It’s the End of the World — How Do You Feel?


Terry Root often goes to sleep at night wondering how she’ll be able to get up the next morning and do it all over again. Then the sun comes up and she forces herself out of bed. She might go for a run to release the pent-up anxiety. Sometimes she cries. Or she’ll commiserate with colleagues, sharing in and validating each other’s angst. What keeps Terry up at night aren’t the usual ailments; it’s not a tyrant boss or broken heart.

The diagnosis: global warming.

A senior fellow at Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment, Root has spent the past two decades unraveling the thread between climate change and the eventual mass extinctions of countless species of plants, animals — and, yes, humans. “That’s a tough, tough thing to cope with,” Root says in a weary, jagged voice. There’s more. When the gray-haired bird watcher shares her End of Days findings, she’s often met with personal attacks; naysayers hurl their disagreement and disdain, complete with name-calling and threats from politicians. But the absolute worst part of her job? We’re not listening. “It’s harder than hell to carry that,” says Root.

Windhover 129

Stanford University built a non-secular spiritual center on campus called Windhover, where students and faculty can go to meditate and reflect. It opened last year.

Armageddon aside for a moment, that an acclaimed scientist will say h-e-l-l to a reporter and use words like cope is a sign of changing times. Not only are we living on a warming planet but a progressively emotive one. It started with parents coddling their kids (no more advice to “just suck it up”), then it was emojis (punctuation isn’t enough) and now it’s climatologists tweeting “we’re f’d” and field researchers speaking up about climate depression — or even pretraumatic stress disorder.

There is a paradigm shift taking place in the field of science with the recognition that even the most stoic minds of the world need a way to process their doomsday findings. All of this is fueling a debate that’s raged since before Galileo and until recently landed on one central question: What place does human emotion have in scientific reasoning? But in 2015, there’s another layer that’s been schlepped into the controversial heap: What do you do when your job is to document the end of the world?

For centuries, professors say, the scientific fraternity has adhered to a “hidden curriculum” — right there, in invisible block letters, beneath the sign saying Goggles must be worn at all times. No. Crying. In. Science. And for good reason, many argue. In this world of double-blind trials and peer-reviewed articles, objectivity rules all. Otherwise cracks open up and doubt seeps in, rotting the very foundation science is built upon.

But what if the entire goddamned profession gets wiped out in a hurricane? Then what? There’s a growing sense of urgency as worsening environmental catastrophes play out before us. In the midst of what many in the science community — by “many,” we mean upward of 95 percent — are calling a planetary crisis, more researchers are finding that they can’t simply present their data in a vacuum, then go home at the end of the day and crack open a beer. “Scientists are going from these totally objective outsiders into being much more subjective and a part of the community,” says Faith Kearns, an outreach coordinator for the California Institute for Water Resources, which tries to solve drought-related challenges.

Indeed, the façade of total objectivity has deteriorated in recent years alongside intensifying environmental cataclysms. In 2012, Camille Parmesan, who shared a Nobel Prize with Al Gore in 2007 for her climate work, publicly announced her professional depression and frustration with the current political stalemate. Shortly after The Atlanticnamed Parmesan one of its 27 “Brave Thinkers,” alongside Steve Jobs and Barack Obama, for her efforts to save species, she temporarily left her university job in Texas for a reprieve across the pond. Then last summer, climatologist Jason Box’s tweet — “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d” — went viral, provoking a media frenzy. The public relentlessly chastised him for a) making a definitive statement instead of dealing in the usual probabilities and b) expressing emotion.

And now there’s the website Is This How You Feel?, which publishes handwritten letters from climate scientists expressing their frustrations, fears and hopes. One professor writes, “It’s probably the first time I have ever been asked to say what I feel rather than what I think.” Another scrawls, “I feel exasperation and despair. … I feel vulnerable that by writing this letter I will expose myself to trolling and vitriol.” Joe Duggan, the mohawked Aussie with a nose ring and master’s degree in the growing field of science communications who manages the site, says he’s been shocked at how many responses he’s gotten in the mail: “There is a movement of scientists looking for new ways to connect; they’re emoting in ways they never have before,” he says.

Windhover 130

Stanford’s Windhover integrates nature throughout the center to help visitors re-connect with and replenish their spirits.

Elizabeth Allison turns off the lights. She instructs her students to stack one vertebra on top of the next until their spines are straight and long. Then to focus on the rhythm of their breath. In. And out. In. And out. Acknowledge any feelings or sensations that arise, then let them go. After 15 minutes she slowly guides them back into the present. Feet and hands begin to stir. Eyelids slowly make their way to full attention.

OK, that’s it. See you all next week — and don’t forget your homework assignment is due. After all, this is graduate-level course PAR 6079.

So much for that centuries-old hidden curriculum. From professors like Allison taking students through a guided meditation after a discussion on retreating rainforests to scientists signing up for workshops on compassion and communication to support groups for climatologists, human emotion has wedged itself into every step of the scientific method. Marilyn Cornelius, a Stanford-trained researcher, has found the best way to explore creative solutions for the planet’s woes is to meld behavioral science, biomimicry, meditation and design thinking. Now she works as a consultant, taking energy experts on wilderness retreats and teaching lab coats to connect with themselves and nature. “I made a decision to work on behavior change,” Cornelius says, “because it’s a positive way to work on the climate problem.”

This isn’t just about managing the feelings of scientists, though. Kearns, from the California Institute for Water Resources, acknowledges how painful it can be to watch academics try to relate to everyday folks and has made it her mission to make these interactions less cringe-inducing. The soft-spoken brunette first began thinking about this impasse after some years back she hosted a community workshop on emerging “stay or go” science that weighs whether home owners can — and should — protect their property from increasingly frequent and ferocious wildfires. Her audience was a small northern California community that had recently faced that very dilemma. Fear, anger and helplessness pulsed through the room. “I started to feel their anxiety,” Kearns says. “Our research has an effect on people’s lives. My scientific training hadn’t prepared me to cope with the emotions that come with that.”

But there is still the camp that believes feelings erode credibility and breed bias. It’s the naturalistic fallacy, and it’s the difference between the is and the ought. The philosophy is that facts can’t substantiate value judgments. Science is perhaps the last frontier of neutrality, especially in today’s polarized society. As Philip Handler, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, once said, scientists “best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics.”

Windhover 128

Windhover is named after Nathan Oliveira’s renowned series of paintings that were ”inspired by kestrels swooping above the Stanford foothills,” according to the website.

The seismic sentimental shift among scientists parallels an outpouring of feeling — and narcissism — across American society. Once-detached psychotherapists are hugging their clients, journalists have come to love the personal essay (in fact, it seems like everyone has a story to tell these days), even man-eating corporations are experimenting with emotional leadership. Or think of the impassioned protests around Black Lives Matter, the outrage at sexual abuse and the pleas against social inequality. “There’s been more space in the public realm for bringing up and dealing with emotional stuff, and that has cracked the shell of otherwise very removed scientists,” says Allison, a professor at the California Institute for Integral Studies. Then again, maybe climatologists are more cunning than we give them credit for, and they’re simply taking a page out of their opponents’ playbook.

Indeed, emotions are a powerful tool for those who know how to use them. Which is why those leading the climate-change charge aren’t looking to labs anymore. Instead, eager students are following Cornelius’s path, pursuing studies in contemplative environmentalism or transformational ecology, which looks to shrinks, money and Facebook to protect the planet. With the future of everything at stake, what has traditionally separated science from sentiment is a lot less defined — and perhaps even irrelevant.

But emotions are less predictable than facts and figures. Root remembers giving a talk once at the University of Utah. Afterward a few students came up to ask questions; one young man had tears in his eyes. “Is it really this bad?” he pleaded. Root told him it’s worse. He went on to become an activist and was sent to prison for one of his illegal protests. Root has always felt responsible.

“I’d always thought that facts and the truth would win out; then I realized that wasn’t the case,” Root says.

Advertisements

7 Great Things That Happen When You Stop Using Tampons


7 benefits of ditching tampons
When I stopped using tampons back in high school, the switch was purely utilitarian. On days when my flow was heavy and I didn’t have time to run to the bathroom between classes, my tampon would sometimes leak—which, when I was a 17-year-old, was really, really embarrassing.

So after reading online that menstrual cups could be worn for up to 12 hours without fuss, I bought one at the Whole Foods Market where I worked part-time as a cashier. It took a couple of tries to figure out the whole insertion thing. But once I did, I was hooked…and never bought another box of tampons again.
More than a decade later, I still swear by my cup. (And have probably saved a lot of money on feminine products in the process.) Here are 7 more great things that happen when you trade in your tampons.

1. You decrease your chemical exposure.
Most conventional tampons are made with a combination of cotton and rayon, a synthetic material derived from wood. Rayon contains dioxin, a chemical that’s formed as a byproduct during the rayon manufacturing process. The Environmental Protection Agency says it may be a human carcinogen and in large amounts could also mess with your immune system and fertility. Using all-natural cotton tampons is a step up but not a perfect solution—thanks to pollution, small amounts of dioxin occur in the air, water, and soil where cotton is grown.

2. More good bacteria stays inside your lady parts.

good bacteria vs yeast

Tampons are designed to be absorbent, which is obviously a very good thing. But in addition to soaking up blood, they also soak up the good bacteria that your vagina needs to maintain a healthy ecosystem, explains Elisa Ross, an ob-gyn at the Cleveland Clinic Women’s Health Institute. That can alter the pH of your vagina, which could increase your risk for yeast infections.
MORE: 12 Things Your Dentist Knows About You Just By Looking In Your Mouth

3. Odor is less likely to be a problem.
Tampons prevent bad smells better than pads do, but they still have the potential to lead to unpleasant odor. “Eventually, the blood seeps down to the ends of the tampon, near the outside,” Ross explains.

4. You’ll have less cramping.

less cramping

Some devoted cup users swear they experienced milder cramping after getting off tampons. And while there’s no hard evidence to support their claim, the idea of less abdominal discomfort isn’t entirely inconceivable. “It’s possible that having an item [like a cup] in the vagina can apply pressure that decreases pain and cramping, but it’s no guarantee,” Ross says. Even so, if you’re plagued by belly pain during your period, swapping tampons for an alternative is worth a shot.
5. You’ll become more in tune with your body.
Alternatives like the cup can be an opportunity to learn more about your cycle—and get more comfortable with your body. “When you have a cup, you can see the texture of the blood, the level of clotting, the color, and the smell. These are all things that women in the past really had to acknowledge and embrace,” says Siva Mohan, MD, founder of Svastha Health, a private Ayurvedic practice in Long Beach, CA.

 

6. No more awkward “I need a tampon” moments.
Unlike tampons, a cup can last up to 10 years with proper care and cleaning. You’ll never wake up on the first day of your period, freaking out that you have exactly zero tampons left in your medicine cabinet or at the bottom of your purse again.

7. You’ll have a happier period overall.
But with all the potential perks that come with trading in your tampons, the monthly ordeal might end up sucking a little bit less. One Journal of Women’s Health study that pitted tampons and pads against cups found that more women preferred cups overall.

These 5 crazy thought experiments show how Einstein formed his revolutionary hypotheses


Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, forever changed the landscape of science by introducing revolutionary concepts that shook our understanding of the physical world.

One of Einstein’s most defining qualities was his remarkable ability to conceptualise complex scientific ideas by imagining real-life scenarios. He called these scenarios Gedankenexperiments“, which is German for “thought experiments”.

Here are a few thought experiments that demonstrate some of Einstein’s most ground-breaking discoveries.

Imagine you’re chasing a beam of a light.

This is something Einstein started thinking about when he was just 16 years old. What would happen if you chased a beam of light as it moved through space?

If you could somehow catch up to the light, Einstein reasoned, you would be able to observe the light frozen in space. But light can’t be frozen in space, otherwise it would cease to be light.

Eventually Einstein realised that light cannot be slowed down and must always be moving away from him at the speed of light. Therefore something else had to change. Einstein eventually realised that time itself had to change, which laid the groundwork for his special theory of relativity.

Imagine you’re standing on a train.

Imagine you’re standing on a train while your friend is standing outside the train, watching it pass by. If lightning struck on both ends of the train, your friend would see both bolts of lightning strike at the same time.

But on the train, you are closer to the bolt of lightning that the train is moving toward. So you see this lightning first because the light has a shorter distance to travel.

This thought experiment showed that time moves differently for someone moving than for someone standing still, cementing Einstein’s belief that time and space are relative and simultaneity doesn’t exist. This is a cornerstone in Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

Imagine you have a twin in a rocket ship.

This thought experiment is a well-known variation of Einstein’s light-clock thought experiment, which has to do with the passage of time.

Let’s say you have a twin, born at almost the exact same time as you. But the moment your twin is born, he or she gets placed in a spaceship and launched into space to travel through the universe at nearly the speed of light.

According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, you and your twin would age differently. Since time moves slower the closer that you get to the speed of light, your twin would age more slowly.

When the spaceship lands back on Earth, you might be trying to sort out your retirement, while your twin is just trying to get through puberty.

Imagine you’re standing in a box.

Imagine you are floating in a box, unable to see what’s happening outside of the box. Suddenly, you drop to the floor. So what happened? Is the box being pulled down by gravity? Or is the box being accelerated by a rope yanking it upward?

The fact that these two effects would produce the same results led Einstein to the conclusion that there is no difference between gravity and acceleration – they are the same thing.

Now consider Einstein’s previous assertion that time and space are not absolute. If motion can affect time and space, and gravity and acceleration are the same thing, that means gravity can actually affect time and space.

The ability of gravity to warp spacetime is a huge part of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Imagine you’re tossing a two-sided coin.

Einstein wasn’t the biggest cheerleader for quantum theory. In fact, he was always coming up with thought experiments to try to disprove it. But it was these thought experiments that challenged the pioneers of quantum theory to perfect it down to its finest details.

One of Einstein’s thought experiments had to do with quantum entanglement, which Einstein liked to call “spooky action at a distance”.

Imagine you have a two-sided coin that can easily be split in half. You flip the coin and, without looking, hand one side to your friend and keep the other side for yourself. Then your friend gets on a rocket ship and travels across the universe.

Then you look at your coin. You see that in your hand you’re holding the heads side of the coin and instantaneously you know that your friend, who is billions of light years away from you at this point, is holding the tails side.

If you think of the sides of these coins as indeterminate, changing back and forth between heads and tails until the point in time that you look at one, then the coins can circumvent the speed of light, instantaneously affecting each other regardless of how many light years separate them.

FDA Ignores New Report Indicating Cancer-Causing Herbicide Detected In Organic Foods


Your family likely ingested Monsanto’s cancer-causing herbicide with their breakfast this morning and the FDA couldn’t care less.

fda-glyphosate-testing

The FDA is demonstrating their incompetence yet again by completely ignoring a new report that shows how ubiquitous Monsanto’s carcinogenic Roundup has become.

According to the report released by the Alliance for Natural Health USA, detectable levels of glyphosate, the chief ingredient in Roundup, were found in numerous breakfast food items. Glyphosate, which has been linked to cancer by the World Health Organization, was found in bagels, cereals and coffee creamers.

What is really concerning, and exemplifies the need for an immediate ban on the carcinogenic herbicide, is that some of the highest levels of the toxic chemical were found in organic foods, such as eggs and breads. The organic eggs tested were especially tainted with glyphosate, far exceeding regulatory standards.

Microbe Infotech Laboratories, founded by former Monsanto scientist Bruce Hemming, conducted the testing. For 25 years, Microbe has been well-respected and is the go-to lab for glyphosate testing by food companies and consumer groups.

The report confirms what many have feared for a long time. Glyphosate is making its way into our food in ways that we may not realize. For example, last year a separate study found 75% of rain and air samples tested positive for Monsanto’s cancer-causing poison. What kind of ramifications do you think this will have for those growing organic gardens?

The ANH’s report also discusses how farmers are using Roundup to speed up the harvest for crops like wheat and that its testing confirms “Americans are consuming glyphosate in common foods on a daily basis.”

The ANH admits that the samples detecting glyphosate did register at levels lower than what U.S. regulating agencies deem safe. But this should not give anybody any kind of relief.

Unfortunately for Americans, the ANH goes on to point out that the levels considered safe in the U.S. are substantially higher than European standards. The report also touched on the fact that glyphosate alone is not nearly as toxic as herbicide formulations. The combination of glyphosate with other compounds in Roundup has never been tested. Not once. Not ever.

But it’s doused on the food supply. Over 75% of ‘foods’ in the U.S. have been genetically modified. Roundup is requisite for GMOs to grow. So, it’s safe to say 3/4 of the food in our grocery stores are tainted with Roundup.

“The fact that it is showing up in foods like eggs and coffee creamer, which don’t directly contact the herbicide, shows that it’s being passed on by animals who ingest it in their feed,” said Gretchen DuBeau, executive director of ANH-USA. “This is contrary to everything that regulators and industry scientists have been telling the public.”

So the FDA must be in a panic to ensure the safety of the food supply and the people consuming it.

Wrong. In fact, the FDA is doing everything possible to NOT talk about glyphosate.

In February, Carey Gillam (research director for U.S. Right To Know), broke the story about the FDA’s decision to finally begin testing for glyphosate residues in food. But of course, a complete lack of transparency was demonstrated and the FDA was as stingy as possible on the details, only stating that it was “considering assignments… to measure glyphosate in soybeans, corn, milk, and eggs, among other potential foods.”

The FDA tests the food supply for radiation, toxic chemicals, and various pesticides but refuses to test for glyphosate, which was recognized recently as the most widely used herbicide in the history of global agriculture.

It’s no secret that Monsanto has infiltrated the FDA and other agencies, as well as the U.S. government. It’s also no secret that Monsanto’s glyphosate-herbicide related profits were over $5 billion dollars last year alone.

It’s pretty evident why the FDA is refusing to do its job.

Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies is contaminated with lead, uranium and other heavy metals


Image: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies is contaminated with lead, uranium and other heavy metals

A recent investigation conducted by the Natural News Forensic Food Lab has revealed that the fluoride used in water supplies across the United States is contaminated with an array of toxic heavy metals.

Lead, tungsten and aluminum are just a few of the unsavory elements discovered in sodium fluoride samples. Some of the samples even contained strontium and uranium. The presence of these toxic elements in what were supposed to be “pure” samples of sodium fluoride leads to even more questions about what it is we are really consuming if and when we drink tap water.

The results of the analysis were obtained with the very same ICP-MS laboratory instrumentation that is used by the FDA and even some universities. The analysis was conducted by none other than Mike Adams , director of the lab, and leading researcher in the field of heavy metal food contamination.

The research began by procuring samples of “pure” sodium fluoride from six Chinese manufacturers who export the product for use in municipal water supplies. After preparing each sample for analysis and following strict quality control procedures to ensure accuracy, Adams  was able to run each product through the ICP-MS to be analyzed.

Here are the results from the analysis, as reported by  Natural News :

MAX aluminum: 283,218 ppb
MAX arsenic: 137 ppb
MAX strontium: 9417 ppb
MAX lead: 988 ppb
MAX uranium: 1415 ppb
MAX tungsten: presence confirmed in 2 of 6 samples but quantitative analysis not conducted on tungsten

AVG aluminum: 69364 ppb
AVG arsenic: 70 ppb
AVG strontium: 1751 ppb
AVG lead: 299 ppb
AVG uranium: 239 ppb

The presence of these toxins simply cannot be refuted. Fluoride itself is dangerous enough, without the addition of heavy metals and potentially radioactive isotopes like strontium and uranium. One of the best things you can do for yourself is to start filtering your own water. 

5 Types Of Orgasms — And How To Have More Of Each


2015-08-17-1439851728-8943361-gettyimages552782237fireworkskareemjoneseyeemopener.jpg

Don’t get us wrong, we’re all for the “If it ain’t broke, don’t’ fix it” mentality when it comes to a family recipe or your tried-and-true makeup routine. But having the same orgasm every time can be repetitive.

Related: 9 Everyday Habits Keeping You From Having Great Sex

Here, 5 different types of happy endings — and how to experience each of them more frequently:

1. The Clitoral Orgasm

2015-08-17-1439851817-766180-gettyimages92928604clitorialvanillamichaelpohuski.jpg

 

What it is: If the clitoral orgasm were an ice cream, it’d be vanilla — not because it’s bland, but because it’s the standard. These orgasms result from direct stimulation of the clitoris, and are described as “localized, sharp, bursting, and short-lasting,” according to a study published in the journal NeuroQuantology.

How to get more: Go solo at first, suggests Janet Wolfe, a New York City-based sex therapist. Masturbation allows you to figure out what works best for you, and you’ll know better how to direct your partner, Wolfe says. You’ll also feel more comfortable helping yourself achieve orgasm during sex.
2. The Vaginal Orgasm

What it is: Also known as the controversial “G-spot” orgasm, these don’t happen for all women. According to that same NeuroQuantology study, vaginal orgasms are achieved more through intercourse than clitoral stimulation, and are described as “whole body” and longer-lasting than clitoral orgasms. Women who report having vaginal orgasms may also be more likely to experience multiple orgasms.

How to get more: Just because you’ve never had a vaginal orgasm doesn’t mean you can’t. Researchers say the G-spot may be located on the front wall of the vagina. So the next time you’re getting it on, have your guy target that spot by entering you from behind. But don’t be scared to change things up once you’re in the groove. According to a study from the Journal of Sexual Medicine, the longer sex lasts, the more likely you are to experience the big O. Changing positions can help your partner last longer.

3. The Blended Orgasm

What it is: A blended orgasm happens when both a clitoral and vaginal orgasm occur simultaneously. These twin orgasms have been known to last anywhere from 1 to 15 minutes, ending in a “giant” orgasm (yes, the medical literature actually uses the word “giant,” so you know it’s got to be good). (If menopause has taken the fun out of your sex life, The Natural Menopause Solution can help you get it back.)

How to get more: You need to put in double the effort if you want double the reward. “Some women find that the best position for orgasm is missionary because their clitoris is also being rubbed through penetration,” says Jane Greer, PhD, a New York-based marriage and sex therapist. But woman-on-top can also be beneficial, since it gives you a little more control over which of your spots are receiving the most attention.

4. The Coregasm

 

2015-08-17-1439852055-2894394-gettyimages483183828coregasmexercisephotolyric.jpg

What it is: An orgasm triggered by exercise. (Seriously.) But this isn’t necessarily one of those toe-curling O’s, according to Debby Herbenick, PhD, a sex researcher and author of the new book, The Coregasm Workout. Women who have experienced these orgasms describe them as “less intense,” but still pleasurable. (Hey, if it gets you to the gym more frequently, go for it.)

How to get more: You’re going to need to get your heart rate up for an orgasm described as “exercise-induced.” After you’ve gotten some good cardio in, it’s time to get to work on your core, Herbenick suggests. She says exercises like hanging leg raises are the most beneficial for an exercise O, since they work the lower abs. (Coregasms seem to start in your ab muscles before moving down to your lady parts.) But just one set of crunches isn’t going to cut it; you want to work your muscles to the point of fatigue, and then keep going once you start feeling some excitement, Herbenick says.

 

5. The Skin Orgasm

2015-08-17-1439852159-2424268-gettyimages103456213skinorgasmrobertogomez.jpg

 

What it is: All you need are some tunes. You may have already experienced a skin orgasm while listening to a favorite song or other powerful piece of music. You probably just brushed it off as “chills” or “goose bumps.” The real name for these feelings? “Frissons,” which are “a musically induced effect associated with a pleasant tingling feeling,” according to a study published in the journal Frontiers in Psychology. Researchers believe the sensation is brought about by unexpected changes in the music, like sudden key changes or quick jumps from soft to loud–anything that forces the mind to abruptly switch gears.

Related: 8 Sex Habits Of Happy Couples

How to get more: The only music linked with this phenomenon–at least thus far–is classical, where crescendos and chord changes abound. But the study authors say people are much more likely to have physical reactions to music that’s familiar to them. Our personal pick: Sara Bareilles’s hit “Gravity.” The moment her voice breaks away from the background music around 2:50 is truly skin-tillating.

Russian scientist: Slowdown in Earth’s rotation means we’re on the verge of major climatic upheaval.


Image

The 2011 tsunami in Japan was just part of the warm-up routine. The Really Big Show has yet to begin in earnest…

The world geological community is warning that today’s seismic activity on our planet is nothing compared with what’s to come.

Over the past three years, Pakistan, for example, has been hit by dozens of earthquakes. In March 2005, 80,000 people died under the rubble there. On October 30, the last time nature went on the rampage, there were hundreds of victims. Tens of thousands of people drowned during an overwhelming Asian tsunami at the end of 2004. China and Afghanistan have been rocked by quakes again more recently.

These natural disasters, which have swept our planet in recent years, indicate that the world has entered an era not only of a political, but also of climatic instability. Most scientists – biologists and environmentalists – tend to blame the human race for the catastrophic climate change on the Earth. No doubt, the greenhouse effect due to industrial activity plays a considerable role in global warming, but there are other reasons worth considering.

The Earth is rotating around its own axis slower. The International Earth Rotation Service has regularly added a second or two to the length of a 24-hour day in recent years.

This is the main reason, according to Igor Kopylov, professor at Moscow Energy Institute, why the planet – a gigantic electrical machine – has had its energy balance upset. He expressed this viewpoint in 2004. Kopylov is convinced that the Earth has entered the first phase of a global change. A weakening of the Earth’s magnetic field was first registered early in the 20th century, and a consistent drop in the speed of rotation, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It has been established that when the Earth’s rotation slows by one second a year, it releases a tremendous amount of heat, hundreds of times the volume of energy released by human industrial activity.

If we accept that all processes on Earth run according to cosmic cycles, which, in turn, depend on the Solar System’s position in our Galaxy, then humankind may be facing another Great Flood.

The Solar System, including the Earth, travels through the Galaxy in spiraling elliptic paths. The cycle time for the larger spiral is 200-210 million years, and for the smaller one, which determines minor galactic cycles, 26,000 years. Correspondingly, half a cycle lasts 130 centuries. This period almost exactly coincides with the date of the last Flood, the occurrence of which was real. The myths and legends of many peoples including that of the Bible recorded the event.

The Flood has been dated rather precisely: at 11,100 BC. If we accept that the civilized society on Earth has been developing for 400,000 years, then this period saw 30 great floods, and we are witnessing the beginnings of the thirty-first flood.

The cosmic cycles are so gigantically long by human standards that they have little impact on the life of people, but the active initial phase of the galactic cycle is of vital importance for the development of civilization. In the view of Russian scientists, the Earth currently finds itself at precisely this point in the cycle.

The transitional process in the electrical machine “planet Earth” can be divided into three phases. During the first – lasting 300 to 500 years – a relatively quick change in the direction of cross current (according to the law of electric machines) will alter the Earth’s magnetic field, with the Northern magnetic pole shifting to the eastern part of the Arctic Ocean.

DID YOU KNOW YOUR ENERGY DRINKS CONTAIN ‘BULL URINE & SEMEN’


Energy Drinks Contain Ingredient Extracted From Bull Urine And Semen. A study done by Longhorn Cattle Company, tested some of the top energy drink brands such as Red Bull, monster etc. What they found might leave your stomach in a knot. They found that the drinks do, in fact, contain bull semen.

Taurine found in energy drinks is a byproduct of bull testicles, it is considered not to be vegetarian friendly. The ingredient is taurine, a naturally occurring substance that is present in bull bile and breastmilk.

Watch the video. URL:https://youtu.be/E22UxEEXufU

More transgender men using fertility treatment to get pregnant.


Dozens of transitioning women are choosing to freeze their eggs at specialized clinics if they decide to have children after becoming men.

At least three men in the UK who were born female are believed to be using IVF techniques, according to the Daily Mail. Dozens of other men are also having their eggs frozen prior to transitioning to switch sex.

Despite it being possible for a male who was born female to become naturally pregnant, it is rare.

Instead, the fertilised embryo is usually moved to a surrogate, rather than a transgender man giving birth.

Thomas Beatie was the world's first pregnant man. © F A C T

Thomas Beatie became the first man in the world to become pregnant, showing that men with female reproductive organs are still able to give birth.

The father of three paved way for other transgender men to consider having children, such as 17-year-old Riley Middlemore who hopes his eggs can be inseminated by a sperm donor and implanted into his girlfriend’s body to allow her to carry their child.

The National Health Service (NHS) is able to fund sex change and fertility treatment for patients, costing on average up to £34,000.

Some people have criticized the free treatment including Conservative MP Peter Bone, who said the NHS should get “its priorities right.”

“I am not sure why the taxpayer should be funding this,” he told the Daily Mail. “I just sometimes ask if the NHS is getting its priorities right.”

The measures were, however, defended by Dr James Barrett of the NHS Gender Identity Clinic, which is based in London.

“As a matter of principle, anybody who loses their fertility as a result of standard NHS treatment should be able to preserve their fertility,” he said.

“Why are people with cancer particularly magic and get this NHS fertility treatment, and other people don’t?” he added.“Transgender patients want to live like normal people. They want what everybody else gets as a matter of course.”

 

ALERT: Officials Have Confirmed ‘Fukushima Is Causing Americans To Get Cancer’


Kevin Kamps, Beyond Nuclear joins Thom. The worst nuclear accident in recent history wasn’t unexpected – that’s according to an internal document recovered from Tokyo Electric Power – also known as Tepco. Tepco originally claimed that it had done everything possible to protect the nuclear power plant at Fukushima. But we now know that Tepco executives had discussed the need to build up coastal defenses back in 2008 – two and a half years before the tsunami hit Fukushima and caused a triple meltdown.

http://video.beforeitsnews.com/alert-officials-have-confirmed-%E2%80%98fukushima-is-causing-americans-to-get-cancer%E2%80%99_cb691e6d6.html