Adonis Diaries

Archive for the ‘engineering/research/experiments’ Category

Hidden Health Dangers:

A Former Agbiotech Insider Wants His GMO Crops Pulled

by Caius Rommens. Oct. 17, 2018

Genetic engineering isn’t everyone’s childhood dream. I didn’t care for it when I started studying biology at the University of Amsterdam, but my professor explained it was an acquired taste and the best option for a good job.

So, I suppressed my doubts and learned to extract DNA from plants, recombine the DNA in test tubes, reinsert the fusions into plant cells, and use hormones to regenerate new plants.

People say that love is blind, but I started loving what I did blindly. Or, perhaps, what started as an acquired taste soon became a dangerous addiction. Genetic engineering became part of me.

After I received my PhD, I went to the University of California in Berkeley to help develop a new branch of genetic engineering. I isolated several disease resistance genes from wild plants, and demonstrated, for the first time, that these genes could confer resistance to domesticated plants. Monsanto liked my work and invited me to lead its new disease control program in St. Louis in 1995.

I should not have accepted the invitation. I knew, even then, that pathogens cannot be controlled by single genes: They evolve too quickly around any barrier to infection.

It takes about two to three decades for insects and plants to overcome a resistance gene, but it takes only a few years, at most, for pathogens to do the same.

I did accept the invitation, though, and the next six years became a true boot camp in genetic engineering. I learned to apply many tricks about how to change the character of plants and I learned to stop worrying about the consequences of such changes.

In 2000, I left Monsanto and started an independent biotech program at J.R. Simplot Company in Boise, Idaho.

Simplot is one of the largest potato processors in the world. It was my goal to develop GMO potatoes that would be admired by farmers, processors, and consumers.

Genetic engineering had become an obsession by then, and I created at least 5,000 different GMO versions each year—more than any other genetic engineer. All these potential varieties were propagated, grown in greenhouses or the field, and evaluated for agronomic, biochemical, and molecular characteristics.

The almost daily experience I suppressed was that none of my modifications improved potato’s vigor or yield potential. In contrast, most GMO varieties were stunted, chlorotic, mutated, or sterile, and many of them died quickly, like prematurely-born babies.

Despite all my quiet disappointments, I eventually combined three new traits into potatoes: disease resistance (for farmers), no tuber discoloration (for processors), and reduced food-carcinogenicity (for consumers).

It was as hard for me to consider that my GMO varieties might be corrupted as it is for parents to doubt the perfection of their children. Our assumption was that GMOs are safe. But my pro-biotech filter eventually wore thin and finally shattered entirely.

I identified some minor mistakes and had my first doubts about the products of my work. I wanted to re-evaluate our program and slow it down, but it was too little too late. Business leaders were involved now. They saw dollar signs. They wanted to expand and speed-up the program, not slow it down.

I decided to quit in 2013. It was painful to leave behind the major part of my adult life.

The true scope of my errors became obvious to me only after I had relocated to a small farm in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest.

By this time Simplot had announced the regulatory approval of my GMO varieties. As the company began to plan for quiet introductions in American and Asian markets, I was breeding plants and animals independently, using conventional methods.

And since I still felt uncomfortable about my corporate past, I also re-evaluated the about two hundred patents and articles that I had published in the past, as well as the various petitions for deregulation.

Not so much biased anymore, I easily identified major mistakes.

“With the mistake your life goes in reverse.
Now you can see exactly what you did
Wrong yesterday and wrong the day before
And each mistake leads back to something worse.
(James Fenton)

For instance, we had silenced three of potato’s most conserved genes, assuming that the three genetic changes would each have one effect only. It was a ludicrous assumption because all gene functions are interconnected.

Each change had indeed caused a ripple effect. It should have been clear to me that silencing the ‘melanin gene’ PPO would have numerous effects, including an impairment of potatoes’ natural stress-tolerance response.

Similarly, asparagine and glucose are among the most basic compounds of a plant, so why did I believe I could silence the ASN and INV genes involved in the formation of these compounds? And why did nobody question me?

Another strange assumption was that I had felt able to predict the absence of unintentional long-term effects on the basis of short-term experiments. It was the same assumption that chemists had used when they commercialized DDT, Agent Orange, PCBs, rGBH, and so on.

The GMO varieties I created are currently released under innocuous names, such as InnateHibernate, and White Russet. They are described as better and easier-to-use than normal potatoes and to contain fewer bruises, but the reality is different.

The GMO potatoes are likely to accumulate at least two toxins that are absent in normal potatoes, and newer versions (Innate 2.0) additionally lost their sensory qualities when fried. Furthermore, the GMO potatoes contain at least as many bruises as normal potatoes, but these undesirable bruises are now concealed.

There are many more issues, and some of them could have been identified earlier if they had not been covered-up by misleading statistics in the petitions for deregulation.

How could I have missed the issues? How could I have trusted the statisticians? How could the USDA have trusted them? My re-evaluation of the data clearly shows that the GMO varieties are seriously compromised in their yield potential and in their ability to produce normal tubers.

Unfortunately, most GMO potatoes end-up as unlabeled foods that are indistinguishable from normal foods. Consumer groups would have to carry out PCR tests to determine if certain products, including fries and chips, contain or lack the GMO material.

Given the nature of the potato industry, the most common potato varieties, such as Russet Burbank and Ranger Russet, will soon be contaminated with GMO stock.

I have now summarized the new conclusions of this past work (without disclosing company secrets—I am bound by confidentiality agreements) in a book, entitled ‘Pandora’s Potatoes.

This book, which is now available on Amazon, explains why I renounce my work at Simplot and why the GMO varieties should be withdrawn from the market. It is a warning and a call for action: a hope that others will step forward with additional evidence, so that the public, with its limited financial means, has a chance to counter the narrow-mindedness of the biotech industry.

My book describes the many hidden issues of GMO potatoes, but GMO potatoes are not the exception: They are the rule.

I could just as well have written (and may write) about the experimental GMO varieties we developed at Monsanto, which contains an anti-fungal protein that I now recognize as allergenic, about the disease resistance that caused insect sensitivity, or about anything else in genetic engineering.

On May 3rd 2018 the columnist Michael Gerson wrote in the Washington Post: “Anti-GMO is anti-science.” His statement was echoed by Mitch Daniels, his colleague, who added, “[It] isn’t just anti-science. It’s immoral.

But these two columnists are not scientists. They don’t understand the level of bias and self-deception that exists among genetic engineers. Indeed, anyone who is pro-science should understand that science is meant to study nature, not to modify it—and certainly not to predict, in the face of strong evidence, the absence of unintended effects.

The real anti-science movement is not on the streets. It is, as I discovered, in the laboratories of corporate America.

Posted with permission from Independent Science News.

Advertisements

You have got to Ask for feedback: Feedback don’t come easily and without much specific prompting…

There was a time when the term feedback was associated with some kinds of “production process“.

Coming from an engineering background, particularly industrial and human factors engineering, feedback meant receiving the reactions of clients and customers in the usage of products, such as safe usage, easy manipulation, health consequences, quality of product, of processes…

Feedback has acquired a life of its own and expanded to mean “How do you perceive my behavior, and how do think people are judging me…?”

Thus, feedback in the workplace on how I control, manage, and connect with people, employees, clients…

When was the last time you received useful feedback?

When it was not too late to nurture and mentor this “good person” who is trying hard to communicate with you?

An angry person will vent his feelings, turn and bang the door…How much of a feedback you think you received?

Do you think receiving feedback from someone who is Not an expert in the field or didn’t work on the field can give use any useful feedback?

“How am I doing?” is not a great beginning: It doesn’t sound serious or honest.

Everyone who really craves excellence craves feedback.

You need to know how you’re doing and how to improve.

Honest feedback is rare. And you don’t receive feedback because you don’t ask.

The primary problem in feedback is the level of Honesty:

The higher your level in the hierarchy, the more likely people say what they’re expected to say, not what they believe. Honest feedback is rare.

Try full sentences for a change, like: (extracted from a short list by Dan Rockwell)

  1. What do you think I was trying to accomplish by the way I______? (Fill in the blank with an outcome, “Led the meeting,” Leader, manager, coach, spouse, etc.)
  2. What did I do that made you think I was ______? (Fill in the blank with their response to #1.)
  3. How could I improve what you think I’m trying to accomplish
  4. “How/where do you fit into what I’m trying to accomplish?” (Nathan, Thanks for giving me this powerful question.)
  5. How can I help you better fit in?

The feedback question that changes everything uses behaviors to identify what’s really going on.

It doesn’t begin with a list of job responsibilities.

How can leaders invite feedback?

What questions invite useful feedback?

Your sense of smell controls what you spend and who you love

By Georgia Frances King 

Smell is the ugly stepchild of the sense family.

Sight gives us sunsets and Georgia O’Keefe. Sound gives us Brahms and Aretha Franklin. Touch gives us silk and hugs. Taste gives us butter and ripe tomatoes.

But what about smell? It doesn’t exist only to make us gag over subway scents or tempt us into a warm-breaded stupor. Flowers emit it to make them more attractive to pollinators. Rotting food might reek of it so we don’t eat it. And although scientists haven’t yet pinned down a human sex pheromone, many studies suggest smell influences who we want to climb in bed with.

Olivia Jezler studies the science and psychology that underpins our olfactory system.

For the past decade, she has worked with master perfumers, developed fragrances for luxury brands, researched olfactory experience at the SCHI lab at University of Sussex, and now is the CEO of Future of Smell, which works with brands and new technologies to design smellable concepts that bridge science and art.

In this interview, Jezler reveals the secret life of smell. Some topics covered include:

  • how marketers use our noses to sell to us
  • why “new car smell” is so pervasive
  • how indoor air is often more polluted than outdoor air
  • the reason why luxury perfume is so expensive
  • why babies smell so damn good
  • how Plato and Aristotle poo-pooed our sense of smell

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Quartz: On a scientific level, why is smell such an evocative sense?

Olivia Jezler: Our sense of smell is rooted in the most primal part of our brain for survival. It’s not linked through the thalamus, which is where all other sensory information is integrated: It’s directly and immediately relayed to another area, the amygdala.

None of our other senses have this direct and intimate connection to the areas of the brain that process emotion, associative learning, and memory. (That why we don’t dream “smell”)

Why? Because the structure of this part of the brain—the limbic system—grew out of tissue that was first dedicated to processing the sense of smell. Our chemical senses were the first that emerged when we were single-cell organisms, because they would help us understand our surroundings, find food, and reproduce.

Still today, emotionally driven responses through our senses of taste and smell make an organism react appropriately to its environment, maximizing its chances for basic survival and reproduction.

Beauty products like lotions and perfumes obviously have their own smells. But what unexpected businesses use scent in their branding?

It’s common for airlines to have scents developed for them. Air travel is interesting because, as it’s high stress, you want to make people feel connected to your brand in a positive way.

For example, British Airways has diffusers in the bathrooms and a smell for their towels. That way you walk in and you can smell the “British Airways smell.”

It’s also very common in food. You can design food so that the smell evaporates in different ways. Nespresso capsules, for instance, are designed to create a lot of odor when you’re using one, so that you feel like you’re in a coffee shop.

I’m sure a lot of those make-at-home frozen pizza brands are designed to let out certain smells while they’re in the oven to feel more authentic, too.

That’s an example of the “enhancement of authenticity.” Another example might be when fake leather is made to smell like real leather instead of plastic.

So we got used to the smell of natural things, but then as production became industrialized, we now have to fabricate the illusion of naturalness back into the chemical and unnatural things?

Yes, that’s it. People will feel more comfortable and they’ll pay more for products that smell the way we imagine them to smell.

For example: “new car smell.” When Rolls Royce became more technologically advanced, they started using plastic instead of wood for some parts of the car—and for some reason, sales started going down. They asked people what was wrong, and they said it was because the car didn’t smell the same. It repelled people from the brand. So then they had to design that smell back into the car.

New car smell is therefore a thing, but not in the way we think. It is a mix of smells that emanate from the plastics and interiors of a car.

The cheaper the car, the stronger and more artificial it smells. German automakers have entire olfactory teams that sniff every single component that goes into the interior of the car with their nose and with machines.

The problem then is if one of these suppliers changes any element of their product composition without telling the automaker, it throws off the entire indoor odor of the car, which was carefully designed for safety, quality, and branding—just another added complexity to the myriad of challenges facing automotive supply chains!

Are these artificial smells bad for us?

Designed smells are not when they fulfill all regulatory requirements. This question touches on a key concern of mine: indoor air. Everybody talks about pollution. Like in San Francisco, a company called Aclima works with Google to map pollution levels block by block at different times of the day—but what about our workplaces? Our homes? People are much less aware of this.

We are all buying inexpensive furniture and carpets and things that are filled with chemicals, and we’re putting them in a closed environment with often no air filtration.

Then there are the old paints and varnishes that cover all the surfaces! Combine that with filters in old buildings that are rarely or never changed, and it gets awful.

When people use cleaning products in their home, it’s also putting a lot more chemicals into the house than before. (You should open your windows after you clean.)

In cities like New York, the indoor air is three times worse than outdoors.

We’re therefore inhaling all these fumes in our closed spaces. In cities like New York, we spend 90% of our time indoors and the air is three times worse than outdoors.

The World Health Organization says it’s one of the world’s greatest environmental health risks. There are a few start-ups working on consumer home appliances that help you monitor your indoor air, but I am still waiting to see the one that can integrate air monitoring with filtering and scenting.

Manufacturing smell seems to fall into two camps. The first is fabricating a smell when you’ve taken the authenticity out of the product. But then other brands simply enhance an existing smell. That’s not fake, but it still doesn’t seem honest.

Well, to me they seem like the same thing: Because they are both designed to enhance authenticity.

There’s an interesting Starbucks case related to smell experiences and profits.

In 2008 they introduced their breakfast menu, which included sandwiches that needed to be reheated. The smell of the sandwiches interfered with the coffee aroma so much that it completely altered the customer experience in store: It smelled of food rather than of coffee.

During that time, repeat customer visits declined as core coffee customers went elsewhere, and therefore sales at their stores also declined, and this impacted their stock. The sandwiches have since been redesigned to smell less when being reheated.

This is starting to feel a bit like propaganda or false advertising. Are there laws around this?

No, there aren’t laws for enhancing authenticity through smell. Maybe once people become more aware of these things, there will be. I think it’s hard at this point to quantify what is considered false advertising.

There aren’t even laws for copyrighting perfumes! This is a reason why everything on the market usually kind of smells the same: Basically you can just take a perfume that’s on the market and analyze it in a machine that can tell you its composition. It’s easily recreated, and there’s no law to protect the original creation. Music has copyright laws, fragrance does not.

That’s crazy. That’s intellectual property.

It is. As soon as there’s a blockbuster, every brand just goes, “We want one like that!” Let’s make a fragrance that smells exactly like that, then lets put it in the shampoo. Put it in the deodorant. Put it in this. Put it in that.

Well if the perfume smells the same and is made with the same ingredients, why do we pay so much more for designer perfumes?

High fashion isn’t going to make [luxury brands] money—it’s the perfumes and accessories.

What differs is the full complexity of the fragrance and how long it lasts. As for pricing, It’s very much the brand. Perfume is sold at premium for what it is—but what isn’t? Your Starbucks coffee, Nike shoes, designer handbags… There can be a difference in the quality of the ingredients, yeah, but if it’s owned by a luxury brand and you’re paying $350, then you’re paying for the brand. The margins are also really high: That’s why all fashion brands have a perfume as a way of making money. High fashion isn’t going to make them money—it’s the perfumes and accessories. They play a huge, huge role in the bottom line.

How do smell associations differ from culture to culture?

Because of what was culturally available—local ingredients, trade routes et cetera—countries had access to very specific ingredients that they then decided to use for specific purposes. Because life was lived very locally, these smells and their associations remained generation after generation. Now if we wanted to change them, it would not happen overnight; people are not being inundated with different smell associations the way they are with fashion and music. Once a scent is developed for a product in a certain market, the cultural associations of the scent of “beauty,” “well-being,” or “clean” stick around. The fact that smells can’t yet transmit through the internet means that scent associations also keep pretty local.

For example, multinational companies want to develop specific fragrances and storylines for the Brazilian market. Brazilian people shower 3.5 times a day. If somebody showers that much, then scent becomes really important. When they get out of the shower, especially in the northeast of Brazil, they splash on a scented water—it’s often lavender water, which is also part of a holy ritual to clean a famous church, so it has positive cultural connotations. Companies want to understand what role each ingredient already plays in that person’s life so that they can use it with a “caring” or “refreshing” claim, like the lavender water.

Lavender is an interesting one. In the US, lavender is more of a floral composition versus true lavender. People like the “relaxing lavender” claim, but Americans don’t actually like the smell of real lavender. On the other hand, in Europe and Brazil, when it says “lavender” on the packaging, it will smell like the true lavender from the fields; in Brazil, lavender isn’t relaxing—it’s invigorating!

In the UK, florals are mostly used in perfumes, especially rose, which is tied to tradition. Yet in the US, a rose perfume is considered quite old-fashioned—you rarely smell it on the subway, whereas the London Tube smells like a rose garden. In Brazil, however, florals are used for floor and toilet cleaners; the smell of white flowers like jasmine, gardenia, and tuberose are considered extremely old-fashioned and unrelatable. However, in Europe and North America, these very expensive ingredients are a sign of femininity and luxury.

Traditional Chinese medicine influences the market in China: Their smells are a bit more herbal or medicinal because those ingredients are associated with health and well-being. You see that in India with Ayurvedic medicine as well. By comparison, in the US, the smell of health and cleanliness is the smell of Tide detergent.

Are there smells we can all agree on biologically, no matter where we’re from, that smell either good or bad?

Yes: Body fluids, disease, and rotten foods are biological no-nos. Also, natural gas, which you can smell in your kitchen if you leave the gas on by mistake, is in reality odorless: A harmless chemical is added to give gas a distinctive malodor that is often describes as rotten eggs—and therefore act as a warning!

The smell of babies, on the other hand? Everybody loves the smell of babies: It’s the next generation.

Do you wear perfume yourself?

I wear tons of perfume. However, if I’m working in a fragrance house or a place where I smell fragrances all the time, I don’t wear perfume, because it then becomes difficult to smell what is being created around me. There is also a necessity for “clean skin” to test fragrances on—one without any scented lotions or fragrances.

Why does perfume smell different on different people? Is it because it reacts differently with our skin, or is it because of the lotions and fabric softeners or whatever other smells we douse ourselves in?

Cancers and diabetes can be identified through body odor.

Generally, it’s our DNA. But there are different layers to how we smell. Of course, the first layer is based on the smells we put on: soaps and deodorants and whatever we use. Then there’s our diet, hydration level, and general health. An exciting development in the medical world is in diagnostics: Depending upon if we’re sick or not, we smell different.

Cancers and diabetes can be identified through body odor, for instance. Then on the most basic level, our body odor is linked to the “major histocompatability complex” (MHC), which is a part of the genome linked to our immune system. It is extremely unique and a better identifier than a retinal scan because it is virtually impossible to replicate.

Why don’t we care more about smell?

The position that our sense of smell holds is rooted in the foundation of Western thought, which stems from the ancient Greeks. Plato assigned the sense of sight as the foundation for philosophy, and Aristotle provided a clear hierarchy where he considered sight and hearing nobler in comparison to touch, taste, and smell.

Both philosophers placed the sense of smell at the bottom of their hierarchy; logic and reason could be seen and heard, but not smelt. The Enlightenment philosophers and the Industrial Revolution did not help, either, as the stenches that emerged at that time due to terrible living conditions without sewage systems reminded us of where we came from, not where we were headed. Smell was not considered something of beauty nor a discipline worth studying.

It’s also a bit too real and too closely tied to our evolutionary past. We are disconnected from this part of ourselves, so of course we don’t feel like it is something worth talking about. As society becomes more emotionally aware, I do think smell will gain a new role in our daily lives.

This article is part of Quartz Ideas, our home for bold arguments and big thinkers.

Who to blame? This trend of quick short attention span, serving silver bullet solutions that cure diseases

Mirvat El-Sibai posted on FB. August 28, 2016 at 12:27 PM · Beirut

When i was doing my PhD i used to start my day in lab around 10 a.m. and on many days stay till 3 or 4 in the morning with a couple of hours break during the day..

i routinely sat on the microscope 8 hours straight throughout the night till i developed a permanent slouch.. and still couldn’t wait to go home to analyze the data..

If i came home early it was to catch up on some papers or to prepare a presentation write a paper or my thesis etc..

We used to work weekend, holidays, and we were always in the business of learning and never questioned our advisors and were happy to pay our dues..

Our students today ask for more grades even if they don’t deserve it and i find that lack of self worth very troubling..

it is a sweep under the rug mentality that aims for cheap lazy results…

Students today learn a technique and produce a figure and start asking about publications..

They teach a lab and start asking about a permanent position.. they read a paper and start questioning models..

Ambition is great but humility and patience are paramount to actual learning, particularly in science..

I don’t blame it all on our students though..

It is the culture that pushes for readily packaged success stories and quick short attention span, serving silver bullet solutions that cure diseases..

It is also social media…

Note 1: For reasons, Not all of them fully justifiable, the medical students undergo harsh schedule and procedure that punish the students more than other fields of study. For example, focusing on a microscope for hours on would turn me blind. And this habit of waking up earlier than birds.

Note 2: I suffered immensely during my PhD program, particularly how to pay the tuition and trying to circumvent a few rules by auditing courses. You may read my uneasiness in my Autobiography category. In my teaching experience in Lebanon I was very disappointed: I had to invent and change my teaching methods, even, during a semester, to excite and give intensive for university students to study, read and do meaningful research. You may discover my methods in my Human Factors in Engineering category on wordpress.com

Note 3: Social platforms may contribute to laziness in students Not motivated in the first place. But these platforms are wonderful resources for reflective minds.

Multiple Sclerosis–the vascular connection

From Rindfliesch‘s discovery of the central vessel in the MS lesion in 1863, to CCSVI and the CNS lymphatic discovery. 160 years of research on blood flow, CSF, lymph and perfusion of the central nervous system.

Because the heart and the brain are connected.

Posted by Joan. Wednesday, June 3, 2015

A “Stunning Discovery”

We are living in very exciting times.  During the past few years, researchers have changed what was thought to be known about how the brain cleanses and protects itself. 
Textbooks are being re-written.These discoveries are important for people with neuro-degenerative diseases like MS, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and dementia.

New technologies have allowed researchers to see exactly how the brain cleanses itself while we sleep, via the newly defined “glymphatic” system, which relies on the sleep state to remove toxins, proteins and metabolites from brain tissue.

Before this discovery, it was not known how the lymphatic system functioned in the central nervous system. Researchers had assumed the brain was cleansed with cerebro-spinal fluid, but they really weren’t sure how this took place.

Now it is understood that there is a specialized CSF/lymphatic system in the brain, which has been called the “glymphatic” system because of the importance and reliance on the glial cells.

This discovery was made at the University of Rochester, and is currently rocking the world of sleep specialists.  It explains the link between sleep problems and neurodegenerative disease, and provides some answers as to why sleep is so essential for brain health.
link

I was able to visit Dr. Nedergaard’s lab at the U of R, where this discovery was made,  to see how she and her associates are taking this research forward into translational medicine and potential treatments.

As Dr. Nedergaard told me, good sleep and adequate drainage of the brain are key to brain health.  Nothing can be done to help the brain heal (via stem cells or medications) until these mechanistic systems are functioning adequately.
linkFurther understanding of this discovery has been made at the University of Virginia School of Medicine by Dr. Jonathan Kipnis.

The Kipnis Lab has found previously undetected vessels that carry immune cells in the CNS.  Seeing these vessels was like discovering a new planet in our galaxy.   Researchers thought they understood how the brain’s immune system functioned and how the CNS was “immune privileged”–but in reality, they were completely wrong.

The relationship between the brain and the immune system has long puzzled researchers.

For some time, scientists thought that immune cells only showed up in the brain during an infection.
The brain is considered “immune privileged,” such that when exposed to foreign material, it takes longer to mount an immune response than does the rest of the body. Furthermore, to date, traditional lymphatic vessels had not been found there.
link


This stunning new research shows that the brain and central nervous system is no different from the rest of the body.  We now can study how the immune system works in the brain, and how these lymphatic vessels allow or inhibit immune cells in brain tissue.What do these newly discovered lymphatic cleansing and immunological systems share?

They are lymphatic vessels and rely on veins.

That’s right.  The glymphatic system which cleases our brain utilizes paravenous spaces.  This newly discovered immune system in the CNS drains along the dural sinuses.

In searching for T-cell gateways into and out of the meninges, we discovered functional lymphatic vessels lining the dural sinuses. These structures express all of the molecular hallmarks of lymphatic endothelial cells, are able to carry both fluid and immune cells from the cerebrospinal fluid, and are connected to the deep cervical lymph nodes.
link

Kipnis described the newly discovered vessels as “very well hidden” and noted that they follow a major blood vessel down into the sinuses, an area difficult to image. “It’s so close to the blood vessel, you just miss it,” he said. “If you don’t know what you’re after, you just miss it.”
link

Kipnis and his colleagues found that vessels expressing markers of lymphatic vessels elsewhere in the body ran along the dural sinuses, drainage lines in the brain that collect outgoing blood and CSF, emptying these fluids into the jugular vein. They also found that the vessels contained immune cells.  link

Lymphatic ducts drain lymph into veins in the neck (the right and left subclavian veins at their junctures with the internal jugular veins). Valves in the lymphatic ducts at their junctures with the veins prevent the entrance of blood into the lymphatic vessels. link

If lymphatic vessels do not have adequate drainage, due to a stenotic dural sinus,  jugular stenosis, mechanical impingement or venous problems, the brain’s immune system and cleansing system will not function properly.

The venous system which drains the brain is essential for perfusion, cleansing and proper immune function.“Instead of asking, ‘How do we study the  of the brain?’ ‘Why do  patients have the immune attacks?’ 

now we can approach this mechanistically. Because the brain is like every other tissue connected to the peripheral  through meningeal lymphatic vessels,” said Jonathan Kipnis, PhD, professor in the UVA Department of Neuroscience and director of UVA’s Center for Brain Immunology and Glia (BIG). 

The brain is like every other tissue in our body.  It needs adequate venous drainage, so that lymphatic drainage can occur.

The images below show normal venous structure on the left, contrasted to Jeff’s stenotic jugular veins, pinched off dural sinus and inefficient, curly collateral veins on the right, as they looked on MRV prior to his venoplasty treatment.
Jeff has had no MS progression and a healing of most of his MS symptoms after successful stenting of his veins six years ago.

Endovascular stenting of the venous sinus is an approved treatment for intracranial hypertension, and a recent review shows the benefits.  link

“When you think about yourself as being creative. You can create a new future. That’s being positive in life.” – David Kelley

I think everyone is creative. Some know that fact more than others. Who disagrees?

 Tell me why? what are your thought. I care about what you have to say Karim Badra
  • You get creative by just getting engaged in an activity that dislodge your hidden passion
    Karim A. Badra: I think its a virtue like anything else, and its a result of certain character traits. Some people are born and raised into having strong verbal skills, others mathematics, and others may have a natural tendency to be efficient and productive. As hard a…See More
    Sherif Maktabi: being creative is simple. There are many definitions, here is one that I like: being able to imagine possiblites that have value. I think evolutionary, creativity is what allowed the human race to become the dominant species. So elementary, cr…See More

    Ramsey Saleem Nassar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VShmtsLhkQg

    ‎”Telling people how to be creative is easy – being creative is difficult.” John…See More
    Sherif Maktabi ok i’m watching this but i dont know if ill be able to finish the full 36min. i need to leave soon
    Sherif Maktabi “Creativity is not a talent. It’s a way of operating” – from the video “creativity is not related to IQ”. etc.
    Adonis Bouhatab operational activities extend possibilities to consider, if you are ready to listen and reflect on every alternative. The more focused time you invest on resolving a problem the more creative you become: It is a matter of training your mind to open up to people’s creative intelligence…
    Khaled Tayara yes Sherif Maktabi , you are right . Creativity is a process , having new ideas is a talent but how to get out it is a process. Unfortunatly for example in the media and advertising in Lebanon we thing that to be creative , you just need talent ! sorry you need analytical skills and process minded to show and get out this creativity ! I am suffering explaining this to the team in my company

Earth Overshoot Day came early this year. That’s a bad thing.

We consumed a year’s worth of natural resources in just seven months.

Planet Earth overshoot day

We’ve only got one.

Wikimedia Commons

Every holiday has its unique pleasures. New Year’s Eve is a time for confetti, champagne, and promises. The Fourth of July all but demands the pop of a firework and one (or 12) hot dogs.

And Earth Overshoot Day wouldn’t be complete if your existential dread hadn’t tripled by the stroke of midnight.

If you haven’t celebrated Earth Overshoot Day before, be not afraid.

The premise is simple: Earth’s resources are limited. We only have so much water and food, let alone oil and gold.

But humans are using more than Earth has to offer, and have been since 1970.

In 2018, it’s predicted we will use the equivalent of 1.7 Earths worth of resources—a whole Earth more than we have. And the date at which we’ve consumed more than one Earth in a given year is called… Earth Overshoot Day.

Unlike most holidays, like Christmas, which you want to come early, you want Earth Overshoot Day to be as late in the year as possible.

In the 1960s, our consumption was almost perfectly synched to the Earth’s resources, with humanity consuming one year’s worth of Earth’s resources in one year.

By 1971, that number slid backward, and has been sliding ever since. This year, 2018, saw the earliest Earth Overshoot Day yet: one Earth’s worth of resources gobbled up by Aug. 1. (Last year, it happened on Aug. 2.)

This doesn’t mean that we’ve run out of clean water or timber today, and will have to live on scraps until New Year; it’s that by exceeding the Earth’s resources in August, we’re bankrupting our future by consuming materials that are better off preserved for days to come.

How exactly is the overshoot date calculated?

It’s a little fuzzy, but fairly common sense. Earth Overshoot Day is administered by the Global Footprint Network. Using United Nations data about the state of the world year over year, the GFN team divides the amount of ecological resources Earth can currently generate in one year, according to the network’s website. Then, they divide that figure by the total human demand for those same resources.

The final number is influenced by things like the rate of carbon emissions compared to the carbon sequestration offered by land, deforestation and over-fishing, our ability to process waste, electricity and other energy usage, and the size of the human population (current count: 7.6 billion).

It also differs by country. People who live on islands or in deserts have fewer resources to work with, meaning they overshoot sooner than a more expansive place, like the continental United States. Singapore, a densely-populated island city state in East Asia, typically overshoots its biocapacity by Jan. 2 of every year, according to National Geographic.

The results aren’t super precise. “Global Footprint Network estimates that the absolute precision may be within 10 percent to 20 percent,” according to its website. But it’s clear this holiday is about prompting reflection, not impeachable precision.

The exact moment at which we’ve consumed more than the resources the planet has to offer is hard to narrow down for any given year. But we know, in a bigger sense, it’s already far behind us.

Our voracious appetites for consumer goods, especially in developed countries like the United States, Australia, and South Korea, are doing unprecedented damage, and have been for decades.

overshoot day planet infographic

Overshoot days vary my country, as seen here.

Courtesy of Global Footprint Network

Given it’s a made-up holiday, how you celebrate Earth Overshoot Day is up to you. But thinking about how you can reduce your own footprint—by mowing your lawn less (or replacing it outright), compostingreducing plastic consumption, and recycling—is probably the best way to go.

  1. Welcome to , the date each year that humanity’s consumption of ecological resources exceeds what the planet naturally regenerates annually. August 1 marks the earliest Overshoot Day in recorded history.


adonis49

adonis49

adonis49

December 2018
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Blog Stats

  • 1,218,060 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.adonisbouh@gmail.com

Join 628 other followers

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: