Gold Rush In Romania

Gold Rush In Romania - This mountain contains Europe’s biggest gold deposits. With the economic crisis, the price of gold is rocketing and there are plans to open new gold mines in Spain, Portugal, Slovakia, Greece, Northern Ireland and Romania.

The Rosia Montana – Red Mountain – project is among the most controversial, due to the sheer size of the proposed site, the impact on environment, and the archaeological artefacts from Ancient Rome which are found all over this 2000 year-old site.

Team-leader Calin Pal checks the preservation works being carried out in the protected section of the site, criss-crossed by galleries dug by the Romans. He says: “There are at least three generations of miners before me: My great grandfather, my grandfather, and my father. My hope is that the next ten generations will go on mining here too.”

There have been violent protests in Kyrgyzstan over the government’s refusal to nationalise a gold-mining venture with a Canadian company.  Police fired tear gas on demonstrators who tried to storm government headquarters in what their leader called a coup attempt. The volatile Central Asian state has seen several assaults on the government since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.  This latest rally, with its direct call to overthrow the government, has been described as the most violent in the capital Bishkek since the 2010 revolt that ousted President Kurmanbek Bakiyev.

Thousands of miners in western Romania have marched for the fourth day running in a pay protest, after talks with the new government broke down. The miners are demanding a bonus for working in dangerous conditions. They say this was promised to them by the previous administration. Police said the protesters threatened to block the main road from Petrosani, their company’s base, to the capital Bucharest, 340 kilometres southeast.

Most locals feel the same way. They want the Canadian investors to start blasting as soon as possible. But opponents fear that the Roman galleries will be destroyed. To ease tensions, the “Gold Corporation” is investing millions of euros to transform at least part of the Roman galleries into an underground museum. 

Robert Horvath, an Archaeologist on the site said: “The biggest information is the shape of the gallery: So, when it is geometrical, we know it is Roman. And we find ladders, ancient Roman type. And we find lamp niches and we know that medieval miners did not use the same shape.”

Calin’s men remove the backfill from centuries ago, so that the historic galleries can be mapped. Since 1998, mining in Romania has seen radical changes: 550 mines closed, 80,000 people laid off. The mines from Communist times did not conform with modern regulations, or with EU competition rules.

When the Canadian investors arrived, the miners here had high hopes, but opponents fear that few profits will stay in Romania.

But Catalin Hosu, Communications Manager for Rosia Montana Gold Corporation said: “We do have the biggest gold deposit in the European Union: over 300 tons of gold. We do have here a proposed investment of over two billion dollars. We are talking about benefits for Romania: over 4 billion dollars, that means over 50% of the total estimated revenues. And we are talking about creating thousands of jobs.”

To allay fears about pollution from the cyanide, the company has designed a dam. It will be strong enough to withstand an earthquake of 8 degrees on the Richter scale. 

Sorin Jurca, Rosia Montana Cultural Foundation, said: “All this area will be destroyed: The Corna valley over there, where 40 families still live, with two churches and with graveyards. The company wants to build a big dam and a lake covering 600 hectares. If they’ll build the dam, all of this will disappear from the surface of this planet.”

Most of the inhabitants have already agreed to be resettled 70kms away, near Alba Iulia. On the outskirts of the town, the company has spent almost 30 million euros building 125 new houses and a church. Back in the mining region, ex-miners are hoping for new jobs, and a new economic future. 

But the Roma families fear they are being sidelined when it comes to hiring – out of the 480 people taken on so far, only 30 are Roma. 

Dorinel Pantir, a former Roma miner from Daroaia, said: “Gold Corporation should talk to us directly, not through the local mayor’s people. We should set up a committee to sign a protocol with Gold Corporation so that at least one member of each Roma family will be hired.”

The decline of mining here has led to unemployment rates of around 80% and young people are leaving. But life has always been hard here. In the 50s, during the Communist era gold prospectors had problems too. 

Ioan Catalina, a gold prospector, explained: “The Secret Service police shouted: “To the wall, face the wall! And he started waving his pistol around, threatening us. “I could shoot you on the spot! But you have one last chance!” So my grandfather and his friend destroyed their gold milling equipment.”

The red water from the old galleries is so polluted nothing can survive in it. The Gold Corporation has built a water treatment station, a high-tech lab, using nano-filter technology. The says it will clean up not only its own waste water, but also the mess from past centuries. 

Catalin Hosu, Communications Manager, Rosia Montana Gold Corporation said: “What you see here is historic pollution. Maybe for hundreds of years. It is very acidic water. But it can be cleaned up. We have a pilot station, proving this. And this is the result: clean and drinkable water.” 

But not everyone is impressed. One rancher, an outspoken opponent of the mine, says that the region’s future should be in agriculture and tourism. He calls the water treatment plant a poisoned apple.

Eugen David, President of NGO Alburnus Maior, said: “We do not need to take out 500 million tons of rocks and use hundreds of thousands of tons of cyanide to solve the problems of a small, acidic water spring in Rosia Montana.”

Nationally, polls show strong opposition to the project, but locals from the poor Roma settlement nearby are enthusiastically backing the mining relaunch, desperately hoping for a better standard of living. 

But the Roma are desperate. Ileana Tica, a Roma resident in Daroaia said: “Since the mines closed here, us Roma have had problems with the police. Sometimes we have to collect iron, from here and there… And then we get taken to court. But we have to feed our children, buy them a crust of bread.”

Mihai Valentin Pintea, a day labourer in Daroaia said: “Lots of us here work as day labourers. One day we find work, but the next day there’s nothing. We support the mining project, we hope to find work there. I like working – look at my hands. Soon I’ll have a child, I’m 20 years old, I’m married, I have to take care of my family, find something to eat.”

Renovating houses has already provided employment for some people in the region. But when will the gold rush start? There are political doubts. The fall of the centre-right government and the appointment of left wing Prime Minister Victor Ponta, critical of the project, has seen the Gold Company’s share price nosedive. 

Dragos Tanase, Director General, Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, said: “A lot of people will get a job here. There will be a lot of money going to the State budgets. All these people, they need a decision on the project. Patience is running out, and money is limited. At some point we are going to finish. So, now is the moment that the government needs to take a decision.” 

Elections are upcoming. Some observers believe that a decision for or against the multi-billion euro project could be taken shortly afterwards.

So is the goldrush on or off? It’s a decision which will radically people’s future in this part of Europe.( euronews )

READ MORE - Gold Rush In Romania

How to Organize Your Refrigerator Drawers and Shelves

How to Organize Your Refrigerator Drawers and Shelves

Tom Schierlitz

1. Eggs do best where the temperature is most consistent-on the middle shelf. Store in the original cartons (don't transfer to the fridge egg container).



2. Milk tends to land on the top shelf, but it should be on the bottom, all the way in back, where it's coldest.



3. Yogurt, sour cream, and cottage cheese fare best on the bottom shelf for the same reason. Stack items on a turntable to keep everything accessible and expiration dates visible.



4. Packaged raw meat should go on the super-cold bottom shelf. And if juices drip, they won't contaminate the whole fridge.



5. Vegetables stay fresh longer with a bit of humidity. The drawer labeled vegetables or high humidity is the moistest spot in the fridge. Store in the original packaging or in a plastic bag, loosely tied.



6. Fruit belongs in the low humidity drawer (sometimes marked crisper). Keep in the original packaging or in a plastic bag, loosely tied (citrus is fine with no bag).

Tip: Leave vegetables and fruits unwashed until you use them. Water can promote mold and cause bacteria to grow.



7. Deli meats belong in the shallow meat drawer, which is slightly colder than the rest of the fridge, or (if there's no such drawer) on the bottom shelf.



8. Butter and soft cheeses don't need to be super cold, so they can live in the dairy compartment on the door (the warmest part of the fridge). Place soft cheeses, like Brie and goat cheese, in an air-tight container after opening them.



9. Condiments are generally high in vinegar and salt, which are natural preservatives. So ketchup, mayonnaise, and salad dressing are fine on the door. Same goes for pickles and jarred salsa. Olive and vegetable oils can remain in the pantry. But nut oils, like sesame and walnut oils, belong in the refrigerator, also on the door.



10. Orange juice can be stored on the door, as long as it's pasteurized. Fresh-squeezed should be stored on the bottom shelf. ( Real Simple Magazine )

READ MORE - How to Organize Your Refrigerator Drawers and Shelves

Midwives 'risk not being objective enough’

Midwives 'risk not being objective enough’ - The death of a young woman who was allegedly 'brainwashed’ by a midwife into giving birth at home raises questions about the quality of advice given to expectant mothers

The controversy over home births was reignited last week, with the tragic account of how a young mother bled to death after allegedly being “brainwashed” by a midwife into giving birth at home.

For Claire Teague, 29, this was her second pregnancy. Her first, in hospital in 2009, had ended with an emergency caesarean section, in an unsuccessful attempt by doctors to save one of the twins she was carrying. Yet despite this obstetric history, Rosie Kacary, an independent midwife working outside the NHS, allegedly convinced Mrs Teague that a home birth would be “more fulfilling” than one in hospital.

For healthy women with normal pregnancies, choosing a home birth has been seen as a perfectly safe option

Mrs Teague, from Woodley, near Reading, stopped breathing after the birth of her baby, a boy, at home in the early hours of August 1 2010. She was eventually admitted to hospital, where she started to bleed extensively, and died later the same day. Doctors found that one third of her placenta had been retained in her womb. This prevented the womb from contracting normally, causing extensive haemorrhaging.

At the Windsor inquest into Mrs Teague’s death, the coroner Peter Bedford was critical of the “poor quality” inspection of the placenta when delivered by the midwife and the “missed opportunities” to take Mrs Teague to hospital sooner. The case is now under investigation by the nursing and midwifery council, the statutory body responsible for standards of midwifery care.

Bleeding to death in childbirth remains extremely rare in Britain, and of course serious errors of professional judgment can happen anywhere – in hospital as well as in a patient’s home. That said, this case raises some critical questions about whether clear advice on the risks and benefits of home births is always given to expectant mothers, in particular those who have had problems in previous pregnancies.

Indeed, some specialists are arguing that home births are being promoted with enthusiasm bordering on the excessive. While in the UK home births are still uncommon (less than three per cent), the pendulum between hospital and home is “in danger of swinging too far the other way” according to Steve Walkinshaw, an obstetrician who helps draw up guidelines on childbirth for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice). He believes that the midwifery profession “runs the risk of not being objective enough with advice – of being almost too close to the woman.”

For low risk, normal pregnancies, the benefits of a home birth are now widely recognised. Being in familiar surroundings, with the same midwife they have seen throughout their pregnancy, helps many women feel more relaxed and better able to cope. Labour can take place uninterrupted by a trip to the hospital and, if desired, family members can be present throughout. Younger children can feel part of the experience and be reunited with their mother and introduced to the new sibling sooner. “There’s good evidence that women who have midwife-led care, including home births, need less pain relief, have less interventions such as forceps and epidurals, are more likely to breastfeed and have a better quality birth experience,” says Sue Jacob, from the Royal College of Midwives.

On the other hand, there are clear benefits to being in a consultant-led unit – chiefly, the availability of the “best specialist care at the touch of a button”, she adds. On the rare occasion when things may go wrong, obstetric units can provide immediate access to obstetricians, anaesthetists, neonatologists and other specialist care including epidural analgesia and blood transfusion units.

Which is why it’s important for any woman who is deciding on whether to give birth at home to be advised of arrangements in place for transfer to hospital in an emergency – and why, says Ms Jacob, it’s vital for any midwife responsible for a home delivery to monitor carefully what is happening before, during and after the birth. “A good midwife will pick up on things she or he doesn’t feel happy with, and will always arrange a transfer to hospital if she feels it necessary,” she says. “There are systems in place to ensure midwives will work with hospital teams and their protocols, to ensure the best care.”

Most experts concur that in the UK, giving birth is generally very safe for both women and their babies wherever it takes place, with an overall figure of 4.3 “adverse events” (such as stillbirth or breathing problems in the baby) per 1,000 births among the 40 per cent of UK pregnancies regarded as “low risk.”

For healthy women with normal pregnancies, choosing a home birth has been seen as a perfectly safe option – although a more complex picture emerged last November, when a landmark study from Oxford University found that among first-time mothers in this group, the risk of anything going wrong with a planned home birth was significantly higher than with one planned in hospital.

There were 9.3 serious complications per 1,000 home births among women giving birth for the first time, compared to 5.3 complications per 1,000 hospital births. In addition, the study found a 45 per cent probability that first-time mothers planning a home birth would need to be transferred to an obstetric unit during labour or after birth.

“For the first time, we have reliable information to give to this group of women so they can make an informed choice,” says Prof Peter Brocklehurst, director of the Institute for Women’s Health in London, who conducted the research. He points out that while home birth is a safe option for women on their second or third pregnancies, the risk, although still very low, is higher for first-time mothers.

More contentious is the question of what advice should be given on the appropriateness of home births for women who have had complications (such as an emergency caesarean) in a previous pregnancy, or who have had problems in their current one. While Nice recommends that anyone who has had a previous caesarean section should be advised to have her baby in an obstetric unit, some midwives who support home birth argue that past complications should not necessarily rule out a subsequent home birth.

“It’s not a black and white situation,” says Ms Jacob. “You need to assess each case on its merits and work in partnership with the woman and the antenatal team. Every woman has the potential to have a home birth.” What is important, she says, is the provision of adequate resources for good antenatal and postnatal care by trained midwives, fast access to emergency services and careful monitoring by the midwife at home.

However, Mr Walkinshaw, a consultant at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, argues that for women who have had a “complex birth” in the past, “it’s a different ball game”. A caesarean section in a previous pregnancy, for example, means there is a risk of uterine rupture during a subsequent vaginal delivery. Although uncommon – the risk is one in 200 – this is a potentially life-threatening event for both mother and baby.

“If a woman ruptures while in hospital then we can deal with it immediately,” he says. “ If something happens at home, with the best will in the world, it takes time for a transfer to hospital to take place, and there is a risk that mother and baby will come to harm.” Similarly, if the placenta is implanted over a previous caesarean scar there is a risk of a retained placenta and severe haemorrhage – one of the highest risks in obstetrics.

“The thing that has always exercised me if I’m talking to a woman who has had complications – in the current pregnancy or the last pregnancy – is that we know what the risk [of a further complication] is in hospital because that’s where the studies have been carried out. But we don’t know what the risk is at home.”

Mr Walkinshaw is at pains to point out he supports women’s choice about the place of birth. “We have to trust women, to give them the correct information and let them decide. But I’m not sure that we are being honest about our uncertainties. To allow a choice free-for-all, to tell high-risk women they will probably be OK is, frankly, unethical.

“We have a duty to say if we don’t think something is safe. As professionals we have worked together over the years to get our maternal mortality and perinatal mortality figures as low as possible. If women start to make choices that move those numbers up, we have a duty to say so.” To this, Prof Brocklehurst points out that independent midwives, as private practitioners, may not adhere to NHS guidelines.

Some professionals have “very short memories” adds Mr Walkinshaw. “They forget that women ended up giving birth in hospital in the Fifties because too many were dying unnecessarily at home, often from preventable haemorrhages. It’s a myth that the move came from nasty male obstetricians, that the government forced women into hospital. In fact, the call for safe hospital care came from women themselves.” ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Midwives 'risk not being objective enough’

Women Regret Love Failures More than Men

Women Regret Love Failures More than Men - While the common adage may encourage you not to dwell on the past, a new study finds that many harbor regrets, with romantic ones being particularly common.

But women outdid men in that category, with guys ranking work regrets above relationship ones, the researchers say.

The study involved 370 Americans who were asked to discuss a significant regret from their lives. The most common regrets had to do with romance, family, education, career and finance.

"Regret is a common part of our lives, and it's something that we see ... in people of all walks of life," said study researcher Neal Roese, a professor of marketing at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University.

But he said that regret could also be beneficial.

"The bad is obvious, but the good is it helps us put our lives together, helping us to put things into perspective," said Roese. With romantic regrets, he said, "It helps to recognize ideals and goals. ...You can channel it into a current relationship. You may see some kernel of insight you can implement in your current life."

Studying regret

Much of the research on regret is based on tests of college students, who are relatively inexpensive to compensate, simple to recruit and live on or near the campuses where the studies are done. In an attempt to get a better handle on regrets among the general public, this survey was done via phone to reach more diverse subjects.

Roese said that one finding in the current study that differed from past research was that romance, rather than education, was a primary source of regret.
However, he noted that there was a split. Nearly 45 percent of women expressed regret in the area of love, while less than 20 percent of men did. Meanwhile, nearly 35 percent of men expressed work regrets, compared with less than 30 percent of women.

"It does conform to a certain stereotype that we have, but it has been thought of for a long time that women are the keepers of relationships," said Roese. "That is an important element of their lives, and it makes sense that their regret would focus on failures to meet those ideals."

But the choice in what to discuss may have been impacted by the study method.

"There's a general idea in research that women are more concerned with social relationships than men are. Men are more concerned with career and self-advancement," said Joachim Krueger, a professor of psychology at Brown University who has researched gender stereotypes, and was not involved in the current study.

Since the survey was done by phone and not in-person where participants might have opened up more, women may have felt a greater need to conform to societal expectations.

"There's nothing in this study that would allow us to unpack that, and that's a pity," said Krueger. "There's nothing to say if this is how people feel ... or an opportunity to present themselves as reasonable and dutifully moral."

Missed opportunities

Overall, there was little difference in whether people regretted inaction versus action. The major distinction had to do with time.

"Missed opportunities stick in our brains longer, and they bug us for a longer period of time," Roese said. "Whereas something you did do, you are bugged by that immediately, and then it dissipates, or goes away. You're more able to make peace with it than a missed opportunity."

Krueger said that may involve the fact that the time to make up for a missed opportunity diminishes as a person ages (and thus gets closer to death).

"As people grow older, there's just a greater accumulation of opportunities that are gone," he said. "Younger people still have the illusion there's time left and they can fix things."

The study, co-authored by Roese and Mike Morrison, a doctoral candidate in psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign will be published in a forthcoming issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science. ( LiveScience.com )

READ MORE - Women Regret Love Failures More than Men

How long do hand sanitizers work?

How long do hand sanitizers work? - According to a recent survey, half of all Americans think the antibacterial gels last longer than they do -- which is two minutes, according to germ experts.

The survey was funded by Healthpoint, which sells a sanitizer the company says works for up to six hours.

CBS News Medical Correspondent Dr. Jennifer Ashton tells "Early Show"Harry Smith it's an important two minutes, though.

"It really is!" Ashton said. "Well, we've said before that these are very, very effective in reducing transmission of the germs that can make us sick. It does not give you 100 percent protection and, in fact, I think a lot of Americans were very surprised by that finding that they only work for two minutes. Doctors and surgeons like myself, not so much so. We know when we scrub in before a surgery, we are not eradicating all bacteria from our hands."

So what do hand sanitizers do and why do doctors use them?

"What we are doing is reducing the number, and getting rid of the germs that can make a patient sick or in this case make us sick," she said.

Would you be better off using a hand sanitizer or using soap to wash our hands?

"This has been debated in the surgical literature for years. 'Is soap better, how much time of washing is really effective?' Guess what. They don't really know. What the CDC says is that hand washing with soap and hot water -- and again you have to do it for a prolonged period of time, which most people don't do," Ashton points out. "That is the optimum way to protect yourself. Absent that you want to use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer that is 60 percent alcohol, at least."

On the other hand, hand sanitizers may just work for two minutes, but again Ashton stresses, it's an important two minutes.

"Here's what's important. I shake your hand and I've just seen you cough and sneeze then I'm going to take that contaminated hand now from shaking your hand and touch my face. That's where these sanitizers can really work," Ashton said. "Again, you want to avoid touching your nose and mouth and use them when you can't use soap and water and keep your hands clean." ( cbsnews.com )

READ MORE - How long do hand sanitizers work?

Families on the brink of 'insolvency crisis' after decade-long credit card binge

Families on the brink of 'insolvency crisis' after decade-long credit card binge. Debt stress: Thousands of families are spiralling into insolvency. (Posed by models)

Families are drowning in debt after a decade-long binge on credit cards. The Bank of England today warns lenders are writing off record quantities of credit card borrowings as thousands of individuals spiral into insolvency.

Lenders are responding by pushing up interest rates even higher, putting more families in financial trouble, the Bank said in its Financial Stability Report.

However, families are saving more money than they are borrowing for the first time in more than 20 years, according to a Bank of England report.

Last year £24billion went into deposit accounts while £20billion came out in new loans.

It is the first time since 1988, when records began, that savings have overtaken new borrowing.

Economists said households had become increasingly concerned about paying their debts following the recent recession.

The findings are backed up by separate research which today warns of a looming ‘insolvency crisis’ in the UK.

A record 146,948 Britons will be made insolvent in England and Wales this year, up 10 per cent on 2009, according to a ComRes survey for insolvency practitioners group R3.

Steven Law, president of R3, said: ‘We stand on the brink of a personal insolvency crisis that will take years to work through the system.

‘We know there are nearly a million people out there who are struggling with their debt.

‘While it may be the case that these problems are resolved without help, there is a risk that they might snowball out of control.’

Britain is now by some measures the most indebted country in the world, the coalition’s Budget said this week.

Lax lending standards and a huge appetite for consumption in the decade leading up to the credit crunch has led tens of thousands of families to rack up unprecedented quantities of credit card debt, overdrafts and unsecured loans.

But it is now payback time as loans are due in the wake of the deepest post-war recession.

Chancellor George Osborne’s draconian Budget has only heightened fears about households’ ability to weather a storm of tax hikes and welfare benefit cuts.

The average family on £45,000 a year will suffer a hit of more than £700 to their take-home pay as a result of the Government’s decisions, research for the Daily Mail shows.

The Bank of England report showed in the year ended March 2010 banks wrote off more than 10 per cent of their credit card loan balances.

This was a record rate, up from 7 per cent in 2007.

This amounted to £1.25billion of defaulting debt in the first quarter of 2010 alone.

Over the past 12 months banks have written off more than £4.5billion of credit card loans.

The Bank warned the burden of interest payments could become even more crippling if official interest rates were to rise from their current ultra-low levels.

The official Bank rate has been slashed from 5.5 per cent at the beginning of 2008 to just 0.5 per cent today.

Yet in the same period the average credit card loan rate has risen.

At the start of 2008 it was 14.8 per cent, according to Bank of England data, but it now stands at 16.5 per cent.

A further setback to the economic recovery would also make matters even worse, and ‘aggravate household distress,’ the Bank reported.

It said: ‘In the absence of significant de-leveraging (debt repayment) by the household sector, UK banks are exposed to the risk of higher defaults were interest rates to rise from their current historically low levels or recovery to falter.’

The report added: ‘Unsecured lending to UK households accounts for a relatively small proportion of UK banks’ loans to domestic customers’.

‘But since the beginning of 2007 these exposures have accounted for around two-thirds (£23billion) of domestic write-offs by UK banks.’

In 2004 borrowing hit an all-time high of £125billion thanks to cheap credit being readily available.

Families remortgaged their homes in order to release equity for holidays and other luxuries sending debt levels soaring.

At its peak, in 2007, net mortgage lending hit £108billion.

Last year, by contrast, households borrowed just £20billion - the lowest level since 1993.

David Hollingworth, from mortgage brokers London & Country, said there had been a complete turnaround in the approach of borrowers.

'Rather than using mortgages as a cheap way of borrowing – effectively using their home as a piggy bank to fund their luxury purchases – they are now looking to pay down debt more quickly,' he said.

'They are tightening their belts amid concerns about higher interest rates in the future and questions over the employment market.' ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Families on the brink of 'insolvency crisis' after decade-long credit card binge

Juniper bushes at threat of disappearing from English countryside

Gin and panic: Juniper bushes at threat of disappearing from English countryside. Its berries have given gin its distinctive flavour for more than 350 years.

But soon the juniper bush could vanish for good from huge swathes of England's countryside, according to plant experts.

The charity Plantlife today warned that the evergreens were in "serious trouble" in Britain - and that some southern counties have lost 70 per cent of their populations.

Junipers have been part of Britain's landscape for thousands of years, and were one of the first trees to colonise Britain after the last Ice Age.

Their aromatic berries are used in cooking and medicine, and are the key ingredient of gin.

But the slow growing shrubs have been badly hit changes in farming since the 1960s, and the spread of rabbits and wild deer.

A favourite tipple of ladies who lunch, gin and tonics may one day be imported as English juniper bushes are under threat

Tim Wilkins, Plantlife's species recovery coordinator, said: 'Juniper is going down the pan in lowland England. Without action now, juniper faces extinction across much of lowland England within 50 years.

'The loss of juniper would represent more than the loss of a single species - it supports more than 40 species of insect and fungus that cannot survive without it.'

Juniper is a member of the conifer family and grows best on limestone and chalky soils.

The plant's seedlings need bare soil to become established - and are easily crowded out by other plants.

Plantlife says it has suffered from changes in land management since the Second World War and been hit by uncontrolled grazing of livestock, deer and rabbits.

Juniper bushes have been affected by uncontrolled grazing of livestock, deer and rabbits

The plant has also dwindled because of insect damage - and the spread of juniper berry mite.

Unlike most trees, junipers are either male or females. If trees grow in isolation, there will be no new seedlings.

The charity is calling on members of the public to look out for juniper shrubs and report their whereabouts. It is also testing out new techniques that could protect it from extinction across southern England.

In one experiment, volunteers will scrape away vegetation to expose bare soil and then plant juniper seeds. In another trial, they will place wire meshes underneath plants to stop voles and small rodents destroying the plants.

'We need more information about what is happening to junipers today,' said Mr Wilkins.

'It is the thin end of the wedge and its supports a large number of insects and fungi who will go if the juniper goes.

'Other plants need the same sort of habitats, so by protecting the juniper will also protect other species.'

Junipers rarely grow higher than 40 feet. They live for 200 years and have distinctive blue-green prickly needles with a white stripe. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Juniper bushes at threat of disappearing from English countryside

Check your tongue

Check your tongue. Doctors may look at our tongues to get a rough idea of our general health, but to the practioner of Chinese medicine, the tongue is as useful an instrument as the stethoscope for observing imbalances and, hopefully, averting ill-health.

Chinese medical physician Stefan Chmelik explains: 'Many parts of the body are said to be a microcosm of the whole - meaning that the whole body is reflected in the part. This is especially true of the tongue.

'So inspecting the tongue gives a measure of your current health by indicating areas of the body that could have what are known as yin/yang imbalances - yin is cooling, nourishing and moisturising, yang is warming, moving and activating. It can also indicate problems with chi - energy - within the body.

'Observation of your own tongue can be a useful way of knowing when to take action to avert a more serious problem occurring.

'Look at your tongue in sections. The front section represents the chest, the mid-section represents the abdomen and solar plexus (part of the nervous system, behind the stomach), and the back section represents the lower abdomen/lumbar region.

'Variations from normal - as described below - in any of these areas points to an actual or potential disharmony in that area. If the whole tongue is affected, this may be a sign of general ill-health. The "normal" tongue is pink, moist, a uniform flat shape and without thick coating, lines or spots.'

Common signs of inbalances

Colour: Red indicates heat. There could be inflammation or dehydration in the specific area. Drinking more water - at least eight large glasses a day - should help.

Pale indicates a lack of energy or blood deficiency, perhaps lack of iron or certain vitamins. Try a daily multivitamin and mineral supplement and eat more fruit and vegetables.

Purple indicates poor circulation of energy or blood. Try exercising more regularly - walking briskly for half an hour a day is recommended for everyone

Coating: The coatings of the tongue arise from various toxins that are present in the body. The thicker the coating, the greater the level of accumulation.

White: Phlegm or toxins due to an excess intake of what the Chinese call 'cold' foods, such as dairy products, wheat and fruit.

Yellow: Phlegm or toxins due to an excess intake of 'hot' foods, such as curries, sugar, alcohol or coffee. Try drinking pure fruit juices, cutting down on alcohol, coffee, tea and colas, spices and foods with refined sugars. Avoid dairy foods.

Grey: Possible phlegm accumulation from perhaps a cold or flu virus. Cut down on dairy products. Peeled patches: Moisture deficiency in the specific area. Drink more water and fruit juice.

Swollen: The tongue swells when there is too much fluid accumulating in the area of the body indicated. Take more fluids (water or fruit juices) to try to flush out the system.

Thin: Dehydration in the area indicated. Try drinking more water.

Tooth marked or scalloped edges: Congestion of the lymphatic system. Lymphatic drainage therapy may help.

Cracks: Cracking and dryness of the tongue can look like a dried-out riverbed pattern and indicates dehydration. Cracks at the centre indicate digestive problems.

Cracks at the tip indicate emotional or stress related problems. Listening to relaxation tapes can calm you down. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Check your tongue

Good sex everyday, keeps doctors away

Good sex everyday, keeps doctors away. You would have never thought that a kiss could help keeping dental worries at bay or a gratifying sexual act at night make you feel fit and fresh the next morning. But that's what studies across the web claim.

Healthy sex leads to a healthy life. You may have tried copious measures to get that extra glowing skin and shiny hair. You must have also worked out rigorously to achieve that perfect ten figure you've desired. But the key to your mind and heart is fulfilling sex. Even for those who lose their temper or are always in a depressed state of mind, 'sex' can be the solution.

A happy sexual life with your partner not only gets you in shape with better skin texture and silken tresses, it also burns extra calories, keeps you fit, combats asthma, relieves headache, reduces depression and tranquilises your mind. From make-up experts, hair stylists, sexologists and fitness connoisseurs – there's a common consensus that a vigourous sexual life leads to a healthy life – both physically and emotionally. We get them share more on this...

There have been several notions stating that 'sex' produces certain hormones that bring happiness, which lead to a fit body and a healthy mind. Shedding some light on this, Dr. Sanjay Chugh, specialist on sexual issues, states, "Sex contributes to general good health. Any sexual intimacy that is enjoyable and pleasurable promotes well being by providing several physical and psychological benefits. It is believed that sex boosts chemicals in the body that protects us against diseases. Research also suggests that sex and masturbation can help ease joint and muscle pain, combat depression, promote heart health and lengthen one's life span."

Dr. Samir Parikh, clinical physiatrist adds, "The basic fact is that a good sex life also means in a larger picture, a good relationship with one's partner and this makes the partner happier, less stressed and by virtue of that physically healthier."

Not just this, sex also accelerates blood circulation and one's basic metabolic rate, which further enhances the well-being of our mind and soul and helps us calm down.

On these emotional benefits, Dr Chugh adds, "A satisfying sexual relationship strengthens the bond between couples, making them feel secure and loved. The feeling of emotional connectedness adds to ones sense of belonging, which in totality helps them achieve a positive physical, psychological and spiritual state that is necessary for one's general health."

Elaborating further, on a scientific angle, Dr Avdesh Sharma, a consultant psychiatrist, and an expert on relationship issues shares, "Sex is a way of bonding at the physical, mental and emotional level and leads to health (including psychological) benefits. If it is used as a mechanical process, it may have limited benefits. There are physiological benefits of positive changes in parameters like pulse, heart rate, reduction in blood pressure (after an increase in B.P. specially if vigourous sex is tried), dilation of blood vessels and capillaries of the skin, leading to a 'glow', burning of a few calories (depending on the duration of the act and vigour), exercising of some of the muscles, thus improving lung capacity (during heavy breathing)."

However, we also need to understand that sexual acts work more in terms of improving resistance, but are not a safe guard or a treatment to illnesses. Any sexual act can neither be used as a treatment nor would it change your stresses of life, which one would need to resolve irrespective.

"The extra edge of sex may be due to the feeling of being wanted, an expression of emotions and certain hormonal and physiological changes that happen as an expression of love for another individual. Unfortunately, the benefits of sexuality are usually quoted out of context and people may look at this as a panacea for everything. But sexuality without emotions have limited value," concludes Dr Avdesh Sharma.

Here are some lesser known fun facts about sex.

Have sex stay fit :

Sex may seem like the safest sport you can take up. It de-stresses you, keeps you rejuvenated, elevates your moods and stretchs, tones and exercises your body muscles.

Expert opinion : Dr Ishi Khosla, clinical nutritionist, Director Whole Foods asserts, "Sexual acts certainly lead to a normal mental well-being and a healthy state of mind. This in turn creates a physically fit body. If there's an ill-health or manifestation of any problem, it would reflect on your outer body."

Dr Samir Parikh adds, "You would still need a balanced lifestyle, which means that if you compare two equals in terms of lifestyle age and other factors as a constant, then it's possible that a sexually active person feels better."

Sex burns extra calories :

It is indeed a form of exercise and naturally burns one's calories too.

Expert Opinion : Dr Geetu Amarnani, wellness expert at Kolmet Hospital, opines, "While having sex, the BMP (basic metabolic rate) increases and that ultimately helps in burning the calories, so it's widely believed that one can shed that extra flab through sexual encounters."

Sex for glowing skin and hair :

When women make love they produce the hormone oestrogen which makes their hair shine and their skin smooth.

Expert Opinion : Make-up expert Sylvie, also an expert on sexual issues asserts, "As sex helps releasing the extra level of frustration and stress on one's mind and body, so logically it leads to a glow on your face and your skin texture looks better too. Also, hormones in our body are activated at a faster rate than usual during sex, which helps in better blood circulation, adding that extra shine to one's skin and hair."

Sex brings relief from headaches, reduces depression and tranquilises your mind :

A satisfying love-making session releases tension that restricts blood vessels in the brain. It brings you out of a depressed state of mind and acts as a tranquilliser.

Expert Opinion : Dr Sanjay Chugh, "The pleasure that is derived from a satisfying sexual act tends to relax one's mind, taking away headache. It releases endorphins into the bloodstream, producing a sense of euphoria and leaving you with a feeling of well-being. Good sex leaves the person feeling relaxed and satisfied thus acting like a tranquiliser."

A kiss to keep dental problems at bay :

It is medically accepted that a kiss encourages saliva to wash food from the teeth and lowers the level of the acid that causes decay. It also prevents the build-up of plaque.

Expert Opinion : Dental expert, Dr. Vandana Jyoti opines, “Anything that increases salivation will help in bringing down the acid level, which causes damage to one’s teeth. It also prevents cavity. Other than a kiss, chewing gum and more of lemon intake also tend to act in the same manner. But one has to be extra careful, as it might act the other way round, in terms of spreading germs, if either of the two persons involved in a kiss is suffering from a tooth infection. ( indiatimes.com )

READ MORE - Good sex everyday, keeps doctors away

Don't Sweat the Invasion

Don't Sweat the Invasion. Why foreign plants and animals may not be that bad. Tamarisk, a Eurasian shrub, is your classic invasive species—designated one of America's "least wanted" plants by the National Parks Service. In recent decades, it has spread along Southwestern riverbanks, replacing native trees such as willows and cottonwoods.

For nature lovers in the region, tamarisks (also known as saltcedars) rank somewhere between Land Rovers and James Inhofe. Measures to thwart them include burning, herbicides, and "tammy whacking" (physical removal sometimes done by freelance volunteers). A few years ago, the USDA let loose thousands of leaf-eating Asian beetles in order to sic them on tamarisks, which die from the defoliation.

But these efforts to oust the intruder have encountered a glitch. It turns out that a charismatic endangered bird—the southwestern willow flycatcher—is known to nest in the offending shrubs. Last March, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the government, charging that indiscriminately killing tamarisks jeopardizes the flycatcher.

A recent article in the journal Restoration Ecology goes even further in the weed's defense. Tamarisks are widely thought to hog water and drive out other vegetation, but the authors dispute that theory. In their view, the newcomer may just be better suited than the natives to an environment altered by human activities.

These controversies highlight a broader debate within "invasion biology," a field that emerged in the 1980s. Some scientists—such as Matthew Chew, Dov Sax, and Mark Davis—are challenging what they consider old prejudices about "alien" species. They point out the inevitability of change and the positive roles that non-natives can play in ecosystems, while describing eradication projects as often wasteful and even counterproductive.

The outlook of the more traditional camp goes something like this: While most non-natives are harmless, a minority—about 10 percent—cause serious damage. Some pose threats to human health (H1N1 is an invasive species), while others, such as agricultural pests, wreak economic havoc. A third category dramatically changes landscapes. (Think kudzu, the creeping vine that has conquered the Southeastern United States.) And since these effects are unpredictable—sleeper species can seem benign for decades—all exotics are suspect.

The hard-liners promote a "guilty until proven innocent" approach to biological foreigners, including a strict "white list" of those allowed to enter each country. As globalization accelerates the movement of species, vigilance is more important than ever. Climate change adds another wildcard, making the behavior of organisms all the harder to foresee.

Now a growing contingent of scientists is advocating a more neutral attitude. Certainly, they say, non-native plants and critters can be terribly destructive—the tree-killing gypsy mothSouthern Pine Beetle can cause similar harm. The effects of exotics on biodiversity are mixed. Their entry into a region may reduce indigenous populations, but they're not likely to cause any extinctions (at least on continents and in oceans—lakes and islands are more vulnerable).

Since the arrival of Europeans in the New World, hundreds of imports have flourished in their new environments. Common wildflowers such as Queen Anne's lace and certain kinds of daisies are "naturalized" aliens. The storied comes to mind. Yet natives such as the apple tree originally hailed from Asia.

Even when species are destructive, there's the tricky question of what to do about them. We may all agree that a particular plant or animal is loathsome, but eradication isn't innocuous. Such plans tend to cost millions of dollars and often rely on toxins that bring collateral damage to other species. Biological solutions—like leaf-eating beetles and root-boring weevils—are usually considered more benign, but as the case of the tamarisk shows, they, too, can pose problems. Once an ecosystem has absorbed a new species, any targeted intervention is likely to have significant ripple effects.

The past few years have also seen active debates about the field's terminology. Some criticize the term "invasive" as too value-laden and imprecise. One widely cited definition comes from a 1999 executive order, issued by President Clinton, that aimed to ward off "alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." But what exactly constitutes "environmental harm"? It's easy to see when a power plant is hemorrhaging pollutants into the air and water—but how do you make the call when the agent of harm to nature is … also nature? Critics such as Mark Davis say we need to distinguish "harm" from "change." If an introduced species causes natives to become less abundant, does that constitute harm? Many people would say yes, but Davis doesn't ( slate.com )

READ MORE - Don't Sweat the Invasion

What's the environmental impact of going into space?

Dirty Rockets. What's the environmental impact of going into space?. We hear so much about the environmental impacts of transportation. What about space travel? How do rockets affect the atmosphere?

There's a simple reason why we hear a lot more about cars, ships, and planes than we do about rocket ships: There are lot more of them. Each flight into space does have a small impact on the planet it leaves behind, but—for the moment, at least—these launchings are very rare. Only a couple of rockets blast off every week around the world. As a result, space travel doesn't register on most environmentalists' radars.

One issue that might deserve some attention has to do with the depletion of stratospheric ozone, a topic we discussed a few months back. Rocket engines emit reactive gases that cause ozone molecules to break apart. They also discharge microscopic particles of soot and aluminum oxide, which may increase the rate at which those gases wreak havoc.

Each variety of rocket propellant delivers its own blend of ozone-depleting substances: Solid propellants, for example, are more damaging than liquid ones, though exactly how much is unclear. Engine design matters, too. To make matters worse, spacecraft dump some of these pollutants directly into the upper and middle stratosphere, where they can start causing damage immediately.

Despite all this, spacecraft contribute very little to the global ozone problem. In a recent paper on the topic, researcher Martin Ross and three co-authors estimated that rocket launches are responsible for roughly 1 percent of the total ozone depletion that can be attributed to human causes.

That percentage may rise, however, as more traditional pollutants, like CFCs, start to fade from the atmosphere (thanks to the 1987 Montreal Protocol). At the same time, the number of launches—for purposes of exploration, tourism, and space-based solar power (PDF)—is expected to increase. One of the study's co-authors has been quoted as saying, "If left unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs."

All that stratospheric damage may increase rates of skin cancer and cataracts, but what effect might rockets have on global climate change? The exhaust from space-ship engines does add several kilotons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year. But that's just a smidgen compared with the several hundred kilotons produced by aircraft, as Ross and his co-authors point out. Aircraft, in turn, are responsible for just 2 percent to 5 percent of the world's CO₂ emissions. Even with major growth in the space industry, the authors say, it's unlikely that rockets will become a significant issue vis-à-vis climate change.

One wild card, though, are those microscopic particles we mentioned earlier—soot and aluminum oxide. They don't last very long in the stratosphere—only a few years, as opposed to centuries for carbon dioxide—but on a per-unit-of-mass basis, they can be very effective at changing the radiation balance in the atmosphere. The problem is, it's not always clear how they'll change that balance.

Bits of aluminum oxide, for example, reflect the visible light from the sun back into space, which cools the Earth. But those same particles can also absorb infrared radiation emanating from the planet's surface, essentially trapping heat the way a greenhouse gas does. Soot, too, can help warm or cool the planet, depending on the size, number, and location of the particles.

Atmospheric scientists do have the models to calculate what the overall climate effects of a given launch might be, even taking the fickle particles into consideration. What they don't have, Ross says, are good enough data on what's actually in those rocket plumes, particularly when it comes to engines using liquid propellants or the new "hybrid" propellants (which use a combination of a solid fuel and a liquid oxidizer).

While this research proceeds, it's worth taking a moment to consider how rocket launches pollute the environment just beyond our borders—namely, the otherwise pristine wilds of outer space. Space journeys leave behind all kinds of debris, including old batteries, jettisoned components, and human refuse.

NASA estimates that there are upward of 500,000 pieces of debris larger than one centimeter currently orbiting the planet—not to mention tens of millions of really tiny particles, which can damage sensitive equipment despite their diminutive size. One astrophysicist recently compared our celestial junkyard to a massive Superfund site. If we really want future generations to have the option of enjoying the final frontier, it's worth thinking about how to keep the place clean for them. ( slate.com)

READ MORE - What's the environmental impact of going into space?

More isn't always better

Screen Saver? When it comes to cancer screening, more isn't always better. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has announced new mammography guidelines this week. While the task force previously encouraged screenings for women beginning at 40, it has now pushed the threshold to 50. Concerns over frequent false positives and patient anxiety influenced the group's recommendation. Though many believe that there can never be enough testing, a 2004 "Medical Examiner" by Amanda Schaffer explained that the risks of false positives, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment are real. The article is reprinted below.

Americans are enormously committed to cancer screening. In a national survey recently published by Dr. Lisa Schwartz and co-authors in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 87 percent of respondents agreed that "routine cancer screening is almost always a good idea," and 74 percent felt that early detection saves lives "most or all of the time." In fact, so enthusiastic were the survey participants that 73 percent of them said they would rather receive a free full-body CT scan than $1,000 in cash. What to make of these dramatic findings? Clearly, years of strong, scare-oriented public health messages, particularly with regard to breast cancer screening—"Don't be a victim" and similar slogans—have gotten through to the public. The dogma that more is always better when it comes to cancer screening has taken hold, undiluted by any sense of screening's drawbacks.

Yet there are drawbacks—ranging from the risk of false positives to the more complex issues of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. While early detection can certainly have benefits, it's not true that screening can only help—and can't hurt. Indeed, skeptics within the medical community, including the authors of the JAMA survey, have started to become more vocal in an effort to create a more balanced public view.

There are many types of screening, some of which are well-known: mammograms to test for breast cancer, Pap smears for cervical cancer, PSA tests for prostate cancer, fecal occult blood tests for colon cancer, and chest CT scans for lung cancer. What these tests have in common is that they look for early warning signs, including small cellular abnormalities, in healthy, asymptomatic people—sometimes as part of a checkup, sometimes as part of a public-outreach program. Most tests are suggested to patients based on age and gender—PSA tests for older men, mammography for older women. (More "comprehensive" testing is also available for the worried well through executive health programs and at medical boutiques in strip malls, where patients can undergo full-body CT scans, an aggressive form of testing generally disdained by doctors.) But just what are the risks associated with testing? Isn't more information, particularly about the vagaries of the body, always a good thing?

A Risk of False Positives

This is probably the most familiar problem associated with routine screening: Tests sometimes yield a positive result in a person who does not have cancer. Consider, for instance, PSA screening for prostate cancer in men over the age of 50: 15 percent will have elevated PSA levels while only 3 percent will in fact have cancer; that is, 12 percent will receive a false-positive result. Or consider lung cancer screening for former smokers: Between 25 percent and 60 percent will have abnormalities on a chest CT scan, though few of these irregularities will turn out to be cancer. The problem here is that patients are made to worry unnecessarily. "Cancer" is such a dreaded diagnosis in our culture—spoken of in whispers or referred to as "the C word"—that for most people, discovering that "it might be cancer" is no small thing, even if further testing is required.

Then there's the question of further testing, which, particularly for colon and lung cancer, can be fairly invasive. Lung biopsies, for example, may involve a needle passed through the chest wall or an actual open-chest surgery to remove sample tissue, depending on the location of the abnormality. Such procedures come with a host of possible complications, including infection, bleeding, partial lung collapse, pneumonia, and heart attacks, which necessarily give one pause. These problems may not occur very often—and accurate numbers are hard to come by—but former smokers, the people most likely to undergo testing, are also most likely to suffer complications since their hearts are generally weaker and their lungs don't heal as well or as quickly after biopsy.

A Risk of Overdiagnosis

Equally important, and perhaps more surprising, is the fact that some cancers will never progress to cause problems. That is to say, many more cancers are detected through screening than would ever turn out to be life-threatening or even uncomfortable for the patient (the buzzword here is "overdiagnosis"). This issue has been discussed largely for prostate cancer, in which tumors are generally slow-growing, and elderly patients sometimes die of other diseases (say, heart attacks) before their cancers cause significant symptoms. It's increasingly clear, however, that overdiagnosis occurs across the board, even in cancers long viewed as aggressive, such as lung cancer. As Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, said in a recent phone interview, the evidence that lung cancer, too, can be nonprogressive came as "an eye-opener"; "I would now say overdiagnosis is the rule, not the exception."

The evidence of this phenomenon is often indirect: If all of the newly discovered cases of prostate cancer, say, or of ductal carcinoma in situ, an early form of breast cancer, were destined to progress, our rates of prostate cancer mortality and of invasive breast cancer should be much higher than they are—even taking into account advances in treatment. The magnitude of overdiagnosis is difficult to pinpoint and varies from one type of cancer to another. But what's clear is that the more screening we do—and the more sensitive our technology—the more we will detect tiny cancers, many of which will be clinically insignificant.

The challenge here is to continually revise our understanding of what cancer is and how it evolves—or doesn't evolve—in the body. Not only do some abnormalities grow very slowly, some actually regress without treatment, as a result of complex interaction between precancerous cells and the body's immune system. This can be true, for example, of LSILs and HSILs, low-grade and high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, detected by Pap smears and linked to cervical cancer. As it turns out, through processes that are not well-understood, many—and some say most—LSILs and HSILs will simply improve on their own.

And yet another wrinkle arises from the ambiguity of some test samples: In more cases than you'd expect, pathologists disagree on whether a particular image shows cancer or not. In one especially telling study published in 1996 in Human Pathology, a panel of eight highly credentialed pathologists reviewed a series of 37 slides to determine which represented melanoma, or skin cancer, and which showed benign lesions. Surprisingly, for a significant minority of slides—38 percent of them—two or more pathologists disagreed with the majority opinion. This finding and others like it are important because they highlight the subjectivity associated with cancer diagnosis; subtle, cellular alterations may fall into a gray area between cancer and not-cancer, particularly for early stage cases—the very realm in which screening is routinely used.

A Risk of Overtreatment

Once an abnormality is labeled cancer, it is difficult for the patient and physician to "do nothing." In addition to subtle pressures on the doctor (the fear of malpractice, the prevailing standard of aggressive care), it is simply not possible to know whether a given, tiny lesion represents a case of overdiagnosis or a clinically significant finding. The inclination is usually to err on the side of caution and to proceed with treatment. But treatments can be harsh, ranging from surgery (in the case of women with DCIS) to radiation and chemotherapy, all of which have severe side effects and which no one would want to undertake unnecessarily.

The furor over mammography—triggered in part by a meta-analysis published in the Lancet in 2000—focused on the contention that screening did not reduce women's overall mortality; worse still, in one study, mortality for the screened women was actually slightly higher than for the control group, a finding attributed to overtreatment—in this case, increased heart attacks caused by radiation therapy. Radiation protocols have now been changed to minimize the heart region's exposure. But a fundamental question remains: Are there cases in which the cure is worse that the disease?

The answer is clearly yes—at least some of the time. In prostate cancer, abnormal cells are often slow-growing, and treatment can cause impotence and incontinence. Dr. Stephen Taplin, a senior scientist at the National Cancer Institute, helpfully compares some prostate cancers to gray hair, more a byproduct of aging than a life-threatening issue. "If I made men impotent and incontinent because they had gray hair, there wouldn't be any question I'd be hurting them," he said in a phone interview. But if these problems occurred as a result of aggressive cancer treatment, "most men would say, 'Doctor, you've saved me!'"

A final, terrible irony is that while screening leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, it also misses some cancers—and these tend to be the most aggressive, fastest-growing ones. This is because fast-growing abnormalities (for any type of cancer) are statistically more likely to develop during the window between tests, causing problems before, say, an annual screening can provide fair warning.

So how to explain the public's simple faith in testing—the significant gap between scientific evidence and popular perception? Many social and cultural pressures conspire here—and a complete catalog would no doubt include everything from physician report cards (which rate physicians according to the percentage of patients screened) to celebrity testimonials, from the financial interests of some doctors and health networks invested in imaging to the well-intentioned work of advocacy groups, particularly for women.

But one factor that has really muddied the debate deserves special mention: the "five-year survival rate," as it is called, often deployed to support screening. ("Five-year survival" represents the percentage of people diagnosed with a particular kind of cancer at a particular time who are still alive five years later.) As Dr. H. Gilbert Welch points out in his excellent book, Should I Be Tested for Cancer? this is a highly misleading statistic for the following reason: When cancers are detected early, the five-year survival rate (dated from the time of diagnosis) will necessarily improve—even if patients live no longer than they would have otherwise. Overdiagnosis further inflates the figure since more people are identified with nonprogressive cases who can be expected to live longer.

The public-health challenge, then, is to convey a more balanced, realistic message about cancer testing so that people will be receptive to negative as well as positive news about particular tests. There is good evidence to support regular Pap smears in women, no good evidence (at least not yet) to support routine lung-cancer screening for former smokers. Thus, it is particularly disheartening to see a large-scale screening program such as the New York Early Lung Cancer Action Program (full disclosure: NY-ELCAP is led by researchers at Cornell Medical School, where this writer studied medicine), which lacks a control group and so will not be able to clarify whether screening 10,000 former smokers actually saves lives. (A devastating critique of NY-ELCAP by Dr. Steven Woloshin, along with Schwartz and Welch, is available in the Lancet, but not for free.) That this massive project is heavily funded by New York's tobacco settlement fund provides a further, unfortunate twist.

Ultimately, the public needs to set aside automatic enthusiasm for screening and develop a new kind of savvy—one that balances hope with a certain dose of healthy skepticism and leads people to embark on testing only after considering a host of variables, both personal and scientific. As it turns out, in cancer screening, as in so much else, there really isn't a free lunch. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - More isn't always better

Tips for Temps

Tips for Temps. If you've been thinking about temporary or contract work while you sort out your career choices or gain experience, you're certainly not alone. An increasing number of professionals are choosing project work, and there are numerous opportunities available. In fact, a recent survey of executives by Robert Half International shows that two-thirds (66 percent) of companies are using as many or more temporary professionals today versus five years ago.

It's not hard to see why job seekers are attracted to this arrangement. Temporary professionals are often able to arrange their work schedules so they can effectively balance professional and personal priorities, and many -- especially those with hard-to-find skill sets -- earn more than their full-time counterparts.

But success in the role requires more than just responding to the first "temporary help wanted" sign you see. Here are some tips for getting the most out of interim work:

Find the right staffing service

If you decide that becoming a temporary professional is the right choice for you, how do you get started? First, find the right staffing firm. Many staffing services have Web sites that describe the level of service they provide as well as the types of companies and industries they focus on.

Your best bet is to identify a staffing firm that specializes in the field in which you have experience or interest. For example, if you're an accountant, you want a staffing firm that specializes in placing accounting and finance professionals. These firms typically have the knowledge to understand your needs and the contacts to find you the job you're looking for.

It's also wise to check with friends or family members who have worked with staffing firms in the past for recommendations. And call a handful of staffing firms in your area to ask the following questions:

• How long have you been in business?
• What is the market for someone with my skills?
• How many openings do you currently have for the position I seek?
• What makes your firm superior to others?

Also, pay attention to the details, like how promptly your inquiry is addressed and how you are treated over the phone. If your skills are a match for the types of jobs the staffing firm has available, you will be asked to schedule an interview with a representative from the firm. Bring a copy of your current resume as well as a list of references to the meeting.

Understand your responsibilities

Once you're offered an interim position, not only should you review the basic job duties and objectives with your staffing manager but also clarify all aspects of the job with your on-site supervisor upon your arrival. You'll avoid misunderstandings and be more productive if you seek clarification up front. The more you can do to obtain a big-picture view of your assignment, the better you'll be able to perform.

Ask for help and request feedback

Employers expect interim professionals to hit the ground running, but don't be afraid to ask for specific information that may be necessary for you to do the best job. This may include, for example, instruction on proprietary systems, unique business practices or customized features of a software application.

Throughout the assignment, seek feedback on your performance from your supervisors and those with whom you work closely. Requesting feedback and remaining open to guidance and constructive criticism will enable you to be more effective.

Take temporary assignments seriously

The biggest mistake interim workers can make is being shortsighted. While the position may be temporary, the impression you make is not. Remember that even brief assignments can offer many professional benefits, including opportunities to make valuable industry contacts and enhance your skills. Give your all from the first to the last day you're on the job.

Some temporary assignments will be more enjoyable and challenging than others. Nonetheless, bring the same level of energy, enthusiasm and professionalism to each job. In a recent survey by Robert Half International, 87 percent of executives said it is valuable to hire someone on a temporary basis as a means of evaluating him or her for a full-time position. The more professionally you approach a temporary assignment and the greater value you add to the project, the more likely managers will be to comment favorably on your performance to your staffing firm or even make you an offer for a full-time role.( msn.com )

READ MORE - Tips for Temps

Humans Still Evolving as Our Brains Shrink

Humans Still Evolving as Our Brains Shrink. Evolution in humans is commonly thought to have essentially stopped in recent times. But there are plenty of examples that the human race is still evolving, including our brains, and there are even signs that our evolution may be accelerating.

Weighing in at an average of 2.7 pounds (1,200 grams), the human brain packs a whopping 100 billion neurons. Every minute, about three soda-cans worth of blood flow through the brain

Shrinking brains

Comprehensive scans of the human genome reveal that hundreds of our genes show evidence of changes during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.

"We know the brain has been evolving in human populations quite recently," said paleoanthropologist John Hawks at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Surprisingly, based on skull measurements, the human brain appears to have been shrinking over the last 5,000 or so years.

"When it comes to recent evolutionary changes, we currently maybe have the least specific details with regard the brain, but we do know from archaeological data that pretty much everywhere we can measure — Europe, China, South Africa, Australia — that brains have shrunk about 150 cubic centimeters, off a mean of about 1,350. That's roughly 10 percent," Hawks said.

"As to why is it shrinking, perhaps in big societies, as opposed to hunter-gatherer lifestyles, we can rely on other people for more things, can specialize our behavior to a greater extent, and maybe not need our brains as much," he added.

Mutations against malaria

In contrast to our limited but growing knowledge regarding the modern evolution of the human brain, the best example we see of evolution of humans in recent history is linked with malaria, Hawks said. Since the disease often targets humans early in life, there was a strong pressure to evolve defenses from malaria — any genetic factor that confers resistance against it would give descendents a chance to have offspring, while those without such protection were more likely to not reproduce.

There are lots of examples of defenses against malaria. Sickle cell anemia is the best known —the disorder deforms red blood cells into sickle shapes, which can impair blood flow, thus damaging tissues, this malformation also prevents the malaria parasite from infesting blood cells.

"Although sickle cell is best known in Africa, there is also an India-Pakistan variant of it that seems to have evolved separately," Hawks explained. "Both variants have evolved very recently, in the last three or four thousand years, and in that time have risen to as much as 10 to 15 percent of the populations. That's pretty rapid change."

Food and drink

Lactose tolerance is another recent example of a recent evolutionary change.

Most of the world remains lactose intolerant, unable to digest the complex milk sugar lactose as adults, but the evolution of lactose tolerance perhaps some 7,500 years ago in Europe enabled people there to take advantage of non-human milk, a highly nutritious food source one can sustainably procure instead of slaughtering animals.

Other evolutionary changes linked with diet appear to deal with genes conferring protection against type II diabetes.

"When you develop agricultural diets, you might need adaptations to survive on them, the way the digestive systems are regulated," Hawks said.

Is our evolution accelerating?

There are signs that human evolution may not only be continuing, but that its rate has even accelerated in recent times. Hawks and his colleagues have found evidence of rapid change, with a host of new mutations originating in the last 40,000 years.

So what might explain this apparent acceleration?

"The ecology of humans has been changing," Hawks said. "The biggest changes have to do with agriculture and its consequences — dealing with a new subsistence pattern that caused people to rely on foods that were never very important before, a radical shift from hunter-gatherer diets. For instance, agricultural populations tend to have more copies of a gene for salivary amylase, which helps them digest starch." ( kompas.com )

READ MORE - Humans Still Evolving as Our Brains Shrink