Internet Veteran For Truth

Natasha Vassallo asked:


It may seem odd at first; to phantom that the very natural resources that we need to live, work and play, are also associated with an array of health problems. The truth is a hard one to swallow. So, don’t be surprised that you haven’t heard the following information blasted on local news! However, this crucial information affects our children’s health at epidemic rates.

Amazingly there are 25 million children who live in areas that violate national air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter from coal fired plants and sulfur dioxide. Another 35 million children live very close to power plants and 2 million kids are asthmatic…which is linked to airborne pollutants. A recent health study from the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that air pollution levels in major U.S. cities pose a health risk comparable to second hand smoke. Does this mean that it is just as bad to go outside in the fresh air, as it is to eat in the “non-smoking” side of your local restaurant? Well, you be the judge, however, in some States or Countries… it is better to be in a smoke filled restaurant.

There are so many health hazards, (fossil fuels, VOC’s, smog, etc.) it‘s difficult to begin a discussion without sounding overly negative and pessimistic. So, I would like to leave this “personal disclaimer” before, stating the following information. “The U.S. Government, along with other countries, is making valiant efforts to minimize our ongoing threat of potentially devastating health and life consequences, emitting from our current energy sources.”

But…Clinical trials prove air pollution; including SMOG has devastating effects on our children’s health! The best research we have at the time was researched by USC in 2004, called “A Children’s Health Study”. The study showed that long term exposure to air pollution has long term effects on children’s lungs. This “should be” a National platform for Environmental Change. Yes, Global Warming is factually warming the earth…which has been occurring for 100’s of years. The long term effects of global warming may include, health issues, derived from Extreme Weather Conditions. But, again, our children’s health is currently deteriorating, due to current ozone related issues.

Research has shown that kids who live in certain geographic areas of California, experience a 10%-15% decrease in lung functionality, than kids who were raised in other parts of the country. Further research shows that kids are far more likely to experience Lung damage as an adult from living and growing up in areas where high levels of smog have been measured.

In 2004, The Journal of the American Medical Association linked higher death rates caused by smog or often called ‘ground ozone”.

Smog has the following effect on our children:

• Damaged cells in the lung’s airways, causing inflation and swelling of the lungs.

• Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Sneezing, wheezing and other neurological problems.

• Decreased breathing capacity (cough and chest pain)

• Decrements of lung functioning (reduced ability to take a breath)

• Changes in lung structure with possible increases in lung disease.

Further evidence shown by the University of Southern California, show for the first time that ozone may actually cause asthma. In 12 California communities 3500 children were studied with no history of asthma. The results showed that children who played in areas where there were high ozone levels were 3 times more likely to develop asthma. There was no increased risk for asthma development in areas of low ozone concentration.

• California reports approximately 9,000 deaths annually from complications from air pollution.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s recent National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment reported that one in every 15,000 Californians — about 66 per million — is at risk of contracting cancer from breathing chemicals in the air over his or her lifetime.

• In New York, researchers estimated that the annual death toll is approximately 319 annually in New York City.

• 23 European cities, found that death from respiratory disease was more strongly associated with ozone exposure that was with cardiovascular rates.

• India (57K), Indonesia (15K), China (16K) Russian Federation(19K) people die of asthma annually.

• The health impact of air pollution in Italian cities is large: 8220 deaths a year.

• When Hong Kong made regulations to reduce sulphur emissions, each Hong Kong resident gained extra weeks of living for every year of breathing dirty air.

Interesting Fact: The Great London Fog In 1952, was responsible for killing over 12,000 people. According to London papers, London was known for Fog, so know one really noticed that they were running out of caskets and flowers until it had been nearly a week. Note: the fog lasted only 5 days!

Geography does dictate and has always dictated healthy outside air quality issues. If you live in certain areas of our country or outside the U.S. your children are more likely to have health issues derived from air pollutants. California is at the head of the list, and has made progress in reducing ozone pollution in half, since 1980, but continue to have the worst air quality in the nation.

If air quality is reducing the future of our young; is it not worth a national debate? Never before have we seen corporate America change their corporate vision to a Green future, as we do now. Are we trading in one current geographical and ozone related disaster for the newest disaster discovery? If you want to get support from the masses of the people, tell them the truth about our current health challenges. Tell them that the one thing they value the most, their children, are being harmed by the current ozone related pollution and particular matter. Tell them that Nine cities, home to 57 million people, are considered “severely” polluted, experiencing peak ozone levels that exceed the standards… by 50% or more. Most importantly, tell them that this is not new-news and why being “Green” means so much now? If money and power were not what drives our national debates, do you think that our children’s health would be the premise for environmental corporate change? What happened to putting our children first?

Healthbase asked:


While President Obama recently lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research imposed by President Bush eight years ago, some people continue to oppose this move and call it unethical. So, while the scientific community is thrilled by the news and says the research will lead to medical breakthroughs, some communities consider the research as a “slippery slope”. But, what exactly are stem cells and why are they so important as to generate hot debates among all sorts of circles - political, social, religious, and what not? Here’s a look at some of those details.

The science behind stem cells

What sets stem cells apart from other cells is their ability to turn into any other type of tissue in the body. A stem cell from the bone marrow, for example, can be transformed into a neuron or nerve cell in the brain.

Types of stem cells: Embryonic stem cells versus Adult stem cells

Broadly, there are two types of stem cells in humans - embryonic stem cells and non-embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells (ESC), as the name suggests, are isolated from the inner cell mass of an early stage embryo (4-5 days post fertilization, and consisting of 50-150 cells). On the other hand, non-embryonic stem cells which are also known as adult stem cells are found in adult tissues.

Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent as opposed to adult stem cells that are multipotent. What this means is that embryonic stem cells can differentiate into any of the more than 220 cell types in the adult body (to be able to give rise to any mature cell type) while adult stem cells can only form a limited number of cell types (closely related family of cells).

Utility of stem cells

The importance of stem cell lies in the fact that they can be converted into any type of other cells or tissues in the body – neurons, pancreatic tissue, heart muscle cells, etc.

So, for example, stem cells harvested from your bone marrow can possibly be used to repair the damage in your heart muscle caused during a heart attack, or to correct blood disorders such as sickle cell anemia (anaemia) through transfusions of stem cells.

Stem cell therapy is believed to have the potential to dramatically change the treatment of human disease. Embryonic stem (ES) cell therapies have been proposed for regenerative medicine and tissue replacement after injury or disease.

But, it should be noted at this point that embryonic stem cell therapies are not in use yet. They are still only in the stage where medical researchers are testing them on animals.

On the other hand, adult stem cells have been successfully used to treat leukemia (leukaemia) and related bone/blood cancers utilizing bone marrow transplants.

The controversy

The controversy behind stem cell research pertains only to human embryonic stem cell research and not all stem cell research. What is controversial is the fact that the source of the research material, human embryos, is destroyed in the process of harvesting the stem cells. Pro-life activists oppose the research arguing that a human embryo is a human life that is entitled to protection.

Another area of controversy is that embryonic stem cell technologies are a slippery slope that may lead to reproductive cloning which may devalue human life.

The production of adult stem cells, on the other hand, does not require the destruction of an embryo and therefore, adult stem cell research and therapy are not as controversial. Though, adult stem cell treatment does carry a risk of rejection by the body’s immune system.

The present state of stem cell research

There are some countries that offer treatments using stem cells (read about medical tourism) but in such therapies only adult stem cells derived from the patient’s body are used (autograft). When possible, autografts are preferred as they remove the risk of rejection by the recipient’s body.

There is promising research ongoing in the field of stem cells to derive treatments for a wider variety of diseases including cancer, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries, diabetes, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease), multiple sclerosis, lung disease, arthritis, organ failure, and muscle damage, amongst a number of other impairments and conditions.

The future

The ultimate question on the minds of many is – “Why can’t we simply use adult stem cells instead of harvesting embryonic stem cells?”

Theoretically, embryonic stem cells are considered better because they work as a biological blank slate and are the most versatile of all stem cells whereas adult stem cells are sort of semi-specialized cells and are not as versatile as ESCs.

Though the field of adult stem cells is not marred by controversies, the problem with adult stem cells is also that they are often present only in minute quantities, are difficult to isolate and purify, and their numbers may decrease with age, according to a primer by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

At this juncture, much remains unknown about the potential of embryonic stem cells. But, going by the success in the field of animal testing it may very well turn out that embryonic stem cells could provide solutions to many diseases in humans.

The answer to the potential benefits of ESC lies in research. To understand the benefits of embryonic stem cells or any type of stem cells for that matter, and to discover possible treatments in humans, various lines of research need to be pursued simultaneously.

Only research can prove if adult stem cells are better over embryonic stems cells for curing human diseases or vice versa. It may also emerge that adult stem cells offer good treatments for certain ailments, while embryonic stem cells are better for curing others.

104inc.com asked:


Well, it’s done. The United States of America is back on top of the world, taking over basketball supremacy by knocking off some of the top international teams, finalized with a victory over powerhouse Spain this past weekend in Beijing. While this feat was exhilarating to watch, settling for anything less than a gold medal would have been downright embarassing with the team USA had. Going the distance and traveling thousands of miles to rock the hardwood were NBA’s finest, including the likes of Lebron James, Carmelo Anthony, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, not to mention Deron Williams, MVP runner-up Chris Paul, Jason Kidd, Carlos Boozer, and…ummm, I think you get the hint. The team was ridiculously good. Playing textbook, unselfishly flawless basketball to bring back the gold. This was definitely a sight for sore eyes, and if you’re a basketball nut like I am, you need to log on to 104basketball.com for all basketball needs, including where to buy tickets, sporting goods, and even to read related articles and check out a bunch of awesome stuff.

Now, Team USA may have rocked Beijing in easy fashion, but did they leave the impact that USA did back in 1992. That is the debate. Or is it? Not in this writer’s eyes. Yes, this team had great talent, but how can you compare this team with the likes of Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Scottie Pippen, Clyde Drexler, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Chris Mullin, and Christian Laettner (most are Hall of Famers). Winning by an average of 40+ points per game, the 1992 Dream Team was just that, a dream team. This team was put together by the likes of a few “high-ups” in the NBA, starting out with the inevitable “wouldn’t it be great if…”

Now, I bring up a question. Who is bringing up this debate, and why? Are they Laker fans who drool merely at the sight of Kobe Bryant, or are they today’s youth that was too young to have seen The Dream Dominate dominate back in the early ’90’s? Whoever they are, they must still be jet-lagged from trying to rack up airline miles to and from Beijing.

Stay tuned for Part II next week, but in the meanwhile, for all that is basketball, log on to 104basketball.com today!

Aurolijos asked:


After the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, once again the mammoth issue of gun control has been brought up at full force.  Many are highly upset that even after gun control laws have been enacted that the killer in the massacre was approved for a gun and purchased it in less than 30 minutes.  Many have speculated that had there been much harsher guidelines in place, that the sale would not have been completed, and it could have potentially saved all of the lives that were tragically lost in the disaster. 

 

The death toll from the massacre has risen to over 30 killed and more than 20 wounded.  This is aside from the emotional damage that has been caused to the hundreds who are left grieving in the wake, and those who experienced first hand the trauma of the event.  How can such events really be avoided?  Is it possible to avoid such tragedy with firmer gun laws? 

 

What about the programs that offer rewards in the form of video game systems, computers and even cash in exchange for turning guns into the police?  Are these programs effective?  In order to truly control guns, there has to be consensus around the country where everyone agrees that it is time for a change and the change occurs quickly, and without opposition.  Gun laws are clearly too lax, and our country needs to take action to avoid scenes like those in Virginia from reoccurring. 

 

The chances of something such as this happening are almost impossible.  Neither side of the political arena can agree with the other side about what appropriate gun control is, and with many residents of the United States being avid hunters whom use riffles and shotguns on an almost daily basis, it makes it very difficult to control all of the actions and movements that occur. 

 

Consider that many weapons used in crimes are illegally obtained; it makes it very difficult to determine how effective the stiffer gun laws would really be.  With a new Presidential Primary due to start in the near future, it will seem as if there will be much heavy debate over how to control the flow of guns into the hands of those who are dangerous, or potentially dangerous. 

 

Facts remain, that while the election is likely to focus on this issue, there is still the issue of preserving the Constitutional right to “bear arms” as long as it is done legally, and those who already have the weapons currently can potentially be just as dangerous as those looking to purchase the guns in the future.  We are left with the task of trying to avoid the tragedy as much as possible. 

 

Colorado stepped up to the plate with a swift action enacting much stiffer gun laws after the Columbine school massacre in which two teenage boys entered their school donning trench coats and heavy weapons leaving a wake of blood and fallen students in the path.  Colorado decided to avoid future incidents and enact the tougher laws.  It is suspected that Virginia will follow in this path.  The fate of the country rests in the hands of those elected to the public offices to help determine exactly how far gun control should go, and how the changes should occur.

Jordan Eller asked:


The Decline of Debate

Debate is, potentially, a great thing. It’s a chance to air your opinions and have others agree or disagree with you. It’s like a sword duel in a way, strike with stats, parry with logic, etc. It’s an intellectual wonderland, and in the end, if one can say it ever truly ends, maybe someone will change their view.

However, it seems that lately debate has become a series of personal attacks and hasty generalizations, which are both, ironically, logical fallacies. It has become constant attacks of: -you’re just ignorant-, -two kids died imitating a stunt on TV, so TV is evil-, and the like. Another common attack is –they manipulated the facts-. That last one is particularly amusing, as both sides tend to use it and, often, both sides are right to varying degrees. People manipulate facts, there’s a big surprise! How often, readers, have you yourself stretched the facts (truth) to get yourselves out of a jam? I’m not saying it’s right, but if every debater told the absolute truth and the exact facts, a lot of debates would be settled very quickly.

Although this may seem to just be an attack on how people debate (the process, not the people, mind you), it’s really more of a way to get others, like you readers, to really think about debates on TV, radio, the Internet, etc. and think to yourself “Is this logical or just a bunch of generalization and fancy-sounding words?” Maybe if enough people really consider how they debate and how others debate, we can return the activity to its rightful place as an intellectual and honorable event.

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Remember the days not too long ago when there more than a half dozen Democratic candidates engaging what was called a debate? And then there were three? Now there’s just two. Obama and Mama head to head!

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in a good old Texas throw down. In this corner, the orator par excellence and in the other corner, the debater of all evil right wing conspiracy theories.

The debate was held on the campus of the University of Texas, and carried live on CNN, CNN International, and on Spanish Univision.

For me the key phrase came from Hillary Clinton at the end when she said “Whatever. Whatever happens in this campaign we’ll both be okay.” That sounds like a resignation to what’s happening and may happen come March 4th. We’ll know in 12 days. Sounds like an hasta la vista Patti. On the other side of the coin, Hillary’s attempt to put in one of those pre-planned cute lines bombed when she said Barack was for “change that was zeroxed”.

And the crowd actually did boo her.

The debate was far more civil than most people thought. So much of a debate has to do with “expectations”. Hillary NEEDED a knock out punch. She didn’t get it. Barack just needed to hold his own. He DID that. Moving from the boo to the most funny line was when Obama said that Hillary was indicating that he and his supporters were not being real, or as what Obama called DELUSIONAL.

He asked. Are twenty million people who have voted for me delusional? Are all of the major newspapers who have endorsed him in Texas somehow DUPED?

So, it’s onward with the Texas-Ohio battle. Will the Obama tsunami keep rolling? Polls show that Obama is closing the gap and moving closer as he has historically done over the past month. And with twelve days to go, more money than Hillary has, and more boots on the ground, I can’t see Hillary winning, at least not in Texas.

Back to the campaign trail where Hillary now has another 527 giving her $10,000,000 to help her sagging television budget. If Hillary loses, sh’ll go out fighting.

I1connect asked:


REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They attack us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East. I think Reagan was right. We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.

RUDY GIULIANI, GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: That’s an extraordinary statement of someone who lived through the attack of Sept. 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11.

(end of excerpt)

Weighing in on the discussion was Daniel Imperato, a libertarian, and a 2008 Presidential Candidate.

Imperato stated, “first of all, I find it interesting that Giuliani took such offense to Ron Paul’s comment when he needed to look no further than himself. Why didn’t Giuliani protect the city after the 1993 bombings?”

The 2008 Presidential Candidate pointed to Giuliani’s poor track record for not following recommendations given to him after the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.

“He did not fully implement a single recommendation made by the fire department official who identified crucial emergency response failures after the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. Giuliani also did not implement a clear chain of command for police officers and firefighters prior to 9/11, in order to create an effective response system. In addition, he made no structural adjustments and improvements to the World Trade Towers to make them less susceptible to an attack and collapse.”

In addition, Imperato felt that Giuliani was not the only one to blame for not taking the appropriate steps to secure America’s borders and New York City .

“He was asleep and it took 3000 lives and an economic disaster for him to wake up. While Giuliani and Bill Clinton where in power, they allowed all of the al-Qaeda members to infiltrate New York and our country. They took no steps to enhance security, check visas, and make sure that our country wasn’t being quietly invaded.”

Imperato also called for a debate between Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, and himself.

“Ron Paul has a valid point about American foreign policy but he needs to explain and detail his position, which may have been misconstrued. I would like to invite Giuliani, and Ron Paul to debate me on my site, so that America can be clear on the issues and decide for themselves.”

*** This release has been created by i1connect, an independent news agency.***

About i1connect:

I1 Connect (www.i1connect.com) is the new online leader in global public relations and advertising. With a diversified set of offerings ranging from Public Relations, Press Releases Distribution, Advertising, Marketing, Website Development, to Investor Relations services, i1connect.com has positioned itself for a long term growth utilizing the latest in telecommunications technology.

For Interviews and Media Inquiries Contact

Press Department

I1connect

info@i1connect.com

www.i1connect.com

(561) 515-6177