Like so much else that comes out of Harvard, I find this study hard to swallow. The study warns that there is a “linear, step-wise increase in risk of dying prematurely with higher red meat consumption.” (See: Five Questions: Dr. Walter Willett on red meat)
The study was conducted looking at consumption of mostly “lot-fed, grain-fed (corn) beef,” and makes clear it did not concern grass-fed beef. Had the study concluded that the increase in risk of dying prematurely with consumption of feedlot meat, rather than “red meat,” I would have cheered the conclusion. But without such clarity, readers can be sadly misled to conclude that all red meat is a death sentence.
In the Los Angeles Times interview, Harvard’s Dr. Walter Willett is asked about grass-fed beef and whether the way the animals are raised makes a difference? His answer: “I think it would be nice to be able to study grass-fed beef directly, but I think in the meantime it’s reasonable to assume that the answer is probably not going to be very different from what we see here.” Reasonable? Is it reasonable to assume that animals stuffed with antibiotics and hormones and jammed into befouled industrial feedlots are the same breed of cat as pasture-raised-to-finish cattle? Read a couple of grass farmer Joel Salatin’s books or Allan Nation’s Stockman Grass Farmer. Joel Salatin writes in SaladBar Beef, “A pall of fecal-contaminated dust hangs over western feed yards, where tens of thousands of beeves are confined in corrals for months at a time. This pathogen laden fecal dust invades the body through the respiratory system.” Go to U.S. Wellness and read all about their grass fed beef family of farms and humane slaughter operations. It is not reasonable to assume that results of testing industrially raised and poisoned cattle offer results not “very different” from studying grass-fed-to-finish, humanely raised beef.
I will not eat confinement-raised meat—period. World-renowned rancher Bill Niman tells us, “The industrial production of farm animals is a grim saga of pollution, health risks, and animal misery.” Industrial feedlot meat is nothing but a host for antibiotics, hormones and poisons. This condition does not exist with pasture-fed-to-finish meat. Did you know that the majority of antibiotics sold in America are consumed by feedlot animals? Why is this? Because cattle are not meant to eat corn, which is poorly digested by cows. Cattle are meant to eat grass.
You may be familiar with Fast Food Nation. Here are a few items that will shed some light on the feedlot cattle issue for you. I doubt you will be increasing your consumption of feedlot industrial meat after you digest these scorchers.
“The animals used to make about one-quarter of the nation’s ground beef are worn-out dairy cattle, the animals most likely to be diseased and riddled with antibiotic residues…. About 75 percent of the cattle in the United States were routinely fed livestock wastes and the rendered remains of dead sheep and dead cattle-until 1997. They were also fed millions of dead cats and dead dogs every year, purchased from animal shelters.”
To this day, our FDA allows dead pigs, dead horses and dead poultry to be rendered into cattle feed. Still with me here? FFN continues, “The waste products from poultry plants, including the sawdust and old newspapers used as litter, are being fed to cattle.
My library contains a wealth of tantalizing intelligence on the food Americans eat and the bogus research papers written in support of the poison food approach to the American diet. I strongly advise you and your family to stand clear of feedlot meat and confined raised chicken and the eggs from such beasts. Debbie and I order grass-fed-to-finish meat, wild-caught fish, and cage-free, free-range chicken from U.S. Wellness. We also patronize our many local farms listed for you on my home page. It is easy to do things right for your family.
Related Posts:
|
>> read more |
 If you need a break from the daily grind, why not take an outdoor vacation? It could be a great way to prepare your family for a disaster.
When I was growing up in Mattapoisett, MA, my family went camping and boating all the time. Maple Park family campground was only a short drive away. To my sister and me, it felt like we were in the Wild West. Around sunset on Friday and Saturday night, we would go on a hayride, come under attack by Indians, and get rescued by the Lone Ranger. During the day, we’d swim, go on the swan boats, and get candy at the general store.
As a father, I now realize how much work it takes to provide for a family of four—warm dinners at a campsite; enough fresh water for the weekend; some fruit, coffee, and cold beverages to make sleeping outside fun, even in the rain. Actually, camping in the rain is not much fun regardless. I think that’s one of the reasons my parents bought a sailboat.
But even sailing takes forethought. You have to do a lot of prep for a weekend on the Vineyard. You get ice for the icebox, fill it up with food, and get fuel and water. Then you’re ready to start your vacation.
Once you’re at your destination, whether it be the campground or the mooring, what you don’t want to be doing is sitting down making an “I wish I had” list. That’s when the vacation meter on your trip tilts from fun over to work. It’s like when you lose electricity at home. It’s fun having dinner by candlelight for a night or two. But then you wake up in the morning and there’s no way to make coffee.
So why not have a bin full of essential gear ready to go, just as you might have for camping and boating? It will put you ahead of the pack and make you a hero to your spouse—and even to your neighbors, if you share.
The gear doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive. For example, all you need to make coffee is a French press and boiling water—fire up your Coleman or Weber grill to heat it up. I’m not talking about keeping your family fed and sheltered for months; I’m talking about making two to four days more comfortable for all of you.
I’ll have more on disaster prep for you in the future, so stay tuned. But start thinking now about taking your family camping or boating this summer. Planning is all it takes to turn work into fun, or an inconvenient power outage into a weekend with the family without the electronics. Wouldn’t that be nice?
Related Posts:
|
>> read more |
When comparing the President Obama’s views to the platform of France’s Socialist Party candidate, Francois Hollande, it’s hard to see much difference. Judge for yourself after you read descriptions of Hollande’s platform (courtesy of The Guardian) and a summation of comparable Obama administration policies.
Hollande: Will balance French finances by 2017.
Obama: The Obama 2013 budget doesn’t anticipate balance until after 2022, it’s legally mandated projection horizon (page 205). In this instance the French Socialist has a more fiscally conservative plan than the American president.
Hollande: Opposes a financial policy based only on austerity and has promised to renegotiate the European fiscal compact to include provisions on jobs and growth.
Obama: The president’s former budget chief, Jacob Lew, summed up the administration’s position on austerity: “The time for austerity is not today.”
Hollande: His deficit-reduction measures include reversing tax breaks for the wealthy. Promises to target the rich with a 75% tax rate on those earning more than €1m a year and a 45% tax rate for those earning more than €150,000. He plans to limit executive pay to 20 times the average wage and cut the president’s salary.
Obama: The president’s tax plan would raise rates on the highest income earners, just like Hollande’s. He also added extra taxes for the rich into his signature Obamacare law. The president is now promoting his new “Buffett rule,” which would cost high income earners even more.
Hollande: Has outlined €20bn of new spending over five years, including creating 150,000 state-aided jobs to tackle youth unemployment, 60,000 posts in education, and more police jobs.
Obama: From the president’s campaign site: “The Obama administration […] fought to save the jobs of hundreds of thousands of educators across the country. The Recovery Act supported roughly 300,000 education jobs, and in 2010 President Obama helped school districts prevent 161,000 teacher and school staff layoffs.”
Hollande: Wants to curb financial excess by separating retail and investment banking and imposing a financial transaction tax; banning toxic financial products and stock options; curbing bonuses; creating a European ratings agency; and stopping banks operating in offshore tax havens.
Obama: Obama has supported many similar initiatives, including a financial transactions tax, curbing bonuses, cracking down on tax havens, and separating bank roles.
Hollande: Supports the creation of a public investment bank to support small businesses.
Obama: The president has proposed a small business lending program and talked about creating his own infrastructure development bank.
Related Posts:
|
>> read more |
Sikorsky Aircraft will design, build and fly two prototype light tactical helicopters as the follow-on advancement to the X2 TechnologyTM demonstrator aircraft that unofficially shattered the helicopter world speed record here in September with a flight speed of 250 knots (287 mph). The decision to continue development of the next-generation rotary wing technology will enable Sikorsky and select suppliers to offer the high speed X2 prototype vehicles for flight test and evaluation by U.S. armed forces. Sikorsky Aircraft is a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX).
“Having proved the X2 Technology design to ourselves, we have full confidence we can now mature the technology for the U.S. Army’s light armed reconnaissance helicopter size,” said Sikorsky President Jeffrey Pino. “Self funding the design of a brand new light tactical helicopter – the Sikorsky S-97 – and manufacturing two prototypes we have designated as the Raider™ X2 helicopter will help military aviation evaluate the viability of a fast and maneuverable next generation rotorcraft for a variety of combat missions.”
In March 2010, Sikorsky submitted an X2 aircraft design to the Army’s Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program in response to a request for information. The AAS program is currently conducting an analysis of alternatives for the Army’s next armed reconnaissance helicopter. Like the X2 Technology demonstrator that broke the helicopter speed record, the X2 Raider prototypes will feature twin coaxial counter-rotating main rotors (in place of one main rotor and a tail rotor) and a pusher propeller.
For the armed reconnaissance mission, the X2 Raider helicopter will have space aft of the two-pilot cockpit for armament and auxiliary fuel. In an assault configuration, the cabin affords space to accommodate up to six troops.
In addition to flying at nearly twice the speed of a conventional helicopter, the X2 Raider prototype aircraft will incorporate other key performance parameters critical to combat operations — increased maneuverability, greater endurance, and the ability to operate at high altitudes.
Compared to other light military helicopters, the X2 Raider prototypes are expected to significantly reduce turning radius and acoustic noise signature, while significantly increasing the aircraft’s payload, flight endurance and hot and high hover capability.
Click on the image for the full size. Operational Benefits:
• Hover Altitude- 150% Increase
• Mission Speed- 100% Increase
• Endurance- 100% Increase
• Payload- 40% Increase
• Acoustic Detection- 50% Reduction
• Size- 15% Reduction
• Turn Radius- 50% Reduction
“These attributes will enable the X2 Raider aircraft to meet or exceed the potential U.S. Army requirements for its next armed reconnaissance helicopter,” said Doug Shidler, Sikorsky’s Light Tactical Helicopter director. “If selected by the Army, the X2 Raider aircraft design will enable high performance flight operations in high altitude regions that currently pose challenges to today’s light military helicopters.”
Sikorsky will conduct its X2 Raider aircraft development program utilizing military standards. The company expects to conduct its first major program milestone — a preliminary design review — in 2011. First flight, projected in four years, could depend in part on the pace of development and customer need.
Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Conn., is a world leader in helicopter design, manufacture and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Conn., provides a broad range of high technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.
This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning potential production and sale of helicopters. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to changes in government procurement priorities and practices, budget plans or availability of funding or in the number of aircraft to be built; challenges in the design, development, production and support of advanced technologies; as well as other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those detailed from time to time in United Technologies Corporation’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.
Source: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
Recent News: Sikorsky Announces Supplier Team for S-97 RAIDER™ Helicopter Program – January 16, 2012
Award-Winning X2 TechnologyTM Demonstrator Takes its Final Flight – Program paved the way for upcoming S-97 RaiderTM helicopter- July 14, 2011
Related Posts:
|
>> read more |
The House is about to lose its most ardent constitutionalist. Congressman Ron Paul has said that, even if he fails to receive the GOP presidential nomination, he will not run again for a seat in the House of Representatives. But there is a possible replacement for Congressman Paul in the form of Thomas Massie, who is running for Congress in the Fourth District of Kentucky.
Massie (right), seen here with Senator Rand Paul, son of Congressman Ron Paul. Massie is an engineer by training and only recently developed an interest in politics. Below are excerpts of Massie’s views on various issues that Richardcyoung.com readers will find interesting. To read more from Thomas Massie, you can visit his campaign website by clicking here.
Second Amendment
I will work vigorously to defend the rights of gun owners. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is not principally about hunting or recreation. In fact, the Second Amendment to our Constitution is our Founding Fathers’ restatement of our natural God given right to defend life, liberty, and property.
I’m a decade-long concealed carry permit holder and Class III firearms collector. When I was twelve years old, my father bought me my first gun, an H&R .410 shotgun. In the course of hunting in the woods of Kentucky, he taught me the great responsibility that comes with ownership of a firearm. Now that I am a father of four, I enjoy teaching these same lessons to my children through hunting and target practice.
Debt
The federal government’s $15.36 trillion national debt now exceeds our nation’s Gross Domestic Product. This lunacy must stop. Private industries regularly balance their budgets by implementing real spending cuts. The federal government should hold itself to the same standard.
Congress has the power of the purse. I will encourage them to cut real spending by one-percent each year until the budget is balanced. This is commonly referred to as the “Penny Plan.” Cuts of one-percent per year is hardly austere and, if implemented soon, can balance the budget by 2019.
Food Freedom
I support the Food Freedom Act and oppose the federal Food Safety and Modernization Act. The Food Freedom Act declares that food grown and produced in state, when sold in state is beyond the authority of Congress and its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce among the states. Individuals and farmers should continue to have access to non-genetically modified seed and the right to consume non-pasteurized products at their discretion. We don’t need federal food police on our farms or in our kitchens.
Foreign Aid
In extraordinary circumstances, it may be in our national interest to temporarily provide foreign aid to allies in need. One Bill, One Vote, One Country is an appropriate policy. Foreign aid provided to a specific country should be subject to an up-or-down vote on its own merits, not bundled in an aid bill for multiple countries. We should never provide foreign aid to countries hostile to us or our allies.
Related Posts:
|
>> read more |
 Follow richardcyoung.comon Facebook |
 Follow richardcyoung.com
on Twitter | |
|
|
| This Week's Featured Videos |
|
Vi |
|
VIDEO: Rep. Ron Paul on Cutting Military Spending
VIDEO: Ron Paul Just Won Iowa
 |
|
