Coal-fired power plants are responsible for two-thirds of air-borne mercury pollution in the US - more than all the other sources combined. In a new report out this week, Environment America looks at where most of that pollution is coming from.

Using data from the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory, the report finds that Texas was the biggest emitter of mercury in 2010, spewing 11,127 pounds into the atmosphere. (Six of the top nation's top 10 mercury emitters are in the Lone Star State. Fairfield, Texas is home to the Big Brown Steam Electric Station and Lignite Coal Mine, which together were responsible for 1,610 pounds of mercury pollution.) Texas dwarfed Ohio, the second-highest emitter, which emitted 4,218 pounds. Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Indiana round out the top five.

The report also found that five companies were responsible for more than a third of mercury emissions from power plants. American Electric Power was responsible for the most, at 6,200 pounds, followed by Luminant Generation Co., Southern Co., Ameren Corp., and NRG Energy.

Here's where most of that mercury pollution is concentrated:

Is it possible that as much as 35% of invasive breast cancers will go away on their own if left alone? This is the conclusion of Norwegian researcher Dr. Per-Henrik Zahl, who analyzed data from more than 600,000 Swedish women, half of whom had regular mammogram screening and half who did not. Dr. Zahl suggests that breast cancers may be over diagnosed, in much the same way that prostate cancers are over diagnosed. The study was published in Lancet Oncology.

What makes this study especially useful is that the so-called in situ cancers such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were excluded. In most cases, DCIS would be better defined as a pre-cancer, just as stage 1 and 2 pap smears are considered pre-cancers. It makes sense that many, if not most in situ cancers would go away on their own. This evidence that invasive cancers may also go away on their own is very important, because it could save tens of thousands of women from unnecessary surgery.

Dr. Zahl recommends treating women with small tumors, identified by needle biopsy as estrogen-receptor positive, with tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Both reduce the incidence of breast cancer but have serious side effects. Breast cancer risk can be reduced in many ways, including hormone balancing, good vitamin D levels, avoiding toxins such as pesticides, a wholesome diet and stress management. If women were counseled on these risks, and given support for making the necessary lifestyle changes, odds are good these tiny cancers would regress. I recommend the book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You about Breast Cancer (Lee, Zava, Hopkins) for a better understanding of what causes breast cancer and what can be done to prevent it.

Our ancestors shifted away from raw meat 1.9 million years ago

Cooked meat provides more energy than raw meat and may have helped drive human evolution, according to a new study.

The finding that cooking increases the energy we derive from meat also raises questions about the way modern humans eat, said Rachel Carmody, a student in the department of human evolutionary biology at Harvard University.

In her study, she fed two groups of mice different diets of meat or sweet potatoes over 40 days. The food was prepared four ways: raw and whole; raw and pounded; cooked and whole; and cooked and pounded.

Changes in each mouse's body mass index were tracked, along with how often they used an exercise wheel. The results clearly showed that cooked meat provided more energy to the mice than raw meat, Carmody said.

This article in the journal Nutrition was pretty simple. A 19 year old male sought treatment for lack of libido and sexual dysfunction. He had voluntarily started a vegan diet previously. The study measured the effects of ceasing a vegan diet and removing soy from the diet.

Yeah, this study has been around for a couple months. Apparently I was a sleep at the wheel that day. I think Keith Norris posted it on facebook yesterday. Thanks!

Abstract
Previous research has focused on the beneficial effects of soy and its active ingredients, isoflavones. For instance, soy consumption has been associated with lower cardiovascular and breast cancer risks. However, the number of reports demonstrating adverse effects of isoflavones due to their estrogenlike properties has increased. We present the case of a 19-y-old type 1 diabetic but otherwise healthy man with sudden onset of loss of libido and erectile dysfunction after the ingestion of large quantities of soy-based products in a vegan-style diet. Blood levels of free and total testosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) were taken at the initial presentation for examination and continuously monitored up to 2 y after discontinuation of the vegan diet. Blood concentrations of free and total testosterone were initially decreased, whereas DHEA was increased. These parameters normalized within 1 y after cessation of the vegan diet. Normalization of testosterone and DHEA levels was paralleled by a constant improvement of symptoms; full sexual function was regained 1 y after cessation of the vegan diet. This case indicates that soy product consumption is related to hypogonadism and erectile dysfunction. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a combination of decreased free testosterone and increased DHEA blood concentrations after consuming a soy-rich diet. Hence, this case emphasizes the impact of isoflavones in the regulation of sex hormones and associated physical alterations.

Agriculture is the basis for models of the primitive and imperial state. Plant-based diets cannot support even paleolithic human population levels without agriculture. Therefore, a plant-based diet is a fundamentally imperialist diet.

The agrarian has offered us a devil's bargain. By inducing population levels unsustainable by our planet's naturally ecology through industrial agriculture, they now offer to sell us back the same product on the basis of said artificially inflated population. Their solution to unsustainable population? Shocker, doubling-down with more industrial agriculture.

"In the fertile lands of the Unites States and Canada a saying grew up that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian," because the Indian encumbered the land which the farmer needed for cultivation of crops, and the miner for his digging and delving. The Indian was in the way and had to go, for we could not let questions of mere humanitarianism and justice restrain us from taking possession of the valuable lands that the Indian had inherited from his ancestors. In the South, economic and humanitarian interests were diametrically opposed, and the economic had their way. In the North, economic and humanitarian interests happened to coincide. The northern land was valueless to the farmer, and the country was of value to the trading companies only in so far as it produced fur; and furs could best be secured by perpetuating the Indian and keeping him in possession of the lands, because dead men do not set traps. The only good Indian in the North was the live Indian who brought in fur to sell." - Vilhjalmur Stefansson, My Life With the Eskimo, 1912

A growing body of medical research at leading universities and government laboratories suggests that processed foods and sugary drinks aren't simply unhealthy. They can hijack the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine and other drugs.

"The data is so overwhelming the field has to accept it," said Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "We are finding tremendous overlap between drugs in the brain and food in the brain."

The idea that food may be addictive was barely on scientists' radar a decade ago. Now the field is heating up. Lab studies have found sugary drinks and fatty foods can produce addictive behavior in animals. Brain scans of obese people and compulsive eaters, meanwhile, reveal disturbances in brain reward circuits similar to those experienced by drug abusers.

You may have heard that the US Department of State (DOS) is taking action on the hazardous mercury that's all around us. But not much action...

DOS has made its position clear on mercury at a public meeting led by Deputy Special Representative Dr. John Thompson.

He says the DOS will tackle mercury in amalgam fillings...but not anytime soon.

"There is enough evidence about this issue to phase it DOWN," says Dr. Thompson. But he stresses that..."we don't mean phase OUT."

That phase down won't begin until 2020 at the earliest...and possibly as late as 2030.

So...why the delay?

Dr. Thompson says the first thing the DOS needs to do is study good alternatives to mercury. But plenty of doctors say this is unacceptable.

Dogtor J Interview on Pets and the GARD Diet

In this exclusive interview with veterinarian, Dr. John Symes, (otherwise known as Dogtor J), gluten sensitivity and household pets are discussed.


Gluten Sensitivity in Dogs and Cats

Dogs and cats are scientifically classified as carnivores. That means meat eaters. That being the case why does mainstream veterinarian medicine so heavily recommend dog foods that contain grain as the primary ingredient. Below is a label example of a common commercial dog food. Notice the extensive use of grains, gluten, and chemicals:

I came across this story this morning. In short, it tells us that EU bureaucrats have forbidden companies that sell bottled water from claiming that water can prevent dehydration. I've not read the ruling, just the report I link to. But it seems, on the surface, to be a decision which has taken considerable time and resources which was, in the end, motivated more by politics than anything else.

I honestly believe that maintaining hydration is one of the simplest, easiest and cheapest things individuals can do to maintain their energy and vitality. I have seen countless individuals with low fluid intakes experience considerable uplift in their general well being just by upping their consumption of water and other beverages. The effect appears, to me, to be incredibly consistent. It might be a giant placebo response, of course, though trust me when I tell you that if that's the case, few people will mind: it's feeling better that they principally care about, not the precise mechanism(s) that brought that about.

Because many of us are very weight-conscious, it's natural to judge the impact of our diet almost entirely on how it registers on the scales. This commonly manifests as someone who eats a not-so-good diet (and knowing that is the case) believing that they are 'getting away with it' as long as they are not putting on weight. However, our body weight does not always accurately reflect our health and what might be going on deeper within the body.

To begin with, our weight tells us nothing about our body's composition, nor where any additional fat is accumulated. This is important because over the years we may lose muscle and gain fat but see little change in the scales. However, this change in body composition may reflect declining health, and that's particularly the case if that additional fat is packing itself in and around the abdominal organs (so-called 'visceral' fat).