Auto news on Youtube Aug 31 2018

Roundup. Glyphosate! Those have become very

scary words for some people. Lately we've been seeing a lot of talk about

Glyphosate, and there is no shortage of negativity about the subject. I mean we

could talk about the allegations that Glyphosate causes cancer, we could talk

about it being banned in Brazil. We could talk about the controversy surrounding

the IARC's decision to call it a probable carcinogen. Or heck, we could even

talk about Glyphosate residue in kids breakfast cereals. We could talk about

all that, and it still wouldn't answer the most important question of all that

leads to all these stories. Why do farmers use Glyphosate? And why do they

fight so hard to be able to keep using it? First, the broad-strokes.

Glyphosate reduces tilling. Tilling

essentially means turning the soil, loosening it up, and tearing through all

the weeds. Tilling is, among other things, basically just weed control, and a huge

benefit to using Glyphosate with crops that tolerate it is that farmers can

adopt minimum or zero till growing systems they don't need to rip up the

dirt for the sake of weeds. They can just spray it.

So why no-till? Are farmers just like, lazy and looking to cut corners? No.

Tilling to control weeds is really really bad for soil erosion. Like all that good topsoil?

Just blows away. Tilling also releases greenhouse gases from the decomposition of organic matter

in the soil, and it decreases the overall water holding capacity of the dirt.

Why do farmers use Glyphosate? Because tilling less is better.

That was a simple one. That's done. Easy one out of the way.

To get a little deeper into this, we need data, which I have. For two crops in one Canadian province

We're talking corn and soy in Ontario Canada.

So between Return of The Jedi and Frozen... Because I measured time in movie releases,

The total amount of herbicide used in field corn in Ontario dropped 39% because: Glyphosate.

Glyphosate is applied at a lower rate of active ingredient per acre

than the herbicides that it replaced, and total herbicide applied still dropped

even though there was an 11% increase in the area of field corn grown so more

corn, but less chemical. Sounds like a win.

And in that same 30 year period the corn increased by 74% while the use of

herbicide per bushel of harvested corn declined by a whopping 70%

So that's like a lot more corn for a lot less chemical.

So that was corn. Now soybeans.

Between Risky Business and The Wolf of Wallstreet, the amount of soybeans grown

in Ontario increased by a hundred and eighty eight percent and total herbicide

use increased too - but just by 47%. And just like the corn this is largely due to

Glyphosate replacing other herbicides, and it did that in spectacular fashion.

In terms of all the herbicides used in Ontario, Glyphosate went from accounting

for 2% of all of it, to 82% in that 30 year period. Soybean yield increased by

53% in that same time frame and the amount of total herbicides applied

per bushel produced declined by 67 percent so again the main question: Why

do farmers use Glyphosate? Because using Glyphosate means using less chemical overall.

But the Assumption nowadays is that Glyphosate is super bad for you, right?

So the next question to get a handle on is does less chemical overall,

but like way more glyphosate overall actually mean a reduced risk for farmers or consumers?

And how would you measure that anyways? We need more data.

Luckily Ontario also publishes a report on the environmental risk associated

with the pesticides they use there. Smart. This report uses an environmental

impact quotient, an EIQ, to estimate the hazard associated with the use of a

given pesticide. An EIQ is basically like an indicator of a pesticide's potential to cause harm and it's

important because once you've determined a pesticide's EIQ you can compare it with

other pesticides to get a sense of the risk of each chemical. Now there are a

few acceptable ways to figure out an EIQ the one used by Ontario in this

report is based on 12 different data points collected by testing pesticides in the lab.

Things like short and long term toxicity in lab animals, half-life,

does it leach into runoff? Does it tend to circulate through a plant's tissues?

How toxic is it to organism that it's not meant to affect. Like that kind of stuff

So you run the EIQ for Glyphosate and you get 15.3 which the tenth lowest EIQ of all the

pesticides measured in this report. And compared to other herbicides that it's

replaced like Atrazine or Metolachlor,

Metolachlor... Is that right?

Anyways Glyphosate is just a better choice.

Why do farmers use Glyphosate? Because the stuff it replaced was worse. But wait!

You say, CANCER! You yell. Yeah okay, let's yes let's talk about the cancer. So this Glyphosate

causes cancer things started with a 2015 report from the International Agency for

research on cancer the IARC, which in turn is part of the World Health Organization.

So the IARC classified Glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.

and from there things got crazy.

Glyphosate has kind of been in a global downward spiral since then, but

when you look at this ruling by the IARC some interesting details begin to

emerge that frankly cast a little doubt on it. The IARC report took account of

only published toxicity data on Glyphosate even though more data existed,

some of which might have changed their ruling. The IARC report also did not

include a health risk assessment that would have taken into account how

Glyphosate is actually used. I mean alcohol is carcinogenic too but you can still

drink a little bit of it every day and still live a long fulfilling life and

have grandchildren and all that so how much glyphosate exposure over time is safe?

They never said. Interesting... Also interesting: The IARC had an early draft

of this report that contains some findings that didn't fit with their

carcinogenic conclusion, so they edited those out. Oh, and my favorite detail: One

of the IARC's advisors Christopher Portier didn't disclose that he was paid

160 grand by law firms bringing claims by cancer victims against the

manufacturers of Glyphosate. Like for example the law firms who will

potentially make millions from that recent 289 million dollar lawsuit

against Monsanto. Hmmm... That's like, the scandalous tabloid stuff. On the boring

data-driven side though there's more. It's pretty important to understand that

the department's that govern Glyphosate in a given country have access to like

way more data than the IARC does, and besides double-checking published

data, these government agencies also look at the huge body of toxicity studies

from other countries that use Glyphosate. There's quite a bit of double-checking

and confirmation happening across so many countries that if a problem did

show up, every country would know about it before the IARC would anyways.

Countries also update their information on all the pesticides they use on a

really regular basis, like Canada and the USA do so every 15 years and basically

all of the countries that have reviewed Glyphosate recently have reconfirmed its

safety in spite of the IARC's findings. So in March 2017 the European Chemicals Agency,

yes that's Europe as in the anti-GMO EU, they said that they didn't find

Glyphosate to be carcinogenic. Huh. In December 2017 the US Environmental

Protection Agency released a paper stating that it reviewed close to 170

epidemiological, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies and that the

data didn't support a carcinogenic label for Glyphosate. In April 2017 Canada's

Pest Management Regulatory Agency released its reevaluation of Glyphosate

and said that it's unlikely to pose a human cancer risk. When asked why their

findings differed from the IARC's findings, they said "...the level of human

exposure, which determines the actual risk, was not taken into account by the IARC

Now I'm not a regulatory expert but it seems as though the IARC has

fallen victim to fear-based rhetoric and bad science at best and like straight-up

bribery and altering of evidence at worst. I think I probably need to do a

video on this "probably carcinogenic" thing just on its own. Then again that

probably carcinogenic finding is also key in the recent US 289 million

dollar lawsuit against Monsanto that alleges that Roundup caused a man's

non-hodgkins lymphoma. So that's a video too... That lawsuit also fired up the EU's

Anti-chemical protesters too though, and that had a major impact on the EU's

recent decision to ban crops made with CRISPR technology and mutagenesis.

That needs its own video too - that's a lot of Glyphosate talk. But the timing is right

for Glyphosate talk, which is partially why the Environmental Working Group

recently pitted mothers against Cheerios with their suspiciously timely study that

alleges that there are dangerous levels of Glyphosate residue in kid's breakfast

cereals. That's a heaping pile of video That I need to make right there.

Okay, times are just generally tough for Glyphosate, it's getting squeezed all

over the world by people who just want to see its use discontinued. But banning

Glyphosate doesn't make weeds disappear. Banning Glyphosate doesn't stop farmers

from having to choose something to deal with weeds. So why do farmers use

Glyphosate? Because it works. Thanks for watching.

For more infomation >> If Cancer, Why Glyphosate? - Duration: 9:44.

-------------------------------------------

Rejection why do we pain? You ask about rejection and I answer! - Duration: 6:32.

Hello again. I hope you took the time and you did the exercise because otherwise if you want to take this

all this course conceptually only in your mind it's not helping.

It's not helping you, it is not helping me.

it is not helping anyone. tTese things.

Maybe you can find them in the Internet.

You'll find them everywhere.

Most of them because you will not have the tools that we will have created in the end of this course.

But if you want to create the tools you have to work you have to work together.

We have to work together upon this.

upon this difficult concept of rejection.

It's a really difficult concept of rejection.

If I ask you and you and you if you maybe you can say to me that about what you think from rejection

that's already present in previous lecture not accepted.

I'm not accepted they do not want me.

That's the first thing.

What's the second thing.

What about emotions

We feel

pain real pain we feel, we feel anger,

we fell fear,

we don't feel happy that's for sure.

Rejection is a really difficult thing.

So there is a why.

Why do we feel that this pain, why do we feel

anger why do we feel fear.

Why aren't we happy that we have been rejected and why many times for many person it is taking so long

to be together in their selves in order to continue their life after a great after a rejection.

which for many seems not tobe so dificcult, with me was not so strong so difficult: from a relationship, from a job, from a friend,

work.

Rejection is always a rejection.

So you have to answer first of all of why and if the feelings that you feel

are logical or they're just because you are not strong enough or everything else all these things that

we say to others.

Oh it's nothing.

Don't don't,

Don't think about it and it will pass.

According to the research

according to neuronscience

rejectionl is causing is affecting the same cells that are affected when we hurt somewhere our finger

our hand

Is causing is creating in our brain the same feeling the same cells are a being affected

pain, real pain.

The problem is that as the research has shown have shown

even after years when we remember the rejection we remember again the same pain the pain the feeling of

pain.

But when we remember after years that we have hurt our hand we don't, we cannot remember anymore the

pain. So rejection is really painful biological painful.

It's not something that we create in our mind.

Moreover we have been rejected and it takes time to overpass, to forget the person tha rejected us

Especially if it is in a relationship, loverelationship, oranother relationship, it actually doesn't matter, rejection is just rejection

Why and we want him and we want to go back again and again and again and again like

we have been rejected that is OK we should go to our road, to continue our trip.

The other person it's trip and it's OK.

But no it's not OK.

We want, we have a desire, we have a deep desire to continue this relationship.

Why? Again what neuronscience has given already the answer because rejection is directly connected.

with the synapsis in our and neurons in our brain that are corellatedd according to the research, with drugs.

X

so we feel the ellipsis that we don't take our drug.

You understand

So I think till now we have created a very basic concept about the biological

aspect

of rejection. See you in the next lecture.

For more infomation >> Rejection why do we pain? You ask about rejection and I answer! - Duration: 6:32.

-------------------------------------------

Why do the Dutch wear orange? - Duration: 10:09.

For more infomation >> Why do the Dutch wear orange? - Duration: 10:09.

-------------------------------------------

Why do I Teach Penny Stocks (Instead of Just Trading)? - Duration: 13:14.

For more infomation >> Why do I Teach Penny Stocks (Instead of Just Trading)? - Duration: 13:14.

-------------------------------------------

Why Are Girls Dropping Out Of Their Sport? - Duration: 2:07.

For more infomation >> Why Are Girls Dropping Out Of Their Sport? - Duration: 2:07.

-------------------------------------------

Why do Jaws Click or Lock? - Dr. Vicky Ho - Duration: 2:59.

Hi, Im Dr. Vicky from Smile Design Studio patients

always ask me, why do my jaws click or pop?

And why do they lock sometimes?

Well, the jaw joint is a very complex system.

And it's a very unique joint in that it doesn't just

stay in the joint.

It actually comes right out of the joint in order

for the jaw to move.

So this joint not only rotates on its pivot

but it actually comes right out and back in.

And it can actually go from side to side.

So when you open really wide the jaw joint

comes right out of the joint.

And when you go from side to side

it actually pivots there and all along with these movements,

there's a piece of cartilage that

sits right in between the joint and the fascia

and this cartilage is like a little cushion

and it's a lubricating cushion that comes with it.

And completely smooths the whole motion.

So that allows us to chew, talk and function properly.

Now what happens is sometimes when teeth are worn down.

Okay, when we grind out teeth.

The teeth are worn down and we bite up further than

where we used to with shorter teeth.

So as we bite up further here the jaw, of course,

as it rotates up it rotates back as well.

And now it puts more pressure on the back wall of the joint.

And what happens then some people then get ear problems.

They get ear blockages or tinnitus

and it can also lead to neck pain.

But what happens then when it's actually banked up

against the back wall the cartilage that

was in the center of it is no longer in the center.

More at the front.

So when it's at the front.

It then blocks the smooth opening of the jaw

because it's almost acting like a doorstop.

So the jaw has to click back onto this cartilage, which is

that popping or clicking sound.

And then after that it can freelly move again.

So this is usually caused by the jaw joints sitting

in the wrong place and it's not aligned with the disk.

That's within the jaw.

Okay and this is then related to where the teeth fit,

which causes the jaw to sit further back.

So it might be in people who have really retruded teeth.

It might be in some people who have had braces

and had 4 teeth taken out everything pulled back

and then therefore, the whole jaw joint

sitting further back or could

be also in people who have ground their teeth down.

And now they're biting further up and therefore

rotating the jaw backwards.

So these are the reasons why jaws click.

Now if you'd like to find out how we treat

that please give us a call.