#public health and environmental concern

[suicidepreventionday]

Preventing suicide by phasing out highly hazardous pesticides.

Self-poisoning with pesticides is among the most common means of suicide worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs) are readily available. Multi-sectoral action is needed to phase out the use of HHPs to prevent suicide and other related issues of public health and environmental concern. This brochure aims to provide a brief overview of the issue of HHPs and approaches to phasing out HHPs to save lives, particularly suicides. It has been designed for a broad audience, including policy-makers (e.g. health, agriculture, and environment), pesticide regulators, local health and agricultural services, civil society organizations, academics, as well as the general public. It draws on the 2023 WHO/FAO Guidance on use of pesticide regulation to prevent suicide and the 2019 WHO/FAO publication. Preventing suicide: a resource for pesticide registrars and regulators

[publizero]

"When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty"

“When Injustice Becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty”: A Reflection on the Fight Against Discrimination and Oppression in Nigeria In today’s society, injustice and discrimination remain prevalent issues that continue to challenge humanity. Unfortunately, some societies establish laws that perpetuate oppression and discrimination, making resistance a necessary duty for those who are affected by…

[townpostin]

Jamshedpur's Air Quality Crisis: Funds Underutilized Despite Health Risks

Study Reveals Toxic Metals in Air as Pollution Control Efforts Lag Jamshedpur faces severe air pollution, with high levels of toxic metals detected, while only 35.78% of allocated funds for control measures have been utilized. JAMSHEDPUR – The Steel City grapples with a mounting air pollution crisis, as recent studies unveil alarming levels of toxic metals in the air amid significant…

[probablyasocialecologist]

A comprehensive new review by experts in the sustainability science field, published in The Lancet Planetary Health, is challenging the long-held assumption that economic growth is necessary for societal progress.

The review, led by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) and titled "Post-growth: the science of wellbeing within planetary boundaries," explores the rapidly advancing field of post-growth research and presents a compelling case for prioritizing human well-being and ecological sustainability over endless economic expansion.

[...]

Key findings from the review include: The Limits to Growth: The review revisits the findings of the 1972 report "Limits to Growth," noting that the world is currently tracking the "Double Resources" scenario, where collapse is driven by pollution rather than resource scarcity. This aligns with current concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. Decoupling is Insufficient: While relative decoupling of GDP from resource use is common, the review finds no evidence of sustained absolute and sufficient decoupling, and models suggest that it is unlikely even with optimistic assumptions about technology. Social Limits to Growth: The review finds that above a certain level of income, economic growth does not improve human well-being, and the costs of growth (e.g., pollution and social upheaval) may offset its benefits. There are diminishing returns for social outcomes such as health, education, and poverty reduction as GDP increases. Post-Growth Policies: The review highlights the development of ecological macroeconomic models that test policies for managing without growth. It discusses a range of policies to reduce growth dependencies and promote well-being, including universal basic services, working-time reductions, job guarantees, and carbon and wealth taxes. Well-being within Limits: The review emphasizes that high levels of well-being can be achieved at lower levels of resource use. It argues that focusing on public services, income equality, and democratic quality can meet human needs with much lower energy use. North-South Dynamics: The review acknowledges the unequal exchange between the Global North and the Global South, where richer countries appropriate resources and labor from poorer nations. It suggests that post-growth in high-income countries might benefit low-income countries by reducing this exploitation. However, the review notes that post-growth could also negatively affect low-income countries that are dependent on exports to high-income countries, unless low-income countries implement policy interventions towards monetary sovereignty, industrial policy and effective delinking from high-income economies.

17 January 2025

[northgazaupdates]

19 April 2024

Journalist Momin Abu Owda documents the accumulation of waste due to the IOF’s sabotage of waste treatment facilities in Gaza. He reports that unless fuel is allowed into north Gaza that will enable the partial resumption of waste management practices, the area faces even more dire environmental and public health concerns. This has also been spoken about at length by environmental engineer Dr. Tamer Al-Najjar, who warned of the impacts the IOF’s infrastructural sabotage campaign, and has now fallen seriously ill to the diseases he tried to warn the world about.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Momin abu owda (@m_abuowda11)

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved in our archive

By Sam Olley

There are "major gaps" in surveillance of new pathogens from animals and countries should prepare for a pandemic worse than Covid-19 in our lifetimes, the World Health Organization (WHO) says.

Covid-19 technical lead Dr Maria Van Kerkhove also said that New Zealand, being an island nation, was not protected from this risk.

It has been five years this month since scientists believe Covid-19 began to spread from animals to humans, triggering a global pandemic that the WHO estimates to have caused at least 20 million deaths and $16 trillion in lost revenue.

Van Kerkhove told 1News she did not think this pandemic needed to be as bad as it was.

"And in fact, this was not really the big one, we have to prepare for an even worse one."

WHO was not trying to scare people, she said, but instead called on them to be prepared.

"Hopefully we won't have one in our lifetime, but I am sure that we will have another outbreak and another pandemic during our lifetime."

Surveillance of new human infections has improved but the WHO is highly concerned about "patchy" surveillance of pathogens spreading between animals that could be transmitted to humans.

"Right now, we have some major gaps," Van Kerkhove said.

When asked if the loss of some specimens was a problem for pandemic preparedness, Van Kerkhove said: "I don't have direct evidence, because this is not something that's shared quite widely, that some samples that have been collected over time that are stored in freezers, some of those samples are starting to be destroyed."

"If we look at coronaviruses, we want to go back in time."

She said she was also grappling with the impact of geopolitical conflicts taking money from health.

"I do find it striking that there always seems to be money for an aircraft carrier. There always seems to be money for war, but we are yet to provide consistent funding for global health threats."

There was no place for complacency, she said, and island nations were not exempt from the risk.

"These pathogens do not respect borders."

Van Kerkhove addressed New Zealand public health experts this week at the Te Niwha conference to relay the latest updates and research from the work of the WHO.

Those attending included Sir Ashley Bloomfield who is currently the interim chief executive for the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR). Earlier this year, he co-chaired a working group for 196 countries to agree to amendments to the International Health Regulations to better protect health and safety in response to future outbreaks and pandemics.

These included the introduction of a universal definition for a pandemic emergency, a commitment to solidarity and equity on access to medical products and financing, as well of the establishment of a States Parties Committee and the creation of National IHR Authorities.

Sir Ashley said a theme of these negotiations was that developing countries felt there was "an overreaction" from other countries around travel and trade if there was a new variant reported.

"The other issue that developing countries had is that they would often provide samples that were then used to develop vaccines that they could not access. So these are issues that collectively countries need to address."

The WHO is working alongside New Zealand health leaders to upskill new frontline workers and leaders to reduce burnout.

Sir Ashley said some people in key roles are "quite burnt out".

"They probably don't feel they would be able to make the same effort if they were called upon in the near future."

Te Niwha director Te Pora Thompson (Ngati Hauā) said: "We cannot go through subsequent pandemics — which we will, we absolutely will — with very tired, very broken people, at all."

She also reinforced the importance of a diverse workforce to reduce inequities in pandemics.

"There are a few more seats that we need to be pulling up to this table."

Asked about her own experience with burnout, Van Kerkhove said she was not necessarily the best example of this.

"I'm working through it with my family. I was not present for my kids — I have two little boys — for years."

Around the world in health systems, "we need a deep bench to be able to work with," she said.

Noting the praise New Zealand's Covid response received, she was optimistic Aotearoa could continue at a high standard in future pandemics.

"I think New Zealand can absolutely be a leader."

[flockofteeth]

The Regulatory Standards Bill is the worst & most dangerous proposed by this corrupt government and submissions on it close Monday 12th Jan at 11.59pm

That is TOMORROW so please please please submit because they are sneaking it through using the other bills as distractions!

This bill if it passed would rewrite how laws are made in Aotearoa, forcing our laws to comply with Act's extreme libertarian values: prioritising business profit over human wellbeing, environmental protection & the treaty of waitangi. It has been described as one of the most regressive & dangerous bills ever considered, and as a " legal straight jacket" for government. I've also seen it described as trying to make Aotearoa into America and honestly they're not wrong.

From the above guide:

Here is an overview of some of the key principles and some of their potential consequences:

* Selected aspects of the rule of law, including equality before the law - which may sound good but in practice can mean protecting existing unequal interests e.g. the property rights of the “haves” get protected, while actions to increase fairness and equality for the “have nots” are restricted e.g. affirmative action for marginalised groups or vulnerable natural places or resources we all value

* Limitations on administrative discretion i.e. government decision making - this would kneecap future governments from making decisions for the good of all.

* Focus on extreme individualistic rights and property rights. These rights could only be limited by legislation if necessary to protect another person’s (or corporation’s) individual or property rights. Usually the government balances a range of rights and interests, including individual rights, property rights, human rights, societal wellbeing, the environment, and te Tiriti. Governments would no longer be freely able to balance a wide range of rights and interests.

*Restrictions on taxes, fees and levies which would significantly reduce the ability of government to fund the public services and infrastructure we rely on.

*Limitations on executive decision making (i.e. ministers and departments) and the right of review or appeal on executive decisions that affect certain rights, liberties and obligations.

*Massive deregulation across the board through application of the narrow definition of regulatory stewardship.

*A strong clause on the taking or impairing of property, including the requirement for fair compensation. This is similar to Free Trade Agreements which New Zealand has decided are too extreme to sign up to as they would create huge liabilities. Under this principle any limitations on the unhindered rights to use property (including, for example, land for development, intellectual property, mining licenses etc.) would mean that the government could be sued for compensation for lost future income and profits.  

For example, if new rules restricted mining in sensitive areas due to environmental concerns or prohibited tobacco advertising to protect public health, affected companies could claim their property rights or commercial interests were "taken"or “impaired” and demand compensation. Such payouts could amount to billions of dollars, taking away money from essential services like healthcare and education to pay for corporate losses.  

Here are some additional articles:

Act Now On The Proposed Regulatory Standards Bill from the folks who wrote the above submission guide

The Bill For Individualism, Corporations And Neoliberalism from Climate Justice Taranaki

ACT's proposed legislation threatens all the protections in place for a healthy population and environment from Jack Santa Barbara

( @queer-disability-aotearoa your help to boost would be wonderful!)

[vague-humanoid]

When a massive pipeline ruptured in the steep slopes of Appalachia earlier this year, regulators in charge of environmental and community safety looked the other way. They shared no details with the residents living near the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) who watched sediment pollute delicate ecosystems and municipalities’ water sources. Designed to push up to 2 billion cubic feet of methane gas through the mountains of West Virginia and southwest Virginia every day, the pipe ruptured during a standard water pressure test. 

The incident is emblematic of regulators’ unwillingness to hold the company accountable for safety concerns, leaving residents to live in fear of a deadly tragedy. 

A crisis of faith has emerged surrounding the regulatory agencies that are tasked with protecting public health and safety. For a decade, community members living along the Mountain Valley Pipeline route tried to convince officials and institutions—whose stated purpose is to protect us and the environment—to do their job. It doesn’t matter how many listening sessions an agency offers if they don’t meaningfully incorporate scientific and community feedback into their decisions. But these agencies have turned their backs on science and the common good, and they’ve made decisions that lock us into fossil fuels for decades.

At a critical point for our democracy and climate, regulatory agencies must immediately address the crisis by refusing to back polluters. Instead, they must listen to science and the public. Their unwillingness to do so directly impacts communities’ mental and physical health, and these conditions will only worsen as the climate crisis intensifies.

[autisticadvocacy]

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) condemns the United States Supreme Court ruling on two combined cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce. The decision overturns a decades-old legal principle known as the Chevron Doctrine, which gives federal agencies the authority to reasonably interpret ambiguous laws when they create federal regulations. These regulations are made legally binding through a rulemaking process that is shaped by the public servants within federal agencies, the input of subject area experts across fields, and anyone who chooses to share their opinion. Instead, federal courts will now have the final say in circumstances where knowledge of highly specialized, complex, and technical issues is required. This ruling will weaken the regulatory authority of all federal agencies, including the Departments of Labor (DOL), Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Federal agencies create regulations or rules that fill in the gaps of laws intended to protect disability rights, civil rights laws, housing, healthcare, and more. The overturning of Chevron and the deference it gives to the courts will have devastating impacts on all marginalized people, including disabled people and particularly disabled people of color. Often, these rules concern subjects well outside of the scope of legal training, including, as Marissa Ditkowsky noted, drug safety evidentiary standards, eligibility criteria for public benefits, the threshold for disability discrimination, or guidance around worker protections. This change will lead to inconsistent and conflicting adjudication across the country, driving avoidable litigation, confusion, and decisions that do not work well for the people they affect. These harms will fall disproportionately on marginalized people, including the disability community. As the American Cancer Society explained in its amicus brief, “The resulting uncertainty would be extraordinarily destabilizing, not just to the Medicare and Medicaid programs but also – given the size of these programs – to the operational and financial stability of the country’s health care system as a whole.” The same can be said for programs within DOL, ED, SSA, and many other federal agencies. This decision is also undemocratic, moving crucial decisions out of a process where the public has an opportunity to weigh in and into the purview of the courts.

This decision invites challenges to the forty years of legal precedents relying on Chevron. While these cases and the existing Code of Federal Regulations are not automatically overturned by Loper and Relentless, many will be challenged in the months and years to come. Future regulations are also under threat. Agencies may be less ambitious in fulfilling their mandates, protecting the public, and using taxpayers’ resources well in the face of increased risk that courts will undo their work. The endangered regulations include the Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Settings Rule, the final rule implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the final rule implementing Title IX of the Education Amendments, and the final rule regarding section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

ASAN echoes the demands of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT): “Congress should urgently enact Chevron deference into law by passing the Stop Corporate Capture Act (H.R. 1507), a comprehensive blueprint for modernizing, improving and strengthening the regulatory system. That would ensure public input into regulatory decisions, promote scientific integrity and restore our government’s ability to help the workers and consumers it is meant to serve.”

ASAN will fight to safeguard federal agencies’ ability to protect the people we serve. We will continue to do what we always have: defend the rights, health, services, safety, and well-being of all people with disabilities.

Here are statements on this issue from our allies:

Democracy Forward

National Health Law Program (NHeLP)

National Education Association (NEA)

American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) is a national grassroots disability rights organization run by and for autistic people. We believe that the goal of autism advocacy should be a world in which autistic people enjoy equal access, rights, and opportunities. ASAN works to make sure autistic people are included in policy-making, so that laws and policies meet our community’s needs. Our members and supporters include autistic adults and youth, cross-disability advocates, and non-autistic family members, professionals, educators, and friends.

[obsidian-pages777]

SEDNA IN YOUR ASTROLOGY CHART. Where is your Transformation and Sensitivity?

In astrology, Sedna is a relatively recently discovered trans-Neptunian dwarf planet. Its astrological interpretation is still evolving, but it's often associated with deep emotions, trauma, transformation, and issues related to sustainability and ecology.

If You Liked This Reading Sign up to TheObsidianPages777 Newsletter

+Free E-Guides on New Moon Manifestation and Gem Stone for Life Path

When Sedna is placed in specific houses in an astrological chart, its influence can vary depending on the individual's birth chart and the aspects it makes to other planets. Here's a brief overview of how Sedna might manifest in each house:

First House: Sedna in the first house could indicate a deep sensitivity and emotional intensity that is very personal to the individual. They may have a strong sense of self-awareness and may experience profound transformations in their identity throughout life.

Second House: In the second house, Sedna may influence the individual's values and possessions, possibly bringing issues related to material security and sustainability to the forefront of their concerns.

Third House: Sedna in the third house might indicate intense communication styles, deep thinking, and perhaps issues related to siblings or the local community that need to be addressed and transformed.

Fourth House: With Sedna in the fourth house, there could be deep-seated emotional issues related to family, home, and roots. Transformations in these areas may be significant throughout life.

Fifth House: Sedna in the fifth house may suggest intense creativity, romantic experiences, or issues related to children that need to be transformed or healed.

Sixth House: In the sixth house, Sedna could indicate deep-seated issues related to health, work, and daily routines. There may be a need for transformation and healing in these areas.

Seventh House: With Sedna in the seventh house, there may be intense experiences in relationships, partnerships, and one-on-one interactions. Transformative experiences through partnerships are likely.

Eighth House: Sedna in the eighth house could indicate intense experiences related to shared resources, intimacy, and transformation. Issues related to trust and vulnerability may arise.

Ninth House: In the ninth house, Sedna may bring deep spiritual or philosophical insights and experiences related to travel, higher education, and belief systems.

Tenth House: Sedna in the tenth house could indicate intense experiences related to career, public image, and authority figures. There may be a need for transformation and healing in these areas.

Eleventh House: With Sedna in the eleventh house, there may be intense experiences related to friendships, groups, and social causes. Issues related to social justice and humanitarianism may be highlighted.

Twelfth House: Sedna in the twelfth house may indicate deep-seated issues related to the subconscious, spirituality, and hidden enemies. There may be a need for healing and transformation on a deeply spiritual level.

Examples:

Angelina Jolie: If Sedna were in Angelina Jolie's first house, it could contribute to her intense and transformative public image, as well as her deep emotional connections to humanitarian causes and family.

Leonardo DiCaprio: With Sedna in the eighth house, Leonardo DiCaprio might experience deep emotional transformations in his personal relationships and career pursuits, especially concerning environmental activism (a cause he's well known for).

Beyoncé Knowles: If Sedna were in Beyoncé's seventh house, it could indicate intense and transformative experiences within her relationships and partnerships, both personally and professionally.

Remember, the interpretation of Sedna in the houses can vary widely depending on the individual's unique birth chart and the aspects it makes to other planets and points. Consulting with a professional astrologer can provide more personalized insights.

If You Liked This Reading Sign up to TheObsidianPages777 Newsletter

+Free E-Guides on New Moon Manifestation and Gem Stone for Life Path

[sempermoi]

Rant about generative AI in education and in general under the cut because I'm worried and frustrated and I needed to write it out in a small essay:

So, context: I am a teacher in Belgium, Flanders. I am now teaching English (as a second language), but have also taught history and Dutch (as a native language). All in secondary education, ages 12-16.

More and more I see educational experts endorse ai being used in education and of course the most used tools are the free, generative ones. Today, one of the colleagues responsible for the IT of my school went to an educational lecture where they once again vouched for the use of ai.

Now their keyword is that it should always be used in a responsible manner, but the issue is... can it be?

1. Environmentally speaking, ai has been a nightmare. Not only does it have an alarming impact on emission levels, but also on the toxic waste that's left behind. Not to mention the scarcity of GPUs caused by the surge of ai in the past few years. Even sources that would vouch for ai have raised concerns about the impact it has on our collective health. sources: here, here and here

2. Then there's the issue with what the tools are trained on and this in multiple ways:

Many of the free tools that the public uses is trained on content available across the internet. However, it is at this point common knowledge (I'd hope) that most creators of the original content (writers, artists, other creative content creators, researchers, etc.) were never asked for permission and so it has all been stolen. Many social media platforms will often allow ai training on them without explicitly telling the user-base or will push it as the default setting and make it difficult for their user-base to opt out. Deviantart, for example, lost much of its reputation when it implemented such a policy. It had to backtrack in 2022 afterwards because of the overwhelming backlash. The problem is then that since the content has been ripped from their context and no longer made by a human, many governments therefore can no longer see it as copyrighted. Which, yes, luckily also means that ai users are legally often not allowed to pass off ai as 'their own creation'. Sources: here, here

Then there's the working of generative ai in general. As said before, it simply rips words or image parts from their original, nuanced context and then mesh it together without the user being able to accurately trace back where the info is coming from. A tool like ChatGPT is not a search engine, yet many people use it that way without realising it is not the same thing at all. More on the working of generative ai in detail. Because of how it works, it means there is always a chance for things to be biased and/or inaccurate. If a tool has been trained on social media sources (which ChatGPT for example is) then its responses can easily be skewed to the demographic it's been observing. Bias is an issue is most sources when doing research, but if you have the original source you also have the context of the source. Ai makes it that the original context is no longer clear to the user and so bias can be overlooked and go unnoticed much easier. Source: here

3. Something my colleague mentioned they said in the lecture is that ai tools can be used to help the learning of the students.

Let me start off by saying that I can understand why there is an appeal to ai when you do not know much about the issues I have already mentioned. I am very aware it is probably too late to fully stop the wave of ai tools being published.

There are certain uses to types of ai that can indeed help with accessibility. Such as text-to-voice or the other way around for people with disabilities (let's hope the voice was ethically begotten).

But many of the other uses mentioned in the lecture I have concerns with. They are to do with recognising learning, studying and wellbeing patterns of students. Not only do I not think it is really possible to data-fy the complexity of each and every single student you would have as they are still actively developing as a young person, this also poses privacy risks in case the data is ever compromised. Not to mention that ai is often still faulty and, as it is not a person, will often still make mistakes when faced with how unpredictable a human brain can be. We do not all follow predictable patterns.

The lecture stated that ai tools could help with neurodivergency 'issues'. Obviously I do not speak for others and this next part is purely personal opinion, but I do think it important to nuance this: as someone with auDHD, no ai-tool has been able to help me with my executive dysfunction in the long-term. At first, there is the novelty of the app or tool and I am very motivated. They are often in the form of over-elaborate to-do lists with scheduled alarms. And then the issue arises: the ai tries to train itself on my presented routine... except I don't have one. There is no routine to train itself on, because that is my very problem I am struggling with. Very quickly it always becomes clear that the ai doesn't understand this the way a human mind would. A professionally trained in psychology/therapy human mind. And all I was ever left with was the feeling of even more frustration.

In my opinion, what would help way more than any ai tool would be the funding of mental health care and making it that going to a therapist or psychiatrist or coach is covered by health care the way I only have to pay 5 euros to my doctor while my health care provider pays the rest. (In Belgium) This would make mental health care much more accessible and would have a greater impact than faulty ai tools.

4. It was also said that ai could help students with creative assignments and preparing for spoken interactions both in their native language as well as in the learning of a new one.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Creativity in its essence is about the person creating something from their own mind and putting the effort in to translate those ideas into their medium of choice. Stick figures on lined course paper are more creative than letting a tool like Midjourney generate an image based on stolen content. How are we teaching students to be creative when we allow them to not put a thought in what they want to say and let an ai do it for them?

And since many of these tools are also faulty and biased in their content, how could they accurately replace conversations with real people? Ai cannot fully understand the complexities of language and all the nuances of the contexts around it. Body language, word choice, tone, volume, regional differences, etc.

And as a language teacher, I can truly say there is nothing more frustrating than wanting to assess the writing level of my students, giving them a writing assignment where they need to express their opinion and write it in two tiny paragraphs... and getting an ai response back. Before anyone comes to me saying that my students may simply be very good at English. Indeed, but my current students are not. They are precious, but their English skills are very flawed. It is very easy to see when they wrote it or ChatGPT. It is not only frustrating to not being able to trust part of your students' honesty and knowing they learned nothing from the assignment cause you can't give any feedback; it is almost offensive that they think I wouldn't notice it.

5. Apparently, it was mentioned in the lecture that in schools where ai is banned currently, students are fearful that their jobs would be taken away by ai and that in schools where ai was allowed that students had much more positive interactions with technology.

First off, I was not able to see the source and data that this statement was based on. However, I personally cannot shake the feeling there's a data bias in there. Of course students will feel more positively towards ai if they're not told about all the concerns around it.

Secondly, the fact that in the lecture it was (reportedly) framed that being scared your job would disappear because of ai, was untrue is... infuriating. Because it already is becoming a reality. Let's not forget what partially caused the SAG-AFTRA strike in 2023. Corporations see an easy (read: cheap) way to get marketable content by using ai at the cost of the creative professionals. Unregulated ai use by businesses causing the loss of jobs for real-life humans, is very much a threat. Dismissing this is basically lying to young students.

6. My conclusion:

I am frustrated. It's clamoured that we, as teachers, should educate more about ai and it's responsible use. However, at the same time the many concerns and issues around most of the accessible ai tools are swept under the rug and not actively talked about.

I find the constant surging rise of generative ai everywhere very concerning and I can only hope that more people will start seeing it too.

Thank you for reading.

[liesmyteachertoldme]

Autism Made in USA

Over the past few decades, the dramatic increase in autism spectrum disorders (ASD), now diagnosed in 1 in every 36 children, has often been attributed to improved definitions for ASD and diagnostic tools. However, a closer look at government statistics reveals alarming trends in children’s health that go far beyond better diagnostics. Since the early 1990s, there have been staggering increases in several chronic conditions: ADHD rates have risen by 890 percent, autism diagnoses by 2,094 percent, bipolar disease in youth by 10,833 percent, and celiac disease by 1,011 percent. These numbers beg the question—what has fundamentally changed in our children’s health over the past three decades?

Despite these concerning trends, our culture continues to elevate science as the ultimate authority on health and reality, often dismissing common sense, reason, and direct empirical observation. Ironically, physicians rely on patients to describe their symptoms—a testament to the importance of individual observations—while federal health agencies and influential organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics dismiss environmental factors in favor of subjective theories, such as genetic predispositions or chemical brain imbalances as the root causes for the majority of mental and behavioral disorders in children.

This reliance on ideology over empirical scrutiny extends to vaccine development, where standard double-blind placebo trials, the gold standard for FDA drug approval, are glaringly absent. Vaccines such as the hepatitis B shot for infants and the HPV vaccine Gardasil for adolescents have been approved with minimal scientific rigor, yet they are heavily promoted and, in many cases, mandated.

The media compounds the issue by amplifying the official narrative while systematically excluding dissenting voices. This failure of transparency has allowed federal health agencies like the CDC, NIAID, and HHS to evade accountability. These institutions, which should safeguard public health, have instead become ideologically and politically captured by private interests. Their close ties to pharmaceutical companies have led to the approval of insufficiently tested vaccines, the pathologization of normal childhood behaviors, and the delivery of subpar healthcare—all at a staggering cost of $5 trillion annually.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/autism-made-usa/5874947

[thedystopianexperiance]

Why is Project 2025 Extremely Problematic?

Project 2025 is problematic for several reasons, as it represents a significant shift in federal governance that could undermine democratic principles, civil rights, and environmental protections. Here are the main concerns:

1. Centralization of Power

- Undermines Democracy: By advocating for the unitary executive theory, Project 2025 seeks to give the president sweeping control over federal agencies, reducing checks and balances in government. This could lead to the politicization of traditionally nonpartisan institutions, like the Department of Justice and the FBI.

- Civil Service Overhaul: The plan includes replacing career civil servants with loyal appointees. Which could create a patronage system that prioritizes loyalty over expertise, reducing government efficiency and fairness.

2. Civil Rights Concerns

- LGBTQ+ Rights: The project targets policies that support LGBTQ+ rights, including restrictions on transgender participation in sports, preferred pronoun use in schools, and protections against workplace discrimination. This is discriminatory and harmful to marginalized groups.

- Women's Rights: It opposes reproductive rights, including access to abortion and certain forms of medical research, which undermines women's health and autonomy.

3. Environmental Rollbacks

- Climate Change Denial: The initiative proposes dismantling federal climate research and regulations, such as those overseen by NOAA and the EPA. Critics argue this prioritizes short-term economic gains over long-term environmental sustainability and public health.

4. Educational Restrictions

- Curriculum Censorship: The project advocates eliminating federal influence over education, particularly targeting teachings on critical race theory and gender identity. Opponents say this could limit academic freedom and ignore systemic issues like racism.

5. Threat to Social Programs

- Healthcare and Welfare Cuts: Project 2025's push for privatization and reduction of programs like Medicare and Medicaid could disproportionately harm low-income and vulnerable populations.

6. Bias Against Federal Media

- Defunding Public Broadcasters: The project proposes eliminating funding for public broadcasters like PBS and NPR, claiming they are ideologically biased. This undermines independent journalism and access to diverse perspectives.

7. Polarization and Partisanship

- The project’s sweeping goals align strictly with conservative ideologies, risking greater political polarization and alienating moderate or opposing viewpoints.

Overall, Project 2025 as a blueprint for consolidating partisan power at the expense of diversity, equity, and democratic processes. Supporters of the project, however, argue it restores limited government and upholds traditional American values, making its impact highly contentious.

[alpaca-clouds]

Cars are just not very economic

I just had this discussion with someone and I just kinda feel the need to talk about it here, because it is closely related to the entire Solarpunk thing.

If you look at it from a purely economic point of view, cars are just not a very efficient way of transport.

Now, this argument has been made to death, really. And literally economists have been arguing about this for literal decades. Again, I was discussing it and looked up sources - and I found sources going back to the 70s. So, yeah, this has been discussed for at least half a century.

But... yeah. Speaking from an economic point of view rails are most economic, followed by busses. Only then there is the cars. (No data on water transport and air transport is a bit more complicated from this point of view.)

Now, why is this?

Roads are all in all more expensive than rails, especially in maintenance. If you look into construction costs, you will find kinda contradictory information on this. But per kilometer costs a kilometer of rail is about equivalent to a kilometer of a four-lane highway to construct. But while both need maintenance, usually roads need more of it. Because the wear and tear on a road is harsher than on a rail (due to more friction and just the fact that concrete is just not a very durable material compared to metal). Admittedly: High speed rail does push both construction and maintanance costs for railways up a good notch, making it more comparable to a seven lane highway. Mostly because of safety concerns.

While trains are more expensive than cars, they usually will be longer in use than a car and will drive many more kilometers during this time. Part of this is also, of course, that while trains are in use for hours each day, most cars spend the most of their life just standing in garages and parking lots. While the average car will get retired after about 150 000 to 200 000 miles, the average locomotive will last 1 000 000 miles.

This comes even more into focus, when you take into consideration how many more passangers or haul the average car will transport during those 1m miles. A single train car can carry up to 150 passangers - and often during rush hours trains will carry about 800 to 1000 passengers at once. While a car will carry often only one or two people at once.

Additionally obviously car infrastructure takes up much more space. Even if we are talking about countries with not as crazy "minimum parking area" restrictions as the USA. Cars need a lot more space than a train or even bus would ever need. And this space also carries costs with it.

And in the end we obviously still do have all the kind of costs that comes from the environmental and health impact of cars. Be it the air pollution, the water polution, and the fallout from having those concrete deserts the cars need in their infrastructure. And to this you can STILL add costs from everything having to deal with accidents and the like.

But yeah... Cars are just economically not very efficient.

So, even if you just cared about the fucking money... Investing in trains and public transport is actually a way better use of that money, than investing in cars.

[tieflingkisser]

Wind-blown avian feces may be route of transmission for bird flu, Minnesota's infectious disease expert warns

Dr. Michael Osterholm is a medical detective and Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, or CIDRAP, at the University of Minnesota. Osterholm has nearly 50 years of investigating infectious disease outbreaks and public health threats.  Osterholm hosts a podcast at the University of Minnesota called "Osterholm Update," where he discusses latest disease and outbreak news headlines.  On episode 175 titled, "Drinking From a Fire Hose: Are We Drowning?," Osterholm and his co-host, Chris Dall, discuss growing concerns regarding bird flu — or H5N1 — making the jump from animals to humans.  According to Osterholm, there has been an additional 89 confirmed flocks with high path avian influenza within the last 30 days alone. Areas affected include Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, California, New York, Minnesota and Maryland. Osterholm says that the primary kind of birds impacted by the flu is migratory waterfowl, like geese and ducks, and these birds often hang out in farm fields where they defecate. Then, the wind picks up particles of the infected feces, spreading the virus far and wide. 

[...]

"Today, I am certain that we are seeing clouds of dust with bird feces in that, and we are beginning to see what I would consider to be almost an environmental type disease, similar to the transmission that we see with Coccidioidomycosis, what we call Valley fever, where in fact that's a fungus that grows in the environment. And then on windy days it blows with the dust and you inhale it. I think we're going to see the same thing with H5N1. That's why so many of these barns are now positive," said Osterholm on his podcast.  Now that the virus has gone airborne, Osterholm believes we're going to start seeing more and more cases in humans with no explanation for why they occurred. Meaning, people are going to get sick without even coming in contact with the infected animal. 

[darkmaga-returns]

The dream of biotechnology, which promised a new age of health and human achievement, has become a nightmare, with its success stories being largely myths and its main beneficiaries being transnational corporations.

The covid-19 pandemic is viewed as the greatest success story of biotechnology, but it has also highlighted the risks and dangers of the industry, with the development of a deadly disease and a vaccine that has harmed many people.

This covid “success” has led to the New Zealand government introducing the Gene Technology Bill, which contains permissive legislation that favours transnational corporations and ignores public safety and environmental concerns.

The bill’s introduction is believed to be driven by trade negotiations with the US, which wants New Zealand to deregulate biotechnology to pave the way for similar deregulation in Europe.

Meanwhile, Australia already has a Gene Technology Regulator who has announced a project that is proposing to make gene-altered versions of the flu and then test out various genetic drugs and/or vaccines on human volunteers.