Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 17-09-2004

By Billon

Cruising into the weekend with The Daily Grail news …………..

  • Volcanic rocks from China reveal the date of the Permian extinction, plus another possible cause for it.
  • Our ancestors began walking upright 3.8-million years ago, but we weren’t the first to do so.
  • Ramses II suffered from arthritis.
  • Peru’s pipeline project turns up treasures.
  • Pre-Inca ruins are emerging from Peru’s cloud forests.
  • An Australian Aboriginal delegation will travel to Sweden this month to repatriate ancestral remains, that were taken from Australia by a Swedish explorer in the early 1900’s.
  • How the Han Chinese became the world’s biggest tribe.
  • Plans for the Stonehenge centre are unveiled.
  • The World Bank gives Peru a loan to protect Machu Picchu.
  • The traveling-wave thermoacoustic electric generator has the potential to power space probes to the furthest reaches of the Universe.
  • Mad Hal named ‘top sci-fi moment’.
  • A cool summer gives global warmers the freeze.
  • Both West Nile virus and Malaria might have been eradicated with DDT had it not been for junk science. Just think what we could do with global warming.
  • Hurricanes, global warming and scientists: A volatile stew.
  • There are plants that play music.
  • A former collegiate tennis player is attempting to prove that shape-shifting robots can get a move on.
  • St. Mary’s Ukrainian Catholic Church was destroyed by an explosion leaving an undamaged statue of the Virgin Mary. Hundreds flock.
  • What if you were making a movie about a director making a movie about the Loch Ness Monster and things began to get weird?
  • Rumors of Bigfoot’s demise are greatly exaggerated.
  • Does a giant poisonous worm that kills with the power of electricity live beneath the sands of the Gobi? Are you sure?
  • The RAEL and three Raelians in the next Playboy issue! Maybe that makes sense if one thinks about it for a time.
  • A couple are set to tie the knot in Scotland’s first legal Wicca (white witchcraft) witch wedding. Now say that real fast.
  • A Pennsylvanian (USA) man home-schools his kids to protect them from witches he says live nearby.
  • Stress is the trigger of the supernatural human. Or a heart attack.
  • Harry Potter stories not so innocent.
  • A big-budget German film about the last days of Adolph Hitler has dared to shatter a lingering taboo about history’s greatest monster — portraying him as human.
  • The human body can heal dementia itself. That’s cool.
  • Snakes challenge the nature vs. nurture debate.
  • Tibetan mothers have provided anthropologists with living examples of ongoing human evolution.
  • Who needs evolution? High-Tech hearing bypasses ears.
  • Big Brother is always watching in Britain. Good thing?
  • After the recent terrorist act in Beslan, there’s firearm fever in Russia. I don’t think there’s an NRA chapter in Russia.
  • A man-made rainforest that should have taken millennia to evolve has baffled scientists by springing up in just 150-years. Baffled looks good on some scientists.
  • Renowned 17th-century Dutch artist Rembrandt may have been cross-eyed.
  • A Las Vegas-based magician who was mauled and dragged from the stage by his white tiger said in that the animal was actually trying to help him.
  • The Freedom Tower, the 1776-foot skyscraper set to occupy the site of the World Trade Center, will be a Green Giant. It’s hard to keep a good man down.
  • A radical Antarctic telescope with 16-m diameter mirrors would far outperform the Hubble Space Telescope at a fraction of the cost. Sounds like a plan.
  • Astronomers peek inside a neutron star.
  • People on Mars is possible in 20 to 30 years.
  • A laser that can beam data from Mars to Earth at 10-times the rate of current radio links will be flown to the Red Planet .
  • The Red Planet’s wet climate lasted for ages.
  • China’s space program seeks approval for a new-generation rocket.
  • A glimpse at swollen stars hint at the Earth’s demise.
  • Is the Moon the Saudi Arabia of the 21st Century?

Quote of the Day:

I do my thing and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations And you are not in this world to live up to mine. You are you, and I am I, And if by chance, we find each other, it’s beautiful. If not, it can’t be helped.

The Gestalt Prayer, Fritz Perls

Bill
Related

39 Comments

  1. walking upright
    I’ve always had trouble with the reason that anthropologists give for humans standing upright rather than walking on all fours.
    They say that as our ancestors came down from the trees and emerged from the forests onto the savannah, they stood upright to see long dstances.
    Now prairie dogs have long been emerging from their holes and standing upright to see what is around them but they do not walk on two legs.
    I would have thought that standing upright would have made them more of a target in a place with which they were not familiar.

    I also have a problem with the reason anthropologists give for dogs turning around and around in the one spot before they go to sleep.
    Scientists say that dogs’ ancestors were tamping down the long grass so they could get comfortable and the trait has carried on.
    If dogs lived on the savannah with homo erectus there was no long grass.
    I suspect rather, that dogs were making a hollow for themselves so they would not be seen.
    One of my dogs actually burrows under cushions or blankets before he will sleep.
    Scientists often make up reasons for traits seen in present day creatures and often they are wrong.

    Great post Billy.

    shadows

    1. walking upright
      Hi Shadows,

      I think that you make valid observations.

      IMHO, evolutionary theories are based on conjecture and assumption. I think more like Lloyd Pye because it’s not that difficult to poke holes in the theory.

      From what I have read, I believe that evolutionists would point-out their Number One Rule: ‘All evolutions take place to enhance the organism’s ability to survive.’ To survive, not all organisms take the same evolutionary path. Rather, organisms find a niche that enhances their survivability over the competition. That’s why not all ocean creatures are sharks; lobsters found a nitch to survive as well.

      A prairie dog is not a scavenger. A prairie dog stands erect to scan for threats to determine if he can safely forage. A scavenger looking for fresh kills on a savannah could see further distances by standing erect. Unlike a prairie dog, a scavenger (us) must get to the kill quickly and scan for threats at the same time. By remaining erect, a human could (1) see further, (2) look for threats, and (3) get to the kill quickly – more quickly than reverting to all-fours. Our nitch is standing erect.

      The Number Two Rule is that once a trait is developed, even if the trait is no longer required, the organism will retain the trait unless loosing the trait enhances the ability to survive. Thus, we still stand erect.

      Having said all that, I don’t fully buy-in to all that either.

      I don’t think anyone can satisfactorily explain why dogs behave as they do. My wife once told me to never address a question to her that begins with, “Why did the dog …………”. ;o)

      Bill

      1. Hi Bill,
        Yes I like Lloyd Py
        Hi Bill,
        Yes I like Lloyd Pye too, he has put a lot of thought into what he has written,and makes heaps more sense than the academic view, rather like Graham Hancock’s fresh approach to archeology.
        The trouble with scientists is that they are bound to the theories they are taught and must advance on that.
        In a lot of cases those theories are wrong as we have often seen.
        I often feel that the whole evolution thing is a bit warped.Darwin himself was not happy with a lot of his findings, and avoided explaining the evolution of the eye for instance.
        After reading what you wrote about adaptation vs evolution,I suspect what actually happened in the past with humans was mostly adaptation.

        shadows

        1. Paradigm shift
          Hi Shadows and Bill,

          Shadow’s comment: “The trouble with scientists is that they are bound to the theories they are taught and must advance on that.” pinged me when I put it with Bill’s previous discussion: “The Number Two Rule is that once a trait is developed, even if the trait is no longer required, the organism will retain the trait unless loosing the trait enhances the ability to survive.”

          We are seeing this rule (mostly not) practiced by today’s scientists. In essence, paradigm shifts are examples of the previously adapted trait (scientific theory) tenaciously supported until it is SUBSTANTIALLY detrimental to the furthering of the status quo.

          My god!, I may have just proved the viability of Darwin by observing modern science! ;-0

          X_O

      2. Bloody Hands
        I don’t think of early humans as scavengers, but rather pack hunters with Alpha males/females. And as hunters, any advantage gained to further enable the hunt would make the winning gene pool. Tool use was, IMHO, the great enabler. The reason we walk upright is to free our hands to carry tools. First rocks, then clubs, then spears. For mating rights, those that could carry two rocks or clubs all the time would kick the crap out of those that could carry one or none . . . every time. Once started down this road, the self selection must have occured at a fantastic pace.

        Peace, er, maybe not after all . . .

        AncientSkyman

      3. Walking upright

        Hi AncientSkyman and Shadows,

        Okay, you can forget my previous post with the scavengers and the prairie dogs. I was recalling information I had read some time ago. A little Internet research reveals that my information is outdated. Ancient Skyman, your information, pack hunters with Alpha males/females, occurs at a much later date than upright locomotion. Let’s begin again, starting here.

        Ardipithicus ramidus [5 to 4 million years ago]

        Australopithecus anamensis [4.2 to 3.9 million years ago]
        Australopithecus afarensis [4 to 2.7 million years ago]

        Australopithecus africanus [3 to 2 million years ago]

        Australopithecus robustus [2.2 to 1.6 million years ago]
        Homo habilis [2.2 to 1.6 million years ago]
        Homo erectus [2.0 to 0.4 million years ago]

        Homo sapiens archaic [400 to 200 thousand years ago]

        Homo sapiens neandertalensis [200 to 30 thousand years ago]

        Homo sapiens sapiens [200 thousand years ago to present]

        Lucy, cited in the article, walked upright like a human, but Lucy is classified as an ape. Lucy, classified as Australopithecus afarensis, lived from approximately 4 to 2.7-million years ago along the northern Rift valley of east Africa. Erect posture and bi-pedalism preceded human beings and human intelligence.

        In 1994 the remains of another species, Australopithecus anamensis, was discovered in the Lake Turkana region of east Africa. Anamensis was a contemporary with afarensis, dating to approximately 4.2-million years ago. Anamensis also walked erect. There is evidence that, contrary to previous assumptions, both anamensis and afarensis developed the ability to walk erect prior to the disappearance of woodlands and forests. That’s very interesting.

        An even earlier hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, is a recent discovery dated at 4.4-million years ago. The remains are incomplete but there’s enough to suggest it was bipedal. Fossils found with the ramidus fossil suggest that ramidus was also a forest dweller. (There is evidence that suggests that big cats became somewhat scarce in the forest at the same time for unknown reasons, an important survival factor.)

        Each of these hominids was a little less than four-feet tall, each was a herbivore, and each was a forest dweller. All walked erect.

        Ramidus had about the same intelligence as his cousins that lived in the trees. He had lost the ability to escape the big cats that hunted the apes; his bi-pedal locomotion had changed his former lower set of hands to feet. He could no longer out-climb the big cats, nor could he run faster than a feline. Ramidus females, especially pregnant females, and children were destined to be cat-lunch; the male was their sole protection. High death rates and survival-at-risk are the inspirations of adaptation and evolution.

        To survive, the male used his remaining hands and learned to use a stick as a club. A club wasn’t much against a big cat but it was better than nothing. Ramidus learned that his chances of survival were increased if he banded with other males similarly armed. This led to club-armed males banding together in groups to forage for food leaving the females and young at camp, even a cave perhaps, guarded by older males and boys with clubs. Now ramidus were no longer limited to the forest in their search for food. Armed groups of males could venture out onto the savannah with some degree of safety, where the even bigger cats were the dominant predators. Ramidus left the forest, not as a predator-hunter, but as a gatherer on the defense.

        While all this is interesting, it doesn’t answer the question that prompted Shadows question, “Why did ramidus stand erect in the first place?” He probably left the trees due to a food shortage – too many apes. Rule Number One, ‘All evolutions take place to enhance the organism’s ability to survive.’ still applies. Unlike quadruped land animals, tree-dwelling apes are somewhat vertical anyway. Even in the forest his erect posture, all four feet of it, would still allow him to observe threats at a greater distance. Perhaps his erect posture allowed him to gather the low-hanging fruit and to smack his tree-dwelling cousins with his club if they threatened the harvest. Not being on all-fours allowed him to carry the club with him (making AncientSkyman more correct than me). From the article that I linked, Orrorin tugenensis was also able to walk upright on its hind legs six-million years ago but no explanation is given as to ‘why’.

        Whatever the reason, it wasn’t so that he could see a fresh-kill across the savannah. A couple of million or so years ago, long after the demise of ramidus, africanus learned to sharpen a stick. No doubt that throwing a spear gave africanus an advantage over predators not known to his predecessors. Africanus was still a herbivore. Around 1.8-million years ago, man’s evolution took a big step-function in brain size for unknown reasons, from 800cc (Homo habilis) to 12,500cc (Homo erectus). He became an omnivore, a hunter, and a world traveler. I have never heard a good, orthodox explanation for this amazing leap in brain size evolution. Zecharia Sitchin and Lloyd Pye offer an explanation. So does the Bible.

        Bill

        1. WOW!!!
          WoW Bill I’m impressed.
          I know Sitchen’s and Pye’s explanations but what’s the Bible’s?
          Did I read somewhere that man becoming an omnivore changed the brain?
          I don’t believe it if I did.
          If scientists say that we evolved as we needed to or had to, then I have always wondered about the brain being so far evolved ahead of the rest of us.
          Don’t know if I’m making sense here.
          For instance.
          In the book Throw ’em Away Leg by Dr Tim Flannery,he tells of looking for the elusive tree kangaroo of Papua New Guinea and goes into the Highlands in search of it.
          The Highlands are not heavily populated and the few tribes that lived there at the time had not ever seen white people.
          When the pilot tried to land the helicopter an old man and a young man ran out with sticks and tried to beat it away.They thought it was a strange flying beast.
          Eventually all was exlained to the men and Flannery became friends with them.
          Six years after that event, the young man, who was the older man’s son, was flying helicopters.
          Flannery describes it without comment, but it stuck with me that if those men had been so primitive, then surely their brains were not advanced enough to learn something like flying a helicopter.
          So the software is already there.
          Why? How?
          I once asked an anthropologist this and he said that the brain is very malleable and adaptive.
          Sure….so is my dog Pepe’s.I wonder if I should send him to helicopter school.

          shadows

          1. Evolution, helicopters and Pepe
            Hi Shadows,

            If one is not a fundamentalist and does not believe in a literal Bible translation, the Bible and a little imagination can be used to explain almost anything and attribute it to divine intervention. And the explanation may be right. Evolution and the Bible are not mutually exclusive if the Bible is considered as a collection of allegories.

            I don’t think that we are any more intelligent than the Homo sapiens sapiens of 200,000-years ago.

            Pepe’s evolution may be more mysterious than our own, but I would keep him out of the cockpit. If you choose to give the controls over to him, see if he turns in a circle three times prior to landing. :o)

            Bill

          2. Pepe
            Hi Bill,
            Pepe thanks you for your interest and wishes you to know that he intends to remain with his first love…flamenco guitar, at which his fingering could only be called exceptional.;)

            shadows

        2. Rule One
          Hi Bill,

          You have your “Rule One” mixed around a bit, I think. Evolutions do not take place to enhance an organisms ability to survive. Rather the organisms ability to survive enhances its chances of producing offspring and therefore of that species evolving.

          All evolution happens because a mutation survived, the mutation itself does not have to enhance survival, it just has to be neutral in those terms. It just so happens that some mutations do actually enhance survival chances, happen to breed true and be passed on to offspring and thus become incorporated as an evolutionary step for that organism. To illustrate, there is a species of rabbit on Guinard Island in Scotland which is black in colour. There is no enhanced survivability in being black for these rabbits but its a contained population and, the adaption being survival-neutral, over the generations the entire population has become black.
          The island was used for testing of US/UK anthrax weapons during WW2 and was heavily contaminated for 50 years or so. The black rabbits are all immune to anthrax. This mutation was heavily survival-enhancing and so was also carried through into the evolution of this species.

          As for Mankind walking upright, I believe the current theory is that walking upright is marginally more efficient than the apelike shamble. This incredibly thin margin may have allowed each ape-man mother to successfully conceive, raise and wean one extra baby in her lifetime. Not much, but on such thin margins are evolutionary steps based.

          For those interested in the story of human evolution, try the excellent BBC series Walking with Cavemen.

          Regards, C

          1. Rule #1
            Hi Cernig,

            The “rules” aren’t my rules. I’m just quoting one evolutionist’s opinion. In his theory, mutations occur constantly. If the mutation gives the organism some advantage over his contemporaries, it will survive and produce offspring having that mutation. The mutated offspring will be better adapted at survival than non-mutated offspring, and that mutation will eventually become dominant in the population.

            If the mutation is survivability-neutral, the mutation will not become dominant. If the mutation reduces survivability, the organism will die, not reproduce, and the mutation will never mix into the gene pool.

            Thus, ‘All evolutions take place to enhance the organism’s ability to survive’.

            Mutations have certainly taken place over time in the rabbit population of which you speak. Anthrax-immunity enhanced survivability, but color changes did not. Hence, the population is now anthrax-immune, but they remain black.

            I’m not sure, but I think we may be saying the same thing.

            Bill

        3. Baboons
          I believe the Alpha Male/Hunter mentality can be seen in non-upright simians, namely Baboons. Baboons are tribal, exhibit pack hunting techniques, and often use tools to attack other tribes (yes, they do sometimes use clubs and rocks!) Baboons clearly prefer 3-4 legged locomotion, although they can stand upright for extended periods of time, when on the look-out, for example, or when foraging. I think our ancestors behavior was more similar to baboons and chimpanzes (which have similar tribal warfare as baboons). I don’t think it started out as a cave dewlling communal hunter/gatherer society. Baboons and chimps don’t stay put . . they range far and wide on ‘routes’ that they seem to follow for generations . . . routes that take them to a wide variety of forage and meat prey. That is how we were, I believe. . . still on all fours, living like that, until the tool users took over, like they seem to be doing in the simian world. Tool use is still my idea for why we stood up. . . we needed our hands free all the time.

          Peace,

          AncientSkyman

          The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

          George Bernard Shaw

  2. UK Officer’s take on Iraq
    For those of us who enjoy a little politics for dessert…

    Officer who rallied UK troops condemns ‘cynical’ Iraq war

    Colonel Tim Collins, the British commander whose stirring speech to his troops on the eve of the Iraq invasion was reportedly hung on a wall in the Oval Office by George Bush, has criticised the British and US governments over the war.

    The officer, who has now left the Army, condemned the lack of planning for the aftermath of the conflict and questioned the motives for attacking Iraq. He said abuses against Iraqi civilians were partly the result of “leaders of a country, leaders of an alliance” constantly referring to them as the “enemy … rather than treating them as people”. This attitude was inevitably adopted by some soldiers on the ground, he said.

    “Either it was a war to liberate the people of Iraq, in which case there was gross incompetence, or it was simply a cynical war that was going to happen anyway to vent some form of anger on Saddam Hussein’s regime with no regard to the consequences on the Iraqi people. In that case it is a form of common assault – and the evidence would point towards the latter,” he said on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    Click the link for more.

    1. I agree that the aftermath of
      I agree that the aftermath of the war is being handled extremely poorly. It’s sad but I think a lot of it has to do with the election. Bush does not want to go in with the brute force it will take to stop the terrorism there, for fear of getting more bad press about hurting the poor terrorists.

      Hopefully after this election, Mosques will no longer be allowed to be used ans defensive strongholds.

      Thrsutbucket

      1. Bush and terrorism
        Thrustbucket, why don’t you take your comments and pull them apart sentence by sentence and see just how ridiculous they are.
        Even Kofi Annan has now announced that the war in Iraq was illegal.
        I hardly think that Muslims using Mosques in their own country to counteract invaders can be called terrorists.
        Your soldiers and mine are in someone else’s country.
        Now that we have started a civil war there, we should be satisfied that we have caused enough damage.
        If Bush believes he is right and he is hesitating because of the election and bad press, he is even more of a moron than I thought.

        shadows

        1. Even Kofi Annan?
          Hi Shadows,

          Is this the same Kofi Annan that presided over the massive robbery committed by the U.N. in its Oil for Food program? I can see why he might be bitter after his $50-billion gravy train got interrupted. Saddam Hussein bribed the UN with the UN’s 1995 Oil For Food Program. 10% of all transactions went to Saddam and to officials of collaborating governments including France, Germany and Russia. One of those on the “Oil for Food” monitoring agency was none other than Kofi Annan’s own son.

          In return, the U.N. and some members of the Security Council opposed any U.S. military action against Saddam Hussein. Always follow the money.

          http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm567.cfm

          Bill

          1. Yes THAT Annan
            Hi Bill,
            Yes I had heard that about Annan and don’t know the truth of it all.If it is true it will only be one case in many of nepotism and corruption in the seat of power…..see Mark Thatcher and the Falklands war.It was ever thus.
            That does not excuse Annan of course, but the article to which you refer is an opinion piece written for a conservative website.
            Opinion is not fact.They get away with it by calling it analysis.
            It does not follow that the government in Iraq will be destabilised by Annan’s comments or that terrorism will increase.
            If Iraq had no oil, I am quite sure that no one would be the slightest bit interested in it.It would have been treated the way that Sudan is at present.

            shadows

          2. Sudan and Oil

            Hi Shadows,

            Yes, that was an opinion, similar to your opinion on Bush. As you said, opinion is not fact.

            Where did you get the idea that Sudan has no oil? To date, only one government has referred to the government’s actions as genocide. Guess which one. The UN is supposed to vote on the US-drafted resolution today.

            Bill

          3. Hi Bill,
            I hate to rain on y
            Hi Bill,
            I hate to rain on your parade, but maybe the oil in Sudan is the reason the US has become interested.
            No I am not that cynical.
            Yes dammit I am!!
            Sudan was on the list of countries that Bush threatened to take out after 911.
            Sudan is also the country to which Osama bin Laden fled from Saudi Arabia and the country in which he spent so much money, fixing roads and building hospitals.
            OK I know he trained his terrorists there, so they say.
            Why has the UN taken so long to act in Sudan?

            This sort of argument could go on forever.
            Let’s agree to disagree.
            My basic stance is that I don’t believe in violence, of any type anywhere whatsoever.
            The human race is supposedly now a thinking intelligent species, and yet we kill and kill and kill some more.
            I saw a photo in the paper yesterday of a small Palestinian boy with his face strafed by shrapnel.He was peering around a wall to see if it was safe to come out.
            Today I saw a photo in the paper of an Iraqi girl,terror in her eyes, and her whole body angle suggesting the dread of the situation she was in.
            We can argue till the cows come home about who is right and who is wrong, but while ever there are children and innocents suffering for someone else’s cause, it is wrong.

            Peace to you Bro,

            shadows

          4. The rain

            Hi Shadows,

            The rain doesn’t bother me. I can’t think of a better reason.

            My basic stance is that I don’t believe in violence, of any type anywhere whatsoever.

            My basic stance is violence is often the best response. The terrorists are the root cause of the the suffering of which you speak. I believe that violence is the only response that works when diplomacy fails. There is no point in negotiating with terrorists. The only solution is to kill them. If I had my way, there wouldn’t be anything standing in Fallujah taller than one-meter.

            BTW, the UN has orders Iran to suspend their nuke program. What will the UN do if they don’t?

            This sort of argument could go on forever. Let’s agree to disagree.

            That’s why I usually avoid political discussions on this site. I agree to disagree.

            Bill

          5. Your point of view
            Dear Bill,
            It is with great sadness that I say that I can see your point of view, and that many fine people on this earth would agree with you.
            I really don’t know what the answer is.
            Iran? I think if the people of Iran had a say there may be a different outcome.
            I just don’t know.
            I want peace more than I want my next breath, and that’s not such a sure thing these days.
            I think in most ways you and I don’t really disagree too much at all.

            Peace

            shadows

  3. Any other wheezers here?
    Asthma linked to toxins from white blood cells

    Eosinophils are a type of white blood cell found in animals whose natural role appears to be to protect us against parasites, by congregating around them and releasing deadly toxins. In an asthma attack, those toxins are released inappropriately – leading to damage of the lung, nose and throat tissues.

    Anybody got any ideas on how to rein in an over-active immune system without resorting to steroids?

    1. yes
      Yes I’m a wheezer. That’s what I’m doing at this time of night sitting crankily at the computer when I would rather be sleeping.
      I’ve tried not using the steroids but couldn’t manage.I have had the worst attacks this year I have ever had and am fed up.

      I was thinking the other day about the roses I grow,over a hundred of them, and wondering about the regimen I have for avoiding black spot and other fungal diseases on them.
      I found that if you use nitrogen heavily on the leaves ( which seems silly on roses as you want flowers not leafy growth) this gives them the strength to withstand the viruses.
      When they can do that, they can produce flowers.

      I was wondering about applying it to my asthma,and if there is something out there that I can take to stop the allergic reactions.I figured if I could strengthen and normalise my immune system I might not get asthma.
      But how?
      On the other hand an overactive immune system does protect you from some of the dangerous diseases around.If you have a violent reaction to vaccinations then you are highly unlikely ever to contract that disease.
      I always have violent reactions.

      I really don’t understand it much but if you find any answers please let me know.

      shadows

    2. Asthma
      “Anybody got any ideas on how to rein in an over-active immune system without resorting to steroids?”

      1. Hyperbaric oxygen.
      2. Intermittent hypoxic breathing.
      3. Fish oil.

      1. hypoxic breathing?
        Hi Lee,

        Thanks for the tips. I do need to take my Carlson’s Salmon Oil with GLA more regularly, and perhaps more at a time as well. I’ve wanted to try hyperbaric oxygen just to see how it feels, but thought it was prohibitively expensive. But maybe insurance would cover it, with a Rx from my pulmonologist.

        I’ve never heard of hypoxic breathing in relation to anything other than anxiety attacks and (usually teen-aged) males in search of what sounds like a rather dangerous, err, high. Tell me more…

        1. Asthma Cures
          Hypoxic breathing works because a huge part of any asthma attack is the panic that sets in when you cant breathe. Hypoxic breathing levels out that response, which lets your body relax the chest wall and thus breathe easier.

          I have to say, if its an allergic reaction, go get the jabs. I did, many years ago, and it made my asthma a minor annoyance rather than a life threatening ailment.

          Regards, C

      2. You’re right
        You’re right about the fish oil, and apparently if you can take the pure oil itself, I mean drink it, and not capsules, it is a lot better.
        I have heard from a friend that taken that way will totally cure arthritis.
        I do breathing exercises when I think of them and they are excellent.They are the ones the Russians evented for controlling asthma.But I am getting old now and I suppose my lungs don’t have the capacity they should have.
        I’m afraid hyperbaric oxygen would be out for me, I couldn’t afford it.
        The thing with asthma though is that we are living in the most heavily polluted times ever, and also our food is being contaminated as it is grown and manufactured.
        I was advised by a doctor friend not to eat the vegies I grow because of lead contamination.I live on an extremely busy highway.
        Thanks Lee for the info.

        shadows

        1. HBOT, IHT & EPO
          There are thousands of sites about hyperbaric oxygen therapy. This is only the second one I looked at – it’s very good:

          http://www.wholehealthmd.com/refshelf/substances_view/1,1525,725,00.html

          I’m going to get some HBOT in a couple of weeks time. In Australia I understand it’s free on Medicare! I’ll report back after I’ve been and let you know how I went.

          Intermittent hypoxic training (IHT) is associated with the Buteyko method of breathing. IHT is usually done on a machine called a hypoxicator, but these are hard to track down. Buteyko specializes in asthma treatment. You might consider doing a Buteyko course. It can’t be too expensive. Here is a good article looking at IHT and Buteyko:

          http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Asthma/courtny40.htm

          From the site:

          “Asthma is one condition which responds with dramatic results when the Hyperventilation which accompanies this condition is controlled. The Buteyko method of breathing states that asthma is largely a response to Hyperventilation and teaches asthmatics how to reduce ventilation levels and raise CO2 to initially control symptoms and later to change the underlying immune system and inflammatory condition in asthma. A recent research trial in Australia on the Buteyko method showed that asthmatics were able to reduce their bronchodilator intake by 90% and steroids by 30% with no deterioration in symptom score and improved quality of life scores when using the Buteyko breathing method.”

          Also you might want to look at erythropoetin (EPO), a banned (for sportspeople) performance enhancing drug. It has the same effect as hypoxic training, stimulating the increase in red blood cells that carry oxygen.

          And yes, go for the fish oil.

          1. Well done Lee
            Great info Lee.
            My problem I always say is not asthma.I have underdeveloped sinuses and when it is muggy or cold or windy the spores and the pollen and pollution in the air make my nose swell up and I can’t breathe through it.
            Thus I have to mouth breathe and as I also have a very small mouth I soon have trouble with my airway, hence the asthma.
            It is a genetic condition and most of my mother’s family died of throat cancer as a result.
            The doctor will not operate on my nose because of the asthma.
            When you constantly mouth breathe you expose your air-way to a lot of rubbish.
            My problems are bad when my nose swells and my air-way develops swelling or infection at the same time.
            I am very grateful to you for providing information on this for me.I rarely leave the house now as my equipment is all here.
            Is the Buteyko method the one the Russians developed? If so it is excellent, as I have seen a documentary about it,but I wasn’t as bad then as I am now.I remembered some of the exercises and do them when I think of it.I suppose if I did it as a regular thing I would be better off.
            A few weeks ago my peak flow dropped from 350 to zilch in 2 days and I couldn’t even ring an ambulance as I had no breath.It was the very first time I realised that asthma can actually be life-threatening. Finally the reliever I had been puffing all day kicked in and I was OK, but it frightened me.Not of dying, but of dying that particular way.
            Thanks again and good luck,
            regards

            shadows

  4. Wiccan Wedding
    Hi Bill,

    Thanks for posting the news item featuring my old friend George Cameron. George set up the Source Coven back in 1997 after a late and whiskey fuelled discussion in which he, I and Dougie Bain propounded a concept of a collection of groups, an esoteric network, which would bring together various esoteric groups for discussions based on the idea that every path has part of the Big Picture and that only by communicating could each contribute that part to a knowledge base that would approximate “the source”. The whole idea was driven by the phrase “one light though the lamps be many”. I was chair of the organisation for it’s first 3 years.

    It’s good to see George prosper. He was always the most publicity conscious of the Source members and even back then he had plans for a pagan business empire beginning with ghost tours of the Edinburgh undercity. I was present at the dedication of his group’s Temple in the catacombs below old Edinburgh and it is certainly a very atmospheric location even if most Wiccans prefer open air venues for their worship. If any readers visit Edinburgh I can highly recommend his tours, although I dont think they include the Temple.

    Thanks again for putting a familiar face I haven’t seen in 3 years on my morning’s news.

    Regards,C (Steve)

    1. Ahh, a twisted-hair
      Hi Cernig,

      There are still a few tribal American shamans from this “twisted-hair” tradition. The twisted-hairs think it’s best to study and practice the traditional medicine of all tribes.

      Synthesis — humm, kinda what TDG does too. ;0)

    2. re: Wiccan Wedding
      i Cernig,

      Ah, an expert on the subject. I have questions, none of which is meant to flame you or Wicca. I am sincerely interested:

      1) Is this union recognized legally throughout the UK? EU? The couple is from Canada – is the marriage legally recognized there?

      2) This wedding was between a man and a woman. Will Wicca perform same-sex marriages? Are more than two allowed to enter into legal union? Are there age restrictions? Species restrictions?

      3) Who can dissolve this union? Can the government, priest-witch, or those in the union grant a legal divorce? Is there a ceremony?

      4) What is the source(s) for these customs (red cord, broomstick, etc.)? Are there ancient texts, oral traditions, movies, or folklore that support the ceremony, or were they made-up because they sounded good?

      If I read the article correctly, the couple are not Wicca but they chose the Wicca ceremony “because of its old-world beauty”. That indicates to me that the ceremony was chosen on the basis of being cool, similar to an Elvis wedding in Vegas or exchanging vows while skydiving, rather than a deep belief in Wicca. That’s okay by me, but it seems rather Hollywood; just one more alternative wedding ceremony.

      Bill

      1. Pagan Marriage Rites
        Hi Bill,

        Some of the questions you asked relate more to UK marriage law, on which I am no expert at all, but I will try my best.

        1)Yes, the marriage would be recognised throughout the UK, and thus by treaty the EU and by International Law the entire globe. Same as I got married in the US and it is recognised by the UK.

        2)Yes, some Wiccan groups would perform same sex marriages although their legality would depend on local law.I have not come across pluralistic Wiccan marriages, either legally binding or not. Yes, there would be age restrictions. Partly governed by legal considerations, partly by religious ones. Although the “teen-witch” beloved of the tabloid media is found in abundance, Alexandrian or Gardnerian Wiccan groups would not initiate into the coven before at least 18, maybe 21. George is Alexandrian, as I recall, as are my own roots. Yes, there are species restrictions. Fay are OK but I am not sure about Grays. No dogs or donkeys. 🙂

        3)As a legal marriage, only the Government can dissolve this particular union, in a divorce court. Wiccans performing “marriages” which are just for the spiritual satisfaction without any legal standing would normally perform unions for either a) a year and a day, the lunar year, which is then renewable, (this is the traditional handfasting from folk tradition, especially prevalent in Scotland) or b) a lifetime bond which could be broken if truly needed by a second unbinding ceremony. Wiccans realise that change is the only constant and do not insist as a matter of religious dogma on “until death do ye part”. Some Wiccan marriages, however, are happily expected to last more than one life, being continued in later incarnations.

        4) The sources for Wiccan marriage traditions such as jumping over the broom come from very old Scottish and Irish common-law and folk marriage traditions which were still legally binding until fairly recently. Mind you, there are several features of the Christain and secular ceremonies which are similarly derived from ancient pagan traditions. It is unlucky to wear green if you are the bride because that is the Fairy Queen’s colour and she may be offended. The Bridesmaids are basically decoys to deflect the wee folk from the bride. The Best Man is the warrior-groom’s sheild and weapons bearer incase the brides family objects, and carrying over the threshold reflects the ancient practise of staging a mock-abduction after the wedding, as a reflection of even older conflicts for real. Marriage has always partaken of pagan and Christian worlds even for the Church; marriages in Europe were not commonly performed inside churches until the 15th Century, being held instead on the porch exposed to the elements and the view of the Gentry.

        Yeah, I agree that in the case of these non-Wiccan participants it seems a bit hollywood. I did say George liked publicity 🙂

        Regards, C.

  5. Living examples of ongoing human evolution
    “Tibetan mothers have provided anthropologists with living examples of ongoing human evolution.”

    Might it not simply be a living example of ongoing adaptation, not evolution?

    1. Living examples of ongoing human evolution
      Hi Richard,

      IMHO, it is adaptive if it is limited to some individuals. It is evolution if the attribute is passed-on to the offspring.

      Bill

      1. Living examples of ongoing human evolution
        If they were to be removed from their oxigen poor environment would they lose this new found attribute?

        To me, it seems that ‘we’ (scientists) make no difference between adaptation progress and evolution.

        A group of people constantly exposed to a particular environment will invariably develop reactions to the environment. If the environment is harsh and detrimental to the health of those individuals, damage is more likely to appear quickly than genetic changes (being exposed to a toxic environment would do that).

        the case that is reported in the related article would appear as a sidestep to me, not a step forward. This is why I have a problem with the use made of the word ‘evolution’.

        I know that this idea is not conform to Darwinism but this is my 2 cents.

        Cheers

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal