6 things you should never do on your work computer

These days, many companies provide employees with a variety of work devices from smartphones to laptops and even tablets to complete their work with.

Company IT departments usually set them up with your login information, a selection of important apps and all the bells ’n’ whistles that allow you to successfully do your job.

Somewhere around day five on the job is usually when we start updating the device with our own preferences: changing the screen saver to a picture of your pet, logging into your Spotify account to queue up the perfect “working late” playlist, checking Facebook for the news of the day (oh, and to say Happy Birthday to that friend from high school), and so on and so on.

However, cyber security experts say that weaving your personal and professional lives together via a work laptop is risky business — for you and the company.

Software technology company Check Point conducted a survey of over 700 IT professionals which revealed that nearly two-thirds of IT pros believed that recent high-profile breaches were caused by employee carelessness. “The greatest threat resides in your organization,” said Check Point.

While we’ve all be warned to steer clear of NSFW (not safe for work) websites or links (cough, cough porn), there’s more than just naughty photos to avoid while using company-issued devices.

As a refresher in cyber security and smart professional practices, we reached out to the experts to tell us the six things we should never do on our work computers. Bookmark this one — it’s going to surprise you.

1. DON’T: Save personal passwords in your work device keychain.

Most of us use our work devices for eight or more hours a day. They come home with us, they become our primary device, sometimes used more often than our personal devices. Therefore, it’s so easy to click the button when prompted to “save password in keychain.” But not so fast.

According to the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) many companies have a clause in their computer, email and internet use policy that makes storing personal passwords a potentially precarious move. It reads:

“E-mail and other electronic communications transmitted by [Company Name] equipment, systems and networks are not private or confidential, and they are the property of the company. Therefore, [Company Name] reserves the right to examine, monitor and regulate e-mail and other electronic communications, directories, files and all other content, including Internet use, transmitted by or stored in its technology systems, whether onsite or offsite.”

It’s always important to read your company’s policies and procedures as they pertain to internet use and equipment. Know what you can and cannot do.


2. DON’T: Make off-color jokes on messaging software.

As chatrooms like Slack, Campfire and Google Hangout become increasingly handy for team collaboration, it’s easy to use them as though you were in the office break room having a gossip session with a colleague while raiding the fridge. However, those messages are being kept on a server somewhere and are just as retrievable as emails.

Slack “has access to all of your chats,” says Trevor Timm in an interview with Fast Company, “[as well as] any internal communication you may not want in public,” including private conversations. Remember to be very intentional about what you say and don’t say on chatroom platforms.

3. DON’T: Access free public wi-fi while working on sensitive material.

With so many of us working remotely or sending a few work emails over the weekend from a cafe, it’s tempting to grab your laptop and log on to free public wi-fi.

After all, it’s everywhere and the boss isn’t going to wait until Monday for a review of that project. However, places that offer free wi-fi like the neighborhood coffee shop, the airport or the hotel, can open you up to fraud.

“Don’t access your email, online bank or credit card accounts when on public Wi-Fi,” says fraud expert Frank Abagnale. “This is because con artists may set up fake networks that seem like the real thing but aren’t (this is known as the “evil twin” scam).”

4. DON’T: Allow friends or non-IT department colleagues to remotely access your work computer.

“Now that remote access software is easily accessible, you have the ability to have virtually anyone you know access your computer from outside the office,” says Joe Rejeski, CEO and Founder of avenue X group. “You wouldn’t have your friend walk into the office and sit down at your computer without first checking with your boss. Beware of doing the same thing virtually.”


5. DON’T: Store personal data.

It’s so easy to have a “personal” folder on your desktop full of all of the cute photos your spouse sent of your children or to save that receipt from the plumber, but it’s important to remember that a work device is not your property—it belongs to the company.

“I knew a company that suddenly went out of business,” recalls Rejeski. “A few people voiced concerns about what would happen to their personal data (ex. tax returns) on their work computers. When the company closed down, securely erasing personal data from the work computers wasn’t exactly a priority for management. Nobody knows what happened to the computers or the personal data that was on them.”

Another thing to remember is that if you ever get let go from a company, standard HR policy is to have you leave immediately. Rejeski says, “you probably won’t have time to remove those files.” Instead, consider keeping a USB wand on your keychain to save any personal data.

6. DON’T: Work on your side hustle while at the office.

Many of us have second or third jobs that we do as hobbies or to earn extra cash, but don’t blur the lines while you’re “on the company dime.”

As mentioned above, everything you do on your work device can be legally recorded by your employer and is as easy as IT pulling your data. Be careful about using your company devices for outside work. It may seem harmless, but can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back in a discussion with your manager or a dispute with HR.

“Even if your coworkers are doing some craziness on their work computers, you could be the one that is made an example of,” adds Rejeski.


New Device Can Ease Chronic Pain Without Drugs, Thanks to Brain Stimulation


This new method of pain treatment can prevent risky side-effects such as addiction, dependence, and overdose-related deaths – and it does so using electricity.


Abuse of prescription pain killers or opioid medicines is common. But then again, how else can you treat chronic pain? Unfortunately, addiction is a terrible side-effect that can lead to overdose-related deaths.

But now a research team from the University of Arlington seems to have found a better and more efficient solution: Electrical stimulation.

By delivering electrical currents—which can block pain signals at the spinal cord level—into a deep, middle brain structure, it might be possible to treat chronic pain without the intervention of drugs. At the same time, the technique can spur the release of dopamine, which helps with the emotional distress typically associated with long-term pain.


“This is the first study to use a wireless electrical device to alleviate pain by directly stimulating the ventral tegmental area of the brain,” said Yuan Bo Peng, UTA psychology professor. “While still under laboratory testing, this new method does provide hope that in the future we will be able to alleviate chronic pain without the side effects of medications.”

Yuan Bo Peng, UTA Psychology Professor.

The team experimented with a custom-built wireless implant, which through electrical stimulation of the ventral tegmental area effectively reduced the sensation of pain, even blocking pain signals in the spinal cord.

This could greatly benefit the almost two million Americans who are addicted or dependent on opioid medicines. The Centers for Disease Control that 165,000 Americans died of opioid-related overdoses from 1999 to 2014.

“Until this study, the ventral tegmental area of the brain was studied more for its key role in positive reinforcement, reward and drug abuse,” said Peng. “We have now confirmed that stimulation of this area of the brain can also be an analgesic tool.”


How Many Americans Live In poverty?

The Census Bureau's new supplemental poverty measure now considers food stamps, health care costs, and cost-of-living in its calculations of who is and is not poor.

 As we reported earlier this year, there are some big problems with the way poverty is measured in this country. So we were interested to see a Census report out today based on the “supplemental poverty measure” — a newer, unofficial method that figures in the value of many government benefits, the cost of living in different cities, and health-care costs.

A few of the report’s key findings:

  • Almost 50 million people in the U.S. are poor using the supplemental measure, compared to the 47 million using the official measure.
  • Food stamps (formally known as SNAP) keep about five million people out of poverty, according to the supplemental measure.
  • Without Social Security more than half of all Americans 65 and over would be in poverty. (Both supplemental and traditional poverty measures include Social Security benefits.)
  • Under the supplemental measure, which includes cost-of-living differences, poverty is much higher in expensive states like California and New York, and lower in places like Alabama and Kentucky.
  • The poverty rate for children goes down under the supplemental measure and it goes up for those 65 and older. That’s because the supplemental measure includes the impact of out-of-pocket medical expenses (which are high for senior citizens) and of certain government benefits that go disproportionately to children.

Sara Kimberlin, author of the Berkeley study, used the supplemental poverty measure to look at poverty over an 11-year period. She found that chronic poverty — those who were poor for more than half that time — was lower than previously thought. Only about two percent of people were chronically poor under the supplemental measure, compared with 3.3 percent under the official rate.

This is important, because research shows that chronic poverty does the most long-term harm to people, especially children.

Kimberlin says most people in poverty are poor for a short period of time, because government benefits help lift them back above the poverty line. And it’s only a big setback — like a job loss or unexpected medical bill — that pulls them back down.

The supplemental measure “makes it easier to think about solutions,” Kimberlin says, because you can get an idea which programs are doing the most good.


Lymphoedema sufferer Maxine Goldie: ‘My own doctor didn’t know what was wrong’

When Maxine Goldie was stung on the right arm by a wasp while gardening she didn’t think it was too serious – until she noticed the rapid and alarming swelling.

The Auckland restaurant owner and keen sportswoman was stung when she stuck her hand into a bush to pull out some weeds.

Within minutes her arm seemed to be inflating like a balloon.

“I went inside and told my partner Barry that I had a fat arm and asked him what he thought I should do,” she says.

Goldie had six months previously had a mastectomy after a breast cancer diagnosis.

“When the swelling became a real concern I immediately phoned my oncologist,” she says.

“He told me to go straight to A&E as I was at risk of developing something called lymphoedema.”

The swelling has since persisted. Goldie attends a therapist once a week to have litres of fluid drained from her arm, at a cost of up to $150 a time.

The 46-year-old has secondary lymphoedema – a condition where the lymphatic system has been damaged through infection, radiotherapy or surgery.

She is one of an estimated 5000 New Zealanders who develop the condition after cancer treatment.

It is different from primary lymphoedema, which is caused by an abnormality of the lymphatic system – a condition that affects an unknown number of New Zealanders.

If left untreated, lymphoedema can result in disfiguring and disabling swelling of the limb and sometimes spread to other parts of the body.

Its most extreme form – and probably most commonly known – is elephantiasis.

Early diagnosis and treatment assures the best outcome. But there is so little known about the condition and funding for treatment is limited, forcing most sufferers to go private.

Maxine Goldie with her arm strapped to help with Lymphoedema, which is a result from her cancer treatment. Photo / Greg Bowker
Maxine Goldie with her arm strapped to help with Lymphoedema, which is a result from her cancer treatment. Photo / Greg Bowker

Goldie was aware she was at risk because she had 24 lymph nodes removed from under her arm during cancer treatment four years ago.

But she was shocked how quickly the swelling set in when she was stung six months later and she is resigned to managing her lymphoedema for the rest of her life.

“At first I wasn’t sure what to do as there is a limited number of specialist therapists who deal with this in New Zealand,” she says.

“I saw a number of practitioners but no one really knew what it was or how to treat it.”

Goldie eventually began seeing veteran lymphoedema therapist Michele Ulrich at her private clinic in Auckland.

It is a debilitating condition. Every week Goldie has her arm taped in a way that helps drain the fluid away. Regular exercise also helps.

“Some days my arm is better than others,” Goldie, from Greenhithe, says.

“I like to kitesurf, which seems to do my arm the world of good but I also like to play squash and that is not so easy.

“But I persevere with it.

“I am one of the lucky ones in that the swelling isn’t too severe.

“But I own a restaurant and when I’m out on the floor working lots of customers notice it and ask me how it happened, which can be embarrassing.

“I also have to be very careful I don’t get bitten or stung by anything otherwise the arm will just blow up again.”

Therapist Michele Ulrich works from her Auckland home to help with Lymphoedema treatment. Photo / Greg Bowker
Therapist Michele Ulrich works from her Auckland home to help with Lymphoedema treatment. 

After almost two decades in the field, 70-year-old Michele Ulrich is regarded by many patients as the guru of lymphoedema treatment.

The therapist is chairwoman of the Lymphoedema Support Network and runs a clinic from her house in the Auckland suburb of Mt Albert.

She says lymphoedema can erupt for a number of reasons. And the primary version appears to be genetic.

“Children can be born with a big hand or a big foot,” she says.

“Other times girls can develop it when they reach puberty, or women can get it after having a baby.

“No matter how little they eat or how much they exercise, they just keep gaining weight and can’t seem to lose it.”

Ulrich, who trained in Adelaide, sees up to five people a day.

Part of her treatment involves stretching medical tape along patient’s limbs, which helps drain fluid from the body.

She says there is a real shortage of trained therapists in New Zealand – and there is not enough funding for treatment in the public health system.

“This can be a very distressing condition, especially for women, many of whom won’t wear certain clothes in case it is noticeable.

“Or they try to cover it up.”


All the DHBs in New Zealand have lymphoedema services but they are extremely overworked and there are big waiting lists, Ulrich says.

“There are also a number of private practices but not everyone can afford it,” she says

“And not all insurance companies will pay for lymphoedema treatment, even if it is the result of having treatment for cancer.

“There is not enough awareness in the medical world and elsewhere about just how widespread this condition is.”

Sufferers held an awareness day in early March – part of a global movement to draw attention to the little-known and incurable condition.

They want more funding. Some patients are paying up to $5000 a year from their own pockets for weekly treatment sessions and special compression garments.

Dr Andrew Simpson, chief medical officer at the Ministry of Health, says individual District Health Boards are responsible for providing or funding health services in their district.

“People who are concerned they may have or require treatment for lymphoedema should discuss this with their local DHB, treating clinician, or GP.”

The ministry is regularly contacted about special interest topics by groups such as the Lymphoedema Support Network, and was happy to receive input from them.

“Data on the incidence of lymphoedema is not currently collected by the Ministry of Health,” Simpson said.

Therapist Michele Ulrich works with Cancer survivor Maxine Goldie. Photo / Greg Bowker
Therapist Michele Ulrich works with Cancer survivor Maxine Goldie. Photo / Greg Bowker

Another of Ulrich’s patients , a 52-year-old business woman who asked to be known only by first name Carmen, has primary lymphoedema. She first noticed something was wrong when her limbs started swelling after she had been doing sport.

“For a long time I couldn’t figure out why my arms and legs would blow up even after I had run a marathon or done a 100km cycle race,” she says.

“The fluid kept building up and just would not go anywhere.”

Two years ago she was diagnosed with lymphoedema by a specialist overseas.

“My own doctor didn’t know what was wrong and I started doing my own research,” she says.

“I ended up going to see someone in Singapore who confirmed it was lymphoedema.”

Carmen says she has changed her wardrobe in order to disguise the swelling.

“I’m a size 8-10 in the waist but can’t get trousers to fit because of the size of my legs,” she says.

“I’d love to be able to pull a T-shirt and jeans on to walk to the shops, but that is just not my gig.

“I also wear compression garments in the winter, which are very effective, but the medical taping works better in summer and I am lucky I can afford the kind of clothes that cover things up.

“I am also fortunate to be able to pay for treatment from Michele. But not everyone can afford this and I believe funding should be there for everybody as this can be a very distressing condition.

There is not enough awareness in the medical world and elsewhere about just how widespread this condition is.

Michele Ulrich

“I spoke to someone recently who has had to give up her job because she simply can’t stand up any more.”

Claire Doole, a Kiwi lymphoedema educator and therapist, agrees.

She believes more funding should be in place not just for treatment but for further education of medical professionals such as doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and caregivers in rest homes.

“Funding is a big issue for many people with long-term conditions,” she says.

“And for people who have already had cancer treatment, the lymphoedema can be particularly upsetting.

“It can remind them of the cancer and they wonder what the hell is going on, or if it has come back, which all just adds to their distress.”

When the lymphatic system slows

Lymphoedema is a condition where the lymphatic system – a filter network of tiny vessels that runs alongside the circulation and drains waste products from the blood – isn’t working properly.

Normally, fluid drains from the lymph channels into the lymph nodes. These nodes act like filter stations that process the waste – the fluid itself goes back through the body into the circulation.

However, if the lymphatic system is faulty, the fluid it would normally drain away accumulates in the tissue and the area swells up. The skin becomes like a soggy mattress, because there’s too much fluid in the tissue.

There are two types of lymphoedema. Primary lymphoedema is when there is an abnormality in the development of the lymphatic system.

Secondary lymphoedema is when the lymphatic system has been damaged in some way, often through infection, radiotherapy or surgery.

Up to one in four women who have undergone a mastectomy develop the problem.

Patients can have swelling anywhere on the body or face, although the majority have it in their legs and sometimes in their arms.

Source: lymphoedemanz.org.nz

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s Mission to Save the Planet From Trump.

Tom Steyer was the biggest campaign donor in 2016, spending $86 million on progressive causes. So what does he do after losing? Fight harder.

TOM STEYER ISN’T your average California tree hugger. The former hedge fund manager—number 1,121 on Forbes’wealthiest people list, with $1.61 billion—was once best known for turning $15 million into $30 billion in about two decades.

But then he went hiking. Steyer and environmental activist and author Bill McKibben spent a day trudging through the Adirondacks. Not long after, Steyer parted ways with the leadership of his company and his oil and gas investments, began to fight the Keystone XL pipeline, and then reinvented himself as a one-man superfund for climate causes. His organization, NextGen Climate, has spent $170 million over the past four years advocating for policies and politicians that help the environment and advance renewable energy.

It’s an uphill battle. Steyer was the largest single donor on either side of the 2016 election—$86 million of his own money. Yet climate change skeptics rule the federal government and many statehouses. Somehow, though, Steyer isn’t acting like a loser. Since November he’s become an even more vocal representative of the nearly two-thirds of Americans who do think human-caused climate change is a real problem. He talked to WIRED about California’s role in science, his own po­litical ambitions (“governor” has a better ring to it than “former hedge fund manager,” right?), and whether Donald Trump could ever possibly, conceivably help save the planet.

WIRED: So Keystone XL has been revived, the Clean Power Plan is in peril, and the former CEO of Exxon is our secretary of state. How are you?

STEYER: I know there are five stages of grief, but my parents raised me to pull up my socks when times get tough. So I really never had the luxury of feeling bad, because right after the election I felt like we needed to figure this thing out.

What is NextGen going to do?

We have been cosponsoring marches with immigrants’ and women’s rights groups. We’ve been running ads against Trump’s nominees and policy positions. And we’ve been organizing resistance activities on the college campuses where we established ourselves during the campaign. We will continue to go on the offensive each time the administration attempts to derail global actions to stop climate change.

During the confirmation hearings for Rex Tillerson, Scott Pruitt, and others, you guys took out attack ads. What’s your goal?

Those guys disagree with us on almost every point. One of the things we strongly believe—and Tillerson was a perfect example—is that the people Trump nominated consistently put corporate interests ahead of American interests. We feel it’s important to get citizens to be reminded of this common thread: that the new administration doesn’t hate working against climate change, they don’t hate science—they just love oil and gas profits.

There’s a wide swath of rural Americans who are happy and hopeful for Trump. Are you reaching out to them?

After the election, the first thing I wanted to know was how our voter registration work on 370 campuses across the country affected turnout. We monitored 12 precincts where there were a lot of millennials and saw that voter turnout was up overall. And turns out, we did do well at rural schools. What we are still trying to figure out is whether that turnout voted Republican or Democrat. That is, if those new voters brought our messaging about politicians who supported climate action to the voting booth.



From Wall Street to the Adirondacks, billionaire Tom Steyer took an unusual path to becoming the nation’s leading climate change activist. —Lexi Pandell


An alumnus of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, Steyer moves to San Francisco and starts the investment firm Farallon Capital with $15 million.


Steyer becomes more involved in California politics and briefly considers running for governor in the wake of the Gray Davis recall.


Students at Yale and Stanford (Steyer’s alma maters) criticize the universities for investing in Farallon, which they say funds antilabor and antienvironment companies. Steyer takes note.


Twenty years after its founding, Farallon Capital is worth $30 billion.


A year after he and his wife, Kat Taylor (pictured, above, in the mid-’90s), sign the Giving Pledge, Steyer joins the board of Next Generation, an organization for children’s issues and climate change.


After reading an article by author Bill McKibben, Steyer invites the writer on a hike in the Adirondacks. Steyer comes out of the wilderness ready to advocate for alternative energy.


Steyer founds NextGen Climate, an environmental advocacy nonprofit and political action committee.


NextGen Climate puts up $95 million for candidates, voter engagement, and more. Steyer spends nearly $86 million himself.

Given what you know about how policy moves markets, what will we give up when Trump pulls the US out of the Paris agreement?

I was in business for 30 years, and my experience is that the best way to operate is to work fairly and closely with partners over a long period of time. The most expensive way to do business is to do it deal by deal, each of which is highly contentious. If deal by deal is the model, where instead of partners or allies we have counterparts and competitors, that is very expensive, difficult, and dangerous. OK, so look at the Paris agreement: It’s going to force the developed world to change its energy sources. That means the US could be the leader in developing renewable technology for more than a billion people—a huge incoming market—who don’t have electricity at all.

The Paris agreement was a great achievement of American leadership. So the idea that we’re going to walk away and give up leadership of 194 countries, and walk away from our position as a leader in the world for the past 100 years, will be an incredibly expensive and dumb thing to do.

Are there any Republican climate leaders?

You know, we all act like it is an incredible triumph if a Republican shows the remotest respect for climate science. When Kelly Ayotte—who has a dismal 35 percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters—voted for the Clean Power Plan, a lot of people said, “Oh, she’s really an environmentalist.” But that’s ignoring her record and the reason why it’s so hard for her and other Republicans to stand up for the environment in this political climate, because they have to stand up to the fossil fuel industry. I think there are a lot of Republicans who know the truth and would like to do the right thing but don’t understand how.

Solar and wind energy costs have been coming down for decades. Why aren’t they replacing fossil fuels faster?

There are a lot of subsidies for oil and gas, things like tax breaks and access to markets. That’s partly because there’s a lot of volatility in the oil and gas markets. Fossil fuels are raw materials that have to be extracted and processed. Wind and solar energy are different. The only costs associated with them are technological. WIRED readers should be familiar with the idea that technology gets better and cheaper every year. That’s not true about fossil fuels. The techniques we use to withdraw them might get better every year, but the price has actually risen over time. If you take away subsidies from fossil fuels, wind and solar are actually cheaper.

You believe businesses can provide solutions to climate change but only with the right government policies. Is that era over?

Well, most of the energy regulation in the US comes from the state level, which lets states like California pursue more ambitious emissions regulations. It also lets states with lots of renewable energy coordinate to share it when needed, but federal regulations would help more.

The issue is going to be, to an extent, what the new administration will do to subsidize fossil fuels—how they can make dirtier fuel, which is more expensive, more attractive. Maybe that means leasing public lands at low prices. But the only thing they can really do to ensure long-term drilling is put in infrastructure, like pipelines.

Do you think there is any chance for Trump to not be awful for climate?

[Long pause.] I don’t think there’s any chance that Trump is going to step up and do the right thing out of the conviction that it’s the right thing to do. But, you know, you can’t really say what’s going to happen, because the world does tend to surprise us. If you didn’t learn that in 2016, then you weren’t paying attention.

Can California’s politicians really create a bulwark against Trump?

The administration has said they’re going to go after their political opponents. California embodies that opponent. Taking money away from health care, in the form of the Medicaid expansion—that would be more than $15 billion from California’s budget. Consider that the state’s general fund budget is about $120 billion. They are also going after cities that resist their deportation efforts. They’re talking about withholding money from schools. This is gigantic and very, very threatening. If you talk about trying to stand up as best we can for the people of California, and by doing so put forward a different image of what the true values of Americans are, just be aware, it ain’t cheap. My point is, this is not a theoretical problem for us.

How potent is the state’s ability to resist?

Financing that opposition will be tricky. First, the California budget is leveraged really highly to the personal income and capital gains of the richest Californians. That means it is super volatile, because incomes go up and down much more often than property values, which is how most states finance themselves. What’s worse is that the budget is also highly leveraged to the stock market. So when tech companies are going public and things are happening, then that income for the employees who benefit gets taxed in California like regular income. If there are no tech IPOs, the tech sector isn’t doing well, so there aren’t a lot of stock profits—equity profits—from those companies, and that hits the revenue line of the California state budget [claps loudly] super hard. You may have also noticed that we have had a bull market for the past six years.

In January, in an op-ed for The Sacramento Bee, you wrote about creating “the broadest coalition possible, one that embraces our shared values and delivers on the promise of a better future for all Americans.” You even echo Obama’s “Let’s get to work.”

Maybe he stole that from me!

Well, it reads like you are a guy getting ready to run for office.

[Slaps table.] Well, our mission statement is: “Act politically to prevent climate disaster and promote prosperity for every American.” So are we broadening our message? That’s always been our message. Whatever I do, and I honestly don’t know what it is, will be consistent with that effort.



6 Tips From Harvard Psychologists Who Studied What It Takes to Raise ’Good’ Kids

Bright Side would like to share with you six such pieces of advice about caring for and raising your child that have come straight from experts at Harvard University.

1. Spend time with your kids

This is the basis for everything. You should regularly spend time with your kids, take an interest in their hobbies as well as their problems, and, most importantly, listen to what they have to say. You’ll not only learn much about your son or daughter’s unique personality, but your actions will provide them with an example of how to show care and attention for others.

2. Always tell your child what he or she means to you

According to research carried out by psychologists, many children don’t know that they’re the most important person in the world to their parents. They genuinely need to hear these words from you. Don’t forget to say them as often as possible so that your child feels safe, loved, and valued.

 3. Show them how to resolve problems and not run away from them

For example, if your child suddenly decides they want to give up football training, ask them to explain why they want to do this, as well as the obligations they have to their teammates. If they still want to give it up, help them to find something new to ignite their passions.

4. Train them to help you out with something every day, and show that you’re grateful for their assistance

Research shows that people who are used to expressing their gratitude are more inclined to feel compassion for others, are more generous, and love to help. So it’s worth developing a set of daily activities that your child can help you with at home, for which you can thank them at every stage of the day. Psychologists also recommend rewarding children for genuine displays of kindness and the effort they put into helping you.

5. Help your child cope with their negative emotions

Psychologists believe that the ability to care for others is suppressed by such negative emotions as anger, hatred, shame, and envy. In helping children to comprehend these negative feelings, it will push them towards resolving their internal conflicts. Self-analysis of this kind will set them on the long path to becoming compassionate, caring individuals. It’s also important for establishing psychological stability.

6. Show them that the world is far bigger, more complex, and more interesting than they could ever imagine

According to research carried out by psychologists, almost all children are interested only in the small world of their family and friends. It’s crucial that they also learn to take an interest in the people and events outside this limited circle, which may differ from what they know in social, cultural, and geographical terms. You can help them with this by learning to be a good listener who can place themself in someone else’s shoes and feel empathy, whether it’s through films, photographs, or the news.

Some final important words from the experts at Harvard: ’Raising a child to be polite, caring, and compassionate is a very difficult task. But it’s exactly what all of us are capable of doing. And nothing else in the world will ever compare to the importance of this or the priceless joy you feel from it when it’s achieved.’

Fluoride Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin in World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal.

In recent years, many have protested to have industrial sodium fluoride removed from the water supply, as evidence states it is harmful from many scientific sources.

The Lancet, a prestigious medical journal, had labeled fluoride as a neurotoxin alongside lead, arsenic and mercury. 

Author, Stefan Smyle, broke the news and explained by the Facebook page “Occupy Food,” which linked the published report from The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, in March 2014, by authors Dr. Philip J. Landrigan and Dr. Phillippe Grandjean.

Industrial Chemicals Identified

In the summarization of the report, a review examined and found five different neurotoxicants: polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, lead, toluene, and methylmercury. The summary further states that 6 other developmental neurotoxicants were identified: fluoride, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, manganese, chlorpyrifos, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and tetrachloroethane.
ADHD, Dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments

In the report from The Lancet, the authors came up with a global prevention strategy stating, “Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.”

Included in the report, it was noted that neurodevelopment disabilities, including dyslexia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and many various cognitive impairments, are on the rise in millions of children around the world, in what is called a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.” They further say: “To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.”

The report correlates with the 2013 findings that was found in a Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health. It found that children who lived in highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than children who live in areas with low levels of fluoride in their water supply.

Fluoride also linked to Cancers

Fluoride has been linked to various forms of cancer, and has been in our drinking water. It is different in comparison with the natural calcium fluoride, that is used in dental offices and in drinking water supplies.

Across all of North America, fluoride is in the water supply, but in Europe it is banned and is the case in many other countries.

Prescription painkiller tramadol ‘claiming more lives than any other drug’ ·

Prescription painkiller tramadol, taken by thousands of people every day, is claiming more lives than any other drug – including heroin and cocaine – according to Northern Ireland’s top pathologist.

The painkiller doesn’t cause harm if taken correctly, but the danger rises when users mix it with other drugs or alcohol.

Last year, 33 deaths in Northern Ireland were linked to tramadol.

Among them were a 16-year-old girl and a pensioner in his 70s.

I don’t think that people realise how potentially risky taking tramadol is.

“I think it’s because it’s a prescription drug – people assume it’s safe.”


The opiate-based drug used to treat moderate or severe pain should only be available on prescription – it was reclassified in 2014 making it an illegal Class C drug without prescription.

But anti-drug campaigners say more and more people are turning to the black market.

Professor Jack Crane has spoken out to say he fears more people will die unless urgent action is taken and he is calling for a crackdown on the illegal market.

He wants tramadol to be upgraded again, this time to Class A.

Professor Crane is now set to meet Northern Ireland’s Chief Medical Officer later this month to push for change.



Medical Error is Still the #3 Cause of Death in the U.S. – Are We Really Okay With This? 

When the British Medical Journal reported in May of 2016 that preventable medical error is the #3 cause of death in the United States, behind only heart disease and cancer, my mentor Rachel Naomi Remen MD and I co-wrote an op-ed piece that we submitted to the New York Times. We thought this was big news and hoped that a newspaper like the New York Times would agree. They never responded to us, so we submitted it to CNN, but they failed to respond too. Almost a year later, and especially in light of what’s currently happening to Obamacare and Trumpcare, it still feels relevant, so I’m going to post it here.

Be prepared. It’s frightening to think that it might not be safe to trust your body in the hands of the current medical system. But fear not. As I wrote in my book The Fear Cure, fear only makes us sicker. Instead, let this be a call to action. Let us drop into our hearts and trust that when all of us join together in sacred activism, we can do hard things with great love, and even behemoth systems like the United States health care system can heal.


Are We Really Okay With This?

Op-ed article, written May 2016 by:

—Lissa Rankin, MD, New York Times bestselling author of Mind Over Medicine and The Anatomy of a Calling, and founder of the Whole Health Medicine Institute.

—Rachel Naomi Remen, MD, New York Times bestselling author of Kitchen Table Wisdom and My Grandfather’s Blessings, and founder of The Healer’s Art curriculum.

This week, the venerable British Medical Journal reported a recent study revealing that medical error is the third leading cause of death in America. 250,000 people die each year from causes that are completely preventable and have nothing to do with their disease process. Shocking? You bet. Surprising? Not so much.

Surely those seeking medical care have the right to expect that the system will protect them from preventable harm. Yet these findings document that modern medical care itself poses a grave risk to life, ranking a close third behind heart disease and cancer as the most common cause of death in the United States.

Preventable Medical Error Still Number 3 Cause Death U.S. Are We Really Okay With This - 1When alarming statistics like this are unveiled, the knee-jerk response is often to impose greater control in order to prevent medical error; more checks and balances, more rules, more “fail safes” — in other words, more bureaucracy. But what if more bureaucracy actually increases the risk of medical error? What if bureaucracy is actually the problem and not the solution?

Anyone working in today’s system is aware of the many safety precautions and practices designed to decrease medical error. Many of them have a surreal quality, which tempts one to ask, “How did we end up here?” A classic example is the “Time Out” practice performed before every surgery. Simply described, the surgeon stands ready, scalpel in hand, while someone on the surgical team calls for a “Time out!” The team then halts while the patient’s identification bracelet is checked, the paperwork is reviewed, and the team agrees verbally that the correct surgery is about to be performed on the correct patient. Why is this necessary? Because it’s possible that nobody in the operating room actually knows the patient or the problem that brings them to surgery.

To further decrease the very real possibility of medical error, patients are often given a magic marker prior to anesthesia so they can write a message on their body, preferably on the affected body part. This safety precaution is intended to ensure that they end up with a left hip replacement, rather than a right hip replacement, or God forbid, a pacemaker. Absurd? Yes. Uncommon? No. Effective? Questionable. With 250,000 fatal errors each year and many more that lead to injury but not death, such safety systems are clearly not working.

What goes unmentioned in most conversations about safety in medicine is that these safety protocols do not touch the root cause of this public health crisis, which lies in the priorities of the present system and the destructive effect of the economic bottom line on the health care provider-patient relationship. The problem is not a dearth of safety protocols. The problem is that the safety inherent in a genuine relationship between the patient and those who serve the patient has been sacrificed to the economic bottom line. The errors that lead to patient fatalities are rarely the result of lack of skill or training on the part of those who deliver health care. These errors are the outcome of a system-wide practice of prioritizing economic goals above safety goals.

The uncomfortable truth is that safety costs money. In the not so distant past, health care professionals knew their patients intimately. They not only knew their names, what they looked like, and the health issues that plagued them; they also knew what they did for a living, understood their family systems, were familiar with their financial challenges, and were privy to their secrets. Knowing the patient intimately helps the health professional serve the patient and protect him or her from harm. Even a decade ago, all surgeons still routinely visited patients prior to surgery to clarify what was planned, discuss the surgery, answer questions, and lay eyes and hands on the patient. They also visited their patients post-operatively to answer questions, discuss the outcome of the surgery, ensure adequate pain control, ensure that no obvious error had been made, and comfort family members. However, now it is possible for a patient to be operated on by a surgeon who only meets the patient in the operating room, often when the patient is already premedicated with sedatives or already asleep. Post-operative visits are rare and seen as unnecessary.

Preventable Medical Error Still Number 3 Cause Death U.S. Are We Really Okay With This - 3

The problem does not just lie with surgery. Unlike doctors of the past who had genuine relationships with patients and their families, many practicing physicians now work in health care systems which require them to see forty patients a day, many with complex problems requiring the management of multiple medications, whose side effects often interfere with each other. It is not uncommon for patients to be double booked in fifteen minute slots, leaving only seven and a half minutes of time for each patient. All the fail safes in the world cannot make such a system safe. Imagine if your car mechanic had seven and a half minutes to assess and repair a significant problem with your car. Would you be surprised if your car failed on the freeway?

250,000 deaths a year. It is absurd to lay the cause of such an alarming statistic at the door of the health care professional. Few health care professionals would actually choose to practice in the health care provider -patient relationship the system imposes upon them. Such relationships are inherently dangerous.

Protecting patients against danger is built into the training of all health professionals. Within moments of receiving a medical degree, every new doctor speaks aloud a vow to do no harm, often using an oath that goes back thousands of years. People enter the field of health care with the intention to serve and make a positive difference in the lives of others. “Do no harm” is the foundational goal of such people. Yet the system itself does not support or respect this intention. The system does intend to do no harm, but only if it doesn’t cost too much. But doing no harm takes time. Doing no harm costs money. By placing a greater priority on the economic bottom line than on the value of doing no harm, the intention to do no harm is violated and invalidated, often on a daily basis, by the demands of the system. Doing no harm may actually be an impossible goal within the system as it exists today.

Preventable Medical Error Still Number 3 Cause Death U.S. Are We Really Okay With This - 4

The data presented in the British Medical Journal suggests that the present health care system has become inherently untrustworthy. This violates the intention of the dedicated people who work within the system, the ones who enter into the practice of medicine, nursing, and other health care fields in order to be someone patients can trust when they are at their most vulnerable. If you were to ask doctors, nurses, and other health care practitioners to create the health care system, we would have a very different system.

The fact that preventable medical error is the third leading cause of death in America is simply unacceptable. The system is not working, not only for patients in clinics and hospitals, but for all those who serve within these systems and experience daily the conflict between the demands of the system, the regulation of individual practice, and the wish to do no harm. The road ahead is not clear. It is tempting to wonder what would happen if doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals entrusted with the lives of Americans were to just stop. What if we were to say, “Sorry, but I am not willing to put the lives of my patients in jeopardy any longer.” What would happen if we stood up for our deep commitment to do no harm and refused to participate in a system that puts people in jeopardy on a daily basis? What might be possible then?



The largest dinosaur footprint ever has been found in Australia’s ‘Jurassic Park’.

This thing is huge.

On a 25 kilometre (15.5 mile) stretch of coastline in Western Australia, there lies a prehistoric treasure trove.

Thousands of approximately 130-million-year-old dinosaur footprints are embedded in a stretch of land that can only be studied at low tide, when the sea – and the sharks and crocodiles that inhabit the region  – can’t hide them.

 What scientists found there is truly special, according to a study recently published in The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology.

“Nowhere else in the world has as many dinosaurs represented by track that Walmadany does,” Steve Salisbury, a palaeontologist at the University of Queensland and lead author of the study, says in a video describing the area.

Included among those many dinosaur tracks is the largest dinosaur footprint ever found. At approximately 1.75 metres long (about 5 feet, 9 inches), the track came from some sort of giant sauropod, a long-necked herbivore.

“There’s nothing that comes close” in terms of size, Salisbury tells CNN.

But there’s far more there than one giant footprint.

Dinosaur footprints australia

“We see a unique dinosaur fauna that includes things like stegosaurs and some of the biggest dinosaurs to have ever walked the planet, gigantic sauropods,” Salisbury says in the video.

This was the first evidence of stegosaurs ever found in Australia.

 There are also tracks from meat-eating theropods that walked on two feet and left three-toed prints with shapes similar to those many remember from the film Jurassic Park.

In this case, the three-toed prints have a special significance: in local lore, the tracks belong to Marala, an Emu man who journeyed through the region, giving laws that dictated how people should behave.

Dinosaur footprints

In a press release announcing the findings, Salisbury also describes the various other types of dinosaur tracks discovered.

“There were five different types of predatory dinosaur tracks, at least six types of tracks from long-necked herbivorous sauropods, four types of tracks from two-legged herbivorous ornithopods, and six types of tracks from armoured dinosaurs,” he says.

Dinosaur australia footprints

The University of Queensland researchers were brought in more than five years ago by the aboriginal Goolarabooloo community, who are the traditional custodians of the area and have known about the tracks for many years.

The Western Australian Government had selected the region as a processing site for liquid natural gas, and the local groups wanted experts to help protect the region and show what was at stake.

The area was designated a National Heritage site in 2011, and two years later it was announced that the gas production project wouldn’t happen.

Dinosaur australia footprints

Since no equipment could be left out when the tide came in, the researchers used drones to map the area with digital photography and laser scans.

According to Salisbury, they have spent more than 400 hours out on the reefs.

“It’s such a magical place – Australia’s own Jurassic Park, in a spectacular wilderness setting.


%d bloggers like this: