This section is devoted to the information that will be useful in the creation of a Kin's Domains.
Watch Video:
Waterbirth Photo Competition 2009
The Benefits of Water
for Labor and/or Birth
Greater comfort and mobility. The mother has much greater ease and freedom to move spontaneously and to change position to assist the descent of the baby.
Reduction of pressure on the abdomen. Buoyancy promotes more efficient uterine contractions and better blood circulation, resulting in better oxygenation of the uterine muscles, less pain for the mother, and more oxygen for the baby.
Helps mother to conserve her energy. Immersion reduces opposition to gravity; supports the mother's weight so that her energy can be used to cope with the contractions.
Promotes deeper relaxation. As a woman relaxes deeply in water, her hormones kick in and she starts progressing faster and with more rhythm; labor becomes more efficient.
Water relaxes the pelvic floor muscles.
Water minimizes pain so effectively that for most women other pain control methods are no longer needed.
Water stimulates the touch and temperature nerve fibers in the skin. It blocks impulses from the pain fibers, known as the Gate Theory of Pain.
Immersion is often more effective and safer than an epidural. Some people call waterbirth an "aquadural."
Facilitates a dysfunctional labor. Water can be an effective way to stimulate dilation of the cervix when the mother has difficulty progressing into the active stage of labor.
Water can reduce the need for drugs to artificially stimulate labor. Often, simply getting into the tub will result in dramatic and rapid progress to full dilation within an hour or two.
Lowering of blood pressure. When anxiety is causing high blood pressure, immersion in water often helps lower it.
Change of consciousness. Immersion helps relieve anxiety and promotes relaxation. Water helps a woman to let go and focus inward as labor strengthens.
Easier breathing. Moisture in the air makes it easier to breathe and can be helpful to women with asthma.
Facilitates the second stage of labor. Many mothers are less inhibited in the water. The warm water softens the vagina, vulva, and perineum, leading to fewer injuries to these tissues.
Many women experience rapid second stages, with the baby emerging minutes after the body starts pushing, also known as the fetus ejection reflex (see Odent, The Nature of Birth and Breastfeeding).
Empowerment of the mother. When a woman delivers her baby while remaining awake, aware and in control, it greatly enhances the birth experience for her and becomes a source of great personal strength and power that enriches her life forever.
Greater involvement of the father. Because the mother's pain and stress is so greatly reduced, it is much easier for fathers to particpate and take a more active role in the birthing process. Many men are reluctant to become involved in the birth experience when they know that the mother is likely to endure intense pain, trauma and suffering during labor and delivery.
Enhanced family relationships. When the mother's pain is dramatically reduced, many fathers eagerly take a more active role in the delivery, resulting in a greater family bond. When fathers are more involved it increases the possibility of a joyous birth. Both parents and child get to share a wonderous experience that can enhance their relationships with each other for the rest of their lives.
Better parent-child interactions. A mother who has had a beautiful and empowering birth experience will have an especially positive association in her mind and emotions to that child; and a baby who has had an easy, non-traumatic, not painful, gentle birth will have an especially positive association to the parent. This exceptionally positive start to their relationship will likely enhance the parent-child interactions forever.
Evolving humanity in a positive direction. Many psychologists believe that babies born gently grow up to become more gentle adults, and have a greater ability to deal with problems non-violently.
Resources: Daniels, 1986; Balaskas, 1990; Lichy, 1993; Napierala, 1994.
http://www.waterbirthinfo.com/
Birth Story: The Unassisted Home Waterbirth of Nicholas
May 25, 2006
12:20am
10 lbs 4 oz
21 inches
"So, not to bore you with all of the details, but my due date was April 22, 2006. Now, I understand how accurate these "scientific" dates are, so I've never had my heart set on them. I figured I'd watch this one fly right by. Everyone I met asked me, "When WAS your due date?" They could see I was huge. I cheerfully explained (ok, not always so cheerfully) that I was due "x" weeks ago. They always looked horrified and responded, "They let you go this long?" Now, I could dissect any one of these words in this sentence and write a thesis on the brainwashing of American pregnant women, but I won't. "Let" was the big one. WHO is in charge of your body and its functions??? Anyway, 4 weeks and 3 days after my due date, our baby showed up.
Anyway, I started having contractions on Tuesday and they were 10 minutes apart, consistently, but I had been having contractions for 2.5 months off and on, so I never got my hopes up. I just recognized them and went about my day. Wednesday the contractions continued 7 minutes apart the entire day and simply became stronger as the day progressed, but no closer. In fact, at 3pm, I told Rob that we needed to go to Costco and I needed to walk to see if these things would change. We went to Costco and by the time we were leaving, I was barely able to move through them. We made 2 more stops on the way home: First stop to a party supply place to pick up "It's a girl!" and "It's a boy!" banners. I had one REALLY strong contraction in there. So hard, I had to hang on to Rob and it almost brought me to my knees. The second stop was to pick up Michael from my parent's home, as they had been hanging out with him for a few hours. I wasn't convinced I was in labor?probably to protect me mentally and not get my hopes up. I was tired, uncomfortable and ready to have this baby, but it wasn't my decision. It was the baby's decision when to show up.
While at my parent's home, I would have to get off my perineum and go on all fours, while we chatted. The pressure was just too much. My mom asked my dad to check his watch - every 7 minutes. He mentioned that he thought I was in labor. Ok, maybe. Still, I wasn't going to get too excited. We took Michael home and told my parents to go to bed early, in case we wanted them to come over.
At 9:30pm, I was still having these contractions, getting harder, but not closer. I told Rob we should probably go to bed in case I need to birth this baby tonight. He agreed and we were in bed by 10pm. At 11pm, I woke him up (well, I was doing that every 7 minutes) and told him that I just can't handle these contractions anymore. No position was even taking the edge off. He was silently irritated that I had woken him up, since he figured it would be hours.
I had him call my parents and ask them to come over to adjust me (they are both chiropractors). In the meantime, we called my friend to come over and take some early labor pictures and another friend who is a massage therapist, in case I changed my mind and wanted to be massaged.
My parents, Mimi and Sarah showed up 15 minutes later. While I had a contraction, my dad was talking and I screamed at him. He got grumpy with me and started saying something and my mom told him to be quiet. He did. When my contraction was over, I explained that these contractions are sensory overload for me. I needed it quiet, dark and no one touching me. He got it. He then adjusted my sacrum and my contractions jumped from 7 minutes apart to 3 minutes, instantaneously. I went to get undressed, put a robe on and came out to get in the birth tub in our living room (which had been there for 8 weeks). It was 11:15pm.
The contractions continued approximately 3 minutes apart and they were intense. I changed positions every 2 contractions and still felt like I could not take the edge off. Between contractions, I was talking and laughing, but once they started, I was practically crawling down the side of the tub.
At midnight my water broke and suddenly, thunk!, the head was in the canal?like a cork. The burning was soooo intense. I kept thinking that this is not the ring of fire, so what is it? This baby must be HUGE.
At 12:10am, I barked at my husband, "Get in the tub, NOW!" He was slightly confused and hesitant because last time, I was in the tub for 13 hours and he didn't want to be in there that long. He hesitated just long enough for me to bark again. He ran in our room and changed into some shorts and jumped in the tub.
I pushed harder than I ever thought I could. With Michael, I was so worried about tearing (which I didn't) and with this one, I didn't care if I tore to my eyeballs, I just wanted this baby out. I did back off when I felt a little too much pressure on the clitoris. With the next contraction, I pushed again and the head popped out. The feeling was totally different. I asked Sarah and my mom if the shoulders were out, as I was strategizing on how I was going to push, based on the anatomy showing. They both hesitated and not so confidently, replied, "No." I wondered what that was about, but then another contraction came and I didn't push as hard. With the next contraction, I pushed with all of my might and the baby shot out of me like a cannon ball. In fact, my mom reached in the water and stopped baby from hitting the side of the tub. I reached down and pulled my baby from the water. Utter relief and joy. I had done it - again.
By the feel of those testicles, when I pulled him from the water, it was another baby boy for us at 12:20am. We were thrilled. The contractions continued just as hard and I didn't get a break. 8 minutes after the baby was born, he latched himself on. 5 minutes later, the placenta was delivered. I got out of the tub, made my way to the shower, then directly to bed, where I continued to breastfeed and sleep until morning.
Everything happened so fast, that we didn't have a chance to call everyone we wanted to be there. My brother even missed it. Sarah called Sue, the midwife, to let her know the baby was born and we were all well.
Later, I found out that it was a compound presentation. His hand was on his cheek, so the burning was his hand, head, shoulder and elbow all coming down. When I had asked about his shoulders, that's what they saw - which is why both of them hesitated, but it explained the burning all the way down the canal. He also has a birthmark on his cheek, as his hand must have been there for quiet some time in-utero. (Oh, and I didn't tear.)
So, we are done having babies. My husband thinks we should have more, since he thinks I birth them so well. I just trust my body - it's as simple as that. Anyone can do what I do - they just need to have a little more faith in their bodies and their babies."
-Jennifer, mother of:
Nicholas
Born at home 5/25/2006
http://www.ecohearth.com/
Image Copyrights: http://childrenandnature.ning.com/; http://www.visitsweden.com/
Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies
Institute for Responsible Technology, May 2007
Straight to the Source
Part 1: Genetically Engineered Soybeans
The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often[1], but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America's diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates.
Food safety tests are inadequate to protect public health
Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe.[2] That's because people aren't usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. "The only definitive test for allergies," according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, "is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations."[3] And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms.
The UK is one of the few countries that conducts a yearly evaluation of food allergies. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, "We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods."[4]
Critics of GM foods often say that the US population is being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. But experiments have the benefit of controls and measurement. In this case, there is neither. GM food safety experts point out that even if a someone tried to collect data about allergic reactions to GM foods, they would not likely be successful. "The potential allergen is rarely identified. The number of allergy-related medical visits is not tabulated. Even repeated visits due to well-known allergens are not counted as part of any established surveillance system."[5] Indeed, after the Canadian government announced in 2002 that they would "keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians"[6] to see if GM foods had any adverse reactions, they abandoned their plans within a year, saying that such a study was too difficult.
Genetic engineering may provoke increased allergies to soy
The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[7] It was fortunately never put on the market.
The GM variety that is planted in 89% of US soy acres gets its foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well). We don't know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction. As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. The database lists the proteins' amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune responses. If the new GM protein is found to contain sequences that are found in the allergen database, according to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to known allergens, but the soybean was introduced before the WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted.
If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That's when genes spontaneously transfer from one species' DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals. But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.
Genetic engineering damaged soy DNA, creating new (or more) allergens
Although biotech advocates describe the process of genetic engineering as precise, in which genes-like Legos-cleanly snap into place, this is false. The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant's DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a completely new, unknown allergen within the crop. Both appear to have happened in GM soy.
Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to 27% higher in raw GM soy. In addition, although cooking soybeans normally reduces the amount of this protein, the trypsin inhibitor in GM varieties appears to be more heat resistant. Levels in cooked GM soy were nearly as high as those found in raw soy, and up to seven times higher when compared to cooked non-GM soy.[8] This suggests that this allergen in GM soy may be more likely to provoke reactions than when consumed in natural varieties.
Another study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. Moreover, scientist tested the protein and determined that it reacted with the antibody called IgE. This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.
The same researchers measured the immune response of human subjects to soybeans using a skin-prick test-an evaluation used often by allergy doctors. Eight subjects showed a reaction to GM soy; but one of these did not also react to non-GM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge, and might account for the increase in soy allergies in the UK.
Increased herbicides on GM crops may cause reactions
By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate's breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]
GM soy might impede digestion, leading to allergies
If proteins survive longer in the digestive tract, they have more time to provoke an allergic reaction. Mice fed GM soy showed dramatically reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. If protein-digesting enzymes are less available, then food proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Such a reduction in protein digestion due to GM soy consumption could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the soy. No human studies of protein digestion related to GM soy have been conducted.
Soy linked to peanut allergies
There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[10] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.
Eating GM foods is gambling with our health
The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialized countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. Ohio-based allergy specialist John Boyles, MD, says, "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it-unless it says organic."[11]
Organic foods are not allowed to contain GM ingredients. Buying products that are certified organic or that say non-GMO are two ways to limit your family's risk from GM foods. Another is to avoid products containing any ingredients from the seven food crops that have been genetically engineered: soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, Hawaiian papaya and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash. This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.
Fortunately, the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will soon make your shopping easier. This Consumer Non-GMO Education Campaign is orchestrating the clean out of GM ingredients from foods and the natural products industry. The campaign will circulate helpful non-GMO shopping guides to organic and natural food stores nationwide. The Campaign will provide consumers with regular GM food safety updates that explain the latest discoveries about why, Healthy Eating Means No GMOs.
Safe eating.
This article is limited to the discussion of allergic reactions from GM soybeans. The evidence that GM corn is triggering allergies is far more extensive and will be covered in part 2 of this series.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the new publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See for example, Charles Sheehan, "Scientists see spike in kids' food allergies," Chicago Tribune, 9 June 2006, http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/
[2] See for example, Carl B. Johnson, Memo on the "draft statement of policy 12/12/91," January 8, 1992. Johnson wrote: "Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task."
[3] Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org
[4] Ibid.
[5] Traavik and Heinemann, "Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research"
[6] "Genetically modified foods, who knows how safe they are?" CBC News and Current Affairs, September 25, 2006.
[7] J. Ordlee, et al, "Identification of a Brazil-Nut Allergen in Transgenic Soybeans," The New England Journal of Medicine, March 14, 1996.
[8] Stephen R. Padgette et al, "The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans," The Journal of Nutrition 126, no. 4, (April 1996); including data in the journal archives from the same study.
[9] Charles Benbrook, "Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years"; BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.
[10] See for example, Scott H. Sicherer et al., "Prevalence of peanut and tree nut allergy in the United States determined by means of a random digit dial telephone survey: A 5-year follow-up study," Journal of allergy and clinical immunology, March 2003, vol. 112, n 6, 1203-1207); and Ricki Helm et al., " Hypoallergenic Foods-Soybeans and Peanuts," Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report, October 1, 2002.
[11] John Boyles, MD, personal communication, 2007.
http://www.undoge.org/
Image Copyrights: http://www.herbalextractok.com/
Watch Video:
What Can We Do About Genetically Modified Food?
Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies (Part Two)
Part 2: Genetically Engineered Corn
By Jeffrey M. Smith
The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified (GM) crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects staying away from GM crop fields. But "resisting pests" is just a euphemism for contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.
The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency -- which regulates plant produced pesticides -- tell us not to worry. They contend that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, so that the plant does the work, not the farmer. Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, since humans and other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us in any case.
These arguments, however, are just that -- unsupported assumptions. Research tells a different story.
Bt spray is dangerous to humans
When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions -- mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma.[1],[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation,[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked to Bt.[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea,[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness.[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt also developed fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.[7]
In fact, authorities have long acknowledged that "People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt."[8] The Oregon Health Division advises that "individuals with . . . physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving the area during the actual spraying."[9] A spray manufacturer warns, "Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic response in hypersensitive individuals."[10] So much for the contention that Bt does not interact with humans.
As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies disproved this as well. Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses -- as potent as cholera toxin. In addition, the Bt caused their immune system to become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds This suggests that exposure might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.[11],[12] The EPA's own expert advisors said that the mouse and farm worker studies above "suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources."[13]
The toxin in GM plants is more dangerous than natural sprays
The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is "vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry."[14] First of all, GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays. And the spray form is broken down within a few days to two weeks by sunlight,[15] high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants; and it can be "washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall,"[16] or rinsed by consumers. A Bt producing GM plant, on the other hand, continuously produces the toxin in every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.
The natural toxic produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a "safety catch" is removed and the Bt becomes toxic. But scientists change the sequence the Bt gene before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is always active and more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.[17]
Bt-toxin fails safety studies but is used nonetheless
Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.[18] They suggest examining a protein for 1) similarity of its amino acid sequence to known allergens, 2) digestive stability and 3) heat stability. These properties aren't predictive of allergenicity, but their presence, according to experts, should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.
For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto's Yield Guard and Syngenta's Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that "the similarity . . . might be sufficient to warrant additional evaluation."[19] No additional evaluation took place.[20]
Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat.[21] It is nearly as stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its highly stable protein might trigger allergies.[22] Although it was grown for use in animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items were subject to recall. After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the EPA had called for "surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals" to "confirm the allergenicity of Bt products."[23] Again, no such monitoring has taken place.
Bt cotton triggers allergic reactions
A 2005 report by medical investigators in India describes an ominous finding. Hundreds of agricultural workers are developing moderate or severe allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton. This includes those picking cotton, loading it, cleaning it, or even leaning against it. Some at a ginning factory must take antihistamines daily, in order to go to work. Reactions are only triggered with the Bt varieties.[24] Furthermore, the symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt. Only "exacerbations of asthma" were in one list and not the other (see table).
 |
|
|
|
|
Upper respiratory
|
Eyes
|
Skin
|
Overall
|
Bt Spray
|
Sneezing,
runny nose,
exacerbations of asthma
|
Watery,
red
|
Itching, burning, inflammation, red, swelling
|
Fever,
some in hospital
|
Bt cotton
|
Sneezing,
runny nose
|
Watery,
red
|
Itching, burning, eruptions,
red, swelling
|
Fever,
some in hospital
|
|
|
|
(We are unaware of similar reports in the US, where 83% of the cotton is Bt. But in the US, cotton is harvested by machine, not by hand.)
The experience of the Indian workers begs the question, "How long does the Bt-toxin stay active in the cotton?" It there any risk using cotton diapers, tampons, or bandages? In the latter case, if the Bt-toxin interfered with healing it could be a disaster. With diabetics, for example, unhealed wounds may be cause for amputation.
Cottonseed is also used for cottonseed oil -- used in many processed foods in the US. The normal methods used to extract oil likely destroy the toxin, although cold pressed oil may still retain some of it. Other parts of the cotton plant, however, are routinely used as animal feed. The next part of this series -- focused on toxicity -- presents evidence of disease and deaths associated with animals consuming Bt cotton plants.
Bt corn pollen may cause allergies
Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen, which can be breathed in. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people were stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to Bt-toxin; this supports, but does not prove a link to the symptoms. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas -- only during the time of pollination.
The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter to the US FDA in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.[25] Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. If this also happens with Bt genes, than years after we decide to stop eating GM corn chips, our own gut bacteria may continue to produce Bt-toxin within our intestines.
Studies show immune responses to GM crops
Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn (Mon 863), that was made public due to a lawsuit, showed a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.[26]
Australian scientists took an insecticide producing gene (not Bt) from a kidney bean and put it into a pea, in hopes of killing the pea weevil. The peas had passed the tests normally used to approve GM crops and were on the way to being commercialized. But the developers decided to employ a mouse study that had never before been used on other GM food crops. When they tested the pesticide in its natural state, i.e. the version produced within kidney beans, the protein was not harmful to mice. But that "same" protein, when produced by the kidney bean gene that was inserted into pea DNA, triggered inflammatory responses in the mice, suggesting that it would cause allergies in humans. Somehow, the protein had been changed from harmless to potentially deadly, just by being created in a different plant. Scientists believe that subtle, unpredicted changes in the pattern of sugar molecules that were attached to the protein were the cause of the problem. These types of subtle changes are not routinely analyzed in GM crops on the market.
Experimental potatoes engineered with a third type of insecticide caused immune damage to rats.[27] Blood tests showed that their immune responses were more sluggish, and organs associated with immune function also appeared to be damaged. As with the peas, the insecticide in its natural state was harmless to the rats. The cause of the health problems was therefore due to some unpredicted change brought about by the genetic engineering process. And like the peas, if the potatoes had been subjected to only the type of tests that are typically used by biotech companies to get their foods on the market, the potatoes would have been approved.
Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, "A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, . . . indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods." [28]
In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports from the field provide evidence that GM foods are toxic. In the next article in this series, we look at thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, linked to consumption of GM crops.
Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of the new publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Washington State Department of Health, "Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program," (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).
[2] M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848-852.
[3] M.A. Noble, P.D. Riben, and G. J. Cook, "Microbiological and epidemiological surveillance program to monitor the health effects of Foray 48B BTK spray" (Vancouver, B.C.: Ministry of Forests, Province of British Columbi, Sep. 30, 1992).
[4] A. Edamura, MD, "Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture," (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
[5] J. R. Samples, and H. Buettner, "Ocular infection caused by a biological insecticide," J. Infectious Dis. 148, no. 3 (1983): 614; as reported in Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)", Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994)
[6] M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health, 80, no. 7 (1990): 848-852.
[7] A. Edamura, MD, "Affidavit of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division. Dale Edwards and Citizens Against Aerial Spraying vs. Her Majesty the Queen, Represented by the Minister of Agriculture," (May 6, 1993); as reported in Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)," Journal of Pesticide Reform, 14, no, 3 (Fall 1994).
[8] Carrie Swadener, "Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.)," Journal of Pesticide Reform 14, no. 3 (Fall 1994).
[9] Health effects of B.t.: Report of surveillance in Oregon, 1985-87. Precautions to minimize your exposure (Salem, OR: Oregon Departmentof Human Resources, Health Division, April 18, 1991).
[10] Material Safety Data Sheet for Foray 48B Flowable Concentrate (Danbury, CT: Novo Nordisk, February, 1991).
[11] Vazquez et al, "Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice," Life Sciences, 64, no. 21 (1999): 1897-1912; Vazquez et al, "Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice," Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 33 (2000): 147-155.
[12] Vazquez et al, "Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protoxin is a potent systemic and mucosal adjuvant," Scandanavian Journal of Immunology 49 (1999): 578-584. See also Vazquez-Padron et al., 147 (2000b).
[13] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, "Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments," March 12, 2001: 76. Available at:http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
[14] Terje Traavik and Jack Heinemann, "Genetic Engineering and Omitted Health Research: Still No Answers to Ageing Questions, 2006. Cited in their quote was: G. Stotzky, "Release, persistence, and biological activity in soil of insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis," found in Deborah K. Letourneau and Beth E. Burrows, Genetically Engineered Organisms. Assessing Environmental and Human Health Effects (cBoca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC, 2002), 187-222.
[15] C. M. Ignoffo, and C. Garcial, "UV-photoinactivation of cells and spores of Bacillus thuringiensis and effects of peroxidase on inactivation," Environmental Entomology 7 (1978): 270-272.
[16] BT: An Alternative to Chemical Pesticides, Environmental Protection Division, Ministry of Environment, Government of British Columbia, Canada, http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/epdpa/ipmp/fact_sheets/BTfacts.htm
[17] See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, "Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea," Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441-7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, "Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)," Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2-3 (2004): 175-183.
[18] FAO-WHO, "Evaluation of Allergenicity of Genetically Modified Foods. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of Foods Derived from Biotechnology," Jan. 22-25, 2001; http://www.fao.org/es/ESN/food/pdf/allergygm.pdf
[19] Gendel, "The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods," Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45-62.
[20] US EPA, "Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD) -- Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment," EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[21] US EPA, "Biopesticides Registration Action Document (BRAD) -- Bacillus thuringiensis Plant-Incorporated Protectants: Product Characterization & Human Health Assessment," EPA BRAD (2001b) (October 15, 2001): IIB4, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_brad2/2-id_health.pdf
[22] "Assessment of Additional Scientific Information Concerning StarLink Corn," FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Report No. 2001-09, July 2001.
[23] EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, "Bt Plant-Pesticides Risk and Benefits Assessments," March 12, 2001: 76. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/2000/october/octoberfinal.pdf
[24] Ashish Gupta et. al., "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh)," Investigation Report, Oct-Dec 2005.
[25] N. Tomlinson of UK MAFF's Joint Food Safety and Standards Group 4, December 1998 letter to the U.S. FDA, commenting on its draft document, "Guidance for Industry: Use of Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes in Transgenic Plants," http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/acnfp1998.pdf; (see pages 64-68).
[26] John M. Burns, "13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002," December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf, see also Stephane Foucart, "Controversy Surrounds a GMO," Le Monde, 14 December 2004; and Jeffrey M. Smith, "Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up," Spilling the Beans, June 2005, http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/June05GMCornHealthDangerExposed/index.cfm
[27] A. Pusztai, et al, "Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects," in: Food Safety: Contaminants and Toxins (ed. JPF D'Mello) (Wallingford Oxon, UK: CAB International), 347-372, also additional communication with Arpad Pusztai.
[28] October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John
http://www.undoge.org/
Image Copyrights: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/
America does not have a shortage of doctors, it has an excess of disease
(NaturalNews) Now that health reform relying on monopolized pharmaceutical medicine has become the law of the land across America, the mainstream media is reporting on a sudden shortage of doctors. The nearly one million doctors who already treat a sick, diseased population is no longer enough, it seems, and medical schools are ramping up to churn out more doctors to treat yet more disease. There are never enough doctors to go around when everybody's sick, it seems...
What we're witnessing here is a massive expansion of the sick-care industry which already swallows 20 percent of the U.S. economy. Over the next few years, that percentage will rise to 25 percent, then 30 percent, and this financial sinkhole called "mainstream medicine" may even hit one-third of the entire national economy.
That puts the U.S. in a dire financial situation. If a third of the economic productivity is being spent on sickness and disease, and another third (or so) is being spent on war and imperialism, and another third is spent on debt interest and social security, then where do you get the money to actually build roads and schools, pay government employees or administer the business of government?
The answer, of course, is that you simply print more money and keep on spending -- a sure path to currency hyperinflation.
But that's another story. The topic of today is how to solve the doctor shortage. And the answer to that is quite simple: Unleash the power of nutrition to prevent and reverse disease.
Nutrition ends the doctor shortage
We already know that vitamin D, all by itself, can prevent nearly 4 out of 5 cancers. It also helps prevent heart disease, diabetes, depression, seasonal flu and kidney disease. Distribute free vitamin D supplements across the entire population and you solve the doctor shortage problem in one year as the public gets healthier and reduces doctor visits.
It's a simple, cost-effective solution that any intelligent nation would embrace without a second thought: Invest a few pennies in the health of the population and save yourself many dollars in reduced health care costs. Regular vitamin D supplementation has no negative side effects and requires no prescriptions, no injections and no visits to the doctor. What's not to like about that?
Except the sick care industry doesn't like it at all. Drug companies, hospitals, conventional doctors, med schools, medical journals and now even the mainstream media all generate extreme profits from the ongoing business of sickness and disease. Vitamin D would disrupt their profit agenda and send people home healthy and well instead of bringing them back into the hospital sick and diseased.
America, you see, does not have a shortage of doctors... it has an excess of disease. And that's an excess that the sick-care system seems determined to continue.
America must decide: Sickness or health?
Faced with such a situation, the nation can make one of two choices:
Choice #1) Invest in more doctors and expand the business of disease to ensnare the entire population in a cycle of pharmaceutical dependence, nutritional ignorance and accelerated disease.
Choice #2) Invest in nutrition and shrink the sick-care industry by showing people how to stay healthy, fit and free of disease. Downsize sick care, in other words, by unleashing health.
Which choice has America made? It's obvious, isn't it? With the recent health care reform legislation, the country has invested heavily in choice #1: More sickness, more pharmaceuticals, more hospitals and more doctors.
http://www.naturalnews.com/
Image Source: http://www.ithaca.edu/
The Dark Side of the Routine Newborn Vitamin K Shot
Watch: Newborn Vitamin K Shot
By Dr. Mercola
It has been standard practice in the U.S., and most western countries, since 1944 to welcome babies into the world by subjecting them to a variety of medical interventions, one of which is a painful jab with a syringe full of vitamin K.
This injection is routinely done to almost all newborns, unless you, as a parent, refuse to consent.
Birth is an overwhelming sensory experience for your baby. He has never before experienced cold or hunger, been blinded by artificial lights, or felt the touch of hands or metal instruments, paper or cloth. Even gravity is a foreign sensation.
A needle stick is a terrible assault to their suddenly overloaded sensory system, which is trying to adjust to the outside world.
Is this injection really in your baby's best interest? Is vitamin K really necessary immediately after birth? Or is there a more compassionate alternative?
Vitamin K Shots are Completely Unnecessary for Your Newborn!
I recently had the pleasure of interviewing the foremost expert in the world on vitamin K, Dr. Cees Vermeer, PhD, Associate Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Maastricht (in The Netherlands), I am thrilled to be able to share with you some of the latest information about vitamin K that he shared with me.
The rest of the interview is scheduled to run later this year but this information was so vital and of public health priority that I had to share it with you now.
The great news: Vitamin K shots are completely unnecessary for your newborn.
While this painful injection is inappropriate for reasons I will cover in detail, vitamin K is necessary. But there are other safer and non invasive ways to normalize your baby's vitamin K levels that don't have such damaging effects.
Why is this Shot Given in the First Place?
Vitamin K is necessary for normal blood clotting in adults and children. Some babies (in fact, most of them) are born with insufficient vitamin K levels.
In some newborns, this deficiency can lead to a serious bleeding disorder, typically in the first week of life, called Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn (HDN). Internal bleeding occurs in the brain and other organs, leading to serious injury or even death.
While this disease is rare (incidence of 0.25 percent to 1.7 percent [i]),it is has been standard practice to give injections of vitamin K as a preventative measure, whether or not risk factors are present.
Your newborn can be at increased risk for Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn if he or she has any of the following:
- Preterm delivery
- Low birth weight
- A forceps or vacuum extraction delivery
- Mother's use of antibiotics, anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, and some other medications during pregnancy
- Undetected liver disease
- Extremely fast, or extremely prolonged labor, particularly during the pushing phase
- Delivery by C-section
Unfortunately, the current standard of care regarding Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn and vitamin K was put into practice without adequate research to determine what was best for the newborns. These shotgun approaches were certainly convenient for the physicians but lacked any sort of consideration of side effects for the baby.
Increased rates of circumcision immediately after birth, before infants can develop their vitamin K levels naturally, has undoubtedly contributed to making vitamin K injections routine, to lower the risk for increased bleeding from these early circumcisions.
As pointed out by one Mercola reader, it is interesting to note that a newborn's natural prothrombin levels reach normal levels between days 5 and 7, peaking around the eighth day of life, related to the buildup of bacteria in the baby's digestive tract to produce the vitamin K that is necessary to form this clotting factor. Day 8 is said to be the only time in a baby's life when his prothrombin level will naturally exceed 100 percent of normal.
As it turns out, Genesis 17:12 of the Bible mandates the circumcision of infant boys on the eighth day after birth -- a recommendation pronounced long before we had the science to back it up.
I will leave any conclusions to you about the significance of this anecdote, but it is nevertheless interesting.
As far as I know, only one state has a law mandating vitamin K injections -- New York State, which is notorious for restricting and preventing exemptions to vaccinations and other mandated medical treatments for children.
However, you can find specific instructions about how to get around this, for New Yorkers and residents of other states, at Vaccine Liberation Organization, which has a page specific to New Yorkers who wish to avoid the Hepatitis B shot, vitamin K injections, or the application of silver nitrate into your newborn's eyes.
The organization urges you to consider the option of hiring legal counsel to assist you in exerting your rights as a parent, due to how challenging it is to get an exemption in New York State.
Fortunately, subsequent research has revealed that there are safer, better practices that will protect your child from Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn just as well.
The Dangers of the Shot They Don't Warn You About
There are three primary areas of risk associated with these injections:
- Probably the most significant is Inflicting pain immediately after birth likely causing psycho-emotional damage and trauma to a newborn, which is totally inappropriate, and unnecessary. It just creates another emotional wound that the helpless and innocent baby needs to overcome to achieve health and wellness.
It is bad enough they will have to overcome unintentional traumas along the way but to mandate this practice is the 21st century is simply unconscionable.
- The amount of vitamin K injected into newborns is 20,000 times the needed dose[ii]. Additionally, the injection may also contain preservatives that can be toxic for your baby's delicate, young immune system.
- An injection creates an additional opportunity for infection in an environment that contains some of the most dangerous germs, at a time when your baby's immune system is still immature.
It is, however, also important to correct the record about one myth that has been propagated for years about the dangers of vitamin K injections in newborns.
It was suggested some years ago that vitamin K injections were associated with cancer and leukemia. However, that conclusion was in error. There is NO known association between the two.
As mentioned above, these injections are absolutely inappropriate for your baby -- but the increased risk for cancer is not a legitimate concern.
Although premature clamping of the umbilical should be avoided as it can result in brain damage, there is insufficient evidence to say that this can lead to lower vitamin K levels in newborns, although you will occasionally see this claim made.
Inflicting Pain Just After Birth Has Long-Term Effects on Your Newborn
For more than a century, many physicians have maintained a denial of infant pain, based on ancient prejudices and "scientific evidence" that was long ago disproven. Many have made claims that newborns don't feel pain, or remember it, the way adults do.
In fact, not only do infants feel pain, but the earlier they experience it, the more damaging and longer lasting are the psychological effects.
Dr. David B. Chamberlain, psychologist and co-founder of the Association of Pre-and Perinatal Psychology and Health, wrote in his article "Babies Don't Feel Pain: A Century of Denial in Medicine [iii]":
"The earlier an infant is subjected to pain, the greater the potential for harm.
Early pains include being born prematurely into a man-made "womb," being born full-term in a man-made delivery room, being subject to any surgery (major or minor), and being circumcised.
We must alert the medical community to the psychological hazards of early pain and call for the removal of all man-made pain surrounding birth."
Back in 1999, Science Daily published an article [iv] about the findings of a research team at the Washington School of Medicine that newborns who are exposed to a series of painful treatments display a variety of long-term effects as older children, including an altered response to pain and an exaggerated stress response.
A 2004 study [v] found that very early pain or stress experiences have long-lasting adverse consequences for newborns, including changes in the central nervous system and changes in responsiveness of the neuroendocrine and immune systems at maturity.
Similarly, a 2008 study of analgesia in newborns and children [vi] concluded:
"Healthy newborns routinely experience acute pain during blood sampling for metabolic screening, injection of vitamin K or hepatitis vaccine, or circumcision.
Acute pain caused by skin-breaking procedures can lead to physiologic instability and behavioral distress, and it has downstream effects on subsequent pain processing, development and stress responsivity.
Because of these detrimental effects, reduction and prevention of pain are worthy clinical goals that are also expected by most parents."
In addition to the above, the possible trauma from the injection can also jeopardize the establishment of breastfeeding, which is detrimental to both mother and baby.
ORAL Vitamin K is a Safe, Effective Alternative
Fortunately, the alternative to these outrageously unnecessary newborn injections is amazingly simple: give the vitamin ORALLY. It is safe and equally effective, and devoid of any of the previously mentioned troubling side effects.
Oral vitamin K is absorbed less efficiently than vitamin K that is injected. However, this can easily be compensated for by adjusting the dose. And since vitamin K is nontoxic, there is no danger of overdosing or a bad reaction.
If you are breastfeeding, which I hope you are, your baby can be given several low oral doses of liquid vitamin K1 and receive the same protection from Hemorrhagic Disease of the Newborn as he would receive from an injection.
Ultimately, you should consult your pediatrician about the dose that is appropriate for your baby.
However, midwife Ronnie Falcao uses the guidelines formulated by an international committee of physicians called the Cochrane Collaboration. They have determined the following dosing schedule, which results in very similar rates of protection from HDN [vii] :
- 1 milligram liquid vitamin K weekly, OR
- 0.25 milligram liquid vitamin K daily
In the future, research is needed to better pinpoint guidelines about the oral vitamin K dosing for newborns. However, remember that there have been no adverse effects observed in adults or babies who receive vitamin K doses much higher than what is actually required. And the dose given orally will be far less than the megadose given by injection!
So for now, there is no danger in overshooting the mark somewhat to make sure your baby is adequately protected until precise dosing guidelines are made available by science.
You can also increase your infant's vitamin K levels naturally if you are breastfeeding by increasing your own vitamin K levels.
The milk of lactating women has been tested, and most milk is low in vitamin K because the women themselves are vitamin K deficient. If women take vitamin K supplements, then their milk becomes much richer in vitamin K, as you would expect.
According to Dr. Vermeer, mothers who are adequately supplementing themselves with vitamin K and are breastfeeding should NOT need to give their infants additional K supplements.
But you must be cautious here that your vitamin K levels are optimal, and for most women, the vitamin K absorbed from foods is typically insufficient, so a supplement might be needed.
What You Need to do BEFORE Your Baby is Born
Ultimately, the choice about whether or not to consent for your baby to be given a vitamin K shot is yours. At least now you have the information with which you can make an informed decision.
How do you want your baby's first few moments of life to be?
There are plenty of unavoidable pains that you can't prevent, no matter how much you might want to shield your child from all pain and suffering. Why not eliminate one source of pain that is absolutely unnecessary and under your control?
If you choose to not expose your child to vitamin K1 as a shot and would prefer to have it given orally, you will have to make it VERY clear to not only your OB physician but also ALL the nursing staff, as they would be the ones that actually administer the shot.
During the excitement of the delivery it will be very difficult to remember that your baby was not supposed to have the shot. So it would also be helpful to have someone like your spouse at the delivery reminding them that your child should NOT get the shot.
Please note, that is the same strategy I would suggest using if you reach the same conclusion I did about hepatitis B vaccines given to newborns. I believe this is clearly the most unnecessary and inappropriate of ALL vaccines and should be avoided like the plague.
But remember you HAVE to be proactive. Typically the nursing staff will NEVER ask for your permission to give this vaccine or vitamin K shot as it is STANDARD practice so they don't need your permission. So you have to be VERY diligent in your request.
I know because this happened to my nephew, (my sister's son) and that was the ONLY vaccine either of her children ever received. I am very close to my sister as she started my medical practice with me in 1985 and ran the office for many years. Now she is an editor for this newsletter, and on the executive team for our business.
I never had any children of my own and her kids are very dear to me so it pains me to not have been more diligent in preventing this shot. We are both convinced the vaccine caused some side effects to this day, more than 12 years later.
Please remember, YOU will have to exercise extreme diligence in making your wishes known. The system will fight you tooth and nail as they sincerely believe they know better than you.
It is so worth it though to take the extra steps to protect your newborn. I would strongly encourage you to make the additional effort.
REFERENCES:
- [i] American Academy of Pediatrics Vitamin K Ad Hoc Task Force, "Controversies concerning vitamin K and the newborn," Pediatrics. 1993 May;91(5):1001-3
- [ii] "Newborn vitamin K injections," Giving Birth Naturally
- [iii] Chamberlain D. "Babies don't feel pain: A century of denial in medicine"
- [iv] Science Daily, "Infant pain may have long-term effects," August 16, 1999
- [v] Giboney Page G. "Are there long-term consequences of pain in newborn or very young infants?" J Perinat Educ. 2004 Summer; 13(3): 10-17
- [vi] Anand KJS. "Analgesia for skin-breaking procedures in newborns and children: What works best?" CMAJ. 2008 July 1;179(1):11-12
- [vii] Falcao R. "Vitamin K injection or oral administration"
http://articles.mercola.com/
Image Copyrights: http://keiranazril.files.wordpress.com/
Starting Your First Vegetable Garden
You're aware of the health benefits of eating fresh vegetables, you have the space for a small garden, but just don't know where to start? Look no further. Here's all you need to know to put fresh, crisp vegetables on your dinner table.
First, think small. Don't bite off more than you can chew, or hoe. It's like starting out an exercise program by running five miles the first day. You get tired, sore and you quit. Likewise, if you plant a huge garden the first year, you'll curse, cuss and turn your sore back on gardening for good. So, if you're new to gardening, start off with a garden no larger than 8' X 10.' You can always expand later if you can't get enough of those fresh, crispy vegetables.
Choose a location that receives as much sun as possible throughout the day. Northern gardeners should insist on full sun. Now you're ready to work up the soil. You can rent a rear tine tiller or borrow one from a friend or neighbor for this task. Work the soil up sod and all--in other words don't remove the sod. Removing the sod creates a recess in the soil, resulting in poor drainage.
Next, examine the soil. Is it predominantly clay, sand or a sandy loam? The latter is the best. You can distinguish a sandy loam from the other two by giving it the squeeze test. If you can take a handful of dirt and squeeze it in a ball then watch it crumble when you let go, you've got a sandy loam soil type. If you're not sure, take a sample down to your local extension office. While you're there ask them about having your soil tested for proper pH levels and major nutrients like nitrogen, potassium and potash.
If you're stuck with a predominantly sandy or clay soil it will be worth bringing in some topsoil to get you off on the right foot. If you can't afford topsoil, you can amend the soil with compost. Compost includes any biodegradable material which can be broken down into a fine, dark humus. Well rotted livestock manure is the best choice for getting a clay or sandy soil into shape. Whatever you use for compost apply it often, like once in the spring and once in the fall. It will take a few seasons to improve a poor soil type.
Another thing you can do is use topsoil to make a raised bed. Landscape timbers or treated 2 X 12's work best for this. You can stack these about five high. Besides enclosing your garden and making a good growing medium, the raised bed will make it easy to plant and weed your garden, particularly if you've got back trouble or have difficulty bending over.
Hey, I think we're ready to plant! Here's the fun part. You can purchase seeds from the store or order them through the many catalogs on the market (see below). Whatever you do, buy quality seeds. I hate to see people spend hours preparing a garden and then go out and purchase 10/$1.00 seeds. It would be like buying a new car and replacing the engine oil with a cheap brand of oil. Look for brand name seeds just like you would anything else. What we're trying to do is maximize our chances of success at this endeavor, not pinch pennies.
In a small garden you may want to avoid some of the space hogs, like corn, squash and pumpkin. However, there are bush type varieties of pumpkin, such as Hybrid Spirit Bush and Autumn Gold that don't take up much room. Also, summer squashes take up less room then do the winter squash. If you do plant corn, remember to grow this one along the north side of your garden so it doesn't shade the rest of your crops.
Easy to grow crops include onions, peas, beets, rutabaga and zucchini squash. These can also be planted early.Tomatoes and peppers need to be started from seed indoors about 8 weeks prior to planting time or purchased as transplants. Be sure to space things in your small garden according to the instructions on the packets. And make sure you plant your tender crops (tomatoes, squash, beans and watermelon) after all danger of frost has passed. Ask the old timers in the area when this date is. One common mistake people make, especially in the northern climates, is to plant everything when the weather turns nice only to succumb to a frost a week or two later, thus wiping out all their hard work. Plant by the expected last frost dates, not the weather.
Unfortunately, critters (and children) may take a shine to your new garden. Rabbits, geese and deer can be a problem. For the small garden, a wire mesh surround works well. This will discourage most critters and some people. I've seen people take chicken wire and staple it to the top of their landscaping timbers on a raised bed to keep out geese and the like.
Vandals can also attack gardens, especially in conspicuous areas of a city, such as in a community garden. Since things like watermelon and squash are the vandal's favorite, some folks plant heirlooms that don't look like common vegetables. You can also cover ready to ripen fruit with straw to conceal the vegetable. Another method in a community garden is to display your name boldly near your garden plot. A conscientious person may think twice before robbing your garden!
Watch for insect infestation. If things are properly spaced in your small garden, insects shouldn't be a big problem. If you do see evidence of chewing on plants, especially things like cabbage, don't wait to fight back. Identify the insect causing the damage and choose an insecticide that will control that specific insect or Soap-Shield. Proper spacing, weeding and fertilizing is a good way to prevent disease and insect infestation without having to resort to harmful insecticides.
Speaking of fertilizer, you can use a granular or water soluble fertilizer to feed your hungry plants. A 15-15-15 or 20-20-20 fertilizer is a good all purpose fertilizer which will provide equal parts nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium and some of the minor nutrients that plants need. Apply granular fertilizers a few days before you plant, working it into the top six inches of topsoil. You can side dress after the plants come up and at two or three week intervals by using a water soluble fertilizer such as that sold by the Miracle Grow or Shultz companies.
Soon, it will be time to harvest your garden fare. To get the full health benefits of your vegies, harvest when ripe and don't over cook your vegetables. More importantly, enjoy the experience of eating fresh, crisp vegetables you grew yourself!
Happy gardening.
* * *
About the Author
Neil Moran is a horticulture trades instructor and author of "North Country Gardening: Simple Secrets to Successful Gardening". Neil is also the owner and operator of Haylake Gardens, a garden center and gift shop in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
http://www.gardenguides.com/
Image Copyright: http://www.truehealth.org/
Watch Video:
How to garden: Starting a Vegetable Garden
Growing Peas, Beets and Carrots
Leeks are delicious in stews and salads, and of course, in sumptuously delicious leek soup. Mature leeks are also extremely cold hardy and can stay in the ground (well drained) all winter to add their fresh and incomparably delicious mild onion flavour to soups, salads and all manner of sauteed ingredients of our cuisine at any time they are needed and wanted.
We have two favourites; "Durabel", a mild, sweet variety which is excellent in salads, and "Winta", an extremely hardy leek with a strong leeky flavour, which is excellent for soups and stews. A common and oft encountered phrase in gardening is "... but well worth the trouble", and this applies to leeks, but only in their infancy. Once established, leeks grow like weeds.
It is in the establishing that we need to take some care. Leeks may be started indoors in February if giant leeks are wanted, in light fluffy potting soil, for easy transplanting. That is why we keep our propagating soil mix light and light, so the young seedlings may be lifted easily without losing all their fine feeder roots (see previous article).
Sow seeds about one half-inch deep, half an inch apart in rows about two inches apart. This is to allow them growing room as they should not be transplanted outdoors until the soil is dry enough to provide a nice, loose seedbed. This will vary with your location, usually anywhere between the beginning and the end of May. During he early part of the year, when days are short, leek seedlings will benefit greatly from and additional two to three hours of Grow-Lux or similar light. Keep the tops trimmed to three inches long to make stockier and sturdy plants for transplanting.
Now then; there are two methods of growing leek seedlings in the garden. One is in two-inch individual holes; the other is in an open trench. We prefer the trench method as it provides more light for the young seedlings. Choose the most well-drained area in your garden as the leeks may well stay in the ground until next spring in splendid health, if the ground does not get soggy with our winter rains.
With tiller or fork, work up a nice loose bed (which is not necessary if you've made raised beds as described here) about 10 inches deep. Excavate this to the width of a garden shovel, six to eight inches deep. Pile the lifted soil to the north or west of the trench, so there will be maximum light (their life-energy) in the trench. Sprinkle about 10 lbs. of well-rotted chicken manure in the bottom of a 10-foot row, or about five pounds of fishmeal for the same length of row. Mix this well with the soil at the bottom of the trench. Plant the seedlings about 4 inches apart in two staggered rows four inches apart. Spread the root hairs gently in all directions, and holding the seedling gently, lightly press about half an inch of soil over the roots, first on one side, then the other.
Water gently so as not to wash away the soil over the roots. Depending on the weather, water frequently for the first week to 10 days to keep the soil constantly moist. After this period they can be left alone, and nothing but a prolonged drought can harm them. From here on in, they will grow like weeds. As growth proceeds, keep filling in the trench with the excavated soil, keeping about three inches of top growth exposed. Be careful not to get any soil above the point where the leaves start to branch. You will find this soil again in your soup or your salad. If the leaf has not branched by the time it is completely above ground, the leeks can be hilled with additional soil for a longer white stalk.
Harvesting can begin in the fall when stalks are about one inch in diameter, and from then on can be dug as needed. Leeks keep on growing for a long time, even in mild spells in mid-winter, to as much as three inches in diameter, and sometimes even more.
Leeks may be sown outdoors in early May in the same manner as for transplants. They hardly ever get beyond the thickness of a pencil by fall, but will make additional growth by the next spring. In any case, leeks must be harvested before seed stalks appear the next season, when they become unpalatable, and their very special delicious flavour is lost. And that you can have garden-fresh leeks, straight out of the ground for six to 8 months, including all winter long, in my mind makes it "well worth the bit of trouble" of getting them started. Next we'll get into the rhubarb.
* * * * *
Growing Lettuce
Since lettuce is one of our favourite and most used source of fresh greens for salads and sandwiches, we always try to grow a continuous supply for most of the season. There is nothing more rewarding than going out before supper and collect a bunch of crisp, fresh leaves for our salads.
Remember that leaf lettuces are hardier, healthier, and much easier to grow than the head lettuces. They also mature faster; typically around 50 days, as compared to 75 - 80 days for the head lettuces.
Lettuces grow best in deep rich loam with a high organic content, and need constant moisture and plenty of nitrogen for maximum leaf growth - and that's exactly what we want from them, right? As always, once you have the right kind of soil for your crops, the rest consists only of attending occasionally to moisture and fertilizer needs, and your crops will grow like crazy. It's that easy. If you don't have the right kind of soil yet, make it so, for it will be 99% of your success. So, we assume that you have worked up your soil to the condition as described in "Good Soil", and that you have nice wide beds of nicely loose soil.
We have found that four rows of lettuce in a bed 3 feet wide and 5 feet long provides a continuous, all season long supply of fresh lettuce for a family of four or five. We always sow 3 or 4 varieties (Buttercrunch, Ruby, Cos and Romaine) - in early, mid, and late varieties, for a season long supply, as well as welcome variety. And the beauty of loose leaf lettuces is that one can repeatedly harvest a few outer leaves from a few plants, providing lots of super fresh leaves for salads and sandwiches, while leaving the plants to keep on growing and growing. Very, very nice.
Lettuces can be sown outdoors around the middle of April, another around June 1st, and the last around July 1st. We grow our lettuces behind where the tomatoes are going to be, for a much needed bit of shade for them when it gets hot in summer - all lettuces are heat sensitive - and the tomato plants are big. Highly recommended.
Sow 1/2 inch deep, over a scattered cup of bone meal per 10 foot row, cover and firm. Lay down a 6 page thick newspaper mulch between the rows, and pin it down with some strategically places stones.This will save you all the weeding in between rows, conserve moisture, keep the soil warm when the weather is cool, and keep it cool when the weather gets hot. And with its decay, the newspaper adds its organic content to your soil. Very, very nice - on all counts.
Once your seedlings have emerged and grown a bit, it will be necessary to thin them out a bit. I like to thin them twice, for these reasons. For the first thinning I thin them to 4 inches apart from centre to centre in all directions, leaving the best seedlings of course, but lifting the next best out carefully with a trowel, and replanting them immediately in the space between the rows. The transplanting sets the lifted seedlings back a week or so, which later on makes for a very nice succession of maturing lettuces. Once they begin to crowd each other a bit, I then thin to 8 inches apart in all directions for the final thinning, using the thinning for salads, and again replanting the best thinnings for further stretching the succession of maturing lettuces. It is very little and very pleasant work, and it works like a charm, giving us a continuous abundance of superbly fresh lettuce throughout the season.
Side dress your lettuces with manure, blood meal or fish emulsion once a month - or with manure tea, or dirty dishwater (excellent) once a week. Make sure that the manure or other fertilizers don't touch the leaves. We also like to grow a bit of parsley among the lettuces - and tomatoes later on - since they appear to be good for each other. Just sow a few parsley seeds between them.
Head lettuce demands nitrogen-rich soil and abundant moisture to grow well. Failure to head is due mostly to these two factors, or to too much heat. For head lettuces figure out how many heads you may use in a two week period; then sow three times as many seeds for failure to germinate, failure to head, and for thinning. Repeat every two weeks. Head lettuces must be thinned early, as crowding results in leaf instead of heads. Avoid watering late in the day, so the plants may dry before nightfall, and buy mosaic indexed seed to be doubly sure.
http://www.salescene.com/
Image Copyrights: http://keiranazril.files.wordpress.com/
How Hybrids Work
A hybrid vehicle is any kind of vehicle that uses two or more propulsion systems. Current hybrids integrate an internal combustion engine and an electric motor and battery.
Depending upon the type and design -- and kind of usage -- hybrid designs can range from operating mostly on the internal combustion engine with some assistance from the electric motor, to almost the opposite -- operating predominantly on the electric motor, using the internal combustion engine only when significant power is needed.
The Basic Types of Hybrids
- Mild - uses the electric motor and battery as an assist to the internal combustion engine
- Full - the two propulsion systems (electric motor and internal combustion engine) can work independently or in conjunction with each other
- Plug-in - the internal combustion engine acts only as a back-up to the main rechargeable motor and battery system
Read on for more detailed explanations of how each of these hybrid types operates.
|
Toyota unveiled the new Auris HSD Full Hybrid Concept at the 2009 Frankfurt motor show. The Toyota Auris HSD Full Hybrid Concept is presented in a striking, white pearl finish. With a ride height lowered by 20mm, the Toyota Auris HSD Full Hybrid Concept features under-body panels and a rear diffuser to smooth and control the flow of air beneath the car, further improving fuel efficiency. The Toyota Auris HSD Full Hybrid will accelerate from 0-100...
Tag: new toyota auris hybrid, buy auris hybrit, auris hsd full hybrid and auris 2009, auris hybrid equipment, new Toyota Auris 2009.
|
How Mild & Full Hybrids Work
Mild and full hybrids never need to be plugged in.
A mild hybrid is one that cannot drive on the electric motor alone -- it always needs the internal combustion engine to propel the vehicle while the motor acts as an assist.
A full hybrid, unlike its mild counterpart, has the ability to propel the vehicle solely on its electric motor -- without the internal combustion engine running. However, it is only able to do this under certain conditions (usually low load conditions). Under very light cruising load and under light acceleration, a full hybrid can run on just the electric motor. As soon as additional power is needed, the internal combustion engine will kick-in to provide full acceleration power.
Full hybrids tend to get much better fuel mileage than mild hybrids, plus much better city mileage, since the electric motor is used much more in city driving.
Regenerative Braking
To recapture energy that would normally be lost when slowing down or coasting, hybrids use regenerative braking. This is a fancy term that basically means the electric motor runs "in reverse" and acts as a generator to help recharge the NiMH battery. This is how it works: Whenever the driver lets off the throttle or applies the brakes, the computer runs the electric motor backwards to recharge the battery. Under extended periods of use such as highway cruising where little braking occurs, the engine itself can run the electric motor to recharge the battery also.
Hybrids are always in a state of flux -- either drawing from, or recharging the battery. Hybrid batteries are not lead acid, like the starting battery. They are predominantly Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH), which is a more sophisticated and reliable battery system. NiMH batteries charge better and hold charges longer. Both mild and full hybrids have the ability to shut the internal combustion engine off. Mild hybrids only turn the engine off at an idle to save gasoline and emissions -- as long as the brake pedal is depressed. For example, when stopped at a traffic light, the internal combustion engine shuts off, but as soon as the brake is released, the engine re-starts in an instant, ready to go.
Complex Computer Systems
Because of the complexity of merging two different drive trains to work seamlessly as one, a hybrid requires a sophisticated computer management system. Hybrid control systems need to be heated and/or cooled, depending upon the climate and weather conditions, to maintain certain operating temperatures. The computer gathers data from many different sensors throughout the car for optiumum functioning: vehicle speed, engine RPM, engine load, gear selection, temperature, etc. It determines when the battery needs recharging, when the motor can run the vehicle, when it needs to start the engine back up -- the whole shebang.
Yet driving a hybrid is just like any other car, thanks to this sophisticated computer system. Yes, the driver simply pushes the accelerator and/or brake as needed, and the computer takes care of managing all the systems to create a seamless driving experience.
What is a Two-Mode Hybrid?
|
GMC has unveiled its Two-Mode 2009 Sierra Hybrid at the Chicago Auto Show.
As one of the first GM trucks equipped with the Two-Mode system (the hybrid technology also appears in 2008 GMC Yukon and Chevy Tahoe hybrids), GMC says the Sierra Hybrid achieves 40 percent greater city fuel economy and a 25 percent improvement in overall fuel economy when compared to the standard Sierra, which gets an EPA-rated 13 mpg city and 18 mpg highway. The hybrid version can reach speeds up to 30 mph on electric power and features additional fuel-saving technology, such as a 6.0-liter V-8 with electronic variable transmission (EVT) and GM's active fuel management.
|
In short, a two-mode is a hybrid vehicle that can operate in two distinct ways (modes). The first mode works much like a regular full hybrid. It is the second mode that makes the difference--where the hybrid system can adjust varying amounts of engine and motor function to meet very specific vehicle/task/traffic requirements.
The Partnership Makes it Possible
A joint engineering and development effort among General Motors, Chrysler Corporation, BMW and to some extent, Mercedes-Benz, has birthed the system known as the Two-mode Hybrid. Distilled down to its most basic components and elements, it is a system in which a conventional automatic transmission with gears and bands and clutches has been replaced with an externally similar shell that houses a pair of electric motors and several sets of planet gears.
The two modes of operation can be described as a low speed, low load mode, and a higher speed, heavier load mode that work as such:
First mode--at low speed and light load, the vehicle can move with either the electric motors alone, the internal combustion engine (ICE) alone, or a combination of the two. In this mode, the engine (if running) can be shut down under appropriate conditions and all accessories as well as vehicle locomotion continue to operate exclusively on electric power. The hybrid system will restart the ICE at any time it is deemed necessary. One of the motors, actually better described as motors/generators (M/Gs) acts as a generator to keep the battery charged, and the other works as a motor to propel, or assist in propelling the vehicle.
Second Mode--at higher loads and speeds, the ICE always runs, and the hybrid system uses technologies such as cylinder deactivation (GM calls it Active Fuel Management; Chrysler calls it Multi-Displacement System) and variable valve timing to increase its engine's efficiency. In the second mode, things get a little tricky as the M/Gs and planet gear sets phase in and out of operation to keep torque and horsepower at a maximum. Basically, it works like this: At the threshold of second mode, both M/Gs act as motors to give full boost to the engine. As the vehicle's speed increases, certain combinations of the four fixed ratio planet gears engage and/or disengage to continue multiplying engine torque, while allowing one or the other of the M/Gs to switch back to generator mode. This dance among the two M/Gs and four planet gears continues as vehicle speed and/or load fluctuates across road and traffic conditions.
The Best of Both Worlds: Efficient and Powerful
It is this unique combination of M/Gs and fixed ratio gears that allows the two-mode system to function like an extremely efficient electronic constant velocity transmission (eCVT) while still providing solid, heavy-duty mechanical torque multiplication via the planet gear sets. At the same time, efficient and functional packaging of this system within a conventional automatic transmission body reduces crowding in the engine bay that would otherwise occur with large externally mounted M/Gs. It all translates into a vehicle that is a very fuel efficient cruiser under light loads, while at a moment's notice, can apply the full grunt of a big engine for maximum towing and hauling power.
How Do Plug-in Hybrids Work?
|
Chevrolet Volt Plug-in hybrid
|
Plug-in hybrids are just what the name implies -- they can actually be plugged in to be recharged. While not yet currently available to the public, there are a variety of plug-ins in planning stages, such as the Chevrolet Volt. Plug-in hybrids take electric vehicles to the next level since they are designed to rely predominantly on the electric motor for propulsion, with the internal combustion engine as back-up, solving the short-range dilemma and speed limitations of all-electric and neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs).
Indeed, a plug-in hybrid is intended to be recharged daily by connecting to 110-volt household current. They are designed to handle a commuter-type range (20 to 60 miles) on just their electric charge, and they actually can drive on just their "electric vehicle power." Unlike other hybrids, they don't need the engine to kick on to get around town. The internal combustion engine serves as a back-up to provide increased range: if the battery runs low, the engine will kick on and charges the battery.
Case in point: Say you're the proud new owner of a brand new plug-in hybrid. You drive it home from work. You pull in to your garage and plug your vehicle in to the 110-volt outlet in the front of your garage, head indoors and forget about it while you eat, play with the kids and watch "Dancing With the Stars." When you're up bright and early the next morning ready to head to work again, your plug-in hybrid has a fully-charged battery bank. Unplug and drive to work. Repeat as needed. Your daily commute takes you 20 miles to work and 20 miles back home, and guess what: you will never need to start the internal combustion engine. It's an all electric-powered round-trip. Yes indeed, in this condition, you can conceivably drive for weeks without ever starting the engine.
Pretty cool, huh?
More on Hybrids
Remember, a hybrid vehicle is any kind of vehicle that uses two or more propulsion systems. They work by integrating an internal combustion engine and an electric motor and battery.
Depending upon the type and design -- and type of usage -- hybrid types can range from operating mostly on the internal combustion engine with some assistance form the electric motor, to basically the opposite--operating predominantly on the electric motor, using the internal combustion engine only when significant power is needed.
http://alternativefuels.about.com/
Image Copyrights: http://www.dancewithshadows.com/; http://cache.jalopnik.com/; http://zebu.uoregon.edu/; http://www.evbeat.com/
Watch Video:
How Do Hybrid Cars Work?
These articles come directly from researchers and are passed on to everybody. The company assumes no liability for any content in these articles.
For Educational purposes only. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease
For more great articles go to http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org/infoE.php#article
Mailing Address USA 
Mailing Address CANADA 
Customer service in ENGLAND 
Mailing Address