Friday, November 27, 2009

Week 13: Post your Blog Entries as Comments to my Main Post Each Week

Post by Sunday at midnight

1. Mark Whitaker

2. Denying the "Human Genetic-Cultural-Regional Food" History of the World is why people are getting sicker on the same globalized food. As the markets are destroyed for regional cuisines, there are global health problems of demoting these while changing to a common industrialized diet of fewer food regional choices. It is more than just a loss of regional options: it is a genetic issue of our bodies themselves, our "Regionalized Metabolism. Let's call it "Nabhan's Revenge"--though he calls it "evolutionary gastronomy".

The story below is a good example of leaving out this "evolutionary gastronomy. In "The Ten Fattest Countries in the World" it leaves something out. It leaves out "Nabhan's Revenge", how if you eat outside of your traditional regional cuisine you are at greater risk of health problems because there are human genetic mechanisms that have built up over time into 'demographics of regional genetics' in how we process our food (food metabolism genes) to handle a certain climate, its food chemicals and cultural choices as all intertwined.

So destroy the cultural ways of a region, and you destroy the interlinked specific regional food ways. In the process you sever your own genetic adaptability to keeping fit while eating a particular regional cuisine--a regional cuisine that might make others sick that keeps you healthy.

The journalist below is silent on the genetic mechanism why some people are getting fat on different foods. Her implied theory is based on assumptions that human genetics are all the same when it comes to our metabolism, so her indirect blame is simply "voluntary access" or a host of social policies and novel cultural habits. Like anything in the social world, there are many causal elements at play. However what she talks about is a more complicated issue that only political forces destroying regional cuisines or novel habits of youth.

It's nothing to do with only greater voluntary access to certain foods alone: it's because our diet over time became regionalized historically and 'culturalized', and our genetics followed suit as a dependent variable of the regional foodways instead of an independent causal variable.

Given "evolutionary gastronomy", our bodies are evolutionarily accustomed to certain foods over centuries and the cultural ways that were maintaining such foods.

In Nabhan's book, there are some amazing descriptions of how cultures and regional climates are the independent variable 'selecting for suitable dependent variables of genetics' to fit social adaptations, over time. (Typically people assume or talk about genetics as a determinist cause of things: Nabhan turns it around and provides examples of how genetics is a dependent variable, dependent upon cultural choices and regional food practices.) This interaction both cultural, food chemical, climatic, and human-genetic based generates a tightly locked interpenetration of a particular bioregional area--that we deny at our peril.

Remember the Mexican farmer in the film "The World According to Monsanto" and his long-term love of a particular region and its food.

Watch the optional films about European regionalism in foodways as well, many of them that fail to fit currently accepted "state cultural (sic), i.e., nationalist" borders either.

[In the packet:] Nabhan, Gary Paul. 2004. Why Some Like It Hot: Food, Genes, and Cultural Diversity. Washington, D.C.: Island Press / Shearwater Books.from ethnobotanist Nabhan, [on “evolutionary gastronomy”: the long-term biological/genetic and culinary chemical interaction as co-evolutionary: people, diet, and place, and genetics adapting to particular places and cuisines supported by particular areas over millennia]

OPTIONAL: videos on European Regional Cuisines

a. Savouring Europe - the Eastern Steppes – Hungary; November 2004 A huge grazing land alive with wild horses and cattle rounded up by cowboys; trout from the rivers and piles of red and orange paprika fill the kitchens of the inns and steaming goulash and thick sour cream are served in generous heaps.
25:26
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM57DsyuLNg

b. Savouring Europe: Dorset – UK; November 2004 January-March: Winter is ending, the land comes alive with new season potatoes and is ploughed for early spring crops. The grassland's cycle begins; cheese and beer making and organic farming respond to the weather on the rolling hills which descend to the Atlantic where tiny boats ply for shellfish.
25:21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcK-5ABdbsc

c. Savouring Europe - Sodermansland – Sweden; November 2004 Summer and boar and deer are provided to be smoked and cooked as treats; lake fish and eels are provided for the new Swedish chefs to demonstrate their take on traditions and people speak of their passing culture in the reflection of deep blue lakes.
25:28
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zeWK4XWyUA

d. [many more if you search for them there]



---------------------------

Behold: the world's 10 fattest countries
Share on FacebookStumbleUponAdd to RedditPrint VersionEmail Article

By Laurie Cunningham — Special to GlobalPost
Published: November 25, 2009 14:27 ET
Updated: November 26, 2009 09:31 ET

CHICAGO — If you tend to pack on a few pounds over the holidays, blame it on globalization [it's more complicated than that]. As the world [of food choices has 'de-regionalized'] has grown smaller, we’ve all grown larger — alarmingly so. In countries around the world, waistlines are expanding so rapidly that health experts recently coined a term for the epidemic: globesity.

The common fat-o-meter among nations is body mass index (BMI), a calculation based on a person’s height and weight.

The World Health Organization defines “overweight” as an individual with a BMI of 25 or more and “obese” as someone with a BMI of 30 or higher. (To see how you weigh in, use this calculator by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.)

Today, one in three of the world’s adults is overweight and one in 10 is obese. By 2015, WHO estimates the number of chubby adults will balloon to 2.3 billion — equal to the combined populations of China, Europe and the U.S.

The rise in obesity coincides with increased modernization and a worldwide explosion in the availability of highly processed foods [and the non-availability of others, and the interaction with our 'regional genetic predispositions']. In the past 50 years, more of us have started driving to work instead of walking, opening a box of mac ‘n cheese instead of cooking, pushing computer keys instead of plows and taking the elevator rather than the stairs. [Er, it's more complicated than that.]

“The combination of these factors is driving obesity all over the world,” said James Hospedales, coordinator for prevention and control of chronic diseases at the Pan American Health Organization. “What’s really alarming is that it’s not just the middle aged, it’s children and adolescents. That’s new.”

In honor of Thanksgiving, a U.S. holiday dedicated to eating until we can’t breathe, we decided to take a look at the Top 10 Fattest Countries in the world, based on national health surveys WHO compiled between 2000 and 2008.

Yes, it's a big world after all:

1) American Samoa, 93.5 percent (of population that's overweight) [highly genetic specific area, with its traditional cuisines and markets decimated]

Traditionally, Pacific Islanders ate native foods high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat, such as bananas, yams, taro root, coconut and fish. Since World War II, an explosion of obesity on the islands has corresponded with a rise in migration to the U.S., New Zealand, France and Australia [while their same genetic metabolisms were awash with entire different food chemicals and ratios in their diets]. That began to change dietary habits as family members abroad introduced those back home to Western eating and sent money home, giving locals the means to buy more food. Today, this six-island nation in the South Pacific Ocean tops the scales as one of the fattest in the world.

2) Kiribati, 81.5 percent [another isolated genetic population, swamped by other non-regionalized foods]

Between 1964 and 2001, food imports to the least developed Pacific nations, such as Kiribati, which comprises 33 islands clustered around the equator, increased six-fold, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, a United Nations agency established to fight world hunger. Those imports led to a huge influx in fatty food and processed meat, such as Spam and mutton flaps (fatty sheep scraps), often sold at lower prices than native food. [i.e., demoting the markets for what genetically had made them healthier in the past.]

3) U.S., 66.7 percent [U.S. a nation of immigrants and Native American populations all scrambled in their historic regional "evolutionary gastronomy" more than any other place in the world?]

In the early 1960s, 24 percent of Americans were overweight. Today, two-thirds of Americans are too fat, and the numbers on the scale keep going up. Health experts attribute the rise to an over-production of oil, fat and sugar — the result of government farm subsidies started in the 1970s that made it much cheaper to manufacture products like high fructose corn syrup, a common ingredient in processed foods. “On top of that, investment policies changed in the early 1980s to require corporations to report growth to Wall Street every 90 days,” said Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor at New York University and author of the book “Food Politics.” “This made food companies seek new ways to market to the public. Obesity was collateral damage.” [The ignore the transfat issues that the body is unable to use: as well as how the 'corn-i-fication' of sugar products in the U.S. has contributed to this because of the different chemicals in corn syrup are pretty bad for the human system as a sugar.]

4) Germany, 66.5 percent

When Germany found out that it was the fattest nation in Europe, health experts blamed the usual suspects: beer, fatty foods and lack of physical activity. Like the rest of the world, Germans are suffering from an easy availability of junk food and more sedentary jobs and lifestyles. As part of the government’s campaign to reduce obesity levels by 2020, it has launched programs to serve more fruits and vegetables in public schools.

5) Egypt, 66 percent

In the 1960s, Egypt produced enough food to feed its people a steady diet of red meat, poultry, lentils, maize and dairy products. But by the 1980s, the population had outgrown food production, leading to an increase in food imports that created poorer eating habits. Obesity among Egyptian women is particularly high, often attributed to cultural taboos on women exercising or playing sports.

6) Bosnia-Herzegovina, 62.9 percent

Once considered a problem only in high-income countries, obesity is dramatically on the rise in low- and middle-income countries [once very culturally/culinarily isolated] like Bosnia-Herzegovina, where smoking, drinking and eating unhealthy foods spiked during the war that ravaged the country from 1992 to 1995. Those living just above the poverty line in developing countries are gaining weight the fastest, partly because of the tendency to fill up on cheap processed foods high in calories and low on nutritional value.

7) New Zealand, 62.7 percent

In a study at the University of Otago, researchers found that how much time New Zealand children spend watching television is a better predictor of obesity than what they eat or how much they exercise. The study found that 41 percent of the children who were overweight by age 26 were those who had watched the most TV. Television is not the only reason New Zealanders are gaining weight, but it’s one modern development often cited for growing childhood obesity.

8) Israel, 61.9 percent

In the past 30 years, the number of obese Israelis has tripled, evidence the country is truly part of the Western world. Like in most developed countries, flab is most prevalent among Israelis with less education, with Jewish women with college degrees having the lowest levels of obesity and Arab women with basic education having the highest.

9) Croatia, 61.4 percent

Croatia, where cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death, is also a victim of the globalization of the food market, which tends to suppress traditional diets as cheaper processed foods from the U.S. and Europe flood store shelves. Unlike other Europeans, Croatian men have higher rates of obesity than Croatian women, and tend to get even fatter as they age. It’s no wonder that a Croatian charity announced in June that it had created the world’s largest pair of jeans — the size of six tennis courts — stitched together from 8,023 donated pairs of jeans.

10) United Kingdom, 61 percent

Last month, The Observer begrudgingly reported that the heaviest man in the world was not in the U.S., but a 48-year-old Brit living in low-incoming housing in Ipswich “eating takeaways and playing computer games.” His weight: 980 pounds. British bellies are expanding for the same reasons as everywhere else. A recent survey, however, ranked Brits among the bottom third of European nations in physical exercise, leading Health Secretary Andy Burnham to comment, "We're really in danger of being known as the best in the world for watching sport, but one of the worst for getting out there and doing it for ourselves."

---
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/commerce/091125/obesity-epidemic-fattest-countries

10 comments:

  1. Alexandra Vorobyova

    'Rising sea levels: A tale of two cities"

    It's really interesting to see the real effects that climate change (more specifically, rising sea levels) is having on 2 drastically different cities- on one hand, on the capital of Mozambique, and on the other hand, a (fairly) central European city, Rotterdam. Due to very reduced budgets and resources, as well as limited media attention and education around the issues concerning global warming, Mozambique is really at a loss- they simply don't have the resources to relocate people or to deal with the destruction caused by rising tides. Rotterdam, on the other hand, wants to be completely "climate-proof" within the next 20 years. What chance does Maputo stand??... I think that developed countries should really lend a helping hand to countries affected by climate change, not only financially, but also by sharing technologies and information.

    -------------------
    "Mozambique is widely cited as one of the countries most affected by climate change - and one of the key concerns is rising sea levels.

    The country has one of the longest coastlines in Africa, stretching 2,700 km (1,650 miles). About 13 million people live in coastal areas, and even more live in river deltas.

    Mozambique is going to the Copenhagen climate summit next month to lobby for these things - as part of a united African delegation determined to win compensation for the damage caused by global warming.

    "Developed countries have responsibilities," said Ms Abreu, "and we expect these countries to assume such responsibilities in Copenhagen." (...)

    Rotterdam's ultimate goal is to make itself climate-proof - able to withstand whatever the weather throws at it - by 2025.

    In addition to hi-tech water management systems, the city is also exploiting "soft technology" such as water plazas, green roofs and multi-purpose storage facilities.
    Water taxis in Rotterdam.

    More ambitiously, it plans to develop a 50-hectare (120-acre) floating housing development, with a neighbourhood of environmentally friendly houseboats. (...)

    If people are going to adapt to climate change successfully, they need to know what they are up against.

    Most people in the West have at least a basic knowledge of the impact of global warming.

    In Mozambique, things are rather different. "Vast numbers of people don't know what you're even talking about," said Antonio Reina, the director of Livaningo a local environmental organisation.

    In many cases - even if people are vaguely aware that something is happening - they are simply too poor to do anything about climate change, or even see the issue as a priority.

    In the words of Professor Brito: "The main fight now is still poverty, not climate change."

    --------------------------------
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8369236.stm

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nicole Niedermeier

    „UCS Study Says Genetically Modified Crops Have Failure to Yield”
    A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reveals that since the inception of GM crops no significant increases in crop yields can be attributed, contrary to what Monsanto and other seed-makers often point out in their own research. The UCS says that crop yields overall increases substantially due to several changes in farming practices, agricultural general and the overall trend towards higher yield in all of food production and is not directly related to the use of genetic modification. The study furthermore goes so far as to recommend that the US Department of Agriculture remove funding from GM crops studies and redirect it to other more beneficial uses and programs. A recent release of secretive FDA memos about concern with GM crops has created new “hot button questions” about how the proliferation of GM crops have affected us and our health.

    ----------------------------------------

    “The study, led by Doug Gurian-Sherman, a lead scientist in UCS Food and Environment Program, is a compilation of published, peer-reviewed, and scientifically-accepted studies done since the early 1990s. These studies looked at crop production, various attributes of different crops, how environment and other factors affected yields, and so forth. According to UCS, overall these studies have shown that the yield increases often attributed to genetic modifications are often not because of the GMs at all, but due to other factors.”

    “The UCS study shows that genetically engineered corn varieties have only increased crop yields marginally while engineered soybean varieties haven't increased yields at all.”

    “The only gains apparent in the knowledge gained by GM practices are in the understanding of the plants' genomes themselves. Many breeding practices could benefit, says the study, by utilizing the knowledge gained about plant genomes and how these genes can be marked and targeted in breeding practices.”

    “In other words, traditional plant breeding could lead to better hybrid varieties with less worrisome outcomes as compared to direct genetic modification (gene splicing and manipulation) by using the knowledge of plant DNA to breed, not engineer, better plants.”

    “Concern over the genetic modification of food crops and its effect on the environment, our health, and more have all caused many of us to wonder why these GMOs are being foisted on us. Now that their number one argument for existence (increasing crop yields) has been scientifically questioned, the final straw may be loaded. Will the FDA's continual promotion of GM crops finally change?”

    ----------------

    http://www.naturalnews.com/027058_crops_food_GMO.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hyun-deok,Park

    Climate Scientists Uncover Major Accounting Flaw In Kyoto Protocol And Other Climate Legislation

    Climate scientists pointed that flaw in climate legislations and treaties is an exemption for carbon emissions of bioenergy regardless of the source of biomass. So although the quantity of carbon emissions to clear is comparable to amounts of CO2 released from tailpipes or smokestackes, clearing rainforests for biomass is not regulated.
    Alternative energy emitting more CO2 cannot be not only a sustainable energy but also a real replacement. Climate treaties including Kyoto protocol will be complemented to stop from excessing and abused alternative energy development.

    ----------------------------------------------
    The burning of bioenergy and fossil energy releases comparable amounts of carbon dioxide from tailpipes or smokestacks, but bioenergy use may reduce emissions overall if the biomass results from additional plant growth. This is because plants grown specifically for bioenergy absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and this offsets the emissions from the eventual burning of the biomass for energy.

    On the other hand, burning forests releases stored carbon into the atmosphere in the same way as burning oil releases carbon stored for millions of years underground. For these reasons, the greenhouse gas consequences of using bioenergy vary greatly with the source of the biomass.

    Unfortunately, Kammen said, the accounting rules used in the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union's Emissions Trading System, and in the climate bill that recently passed the U.S. House of Representatives, exempt the carbon dioxide emitted by bioenergy, regardless of the source of the biomass. That legally makes bioenergy from any source, even that generated by clearing the world's forests, a potentially cheap, yet false, way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by oil companies, power plants and industry as they face tighter pollution limits.

    According to the authors, the solution is to count all emissions from energy use, whether from fossil fuels or bioenergy, and then to develop a system to credit bioenergy to the extent it uses biomass derived from "additional" carbon sources, and thereby offsets energy emissions.
    -----

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022141126.htm

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anna Maislinger

    What's In Your Water? Disinfectants Create Toxic By-Products In Drinking Water And Public Swimming Pools

    To me public swimming pools always seemed to be disgusting. When I’m thinking about public swimming pools I’m thinking about other people’s bodily fluids. Furthermore I’ve heard that the water is changed very rarely. Besides the disgust, there’s apparently also a health concern – which was new to me. The article is about disinfection by-products, which are consequences of water purification and can be harmful.
    ------------------------
    University of Illinois geneticist Michael Plewa said that disinfection by-products (DBPs) in water are the unintended consequence of water purification. "The reason that you and I can go to a drinking fountain and not be fearful of getting cholera is because we disinfect water in the United States," he said. "But the process of disinfecting water with chlorine and chloramines and other types of disinfectants generates a class of compounds in the water that are called disinfection by-products. The disinfectant reacts with the organic material in the water and generates hundreds of different compounds. Some of these are toxic, some can cause birth defects, some are genotoxic, which damage DNA, and some we know are also carcinogenic."
    […] The first discovery involves iodine-containing DBPs. "You get iodine primarily from sea water or underground aquifers that perhaps were associated with an ancient sea bed at one time. If there is high bromine and iodine in that water, when you disinfect these waters, you can generate the chemical conditions necessary to produce DBPs that have iodine atoms attached. And these are much more toxic and genotoxic than the regulated DBPs that currently EPA uses," he said.
    Plewa said that the second discovery concerns nitrogen-containing DBPs. "Disinfectant by-products that have a nitrogen atom incorporated into the structure are far more toxic and genotoxic, and some even carcinogenic, than those DBPs that don't have nitrogen. And there are no nitrogen-containing DBPs that are currently regulated."
    In addition to drinking water DBPs, Plewa said that swimming pools and hot tubs are DBP reactors. "You've got all of this organic material called 'people' -- and people sweat and use sunscreen and wear cosmetics that come off in the water. People may urinate in a public pool. Hair falls into the water and then this water is chlorinated. But the water is recycled again and again so the levels of DBPs can be ten-fold higher than what you have in drinking water."
    Plewa said that studies were showing higher levels of bladder cancer and asthma in people who do a lot of swimming - professional swimmers as well as athletic swimmers. These individuals have greater and longer exposure to toxic chemicals which are absorbed through the skin and inhaled.
    "The big concern that we have is babies in public pools because young children and especially babies are much more susceptible to DNA damage in agents because their bodies are growing and they're replicating DNA like crazy," he said. […]
    Plewa said that until new technologies are engineered to safely disinfect the water in public pools, education is needed to encourage people to bath or shower before entering a public pool. "It's the organic material that gets in the pool that is disinfected and then recirculated over and over again. That's why we call swimming pools disinfectant by-product reactors. […]
    -----
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331112725.htm

    ReplyDelete
  6. Christoffer Grønlund

    Food Stamp Usage Across the Country

    -----

    The statistics can not fool anyone. Numbers do not lie. You can add more remarks of that caliber if you want, but in the end you just have to realize that it is true. By looking at these statistics, which are very recent, one can only be amazed (or horrified) of the challenges the US are facing in the future. Just look at the map and the numbers - The world's last and only super power (until a number of years after which China will take over) is having 1 in every 8 American to live of food stamps!

    -----

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/28/us/20091128-foodstamps.html?hp

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sam Wijnants

    How Guatemala's Most Beautiful Lake Turned Ugly

    The article is about how a lake that once was “really too much of a good thing", turned into a place that nowadays many visitors leaving for gasping for breath. A thick brown sludge is tarnishing its once blue waters. It is the result of decades of ecological imbalance, brought on by economic and demographic pressures. Even worse: scientists found the water is poisonous. Residents are urged to avoid cooking with, bathing in or drinking the water. Several towns get drinking water from the lake.
    The main problem is the cyanobacteria, which feeds itself with chemicals and phosphorous. The genesis of the problem dates to the late 1950s when the Guatemalan government introduced non-native black bass into the lake's waters. Their consumption disrupted the ecosystem and destroyed the organisms that would have kept the bacteria at bay.
    The situation is aggravated by government distribution of chemical fertilizer containing extra phosphorous to poor farmers who liberally apply it to their fields. Widespread deforestation allows the soil to leach into the lake during Guatemala's six-month-long rainy season.

    The cost to clean the whole mess would be around $350 million, a huge expenditure for an impoverished country. "The problem has been accumulating for years but Guatemala has other expensive problems and, apparently, this was not a priority," says Margaret Dix, a Universidad Del Valle scientist who has studied the lake since 1976. "It needs money, input and a commitment. ... I think it can be restored to a large extent in four or five years. But it will never be like it was 100 years ago."

    ReplyDelete
  8. In his 1934 travel book Beyond the Mexique Bay, Aldous Huxley compared Guatemala's Lake Atitlan to Italy's Lake Como. Guatemalans have interpreted this declaration by the author of Brave New World to mean that Lake Atitlan is the most beautiful lake in the world — which is the billing on most of the tourist brochures, despite Huxley's ambivalent phrasing.
    Atitlan is indeed breathtaking, but nowadays it is leaving many visitors gasping for breath. A thick brown sludge is tarnishing its once blue waters. It is the result of decades of ecological imbalance, brought on by economic and demographic pressures. The unsightly and smelly layer, more than 100 feet deep in some areas, is chasing tourists away from Mayan towns in the area and posing huge cleanup expenses to a government already strapped for cash. Worse, the results of a University of California, Davis, analysis found that the bacteria is toxic. Scientists are urging residents to avoid cooking with, bathing in or drinking the water. Several towns get drinking water from the lake.
    The sludge has huge implications for the area and Guatemala. The towns around Atitlan have become reliant on tourism. Scores of restaurants and hotels have opened. Tuktuk drivers report they barely make enough to pay for gas. Restaurant owners are considering giving up. The global recession may be a major factor but the stench isn't helping.
    The problem is as much visual as it is olfactory. As the bacteria dies, a foul odor wafts from the water. "It's like trying to eat lunch in an outhouse," says English backpacker Brian Thompson, Scientists first detected the cyanobacteria that now infests Atitlan in the 1970s. But the genesis of the problem dates to the late 1950s when the Guatemalan government introduced non-native black bass into the lake's waters believing that hotels and restaurants could lure more tourists if they could offer freshly caught lake fish on their menus. Over the years, however, the bass ate through nearly the entire food chain, including the the young of the rare Pato Poc duck. Their consumption disrupted the ecosystem and destroyed the organisms that would have kept the bacteria at bay.
    Without natural predators, the bacteria needed only a source of food to thrive. That would be phosphorous, which is abundant among the hills and three towering volcanoes around Atitlan.


    "I think everyone is beginning to realize that we all had a part in the problem," says Monica Berger, executive director of Association Atit Ala, a community development group pushing for a government cleanup of the lake. "It's easy to ignore the problem until it starts to hurt tourism and the lake's image."


    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1942501,00.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Young Han

    ----------------------------------------------
    It is a really short article that briefly explains about how heat energy can be used to produce traditional fuel. It says it's simply reverse process of combustion. How it works is that heat energy from sun triggers a chemical reaction in iron-rich composite inside of this chamber. Iron is supposed to lose an oxygen molecule when it is heated to certain degree. For now, this may not be the practical way to generate fuel, but in next 15 to 20 years it may become the way to fix fuel shortage on the planet

    -----------------------------------------------
    The prototype �Sunshine to Petrol� system, developed by Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico, uses concentrated solar energy to trigger a thermo-chemical reaction in an iron-rich composite located inside a two-sided cylindrical chamber.

    The iron oxide is designed to lose an oxygen molecule when exposed to 1,500 degree C heat, and then retrieve an oxygen molecule when it is cooled down, essentially converting an incoming supply of CO2 into an outgoing stream of carbon monoxide.

    Additionally, when researchers pump water into the chamber rather than CO2, the machine produces hydrogen. Combining those retrieved gases � hydrogen and carbon monoxide � they are able to create syngas, which can be used as a fuel.

    While researchers say the technology likely will not be ready for market for 15 to 20 years, it could one day become a practical way to recycle CO2.

    ----------------------------------------------
    http://blog.cleantechies.com/2009/11/24/researchers-develop-machine-to-recycle-carbon-dioxide-fuel/

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sue Kwon

    "Is it finally time to embrace GM crops?"

    I don't think "no problem yet" means "no problem forever". Moreover there're several cases that are about human health like allergic reactions and cancer coming out. And another thing is, even excpet all those alliance with government and farmer suicide for health and economic problems, that consumers' got no good choice. GMO are much cheaper than Organic ones mostly, because of its mass production and high productivity. Consumers should be able to make their choice based on their belifs not on price of goods. Government can support organic farms in order to balance the price of organic products and GM ones, but they have alliance with GM companies that reshuffles personnel, like a revolving door, so they don't really try to make any balance of price of goods in the market. Furthermore, labeling system is not enforced as well, so consumers don't even know how much the product is genetically engineered or if or not it is modified.

    ===================================

    The mass consultation exercise, set to last a year, is being viewed by opponents of GM foods as a fresh push to persuade the British public to embrace the controversial technology.

    It comes against a background of calls from scientists, politicians and business for a rethink. They argue that humanity must make use of new genetically modified crop strains to combat a future world food crisis linked to global warming, a growing population and water shortages.

    But sceptics say that not enough is known to rule out environmental or health dangers from what some refer to as "Frankenstein foods".

    The last time the public were consulted on the issue, opposition to the new technology was strong but the FSA says that rising food prices and fears for future supplies mean it is time to re-examine the issue.

    A focus group survey published by the FSA ahead of the national consultation exercise has already angered environmentalists by suggesting that opponents of GM foods are more motivated by "emotion" than "reasoned" argument.

    At present only one variety of GM maize has been approved for cultivation inside the European Union, although crops grown outside, such as in the US, can be sold here if they are labelled.

    In Britain the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs has given the go-ahead for a trial involving a new strain of potatoes but there are no plans to licence any more at present.

    But is it now time to finally accept GM foods? Are sceptics just being alarmist or is there a genuine danger? Is it, an some manufacturers suggest, becoming impossible to keep GM ingredients out of the food chain?

    ====
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/debates/6660965/Is-it-finally-time-to-embrace-GM-crops.html

    ReplyDelete