Category: Lifestyle

California is in the midst of one of the most severe droughts on record.

It’s so bad that Governor Jerry Brown declared it a state of emergency. The Golden State’s recent trouble accentuates the preciousness of something many Americans take for granted: Water.

We waste an inordinate amount of water maintaining enormous lawns. We shower too long. We keep the water running while we get ready in the morning. If recent predictions are correct, we will no longer be able to blindly ignore these practices. According to NASA, we (and the rest of the world) have cause for concern.

We’re running out of water.

A satellite program conducted by NASA called the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) has given researchers Jay Famiglietti and Matthew Rodell one of the most accurate pictures of the world’s freshwater reserves to date.

Famiglietti is the director of the UC Center for Hydrologic Modeling at the University of California Irvine and Rodell is chief of the Hydrological Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The two authored a paper based on GRACE, which used two satellites recording the earth’s gravitational data to measure aquifer levels worldwide.

It’s not exactly full of good news. Famiglietti characterized the situation as “quite critical.”

From 2003 to 2013, the research shows that 21 of the world’s 37 major aquifers have become unsustainable. In short, the water reserves are being depleted faster than they’re being replenished. Thirteen of those 21 aquifers are have been affected at alarming rates.

The most stressed aquifers (those with little to no sign of recharging) are the Arabian Aquifer in Saudi Arabia, the Indus Basin in northern India and Pakistan, and the Murzuk-Djado Basin in Libya and Niger. To put the situation into perspective, 60 million people rely on the Arabian Aquifer as a source of water.

That’s not to say America is faring much better.

The Central Valley Aquifer in California and the Atlantic and Gulf Plains Aquifer in the Southeastern portion of the country are both being depleted, as well. The Central Valley Aquifer was rated as “highly stressed,” and the recent drought hasn’t exactly helped matters. Conversely, aquifers located in the Great Plains and the Midwest seem to be doing alright.

The pattern in America mirrors what’s happening in the rest of the world. Essentially, areas in middle latitudes close to equator, especially arid and semiarid regions, are drying up. Furthermore, the tropics and regions farther north and south of equator in more extreme latitudes are experiencing more intense rainfall.

It’s a catch 22.

As those areas become drier and drier, the populations in said areas rely more and more on disappearing aquifers for survival. The water from the aquifers evaporates and then is recirculated to the areas experiencing heavier rains.

If no action is taken, it’s a very real possibility that groundwater in certain areas of the world will be depleted completely. The findings also tacitly touch on a subject that, until now, was strictly the domain of post apocalyptic fiction for most Americans: Conflict over water.

Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has noted that water is often a source of “cooperation rather than conflict.” Still, it doesn’t rule out the possibility of the latter. In fact, the Pacific Institute has put together a detailed timeline of water conflict throughout history, from 600 BC all the way to 2014.

The timeline illustrates the fact that there has always been conflict and unrest involving water sources, but that it’s increased in recent years. So what happens when the world’s demand for water outstrips reliable sources?

According to the U.S. Intelligence Community assessment of Global Water Security, the coming water shortage has the potential to lead to social disruptions and political instability. The assessment states that: “Social disruptions eventually leading to state failure are plausible when the population believes water shortages are the result of poor governance, hoarding, or control of water by elites and other destabilizing factors are present.”

Despite that grim warning, the intelligence community feels violent, state-on-state conflict will be unlikely in the coming years. There are other ramifications, though.

When it comes to shared water basins, the report notes that it is likely that a number of countries will exert leverage against their neighbors to protect water reserves. Additionally, “upstream states,” countries home to a water origin source, might be tempted to cut off water to “downstream states” for political gain. Existing problems such as poverty, poor leadership and environmental degradation are likely to be exacerbated under those circumstances.  

Considering the information available to us, we must start to take this issue seriously. There needs to be a concerted effort toward effective water management.

This means several things, including:  adoption of pricing policies to encourage efficient water use, investment in water infrastructure, effective use of existing technology (especially in regard to agriculture) to aid conservation and efficiency, support of emerging water technology and more advanced hydrological modeling to support new water sharing agreements. It also means adjusting our personal, water-wasting habits.

This sort of research has presented us with more than evidence of a growing problem. It has presented us with an opportunity to change.

Let’s capitalize on it.

I’m sure many of us have seen the recent PSA’s regarding organ donors. The feels that ensue are gut wrenching and, quite frankly, made me take a detour on my way home to change my driver’s license preference. Organ donations are one of the advanced medicine miracles of our time, giving people a second chance that 65 years ago wouldn’t have been feasible.

However, organ donations are known for being few and far between. The waiting list is dizzying and the amount of time you have to wait sometimes borders on years.

But now there’s talk that organ donations may eventually be a thing of the past with lab grown prosthetics beginning to take shape. Although this is not the same as organ transplants it could quickly morph into this.

The exact science behind this new age-y science is fairly involved, but here’s a breakdown. We’ll use the example of a rat since that has been the first success story.

    1. An arm from a deceased rat was taken and placed in a vat of chemicals that disintegrated all of the cells leaving “primarily [the] vascular and nerve matrix.” In other words, it pretty much looked like a clean skeleton.

    2. As the cells were being removed from rat number one, muscle cells from rat number two  were being grown in an additional dish.

    3. The skeletal arm was placed in a container, and these new muscle cells were injected into this skeletal arm (again this is a VERY basic explanation of the process).

    4. This arm was left in the vat for two weeks, and when later inspected, the cells had been accepted. When electrical stimulation was applied to the arm it already had 80% muscle mobility (CNET).

This bioengineered arm has a clear advantage over a prosthetic limb as the range of motion is better and you can feel pressure and/or heat. Although clinical trials are a long way off and the success of it actually being accepted by the body will initially be slim, the current success of human hand transplants is encouraging.

In 1998, the first successful human hand transplant was performed on Matthew Scott. This 13 hour procedure was performed in New Zealand and doctors from around the world were flown in to provide their assistance. Since then, multiple hand transplants have been performed with success rates being higher than fail rates (Composite Tissue Allotransplantation).

The hope is that organically grown limbs and organs will have a higher acceptance rate within the body compared to that of a foreign organism. Prosthetics are usually rejected, or the recipient is on antibiotics for their remaining years to keep their body from rejecting this foreign matter (Engadget).

Organ donation is amazing and prosthetics are used by thousands, but wouldn’t it be amazing if we could have an endless supply to stop waiting lists and remove stigmas? Lab grown limbs are on the horizon, and although it may feel as though we’re playing God, the results can be astoundingly beautiful.

“A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food” (Label GMOs).
Recently the scare of genetically engineered organisms (GMO) has been gaining speed and popularity. Introduced in 1996, GMOs are here to stay, for better or for worse.
Scientists and farmers have assured consumers that they are creating “better” food, and by better they mean food that is herbicide tolerant and possessing the ability to yield its own pesticide (Down To Earth).
But there are some concerns that consumers are vocalizing. Mommy bloggers, liberals, and conservatives alike are banding together to bring about change, or at least some sort of enlightenment. Scientists have been giving the green light to continue the use of GMOs, but, at closer investigation, this seal of approval has become relatively one sided.
In 1974, there was strict regulations on experimentation with the preliminary form of GMOs by scientists who feared the effects behind genetic engineering. However, in 1984 the White House was able to regulate, along with the American Food and Drug Association (FDA), the biotechnology. Not much was said during this period, as GMOs were a relatively unknown and undiscussed issue. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to ban certain pesticides, they were eventually overruled by agricultural scientists and their supporters in Congress (Council on Foreign Relations).
This type of strong-arming for health and safety reviews still occurs and is actually supplied by the very companies who are seeking approval for their GMO products. This is a serious conflict of interest which begs the question as to how much validity these statements that “GMOs are harmless” posses (Down To Earth). This blurring of lines is one reason that so many people are confused regarding what they should believe in the GMO debate.
The fact of the matter is that the health risks behind GMOs are unknown. There has not been enough time to draw conclusive evidence whether GMOs are harmful or not. However the studies that have been conducted on animals does not look promising.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) believes that GM foods can be doing long-term damage to the human form. “The AAEM reported that several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,’ including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system” (Institute for Responsible Technology).
As studies continue to focus on animals being subjected to GMOs, even more problematic findings arise, such as third generation hamsters becoming infertile. Which may sound trite, but this could be an issue humans may face decades from now. And unlike drug regulations, there have been no human clinical trials for GM foods. So, at best, the studies that have been evaluated are only surface level.
Forty percent of the world’s population already label genetically engineered foods, including the entire European Union (Label GMOs). What is even more interesting is that the companies that are fighting so hard to ban GMO labeling are submitting to the EU’s rules, and either label or provide non-GM enhanced products.
Whether or not there are risks involved with consuming GM products, it is important for people to be informed about what they ingest. There never used to be nutrition labels or calories listed on products, but since they have been integrated it has been a big help for nutritionists and regular individuals.
However there is a flipside to the argument, which is “no” to GMO labeling.
Scientist and professor, Kevin Folta presented a slide which shows the difference between the genetic makeup of table sugar. An organically grown sugar beet was compared to a glyphosate-resistant sugar beet (GM food), and the end results were the same. Neither of their genetic makeup was different even though the sugar beet was a GMO (Kevin Folta).
The Washington Post had a special section back in 2013 where Tamar Haspel, a nutrition expert who has been writing and researching nutrition for the past 15 years, discussed the fact and fiction behind GMOs. “There is no mainstream scientific evidence showing that foods containing GMOs are any more or less harmful for people to consume than anything else in the supermarket” (Washington Post).
What’s more toxic than GMOs is the conspiracy and fear behind them. Haspel acknowledges that there are flaws behind the organizations who whole-heartedly claim that there is zero concern in relation to GMOS, but she is also quick to point out that those who are avid advocates against GMOs are just as harmful. She encourages an impartiality test to be used by consumers. When one is researching the truth behind GMOs it is a red flag if an argument is just one sided, chances are that this person is a “dog” — whether financial or ideological — in the GMO fight (Haspel).
Worrying about unknown risks is is seen as unproductive by certain scientists, as there is always a risk that you’ll get salmonella or fall victim to a car accident. Worrying over food that the FDA has already deemed safe is “futile,” and for those that are so concerned there is a solution: buy organic. Although these foods are more expensive, people can splurge the extra dollars if it gives them a peace of mind (Science Line). People argue that it is pointless and an unnecessary cost to label items as “GMO” since the foods that are missing these GM traits have already been flagged.
Since many people are uneducated with the GMO argument, labeling GM products could lead to hysteria.
Journalist Katherine Foley points out that as scientists continue to study GMOs and more factual and concrete information becomes available to the public there still should not be GMO labeling. She points to the denial of the climate change argument, which she believes if it has taught people anything, it is that we are no where close to ready for knowledge on that scale (Science Line). A common sentiments is that there is virtually no reason for people to be concerned over inconclusive evidence because, whether it is GMO or non-GMO, there will be its own variable type risks.
The world’s population is rapidly growing with one birth occurring every eight seconds, balanced against one death every 13 seconds, therefore providing a net gain of one person every twelve seconds (Census). Basically the births are outweighing the deaths on a rapidly growing scale. An argument for GM is that it could potentially assist in supplying food to the starving. Although there must be room for caution, to completely disregard a rather promising solution would be, as the editors of the Washington Post put it, “self-indulgent” (Washington Post).
The United States government has acknowledged that Americans throw about 40% of perfectly good food away due to slight imperfections that lead people to believe the food is inedible or just plain “gross.” Okanagan Specialty Fruits received the green light to produce genetically modified seeds that would essentially stop apples from browning when they are sliced or bruised. This is not to say they would never spoil, but the typical unfounded reasons for tossing an apple would be eliminated (United States Department of Agriculture).
The only answer to the GMO debate is research and time. Time will tell the true effects, but when one looks to more biased journals it appears that individuals can either be over cautious or accept the “truth” that is presented to them.  The chances that GMOs may be providing genetic abnormalities is slim, but if true, the consequences can be severe. However, just laying out in the sun for an hour or getting on the highway can result in the same if not greater consequences.
Technically, people have been eating GMOs for thousands of years, ever since farmers discovered the trick of selectively breeding crops to have certain traits. However with science, more precise modifications are being made (National Geographic).
Whether or not someone agrees with GMOs there’s a simple solution until GMO labels are created: buy non-gmo labeled foods. GMOs are not going anywhere so it is time to get used to that little green label that has begun to pop up on so many bags. If you do not see it, then you can infer that somewhere along the line a gene has been changed one way or the other.

The government’s role in obesity should be straightforward. Agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report obesity statistics, the United States Department of Agriculture issues nutritional guidelines and offers practical guidance to consumers on how to put together a healthy plate and balance caloric intake. Even first lady Michelle Obama is involved in shaping how American school children eat.

With all the interventions, statistical analyses, recommendations, and regulations, you might assume that the obesity rates in America have fallen steadily over the years.

To the contrary, obesity rates have increased exponentially between 1970 and 2013. Recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that more adults are obese, meaning they have a BMI of at least 30, than are simply overweight, with a BMI between 25.0 and 29.9. This increase is concerning because obesity is associated with numerous health problems from heart disease to some cancers.

Clearly the current government practices and recommendations are not positively impacting the war on obesity. However, even though there are more interventions and regulations now than in the past, I do not believe the government has caused our current obesity crisis. Instead, the government’s role is ill defined, the message is muddled, and the message of healthy eating is not being heard or supported on a local level.  

Does this mean that the government is doing more harm than good or is the government focusing on the wrong interventions and muddling the message?

In examining this topic, I discovered that when the government issues official recommendations, whole industries respond.

Food manufacturers change packaging to show consumers that their foods contain the latest recommended ingredient, marketing companies respond by featuring one food over another, and previously recommended foods such as bread, are suddenly shunned.

The government’s official nutrition guidelines, called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, are revised every five years. Over the years the guidelines have become more detailed and foods rise and fall in popularity. For example, the 2015 guidelines will recommend Americans eat fewer meat products and more vegetables. Older guidelines recommended consuming a higher percentage of carbohydrates than the current guidelines recommend.

The shifting nutritional guidelines make it difficult for consumers to know for certain what foods to consume and what foods to avoid. If indeed, consumers read the guidelines at all. I asked a group of my friends if they knew the government issued nutritional guidelines every five years and of 12 people, not a single one did. And not one knew what agency issued them or what the guidelines were called.

From the mid-1950s to the early 1990s, the government simply broke down foods into four groups: Cereals and Breads, Meat, Vegetables and Fruits, and Milk. Oils, sauces, and jellies were classified as “other.”

The obesity rates were under 15 percent in all reporting states during the mid to late 1980s, according to information from the CDC.

In 1992, with the introduction of the food pyramid and later the food plate called MyPlate, the obesity rates began to climb and have not slowed down.

Some Americans are understandably confused as to what foods are actually good for health and what foods can help with weight control. In speaking at conventions, counseling clients on food choices, and responding to questions via email, I have spoken to hundreds of people struggling with their weight.

In many cases, there is a high level of confusion on what foods should be eaten and what foods should be avoided. I can see where the confusion comes from. The government currently recommends 8 ounces of grains each day but a popular diet, the Paleo diet, shuns grains completely.

Who is the consumer to believe?

A poll conducted by the The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Research in 2012 found that most Americans feel that more governmental intervention in the form of regulations and taxes is not necessary. The infamous attempt by Governor Michael Bloomberg to regulate drink sizes in New York backfired and obesity rates did not budge.

Although the government recommendations are clearly not impacting obesity rates, are they in fact hurting the fight against obesity? I would have to say no. Even though the shifting nutritional guidelines are confusing, the bottom line is that the government cannot regulate individual choice even if they so desire.  

Well, unless you believe that the total governmental control scenarios painted in George Orwell’s famous book “1984” could come to pass. In that book, the government controlled every aspect of a person’s life including their food choices. Since that is unlikely to ever happen, individuals are ultimately responsible for their food choices.

Where the government can help is in providing tax incentives to grocery stores that open in areas that are primarily populated by lower income people without access to transportation or healthy food options. The government calls these areas “food deserts,” and in places where access to healthy food is limited, obesity rates are higher. (USA.gov)

Education is another way the government can use its resources to reverse the tide of obesity. When people truly understand the impact their food choices have on their health and their weight, they have more of an incentive to make different choices.

For example, I was speaking at an event in Pennsylvania one afternoon and after I finished a woman stood up and told me that no one had ever really explained why fast food and frozen dinners were not good for her family. Later that day I ran into her at one of the booths and she again thanked me for my talk. She was a well-educated woman who honestly did not understand the impact food has on health. She just fed her family whatever was easy and tasted good to them without considering the nutritional value.

She is not alone.

Education programs in schools, through community centers, at farmer’s markets, and during community wide events could make a difference in obesity rates. Your tax dollars are much better spent educating people in small groups or one-on-one than spending millions of dollars on nutritional guidelines that are sometimes influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups. (FoodPolitics)

A third way the government can use its vast resources to help the obesity crisis is to offer incentives to farmers who make their produce available to local customers at farmer’s markets, roadside stands, or donate food to community outreach centers.  Local food growers can be paid to go into neighborhoods and establish community gardens and pass on their knowledge of gardening and healthy eating.

The government has not caused the obesity crisis and cannot fix it. However, governmental resources can be used in a smart, deliberate way to educate the public, encourage grocery stores to open shop in “food desert” areas, and give incentives to farmers who sell or donate their produce locally.

Those strategies, in combination with individual accountability, can finally put America on a path back to the time when the majority of Americans lived their lives at a healthy weight.

I’m sure we can all agree that color matters. If you’re behind the wheel of a car, red means “stop,” green is “go,” yellow is “proceed with caution” (unless you’re a teenager, when it means “floor it.”) If you’re buying baby clothes, pink and blue mean very different things. And everyone knows what “seeing red” means, while just hearing the words “blue skies” conjures up images of peace and tranquility.
Marketers have made a science of using color to send messages to consumers. McDonald’s, for example, uses red and yellow in its logo in part because those colors appeal to children (it’s no surprise that LEGO’s color scheme is the same). Starbucks uses green because it’s calming, and they want their customers to come in, relax, and spend $5 on a cup of something vaguely European sounding. Home Depot’s orange background “stimulates activity and is often associated with affordability,” according to the company. And nothing says “keeps your house warm in winter and cool in the summer” better than Owens-Corning’s pink insulation (they were the first company to ever trademark a color).
Governments, too, sometimes use color to influence behavior. In the 1970s, U.S. Navy prison wardens found that violent inmates became docile when confined in pink cells. And officials in Japan and England discovered that adjusting the color scheme at popular suicide spots (installing blue lights on Japanese train station platforms and painting the Blackfriar’s bridge green, respectively) caused suicides to drop significantly.
Okay, so color affects our minds and our moods. But here are two even more important questions: Can color affect us physically? And can color affect us even if we can’t see it? The answer to both is a resounding yes—at least when that color comes in the form of light—a fact backed up by more than 2,000 animal and human studies done over the last 50+ years. The lights/colors with the most significant effects were red and blue. And those effects depend on the time of day and way the lights are applied.
Let’s start with blue light. During the day, it’s great stuff. Researchers at Harvard found that blue wavelengths improve people’s attention, physical and mental reaction times, and memory. However, at night, those same blue wavelengths interrupt our sleep cycles in a big way. Blue lights are commonly found in electronic screens of all kinds (phones, tablets, computers, televisions) and in those energy-efficient, compact fluorescent lightbulbs that we probably bought at Home Depot because their orange sign convinced us that they were cheaper there. What’s the problem with losing a few hours of sleep? Plenty. Those same Harvard researchers say that exposure to light at night—specifically blue light—has been linked to several cancers (breast and prostate), diabetes, and obesity. Now here’s the most amazing part: Even though they can’t actually it, blind people exposed to blue light at night also have trouble falling asleep.
Now on to red. Night or day, people exposed to red wavelengths tend to have more energy and be less depressed than those exposed any other color light. But the real magic of red light happens when it’s being directed at various places around your body and skull, places here you can’t possibly see it.
Study after study has shown that red light–usually delivered with LED lights tuned to a very specific wavelength–has an amazing capacity to treat dozens of physical conditions, from low sperm count and muscle pain to heart problems and depression. In animal studies, red light has sped up post-stroke recovery times, reduced wound sizes, and regenerated severed or severely damaged nerves. And when focused on specific receptors in the brain, it’s as effective as drugs like OxyContin and Vicodin at relieving pain. “It’s conceivable that with much more research we could develop ways to use light to relieve pain without a patient needing to take a pain-killing drug with side effects,” said Edward R. Siuda, one of the authors of a new study done at Washington University in St. Louis.
In human studies, red LED lights improved more than 40 percent of musculoskeletal training injuries in Navy SEALs, reduced wound-healing time for Navy submarine crews, and reduced by 47 percent the pain associated with childhood cancer patients’ oral mucositis, a common—and very painful—complication of chemo and radiation.
If you’re interested in learning more about using light to cure (or at least help) what ails you, check with your healthcare provider. Be aware, though, that despite the massive amount of evidence, many traditional M.Ds are less-than-completely enthusiastic. You may have better luck with a local chiropractor.

Ever so slowly, Americans are realizing that dependence on fossil fuels might not be a great long-term plan. Even if some members of Congress aren’t too excited to hop aboard the green bandwagon.

People in the Aloha State are taking renewable energy very seriously, though. Hawaiians have seen enough rising seas, diminishing rainfall and increasing storms, and they’re doing something about it. The state could very well be a window into the future of energy in the United States.

The isolated archipelago has good reason to examine its policies. It has seen the toll of dependence on fossil fuels.

Hawaii has some of the highest electric bills in the country (two to three times the national average in some cases) because it relies overwhelmingly on imported oil for energy. It isn’t cheap, either. As the most oil-dependent state in the nation, Hawaii spends more than $4 billion a year on foreign oil to meet energy needs.

Perhaps more startlingly, It has also seen one of its most iconic beaches start to vanish.

Though few realize it, the famous Waikiki Beach has been thoroughly eroded due to rising sea levels. The sand that tourists are so eager to feel between their toes is artificially replenished. If the beach is lost for good, it could lead to millions, or even billions, in lost economic revenue.

Recently, Hawaii Governor David Ige took a bold step in addressing these issues. Ige signed into law an ambitious measure, one that aims to replace fossil fuels completely with renewable sources by 2045.

One hundred percent clean energy.

Furthermore, there are other benchmarks to meet. They include: 30 percent usage of renewable sources by 2020 and 70 percent usage of renewable sources by 2040. The law is the first of its kind in the country, and accordingly, is the most aggressive green initiative in recent memory.

But is it possible?

It will be a difficult transition, but Hawaii has many advantages due to its location. The islands are home to plenty of sun, wind, water and geoactivity. For that very reason, it is already becoming a center of green research and innovation. In fact, it may be the state best equipped to deal with solar panels, wind turbines and water turbines, as they provide important sources of energy moving forward.

Unfortunately, it’s not simply a matter of having enough sun or waves or geothermal steam. The more concerning problem is the infrastructure needed for these new sources of electricity. A key priority, and necessity, in the renewable energy measure is grid modernization and an inter island connection between separate grids.

Upgrading the islands’ electrical grids would increase efficiency and storage potential. Meanwhile, a link between the Oahu and Maui Island grids would reduce electricity rates and potentially save more than $400 million over a 30-year period.

Still, Hawaii’s initiative should be an example to the rest of the country.

The state’s politicians looked beyond party lines and accepted the environmental and economic problems facing them. The state’s citizens also refused to stick their heads in the sand, or what’s left of it. A 2014 report estimates 97 percent of the public supports expansion of renewable energy.

If a small state in the middle of the ocean can do it, there’s no reason other states can’t follow suit. Studies have already shown that wind power and solar power could provide viable and significant sources of energy for the country. Some researchers believe every state in the union could supply 100 percent of its energy via renewable sources by 2050.

Those of us in the contiguous 48 must ask, what are we waiting for?