Top 10 Reasons to Use Organic Cosmetics

By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, August 12, 2010

Non-Organic Cosmetics...

10. Fuel Oil Addiction
There's an oil spill leaking from U.S. bathrooms that's roughly the same size as the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. It's coming from the petrochemical-based cosmetics we're rubbing into our hair and skin and rinsing down the drain. 9. Spawn Superbugs
The widespread use of products containing the antibacterial agent triclosan is promoting the growth of dangerous superbugs.
The use of nanosilver will also lead to the development of antibiotic resistance among harmful bacteria.8. Unleash Biocides
Nanosilver is a powerful biocide that can kill beneficial bacteria in the environment, especially in soil and water, creating an unacceptable toxicity risk to human health and the environment.
Biocidal nanosilver threatens bacteria-dependent natural processes.Beneficial bacteria are of vital importance to soil, plant and animal health. Soil bacteria fix nitrogen and breakdown organic matter. Denitrification bacteria play an important role in keeping waterways clean by removing nitrates from water contaminated by excessive fertilizer use. Bacteria in our guts allow humans and animals to digest food. 7. Make Drinking Water Deadly
Triclosan can react with chlorine in the tap water to create the carcinogen chloroform. When sunlight is added to the already toxic triclosan-chlorine mix, dioxins are formed. Dioxins are highly toxic persistent environmental pollutants that can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer. Common household products such as shampoo can interact with disinfectants at U.S. wastewater treatment plants to form cancer-causing nitrosamines, which end up in drinking water.6. Make Us Fat
Exposure to phthalates, endocrine disrupting chemicals found in perfumes, nail polish and other cosmetics, is linked to childhood obesity.5. Speed Up Puberty
As girls are showing signs of puberty at younger and younger ages, researchers are beginning to examine the link between cosmetics ingredients that mimic the effect of estrogen and premature puberty.
Girls younger than 10 with early onset puberty show a high rate of exposure to endocrine disruptors found in nail polishes and other cosmetics.
Phthalates, triclosan, musks and parabens are all known to alter the hormone system.4. Increase Infertility
According to a report on the health risks of secret ingredients in fragrance, hormone-disrupting chemicals commonly found in perfumes may be a factor in infertility, which increased by 20 percent in American couples between 1995 and 2002. 3. Cause Birth Defects
Nail salon workers exposed to solvents without proper ventilation, face an increased risk for miscarriages and birth defects similar to fetal alcohol syndrome.Endocrine disruptors have been implicated in birth defects of the male reproductive system, such as undescended testicles and a penile deformity called hypospadias. Incidence of both conditions appears to have risen in recent decades.Pregnant women with higher levels of phthalates commonly found in fragrances, shampoos, cosmetics and nail polishes are more likely to have children who display disruptive behavior years later.2. Give Us Cancer
The President's Cancer Panel warns that nitrosamines found in cosmetics are implicated in brain & kidney cancer, phthalates found in cosmetics, hair conditioners, and fragrances, increase the risks of breast and testicular cancer, and nanomaterials found in cosmetics, personal care products and suncreens "can be extremely toxic."22% of all personal care products are contaminated with the cancer-causing impurity 1,4-dioxane, including many children’s products. 1. Aren't Regulated or Safety Tested
The Food and Drug Administration has no authority to make cosmetics companies test products for safety or recall products that are found to be harmful. The President's Cancer Panel recommends research on toxins and endocrine disrupting chemicals in personal care products and cosmetics, noting that only 11 percent of the ingredients in these products have been tested for safety.

View the Original article

BP's Bad Breakup: How Toxic Is Corexit?

By Kate Sheppard
Mother Jones, August 10, 2010
Straight to the Source

When the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, BP was presented with a stark choice: Let the oil float to the surface, reach the shore, and allow the world to see the full scope of the damage; or hit as much of the oil as possible with toxic substances called dispersants to break it up into trillions of tiny droplets, keeping some of it from reaching the surface and making landfall-but also potentially killing more sea life than the oil might have destroyed by itself. The company chose the latter. By late July, it had applied a record 1.8 million gallons of dispersants, spraying them on the sea's surface and injecting them directly at the well site, a technique never tried before.

Why, you might ask, was BP able to pump the Gulf full of chemicals that have never been tested for their human and environmental safety? The answer lies, in part, in the Toxic Substances Control Act, the 34-year-old law that governs the use of tens of thousands of hazardous chemicals. Under the act, companies don't have to prove that substances they release into the air or water are safe-or in most cases even reveal what's in their products.

In the case of dispersants, companies must ask the EPA for permission to use specific products-but the only basis for approval is whether those products are effective at breaking up oil. Companies are required to test the short-term toxicity of the dispersant and the oil-dispersant mixture on shrimp and fish, but those results have no bearing on approval, and there's no requirement to assess the long-term impact. In fact, it's the EPA that must prove an "unreasonable risk" if it wants companies to disclose what is in the dispersant-hard to do when the agency, you know, doesn't know what's in it.

BP's chemical cocktails of choice were Corexit 9527A and 9500A, both made by Illinois-based Nalco. The manufacturer insists that the products are no more dangerous than common household cleaners such as dish soap-little consolation given that many of the chemicals in those cleaners haven't been tested for safety, either. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged that the impacts of using dispersants underwater and in large volume are largely unknown-"I'm amazed by how little science there is on the issue," she told senators in May. Two days later, Jackson directed BP to switch to less-toxic dispersants, but BP said it hadn't found the alternatives suitable and continued to use Corexit. The EPA also asked for the company's study of alternatives; BP turned over a set of heavily redacted documents (PDF). Under pressure, Nalco eventually coughed up a list of Corexit ingredients-one of them is 2-butoxyethanol, a chemical that can cause liver and kidney damage and other health problems-but refused for some time to provide the exact formula; meanwhile, the EPA said it was barred from publishing its own studies on the ingredients because, according to a spokeswoman, that might be "confidential business information" that could lead to criminal prosecution. 


View the Original article

Trillions for War and Wall Street Subsidies, But $14 Billion in Cuts to the Food Stamp Program

By Keith Good, ed.
FarmPolicy.com, Aug 12, 2010
Straight to the Source

Philip Brasher reported yesterday at the Green Fields Blog (The Des Moines Register) that,

View the Original article

Italian Activists Storm Field, Crush GM Maize

Activists storm field, crush GM maize
Crops planted illegally but no globalists'raid condemned
Ansa - Italy, Aug 9, 2010
Straight to the Source

(ANSA) - Pordenone, August 9 - A group of 70 global activists on Monday staged a lightning strike against a field of genetically modified (GM) maize, crushing all the plants and effectively preventing their harvest.

The GM crop at Vivaro, near the northeastern town of Pordenone, has been at the centre of a storm for the last two weeks, after the farmer who planted the maize, Giorgio Fidenato, announced it was ready to be harvested.

Some 70 activists, dressed alike in white overalls, were able to stomp on all the plants before police arrived and dragged them away, a spokesman for the Ya Basta anti-GM group said.

"Our action was aimed against the violence that GM crops wreak on the environment and on humans," said Luca Tornatore.

Despite widespread opposition to GM crops by most Italian farmers, the action was nevertheless roundly condemned by all. Pro-biotech group Futuragra said the raid was "an act of vandalism" and the result of "terror sown by the media" against GM crops. Farmers' union Coldiretti, which actively campaigns for organic agriculture, blasted the anti-globalists, saying that "the law must always be respected".

But Coldiretti also criticised officials for having dallied on the issue. Last week several members of the largest opposition group, the centre-left Democratic Party (PD), joined MPs of the governing coalition's rightwing Northern League party at a press conference outside the Senate to protest the lack of an "effective response" to the situation at Vivaro.

An umbrella organization coordinating efforts against the crops, the Task Force for an Italy Free of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), which represents 27 conservation, farming and environmental associations, called for the "immediate destruction of fields where GM maize is grown".

It warned of a "devastating impact on the local environment, wild fauna and the crops of other farmers" if pollen from the maize was allowed to disperse.


View the Original article

USDA Wants Us to 'Know Your Farmer,' FDA Wants Us to Stay Home

By David Gumpert
Grist, August 11, 2010
Straight to the Source

Customers of Country Hen, a central Massachusetts organic egg producer, found an upsetting announcement in their egg cartons recently: The farm tours that had been a tradition of the farm since it opened 22 years ago were being discontinued.

The reason? A new federal law that went into effect last month called the "Egg Safety Final Rule," or 74 FR 33030, which is designed to reduce the risk of a major form of contamination known as Salmonella enteritidis, or SE. The law requires farms with more than 3,000 hens not only to adhere to tight refrigeration protocols, create a disease protection plan, and abide by strict sanitation practices, but also to keep customers out of the chicken houses.

As in much of farming, a small number of large farms produce the bulk of the food. Though just 4,000 farms are above the 3,000-hen cutoff, they account for 99 percent of egg production, and another 65,000 produce the remaining 1 percent or so of egg production, the FDA estimates. It's these smaller farms, like Joel Salatin's well-known Virginia farm Polyface, where chickens often wander outdoors, eating bugs and grass, that we tend to picture in our imaginations. Many of these farms have intentionally kept their flocks under the 3,000 cutoff point to avoid the strict FDA rules.

The big farms tend to be the factory operations, out of public sight, where thousands of chickens may be crammed into dark henhouses. But Country Hen, as an organic operation that emphasizes humane treatment of its chickens, tries to project itself as more like one of the smaller operations, with everything open and available for viewing.

Writes George Bass, the owner of Country Hen, on the farm's Facebook page: "The most difficult change that we had to make because of (the new rule) is such a deep rooted part of our corporate culture, is no more tours of the farm. The biosecurity part of the new law addresses strictly limiting the number of visitors on the farm property and into the barns. Since we opened in 1988, our farm has always been open for customers or potential customers to stop by for a tour."

And indeed, a review of the lengthy new egg rules by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration contains this requirement for poultry farms: "Use a biosecurity program, meaning a program that includes limiting visitors on the farm and in poultry houses."

View the Original article

The Ploy to Promote Genetically Engineered Seeds and Pesticides to Poor Mexican Farmers Is Impoverishing Their Communities

By Jill Richardson
Alternet, August 06, 2010
Straight to the Source

The Obama administration's Feed the Future initiative promises a second Green Revolution that will feed a planet of nine billion people by doubling crop yields by 2050. But considering that we produce enough food to feed the planet today and a billion people still go hungry, are yields really the problem? And if they are, are providing Green Revolution technologies like hybrid and genetically engineered seeds, chemical fertilizer and pesticides to subsistence farmers the best way to achieve them? I visited subsistence farmers in Mexico to find out.

The homes of campesinos, peasant farmers, in the rural areas surrounding Cuquio, Mexico (about an hour from Guadalajara) no longer have dirt floors. The Mexican government initiated a program to replace them with cement floors in 2008 and now most homes sport a plaque celebrating their new piso firmes. Electricity came about 20 years ago. For many, running water and bathroom facilities are modern conveniences they do not yet have. The government has recently distributed composting toilets to many, but not all, families.

One of the tiny adobe homes is decorated by flowers growing in upside-down Coca-Cola bottles turned into flower pots. Another is located next to a fencepost sporting an empty bag of Monsanto corn seeds -- seeds presumably planted in the adjoining cornfield, or milpa. This little corner of the world and the people who live here seem to be forgotten by everyone except for Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and multinational agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and DuPont. 

View the Original article

Battle Against Chicken Factory Farms Making Progress

By Keith Good, ed.
FarmPolicy.com, Aug 12, 2010
Straight to the Source

Erik Eckholm reported in today’s New York Times that,

View the Original article

U.S. Unsure if Cloned Meat has Been Sold in North America

By Sarah Schmidt
August 10, 2010
Straight to the Source

OTTAWA - The U.S. Secretary of Agriculture on Tuesday said he doesn't know whether cloned cows or their offspring have made it into the North American food supply.

But Tom Vilsack, in Ottawa to talk trade with food exporters and Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz, emphasized that if they have, the animals are safe to eat.

"I can't say today that I can answer your question in an affirmative or negative way. I don't know. What I do know is that we know all the research, all of the review of this is suggested that this is safe," Vilsack told reporters, pointing to an assessment of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Vislack said that because science is often "ahead of the regulatory process and ahead of the ethics discussion," the U.S. will continue their "moratorium" on not allowing the sale of meat from cloned animals until the products are widely accepted as safe.

Vilsack's comments come a week after the U.K. Food Standards Agency told consumers in that country that descendants of a clone made their way into the local food supply. The cattle were the offspring of a cloned cow in the U.S. and were shipped to the U.K. as embryos.

View the Original article

Ignoring the Obvious: The Floods and Fires, the Droughts and Disasters Will Continue

By Al Jazeera
Common Dreams, August 12, 2010
Straight to the Source

You may know I've just returned from Niger. There, tens of thousandsof people are facing extreme hunger because of the droughts of the lasttwo years.

The rainy season is under way but the rains around thecapital of Niamey have been torrential and persistent. It's not what isneeded. The water is not nourishing the soil. It's washing away thecrops. It's washing away homes. It is destroying lives.

Thetrouble there comes as Pakistan struggles to cope with the worst floodssince the creation of the state. Millions of people are homeless. TheUN predicts the devastation will be worse than the Asian Tsunami, whichstruck several countries.

Torrential rain has swept throughChina. The official death toll is creeping up all the time. It is goingto be in the thousands. Mudslides have brought havoc to many placesacross the country's northwest.

In Russia's capital, Moscow,forest fires - started in scorching hot temperatures - have left theair quality so poor, the authorities are telling people who cannotleave the city to stay indoors.

In Greenland, a mass of ice hasbroken away from a glacier. Four times the size of Manhattan Island;it's the biggest iceberg in more than half a century. Scientists sayarctic ice is melting at record pace and 16 countries have recordedrecord temperatures this year.

Yet despite the evidence of floodsand flames, of drought and danger, there is no concerted internationalaction towards reaching an agreement on the best way to fight climatechange.

View the Original article

States Make Anti-Union, Preemptive Strike Against EFCA

By Jonathan J. Cooper
Common Dreams, August 12, 2010
Straight to the Source

PHOENIX - With Washington silent for now on legislation championed by unions, the debate is playing out instead in the states.

With a measure approved Wednesday by its Republican-controlled Legislature, Arizona became the fourth state that will ask voters this year to undercut proposed federal legislation aimed at making it easier for workers to unionize. Arizona voters will decide in November whether the state constitution should require a secret ballot for workers deciding whether to create a union; South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah residents will be asked similar questions.

If passed, the secret ballot initiatives would have little immediate effect because federal law already allows employers to require a secret ballot.

Rather, the ballot measures are an attempt to pre-emptively undermine the proposed federal law known officially as the Employee Free Choice Act - dubbed "card check" by opponents.

EFCA would allow a majority of employees to create a union by signing a card. Unions say workers, not their employers, should get to decide how to form a union.

Businesses have the advantage in a union election because management has unfettered access to employees and can intimidate them by changing work schedules and assignments or threatening to fire them, said Bill Samuel, government affairs director for the AFL-CIO.


View the Original article

Chemical Regulations and the Modern Mattress: The Stuff of Nightmares

By Barry Cik
Green Biz, August 11, 2010
Straight to the Source

I've spent the last 30 years as an environmental engineer, but it wasn't until I became a grandfather that I fully understood the extent to which industrial chemicals had invaded the American home.

My rude awakening came when my wife sent me to buy a crib mattress for our first grandchild. I was appalled by what I found; the crib mattresses were full of industrial chemicals. Because of my environmental engineering background, I knew how harmful these chemicals could be to a developing child.

No one sets out to make toxic baby mattresses; it just evolved that way. As just one example, nearly all baby mattresses are covered with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to make them waterproof. Because PVC is rigid, manufacturers mix in a class of chemicals called phthalates to soften the PVC. When added to PVC, phthalates don't stay put; they leach into the air, making children more vulnerable to asthma, reproductive harm and cancer. One short-sighted decision leads to another and, before you know it, you've got a very unhealthy baby mattress.

The good news is, Congress is considering legislation that requires chemical manufacturers to show that their products are safe before they end up in products. Called the Safe Chemicals Act in the Senate and the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act in the House, these proposals have the potential to improve Americans' health and restore consumer trust in American businesses and products.

Now it is up to our elected officials to make sure these bills become law. Yet they will only succeed if we can all stand firm in the face of chemical industry lobbyists who will argue that more regulation will hurt small business. My story demonstrates that just the opposite is true.



View the Original article

Bollywood Superstar Aamir Khan Shines the Spotlight on What's Caused an Estimated 150,000 Farmer Suicides in India

By Sonali Kolhatkar
Uprising Radio, via Alternet, Aug 11, 2010
Straight to the Source

A tangible consequence of India's shift to a neo-liberal economic model has been the flood of suicides among farmers. The vast majority of the world's second most populated country still farms for a living, but are caught between deep debt and the erratic nature of seasonal change. Lured by the promise of greater production, farmers are pressured into mortgaging their farms to purchase genetically modified seeds, pesticides, and fertilizer from American companies like Monsanto. Since GM seeds are patented by Monsanto, their repeated use each year requires constant licensing fees that keep farmers impoverished. One bad yield due to drought or other reasons, plunges farmers so deep into debt that they resort to suicide. One study estimates that 150,000 farmers have killed themselves in the past ten years.

A new feature film written and directed by Anusha Rizwi and produced by Bollywood megastar Aamir Khan, called Peepli Live, tackles head on this grim topic. The story is set in an Indian village named Peepli where one young debt-burdened farmer named Natha is talked into taking his own life after he learns that his family will be financially compensated through a government program created to alleviate the loss of farmers taking their own lives. What unfolds is a dark comedy of errors when a media circus descends on the tiny village, followed by corrupt politicians wanting to make use of the planned tragedy. Khan's credits as an actor and producer include Lagaan, the 2001 Oscar-nominated film about Indian resistance to the British occupation. His latest film 3 Idiots released last year became the highest grossing film in Indian film history.

Text of Sonali Kolhatkar's interview follows (with video and more information about Khan's film at the bottom of the article):



View the Original article

The Space Between Stimulus and Response

Close friends and family members are typically surprised - shocked, even - when they learn that my wife Margaret and I have had a good number of fights over the years. At first glance, both of us are generally viewed as being kind, thoughtful, and maybe even a bit shy. So jaws tend to drop when people find out that we're far from being the Cleavers.

I'm not talking about getting a smidge annoyed and being sullen or aloof for a few hours after having a disagreement; we've had fights that have included world class hollering, slamming of doors, and Margaret hopping on a bus to flee to Toronto.

I don't hesitate to openly share some of the difficult times that we've gone through because I believe that being open and thoughtfully honest about our relationship can make it stronger, and my hope is that sharing our intermittent struggles might be helpful to others who pause to wonder if they're the only ones who struggle badly at times.

The first two years of our marriage were the toughest. Just a few days after getting married, we opened our doors to a residential fasting clinic that I put all of my savings into, and for the next two years, save a couple of weeks here and there, we were responsible for caring for fasting guests close to 24/7 on top of me running an outpatient practice.

I would work with patients and clients upstairs from about 8 am to 10, sometimes 11 pm, while Margaret would do what she could behind the scenes in our basement apartment.

By the time I got downstairs at night, all I wanted to do was take a shower, get a bite to eat, pray that none of the guests would require emergency attention, and go to sleep.

Margaret, having spent most of her days by herself, would want to spend some time together when I came downstairs.

Having an immigrant's "survive first, enjoy life later" mentality, I couldn't understand how she could get upset with me for not wanting to do much else but sleep after I had spent most of the day working to do right by our patients and provide for our family.

Having just gotten married and being transplanted to a new city straight out of graduate school and the comforts of her parents' home, Margaret couldn't understand why I wanted to get married if I didn't have time to enjoy our marriage.

I thought she was spoiled, selfish, and ungrateful.

She thought I was unbalanced, arrogant, condescending, and a mama's boy who only got married to have children.

With these dynamics in place, you can imagine how getting stuck in the clinic "after hours" on a regular basis precipitated the same basic fight over and over again.

There was no magical cure for our troubles. We didn't go from having a tension-filled marriage to being a close couple overnight, or even over a few months.

But we have made huge strides over the years, and what's helped us more than anything was mutually agreeing to embrace the following principle:

Between every stimulus and response, there's a space. Within this space, we have the capacity to choose our response.

I learned this principle many years ago from Dr. Stephen Covey's The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

The idea is to use to work at transcending a gut response that we know will lead to trouble, and in its place, to choose a response that honors our feelings and gives the other person a chance to understand our perspective, which will hopefully lead to a resolution that both people can truly feel good about.

Before I committed myself to applying this principle to everyday matters, when Margaret would show me that she was unhappy being married to a workaholic, I would seethe inside and flippantly say something like "I wish I had waited to marry you after you worked full time for at least a couple of years so that you could understand what it takes to make a living in this world."

Believe it or not, that was my best attempt be diplomatic.

Of course, Margaret would be on top of the underlying "the-problem-here-is-you" tone like white on rice and she'd tell me in no uncertain terms what she thought of my self righteous, one-sided observation of our circumstances.

As I tried to embrace that sliver of a space between her wound-creating stimuli and my wound-generating responses, I found that it became natural to empathize with her feelings. I slowly went from feeling like she was constantly complaining to feeling her genuine pain over our circumstances.

It became natural for me to better understand and appreciate the differences in our upbringings; Margaret's parents were able to provide for all of her basic needs, including tuition, room and board right through graduate school, while I had to penny pinch my way through university and chiropractic school with next to no help from my folks, who just didn't have financial help to give.

And as Margaret also worked at choosing constructive responses to my tendency to get lost in work, I think she also began to better understand my mentality.

I became more grateful for her liking me enough that she got upset when she couldn't spend lots of time with me.

And I think she became more grateful for my devotion to providing for our family doing work that I believe in.

Thankfully, we're at a point now where there's a nice balance between work time, family time, and personal time. But there are still plenty of ongoing opportunities for us to remember to use the space that exists after every stimulus that comes our way to choose responses that stand a good chance of leading to peace and closeness rather than grumpiness.

Even after we have a bad moment, I consider the bad moment itself to be a new stimulus, and I strive to respond to this new stimulus by discarding every emotion but the desire to stay genuinely close. This attitude makes it relatively easy to own anything that I've done to contribute to the bad moment, and to offer a sincere apology. To the best of my recollection, every such apology has resulted in an almost immediate return to a warm and loving atmosphere in our home, which is what both of us ultimately want.

I suppose this is the question that all of should ask ourselves whenever a new stimulus comes our way - when our child, a life partner, or a close friend is feeling grumpy and is short with us on some matter, we can use to ask ourselves what we want. If we breathe deeply and calmly within this space and we aren't too terribly wounded, our answer will almost always be that we want everyone to be healthy and at peace. And with this thought fresh in our minds, it should become natural to respond in a way that promotes peace.

My experience has been that the more I consciously choose responses out of this mindset, the more compassion comes my way when life has me down for a few hours or more. And vice versa - when I can see Margaret and others mindfully choosing to support and encourage me when I'm not at my best, I'm inspired to pick myself up and do the same for them.

This mindset of cherishing can lead to all sorts of uplifting moments as we go about our daily lives. For example, when another driver is careless and almost hits us on the road, if we're in the zone of choosing peaceful responses, we're likely to give a friendly wave to indicate that we've all done the same thing before, which is just about guaranteed to lead to the other driver being kind to the next person that he or she is around. On the other hand, if we react with anger, we're likely to bring that person down and have both him and us give off more bad energy that day and perhaps beyond.

Between every stimulus and response, there's a space. Within this space, we have the capacity to choose our response.

May we all strive to choose peaceful responses as often as possible.

  Share --

View the Original article

How to Prevent Anal Fissures

Few health challenges can generate as much pain as a chronic anal fissure. This article explains how an anal fissure develops, and how to promote healing of an anal fissure using natural methods.

What is an Anal Fissure?

An anal fissure is a tear of any size in the anus. If you've ever noticed a spot or two of bright red blood on your toilet tissue after having an uncomfortable bowel movement, you have likely experienced an anal fissure.

An anal fissure can lead to burning, stinging, or sharp pain during bowel movements. The pain can last anywhere from a few seconds to a few hours. In severe cases, the pain can cause a spasm of muscles that surround the rectum, which can cause the pain to intensify.

Fortunately, most anal fissures heal rapidly on their own. When a fissure doesn't heal within a few weeks, it's usually because one or more root causes continue to aggravate the fissure.

Root Causes of Anal Fissures

The most obvious cause of an anal fissure is direct trauma to the anal canal. Childbirth, anal intercourse, and insertion of any foreign bodies into the anal canal can cause a fissure.

Chronic constipation and chronic diarrhea can also cause an anal fissure by repeatedly straining the lining of the anus.

In the vast majority of cases, an underlying cause is chronic tension in a muscular ring - called the internal anal sphincter - that surrounds the anal canal.

If your internal anal sphincter is chronically tense, blood flow to this region is reduced. Reduced blood flow causes the lining of your anus to become more susceptible to tearing. Reduced blood flow to your anus also makes it harder for a fissure to heal.

This is why some people tear relatively easily when they try to pass hard stools, while others don't develop a fissure even when chronically constipated - the tone of your internal anal sphincter largely determines if an anal fissure will develop when your anal canal is excessively stretched.

So what can cause your internal anal sphincter to be chronically tense? In the absence of overt neurological dysfunction, the most common cause of a hypertonic internal anal sphincter is ongoing emotional stress.

Emotional stress causes your autonomic nervous system to gear up to fight or run for your life. One of the consequences of being chronically amped for a fight or flight response is a tense and dysfunctional gastrointestinal tract, which includes a taut internal anal sphincter.

Without exception, every person that has come to me looking for a way to heal a chronic anal fissure has reported experiencing significant emotional stress around the time that the anal fissure first appeared.

My experience has been that botox injections, lateral internal sphincterotomy, application of nitroglycerin ointment, and other conventional medical treatments for a chronic anal fissure tend to lead to temporary healing at best and a re-occurrence of the fissure if emotional stress continues to take its toll on the internal anal sphincter.

Natural Ways to Promote Healing of an Anal Fissure

What follows are natural ways to prevent and heal a chronic anal fissure:

1. Avoid using soap on your anus

As explained in my article on why you shouldn't use soap on your private parts, it's best to wash your anus with warm or hot water without the use of soap or other personal care products. Regular use of soap to clean your anus can cause the lining of your anal canal to become dry, predisposing it to tears when stretched excessively.

2. If your anal sphincter is dry or you have an existing fissure, use coconut oil to moisturize the area.

Coconut oil is an excellent moisturizer for all of your body's linings. Coconut oil also appears to have healing properties for wounds - some health practitioners in Indonesia have long used coconut oil to effectively treat bed sores and other skin lesions.

Don't be afraid to apply coconut oil to your anal sphincter several times a day. If your anus is dry or you have a chronic fissure, it's best to apply coconut oil to the area throughout the day and before you go to bed.

3. Take a warm or hot bath at least once a day.

Immersing your body in warm or hot water can help relax your internal anal sphincter, which will allow better blood flow to the area.

Consider visualizing rich blood flow to your anal sphincter as you soak in the tub, as we know that the mind-body connection is capable of producing real physiological effects. To facilitate the use of visualization to promote rich blood flow to your anus, try placing one of your hands against your perineum (the region between your genitals and your anus) to give your mind a palpable target.

4. Work at experiencing comfortable bowel movements.

For comprehensive information on how to promote healthy bowel movements, please view:

How to Keep Your Colon Healthy

5. Strive to feel emotionally balanced.

None of the above is likely to lead to lasting improvement unless you work at consistently feeling emotionally balanced.

If you're not sure where to begin with addressing your emotional stressors, please have a look at the mind-body exercises found here:

Mind-Body Exercises for Optimal Emotional Health

Although the article cited above was originally written for people looking for help with depression, the mind-body exercises found in that article can be extremely helpful when looking to feel emotionally balanced.

If you're currently suffering with a chronic anal fissure, I hope that you find the suggestions in this article to be helpful. Please note that some fissures can be caused by inflammatory bowel conditions, such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Fissures can also develop when a person has syphilis, tuberculosis, a weak immune system, or anal cancer. Anal fissures that are caused by excessive stretching and a tight internal anal sphincter almost always occur at the north or south poles of the anal sphincter. The other causes of anal fissures listed here often cause fissures along the sides of the anus. Anal fissures are easily diagnosed with a visual examination, so please see your doctor if you are unsure about your status.

  Share --

View the Original article

Protect Yourself Against Hearing Loss

It's estimated that 10 million Americans suffer with noise-induced hearing loss. In fact, noise is one of the most common occupational hazards today, with as many as 30 million Americans being exposed to harmful noise levels at work.

We register sound through little hairs that vibrate in our inner ears in response to different noises. When these hairs are exposed to a sudden burst of very loud noise or to a steady stream of fairly loud noise, they can get damaged, resulting in hearing loss.

Sound pressure is measured in decibels (dB). Here are some everyday sounds and their average decibel rankings:

SoundDecibels (db) Very faint, rustling leaves5Whisper20Rainfall50Typical speech60Washing machine75Busy city traffic85Hair dryer90Leaf blower, rock concert, chainsaw110Ambulance, jack hammer120Jet plane from 100 feet130Fireworks, gunshot14012-gauge shotgun165

How loud is too loud?

Steady exposure to noise that reaches 85 dB can produce hearing loss. A one-time exposure to very loud noises like a gunshot at 140 dB can also cause hearing loss. Listening to a discman or mp3 player at a standard volume level of 5 for 15 minutes a day is enough to cause permanent damage.

Since it's not practical to walk around with a meter that allows you to measure dB, a good rule of thumb is that if you have to raise your voice in order to be heard by a person who is a couple of feet away, the noise level is considered hazardous.

Another practical measure is to carefully observe for ringing in your ears or if sounds feel flat or dull after leaving a noisy environment. If either of these conditions are present, you were probably exposed to a hazardous level of noise.

If you are exposed to potentially harmful noises at work or home, I recommend that you strongly consider using expandable or pre-molded earplugs. You can find them at almost any pharmacy.

An alternative is to use earmuffs, although they might not provide the same level of protection as earplugs that sit snug in your external ear canal.

If you have children who like to listen to music on their mp3 players or in their cars, please share this article with them so that they're aware of how their choices today may affect them in the future.

For more information about noise-induced hearing loss and what you can do to prevent it, please visit the website for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

  Share --

View the Original article

More on Keeping Your Mucous Membranes Healthy

Just wanted to elaborate on this topic to address some of the more common questions that I've received in response to my post on why you shouldn't use soap to clean your anus or urethral opening.

Mucous membranes line the following areas of your body:

AnusUrethra (where your urine comes out of)Lips and oral cavityMiddle ear regionNasal passagewayEyelids

The mucous membranes that line each of these regions are continuous with your skin. All of your mucous membranes line areas of your body that are exposed to the outside world and/or internal organs.

Can you imagine washing your mouth out with soap every morning? How about your nasal passageways or the undersides of your eyelids? Assuming that you've tasted soap by accident at some point in your life, I trust that you agree that soap and mucous membranes aren't a good match.

Mucous membranes are not meant to come into regular contact with soap, or for that matter, any detergents that are hydrophobic enough to dissolve nonpolar molecules of grease (excuse the jargon from high school chemistry).

Your skin can handle some contact with soap because sebaceous glands that line your skin secrete a steady supply of sebum, an oily substance that helps create a waterproof barrier and protect you against infection. Constant production of sebum allows your skin to survive regular exposure to soap, though excessive use of soap (and all factors that contribute to dehydration of your body) necessitate use of moisturizers to prevent your skin from becoming too dry.

Your mucous membranes don't produce and secrete sebum to offer protection against the drying effects of soap and detergents. This is why regular contact with soap can cause a wide variety of health challenges in and around your mucous membranes, some of the more common challenges being cracks around the corners of the lips, anal fissures, lichen sclerosus, and a tendency to experience recurrent infections around mucous membranes.

My experience has been that very few people know to avoid using soap to wash their private areas. So I make it a point to share this information with just about all of my clients, especially those who have young children to care for.

All parents and grandparents know that in cleaning a baby that has pooped in his or her diaper, the instinct is to use soapy water to thoroughly clean the entire groin region, especially the perineum and anal sphincter. Unless these areas are being moisturized with a non-toxic moisturizer after every such cleaning, it's almost a certainty that itchiness, dryness, and/or chronic inflammation will ensue. I believe that this is the main reason why so many babies and toddlers instinctively scratch at their anal sphincters - they are itchy from excessive dryness.

For adults, young children, and babies alike, the best cleaning agent for private areas is warm or hot water, and if needed, a small towel that has enough texture to help remove waste and grime.

If you're out and about and have to clean a poopy bum, moist wipes are an effective cleaning solution that shouldn't lead to excessive dryness.

Since we're on this topic, one other bit of advice to parents and grandparents: Don't take it for granted that your children instinctively know to wipe from front to back after a pee or poo. You must teach them to always wipe from front to back to minimize the risk of having bacteria from the rectal region create a urinary tract infection. Though more common in girls because of the difference in anatomy, it's not unheard of for a boy to experience a urinary tract infection due to "back to front" wiping.

Wipe from front to back after pee or poo. Write it on the kitchen board or better yet, on a sticky that's posted by every toilet used by your youngsters until it's habit.

Please share this information with family and friends who may not be aware of these tips on self health care.

  Share --

View the Original article

Thoughts on Parental Favoritism

A good friend recently asked if I have a favorite between our two boys. She wrote: "I know that you love them equally, but do you have a favorite?"

An interesting question to consider, and quite relevant to all of us who grew up with siblings where feelings of favoritism may have contributed to insecurity, depression, and other emotional challenges in adulthood.

Karl Pillemer, a Cornell University gerontologist, reports that "it doesn't matter whether you are the chosen child or not, the perception of unequal treatment has damaging effects for all siblings."

Pillemer surveyed 275 Boston-area moms in their 60s and 70s. To measure favoritism, the moms where asked the following questions:

To which child in your family do you feel the most emotional closeness?

If you became ill or disabled and needed help on a day-to-day basis, which child in your family would be most likely to help you?

With which child do you have the most disagreements or arguments?

Though Pillemer wasn't able to distill any concrete rules from survey results, he noted that "parents tend to prefer oldest or youngest children, and they gravitate toward those children who are more similar to them in personal characteristics and values."

He also noted that "being the favorite child has some serious drawbacks. The favored child can feel guilty, and he or she can experience negative relationships with the other siblings, who may be resentful. With older parents, favored children may be expected to provide more care and assistance for the parent, leading to stress."

As for me, I find it difficult to discern between the amount of love that I feel for our boys and which of them I favor. At 3 and 5 years of age, it seems natural that my love for them directly translates to how much I enjoy them, so I can honestly observe that I don't favor one over the other.

When I look at our older boy, I often think that I love him more than anything in this world. But in the same minute, if our youngest comes trotting along, I often look at him and feel the exact same thing, that I love him more than anything else in this world.

When our youngest was born, I distinctly remember feeling like all of the worries and feelings of wanting to protect that I carried for our firstborn were split into two perfectly equal halves, with each boy now occupying one half of the papa bear in my heart. And I guess things haven't changed since that moment.

But I can definitely see how my relationships with Joshua and Noah may differ as they grow older. Life circumstances and individual interests may lead to my wife and me spending more time with one than the other. I hope this isn't the case. I hope that when they become independent adults, they eventually settle down wherever we are, if not under the same roof as one big clan, then on the same street, or at least in the same neighborhood.

As a son, I feel that my parents love me and my sisters equally. But I also feel that both my mom and dad favor me over my sisters. Part of this may be a Korean cultural thing, where parents from previous generations counted on the oldest or only son to care for them in their golden years. And part of it could be because I've done more than my sisters to help my parents become financially comfortable over the years. Not making any claims of being more capable or generous than my sisters; if anything, I feel that both of them have been years more mature than me since we were youngsters. It's just turned out that I've helped them more than my sisters have, and I do feel that this has translated to my folks feeling like they can rely on me a little more.

I also tend to be more emotionally open with my parents than my sisters are. It's natural for me to want to keep in regular touch with my folks and share my ups and downs with them. Both of my sisters, while caring and ultra responsible, are more comfortable guarding the secrets of their hearts from those who find it natural to dispense all sorts of advice.

Of course, the natural flip side to being close to anyone is greater opportunity to disagree on various life issues. But as a wise elder once told me, "only good friends fight." And I do believe that all in all, our disagreements have led to greater understanding and have brought my folks and I closer.

So as far as me feeling favored over my sisters goes, I feel that the law of "you get what you put in" applies. It's as solid and natural a law of life as any.

And how do I know that despite favoring me slightly over my sisters, my parents love the three of us equally? Just from a billion little things, like how my mom clearly forgets that I exist every six months when my older sister is able to get together with us for a couple of hours. Or whenever my mom jokingly reminds the three of us that we should expect to receive equal shares in their will (I'll be getting my vita-mix blender back). There's truth in jest, and as a human that bleeds like the next fellow, I have to admit that I've felt a twinge of incredulity when given such reminders, with the following dialogue running through my head:

I've sacrificed infinitely more than my sisters to be a dutiful son, and in the end, you want to take the little that you have and split it equally? Hey, it's not about the money, it's about wanting my efforts to be acknowledged. How about slapping me silly to get the taste of foolishness out of my mouth?

But then, I remember that it will be the exact same with our boys. Whatever I have, no matter how close I am with each of them, I will want them to share equally. Because I know with absolute certainty that my love for them will always be equal, even if one ends up disliking me.

And whenever I see that both of my sisters, though not so affectionate with me due to the Korean cultural thing (again), would give a pair of kidneys and then some for Joshua and Noah, their beloved nephews, I'm okay with getting nothing but my vita-mix blender back.

That, Yoo Jin, is my long-winded answer. :)

  Share --

View the Original article

Home Schooling vs. Public or Private Schooling

Over the last couple of years, Margaret and I have thought long and hard about the merits of home schooling vs. sending our children to public or private school.

It feels like we've been to the circus and back about a dozen times with this decision, and though we're leaning towards home-based learning for our boys, we continue to have moments of uncertainty.

Here are just a few reasons why we think home schooling would be good for our children:

Home-based learning would allow them to grow and develop on more of a natural schedule. We think it would be ideal if they don't have to get up five days a week at the sound of an alarm clock and be somewhat limited in what, where, and how they eat.

Beyond learning how to read, mastering math skills that are essential to everyday living, and learning how to type and use a computer, home schooling would provide more flexibility than public school in allowing our children to pursue their own interests.

By getting them involved with everyday chores, including management of the family budget, our hope is that our boys will start thinking at a relatively early age about what it takes to be self sufficient in this world.

Clearly, we don't want them to feel pressure to make a living when they should be using most of their time to explore; we just don't want them to grow up thinking that as long as they get a degree from university, they'll be set for life.

We'd like them to be free of the pressure to own an Iphone or whatever gadgets or clothes are deemed necessary for proper living when they reach the age where this sort of thing happens. It would be great if they don't waste many hours or weeks of their lives like I did as a youngster because of a pimple or a silly haircut.

We don't feel that sending our children to private or public school is necessary for "socialization." To us, what most people call socialization in public school looks more like learning how to be perceived as being cool or even just okay, whatever it takes to avoid being a "nerd."

The one main point that we worry about in home schooling our children is this: Will we be talking away too many bumps from their lives, enough to significantly diminish their opportunities to grow through suffering?

Part of my capacity to appreciate life as a free thinker was created by the many years I spent being a conformist.

A good chunk of my appreciation for budgeting and understanding the difference between truly needing and simply wanting comes from having spent plenty of time interacting with people who look wealthy but are mortgaged through the clouds.

Is it enough to just teach our children about these things while they are young? Or do they need to be immersed "out there" in public school to better understand these realities?

We're still asking ourselves these and other questions. And we're asking plenty of other parents - those who home educate and those who send their children to public or private school - for their thoughts on this topic.

What follows are some thoughts from a friend of ours, Miiko Gibson, who has been home schooling her children for several years. We found Miiko's thoughts to be quite helpful, and we trust that others will as well.

Miiko Gibson on Home Schooling:

Yes, we are both glad to be home schooling.

I guess a lot depends on your educational goals and philosophy. Also how strict and demanding your state/province is with respect to home schooling. For us, we need a legal cover and our cover is actually our own church. Here in the U.S., some states are more strict than others.

Here are some reasons we home school/home educate:

To bring up our children in a Christian environment. We want to give them have a Christian world-view so they are able to relate everything back to Christian principles. I'm not actually "schooling" them as much as "discipling" them - teaching them values, good habits, good attitudes, and a love for learning.

No one loves or understands them as much as we do. We just love having them with us...so family life is more important to them than what their peers think.

With regard to academic and psycho-motor skills, well, they will be ahead in some areas and behind in others. But then each child is fearfully and wonderfully made. We don't have to follow a scope and sequence just so they are on par with everyone else. We set our own goals and follow them, adjusting them along the way.

Home schooling allows them to follow their own interests more deeply. There is time and freedom to develop entrepreneurial skills and an independent spirit. No need to conform to peers.

Better socialization skills where they are able to relate to more people across the board. Also, closer sibling relationship.

My daughter has some food allergies - I cannot imagine sending her out there without precautions. Also, I would hate for her to eat like her peers. :(

We can take vacations when everyone else is in school. We can take a day off when daddy is home. The kids get to sleep later in the morning. They get to do chores. They don't have silly homework and busy work to tie them down. They learn life skills. They are with us when we serve others so they learn to serve.

This does not mean it has been plain sailing, oh no. But that's another story. :)

An observation: Asians here, unless they are American-Asians, are very unlikely to home school. I can see why as they feel ill-equipped to teach the English/American language. Then many Asians are also very concerned about their children's academic track and ranking. They are much more competitive than the average, more laid back American. Home schooling then is not much of an option. Our own thinking is teach a child to love learning, and with informed and loving guidance from us, they will be fine.

Then there is the fear element, like "What if I mess up my kid?" Someone said the worst day at home could be the best day at school seeing how little real attention and love is given to each child by the teacher. I was a teacher, and I really loved my kids, but now that I'm a mom, it really is different.

Home schooling also brings out the worst in mothers (or fathers). We constantly need grace, and we are constantly growing as people.

Hope the above has helped in some way.

Warm wishes,

Miiko

View the Original article

What To Do For A Bee Sting

Over the weekend, I was at a park with our boys when I felt a colossal wave of pain hit one of the toes of my right foot. After scrambling to get my sandal off, I looked inside to find a bee that was curled up and unable to move.

Fortunately, I knew not to try to pluck the bee's stinger out with my fingers, and ended up feeling fine within a couple of hours.

So, courtesy of my first-ever bee sting and notes from my first aid and emergency care class in chiropractic school from the mid-90's, some thoughts to keep in mind in case you or a loved one is stung by a bee:

If you're stung by a honey bee, try to find the stinger. Honey bees don't always leave their stingers behind, but they often do. The sooner you get a stinger out, the less you'll suffer.

If you're able to locate the stinger, take the edge of a firm surface, like a credit card or even a finger nail and try to brush or scrape the stinger off.

Stingers shouldn't be removed with forceps or with a pinch of your fingers because compressing the attached sac of venom is likely to worsen the injury.

If you can see the end of the stinger but can't access it, try using a fingernail to press down into your skin about half an inch away - sometimes, this will allow the tissues surrounding the stinger to relax a bit and allow the stinger to rise enough to scrape it away (this is a commonly used technique to remove an acupuncture needle that muscle fibers have contracted around).

Once you're relatively sure that you don't have a stinger in your skin, gently wash the area with cold water and soap. If pain persists after running cold water over the injured site, apply a cold or ice pack (wrapped in a thin towel or cloth) for five to fifteen minutes, or until the area feels numb. Repeat cold or ice pack application in this manner once every couple of hours until discomfort subsides.

Wasps and bumble bees don't tend to leave their stingers behind. If you're ever stung by a wasp or bumble bee, simply clean the punctured site with cold water and soap, then use an ice or cold pack as directed above.

In all cases, be on the lookout for signs of an allergic reaction. The most common signs of an allergic reaction to a bee or wasp sting are:

HivesNoticeable swelling surrounding the site of injuryLightheadedness or fainting

Sometimes, an allergic reaction to a bee or wasp sting can result in respiratory distress. If you experience trouble breathing after getting stung, it's best to seek medical attention immediately.

The mouth and throat regions are sometimes stung by bees or wasps that have made their way into drink containers. Getting stung in the mouth, pharynx, or esophagus can lead to significant respiratory distress, so be mindful of protecting your drinks when outdoors, as accidental ingestion of biting insects is more common than one would think.

The take-home message here is to remember not to pluck a stinger out with tweezers or your fingertips. Where there's a stinger in the flesh, try to scrape it off.

If you have any thoughts on this topic that you'd like to share with others, please use the comments section below. Thank you.

  Share --

View the Original article

Mining Michigan Part 2: Native Americans Make the Stand and Bear the Brunt

By stelleslootmaker
GRIID - MI, August 4, 2010
Straight to the Source

In 2005, the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community tried to lease the sacred Eagle Rock site from the State of Michigan for ceremonial use. Located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula near Marquette, Eagle Rock and the surrounding Yellow Dog Plains are part of lands ceded to the tribe for hunting and fishing by an 1842 government treaty upheld by the courts again in 1983. The DNR declined to lease them the land because of concerns about how ceremonial use might impact this pristine wildlife habitat.

In 2007, the State of Michigan leased the land to Rio Tinto's Kennecott Mining Company. Today, the lofty trees, endangered animal habitats and celebrated blueberry bushes surrounding Eagle Rock are just a memory. Kennecott bulldozed them, erected chain-link and razor wire fence and prepares to drill its entryway to the new mine, directly through the sacred rock. This destruction will seem minuscule when compared to the environmental devastation that will soon follow-damage that will lay waste the Yellow Dog plains, poison the Salmon Trout River, kill wildlife and impact one of the world's most important sources of fresh drinking water, the Great Lakes.

Why would the State refuse the gentle use of the land to its indigenous peoples but allow its destruction by a corporation known for environmental destruction and human rights abuses? Well, the answer of course, is profit. Profit has always trumped the treaties our government has made with Native Americans.

Who will stand and fight? The Native American people living in the area and their few allies. From the look of the situation today, the fight is all but lost.

View the Original article

California Governor Defends a Farm-Labor Regime that Dates Back to the Days of Lynchings

By Tom Philpott
Grist, August 4, 2010
Straight to the Source

In the United States, we have two sets of rules for workers: one that applies to farm and domestic laborers, and another that applies to everyone else. Everyone else gets a 40-hour week, mandatory days off, and other protections. Farm and domestic workers don't.

Why the labor-force apartheid? I don't use that loaded word idly. The New York Times editorial page explains:

That inequality is a perverse holdover from the Jim Crow era. Segregationist Southern Democrats in Congress could not abide giving African-Americans, who then made up most of the farm and domestic labor force, an equal footing in the workplace with whites. President Roosevelt's compromise simply wrote workers in those industries out of the New Deal.

In our time, another despised group -- immigrants from Mexico and points south -- do most of our farm and domestic labor. As the eminent food-politics writer Barry Estabrook puts it, "Jim Crow is alive and well," congealed into labor laws that exclude these workers from basic New Deal protections.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed a bill that would gave his state's vast army of farm workers a degree of equal footing with everyone else. The San Francisco Chronicle describes the governor's rationale:

In vetoing the measure, Schwarzenegger cited the fragile economy and said that extending overtime protections could put farms out of business, or result in lower paychecks for agricultural workers because farmers would hire more people and cut hours to avoid paying overtime.

The bit about "hiring more people" to avoid overtime is ludicrous. California's plantation-scale farms have faced labor shortages for years. Hysteria and militarism at the border, along with the bad U.S. economy, have led to fewer people sneaking over the border to pick our vegetables and clean our houses. There simply aren't more immigrants to hire -- and even in a rotten economy, U.S. citizens aren't exactly lining up to spend backbreaking days stooping in the sun for $10 per hour (the average wage of California farm workers).  

View the Original article

Starting a Food Fight at the Grass Roots

By Karen Herzog
JS online -WI, August 3, 2010
Straight to the Source

Two summers ago, north side residents protested a proposed fried chicken restaurant, calling its high-calorie offerings a health hazard to a neighborhood already saturated with fast food.

Church's Chicken eventually abandoned plans for what would have been the third fried chicken restaurant in a 10-block stretch of North Ave.

It was a watershed moment in a movement to create healthy choices in the predominantly African-American neighborhood at a time when obesity was becoming a major public health issue nationwide.

A new report released Tuesday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention validates the neighborhood's ongoing efforts, as Wisconsin's overall obesity rate for adults hovers at 26%.

Recent estimates of the annual medical costs of obesity are as high as $147 billion. On average, that amounts to $1,429 in higher costs each year for people who are obese than for those of normal weight, according to the CDC report.

About 72.5 million U.S. adults are now considered obese - roughly 20% or more over ideal body weight - a condition that contributes to several leading causes of death, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some types of cancer. Just in the past two years, the number has increased by 2.4 million adults, according to 2009 data collected by state health departments for the CDC through 400,000 phone surveys nationwide.

Wisconsin has the highest rate of obesity in the nation among African-Americans (44%), compared with whites (26%) and Latinos (25%), according to another report released last month by the Trust for America's Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

View the Original article

GM Canola Escapes into the American Wild

By Natasha Gilbert
Natural News, August 6, 2010
Straight to the Source

A genetically modified (GM) crop has been found thriving in the wild for the first time in the United States. Transgenic canola is growing freely in parts of North Dakota, researchers told the Ecological Society of America conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, today.

The scientists behind the discovery say this highlights a lack of proper monitoring and control of GM crops in the United States.

US farmers have dramatically increased their use of GM crops since the plants were introduced in the early 1990s. Last year, nearly half the world's transgenic crops were grown in US soil - Brazil, the world's second heaviest user, grew just 16%. GM crops have broken free from cultivated land in several countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan, but they have not previously been found in uncultivated land in the United States.

"The extent of the escape is unprecedented," says Cynthia Sagers, an ecologist at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, who led the research team that found the canola (Brassica napus, also known as rapeseed).

View the Original article

Sizing Up Our Food's Nitrogen Footprint

By Emily J. Gertz
C & EN, August 5, 2010
Straight to the Source

When measuring our food's environmental impact, carbon isn't the only important element to consider. Calculating a food's "carbon footprint" can tell us how much climate-altering greenhouse gas we emit when growing and transporting it, but estimating the meal's associated nitrogen pollution accounts for the excess nutrients that create oxygen-depleted dead zones in our oceans.

Now two University of Pittsburgh researchers have analyzed the "nitrogen footprint" of different foods, and found that some products leave us with a trade-off between combating climate change and feeding dead zones (Environ. Sci. Technol., DOI: 10.1021/es9034478).

Marine dead zones form when nitrogen and phosphorus pollution concentrates in near-coast waters through a process called eutrophication. Bacteria consume most of the water's oxygen when they feast on the algal blooms attracted by these abundant nutrients. Drops in oxygen levels then suffocate other organisms or drive them away. The 8,000-sq-mile dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico has disrupted the region's shrimp fishery for years.

To determine which foods contribute most to these harmful dead zones, Pittsburgh environmental scientists Xiaobo Xue and Amy Landis assessed the nitrogen output of different agricultural products during four life cycle phases: farming, processing, packaging, and transportation. They then calculated the eutrophication potential of each food group and compared these farm-to-table nitrogen footprints to carbon footprints, using data from a well-known 2008 study (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2008, 42, 3508).

Red meat topped both footprint lists, making it the food with the greatest impact on both climate change and eutrophication: Eating a pound of beef creates about 22 lb of greenhouse gases and about 2.5 oz of nitrogen pollution. Cereals and carbohydrates had the smallest footprints, with each pound of food releasing only 3 lb of greenhouse gases and almost no nitrogen pollution.

But many foods had diverging impacts on the climate and coastal ecosystems. Dairy products landed at the bottom of the carbon footprint list with carbohydrates, but sat second only to beef in eutrophication potential, releasing 1.1 oz of nitrogen pollution for every pound of food produced.

View the Original article

Determining Dangers of DEET

By Tom Meersman
Star Tribune (MN), August 5, 2010
Straight to the Source

DEET may be safe to spray on your skin, but not to swallow in drinking water.

To see how safe or unsafe it is, the Minnesota Department of Health has picked the popular insect repellent ingredient as the first of seven "chemicals of emerging concern" to assess during the next year.

"We shower, it goes down the drain, and it ends up in wastewater that goes into rivers," said state toxicologist Helen Goeden.

Like many compounds, there are no state or federal standards for DEET, yet it has been detected in water samples nationwide, including Minnesota.

Examining DEET is part of a broader state effort to track dozens of chemicals in the environment, such as synthetic hormones, pesticides, pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Little is known about their potential effects on the environment or human health, so researchers must piece together whatever information is available, chemical by chemical.

For DEET, they will assemble data about where it has turned up in Minnesota waters and at what concentrations.

Goeden said there's no evidence of DEET in drinking water here, but it may be only a matter of time.

View the Original article

Smart City Governments Grow Produce for the People

By Darrin Nordahl
Grist, August 5, 2010
Straight to the Source

There's a new breed of urban agriculture germinating throughout the country, one whose seeds come from an unlikely source.

Local government officials from Baltimore, Md., to Bainbridge Island, Wash. are plowing under the ubiquitous hydrangeas, petunias, day lilies, and turf grass around public buildings, and planting fruits and vegetables instead -- as well as in underutilized spaces in our parks, plazas, street medians, and even parking lots. The new attitude at forward-thinking city halls seems to be, in a tough economy, why expend precious resources growing ornamental plants, when you can grow edible ones? And the bounty from these municipal gardens -- call it public produce -- not only promotes healthy eating, it bolsters food security simply by providing passersby with ready access to low- or no-cost fresh fruits and vegetables.

But is this really city government's job?

As long as municipal policymakers strive to create programs to reduce social inequity and increase the quality of life for their citizens, I contend that it is. Access to healthy, low-cost food helps assure the health, safety, and welfare of citizens every bit as much as other services that city governments provide, such as clean drinking water, protection from crime and catastrophe, sewage treatment, garbage collection, shelters and low-income housing programs, fallen-tree disposal, and pothole-free streets.

View the Original article

Why Did the Climate Bill Die? Because We Still Don’t Have a Real Climate Movement

By Kelsey Wirth, Larry Shapiro, Philip Radford
Grist Magazine, Aug 5, 2010
Straight to the Source

We now know the U.S. Senate will not pass climate-changelegislation this year. Postmortems havepointed to a number of challenges: the lack of leadership from the White House,unified GOP opposition to the Senate cap-and-trade bill, the structure andrules of the Senate, and the complicated nature of cap-and-trade legislation.

There has been one major omission in much ofthis analysis: the absence of pressurefrom Americans across the country demanding that serious action be taken toaddress climate change. Few Americans arecurrently engaged in this great societal challenge in a way that would generatethe necessary political will to act. Itis the absence of this public pressure, above all else, that has resulted in thecurrent state of political inaction.

Take the most broadly transformational politicalacts in the history of the U.S. -- the signing of the Emancipation Proclamationand the approval of the 14th Amendment in the 1860s, women's suffrage in 1920,the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960s, the establishmentof the EPA and the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act in the early 1970s, toname a few. They all required some formof political leadership, but that leadership was exercised in response to theabolitionist, women's suffrage, civil rights, and environmental movements of the time, social movementsthat forced the issues into our national conscience and made inaction politicallyuntenable. These social movements consistedof large numbers of people, united by a strong sense of shared values and moralpurpose, who stood up to the deeply held assumptions and powerful vestedinterests of their times.

Environmental organizations and foundations spentwell over $200 million in the attempt to enact climate change legislation. Several of these organizations builtalliances with some of the largest corporations in America in an effort topromote a watered-down bill. And eventhis effort failed. Why?

The top answer is that we failed to build a socialmovement equal to the task. In theabsence of a real climate movement, we are likely to continue to see eveninadequate half-measures fail again and again. Only a broad-based social movement aroundclimate change can get the job done, fueled by the same passion and underpinnedwith the same moral conviction that characterized the historical movements thatended slavery, promoted suffrage, secured civil rights, and mandated a cleanerand healthier environment.

View the Original article

Why Did Whole Foods Tart up My Organic Peanut Butter?

By Tom Philpott
Grist Magazine, Aug 5, 2010
Straight to the Source

Confession: I have a thing for peanut butter. If my girlfriend didn't tease me about the habit, I'd probably have toast with peanut butter and honey as "second breakfast" nearly every day. Goes so well with coffee ...

But anyway! So, I usually procure my peanut butter just like any other good hippie: from one of those grinding contraptions at the health-food store. That way, you know exactly what's in it -- peanuts, maybe salt -- and it comes with the oil fully incorporated, unlike jarred "natural" peanut butters, whose oil separates from the paste.  

Every once in a while, I succumb to the jarred stuff when an organic brand's on sale. I like the saltiness of the jarred stuff. Soooo good.

Recently, I found myself at a Whole Foods. While looking for something else -- really! -- I encountered a display of Whole Foods 365 brand organic creamy peanut butter. On sale. For a really low price. So I threw a jar in my cart and went about my business.

Flash forward to this very morning, at the first rumblings of hunger after an early smoothie breakfast. With great anticipation, a piece of bread in the toaster and the honey pot at the ready, I opened the new jar of Whole Foods peanut butter. I was girded for the small inconvenience of having to reincorporate the separated oil back into the paste. The reward would be heaven on bread: sweet, salty, toasty, peanutty.

But everything was wrong. Instead of a half-inch of oil at the top, a grotesque sheen taunted me. You know, like the commercial crap, the stuff Big Food tarts up with added fat to make it uniform and, well, reliably  creamy. And sugar, following the general Big Food law that Everything Must Be Sweetened.

View the Original article

Outrage of the Week: Obama Gang Letting the Mortgage Giants Kill the PACE Program

By Jonathan Hiskes
Grist Magazine, Aug 5, 2010
Straight to the Source

Why isn't the Obama teamtrying harder to save the promising PACE clean-energy model?

Mortgage giants FannieMae and Freddie Mac have essentially quashed PropertyAssessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, which have been launched in localcommunities around the U.S. to make green improvements more affordable to homeowners. The Obama administration has taken modestmeasures to help out, but it hasn't put its top people on the case. If it did,there's reason to think PACE could be quickly restored.

Instead, Fannie and Freddieare undermining administration priorities like clean energy, energy efficiency,job creation, homeowner relief, and economic stimulus.

"If

View the Original article

Planet Hiroshima 2010

By Mark T. Harris
Harris Magazine, August 4, 2010
Straight to the Source

When the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, two-year-old Sadako Sasaki was at home with her family. Unlike tens of thousands of others, she was fortunate enough to survive the immediate blast of the 15-kiloton Uranium-235 bomb.

But the young, athletic girl who liked to run could not escape the grim reality of what it meant to live through an atomic blast. Nine years later Sadako would contract leukemia, dying a year later in a Hiroshima hospital at the age of 12. In death she joined the legions of the hibakusha, the Japanese term for the victims of radiation poisoning.

An estimated 140,000 people died as a result of the Hiroshima blast, tens of thousands of them instantly or within the next few months and almost all of them noncombatants and children. Three days later at Nagasaki, another bomb was dropped, killing thousands more. Eventually over 200,000 people would die as a result of the attacks, either during the bombings or later from illness. By any objective measure the nuclear attacks by the U.S. military constitute the largest acts of mass murder in the history of the world.

They also constitute acts shrouded in lies. At the time President Truman told Americans the targets were military sites. It was necessary to use the bombs to force Japan's surrender, he declared. The public was also told-falsely-that leaflets were dropped prior to the bombings warning people to leave. Later, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson claimed that the atom bomb saved the United States from an invasion of Japan that might have cost a million American casualties.

But U.S. official McGeorge Brundy came up with the million figure, based on nothing, as he later acknowledged. Consider only the assessment of Admiral William Leahy, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1945, who years later wrote: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." The admiral compared the use of the bombs to adoption of "an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."


View the Original article

Junk Food-Addicted Rats Chose to Starve Themselves Rather Than Eat Healthy Food

By David Gutierrez
Natural News, August 5, 2010
Straight to the Source

A diet including unlimited amounts of junk food can cause rats to become so addicted to the unhealthy diet that they will starve themselves rather than go back to eating healthy food, researchers have discovered.

In a series of studies conducted over the course of three years and published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, Scripps Florida scientists Paul Johnson and Paul Kenny have shown that rats' response to unlimited junk food closely parallels well-known patterns of drug addiction -- even down to the changes in brain chemistry.

"What we have are these core features of addiction, and these animals are hitting each one of these features," Kenny said.

In their first study, the researchers fed rats on either a balanced diet or on the same diet plus unlimited access to junk foods purchased at a local supermarket, including processed meats and cakes. Within a short time period, the rats on the junk food diet began to eat compulsively and quickly became overweight.


View the Original article

Are Household Cleansers Linked to Breast Cancer?

By Dr. Mercola
Mercola.com, August 07, 2010
Straight to the Source

A study has found a potential link between the use of household cleaners and air fresheners and breast cancer.

But when about 800 women (400 with breast cancer and an equal number without) were asked about cleaning products, researchers found a potential connection.

Breast-cancer risk was highest among women who reported the most use of cleaning products and air fresheners -- it was twice the risk of those who reported low use of the products.

According to The Columbus Dispatch:

 "The connection was drawn mostly between mold and mildew cleaners and air fresheners. Surface and oven cleaners were not associated with increased risk. Chemicals of concern include synthetic musks, phthalates, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, terpenes, benzene and styrene and some antimicrobial agents."


View the Original article

Want Grass-Fed Meat to Replace Factory Farming? There's One Important Thing You Need to Do

By Ari LeVaux
Alternet, July 20, 2010
Straight to the Source

Arapaho Ranch produces the kind of beef your inner cowboy wants to eat. With 595,000 acres sprawling across Wyoming's wild and rugged Owl Mountains, the ranch is home to native grasses, wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies. The cattle are herded by Indian cowboys, each with his own fleet of seven horses -- one for each day of the week.

It's the largest certified organic cattle operation in the U.S., which isn't saying much given what's permitted under today's organic standards, which regulate an animal's diet more than its lifestyle. While organic cattle can be confined for up to eight months a year without losing their certification, the cattle at Arapaho Ranch spend their entire lives grazing outside. They follow the melting snow up the mountain in springtime and retreat to lower ground in fall. The cattle breed naturally, without the help of artificial insemination, as do the ranch horses. The word "organic," while applicable to the beef produced on Arapaho Ranch, doesn't do it justice.  

When the Arapaho Ranch, which is owned by the Northern Arapaho Tribe, made a deal to market its beef at Whole Foods, it was a dream come true: an economically feasible way for the tribe to steward its land in an ecologically responsible way. It created a revenue stream that stands in stark contrast with gas drilling and casino gambling.  

Whole Foods celebrated the agreement with great fanfare, featuring eagle feather headdresses and traditional Arapaho prairie chicken dances in the parking lot of a Denver store. "

View the Original article

When Agrochemical Corporations Invented Nature

By Julio Godoy
Common Dreams, August 6, 2010
Straight to the Source

BERLIN  - A civil society protest against a British agrochemical company that claims it has invented a particular sort of broccoli has again focused attention on the question who owns natural biodiversity, especially vegetables, seeds, and many forms of meat and animal food products.

Delegates from some 300 environmental and consumer organizations from all over the world gathered last month in Bavarian capital Munich, some 500 kilometers south of Berlin last month to demonstrate outside the headquarters of the European Patent Office (EPO) against the patent the agency accorded on broccoli seeds, plants and breeding methods to the British agrochemical company Plant Bioscience.

EPO granted the patent in 2002, on a method claimed by Plant Bioscience for increasing a specific compound in broccoli through conventional breeding methods. The patent, which also faces opposition by two other agrochemical multinationals, includes the breeding methods, and the broccoli seeds and edible broccoli plants obtained through these procedures.

The demonstration in Munich took place as the EPO opened its litigation procedure on the legitimacy of its own patent agreement. A decision on the issue is expected in October.

Plant Bioscience claims that its breeding methods increase the anti- carcinogenic glucosinolates in the species. This is one of hundreds of similar claims presented by numerous agrochemical multinational companies, such as Monsanto and Syngenta.

For environmental and consumer activists and independent farmers, such patents amount to an attempt to expropriate natural biodiversity for the benefit of a handful of corporations, which would rule as a cartel upon agriculture, especially in developing countries.

Christoph Then, expert on intellectual property rights for the environmental organization Greenpeace, told IPS that what a handful of biochemical multinational companies are doing is to "misappropriate biodiversity."


View the Original article

Green Living: Off-the-Grid Families Pioneer Sustainable Energy Lifestyles

By Kari Lydersen
The Christian Science Monitor, August 7, 2010
Straight to the Source

Asheville, N.C.
Living "off the grid" can conjure fantasies of Swiss Family Robinson-style ingenuity in paradise. Or, for those with less love of roughing it, it can simply remind them of the hardscrabble self-reliance throughout much of the developing world, where millions cook over fires, bathe in streams, and consider the glow of a bare light bulb a luxury.

In the United States, off-the-grid living - without relying on government entities or utility companies to provide electricity, heat, gas, and water - often is associated with gritting it out on the survivalist fringe.

But an increasing range of Americans are leading a snug, even smug, lifestyle totally or mostly unhitched from public utilities. Using nature - the sun, wind, water, and the earth itself - they cheaply warm and cool their homes and power everything from a blender to a giant flat-screen TV to a raging hot tub. And with the constant concern about global warming and messy dependence on fossil fuels, it's natural that growing numbers of Americans - "the foot soldiers" of energy independence, as one expert calls them - would begin taking steps to untether themselves from the grid.

For Wayah Hall, going off the grid in a cabin 26 miles from downtown Asheville, N.C., was a way to live in harmony with nature and avoid reliance on electricity that comes from the region's coal-burning power plant that pumps smog into the famous Blue Ridge Mountains haze.

Mr. Hall, an outdoor-skills instructor, and his wife, Alicia Bliss Hall, a natural healer, live in a kind of off-the-grid neighborhood with another young couple: Jason Brake, a professional muralist, and his wife, Diana Styffeler, a mountain bike excursion leader. Their two cabins, nestled in temperate rain forest, are powered with electricity that comes exclusively from solar panels mounted on a wagon that they wheel around the property to catch the best rays. Their water comes from a swiftly flowing stream; wood-burning stoves heat the cabins and even an outdoor hot tub; and indoor, waterless composting toilets built decoratively out of tree stumps mean they don't need a sewer system. They're installing a hydropower system in the stream that will add to the solar power.


View the Original article

Europe's High-Speed Rail Revolution May Spread to U.S.

By Paul Nussbaum
The Philidelphia Inquirer, August 8, 2010
Straight to the Source

MADRID, Spain - At precisely 10:30 a.m., with quiet jazz wafting from its speakers, AVE Train 3103 glides out of Atocha Station in central Madrid, its sleek nose pointed east toward a rising sun and Barcelona.

Even with a stop in Zaragoza, the 385-mile trip, which takes seven hours by car, is scheduled to last two hours, 52 minutes. Without the stop, it's two hours, 38 minutes. Cruising speed: 186 m.p.h.

Of course, the train will be on time: If it's more than five minutes late, the passengers get their money back.

Compare that with the Pennsylvanian, the daily Amtrak train that travels a similar distance - 353 miles - from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh. That laborious journey takes almost three times as long: seven hours, 23 minutes, a half-hour longer than it took in 1941. Twelve station stops. No jazz. No refunds.

Or compare it to Amtrak's Acela Express between Philadelphia and Boston: When it's on time, the train makes that 318-mile trip in about five hours. Slightly faster than driving, but slower and more expensive than flying. And it's late 30 percent of the time.



In Europe, fast trains are transforming the continent, bringing cities and countries within a few hours of one another, erasing centuries-old regional divisions, resuscitating long-dormant towns, cutting air pollution, creating new economies and manufacturing jobs, and, in a reversal of 20th-century fortunes, making some air travel obsolete.

Is this America's future, or simply a glimpse of a far-off world we'll never inhabit?

After decades of false starts, the United States is making a push for high-speed rail, which could bring many of the same changes to this side of the globe.

The Obama administration this year gave $8 billion in stimulus funds to jump-start high-speed rail projects on 13 corridors in 31 states. And the administration promised $5 billion more over the next five years.

It could be, as the administration claims, the biggest advance in U.S. transportation since construction of the interstate highway system half a century ago.



View the Original article

Vegan Diets are Not Always Healthy

By Jonathan Benson
Natural News, August 7, 2010
Straight to the Source

Vegetarian or vegan diets are often touted as being healthier than conventional diets, but unless you make a concerted effort to get all your necessary proteins, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients, you could be hurting yourself more than you are helping yourself.

The Los Angeles Times recently published an article about a Southern California couple that is trying to be mostly vegan, with the exception of the husband who eats fish. In all their efforts to eat healthy and avoid animal products, though, a health expert says that the couple is not getting enough vital nutrients to keep them healthy.



View the Original article

DOJ Urged to Complete Monsanto Case

By Stephanie Kirchgaessner
The Financial Times, Aug 9, 2010
Straight to the Source

Top Democratic lawmakers on Monday urged the Department of Justice to "expeditiously complete" its antitrust investigation into Monsanto, injecting a dose of politics into what could become the Obama administration's most significant competition case.

Monsanto has been under scrutiny by antitrust officials at the DoJ since October last year. At the centre of the investigation are questions about whether the St Louis-based maker of genetically modified seeds has legally used its cutting-edge technology to become a dominant force in the agricultural industry, or whether it has illegally used patent protections to engage in anti-competitive behaviour.

If the DoJ decides to bring a case against the company, it could rival the Clinton administration's landmark case against Microsoft, legal experts say. Lobbyists for farming interests and Monsanto's corporate rivals have encouraged the DoJ to examine the company's patent for a biotech trait known as Roundup Ready, a blockbuster soyabean product that is set to expire in 2014.

At the heart of the DoJ probe are questions about whether Monsanto is prepared to make Roundup available to farmers and competitors once the product's patent expires. The company on Monday said the DoJ was in the process of reviewing information provided by Monsanto. The comment indicated that the DoJ has not yet formally indicated whether it is likely to pursue a case.

Democratic lawmakers on Monday urged the DoJ to speed up their probe. Four senators led by Herb Kohl, chairman of the Senate antitrust subcommittee, said in a letter to Christine Varney, the head of the DoJ's antitrust division, that the swift conclusion of the department's investigation would be "vital" to the emergence of generic versions of Roundup.


View the Original article

Independent Testing Finds Toxic Contaminants In San Francisco's Sludge "Compost"

By John Stauber, John Mayer, Dr. Michael Hansen
PR Newswire, August 8, 2010
Straight to the Source

WASHINGTON -- After 14 years of work, unceasing attacks from critics, and a $50 million investment without a penny of profit, a small New England biotech company stands on the doorstep of history - seemingly poised to join agriculture's "green revolution" as a game-changer in feeding the world.

Or not.

With global population pressing against food supplies and vast areas of the  ocean already swept clean of fish, tiny AquaBounty Technologies of Waltham, Mass., has developed a variety of salmon that reaches market weight in half the time of other salmon.

What's more, AquaBounty not only promises to slash the ready-for-market time - and production costs -- on a hugely popular, nutritious fish that currently commands near-record prices, it plans to avoid the pollution, disease and other problems associated with today's salt-water fish farms by having its salmon raised inland.

But there's a catch: AquaBounty's salmon is genetically engineered. Indeed, it aspires to be the nation's first genetically-modified food animal of any kind.

That means the Food and Drug Administration must approve it. It also means the company and its salmon must withstand vociferous opposition from environmental and other advocacy groups, win over skeptical producers and -- possibly most difficult of all - overcome potential consumer resistance to genetic tinkering with food.   


View the Original article

Simple Exercises to Promote Healthy Neck Muscles and Ligaments

If you experience intermittent neck pain and/or stiffness, you may benefit from a simple routine of stretching and strengthening the dozens of skeletal muscles and ligaments that line your neck.

The most important requirement for healthy ligaments and muscles is steady blood flow to these tissues. And stretching the ligaments and muscles that line your neck is the most effective way to promote and maintain a rich supply of blood in this region.

What follows are six simple stretches that you can perform to help keep the muscles and ligaments in your neck healthy and less prone to getting injured.

1. Forward Flexion

Allow your head to fall forward so that your chin approaches the top of your chest.

Once you feel a stretch or pull in the muscles that line the back of your neck or once the joints of your neck won't allow you to bend forward any further, whichever comes first, hold this position for as long as is comfortable, up to 30 seconds.

2. Backward Extension

Allow your head to bend backwards so that you can look at the ceiling or sky.

Once you feel a stretch or pull on the front side of your neck or once the joints of your neck won't allow you to go back any further, whichever comes first, hold this position for as long as is comfortable, up to 30 seconds.

3. Rotation to Right

With your shoulders facing forward, turn your head to your right.

Once you feel a stretch or pull anywhere in your neck or once the joints of your neck won't allow you to rotate any further, whichever comes first, hold this position for as long as is comfortable, up to 30 seconds.

4. Rotation to Left

Repeat the same steps described above, but with your head turning to your left.

5. Lateral Flexion to Right

With your shoulders facing forward, allow your head to fall toward your right shoulder so that your right ear approaches the top of your right shoulder.

Once you feel a stretch or pull along the left side of your neck or when your neck won't allow any further lateral flexion, hold this position for as long as is comfortable, up to 30 seconds.

Be sure that your left and right shoulders remain level; for some people, there's a natural tendency to bring the right or left shoulders up while doing this stretch.

6. Lateral Flexion to Left

Repeat the same steps described above, but with your head falling toward your left shoulder. Remember to keep both shoulders level; it's your head that should bend down to approach your shoulder, not your shoulder that's raised to approach your head.

View the Original article