10-year-old girl gives birth in Colombia

10-year-old girl gives birth in Colombia - A 10-year-old girl from Colombia recently gave birth to a healthy baby girl, Univision’s Primer Impacto reported.

The girl, whose name is not being released due to privacy reasons, is from Manaure, a town in the Colombian Department of La Guajira, which is comprised of various indigenous tribes. The girl is a part of the Wayuu tribe in Northern Columbia.

According to Univision, when the girl arrived at the hospital, she was bleeding heavily and screaming from the contraction pain.

Univision reported that the girl “escaped certain death,” and doctors delivered the 5-pound, 5-ounce baby via caesarean section.

Doctors said the girl did not understand what was going on.

"We've already had two cases - lamentable because one girl was 10 years-old. We hope there aren't anymore,” said Dr. Fabio Gonzalez, the gynecologist who treated her.

It was unclear how the girl got pregnant or who the father is.

The case is being investigated by police; however, they need to respect the tribes’ laws, according to Univision. For the time being, the mother and child will stay at the hospital.

Experts say certain medical care needs to be given to such young mothers.

A 10-year-old’s body would not be defined for pregnancy with its short stature, said Dr. Abdulla Al-Khan, a leading high-risk obstetrician, who was interviewed by FoxNews.com in February 2010 when an 11-year-old girl gave birth to a baby boy in the Northern U.S.

At the time, Al-Khan noted that a pre-teen’s chest might not necessarily be developed enough for breast tissue – and exposing such a young child to high amounts of progesterone and estrogen could stunt her growth.

Al-Khan said a C-section is the best bet in these cases, as such a young pelvis is not designed for childbirth.

"The textbooks don’t even tell you how to deal with a 10-year-old; it’s completely different even though we understand the basics," Al-Khan said. ( foxnews.com )

READ MORE - 10-year-old girl gives birth in Colombia

One in three babies born this year will live to 100

One in three babies born this year will live to 100 - One in three babies born this year will live to the age of 100, official projections have concluded.

Tens of thousands of extra people will live to see in the milestone, according to the Office for National Statistics.

The official projections on “mortality”, published on Monday, suggested that “at every age”, females had more chance of reaching their 100th birthdays than males did.

Up to 100 babies are screened at Southampton General Hospital's hip clinic every week with around one in every 20 full-term babies has some level of instability and swaddling-related incidences are increasing

More women than men will live to 100 (Picture: ALAMY)

The projections said that a third of babies born in 2012 would live to be 100, with nearly 40 per cent of baby girls compared to just under a third of baby boys reaching the milestone.

The ONS report, titled "What Are The Chances Of Surviving To Age 100?", also suggests more people will live to get a card through the post from the Monarch of the day.

More than 95,000 people aged 65 in 2012 are expected to celebrate their 100th birthday in 2047.

Researchers found that only 10 per cent of men aged 65 this year and 14 per cent of women the same age would reach this milestone.

According to the latest figures there are 826,000 babies aged under one year in Britain, with 423,000 being male and 403,000 female.

Of these, 135,000 men and 156,000 women, who were born in 2012, are expected to still be alive by the age of 100, the ONS said.

Meanwhile of the 395,000 men and 417,000 women aged 65 this year, 10 per cent of men and 14 per cent of women respectively will reach 100.

According to the ONS figures, the number of people who are aged 100 years or more has increased from just 600 in 1961, the first year for official midyear population estimates, to nearly 13,000 in 2010.

The government statisticians projected this to rise to 456,000 by 2060.

“The size of a birth cohort has an impact on the number of people surviving 100 years later,” an ONS spokesman said.

“For example the peak at around age 45 in 2012 relates to the 1960s baby boom and the dip at around age 11 in 2012 relates to the low point in fertility in 2001.”

The rising ageing population will likely have significant impacts on future elderly care.

Last week The Daily Telegraph disclosed that elderly people face paying up to £100,000 for their care under a secret government plans.

George Osborne hinted in the Budget that the “burden” of funding services for Britain’s ageing population should not fall on younger generations.

Last year a government adviser, Andrew Dilnot, proposed a new system of funding for elderly care, intended to ensure that pensioners are no longer forced to sell their homes to cover the cost of care in old age.

Under his plan, no one would pay more than £35,000 during their lifetime for their personal care.

The Treasury, however, is said to be reluctant to provide the £1.7 billion a year in extra funding that the Dilnot plan would require. Some officials are believed to favour a scheme which would see all but the poorest pensioners pay the full cost of their care.

The Department of Health has modelled a plan under which the cap could be set at £100,000, almost three times the level Mr Dilnot proposed, the Telegraph has learned.

But elderly people should be protected from the six-figure bills for residential care, a minister suggested,

Paul Burstow, the Liberal Democrat care services minister, said he believed that this figure was “too high”.

Cross party talks are under way in an attempt to forge a consensus between Labour and the coalition on how to fund social care for elderly and disabled adults in future.

But the plans have stalled as the talks struggle to reach agreement. The White Paper was originally intended to be published next month, but now looks unlikely to appear before June.

Mr Burstow stressed that talks were continuing over the plans, including discussions with Labour in an attempt to reach a cross-party deal.

"No decisions have been taken about funding reform," the minister said.

"Since receiving Andrew Dilnot's report, we have been engaging with stakeholders on their priorities.

"They told us the level of the cap was important and if it were too high, such as £100k, it would not deliver the intended benefits. "The coalition government is currently holding talks with the opposition on reform of funding."

He added: "We will publish our plans for reform of care and support in a white paper and progress report later this spring."

Currently, there is no limit on care bills and an estimated 20,000 people a year are forced to sell their homes to pay for long term support. One in 10 faces care costs of more than £100,000, according to government figures.

The ONS said its projections were not “forecasts and do not attempt to predict the impact that future government policies, changing economic circumstances or other factors … might have on demographic behaviour”. ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - One in three babies born this year will live to 100

How to Live to 100, Starting Today

How to Live to 100, Starting Today - Is living to 100 a goal of yours? Even if it's not, these expert tips on living a longer, healthier, and happier life will come in handy.

1. Learn from the pros: A few years back, I did research on centenarians, after deciding that I wanted to live to be over 100 years old (this decision was followed by the decision to live the life I want to live a few years prior to that-so I figured I'd better check out what others are doing). This is what I found: Think more good thoughts, drink enough water regularly, breathe deeply daily, walk regularly, and have friendships.

-Wendy Kay, certified life coach and motivator

2. Be in good spirits: The most essential live-to-100 tip, to me, is recognize that you create your perceptions from the inside out. A person's mood in the moment creates his or her experience; a person's experience does not create his or her mood. Those who understand this live a smooth and stress-free life. They do not play victim to external circumstances.

-Garret Kramer, founder and managing partner of Inner Sports, LLC

3. Take anxiety and stress seriously: Don't just tolerate feeling anxious, stressed, and overwhelmed all the time-find a solution. It's important that you take anxiety (and panic attacks) seriously, if for no other reason than the stress they place on the heart. Recent research found that both women under 50 years of age and postmenopausal women who suffer anxiety and panic attacks may have an increased risk of heart disease.

-Trudy Scott, certified nutritionist, president of the National Association of Nutrition Professionals, and author of The Antianxiety Food Solution: How the Foods You Eat Can Help you Calm Your Anxious Mind, Improve Your Mood and End Cravings

4. Drink water: Start your day with 16 to 32 ounces of water. Fill your tank-your body-with water. If you think you're hungry, drink water. We often confuse hunger for thirst. When you learn to recognize your true thirst 
instinctively, you will begin simultaneously and automatically to reduce your food intake. Water is so beneficial, and if you reach for that instead of any other drink in your lifetime, it will definitely help get
 you to 100!

-Dian Griesel, co-author of TurboCharged who is 50 years old but has a metabolic age of a 17-year-old according to her Tanita body composition

5. Stand up straight: People's bones break down over time with bad posture. Exercises like occasionally running in your bare feet and simple resistance training you can do at your desk or at home are incredibly helpful in preserving posture. For example, relieve chest tightness with self myo-fascial release (use a massage ball or foam roll) and stretching, while strengthening the upper-back muscles. My favorite exercise for hunchback posture is upper-back foam rolling, which anyone can do on the living room floor. ( yahoo.com )

READ MORE - How to Live to 100, Starting Today

The dark secrets of the organic-food movement

Is Whole Foods Wholesome? - The dark secrets of the organic-food movement - It's hard to find fault with Whole Foods, the haute-crunchy supermarket chain that has made a fortune by transforming grocery shopping into a bright and shiny, progressive experience. Indeed, the road to wild profits and cultural cachet has been surprisingly smooth for the supermarket chain. It gets mostly sympathetic coverage in the local and national media and red-carpet treatment from the communities it enters. But does Whole Foods have an Achilles' heel? And more important, does the organic movement itself, whose coattails Whole Foods has ridden to such success, have dark secrets of its own?

Granted, there's plenty that's praiseworthy about Whole Foods. John Mackey, the company's chairman, likes to say, "There's no inherent reason why business cannot be ethical, socially responsible, and profitable." And under the umbrella creed of "sustainability," Whole Foods pays its workers a solid living wage—its lowest earners average $13.15 an hour—with excellent benefits and health care. No executive makes more than 14 times the employee average. (Mackey's salary last year was $342,000.) In January, Whole Foods announced that it had committed to buy a year's supply of power from a wind-power utility in Wyoming.

A scene from Whole Foods grocery

But even if Whole Foods has a happy staff and nice windmills, is it really as virtuous as it appears to be? Take the produce section, usually located in the geographic center of the shopping floor and the spiritual heart of a Whole Foods outlet. (Every media profile of the company invariably contains a paragraph of fawning produce porn, near-sonnets about "gleaming melons" and "glistening kumquats.") In the produce section of Whole Foods' flagship New York City store at the Time Warner Center, shoppers browse under a big banner that lists "Reasons To Buy Organic." On the banner, the first heading is "Save Energy." The accompanying text explains how organic farmers, who use natural fertilizers like manure and compost, avoid the energy waste involved in the manufacture of synthetic fertilizers. It's a technical point that probably barely registers with most shoppers but contributes to a vague sense of virtue.

Fair enough. But here's another technical point that Whole Foods fails to mention and that highlights what has gone wrong with the organic-food movement in the last couple of decades. Let's say you live in New York City and want to buy a pound of tomatoes in season. Say you can choose between conventionally grown New Jersey tomatoes or organic ones grown in Chile. Of course, the New Jersey tomatoes will be cheaper. They will also almost certainly be fresher, having traveled a fraction of the distance. But which is the more eco-conscious choice? In terms of energy savings, there's no contest: Just think of the fossil fuels expended getting those organic tomatoes from Chile. Which brings us to the question: Setting aside freshness, price, and energy conservation, should a New Yorker just instinctively choose organic, even if the produce comes from Chile? A tough decision, but you can make a self-interested case for the social and economic benefit of going Jersey, especially if you prefer passing fields of tomatoes to fields of condominiums when you tour the Garden State.

Another heading on the Whole Foods banner says "Help the Small Farmer." "Buying organic," it states, "supports the small, family farmers that make up a large percentage of organic food producers." This is semantic sleight of hand. As one small family farmer in Connecticut told me recently, "Almost all the organic food in this country comes out of California. And five or six big California farms dominate the whole industry." There's a widespread misperception in this country—one that organic growers, no matter how giant, happily encourage—that "organic" means "small family farmer." That hasn't been the case for years, certainly not since 1990, when the Department of Agriculture drew up its official guidelines for organic food. Whole Foods knows this well, and so the line about the "small family farmers that make up a large percentage of organic food producers" is sneaky. There are a lot of small, family-run organic farmers, but their share of the organic crop in this country, and of the produce sold at Whole Foods, is minuscule.

A nearby banner at the Time Warner Center Whole Foods proclaims "Our Commitment to the Local Farmer," but this also doesn't hold up to scrutiny. More likely, the burgeoning local-food movement is making Whole Foods uneasy. After all, a multinational chain can't promote a "buy local" philosophy without being self-defeating. When I visited the Time Warner Whole Foods last fall—high season for native fruits and vegetables on the East Coast—only a token amount of local produce was on display. What Whole Foods does do for local farmers is hang glossy pinups throughout the store, what they call "grower profiles," which depict tousled, friendly looking organic farmers standing in front of their crops. This winter, when I dropped by the store, the only local produce for sale was a shelf of upstate apples, but the grower profiles were still up. There was a picture of a sandy-haired organic leek farmer named Dave, from Whately, Mass., above a shelf of conventionally grown yellow onions from Oregon. Another profile showed a guy named Ray Rex munching on an ear of sweet corn he grew on his generations-old, picturesque organic acres. The photograph was pinned above a display of conventionally grown white onions from Mexico.

These profiles may be heartwarming, but they also artfully mislead customers about what they're paying premium prices for. If Whole Foods marketing didn't revolve so much around explicit (as well as subtly suggestive) appeals to food ethics, it'd be easier to forgive some exaggerations and distortions.

Of course, above and beyond social and environmental ethics, and even taste, people buy organic food because they believe that it's better for them. All things being equal, food grown without pesticides is healthier for you. But American populism chafes against the notion of good health for those who can afford it. Charges of elitism—media wags, in otherwise flattering profiles, have called Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck" and "wholesome, healthy for the wholesome, wealthy"—are the only criticism of Whole Foods that seems to have stuck. Which brings us to the newest kid in the organic-food sandbox: Wal-Mart, the world's biggest grocery retailer, has just begun a major program to expand into organic foods. If buying food grown without chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers has been elevated to a status-conscious lifestyle choice, it could also be transformed into a bare-bones commodity purchase.

When the Department of Agriculture established the guidelines for organic food in 1990, it blew a huge opportunity. The USDA—under heavy agribusiness lobbying—adopted an abstract set of restrictions for organic agriculture and left "local" out of the formula. What passes for organic farming today has strayed far from what the shaggy utopians who got the movement going back in the '60s and '70s had in mind. But if these pioneers dreamed of revolutionizing the nation's food supply, they surely didn't intend for organic to become a luxury item, a high-end lifestyle choice.

It's likely that neither Wal-Mart nor Whole Foods will do much to encourage local agriculture or small farming, but in an odd twist, Wal-Mart, with its simple "More for Less" credo, might do far more to democratize the nation's food supply than Whole Foods. The organic-food movement is in danger of exacerbating the growing gap between rich and poor in this country by contributing to a two-tiered national food supply, with healthy food for the rich. Could Wal-Mart's populist strategy prove to be more "sustainable"than Whole Foods? Stranger things have happened. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - The dark secrets of the organic-food movement

Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog

Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog - It was an overcast day in Newport, N.H., when a simple “20/20″ shoot turned into something that made me wonder about life after death.

I was filming soldier Justin Rollin’s parents Skip and Rhonda playing with their dog Hero, whose rescue from the Iraq War zone where Justin died was nothing short of a miracle.

Sometimes when Rhonda hugged Hero she would softly pet her face and coo, “Justin, are you in there?” It was Rhonda’s gentle way of remembering their son and his last living connection to Hero. At one point, Hero wandered off and took a stroll in the backyard. All of a sudden, the clouds broke and a light began to solidify in a beam directly down on Hero — a kind of vertical halo.

(Kimberly Launier/ABC News)

As this dramatic ray of light was shining on Hero she turned to look at me, and it was all I could do to hold the camera steady and not drop it in astonishment. It was an unforgettable moment, and made me wonder if in fact Justin was in there. Then the light vanished.

I couldn’t wait to check my camera’s playback to see if it caught the stunning beam. When I saw that it did, I was so happy that I burst out dancing. It was a great moment to share with Justin’s parents. We all laughed together, and wondered if perhaps this had been a sign from Justin. ( abcnews.go.com )

READ MORE - Not Photoshopped: Beam of Light Shines on Fallen Soldier’s Miracle Dog

The Man Has 39 Wives, 94 Children and Lives in A 100-room House

The Man Has 39 Wives, 94 Children and Lives in A 100-room House -- Meet the world’s largest family. If you’ve ever worried about having enough room for a growing brood, spare a thought for Ziona Chana.

He has 39 wives, 94 children, 14 daughters-in-law and 33 grandchildren living under the same roof. Home is a 100-room, four-storey house set in the hills of the village of Baktawng in the Indian state of Mizoram. Even then, some of his wives sleep top-to-tail in communal dormitories.

But Ziona doesn’t appear fazed by the size of his apparently happy family - and doesn’t claim any benefits for their upkeep.

‘I feel like God’s special child. He’s given me so many people to look after,’ he said.

‘I consider myself a lucky man to be the husband of 39 women and head of the world’s largest family.’

Big brood: Ziona Chana has 94 children by 39 wives, 14-daughters-in-law and 33 grandchildren

The family is organised with almost military discipline, with the oldest wife Zathiangi, 69, drawing up schedules for her fellow partners to take turns performing household chores such as cleaning, washing and preparing meals.

One evening meal can see them pluck 30 chickens, peel 132lb of potatoes and boil up to 220lb of rice. The compound has its own school, a playground, carpentry workshops, piggery and poultry farms and a vegetable garden big enough to supply the whole family.

Conveniently, Ziona is also head of a sect that allows members to take as many wives as he wants. He even married ten women in one year, when he was at his most prolific, and enjoys his own double bed while his wives have to make do with sharing.

You treat this place like a hotel: With 100 rooms, the Ziona mansion is the biggest concrete structure in the hilly village of Baktawng in Mizoram, India

He keeps the youngest women near to his bedroom with the older members of the family sleeping further away - and there is a rotation system for who visits Ziona's bedroom.

Rinkmini, one of Ziona's wives, who is 35, said: ‘We stay around him as he is the most important person in the house. He is the most handsome person in the village.’

The wives and me: Mr Ziona Chana poses with his 39 wives at their home in Baktawng

She said Ziona noticed her on a morning walk in the village 18 years ago and wrote her a letter asking for her hand in marriage. Another of his wives, Huntharnghanki, said the entire family gets along well. The family system is reportedly based on ‘mutual love and respect’.

And Ziona, whose polygamous religious sect has 4,000 members, says he has not stopped looking for new wives.

‘To expand my sect, I am willing to go even to the U.S. to marry,’ he said.

One of his sons insisted that Ziona, whose grandfather also had many wives, marries the poor women from the village so he can look after them. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - The Man Has 39 Wives, 94 Children and Lives in A 100-room House

Waste of space?

Waste of space? - Fifty years after cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man to orbit the Earth, Gerard DeGroot questions whether his endeavour served any useful purpose.

The Vostok capsule that carried Yuri Gagarin – the world's first spaceman – into orbit on April 12 1961 looked nothing like the sleek craft Buck Rogers used to travel the cosmos in science-fiction fantasies. It had two tiny windows; Gagarin did not need to see where he was going since he had little control over his craft. The spherical shape brings to mind circus performers shot from cannons.

In truth, that analogy is accurate; Gagarin's feat was an exponential embellishment on that fairground stunt. Far more meaningful space spectaculars had already occurred, but their importance went unrecognised because they lacked human passengers. On that day nearly 50 years ago, Gagarin demonstrated a principle that remains rock solid: in order to garner attention, space needs a face.

Gagarin returned to a world changed profoundly by his achievement. His mission was the latest in a long line of space stunts that had embarrassed the United States. The Americans had prided themselves on being the technologically superior nation; capitalism and modernity were supposed to go hand-in-hand. Yet the Russians upset that paradigm, in the process sending a powerful message to non-aligned nations. They were first to launch a satellite, first to launch a dog and, now, first to launch a man. The reason they were so good at these stunts was because they were so bad at building nuclear weapons.

Their bombs were inordinately heavier than American ones of similar payload. A heavier bomb necessitated a bigger rocket to carry it on a transcontinental trajectory. The Russians, masters of propaganda, soon realised that those rockets, pointed skyward, could be used to throw symbols of dominance into space. The sound and fury, it seemed, signified everything.

Prior to Gagarin, the US did not have a clearly defined space strategy. President Dwight Eisenhower had resisted being drawn into what seemed to him a shallow weightlifting competition. He saw manned space travel as "a complex and costly adventure" without useful purpose. When Nasa sent proposals for the Apollo Moon mission to the White House for approval, he vetoed the idea. Presidential advisers erupted in laughter when someone suggested that, after reaching the Moon, Nasa would probably want to go to Mars.

Eisenhower's successor, John Kennedy, shared those doubts. His advisers warned that "a crash programme aimed at placing a man into an orbit may hinder the development of our scientific and technical programme". They were right. Since Kennedy knew that the US led the Soviet Union in satellite technology, he saw no need to indulge in machismo. That, however, annoyed the American people, who craved heroes like Gagarin, not clumsy contraptions circling the Earth. In newspapers across the nation, Gagarin's mission was presented as an American failure, rather than a Soviet success.

It seemed that Gagarin had singlehandedly won a huge battle in the Cold War. Kennedy's friends warned him that non-aligned nations would conclude that the Soviet Union was the real superpower. Then, five days later, came the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The US, it seemed, could do nothing right.

In public, Kennedy feigned confidence, but in private he panicked. "Is there any place we can catch them?" Kennedy asked a group of space experts. "If somebody can just tell me how to catch up. Let's find somebody, anybody. I don't care if it's the janitor over there, if he knows how. There's nothing more important." Up stepped Nasa's Robert Gilruth. He told Kennedy: "Well, you've got to pick a job that's so difficult that it's new, that [the Soviets] will have to start from scratch. They just can't take their old rocket and put another gimmick on it and do something we can't do. It's got to be something that requires a great big rocket, like going to the Moon."

Convinced by the logic of bigness, Kennedy announced on May 25 1961: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The Moon was important "because it is there" – a finishing line in a race for prestige.

Kennedy always struggled when asked to explain why it was necessary to go to the Moon. In a brief moment of candour, he once asked a reporter: "Don't you think I would rather spend these billions on programmes here at home, such as health and education and welfare? But in this matter we have no choice. The nation's prestige is too heavily involved." When his science adviser Jerome Wiesner argued that there were more sensible ways to spend money, Kennedy replied: "Well, it's your fault. If you had a scientific spectacular on this Earth that would be more useful – say desalting the ocean – or something that is just as dramatic and convincing as space, then we would do it."

Nasa hated the way the Moon mission was conceived. The agency wanted an open-ended commitment to space exploration, not a single race with a distinct finishing line. When the Nasa administrator James Webb complained to Kennedy about America's distorted priorities, the president gave him an earful: "Everything that we do should be tied into getting on to the Moon ahead of the Russians. Otherwise, we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I am not that interested in space. We're talking about fantastic expenditures. We've wrecked our budget, and the only justification for it is to do it in the time element I am asking."

Thus Gagarin pulled Kennedy by the nose into space. At the time of that historic mission, the US was five years ahead of the Russians in space science and satellite technology, yet American priorities were suddenly shifted to a macho race to the Moon. Kennedy's reaction to the Gagarin embarrassment set a pattern that remains predominant to this day. The main reason the Americans have not returned to the Moon is because they originally went for the wrong reason. Once the race was won, a point was proved, and further missions seemed senseless.

As the ambitions of China and India now indicate, the fixation with man in space became a paradigm, a test of a nation's virility, important not for what could be discovered out there but for some flimsy prestige earned back on Earth.

The space industry today suffers from acute schizophrenia. The great achievements that have transformed our lives have occurred in near space, thanks to boring satellites. Advances in communications, weather forecasting, intelligence gathering and so on have brought enormous benefit. But there's still this obsession with astronauts, reflected in that old Nasa adage: "There's no bucks without Buck Rogers." Space agencies realise that their ability to attract funding is directly proportional to their capacity to produce heroes. Nations, still tempted by that siren prestige, channel scarce funds toward absurd expressions of vanity.

That schizophrenia was evident earlier this month when the Royal Aeronautical Society celebrated the 50th anniversary of Gagarin's flight. The MP Phillip Lee, vice-chairman of the Parliamentary Space Committee, gave a rousing speech that borrowed heavily from Star Trek, complete with split infinitives. Space, he suggested, provides a spiffing adventure. "My great dream," Lee said, "is that some day a British person will walk on the Moon or Mars."

That brought bemused smiles from European Space Agency (ESA) representatives, who were there to sell satellites. "It's interesting," one ESA engineer remarked, "that we now use satellites to explore the Earth, yet, when we talk about exploring Mars, there's this insistence that a man should go."

A statue of Gagarin will soon be placed on the Mall. That seems a fitting tribute to a spectacular achievement. His heroic feat was, however, similar to that of conquering Everest – something that brought great vicarious excitement but little real benefit.

While China and India still feel the need to emulate Gagarin with shallow quests for kudos, one hopes that the future belongs to the more humble ESA. Practical projects in space are so enormously expensive, yet still so essential, that it makes sense to share the cost and spread the value. Co-operation will also ensure that prestige no longer corrupts the space equation.

Britain has an important role to play, but it should not be the stuff of Lee's fantasies. The British should do what they can do best, namely help build satellites to improve our lives. If Buck Rogers feels neglected, there's a home for him in China ( telegraph.co.uk )

READ MORE - Waste of space?

Pastor loses job after questioning hell's existence

Pastor loses job after questioning hell's existence - New book is spurring debate over the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal torment for damned souls — When Chad Holtz lost his old belief in hell, he also lost his job.

The pastor of a rural United Methodist church in North Carolina wrote a note on his Facebook page supporting a new book by Rob Bell, a prominent young evangelical pastor and critic of the traditional view of hell as a place of eternal torment for billions of damned souls.

Two days later, Holtz was told complaints from church members prompted his dismissal from Marrow's Chapel in Henderson.

"I think justice comes and judgment will happen, but I don't think that means an eternity of torment," Holtz said. "But I can understand why people in my church aren't ready to leave that behind. It's something I'm still grappling with myself."

Chad Holtz was fired from his position as pastor of a church in Henderson, N.C., after posting on his Facebook page a defense of a forthcoming book by megachurch pastor Rob Bell, in which Bell challenges millions of Christians’ understanding of the afterlife.

The debate over Bell's new book "Love Wins" has quickly spread across the evangelical precincts of the Internet, in part because of an eye-catching promotional video posted on YouTube.

Bell, the pastor of the 10,000-member Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., lays out the premise of his book while the video cuts away to an artist's hand mixing oil paints and pastels and applying them to a blank canvas.

He describes going to a Christian art show where one of the pieces featured a quote by Mohandas Gandhi. Someone attached a note saying: "Reality check: He's in hell."

"Gandhi's in hell? He is? And someone knows this for sure?" Bell asks in the video.

In the book, Bell criticizes the belief that a select number of Christians will spend eternity in the bliss of heaven while everyone else is tormented forever in hell.

"This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear," he writes in the book.

For many traditional Christians, though, Bell's new book sounds a lot like the old theological position of universalism — a heresy for many churches, teaching that everyone, regardless of religious belief, will ultimately be saved by God. And that, they argue, dangerously misleads people about the reality of the Christian faith.

"I just felt like on every page he's trying to say 'It's OK,'" said Southern Baptist Seminary President Albert Mohler at a forum last week on Bell's book held at the Louisville institution. "And there's a sense in which we desperately want to say that. But the question becomes, on what basis can we say that?"

Bell argues that hell has assumed an outsize importance in Christian teaching, considering the word itself only appears in the New Testament about 12 times, by his count.

"For a 1st-century Jewish rabbi, where you go when you die wasn't the most pressing question," Bell told The Associated Press. "The question was how can you enter into the shalom and peace of God right now, this day."

Bell denies he's a universalist, and his exact beliefs on what happens to people after death are hard to pin down, but he argues that such speculation distracts people from an urgent point. In his telling, hell is something freely chosen that already exists on earth, in everything from war to abusive relationships.

The near-relish with which some Christians stress the torments of hell, Bell argues, keep many believers needlessly afraid of a loving God, and repel potential Christians who might otherwise be curious about the faith's teachings.

"The heart of the Christian story is that God is love," he said. "But when you hear the word 'Christian,' you don't necessarily think 'Oh, sure, those are the people who don't stop talking about God's love.' Some other things would come to mind."

Ancient debate

About the only thing everyone agrees on is that this is not a new debate in Christianity. It stretches to antiquity, when Christianity was a persecuted sect in the Roman Empire, and the third century theologian Origen developed a theory that contemporary critics charged would mean that everyone, even the devil himself, would ultimately be saved. Church leaders eventually condemned ideas they attributed to Origen, but he has had a lasting influence across the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions.

Those traditions often disagree, even internally, on what awaits souls after death. The Catholic Church, which has a formal process for identifying souls in heaven through canonization, pointedly refrains from saying that anyone is without a doubt in hell. Protestants reject the concept of purgatory, in which sins can be atoned for after death, but disagree on other questions. The lack of consensus is enabled partly by ambiguities in the Bible.

Evangelical opposition to Bell is exemplified in a succinct tweet from prominent evangelical pastor John Piper: "Farewell, Rob Bell."

Page Brooks, a professor at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, thinks Bell errs in a conception of a loving God that leaves out the divine attributes of justice and holiness.

"It's love, but it's a just love," Brooks said. "God is love, but you have to understand you're a sinner and the only way to get around that is through Christ's sacrifice on the cross."

Making his new belief public is both liberating and a little frightening for Holtz, even though his doubts about traditional doctrines on damnation began long before he heard about Rob Bell's book.

A married Navy veteran with five children, Holtz spent years trying to reconcile his belief that Jesus Christ's death on the cross redeemed the entire world with the idea that millions of people — including millions who had never even heard of Jesus — were suffering forever in hell.

"We do these somersaults to justify the monster god we believe in," he said. "But confronting my own sinfulness, that's when things started to topple for me. Am I really going to be saved just because I believe something, when all these good people in the world aren't?"

Gray Southern, United Methodist district superintendent for the part of North Carolina that includes Henderson, declined to discuss Holtz's departure in detail, but said there was more to it than the online post about Rob Bell's book.

"That's between the church and him," Southern said.

Church members had also been unhappy with Internet posts about subjects like gay marriage and the mix of religion and patriotism, Holtz said, and the hell post was probably the last straw. Holtz and his family plan to move back to Tennessee, where he'll start a job and maybe plant a church.

"So long as we believe there's a dividing point in eternity, we're going to think in terms of us and them," he said. "But when you believe God has saved everyone, the point is, you're saved. Live like it." ( Associated Press )

READ MORE - Pastor loses job after questioning hell's existence

The Secrets Your Partner is Keeping From You

The Secrets Your Partner is Keeping From You - Have you ever wondered what secrets your significant other is keeping from you? Even the most committed, honest partners often have one or two secrets they keep from their loved ones. So what are the most common secrets men and women keep from each other?

He doesn't want you to know that he struggles with body image issues, too.

It is customary to see a woman order a salad with dressing on the side and a diet soda. But if a man makes such an order, it is seen as a little... strange. After all, many women still expect their men to be meat-and-potatoes kind of guys who don't put too much thought into calories or body image. But, believe it or not, men can be just as sensitive about their appearances as women, and some go to many (secret) lengths to look their best. Yes, he might be having beers and wings in front of you and your gal pals on Saturday night, but that doesn't mean he doesn't eat lean in the privacy of his own home!


She really wasn't afraid of that big scary spider in the sink.

In today's age of equality and female empowerment, women are no longer treated with the kid gloves of chivalry by their male partners. Don't get me wrong, gender equality is great... but sometimes women still want to be treated with extra care. So how do they accomplish this? By playing the damsel in distress! Whether it is running from the "scary" spider in the sink or shrieking in the middle of a scary movie, women often play into their need for a "knight in shining armor" by putting up a frightened front... even when they aren't!


He is much more jealous than he lets on.

Men know that giving you the green light to have a "girls' night out" will pay off when its his turn to hit the town with his buddies, but that doesn't mean he doesn't cringe a little when he sees you leave the house in your little black dress. It isn't that he doesn't trust you, but he has the inside track to the way men think... and as much as he might deny it, he worries about you going out and being deterred by someone new. But, don't worry! A little jealousy will make him that much more appreciative when you come home as committed to him as ever!


She doesn't really want to hop on the baby bandwagon just yet.

Most men think that women have biological clocks the size of Texas, and while we do tend to swoon over our friends' special bundles, that doesn't mean we are ready for one of our own yet! Thanks to reality television, women are more aware than ever of the horrors of pregnancy and childbirth (think stretch marks, weight gain, nausea and labor!), and it makes the process a little daunting. Not to mention, most women want to climb the corporate ladder as high as they can before Mommy rituals begin, so postponing pregnancy is becoming a popular trend.

So tell me... what small (or not-so-small) secrets are you keeping from your spouse? ( lifestyle.yahoo.com )

READ MORE - The Secrets Your Partner is Keeping From You

Ten kissing commandments

Ten kissing commandments - "Our date was extremely romantic, until I offered to seal the night with a kiss, which unexpectedly turned out to be quite awkward. While, I was gravely ashamed, she never came back," shares 23-year-old, Rishi Gulati (name changed on request), a sad victim of a kissing-faux-pas.

Well, the misfortune of a bad kiss can fall upon any of us. Consider yourself lucky if your kiss left your partner craving for more. And keep your fingers tightly crossed for no one plans a kissing blunder, it simply happens! And mind it, you are hardly left with anything to mend the embarrassment caused by a 'dud kiss.' If a perfect kiss can register success in your relationship, a kissing bummer is good enough to bring your love journey to a dead end even before it starts.

Follow our '10 commandments of perfect kissing' and you'll never be tagged as a 'poor kisser'...

1. Thou shall not be a stinking fish

Nothing can kill a kiss like foul breadth. So, the first commandment keeps you off kissing, if your mouth is stinking due to hygiene issues, food, tobacco or excessive smoking. If you don't want your partner to remember the kiss for all the wrong reasons, try to look out for solutions. Dr. Kamal Bisht, a general physician suggests, "Begin by brushing your teeth before you go out on a date, irrespective of the time. Cleaning your tongue is also important as it removes bacteria. Avoid kissing if you have just had smelly food products like garlic, onions etc. Keep a breath spray handy and use it periodically throughout the day." Last but not the least, if you are a smoker, the pleasure of smooching your partner can be your motivation to kick the butt!


2. Thou shall open your mouth with care

"My girlfriend has this habit of opening her mouth very little while kissing, which does not allow me to enjoy a passionate kiss to the fullest," avers Rajdeep Bhawmik, a Delhi-based architect.

While, there's no accurate rule for opening the mouth, it's generally seen that a deep kiss using tongue is a huge turn on. Equally terrifying are gulpers who open their mouth wide open while kissing, ready to swallow their partner. The trick is to keep one's lips lose enough to let the lips of both the partners glide smoothly over each other making it a yummy kiss. Also, "start with a lip-to-lip kiss and gradually taste the depths of pleasure," suggests sex expert, Dr. Rajan. ( indiatimes.com )

READ MORE - Ten kissing commandments

The recent revelations about foreclosure processing

The recent revelations about foreclosure processing -- that some banks may be repossessing the homes of families improperly -- has rightly outraged the American people. The notion that many of the very same institutions that helped cause this housing crisis may well be making it worse is not only frustrating -- it's shameful.

No one should lose their home as a result of a bank mistake. No one. That is why the Obama Administration has a comprehensive review of the situation underway and will respond with the full force of the law where problems are found. The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force that President Obama established last November has made this issue priority number one. Bringing together more than 20 federal agencies, 94 US Attorney's Offices and dozens of state and local partners to form the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud, the Task Force is examining this issue and the Attorney General has said publicly that if it finds any wrongdoing the members of the task force will take the appropriate action. The Federal Housing Administration and Federal Housing Finance Agency have launched reviews to make sure servicers are in full compliance with the law. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has directed seven of the nation's largest servicers to review their foreclosure processes, fix the processing problems and determine whether there is specific harm that has been caused in individual cases.

The message all these institutions are sending is the same: banks must follow the law -- and those that haven't should immediately fix what is wrong. Given the problems that have already been found and admitted to by some servicers, the Obama Administration fully supports the voluntary moratoria that are already in place and others should they be deemed necessary. Some have suggested, however, that all foreclosures in every state, under every servicer, should be stopped. But a national, blanket moratorium on all foreclosure sales would do far more harm than good -- hurting homeowners and home-buyers alike at a time when foreclosed homes make up 25 percent of home sales.

For instance, in Cleveland, where there are over 18,000 vacant homes, lives Millie Davis who recently earned her Master's Degree in Urban Planning from Cleveland State University and just bought her first home - one that had fallen into foreclosure and sat abandoned for years. Had a blanket moratorium been in place, that sale would have fallen through -- not only deferring her dream of homeownership but leaving neighbors on the block to stand by and watch as their property values continue to plummet.Right now, families who have watched their home values decline over the last few years want nothing more than homebuyers like Millie to buy the vacant homes in their neighborhoods. These homeowners are at risk, too - and the best hope they have is for the "Foreclosed" signs in front of the vacant, abandoned properties on their block to come down, so that the value of their homes can start rising again.

And we've seen this happen in communities like Huber Heights, Ohio -- a suburb outside of Dayton -- where some blocks saw home values plummet by 30 percent due to neighboring homes going into foreclosure. It was only when those foreclosed homes started to sell again that home prices in that neighborhood began to stabilize -- and even increase in some instances.

Another unintended consequence of a blanket moratorium on foreclosure sales, even where problems haven't yet been found, is that it could cause servicers to take their eyes off the ball when it comes to helping at-risk homeowners stay in their homes well before their problems reach the crisis of a foreclosure. By the time the home gets to foreclosure, it's often too late to help families stay in their homes -- they may be too far behind or in some cases, they've already left the home. Banks need to provide more help, more people, more resources to those families facing a crisis long before they ever get to a foreclosure -- so more families can keep their homes. And where foreclosure is not avoidable, having been processed legally and appropriately, banks should help families transition to sustainable housing situations with dignity.

We've seen real progress in the housing market. Foreclosure starts are down by 30 percent from a year ago. In the last 18 months, 3.3 million families have received restructured mortgages with more affordable monthly payments, which is more than twice as many foreclosures that have been completed during that time. With vacant and abandoned homes more than three times as destructive to the values of neighboring homes as occupied homes that are just beginning the foreclosure process, a blanket moratorium would only slow down that progress. President Obama has said that we can't stop every foreclosure -- and he's right. But the more quickly we provide help to families -- whether it's to stay in their homes, to ensure they can buy new homes, or to help them to transition to affordable rental housing -- the sooner our neighborhoods will stabilize -- and the sooner our economy will recover. ( HuffingtonPost.com )

READ MORE - The recent revelations about foreclosure processing

Prehistoric humans 'had feelings of compassion and cared for others'

Prehistoric humans 'had feelings of compassion and cared for others' - Early humans like Neanderthals had a deep-seated sense of compassion, new research suggests.

A team from the University of York examined archaeological evidence for the way emotions began to emerge in our ancestors as they became modern humans.

The research shows that in Europe between around 500,000 and 40,000 years ago, early humans such as Homo heidelbergensis and Neanderthals developed commitments to the welfare of others.

Neanderthal Man may have cared for others in the group

The injured or infirm were routinely cared for in this period, according to the findings.

Remains examined by the university's Department of Archaeology researchers revealed how a child with a congenital brain abnormality was not abandoned but lived until five or six years old.

And it shows how a Neanderthal with a withered arm, deformed feet and blindness in one eye was cared for, perhaps for as long as 20 years.

The four-stage model developed by Penny Spikins, Andy Needham and Holly Rutherford charts the beginnings of human empathy from six million years ago when the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees began to 'help' others, perhaps with a gesture of comfort or moving a branch to allow them to pass.

Compassion in Homo erectus 1.8 million years ago began to be regulated as an emotion integrated with rational thought, the researchers said.

Care of sick individuals showed compassion towards others while special treatment of the dead suggested grief at the loss of a loved one and a desire to soothe individuals.

In modern humans starting 120,000 years ago, compassion was extended to strangers, animals, objects and abstract concepts.

Dr Spikins, who led the study, said new research developments such as neuro-imaging have enabled archaeologists to attempt a scientific explanation of what were once intangible feelings of ancient humans.

She said: 'Compassion is perhaps the most fundamental human emotion.

'It binds us together and can inspire us but it is also fragile and elusive. This apparent fragility makes addressing the evidence for the development of compassion in our most ancient ancestors a unique challenge, yet the archaeological record has an important story to tell about the prehistory of compassion.

'We have traditionally paid a lot of attention to how early humans thought about each other, but it may well be time to pay rather more attention to whether or not they 'cared'.'

The research is published in the journal Time and Mind and Dr Spikins will give a free public lecture at the University of York on Tuesday October 19. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - Prehistoric humans 'had feelings of compassion and cared for others'

Meet a Teenager Who Looks Like a Grandma

Meet a Teenager Who Looks Like a Grandma. Zara Hartshorn, 13, Has a Condition That Makes Her Appear Much Older. Zara Hartshorn has been robbed of her childhood. Her mom took her out of school because the bullying was so bad. A bus driver laughed in her face recently when she tried to pay the child's fare. Strangers stare and point in the street. Kids call her "grandma," "monkey" and "baggy face."

Thirteen-year-old Zara Hartshorn has a rare genetic condition that makes her look much, much older than her years. She has the face of a grown woman, gaunt and wrinkled. But she's a frightened teen inside. (ABC News)

Zara is 13 but has a rare genetic condition that makes her look much, much older than her years. She has the face of a grown woman, gaunt and wrinkled. But she's a frightened teen inside.

"It feels like people are looking down their noses at me and staring," she said at her home in northern England. "You know when you get that feeling you're being watched? I feel that everywhere I go."

Zara's mother, Tracey Pollard, feels her pain: She, too, was born with lipodystrophy.

Pollard, 41, noticed the tell-tale signs in Zara's face at birth. "I was grieving for a child that's got to go through the same things in life that I've had to go through," she said. "I was angry at myself for actually having Zara."

Lipodystrophy is a genetic disease. It is hereditary. It robs the body of the ability to produce fat cells beneath the skin.

"Fatty tissue doesn't grow right," Dr. Donald Kotler of St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital in New York City said. "Normal fatty tissues shrink, making people look sort of old and wrinkled and abnormal."

Lipodystrophy can also bring on diabetes and, later in life, heart disease, stroke and liver problems.

There is no cure for lipodystrophy. "What you're left trying to do is to manage it," Kotler said. "It's bad enough in an adult, but I would think for a child it would be devastating."

Pollard's first child, Gareth, was born healthy. So Tracey thought her kids would be safe. Two of her younger children showed only very mild symptoms. Then Zara, the youngest, was born.

When asked what she feels when she sees her own face in the mirror, Zara said, "I don't like it. Sometimes I'll sit in my room and start pulling my skin back, stuff like that. Most teenagers worry about getting spots. ... I'm worried about surgery and stuff like that and when's bullying going to stop."

Zara: 'I Want a Face-Lift'

Zara lives at home with her mom, sisters and a brother. There is, of course, the usual rough-and-tumble and sibling bickering one would expect in a large family. But, Zara said, she feels safe and loved. No one makes fun of her, unlike every time she steps outside her front door, where she's scared.

Zara was, she said, a confident little girl. Then at age 5, the bullying started. "The kids started calling me names," she said.

Zara went home in tears. "I asked my mom why I was different," she said.

As she grows older, Zara's anxiety has increased. She lives in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, in a hardscrabble, deprived neighborhood. Life here is tough. For her, it's tougher.

"I want a face-lift," she said.

Her mother had surgery when she was a teenager in an effort to smooth her wrinkled face. But, Pollard said, it didn't help much. "My expectations were too high," she said. "I thought I would look like a normal kid ... but I didn't."

Her appearance has had a huge impact on her life, she said. She has low self-esteem, has never had a career and has suffered a string of abusive relationships.

"I don't want [Zara] ending up like me," she said. "Surrounding herself with seven, eight or however many kids just to feel loved. ... And she doesn't need to go from one man to another looking for something she'll never find."

When she's older, Zara said, she wants to be a beauty therapist. Her mother, a single parent who lives on benefits, is supportive.

"You always have hope and your dreams," Pollard said. "No one can take that away from you no matter how bad they treat you."

For now, Zara's dream, she said, is to walk down the street without people staring at her, to feel young again. ( abcnews.go.com )

READ MORE - Meet a Teenager Who Looks Like a Grandma

Why do you fall asleep after having sex?

Why do you fall asleep after having sex?. Is it normal for a partner to fall asleep just after having sex, and does the fatigue sometimes lasts for more than 24 hours? What can I do to make him more resistant?

Many women still seek the answers to these questions. Is it abnormal to fall asleep after intercourse? Not at all. The tiredness that appears after intercourse is a natural reaction of the human body to the effort it has made.

But most times, if a man does not cuddle up with his woman after he has had sex, and if he does not talk and if he simply lays on his back and goes to sleep, it is natural for a woman to jump to conclusions, thinking her partner is simply not satisfied.

Their beliefs are wrong. Here are some real reasons men fall asleep after intercourse:

Fact #1
Sex during the night, especially when the human body is already tired, becomes the first argument for the state of sleepiness that occurs after having sex. The actual intercourse does not even have to be very 'solicitating'. You should keep in mind that sex, by its nature, is very relaxing.

Fact # 2
Men ejaculate during orgasm, and the hormones that are set free induce the state of lethargy. The sleep sensation manifests more intensely than on a regular basis. Even if the tension of the body is a positive one, it is also a very big, almost exhausting one.

Fact # 3
Plenty of people tend to hold their breath from time to time while they are having sex. Its rhythm becomes abrupt and the pulse intensifies. Therefore, there is a lack of oxygen, which contributes to the need to rest - nothing serious, everything comes back to normality in the postlude.

Fact # 4
The state of sleep should be interpreted in a positive way, because it proves the fact that you have reached an orgasm and that everything has gone alright. In rare cases, men who are exhausted during and after intercourse, on a longer period of time may suffer from medical problems. In this case, leave your inhibitions and self-pride aside and have a complete check-up.

Quick tip # 1
If you are looking for a quick solution, drink coffee before going to bed with your partner. We cannot say that it is a long-term solution, but it is also an effective erotic stimulus. Caffeine can be your main ally in the fight against tiredness; but it can also harm as it can affect the nervous system, making one over excited and under revved.

Quick tip # 2
Really refreshing is a citrus, especially a grapefruit, very cold, right from the fridge. At the opposite pole we find alcohol. Do not use it in large quantities; its effect is exactly the opposite.

On the other hand, women's bodies react different; for them the sensations during an orgasm are a stimulus. They could be more willing to go for a second ‘round’. But still, what can women do to make men more resistant? Don’t worry, as men being men, ‘refill’ themselves! ( indiatimes.com )

READ MORE - Why do you fall asleep after having sex?

The greenest way to make a holiday fire

Hearth Burn. The greenest way to make a holiday fire. The holiday season means one thing to me: Sitting around the fireplace, slowly getting sloshed on eggnog. I keep seeing fake logs for sale, made from "green" materials like recycled cardboard or coffee grounds. Are these synthetic products really any greener than a piece of real wood?

You'll forgive the Lantern for starting this column with a bit of sensible home-heating advice: A Yule log burning in the hearth may be festive, but it's a terribly inefficient source of energy. (All that air getting sucked out through your chimney means your home may actually end up colder than it would be otherwise.) If that's not enough to dissuade you from making a holiday fire, you may as well choose the most responsible source of fuel. Yes, it's true—those eco-friendly fake logs can be better for the environment than real wood. But so were those retro petroleum-and-sawdust Duraflame logs from the 1970s.

Real wood's green credentials are obvious: It's renewable and doesn't require much processing before you stick it in your fireplace. Some commercial producers do use kilns to dry their firewood, rather than letting them air dry, and transporting logs over long distances can be energy-intensive. With a little effort, though, you can probably find a locally sourced option—or source some firewood from your own backyard. Even the wood sold in big-box stores tends to be pretty eco-friendly when it comes to resource use, as it's typically low-quality timber that manufacturers won't otherwise use.

Fake logs are also pretty efficient when it comes to resources. In fact, they were invented in the late 1960s by a cedar-products company looking for ways to use up the detritus from pencil making. A traditional log substitute would be made by mixing some of this sawdust with an equal amount of petroleum wax, another manufacturing byproduct. In other words, it's made entirely of recycled industrial materials. (You can also find 100-percent-sawdust logs, but those are more commonly used in wood stoves rather than fireplaces.) There is a downside: The sawdust and wax must be mixed and then extruded, molded, or compressed to get those clean, pretty tubes—a process that requires additional energy. And thanks to their petroleum content, fake logs produce significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions (PDF) than natural firewood.

In recent years, manufacturers have been fiddling with the basic makeup of wax-fiber logs and trumpeting the green credentials of the resulting products. Two popular offerings, as you note, are logs in which the sawdust has been replaced with coffee grounds and ones in which both the sawdust and the wax have been swapped out for ground-up waxed cardboard boxes. A third option is to replace the petroleum wax with a plant-based binder, as Duraflame has done with all its logs.

The coffee and cardboard logs have an obvious appeal, since they're made from waste products that would otherwise be headed to a landfill. (Waxed cardboard boxes, used to transport fruit and vegetables, generally aren't recyclable.) Logs with natural waxes also make use of low-grade byproducts, such as solid palm stearine (from the refining of palm oil), tall oil (from the processing of soft pine into paper), and fatty tallow (from butchered cows). These ingredients have the benefit of being renewable and not derived from fossil fuels, but they could pose a problem if those crops were not harvested sustainably. For example, palm oil has been linked to deforestation and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. And some green-minded consumers might not be comfortable with the use of animal products to sustain their holiday fire.

Still, as we've seen, nearly all fireplace fuel options help wring the maximum use out of raw materials. So no matter what you toast your S'mores with, the Lantern thinks you can generally feel OK about it, in an I'm-using-every-part-of-the-buffalo kind of way.

So far we've talked about what goes into a log; now let's consider what comes out of it. You might think that burning natural firewood would produce the cleanest emissions. In fact, the opposite is true. When organic material doesn't burn all the way through, it releases tiny bits of particulate matter—linked to lung and heart disease, not to mention burning eyes and runny noses—and other hazardous substances, such as carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Concerns about emissions from fireplaces are great enough that some communities call for "burn bans" on days when the air quality is particularly low.

Artificial logs emit all the same pollutants as natural firewood, but they do so at significantly lower rates. A 2005 report from the EPA and Environment Canada (PDF) analyzed emissions from several varieties of fake logs, including those made from sawdust and coffee grounds, and compared them with reported figures for firewood. On average, a fire built with fake logs emitted 9 grams of particulate matter per hour, while wood-fueled fires emitted 36 grams. The fakes also released less carbon monoxide: 42 grams per hour, compared with firewood's 214 grams. The fakes also produced much less carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

There were some differences observed among the fakes, though. The coffee logs, for example, produced slightly less particulate matter than the others and had the second-lowest carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions. However, the differences between the best- and worst-performing fakes were much smaller than the differences between the most-polluting fakes and firewood.

Franken-logs tend to outperform their natural cousins because they pack in much more energy per unit of weight, on account of their wax content and relative lack of moisture. That means you don't have to burn nearly as much fake wood to get an equivalent amount of heat and light. The fake logs also burn more completely, producing fewer pollutants.

If you already have wood piling up in your backyard, however, the Lantern thinks you should use what you've got rather than buy a fake log that's less polluting. Just make sure that tree came down early in the year. Wood that's properly dried, or "seasoned," burns more cleanly and efficiently. (Getting your fire as hot as possible, as quickly as possible, will also reduce emissions.) The EPA's Burn Wise campaign recommends splitting wood into logs 3 to 5 inches in diameter and then storing them outdoors, covered and off the ground, for at least six months before burning. If you have a lot of wood and use your fireplace often, you might consider investing in a moisture meter. Otherwise, knock two logs against one another—if they're dry enough, they'll make a hollow sound, as opposed to a dull thud. ( slate.com )

READ MORE - The greenest way to make a holiday fire

The Big Four

Walking

Easy, simple and inexpensive, walking is a terrific form of exercise - and one that can be built into your daily life. It is also a good choice if you are new to an exercise progamme and want to build up your fitness before going on to something more strenuous.

But for it to be a useful aerobically, you must do it briskly for quite long stretches - at least 30 minutes at a time - and over both flat and hilly terrain.

When walking, wear a good pair of walking shoes, maintain good posture, keep your head up, shoulders back and chest out, and don't overstride because this can hurt your Achilles tendon.

Target a hill, or climb stairs, during the course of your walk. Pump your arms back and forward in a controlled manner or wear light handweights.

Walk based on time, not mileage, building up to 45 minutes at a brisk pace.

Running

For aerobic effectiveness, running is hard to beat. However, because of the risk of injury and high fitness level required, you must take yourself through a graded programme.

In the first week, start with brisk walking, breaking into a jog every now and then. If you can cope with this, try jogging for the second week. In the third week, gradually build up to shorts sprints between jogs. If you are starting from scratch, aim to jog / run 1.5 miles by the sixth week.

Keep your arms and hands relaxed but not floppy. Hold forearms at right angles to the body. Let your heel strike the ground first, then roll through smoothly to your toes,

Listen to your body: don't run to the point of breathlessness. Also remember high quality running shoes with plenty of support are essential.

Cycling

Riding a bike is an excellent endurance sport and promotes flexibility in the hips and legs. It is a good choice if old leg, foot or hip injuries prevent you from doing high-impact exercises such as running.

Remember to make sure your bike 'fits' you properly. Move the seat so the knee of your extended leg is bent 15 to 20 degrees with the balls of your feet on the pedals.

If you have weak knees, select a gear that allows you to pedal 80 to 90 revolutions per minute. Pedalling slower in a high gear, increases pressure and stress on the joint. Pedalling faster in a lower gear strengthens the heart, reduces the chance of injury and minimises fatigue.

Swimming

Because it is extremely low-impact, this sport is ideal if you are a beginner, have orthopaedic problems or are elderly. If you are quite overweight, swimming could suit you, too, because the water will support you and make movement easier.

The downside is that you need to work harder than you do on land to reach your target heart rate zone (about 60-70 per cent for weight loss, 70-80 pc for aerobic gains).

If you are a beginner, start off using a kickboard to work your legs. Swim for a non-stop 15 minutes to begin with, gradually building up to 30 minutes. (

Resist the temptation to rest for long periods at each end of the pool. The moment you stop, your heart rate drops dramatically and you lose out on the aerobic benefits. ( dailymail.co.uk )

READ MORE - The Big Four

Glasses vs. Contact Lenses

Glasses vs. Contact Lenses. An ophthalmic guide to saving the planet..Instead of glasses, I wear contact lenses. This means throwing out scraps of plastic (as well as their packaging) every two weeks, in addition to using cleaning fluid (which comes in plastic containers) and plastic lens cases. How much better would it be for the planet if I switched to glasses?

Sure, there are going to be impacts associated with manufacturing contact lenses—for example, you need energy to run the factories (which will result in greenhouse gas emissions), and until soy-based contact lenses hit the market, you need petroleum to make the plastic. But the Lantern doesn't believe that contact lenses represent some kind of major, hidden environmental concern. However, as a lifelong four-eyes herself, she'll admit a certain curiosity about this question.

Are glasses better for the planet than contact lenses?

Let's start by estimating the amount of plastic that goes into a pair of contact lenses and a pair of eyeglasses. According to data collected in the early 2000s by Eurolens Research—an industry consulting group based at the University of Manchester—a single pair of soft contact lenses weighs about 25 milligrams after it's been dehydrated. Twenty-six pairs of your biweekly lenses, then, would produce about 0.65 grams of dried-out plastic. A year's worth of the Lantern's own daily disposables—that's 730 lenses total—would produce 9.125 grams of plastic—or a little less than would go into the production of two credit cards.

What about eyeglass lenses? The amount of material can vary, depending on the type of plastic used, the prescription, and the shape of the frame. But a reasonable estimate, according to the Minnesota-based manufacturer Vision-Ease Lens, might be 120 grams of plastic for a pair of blanks—little slabs that opticians can grind down into finished lenses—and 35 for lenses that come pre-finished from the manufacturer, and just need to be shaped to fit the frame. Consumers tend to buy new glasses every 2.2 years, but 35 grams of plastic is the equivalent of almost four years' worth of daily contacts, or more than 50 years' worth of biweeklies.

This calculation leaves out several important factors, though. As you note, contact lenses come with a lot of extra plastic paraphernalia, like bottles of solution, lens cases, and individual blister packs. Once you've accounted for all these, eyeglasses start looking much better. In a 2003 paper, the Eurolens researchers calculated how much waste contact lens wearers generate in a year.

They looked at one brand of daily disposables, which don't require cleaning, and one brand of monthly disposables, which are cleaned and stored at night. A year's worth of daily lenses—360 pairs, in this study—produced 953 grams of plastic, between the lenses themselves and the blister packaging. Twelve pairs of monthlies, with 12 carrying cases and 12 bottles of cleaning solution, produced 549 grams. (The researchers also tallied the metal used to seal the blister packs and the paper used in the boxes and instructional leaflets.)

Eyeglasses do come with their own accoutrements, but these hardly make a difference in the overall calculation. At this online shop, the heaviest pair of eyeglasses—with lenses included—weighs about 0.07 pounds. At Amazon.com, cases seem to max out at around 0.25 pounds. Even if you threw in a stack of chamois cloths, it seems unlikely that a pair of glasses would create more than a pound or so of consumer waste. Plus, most contact lens wearers need a pair of glasses, too—meaning they will almost always produce more trash.

For all that, it's not worth getting worked up over the impacts of contact lenses. A year's supply of dailies produces a total of about 3 pounds of plastic, metal, and paper trash; monthlies, about 2.5 pounds. By comparison, the average American generates an annual total of more than 1,600 pounds of garbage (PDF). And according to Philip Morgan, one of the co-authors of the Eurolens paper, companies have been steadily reducing the amount of plastic used in their bottles and blister packs—perhaps by as much as 10 percent or 20 percent.

Of course, the picture would get far more complicated if we stepped back and looked at the entire life cycle of each option. The Lantern's been able to collect some scraps of data on the topic—for example, Bausch & Lomb told her that making one pair of soft contact lenses produces approximately 0.29 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent, and Vision-Ease has estimated that (in its Minnesota facility, at least) making a pair of eyeglass lenses produces 10.5 pounds of CO₂-equivalent.

If those numbers can be trusted, wearing daily disposables for a couple of years would contribute 22 times more greenhouse gas emissions than wearing a pair of glasses over that time. However, there are still frames and plastic bottles and cardboard boxes to consider, not to mention the production of all the raw materials.

Lacking a proper cradle-to-grave accounting, then, concentrate on reducing your vision-related waste. Cardboard boxes and paper leaflets can be recycled, and solution bottles may as well, depending on what kind of plastic they're made out of. Double-check with your local waste agency before you put lens cases in the recycling bin, however—like prescription medicine bottles, they may be too small to be accepted.

Old eyeglasses can be donated via organizations like New Eyes for the Needy and Lions Clubs International, and you can send unopened, unexpired contact lenses to MADRE, an international women's human rights organization based in New York. (Your original prescriber may take them back, as well.) ( slate.com )

READ MORE - Glasses vs. Contact Lenses

Ten Careers to Avoid Boredom

Ten Careers to Avoid Boredom. No matter where you are, boredom is one of the worst things ever. But, arguably, the worst place you can be bored is at work.

Boredom at work is the result of several things. Maybe your company is scaling back on hiring and, maybe, your responsibilities. Maybe you're an entry-level worker and your boss doesn't trust you enough yet to give you actual work. Or maybe your job is just tedious and you're totally uninterested in your tasks.

Whatever the reason, it's time to make a change. When you spend 40-plus hours doing mind-numbing work, you're bound to be miserable.

If you're looking for work that is anything but dull, check out these 10 careers that are sure to keep you on your toes.

1. Airline attendant

It's hard to be bored when you're a jet-setter, don't you think? Flight attendants are constantly on the move, working around the clock, year round and on nights, weekends and holidays, traveling to various places. During their working hours, they ensure that passengers follow safety and security regulations, while doing their best to guarantee travelers a comfortable flight. It seems that the only down time they have is during takeoff, landing and on their days off -- when a little boredom might be welcome.

Salary: $63,913/year

2. Buyer

Anyone who specializes in retail therapy can tell you, shopping is not boring. In all seriousness, buyers essentially shop for living, picking out what clothes are in demand, in style, determining what will sell and figuring out the amount of product their establishments should have in stock. To be successful, buyers must be on the pulse of fashion, keeping up with latest trends, competitor pricing, sales levels and consumer buying patterns.
Salary: $58,407/year

3. Event planner

Some call it stressful, others call it energizing, but no one calls it boring. Event planners are always on the go, dealing with several people, operations and vendors at the same time. They work under strict deadlines, travel to event sites, attend endless meetings and work long days and weekends. Event planners are usually arranging more than one event at time, which means they do all of these things times two (or three, maybe four).

Salary: $76,374/year

4. Food and beverage server

I was a server for a few years in college and while I admit that there were some slow days at work, for the most part, I was constantly busy. The key to not being bored as a server is finding a popular bar or restaurant, engaging with customers and working on days when you know you'll be busy, like weekends, game days or holidays. Running food and drinks from table to table, closing out tabs, dealing with complaints, cleaning up after patrons -- it never ends.

Salary: $19,013/year

5. Futurist

Although this career is uncommon, it's perfect for anyone who likes variety, research and curiosity. What do they do exactly? Futurists examine the present for clues to changes that the future may bring. Usually, they work as consultants to companies to help them foresee possible business changes and adjust accordingly. They are constantly researching reports, statistics, trends and other predictors to help them forecast different paths the future could take.

Salary: $98,603/year (consultant)

6. Nonprofit fundraiser

Fundraisers for nonprofit organizations have the daunting task of finding money and gifts to keep an association thriving. After all, just because nonprofits don't make money doesn't mean they don't have expenses. Fundraisers look for capital contributions and endowments, and plan events to help garner donations for a cause. Raising money is the difference between the organization's ability to start new projects and continue existing ones, so it's essential they are on top of things.

Salary: $68,145/year

7. Journalist

As a general rule, reporters and broadcasters eat, breathe and sleep the news -- and as any journalist will tell you, the news never sleeps. Whether they're following a lead, reporting breaking news or are operating under a tight deadline, journalists must be ready for anything at a moment's notice.

Salary: $48,206/year (reporter); $40,510 (news broadcaster)

8. Casino worker

Most casinos are open 24 hours, seven days a week, which means there is always work to be done. Whether you're a gaming dealer, slot key personnel, a security guard or a manager, you are constantly dealing with someone or something, which leaves minimal down time.

Salary: Various

9. Registered nurse

Health-care positions in general are always go, go, go; but nurses might take the cake. Often caring for several patients at the same time, RNs are frequently running from room to room, administering medications, answering call buttons, talking to families, making patients comfortable, updating charts and attending to the various needs of doctors, patients and families.

Salary: $66,427/year

10. Public relations manager

Public relations managers specialize in protecting and promoting their client's image or brand. Anything that is written, broadcasted or published about an organization must go through the PR team, as do any scheduled appearances or interviews. They are responsible for making sure their client's name stays reputable; putting out fires (so to speak); issuing statements when necessary; drafting press releases; pitching their client to media outlets and so much more.

Salary: $89,683/year

( msn.com )

READ MORE - Ten Careers to Avoid Boredom