocarbons, compounds released from hair-shaft glands, that emit scents that differentiate queens from fertile and infertile workers; it's the smell that invokes acceptance or triggers aggression.
Huang and his team showed that mites are able to change their surface chemicals to an entirely different species of honeybees. Further, they also revealed that the mites were able to make these changes rather quickly - adapting in days rather than evolving over generations.
"Our study challenged the mites' ability to modify their hydrocarbons," Huang. "Conversely, bees are adapting to detect these invaders. Our results give a clear illustration of an arms race between the parasites and the host bees based on chemical mimicry and its detection."

Thursday 05-14-15

Fishing today posting will be light today and tomorrow, better because the company is paying for it.

We are slowly losing

Oregon Governor Signs Bill Expanding Gun Background Checks

Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill Monday requiring background checks on firearm transfers between private parties, making Oregon the eighth state to require screening on nearly all gun sales.

The law, which takes effect immediately, requires gun buyers and sellers who aren't related to visit a licensed gun dealer who can run a background check.

"We have an obligation to protect Oregonians from gun violence," said Brown, a Democrat. "If we want to keep our kids, schools and communities safe we must make it harder for dangerous people to get guns."

Republicans vehemently opposed the measure. They say it will only burden gun owners who are committed to following the law without changing the behavior of people willing to break it.

"The good intentions behind Senate Bill 941 do not change the fact that it is a deeply flawed and unenforceable piece of legislation that targets responsible, law-abiding Oregonians," said Rep. Mike McLane, the top Republican in the House.

Brown's signature caps a long campaign by Oregon Democrats seeking stronger gun laws, which intensified following a 2012 shooting at a suburban shopping mall packed with Christmas shoppers. The bill's critics point out that the rifle used in that shooting was stolen. A 22-year-old gunman killed three people and injured a third before turning the gun on himself.

Backed by national gun-control groups, Democrats pushed for background check legislation in 2013 and 2014 but didn't have enough votes. The path to victory was paved when Democratic candidates picked up three legislative seats in the 2014 election, some of them with the help of gun-control groups such as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety.

Three Democratic lawmakers are facing recall petitions that cite their support for expanded background checks, among other grievances, though the recall backers must collect thousands of signatures in a short time.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/oregon-governor-signs-bill-expanding-gun-background-checks-30967845


Zeitgesit 2015: Stephen Hawking warns computers will overtake humans within 100 years

The growing field of artificial intelligence is catching the eye of academics and technology leaders worldwide

Stephen Hawking today warned that computers will overtake humans in terms of intelligence at some point within the next century. 

Speaking at the Zeitgeist 2015 conference in London, the internationally renowned cosmologist and Cambridge University professor, said: “Computers will overtake humans with AI at some within the next 100 years. When that happens, we need to make sure the computers have goals aligned with ours.”

Hawking, who signed an open letter alongside Elon Musk earlier this year warning AI development should not go on uncontrolled, added: “Our future is a race between the growing power of technology and the wisdom with which we use it.” 

In the short term, people are concerned about who controls AI, but in the long term, the concern will be whether AI can be controlled at all, said Hawking. 

AI can be defined as the intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It has the potential to have a profound impact on the world as people know and it’s an area being pursued by global tech giants such as Google and Facebook. 

AI technology is already built into devices we use in our every day lives. For example, Siri, an intelligent personal assistant that sits inside iPhones and iPads is underpinned by AI developed by Apple, while Google's self-driving vehicles also rely heavily on AI. According to the FT, more than 150 startups in Silicon Valley are working on AI today.

Hawking believes that scientists and technologists need to safely and carefully coordinate and communicate advancements in AI to ensure it does not grow beyond humanity's control.

http://www.techworld.com/news/operating-systems/stephen-hawking-warns-computers-will-overtake-humans-within-100-years-3611397/

HSBC WARNS: The world economy faces a 'titanic problem'

HSBC chief economist Stephen King is already thinking about the next recession.
In a note to clients Wednesday, he warns: "The world economy is like an ocean liner without lifeboats. If another recession hits, it could be a truly titanic struggle for policymakers."
Here's King (emphasis added):

Whereas previous recoveries have enabled monetary and fiscal policymakers to replenish their ammunition, this recovery — both in the US and elsewhere — has been distinguished by a persistent munitions shortage. This is a major problem. In all recessions since the 1970s, the US Fed funds rate has fallen by a minimum of 5 percentage points. That kind of traditional stimulus is now completely ruled out.

King notes that this far into the recovery, there's a lack of "traditional policy ammunition." For instance, Treasury yields have not risen, the budget deficit is not falling, and welfare payments are still on the rise.
As for what might trigger the next recession, King highlighted four things:

• Wage growth will hurt corporate earnings and reduce the share of corporate profit contributing to US gross domestic product (it also doesn't help that worker productivity is low). In turn, households and businesses will lose confidence in the economy, and the "equity bubble" will burst with collapsing stock prices.
• Nonbank financial systems such as insurance companies and pension funds will increasingly not be able to meet future obligations. This will cause a huge demand for liquid assets, forcing people to rush to sell despite no matching demand, triggering a recession.
• Forces beyond the Federal Reserve's control, including the possibility that China's economy and its currency could collapse. Weak commodity prices could also cause collapses in several emerging markets, as could continued strength in the US dollar.
• The Fed could cause the next recession by raising interest rates too soon, repeating the mistakes of the European Central Bank in 2011 and the Bank of Japan in 2000.

 http://www.businessinsider.com/hsbcs-stephen-king-on-the-world-economy-2015-5#ixzz3a3mii600


Survey: More than 40 percent of bee hives died in past year


WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than two out of five American honeybee colonies died in the past year, and surprisingly the worst die-off was in the summer, according to a federal survey.

Since April 2014, beekeepers lost 42.1 percent of their colonies, the second highest loss rate in nine years, according to an annual survey conducted by a bee partnership that includes the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

"What we're seeing with this bee problem is just a loud signal that there's some bad things happening with our agro-ecosystems," said study co-author Keith Delaplane at the University of Georgia. "We just happen to notice it with the honeybee because they are so easy to count."

But it's not quite as dire as it sounds. That's because after a colony dies, beekeepers then split their surviving colonies, start new ones, and the numbers go back up again, said Delaplane and study co-author Dennis vanEngelsdorp of the University of Maryland.

What shocked the entomologists is that is the first time they've noticed bees dying more in the summer than the winter, said vanEngelsdorp said. The survey found beekeepers lost 27.4 percent of their colonies this summer. That's up from 19.8 percent the previous summer.

Seeing massive colony losses in summer is like seeing "a higher rate of flu deaths in the summer than winter," vanEngelsdorp said. "You just don't expect colonies to die at this rate in the summer."

Oklahoma, Illinois, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Maine and Wisconsin all saw more than 60 percent of their hives die since April 2014, according to the survey.

"Most of the major commercial beekeepers get a dark panicked look in their eyes when they discuss these losses and what it means to their businesses," said Pennsylvania State University entomology professor Diana Cox-Foster. She wasn't part of the study, but praised it.

Delaplane and vanEngelsdorp said a combination of mites, poor nutrition and pesticides are to blame for the bee deaths. USDA bee scientist Jeff Pettis said last summer's large die-off included unusual queen loss and seemed worse in colonies that moved more.

Dick Rogers, chief beekeeper for pesticide-maker Bayer, said the loss figure is "not unusual at all" and said the survey shows an end result of more colonies now than before: 2.74 million hives in 2015, up from 2.64 million in 2014.

That doesn't mean bee health is improving or stable, vanEngelsdorp said. After they lose colonies, beekeepers are splitting their surviving hives to recover their losses, pushing the bees to their limits, Delaplane said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_BEE_DEATHS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-13-09-15-22