In Earnest Hemingway’s novel “The Sun Also Rises,” Jake is in love with Brett, a beautiful woman who has, um, desires. Unfortunately for them, he has a war injury that has rendered him unable to meet those desires and perform sexually. He struggles with the loss of his masculine identity. He was a very heroic and decorated soldier during the WW I conflict. But, he and his lover never really come to grips with their situation, and eventually, she moves on. (Yet another tragic loss for the character.)
This tremendous, almost overwhelming, sense of loss of his masculinity completely derails his future prospects and plans. Like almost all of the characters in Hemingway’s tale, Jake looks perfectly healthy, but he is battling with those all-knowing, self- focused demons that prey on our innermost insecurities. Couple this emotional struggle with actual health concerns, and the potential to simply crumble grows daily.
But, to the outside world inquiring about us, our common response is usually both the most courteous, brief and often inaccurate: “I’m fine.”
It is difficult, if not impossible, to fully grasp other people’s health issues. We can’t really understand these challenges since we are not directly experiencing them. Answering anything other than “I’m fine” is not “normal,” and just makes people uncomfortable. Society expects normalcy. Quick, normal responses from others expedite our ability to stay focused on our own issues. Anything that doesn’t work that way becomes uncomfortably messy and demands that we adopt a flexibility in attitude, approach, and action that saps our available pool of time to self-focus. “I’m fine” is just so much cleaner and faster and, frankly, what we want to hear back. So, on that day that I asked how one of my best friends was, I didn’t expect to hear anything else.
“I have MS.”
Wait. That wasn’t what I was supposed to hear. You look, talk and act just “fine,” and I expect that as an answer. Let’s try it again.
“The doctors confirmed I have MS.”
Admittedly, I had an initial pause remembering just what MS was, but I responded as best I could at the time. I knew it was a serious, progressive neurological disease and had major long-term implications. Later, I refreshed my recollection of just what is involved with MS so I wouldn’t confuse it with any of the other of the ever-growing list of medical abbreviations. It was as bad as I remembered.
This is how Multiple Sclerosis (MS) attacks.
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an unpredictable, often disabling disease of the central nervous system that disrupts the flow of information within the brain, and between the brain and body. The cause of MS is still unknown – scientists believe the disease is triggered by an as-yet-unidentified environmental factor in a person who is genetically predisposed to respond.
The progress, severity and specific symptoms of MS in any one person cannot yet be predicted. MS symptoms occur when the immune-system produces inflammation that can damage myelin, (the protective insulation surrounding nerve fibers), oligodendrocytes (cells that make CNS myelin) and sometimes the underlying nerve fiber. The damage caused by inflammation can produce symptoms that resolve over weeks to months… or symptoms that become permanent. Two-thirds of people who have MS remain able to walk, though many will need an aid, such as a cane or crutches, and some will use a scooter or wheelchair because of fatigue, weakness, balance problems, or to assist with conserving energy.1
MS is: Unpredictable. Often disabling. Unknown. Maybe permanent. Can. May. The unknowns are so serious, but still… just hang there.
In discussing his symptoms and treatment plan, I discovered that anything touching him caused pain, but especially in his feet. (Barefoot golf: A brave new adventure.) A little later, he admitted that anything touching him literally meant anything, so, just as in Hemingway’s novel, sex was now off the list, and he was concerned about his wife, his marriage, and his own masculine identity. All these concerns were suddenly pushed onto a person who still looks just “fine,” but now carries a full load of physical, mental and emotional weight in a failing body. Even with great doctors and meds, that potential future is not comforting. It is a very dark, unknown place.
How do you mentally plan for going into a wheelchair?
For anybody whose literal life and limb are to be changed forever, this can be an agonizing and ongoing struggle. If they do come to accept the facts, they must learn to live life with the way things are, not the way they were. Those are now only fond memories. Their partner must also come to grips with this new reality, and they together must accept and adjust to their new future. Plans, dreams and daily routines completely change. Your thoughts dwell constantly on how good or bad you feel at that moment. It is simply exhaustive.
So, the next time you ask someone how they are doing, really listen for the true answer.
And be aware that we all have our burdens, and some have the capacity to carry so much more than I ever could or they should have to. Be kind in your judgments and slow in your criticism. And listen. Our lives can turn around on something as benign as a phone call. And suddenly, we may have to endure a consuming physical and emotional load, all the while mindlessly meeting others expectations by parroting:
We know that sulfur dioxide in an ash cloud when spewed from an erupting volcano into the atmosphere cools, blocks the sun, absorbs heat and reduces air temperatures. A similar chemical reaction creates persistent aircraft condensation trails (Cirrus Homogenitus). The reaction is caused by the combustion of sulfur-laced jet fuel mixed with water vapor. Simply put, those persistent aircraft condensation trails in the sky are sulfur dioxide inspired man-made Cirrus clouds.
Contrails expanding across the sky.
The climate effect of these fake clouds is subtle but similar to a volcanic eruption plume.
Sulfur dioxide triggers persistent condensation trails that expand across the sky, sucking moisture and humidity from the air as they spread out. The official FAA Contrail Fact Sheet states:
“They [contrails] do affect the cloudiness of the Earth’s atmosphere, however, and therefore might affect atmospheric temperature and climate.”
Which prompts the reasonable mind to ask if sulfur can be removed or reduced in jet fuel to stop the fake clouds? Well, yes it can.
The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have recently sponsored studies into ultra-low sulfur jet fuel standard (15ppm). Ground transportation and shipping have already been required to reduce sulfur emissions, which has cut atmospheric sulfur oxides (SOx). Currently, the sulfur content of aviation fuel has not been regulated, however, and has hits highs of 3000ppm. Although, the FAA believes that aviation fuel averages 600ppm in practice.
Commercial airline jet fuel contains 1000 ppm of sulfur.
So, if sulfur can be reduced so significantly from aviation fuel why don’t they do it?
The cost to remove the sulfur has a few layers. The process of desulfurizing jet fuel would increase fuel costs for the global aviation industry by around 2%. And, there is a CO2 emissions cost incurred by the process of desulfurizing the fuel. This would increase the burden of greenhouse gasses born by the world as a whole. Additionally, according to this 2012 article by Anthony King in Chemistry World,
“The study also pointed to climate downsides: desulfurizing fuel would reduce the formation of cooling sulfate particles, which currently offset some global warming.”
Studies show that the DOWNSIDE to desulfurizing aviation fuel is a reduction in the cooling sulfate particles that create persistent contrails.
Today, aviation fuel remains unregulated and contains a high sulfur content which supports persistent condensation trails or man-made clouds.
TO RECAP: Sulfur dioxide in jet fuel causes persistent man-made cloud cover. Many agencies consider man-made clouds formed by dispersing sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere beneficial to reducing global warming.
Given these facts, one may conclude that persistent condensation trails are intentional. The fake clouds are triggered by a chemical agent (sulfur dioxide) deliberately dispersed via jet fuel for purposes unknown and undisclosed to the general public.
Contrails, by common definition and in effect, are chemtrails.
What do persistent contrails, chemtrails, and volcanic eruption plumes have in common? Sulfur dioxide. Sulfur is the key to cloud-making.
Volcanoes are Mother Nature’s answer to global warming and may be humanity’s as well. Sulfur dioxide is the active ingredient in atmospheric global cooling via volcanic eruption.
Mt. Pinatubo, Philippines 1991
So, Mother Nature did it first (and best). In researching this post, I discovered an excellent article on Motherboard by Brian Merchant in 2014. Merchant stated that “The eruption of Mt. Pinatubo blasted out 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide, leaving a slew of tiny particle clouds hovering in the sky. All those aerosols lingered in the atmosphere, where they bounced more sunlight back into space than usual, spurring global temperatures to fall by nearly an entire degree Fahrenheit in subsequent years.”
Planet-hacker, Dr. Ken Caldeira tried to disprove climate engineering but failed. It worked.
In Merchant’s article, he interviewed Dr. Ken Caldeira a respected atmospheric scientist who works for the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University where Caldeira studies climate hacking to counteract global warming. Caldeira was quoted as saying:
“We know volcanoes cool the planet, we know it basically works. The studies show that not that much stuff can produce a dramatic cooling, that it just seems to be the most obvious thing with enough leverage. And also the masses of material involved are thought to be reasonable.”
What Caldeira means by that statement is that it wouldn’t be too difficult, or expensive to implement planet cooling via geoengineering with materials similar to those found in a volcanic eruption, minus the really toxic stuff like mercury. During Merchant’s 2014 interview, Caldeira speculates:
“My impression has been that if there was a demand to start putting something up in the next couple of years, that it wouldn’t be too much to build a fleet of airplanes and just start doing it.”
Thus would begin the cycle and responsibility of man-made weather. To Caldeira, like many atmospheric scientists, the notion of controlling the climate by man-made means is something that we should clearly avoid, but he reluctantly acknowledges that these measures may be necessary to sustain life on earth.
Making fake clouds, the solution to global warming?
In his 2007 TED Talk A Critical Look at GeoEngineering Against Climate Change, David Keith, Professor of Applied Physics in Harvard’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences agrees with Caldeira’s assertion. Keith agrees that this geoengineering idea could solve the problem of rising global temperatures. Keith states “The solution in it’s simplest form would work like this: you could put sulfuric acid particles, sulfates, into the upper atmosphere where they would reflect away sunlight and cool the planet. He states that he’s certain that this would work because it’s been done before. Not by us, but by nature…volcanoes.”
Both Caldeira and Keith, like many atmospheric scientists, agree that the action of controlling the climate by man-made means is something that we should avoid. But they reluctantly acknowledge that these measures may become necessary to sustain human life on earth.
Have they already started?
From the looks of our strange, cloudy skies, these measures might have already begun. If your car made an emission trail like that, you’d be fined, or arrested. Why can’t we clean up our skies? Read on…
I remember as a kid in the 60’s, laying on the lawn with friends and peering up at the sky at cloud formations. The game was to find clouds that resembled the shapes of familiar things like elephants, boats or angels in the puffy white friendly formations above. But today, if I played the cloud game with my grandkids, it would more likely be tic-tac-toe or some other grid game. Where have the angels and elephants gone?
Cirrus Homogenitus or man-made (fake) clouds
Merely asking this question raises eyebrows of concern over one’s mental state. “Has she become one of those conspiracy theorists?” My friends and family wonder about my mental health as the skies above us cast shadows upon our day. When searching the topic of jet emissions, a broad spectrum of articles appear. The explanations range from a benign phenomenon created by ice crystals formed in the condensation of jet exhaust to more sinister government plots of population control.
Despite my family’s skeptical whispers, I consider myself a rational person. I would much rather dismiss the issue as a benign occurrence and focus on more uplifting things. But, the obvious cannot be ignored. I have questions. I’m sure that you do too. If you don’t, you really should.
Contrail vs Chemtrail
First, let’s begin with the terms.
Contrails: Defined as a trail of condensed water from an aircraft or rocket at high altitude, seen as a white streak against the sky.
Chemtrail: The term commonly used for contrails-with-a-twist. The twist being the intentional application of chemical agents dispersed as an aerosol in jet exhaust. Or even darker…as an aerosol spray… from special airplanes.
Wikipedia states that there is a visible difference between chemtrails and contrails. Contrails dissipate in a few minutes and chemtrails persist for hours. However, according to the World Meteorological Organization, the proper term for a persistent airplane vapor trail is Cirrus Homogenitus . Also referred to as persistent clouds developed by human activity (fake clouds). Seriously, from my experience, if something in this world is given a Latin name, it must be legit.
Why do fake clouds form?
The quick answer is that contrails form when water vapor condenses and freezes around small particles or aerosols in the exhaust of an aircraft. Really, a better question might be: what are the small particles? The answer to this question is where the contrail takes a turn into chemtrail territory. The simple truth is that every condensation trail has a chemical profile. The profile is made of the components in the jet fuel, water and the chemical compounds created by combustion, temperature, and humidity.
So, what is that cloud-making particle?
In a study of jet aircraft emission particulates conducted by NASA in 2014, the most substantial chemical elements of soot created by jet exhaust are (N) nitrogen, (S) sulfur and (Na) sodium. According to NASA’s study, sulfur is the nucleic core of condensation particles. Additionally, this plain English webpage managed by the Wisconsin Department of Health Services confirms that the burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil which contain sulfur) produces sulfur dioxide, the gas at the core of condensation trails.
So, what does this mean?
Well, this means that sulfuric gases are necessary for the formation of contrails, chemtrails, Cirrus Homogenitus or whichever name fits with your interests. The higher the sulfur content, the more cloud-making particles there are. And, more particles mean a more robust and persistent the plume of fake clouds at a cruising altitude of 25,000 feet.
Where was this jet going?
What this means to you: dimmer days with fewer puffy white angels and elephants floating across a blue sky.
Read more about how Mother Nature taught us how to create persistent condensation trails.
So, my sardine choices are now olive oil, radiation or both? While researching my bee disappearance project , I ran into some interesting information on the 2011 Fukushima disaster and its possible impact on my missing bees… and the potential for food and water radiation contamination for all of us.
Several websites contain maps showing the expansion of the radiation plume which was expected to arrive at the mainland US within a couple years of the incident. A Feb. 2014 article by the BBC, noted that the radiation sampling project had to be privately funded since no federal agency picked up the monitoring responsibility.(1) (The article referenced the sampling project website, www.ourradioatctiveocean.org, but that link appears outdated.)
So, since there really hasn’t been much in the news about Fukushima lately from any governmental sources, it appears we have three options with regards to checking potential Fukushima radiation contamination in our food and water and giving us accurate, and timely, notifications:
Rely on our governmental agencies, such as the EPA, FDA, HHS or another alphabet combo;
Find a reliable outside source; or
Do it ourselves. (Why is that ALWAYS on every list?)
Shutterstock by Thomas Bethge
A December 2016 article by the EnviroNews DC News Bureau states that “It is not a question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses,” says the late Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkley, in his book Nuclear Witnesses: Insiders Speak Out.
On December 12, 2016, EnviroNews USA’s own Editor-in-Chief Emerson Urry touched off a firestorm with his news article titled, “It’s Finally Here: Radioactive Plume From Fukushima Makes Landfall on America’s West Coast,” which claimed “medical science and epidemiological studies have demonstrated time and again that there is no safe amount of radiation for a living organism to be subjected to — period.”
In his piece, Urry also exposed other news agencies like NBC, the New York Post, USA Today and The Inquisitr, catching them with their pants down, in the act of repeating the false assertions of the U.S. and Canadian researchers, telling people not to worry about the recently detected low amounts of cesium 134 found in salmon, and that the levels were within “safe” or “accepted” thresholds for human health. [EDITOR’S NOTE: Emerson Urry recused himself from all editorial duties on this news story.]
Thom Hartmann picked up the article by Urry and read it on his show. Then Hartmann offered up his own journalistic explanation on how radiation works, and addressed the problem with the proclamation that there is a “safe” level of radiation to consume or be exposed to.
“As the element is decaying it is throwing off radiation, and the radiation, if it hits the DNA in the nucleolus and the nucleus of a cell, can alter that DNA in ways that can produce things like cancer,” Hartmann said. “Now it can also cause simply the cell to die or it can mutate the cell in all kinds of other weird ways, and so it’s kind of a numbers game. If you irradiate a million cells… you might get two or three that become cancerous. That’s all it takes, right? You’ve got cancer,” Hartmann continued in his video report. “The cesium could cause no cancer, or it could cause cancer in the first cell it irradiates. To say that there is a safe level of radiation is frankly wrong. It’s just wrong.”
Urry said later in a statement, “It’s one thing for the media to regurgitate trivial facts on trivial matters, but to blindly repeat that consuming low levels of radiation is ‘safe,’ is irresponsible reporting and borders on dangerous. News editors should take care to do their due diligence on a matter as serious as leading readers to believe consuming any amount of radiation is ‘safe’ when medical science and epidemiology, dating back 50 years to the present, have demonstrated repeatedly that that’s just not true. Even the smallest exposures increase the risk of cancer to the subject.”
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) report titled, “Public Health Statement for Cesium” from 2004, “stable and radioactive cesium can enter your body from the food you eat or the water you drink, from the air you breathe, or from contact with your skin. When you eat, drink, breathe, or touch things containing cesium compounds that can easily be dissolved in water, cesium enters your blood and is carried to all parts of your body… No known taste or odor is associated with cesium compounds.”
Cesium is similar enough to potassium that it can fool the body. This results in its bioaccumulation. When cesium enters the biological system of a fish, which is then eaten by a larger fish, the larger fish becomes contaminated. As the larger fish eats more, it becomes more contaminated. The cesium accumulates in its body. When a person eats that fish, he or she also ingests the cesium that hasn’t decayed or been excreted. The more seafood that person eats, the more radioactive material he or she will be exposed to.
The researchers who discovered the cesium recently also made the mistake of equating the dangers of consuming seaborne isotopes to that of receiving an x-ray, missing the point entirely that ingested or inhaled “internal particle emitters” are known to be especially hazardous.
“Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,” said Dr. Alan Lockwood, MD in an article on Fox News Health.
“Children are much more susceptible to the effects of radiation and stand a much greater chance of developing cancer than adults,” said Andrew Kanter, MD, President of the Board for Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in that same Fox News Health article. “So it is particularly dangerous when they consume radioactive food or water.”
Those who might expect the government to protect them from contamination by radiation have only to look at the downwinder situation in Utah or the consequences of Gofman’s research in the late 1960s. According to Gofman’s obituary in the L.A. Times, “Gofman and his colleague at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Arthur R. Tamplin, developed data in 1969 showing that the risk from low doses of radiation was 20 times higher than stated by the government. Their publication of the data, despite strong efforts to censor it, led them to lose virtually all of their research funding and, eventually, their positions at the government laboratory.” Their conclusions were for the most part, later validated.
“There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources, period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past President of PSR, in late March of 2011 in the immediate aftermath of the meltdowns. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine 131 and cesium 137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”
“There is no safe dose of radiation,” says Prof. Edward P. Radford, Physician and Epidemiologist as quoted by GreenMedInfo.
In an email to EnviroNews, nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen said Japan had raised the maximum allowable exposure by 20 times the previous number for civilians to be able to return to their homes. The U.S. and the EPA have considered such plans in the case of a nuclear accident. In food, the U.S. has an allowable dosage of radiation that is 12 times what Japan allows.
“Corporations get the benefit, civilians take the risk,” Gundersen wrote.
While Urry and Hartmann have sounded the alarm, there remain unanswered questions that desperately need to be resolved. Who will clean up the contamination in the food chain? How much radiation exposure will governments continue to say is safe in spite of the medical research? How can people trust what’s on their plate and in their corporate owned media?(2)
And I would certainly include water in the food chain discussion as it is one of the fastest ways to spread radiation around.
Shutterstock by Adam Gregor
According to a May 2016 article in A Green Road Journal, the primary impact of radiation may be on the very building blocks of the physical structures of many insects and animals – Chitin. Chitin is a derivative of glucose and is a characteristic component of the exoskeletons of insects, many sea creatures and birds. Unfortunately, it immediately begins to break down after absorbing radioactivity. The article concludes that “Chitin is a living building block found in many thousands if not tens of thousands of species, such as insects, and sea creatures, as well as birds. Radioactive heavy metals are absorbed like a sponge by chitin, which then breaks down or decays. Man made radioactive poisons are not compatible with life on Earth and will eventually cause extinction, one way or the other. Have you noticed that the sea shore has much less life on it than in generations past?” (3)
Given the combination of independent alarms and lack of reporting, we have now added “Do it ourselves” to our approach to this issue. So we’ll start at what we need to measure radioactivity.
Geigercounters.com notes that “In the field of radiation detectors, the two most popular designs are Scintillation Counters and Geiger Counters. Many scintillation counters are more sensitive in general, and able to detect certain radiation at greater ranges. These devices tend to be more expensive than Geiger counters, and generally larger, more specialized, and less compact in design.
The most popular design of radiation detector is a Geiger counter because it is readily available, easy to use, of compact design in many cases, and in an affordable price range. And certain models are quite sensitive. So for one who chooses to use a Geiger counter to check food and drink for radioactive contamination, certain criteria are recommended:
Its Geiger-Mueller (GM) tube should be of a type that can also detect Alpha radiation, by virtue of incorporating a thin mica end window.
The larger in diameter of that thin mica end window, the more efficient, sensitive, and thorough will be the test. These large ones are known as Pancake GM tubes, as in the Inspector line of instruments.
The Geiger counter should read out in a Digital display, preferred over an analog meter, for quantifying low levels of radiation that may be present.
The instrument should offer an automatic Timed Count or Timed Measurement feature that is necessary to reveal smaller levels of contamination that a momentary scan might miss.”(4)
So, we have now undertaken the random testing of water, food and soil samples to satisfy our own curiosity on the “Fukushima Impact” issue. (Reports to follow.) But it already looks like I may have the answer to that age-old question of predicting future fashion trends:
After starting my research on the potential impacts of the weed killer, glyphosate (“GLY”) as found in Roundup® and others, on bees, and then, dogs, I ran across some interesting test results that hit a little closer to home. Moms Across America(1) (“MAA”) and Sustainable Pulse(2) (“SP”) started looking at the amount of GLY in breast milk, urine and water according to a report posted in April 2014. MAA is a non-profit organization “seeking to raise awareness about GMOs and related pesticides in our food.” SP is “owned and maintained by a group of concerned citizens and scientists.”
When I first wrote the article concerning the disappearance of the bees around my house and a potential link to glyphosate, my thoughts went to my beloved dog, Sam, a one-eighth purebred Lab (seven-eighths “other”). If bees can potentially develop “gut issues” from exposure to glyphosate, how about our pets? We spray undesirable plants with glyphosate to kill them. Cats eat grasses and plant material to address their own private hell of hairball digestive issues. (Yuk.) And dogs eat almost everything that cats leave behind. Is there a connection?
Glyphosate, the weed killer brought to market as Roundup® in 1974, is officially classified as an antibiotic. (That’s a bit strange to me, but there it is.) Antibiotics generally cause havoc on bacteria. If it is suspected of negatively hitting our bee population by upsetting their gut flora, could it also be upsetting the intestinal balance in my best buddy by killing off his good digestive tract bacteria? Simply put: A little more regularity in his schedule would be welcome. (“I need to walk. Right NOW. Bring a leak-proof bag. OK. Better now. Thanks. We’ll do it again in a half hour.”)
A quick look online and you find research done by Samsel and Seneff in 2015 that found “significant levels” of glyphosate and their metabolites in many popular dog and cat foods.(1)
Wait. Dog food directly contains a weed killer/antibiotic?
It turns out that the harvesting of many grains now includes spraying them with glyphosate to speed up harvesting. This practice has nothing at all to do with weed control.
photo by Jinning Li
Back in 2013, Samsel and Seneff proposed research that identified glyphosate as the most important causal factor in the growing problem of celiac disease whose symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, anemia, and depression. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria.(2)
These “gut bacteria” concerns are now hitting closer to home with our pets. Recent research has indicated that more attention is being paid to adding probiotics to dog food to offset the antibiotic impact on digestion. I am always wary of marketing ploys to simply differentiate products, but this potential “glyphosate impact” question may explain some of Sam’s issues.
And with all the drool Sam and I share on a daily basis, I’m now interested on a personal level.
Probiotics counteract antibiotics. Easy word recognition here. I get that. So, it seems we need some more good soldiers on our team. Back in 1998, The American Society for Nutrition Services published research on the use of probiotics in a dog’s diet and found that certain strains of good probiotics can survive the digestion process in dogs. (3)
Just like us, the “good bacteria” colonize in the dog’s large intestine and take over so there is no room left for the types of bacteria that make your pet sick. The “good bacteria” also provide easy-absorbable energy to help pets digest food and absorb nutrients, antioxidants, and iron. In fact, the addition of probiotics to your pets’ food can help stop diarrhea, stimulate firm stool, and reduce inflammation if your pet has Irritable Bowel Disease (IBD).
In addition to helping with digestive issues, probiotics in dogs actually activate the canine immune system. Probiotics help increase natural antibody levels and macrophage activity in dogs, as well as regulate and increase hormone levels. If the “good bacteria” is depleted or the balance of it is disturbed, pathogenic bacteria can overgrow and cause health problems. By preventing harmful bacteria from colonizing, probiotics can prevent digestive problems and support your pets’ bodies in fighting illnesses and diseases.(4)
Figuring out how to treat the on/off issues of my dog’s digestive tract requires patience, I realize. And, we’re in this together. It is not always known what actually causes this irritable bowel syndrome, but some of the suspected factors are thought to be related to diet intolerances, possibly due to allergies, the ability of the food to effectively pass through the gastrointestinal tract, and, possibly, mental distress. Irritable bowel syndrome in dogs is commonly associated with chronic inflammation and discomfort of an animal’s bowels; however, it is not linked with any type of gastrointestinal disease.(5)
So I always seem to circle back to something causing a disruption in my dog’s digestive “process.” I need to research the potential benefits, if any, of liquid versus solid probiotics. It seems that if you see the names Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and/or Enterococcus listed, and spelled correctly, as probiotics in your dog’s food, you may be on the right track. There is some disagreement of the strains of probiotics needed by pets as opposed to what their owners might need. Probiotic formulas used by humans were developed specifically to fortify the bacterial species found in the human GI tract. Pets have some specific strains of bacteria unique to them, so they need a unique probiotic derived from its own species.(6) This makes some sense and more credible research and reporting are needed. (Some of these studies are already a couple years old or more. Ask your vet about this.) Also, recommended potency levels and efficacy will need some standardization. Lots to do here.
In the meantime, I have adopted my own three-part Plan A as a response: (1) Look for an affordable organic dog food that limits glyphosate exposure at harvest, (2) Continue to tinker with probiotics that can help get my dog back on track, and (3) Try to keep him out of the neighbor’s cat box.
Honey bees are disappearing. While trying to stay on top of the recently observed reduction in my garden’s pollinator friends, the honey bees, I ran into a March 2017, Discover Magazine article entitled “Buzzkill” by Steve Volk. (This title alone moved me to read further and faster.)
The author visited an agricultural center in the mountains of northern Utah and reported some alarming observations that dovetail into my recent article.
Simply stated: Honey bees are disappearing.
The trouble started 10 years ago.
Bee colony losses can sometimes reach 50 percent annually.
Queen bees only survive a third of their normal life span.
Bees are dying, and the ones that live are weakening.
