Ham and Potatoes: 2008/05

KEEP YOUR EYES ON JESUS!

FEED FAITH, STARVE DOUBT

GOD KNOWS WHAT TO GIVE (A GIFT) AND HOW TO GIVE IT

POVERTY IS A TRIAL

TRIALS ARE FROM GOD; TEMPTATIONS ARE FROM SATAN

Words of Wisdom (from James 2)

FAITH + DEEDS = LIFE

GENUNINE FAITH IN CHRIST JESUS WILL PROVIDE GOOD DEEDS

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Kings 2)

WALK FAITHFULLY BEFORE THE LORD

WALK IN GOD'S WAYS

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Kings 8)

CELEBRATE BEFORE THE LORD YOUR GOD!

BE FULLY COMMITTED TO THE LORD!

KNEEL BEFORE THE LORD AND SPREAD YOUR HANDS OUT TOWARD HEAVEN

MAY THE LORD NEVER LEAVE YOU OR FORSAKE YOU

FEAR THE LORD, FOR HE KNOWS YOUR HEART AND WILL DISCIPLINE YOU IN HIS WISDOM

BLESSED BE THE LORD GOD OF ISRAEL

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Kings 9)

BE FULL OF JOY AND HAVE A GLAD HEART

WALK BEFORE THE LORD WITH INTEGRITY OF HEART AND UPRIGHTNESS

Thursday, May 15, 2008

"Recipe For Life (For Women)"

RECIPE FOR LIFE

FOR WOMEN

"How sweet are thy words unto my taste!"
Psalm 119:103

"Recipe for Life:

Start with a loaf of joy.
Add a dash of kindness.
Season with a pinch of salt
to live as the salt of the
earth.

Sprinkle liberally with Jesus'
love. Add a handful of
forgiveness.

Cover with peace, and
always serve on a bed of
faith, nestled in a platter
of salvation.

Dearest Heavenly Father,
Your words are sweet, sweeter
than honey. They assure me
of your forgiveness and of your
love for me in the cross of my
Savior, Jesus. Your promises
are true for me forever.

Thank your, Lord.
Amen.

(www.CTAinc.com)

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

notes from Creation Seminar part 5 (session 1)

Creation Seminar: Part 5
May 4, 2008

The Dangers of Evolution (Part 1) [0:00 – :]

Is Evolution a bad philosophy?
This seminar is also called “Evolution: Satan’s Religion to Destroy Humanity” and “Evolution’s Relationship to Racism, Communism, Nazism, and the New World Order”
The purpose of these seminars to is strengthen your faith in the Word of God
The Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate
One reason evolution is dangerous is because it removes all morality (we don’t want God or anyone telling us that we can’t commit adultery, etc.)
Why did Stalin order the execution of 14,700 Polish POW officers? “Prisoners of War” are supposed to be protected by the Geneva Convention.
Why did Hitler order the execution of at least 6 million Jews?
Why did Pol Pot, the leader of the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979, execute over a third of the entire Cambodian population?
Why were Australian aborigines treated like animals and thousands killed in the 1800’s?
Why did Kip Kinkle kill his parents and fellow students at Thurston High School in 1998?
There have been 29 school shootings in the U.S. since 1996 (as of 2005)
Evolution is not just dumb, it’s dangerous! Evolution removes all morality. Evolution says “there is no right or wrong” – might becomes right.
John 8:32
Satan has a plan and God has a plan
God’s plan:
1. Fill his Creation with people,
2. Obey His laws,
3. Live in peace,
4. Use the preaching of his Word to win souls, and
5. Go to live forever with him in heaven
Satan’s plan:
1. Reduce the human population to zero (he hates humanity!)
Cont. – watch the DVD!

"Absence of scientific rigour in environmentalist ideology"

Absence of scientific rigour in environmentalist ideology

The first programme in the series presents arguments that global warming is a myth and that the environment in the developed world is improving. Environmentalists hanker after a pre-industrial idyll, but conditions in the Third World
are harsh and millions die every year because of unclean water and smoke from indoor fires.

The Greens oppose major development projects, but many local people want the electricity and clean water they will bring. Many resent the interference and hypocrisy of Western environmentalists, who have all the benefits and comforts
of industrialisation.

The programme hears both from those who criticise the environmental movement and from the Greens themselves.

Most people in the Third World lack the basic amenities of modern life that we in the West take for granted: clean drinking water and a reliable supply of electricity. And Third World governments are eager to industrialise in order to
catch up with the West. But environmentalists say that if they do this, the future of the planet will be imperilled.

"If everybody in the world consumed like the British, the Europeans or the Americans," says Tony Juniper, Campaigns Manager for Friends of the Earth, "then we'd need about eight planets to meet people's needs. And it would still be
unsustainable."

In the name of preserving nature, environmentalists have challenged the old ideas of progress and economic development. But in doing so, they have been accused of needlessly consigning millions of people in the Third World to poverty and early death.

The Shadow Of The Enlightenment

The attempt by man to understand and to conquer nature was at the heart of Enlightenment thinking. A scientific, rational understanding of the physical world was a means of changing nature to serve our needs and desires better. But
these Enlightenment ideas of rationalism and progress have been called into question by environmentalists. They have led, they say, to the monstrous creation of modern industrial life, with its factories and cars, chemicals and fumes.

"People seem to have accepted the view that they should feel guilty about man's impositions on nature, about progress and technological improvement," says Steve Hayward of the Pacific Research Centre. "Even science today is somewhat
suspect in the public mind. I think this is a result of the pervasive environmental philosophy that there's a distinction between man and nature, and that what man does is bad and what nature does is good."

Gregg Easterbrook, author of A Moment on the Earth, a critique of environmental thinking, agrees. He argues that the idealisation of nature common in the environmental movement is a modern luxury that has, paradoxically, been made
possible by development. "Most of our ancestors spent their lives struggling to grow food, to protect themselves against disease and the elements," he says. "They found nature did not know best. Nature was a hostile force for them."

The Power Of The Greens

Environmentalists often depict themselves as folk heroes and rebels, fighting a mighty anti-Green establishment. But the Green movement itself has become a powerful political force, which dominates much of Western thinking. "It's said
they control the Clinton administration," says Senator Larry Craig.

Green Popularity

The environmentalist movement today is rich and powerful: the top 12 Green organisations in the US alone have an annual turnover of just under a billion dollars. In the UK, four million people are members of Green organisations —
that's more than are members of all the other political organisations put together.

Suspending Disaster: The Myth Of Global Warming

Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara
Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: "I think we're going to drown in our own muck."

Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."

According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century,
but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s,led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When
proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in
certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide — almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth.

Clearing The Air: Growth, Technology And Pollution

The industrial First World represents the Greens' worst nightmare. More economic growth, they say, can only mean more pollution and environmental degradation. But others argue that, on the contrary, over the past half century the environment in the advanced industrial world has actually improved.

"Air pollution has been falling in modern industrialised countries for the last 40 years," says Steve Hayward. "And it's been falling precisely because of economic growth and improvements in technology. Even in Los Angeles, which has
the worst smog in the United States, air pollution levels have fallen by about half in the last 25 years — and that's at a time when the area's population has doubled and its economy has tripled."

In the United States as a whole, over the past quarter of a century, the population has increased by 30 per cent, while the number of cars and the size of the economy has nearly doubled. And yet, during the same period, emissions of the
six main air pollutants have decreased by 30 per cent. In addition, says Gregg Easterbrook, Americans have stopped pumping waste water from cities into lakes and streams, stopped dumping untreated sewage in the sea and toxic wastes
on land, and eliminated the use of CFCs.

"Lake Erie 30 years ago was virtually dead," adds Steve Hayward. "Today you can fish in it, you can swim in it. The statistics on the amount of pollution in the food chain have shown dramatic improvement in the last 30 years."

Western cities such as London are cleaner today than they have been for centuries. In the mid 1900s, before cars were even invented, air and water quality was so poor that many thousands of people died each year from typhus and Tuberculosis.

Supporters of economic development don't just argue that the industrial world is getting cleaner, they also say that industrial progress has transformed our lives for the better. "We live longer, we are healthier, we are better educated,
we know ourselves better and we are much more able to take control over our destiny than any other time in the past," says Dr Frank Furedi, author of the book Population and Development. "Yes, industrialisation is often exploitative,
often leads to the uprooting of people. But at the same time it adds to human civilisation and means progress for all."

The pre-industrial fantasy

But the Greens insist we must turn our backs on these 'outdated' ideas of economic and industrial progress. If we are to avoid an environmental catastrophe, they say, we must go back to living in harmony with nature. And to do this we must learn from pre-industrial tribal societies in the Third World.

40 per cent of the world's population still uses either wood or dung for fuel instead of electricity. But the indoor pollution from this is deadly, especially for women and children who spend most time in the home. According to the World Health Organisation, 5 million infants die every year in the Third World from respiratory diseases caused by breathing indoor smoke and rural smog.

Basic pollution of this kind kills far more people than all First World environmental problems combined. One and a half billion people in the Third World sufferair quality that is recognised by the World Health Organisation as
'dangerously unsafe', a level of pollution almost unknown in the Western world.

Dr Anil Patel is responsible for the health care of more than 200 villages in Gujarat, in north-west India. The vast majority of medical problems he encounters have been brought on by environmental causes. But the environmental problems he is concerned with come not from modern industry but rather from the lack of modern luxuries such as electricity and clean water.

"Clean water is completely out of question," says Dr Patel. "The water they get is untreated. Most of the time it is contaminated with human faeces and cattle faeces, and the ultimate result is that there are all sorts of water-borne diseases."

Water-borne diseases in the Third World have not been caused by modern industry. On the contrary, the only way to get rid of them is with modern water-cleaning facilities— the kind we take for granted in the West.

In the Third World, 250 million people are infected each year by water-borne diseases, mostly dysentery. Patients suffer severe stomach cramps, chronic diarrhoea and various other disorders such as skin disease, and each year 10 million of them die. The World Health Organisation estimated that in 1996 3.9 million children under the age of five died from diseases communicated by impure drinking water, mostly diarrhoea.

"Death from diarrhoea has been unheard of in the Western world in the past two generations," says Gregg Easterbrook. "That 3.9 million children dead in the developing world last year exceeds all deaths at all ages from all causes in the
United States and the European Union combined. And yet we endlessly speak of water purity in the West as an issue."

The idealisation by Greens of life in the Third World is resented by many people there. "I see in this a serious problem of hypocrisy, and if not hypocrisy, a gross insensitivity," says Dr Patel.

According to the World Health Organisation, life expectancy for people in the Third World is 20 years less than our own. In the poorest areas they live 35 years less.

Damning development: the Greens and the Narmada project

People in India are struggling to emerge from the backward condition in which they find themselves. The Indian government is trying to build a hydroelectric dam on the Narmada river to provide clean water and the electricity which is vital for industrial progress. It will submerge 350 square kilometres of land and provide enough electricity to supply almost 5,000 villages in north-west India. It will provide clean drinking water for 30 million people and it will be an enormous boost for economic and industrial growth.

Not everyone is keen, however. Lisa Jordan is a director of The Bank Information Centre, an environmentalist group which tries to stop the World Bank from funding large-scale development projects in the Third World that are deemed environmentally unfriendly. She is keen to preserve traditional tribal life. "This is genocide of tribal people who have lived in the forests that are being drowned for centuries. They're one of the oldest living populations on this earth that have been documented. These are the cultures that pay because of a large dam being developed to pipe water to a larger agriculture system, to provide electricity, to provide the dream."

But locals are not so keen on preserving things as they are. "Instead of saying that we want this particular life to be encased like a museum, we must say that we want progress," one woman told Against Nature. "We want development of a particular kind and therefore we need larger dams."

Environmentalists are worried about the damage the dam will do to wildlife in the area, but supporters of the dam are equally appalled that the environmentalists are so concerned with preserving bio-diversity at the expense of human development.

"What exactly is the value of all this bio-diversity?" asks Wilfred Beckerman. "This idea that you have to preserve every scrap of nature, even though destroying it might confer enormous benefits on people whose standard of living and quality of life is so low as to be unimaginable for the vast majority of people in the Western world, I think is scandalous. I just get very angry when I hear this sort of thing. Whose side are these people on?"

As it happens, no pristine forest will be destroyed by the Narmada dam and the only endangered species to be affected is a colony of sloth bears, for which the Indian government is building a wildlife reserve nearby.

But the Greens say they aren't just concerned about the natural destruction of the dam. They point to the number of tribal people who will have to be resettled elsewhere. Brent Blackwelder, chairman of Friends of the Earth US, says
more than 100,000 people will be uprooted from their homes. But according to the Indian government and the World Bank, the project will displace 70,000 people, who will be given farmland elsewhere with the benefits of roads, schools, electricity and clean water.

Critics of the Greens say environmentalists themselves are prepared to push tribal people off their land to make way for wild animals. Nature reserves founded in India by the World Wildlife Fund have displaced at least 25,000 people simply to make way for tigers.

Five years ago Dr Patel welcomed environmentalists' concern about tribal people and was even persuaded by the Greens to campaign against the dam. Today, he believes the real concern of environmentalists is to block progress. He is now a fervent supporter of the dam and accuses the Greens of seeming to care more about animals than people.

Many environmentalists argue that if people in the Third World want electricity, they should use solar power or wind power. But not only would solar and wind power fail to meet the need for clean water, environmentalists themselves admit that they would be fantastically more expensive. To produce the same amount of electricity as the Narmada dam using wind power would cost at least six times as much. Using solar power would cost more than seven times as much— and even then it is doubtful that it could be done. The Narmada dam will produce 400 times as much electricity as the largest solar panel installation currently in existence.

Local Indians such as Dr Patel dismiss all the Green arguments against the dam, saying that the dam will change things, but there can be no development without change.

Green pressure on the World Bank has led to funding for the Narmada dam being withdrawn. Consequently, work on the dam, which began in the early 60s, has all but stopped. Most environmentalists believe it will never be completed.

In addition, leading environmentalists have estimated that they have effectively blocked around 300 hydro-electric dams in the Third World, denying many millions of poor people the benefits of electricity and clean water.

Tom Blinkhorn of the World Bank thinks many people in the West who contribute to environmental organisations don't realise the implications. "What they don't see is the tremendous poverty that exists in other parts of the world, and that
if we are going to help people address that poverty, we need to do it through large dams and activities that many organisations in the Green movement are opposed to. I think a lot of the constituency for Green groups simply do not know about the problems in the Third World."

Conservation and conservatism

There have been many attempts in the past to block social and economic progress. But few have been as successful as today's environmentalist movement, which uses the threat of a global ecological crisis to override the wishes of those people who most need the benefits of progress. And it's not only dams that the Greens campaign against.

"Western environmentalist sentiment has been successful ...in blocking a whole range of industrial facilities," says Gregg Easterbrook. "Factories, roads, logging— even well-regulated logging— have been vehemently opposed."

Steve Hayward argues that it's immoral for rich environmentalists to impose their ideology on Third World countries, where people are poor and disease is rampant. "The best thing that could happen to those countries is to industrialise
rapidly ... so they have the resources not only to be healthier but also to protect their environment. To stand in the way of that is wrong and dangerous in my mind." After all, adds Gregg Easterbrook, we became affluent through industrialisation and exploiting our resources.

Greens are often portrayed as left-wing radicals, battling against a backward-looking establishment. But they are in fact part of a long tradition of conservatism that idealises nature and the past. These conservative instincts motivated 19thcentury figures such as Nietzsche and Wagner, and movements such as the Romantics, who were horrified by England's 'dark satanic mills' (as William Blake described them) and dreamt of returning to a mythical past of medieval knights and maidens, and even the Boy Scout movement, which in its origins combined a mystical affinity with nature, Right-wing nationalism and a hatred of degenerate modern life.

"What we today call 'environmentalism' is ... based on a fear of change," says Frank Furedi. "It's based upon a fear of the outcome of human action. And therefore it's not surprising that when you look at the more xenophobic right-wing movements in Europe in the 19th century, including German fascism, it quite often had a very strong environmentalist dynamic to it."

Fascism, animal rights and human rights

The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights.

"They had essentially a biological view of society," Dr Furedi continues. "They regarded society as an organism to which you were rooted through blood ties ... and felt much more comfortable with what they perceived to be natural than what were the products of human creativity. I think that's one of the reasons why [Hitler] had this celebration of the animal kingdom, the celebration of wildlife."

The historian Dr Mark Almond, of Oriel College, Oxford, goes further. "Goering made ferocious blood curdling speeches saying that people who were cruel to animals, including scientists who did research on them, would be put in concentration camps," he says. "This was perversely part of the logic which could at the same time put people into concentration camps, on whom they experimented."

Frank Furedi agrees. "History shows us is that whenever people begin to treat animals like human beings, it's only a smell step away from treating human beings like animals. And that seems to me the logical outcome of this nostalgic,
sentimental approach towards animal rights."

A Western agenda

Environmentalists today have been accused of effectively imposing their views on the Third World, and causing immense suffering in the process.

"The new focus on environmental issues too often has the consequence of turning societies into theme parks," argues Frank Furedi. "They are very attractive for the voyeuristic Western imagination, but actually doom people in those societies to a life of poverty."

"And it seems to me that there is no accountability here. It's not the people of Africa and Asia or Latin America thathave demanded environmental policies; these are policies that are being pushed by everybody in the West, from the World Bank to Green organisations. Who gave them the authority? By what moral right do they dictate the terms of how these societies can develop and realise their potential for the future?"

Gregg Easterbrook emphasises the hypocrisy of attitudes in the West: "It's still possible in affluent circles in the United States or Europe to see people sitting in an air-conditioned room eating free-range chicken and sipping Chablis, talking
amongst themselves about how farmers in Africa shouldn't have tractors, because it might disrupt the soil, or how peasants in India shouldn't be allowed to have hydroelectric power, because it's not appropriate to their culture.... What would really be immoral is if we insisted on keeping material affluence for ourselves and try to deny it to the billions of others in the world who want and deserve exactly the same thing."

Our attitude to the Third World, as Frank Furedi puts it, is that "... your societies are doomed to be poor-houses for the rest of the world. It purports to be ever so radical and ever so sensitive, but what it does is it sets a Western agenda on the rest of the world. It's as intrusive today as imperialism was in the 19th century. "

"The problem isn't that we have so much that we're squandering resources, the real problem is that most people do not have access to even the most basic needs of everyday life. The real problem is that they're denied good education and
good health. Therefore, the answer does not lie in going backwards and trying to be anti-technological, close down factories and not build roads.... Only through the appliance of science and technology can people's aspirations be realised even at the most elementary level."

People today face many difficulties in the First World as well as the Third: poverty and squalor, ignorance and disease. But the battle against these evils cannot be won by returning to nature or some mythical past. Instead, we must go forwards to a better future with confidence in our ability to understand and change the world.

"Myths of Global Warming"

Myths of Global Warming

The Clinton administration has decided to commit the United States to finalizing
a treaty in December 1997 that would impose legally binding, internationally
enforceable limits on the production of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon
dioxide (CO). That decision was based on the belief that global warming is
significant, that humans are its primary cause and that only immediate
government action can avert disaster.

Yet there is no scientific consensus that global warming is a problem or that
humans are its cause. Even if current predictions of warming are correct,
delaying drastic government actions by up to 25 years will make little difference
in global temperature 100 years from now. Proposed treaty restrictions would do
little environmental good and great economic harm. By contrast, putting off
action until we have more evidence of human-caused global warming and better
technology to mitigate it is both environmentally and economically sound. Much of the environmental policy now proposed is based on myths. Let's look at the four most common.

Myth #1: Scientists Agree the Earth Is Warming. While ground-level
temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6
degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate
measurements, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years. [See Figure I.]
Even if the earth's temperature has increased slightly, the increase is well within
the natural range of known temperature variation. Indeed, the earth experienced greater warming between the 10th and 15th centuries -a time when vineyards thrived in England and Vikings colonized Greenland and built settlements in Canada.

Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that
humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting
that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate
conditions reject the theory by a wide margin. A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions -principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]
Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey conducted by the
environmental organization Greenpeace believe catastrophic climate
change will result from continuing current patterns of energy use. More than 100 noted scientists, including the former president of the National Academy of Sciences, signed a letter declaring that costly actions to reduce greenhouse gases are not justified by the best available evidence. While atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 28 percent over the past 150 years, human-generated carbon dioxide could have played only a small part in any warming, since most of the warming occurred prior to 1940 -before most human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

Myth #3: The Government Must Act Now to Halt Global Warming. The belief
underlying this myth is that the consequences of near-term inaction could be
catastrophic and, thus, prudence supports immediate government action. However, a 1995 analysis by proponents of global warming theory concluded that the world's governments can wait up to 25 years to take action with no appreciable negative effect on the environment. T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds followed the common scientific assumption that a realistic goal of global warming policy would be to stabilize the concentration of atmospheric CO2 at approximately twice preindustrial levels, or 550 parts per million by volume. Given that economic growth will continue with a concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions, the scientists agreed that stabilization at this level is environmentally sound as well as politically and economically feasible. They also concluded that:

Governments can cut emissions now to approximately 9 billion tons per
year or wait until 2020 and cut emissions by 12 billion tons per year. Either scenario would result in the desired CO2 concentration of 550 parts per million. Delaying action until 2020 would yield an insignificant temperature rise of
0.2 degrees Celsius by 2100. In short, our policymakers need not act in haste and ignorance. The government has time to gather more data, and industry has time to devise new ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic
Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global
warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of
environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased
hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations
organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming,
reject these beliefs. Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years -far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of
increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period. Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate. Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological
Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of
hurricanes. From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the
unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward
trend. The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant
increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms. Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations. What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global
warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's early plant life lived in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.

Conclusion. As scientists expose the myths concerning global warming, the fears
of an apocalypse should subside. So rather than legislating in haste and
ignorance and repenting at leisure, our government should maintain rational
policies, based on science and adaptable to future discoveries.

This Brief Analysis was prepared by H. Sterling Burnett, environmental policy
analyst with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"The global warming myth and its selfish defenders"

The global warming myth and its selfish defenders

by John A. Baden, Ph.D. and Tim O’Brien

Some of the questions raised in this column are addressed in FREE's forthcoming
book, "Environmental Gore: A Constructive Response to Earth in the Balance."

THE global warming debate, like many environmental issues, is scientifically
complex and highly emotional. Its complexity hinders informed debate and its
emotionalism makes consensus elusive. Part of the problem is that climatology (the
discipline dealing most directly with global climate issues) is a young and inexact
science. But much of the problem can be traced to special interest's manipulation of
the political process.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global
warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-
induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes."

First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical
relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels
of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data
from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling
trend.

Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly
less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see
temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.

Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous
unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect
global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be
a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by
reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase
precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase
the earth's albedo and cool the planet.

The empirical and theoretical uncertainties surrounding global warming counsel
caution before making policy. Scientists are certainly being cautious; a Feb. 13,
1992 Gallup poll shows that most climate scientists doubt there has been any
significant human-caused global warming to date.

But even if global warming does occur, it is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Robert
Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., conclude
that doubling atmospheric CO is likely to produce an average global temperature
increase of approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This, increase is likely to be
most significant at night, at high latitudes, and during the winter. It will not melt polar ice caps nor raise sea levels more than a few inches. There will not be super hurricanes and there will not be endless summers of blazing temperatures.

In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO.
Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields
by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less
water by reducing evapotranspiration -water evaporating after it is released from
plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become
less frequent.

Amidst the uncertainties, one thing is certain: Some groups benefit if the public
believes global warming is a genuine crisis that can only be stopped with massive
political mobilization. Irresponsible efforts by these groups fuel fears of
widespread drought and crop failures, of super powerful hurricanes, of oceans
engulfing coastal cities, and of blazing summer temperatures. How do they gain by
hyping global warming?

For environmental groups, global warming is the ultimate issue. It affects
everyone, it is dramatic and thus captures the public's attention, and it can only be solved by mobilizing government to impose regulations and develop programs. For
those environmentalists hostile toward industrial civilization, global warming
provides a rationale to impose their version of ecotopia. The threat of global
warming gives license to those who seek to profit from crises.

Insurance companies may also gain from government efforts to control global
warming. Insurers are motivated more by profits than ideology. If global warming
causes increased hurricane damage or floods, they may lose immense amounts of
money. Massive carbon taxes or regulation may halt warming and their losses.
Since they as taxpayers will pay only a trivial portion of any regulatory bill, it is reasonable for them to seek such measures. If global warming never manifests,
they lose little, but society loses a lot.

When making decisions and facing uncertainty, responsible people evaluate the
most likely costs and benefits of alternative strategies. Given our current
understanding, the changes wrought by global warming may well bring small costs
or perhaps benefits. Massive prevention programs will surely be expensive, they
will slow economic progress worldwide. Moreover, delaying action for a few
years, while our understanding of climate change improves, is likely to lead to
more prudent policies. If substantial warming is going to occur, a few years delay
will make very little difference.

The global warming debate is far from settled. In deciding what to do, we should
consider both the merits of the arguments and the possibility that they are being
manipulated for hidden agendas. If we do not, we are likely to be stampeded into
public policies with huge immediate costs and few if any benefits.

"Could The 'Global Warming' Myth Be Collapsing?"

Could The “Global Warming” Myth Be Collapsing?

by American Conservative Daily

Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS
certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of
broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:

*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.

*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr.
William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a
political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

In fact Ms. Cullen is BACK and defending her stance!

http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11592.html

Recall she made this statement “If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.” This statement is obvious in that in taken in context with her entire statement that if you do not think manmade Global Warming/Climate Change is happening then you should not get certified as a meteorologist. But now
she claims that is not the case. “I’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn’t confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.”

Listen Comrade Cullen. We ain’t all stoopid rednecks out hear ya no.

Some of us are pretty smart and it seems to me that you got a little more attention for your cockamamie ideas than you could handle.

Or as one commenter (Hank Spivey) said “The point of my post was never to stifle discussion…Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

A few weeks ago, you said: If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval. It’s like allowing a meteorologist to go on - air and say [followed by factual inaccuracies].

Note the use of the word “allowing” and the phrase “to go on-air,” an obvious reference to “stifle discussion.”

At least pick a position and stick with it instead of trying to spin your way out. Which truth is today’s truth? I’m sure the self appointed experts will explain it all to me.”

People like Comrade Cullen are all about “stifling discussion” and talking about how stupid people that don’t agree with her must be … that is until it is pointed out that she doesn’t even know that hurricanes DO rotate clockwise when they are in the southern hemisphere!

These loons are losing it. Their constant cherry picking of data and making of blatantly false statements is becoming more and more evident and their house of cards will eventually collapse.

"Myths on Global Warming - Debunked"

Green myths on global warming - Debunked

by The Association of British Drivers

1. Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming

Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

2. Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die

In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

3. Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

4. Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

5. Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.

A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause - this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored. Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet

6. The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

7. The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'

Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.
The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are

8. justifiable environmental taxes.

As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

9. Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.

Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by
governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings. The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at
the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

10. There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate. Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the
biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the
fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

“The Covenant Curses” (part one)

“The Covenant Curses” (part one)
from Deut. 28:22-24

• WASTING DISEASE / CONSUMPTION (such as tuberculosis)
• FEVER (any disease or sickness with high body temperature)
• INFLAMMATION (redness, pain, heat, and swelling from an injury or disease)
• SCORCHING HEAT / AN EXTREME BURNING
• DROUGHT (prolonged dry weather) / SWORD [KJV]
• BLIGHT / BLASTING (insect or disease that destroys crops)
• MILDEW (fungus)
• ‘BRONZE’ or ‘BRASS’ SKY
• ‘IRON’ GROUND
• DUST INSTEAD OF RAIN

The Real Dangers of Soda to You and Your Children

The Real Dangers of Soda to You and Your Children
By Dr. Joseph Mercola with Rachael Droege

How many sodas have you had today? How about your kids? The average American drinks an estimated 56 gallons of soft drinks each year, but before you grab that next can of soda, consider this: one can of soda has about 10 teaspoons of sugar, 150 calories, 30 to 55 mg of caffeine, and is loaded with artificial food colors and sulphites.
This is an alarming amount of sugar, calories and harmful additives in a product that has absolutely no nutritional value. Plus, studies have linked soda to osteoporosis, obesity, tooth decay and heart disease. Despite this, soda accounts for more than one-quarter of all drinks consumed in the United States.
Teenagers and children, who many soft drinks are marketed toward, are among the largest consumers. In the past 10 years, soft drink consumption among children has almost doubled in the United States. Teenage boys now drink, on average, three or more cans of soda per day, and 10 percent drink seven or more cans a day. The average for teenage girls is more than two cans a day, and 10 percent drink more than five cans a day.
While these numbers may sound high, they’re not surprising considering that most school hallways are lined with vending machines that sell, of course, soft drinks. It’s not uncommon for schools to make marketing deals with leading soft drink companies such as Coca-Cola from which they receive commissions--based on a percentage of sales at each school--and sometimes a lump-sum payment.
The revenues are used for various academic and after-school activities, but what activity could be worth devastating the students’ health, which is exactly what consuming all that soda is doing? Getting rid of vending machines in schools--or replacing their contents with pure water and healthy snacks--could make a big difference, as vending machines can increase the consumption of sweetened beverages by up to 50 or more cans of soda per student per year.
Let’s take a look at some of the major components of a can of soda:
• Phosphoric Acid: May interfere with the body's ability to use calcium, which can lead to osteoporosis or softening of the teeth and bones. Phosphoric acid also neutralizes the hydrochloric acid in your stomach, which can interfere with digestion, making it difficult to utilize nutrients.
• Sugar: Soft drink manufacturers are the largest single user of refined sugar in the United States. It is a proven fact that sugar increases insulin levels, which can lead to high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease, diabetes, weight gain, premature aging and many more negative side effects. Most sodas include over 100 percent of the RDA of sugar.
• Aspartame: This chemical is used as a sugar substitute in diet soda. There are over 92 different health side effects associated with aspartame consumption including brain tumors, birth defects, diabetes, emotional disorders and epilispsy/seizures. Further, when aspartame is stored for long periods of time or kept in warm areas it changes to methanol, an alcohol that converts to formaldehyde and formic acid, which are known carcinogens.
• Caffeine: Caffeinated drinks cause jitters, insomnia, high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, elevated blood cholesterol levels, vitamin and mineral depletion, breast lumps, birth defects, and perhaps some forms of cancer.
• Tap Water: I recommend that everyone avoid drinking tap water because it can carry any number of chemicals including chlorine, trihalomethanes, lead, cadmium, and various organic pollutants. Tap water is the main ingredient in bottled soft drinks.
• Soda is one of the main reasons, nutritionally speaking, why many people suffer health problems. Aside from the negative effects of the soda itself, drinking a lot of soda is likely to leave you with little appetite for vegetables, protein and other food that your body needs.
If you are still drinking soda, stopping the habit is an easy way to improve your health. Pure water is a much better choice. If you must drink a carbonated beverage, try sparkling mineral water.
Water
Also indexed as: Bottled Water, Carbonated Water, Drinking Water, Mineral Water, Seltzer
Serve sparkling water, instead of soft drinks, with a wedge of lemon or lime.
• Varieties
• Buying and storing
• Availability
• Preparation tips
• Nutritional highlights
• Health benefits and concerns
It’s the only beverage that can be consumed in nearly unlimited quantities. Water is the second most important nutrient for life, just after oxygen. More than two-thirds of the human body is made up of water, and the brain is nearly 85 percent water. Our drinking water comes from freshwater lakes, streams, and underground reservoirs.
Varieties
Bottled water comes from a variety of sources. Spring water is the most common. Most is micron filtered and ozonated, and may be treated with reverse osmosis and ultraviolet light as well.
Mineral water contains calcium and other naturally occurring minerals. Distilled water is extremely pure, but the resulting liquid is virtually mineral free and flat tasting. Sparkling water can be naturally occurring, or can be sold as seltzer or club soda. Mineral water may contain high levels of sodium, so check labels.
Here are brief descriptions of common water purification methods used today.
Ultraviolet treatment
Water is exposed to ultraviolet light that destroys biological contaminants and inactivates viruses and bacteria. This treatment is ineffective against organic and inorganic contaminants and does not inactivate giardia (a parasite) cysts.
Carbon filtration
Water is passed through micro-fine carbon filters that absorb or modify contaminants, including some biological and most organic contaminants. Filters don’t catch all viruses or radioactive pollutants, or very tiny parasites.
Reverse osmosis
Water is passed through an ultra-fine membrane under pressure, reducing inorganic contaminants and some radioactive materials. Viruses can remain in the water after reverse osmosis processing.
Distillation
Water is boiled and the resulting steam is captured and cooled into fresh water. Although this method is thought to be the most reliable method for purifying water, it doesn’t remove certain compounds, such as gasoline and petroleum-based solvents.
Buying and storing tips
Buy water in bottles or from machines in most grocery and health food stores. Store in a cool, dark location.
Availability
Water is available year-round.
Preparation, uses, and tips
Serve sparkling water, instead of soft drinks, with a wedge of lemon or lime, or a splash of fruit juice. Filtered or spring water can be used instead of tap water for all cooking uses.
Nutritional Highlights
Water, 1 cup (250mL)
Calories: 0.0
Protein: 0.0g
Carbohydrate: 0.0g
Total Fat: 0.0g
Fiber: 0.0g
Health benefits and concerns
Alzheimer’s disease
Whether aluminum in the diet can cause Alzheimer’s disease remains controversial. A preliminary study found that Alzheimer’s disease patients are more likely to have consumed foods high in aluminum additives (e.g., grain product desserts, American cheese, chocolate pudding or beverages, salt, and chewing gum), compared with people without the disease. Until this issue is resolved, it seems prudent for healthy people to take steps to minimize exposure to this unnecessary and potentially toxic metal. Aluminum is added to some municipal water supplies to prevent the accumulation of particulates. In such areas, bottled water may be preferable. It appears unlikely, however, that avoidance of aluminum exposure after the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease could significantly affect the course of the disease.
Athletic performance
Water is the most abundant substance in the human body and is essential for normal physiological function. Water loss due to sweating during exercise can result in decreased performance and other problems. Fluids should be ingested prior to, during, and after exercise, especially when extreme conditions of climate, exercise intensity, and exercise duration exist. Approximately two glasses of fluid should be consumed two hours before exercise and at regular intervals during exercise; fluid should be cool, not cold (59–72°F, 15–22.2°C).
Electrolyte replacement is not as important as water intake in most athletic endeavors. It usually takes several hours of exercise in warm climates before sodium depletion becomes significant and even longer for potassium, chloride, and magnesium. However, the presence of sodium in fluids will often make it easier to drink as well as to retain more fluid.
Common cold/sore throat
Drinking plenty of fluids is important in maintaining water balance and easily flowing secretions.
Constipation
Adding water to fiber supplementation makes the stool softer and easier to pass through the gastrointestinal tract. At least 16 ounces (500mL) of water per serving of fiber is recommended. Otherwise, a fiber supplement can worsen, rather than improve, constipation.
Goiter
Certain bacteria in drinking water have been shown to predispose to goiter formation. A healthy water supply is likely to be important in the prevention and treatment of goiter.
Halitosis
A reduced saliva flow increases the concentration of bacteria in the mouth and worsens bad breath. Measures that help increase saliva production (such as drinking adequate water) may improve halitosis associated with poor saliva flow.
Heart attack
High levels of magnesium in drinking water have been associated with a low risk of heart attacks.
Kidney stones
Drinking water increases the volume of urine. In the process, substances that form kidney stones are diluted, reducing the risk of kidney stone recurrence. For this reason, people with a history of kidney stones should drink at least two quarts of water per day. It is particularly important that people in hot climates increase their water intake to reduce their risk of kidney stones.
Parasites
When traveling outside the United States in developing countries, people should avoid drinking tap water or beverages with ice from unpurified water sources. These are potential sources of parasitic infection. People should not drink untreated stream water while camping, even in the United States, as it is frequently contaminated with giardia.
Preeclampsia
In preeclampsia, unrestricted use of salt and an increased consumption of water are needed to maintain normal blood volume and circulation to the placenta.
Stroke
Drinking water high in magnesium has been associated with protection from stroke.
Tooth decay (dental caries)
In communities without fluoridated water, doctors often recommend adding fluoride tablets or drops to the drinking water.
Drinking fluoridated water (1 mg fluoride per liter, or “1 part per million”) has led to an estimated 40–60% reduction in dental caries in many cities in the United States and worldwide. While most experts believe water fluoridation to be associated with minimal risk, others disagree. A minority of scientists believes fluoridation to be associated with an unacceptable risk of skeletal damage, including osteoporotic fractures and bone tumors, in exchange for a modest dental benefit. Fluoride has topical action as well as whole body effects, suggesting that those who do not have access to fluoridated water can achieve some benefit with fluoride-containing toothpastes and mouthwashes. The American Dental Association recommends supplementing children in areas without fluoridated water with liquid fluoride drops, but this should be done with the guidance of a dentist.
A recent population survey found blood lead levels were associated with the amount of dental caries in children and adults. The authors estimated that lead exposure is responsible for roughly 10% of dental caries in young Americans. For this and other health reasons, known and potential sources of lead exposure should be avoided. Common sources of lead exposure include water from lead pipes.
Levels of strontium in the water supply have been shown to correlate with the risk of dental caries in communities with similar fluoride levels. Compared to children with fewer cavities, enamel samples from children with high numbers of caries have been found to contain significantly less strontium.
Ingredient challenges:
Caramel Color-Conscious
By Marcia A. Wade, Technical Editor

Processed foods are rife with caramel color, whether it is in children’s cookies, snacks and juices, happy hour beers or in the health bars sold to the nutrition-conscious. The challenge in applying caramel color depends on the specific properties of the applications in which it is used. Caramel color is valued as a natural additive that tints food products to evoke the colors consumers expect to see. For example, cola should be brown, apple juice should be gold and the surface of grilled roasted beef should have an inviting “cooked” hue.
Non-enzymatic caramel color is the brown product created by either the Maillard or caramelization reactions. The Maillard reaction occurs between reducing sugars and amines under various time, pH, heat or pressure conditions. The reaction naturally produces the brown color of roasted and grilled meat, chocolate, soy sauce, coffee and bread.
Caramel colors also are created through thermal decomposition or the caramelization reaction, which occurs in the absence of amines when sugars are heated above 150°C. In the polymerization reaction of caramelization, sugars recombine to form large complex color structures.
The challenges of adding caramel coloring to formulated products are complicated. The ingredient’s solubility is reliant on pH and requires knowledge of the intended product’s isoelectric point and pH. In liquid beverages, precipitation of caramel or flavor solids can occur if care is not taken to understand the food’s chemistry and its interaction with caramel. Depending on the reactants used in the manufacturing of the caramel, four classes of caramel colors are possible, and each class is compatible with different food types.
Class I caramels (or “plain” caramels) do not contain ammonium or sulfite compounds. Like caramels in Classes II and IV, plain caramels have a negative colloidal charge, which makes some of them suitable for use in high-proof alcohol below 75% concentration.
Class II caramels, or those processed with caustic sulphite, have limited food and beverage applications. Alternatively, high-intensity color Class III caramels are created by processing sugars with only ammonia. Some Class III caramels are stable at pH 3, soluble at 20% salt solution, and used to color soups, sauces, beer, malt liquor, canned foods, biscuits, and pastries. Class III or IV caramels are highly dispersible in water and dough, making them well suited for bakery applications.
Class IV caramel colors processed with both sulfur and ammonia to achieve intense color are used in cola beverages and other soft drinks. Caramels used in soft drinks have a negative charge, with an isoelectric point below the pH of the beverage to avoid flocculation/precipitation. (Soft drinks generally have a pH range of 2.5-3.5.)
“Caramel colors are always being used in new ways; for example, as a substitute for cocoa. Since cocoa prices are very high, [to reduce ingredient expenses, manufacturers] use some caramel color in addition to the cocoa and likewise for cinnamon and coffee,” says David Tuescher, technical director of research and development of new materials at a leading caramel color supplier. In cookies, very pleasing dark shades can be achieved by combining caramel color and alkali-processed cocoa.
In addition to its ornamental qualities, caramel color can protect flavors and other ingredients in beverages from deterioration by light, and also acts as an emulsifying agent. It helps reduce the need for gums when diluting soft drink concentrates and flavoring agents.
Although caramel color is sold as a colorant, it does contribute aromas and flavors that add to the sensory qualities of the final product. Tuescher asserts that flavor is very significant to caramel color, which contributes a subtle yet significant “texture” and flavor to a drink. “We sell it as a color,” explains Tuescher, “but there is a flavor constituent. You have to pay attention to flavor when you are developing a product. It could have a positive or negative influence.” By changing from one type of caramel color to another, formulators sometimes can eliminate negative consequences or add others. As an example, Tuescher points to a colorless cola product released years ago that never grew in popularity. The product had a different mouthfeel, due to the loss of viscosity associated with caramel color.
Melanoids, brown pigments and flavor-active compounds formed during the Maillard reaction, contribute off-flavors recognized as bitter or burnt, as well as off-aromas (often described by flavor chemists as burnt, onion, rancid, sweaty or cabbage). On the other hand, the oxygen-accepting Maillard products, melanoid reductones, act as antioxidants and can improve shelflife.
Depending upon the application, melanoidins also contribute appetizing flavors, sensed as “malty,” bread crust-like, caramel, coffee or roasted, and alluring aromas perceived as “bready,” cracker, fine malt.
As ingredient suppliers introduce new Class I caramel colors for use in high salt-soluble products, the realm of applications for caramel color is widening. For example, formulated soy sauce is the most germane recipient. Manufacturers have encountered difficulties retaining a clear product when coloring soy sauce not produced naturally by the slow fermentation process. Caramel color is added to the accelerated soy sauce, but unless it is stable at 20% salt solution, the sauce will be hazy and the caramel will precipitate out. “We have clarity at 20-25% concentration of salt with our particular [caramel] product,” says Tuescher. He adds that this new Class I colorant will allow soy manufacturers to achieve the specific color characteristics they need while maintaining a clear, haze-less product.

Sidebar:
Going Global
Caramel color industry regulations on GMO products in European and Asian countries have caused concern for U.S. caramel color manufacturers. The carbohydrates used in the caramelization process often originate from GMO corn. “GMO should not be an issue for caramel color but, based on current European regulations, it still is an issue,” says Tuescher. However, he argues, all of the corn’s protein, which would contain the GM components, is removed before the caramelization process. Additionally, when the carbohydrate was tested at Tuescher’s company, using the most sensitive level of PCR analysis, less than 10ppb of maize protein was found.
On February 23, 2004, after a series of tests lasting more than 250 days, the Chinese government agreed to allow entry of GMO-altered crops sold by U.S. crop giant Monsanto. Under the new rules, some but not all of Monsanto’s soybeans, cotton and corn products will be available for use in China. “I really doubt that the Chinese action will cause any quick change in the [GMO rules set by the E.U.]. The E.U. situation is not based on science, but on politics driven by the anti-GMO groups,” speculates Tuescher.
“It is not cost effective to have two separate lines, one to make products for Europe and one for the U.S.,” continues Tuescher. “The acceptance of GMO products by China is simply the first step. The lower cost of GMO materials will eventually make them acceptable [in the E.U. also].”
A melon-flavored soft drink by Asahi in Japan contains caramel color, but is bright green. Caramel color commonly is used in many beverages, from the piping hot coffee of Maxim’s (Japan) microwaveable café latte by Ajinomoto General Foods to Grupo Aguila Azteca’s (Mexico) high-energy drink Red Rhino to Lo-Zano’s (Guatemala) apple juice.

Sidebar 2:
Matchmaking: Caramel Compatibility Tests
There is more to caramel color than color. Besides testing color strength and hue with a spectrophotometer, manufacturers need to ascertain many additional properties of their caramel color supply (some are listed below) to assure that flocculation does not occur and that the color intensity will last the life of the product.
• Haze point
• Gel point
• Shelflife or resinification
• Isoelectric point and pH
• Alcohol concentration
• Colloidal charge
Why is phosphoric acid in soda pop?

Vocabulary
acid
acidulant
phosphoric acid

Phosphoric acid is deliberately added to soft drinks to give them a sharper flavor. It also slows the growth of molds and bacteria, which would otherwise multiply rapidly in the sugary solution.
Almost all of the acidity of soda pop comes from the phosphoric acid and not from the carbonic acid from the dissolved CO2. You can verify this by measuring the pH of fresh and flat soda pop; there's very little difference.
The phosphoric acid is corrosive, but actually the acid concentration in soda pop is lower than that in orange juice or lemonade. Try submerging identical strips of magnesium (or iron staples) in each of these beverages overnight. Which beverage dissolves more metal? Which dissolves the metal fastest?
Fruit juices and drinks are also tart, but they don't use phosphoric acid as a flavor additive. Phosphoric acid would cause many ions present in fruit juices to settle out as insoluble phosphates. These beverages get their tang from citric acid, a substance found in oranges, limes, lemons and grapefruits. Malic acid, found in apples and cherries, is added to many fruit juices. Fumaric acid is used in noncarbonated soft drinks, and tartaric acid gives grape-flavored candies a subtle sour flavor. All of these substances impart only tartness, without overpowering other flavors present.
Reader Comments
Soda pop and the American diet
Americans drink more soft drinks than ever before. These popular beverages account for more than 25% of all drinks consumed in the U. S.
More than 15 billion gallons of soda pop were sold in the U.S. in 2000. This works out to over one 12-ounce bottle per day for every man, woman and child.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, kids are heavy consumers of soda pop, and they are guzzling those soft drinks at unprecedented rates.

As soda pop becomes the beverage of choice among the nation's youth, and as soda marketers focus on brand-building among ever-younger consumers, we are all faced with nagging questions:
How healthful are these drinks, which provide a lot of sugars, calories and caffeine but no significant nutritional value? And what happens if you drink a lot of them at a very young age?
Soda pop and obesity in youth
One recent independent peer-reviewed study demonstrates a strong link between soda pop consumption and childhood obesity(1).
Explanations of the mechanism through which soda pop may lead to obesity have not been proven yet, although the evidence for them is strong.
Many people have long assumed that soda, high in sugar and calories and low in nutrients, can make children fat. But this study provides solid, scientific evidence demonstrating this.
Reporting in 'The Lancet', a British medical journal, a team of Harvard researchers presented the first evidence linking soda pop consumption to childhood obesity. They found that 12-year-olds who drank soda pop regularly were more likely to be overweight than those who didn't. For each additional daily serving of sugar-sweetened soda pop consumed during the nearly 2-year study, the risk of obesity increased 1.6 times.(1)
Obesity experts called the Harvard study findings important and praised the study for being prospective. The Harvard researchers spent 19 months following the children, rather than just capturing a snapshot of data from only a single day. It is considered statistically more significant to conduct a study over a long period of time.
Soda pop and tooth decay
Tooth decay is one detrimental health effect of soda pop which even the soft drink industry admits to. In a carefully worded statement, the National Soft Drink Association claims that "there is no scientific evidence that consumption of sugars in soft drinks per se has any negative effect other than dental caries."
Soda pop and bone weakening
The active ingredient in most soda pop is phosphoric acid. The pH of most soda pop is 2.8, which is very acidic. As we discuss in detail in the body PH page, you want your diet to ALKALIZE your body, and ingesting a highly acidic drink like soda pop does the opposite and is very detrimental to your health. Phosphoric acid also leaches calcium from bones and is a major contributor to the rising increase in osteoporosis.

Animal studies show that phosphoric acid, a common ingredient in soda pop, can deplete bones of calcium.
And recent human studies suggest that girls who drink more soda pop are more prone to broken bones. The soft drink industry denies that soda plays a role in bone weakening.
Animal studies, mostly involving rats, point to consistent and clear bone loss with the use of soda pop drinks. But as scientists like to point out, rats and humans are not exactly the same.
Phosphorus, which occurs naturally in some foods and is used as an additive in many others, appears to promote the loss of calcium, thus weakening bones. With less calcium available, the bones become more porous and prone to fracture. There is growing concern that even a few cans of soda pop per day can be damaging when they are consumed during the critical bone-building years of adolescence and childhood.
What happens when these soda pop-drinking individuals become middle-aged adults and they end up with osteoporosis and obesity?
By that time, switching to water, fruit or vegetable juices may be too little too late.
References
(1) Washington Post February 27, 2001; Page HE10
Saliva PH test
The Saliva PH test is a simple test you can do to measure your susceptibility to cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, and many other degenerative diseases.
How to Perform the Saliva pH Test
First, you must wait at least 2 hours after eating. Fill your mouth with saliva and then swallow it. Repeat this step to help ensure that your saliva is clean. Then the third time, put some of your saliva onto the pH paper.
The pH paper should turn blue. This indicates that your saliva is slightly alkaline at a healthy pH of 7.4. If it is not blue, compare the color with the chart that comes with the pH paper. If your saliva is acid (below pH of 7.0) wait two hours and repeat the test.

Where to Get pH Paper
Some health food stores and pharmacies stock pH paper. What you are looking for is narrow range pH paper measuring pH 4.5 to 7.5 or pH 4.5 to 8.5. These pH strips to measure acid/alkaline balance belong in every family medicine kit, right beside the thermometer to measure body temperature.
Saliva pH and Cancer
"When healthy, the pH of blood is 7.4, the pH of spinal fluid is 7.4, and the pH of saliva is 7.4. Thus the pH of saliva parallels the extra cellular fluid...pH test of saliva represents the most consistent and most definitive physical sign of the ionic calcium deficiency syndrome...The pH of the non-deficient and healthy person is in the 7.5 (dark blue) to 7.1 (blue) slightly alkaline range. The range from 6.5 (blue-green) which is weakly acidic to 4.5 (light yellow) which is strongly acidic represents states from mildly deficient to strongly deficient, respectively. Most children are dark blue, a pH of 7.5. Over half of adults are green-yellow, a pH of 6.5 or lower, reflecting the calcium deficiency of aging and lifestyle defects. Cancer patients are usually a bright yellow, a pH of 4.5, especially when terminal." The Calcium Factor: The Scientific Secret of Health and Youth, by Robert R. Barefoot and Carl J. Reich.
Virtually all degenerative diseases, including cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, kidney and gall stones, and tooth decay are associated with excess acidity in the body. While the body does have a homeostatic mechanism which maintains a constant pH 7.4 in the blood, this mechanism works by depositing and withdrawing acid and alkaline minerals from other locations including the bones, soft tissues, body fluids and saliva. Therefore, the pH of these other tissues can fluctuate greatly. The pH of saliva offers us a window through which we can see the overall pH balance in our bodies.
Cancer cannot exist in an alkaline environment. All forms of arthritis are associated with excess acidity. Acid in the body dissolves both teeth and bones. Whatever health situation you are faced with, you can monitor your progress toward a proper acid/alkaline balance by testing your saliva pH.
What does "Acid" and "Alkaline" mean?
Water (H2O) ionizes into hydrogen (H+) and hydroxyl (OH-) ions. When these ions are in equal proportions, the pH is a neutral 7. When there are more H+ ions than OH- ions then the water is said to be "acid". If OH- ions outnumber the H+ ions then the water is said to be "alkaline". The pH scale goes from 0 to 14 and is logarithmic, which means that each step is ten times the previous. In other words, a pH of 4.5 is 10 times more acid than 5.5, 100 times more acid than 6.5 and 1,000 times more acid than 7.5.
Acid and Alkaline Minerals and Foods
Minerals with a negative electrical charge are attracted to the H+ ion. These are called acid minerals. Acid minerals include: chlorine (Cl-), sulfur (S-), phosphorus (P-), and they form hydrochloric acid (HCl), sulfuric acid (H2SO4), and phosphoric acid (H3PO4). Minerals with a positive electrical charge are attracted to the negatively charged OH- ion. These are called alkaline minerals. Nutritionally important alkaline minerals include calcium (Ca+), potassium (K+), magnesium (Mg+), and sodium (Na+). To determine if a food is acid or alkaline, it is burned and the ash is mixed with water. If the solution is acid or alkaline then the food is called acid or alkaline. Ash is the mineral content of the food.
Ways to Restore Acid/Alkaline Balance in Your Body
If your saliva is too acid you would benefit from increasing the alkalinity of your body. Ways to do this include:
1. Eat mostly alkaline foods.
The general "rule of thumb" is to eat 20% acid foods and 80% alkaline foods. Avoid the "strongly acid" foods.
Strongly Acid:meat, fish, soft drinks
Mild Acid: grains, legumes, nuts
Mild Alkaline: fruits, vegetables, berries, dairy
Strongly Alkaline: green leafy vegetables, brocoli, spinach
2. Supplement your diet with alkaline minerals.
Salts of the alkaline minerals cesium, rubidium and potassium have been found by Dr. Brewer to be particularly effective in fighting cancer. Dr. Gerson, founder of the Gerson cancer therapy, " A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases and the Cure of Advanced Cancer " (page 246) gave his patients a 10% potassium solution. Potassium tablets are commonly available. Potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) can be used as a substitute for sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) when baking. You might try mixing a teaspoon of potassium bicarbonate with water and drinking it before going to bed each evening.
Another good source of information on the body ph problem is essence-of-life.com.
3. Supplement your diet with freshly made fruit and vegetable juices.
As a treatment for cancer, some doctors recommend one 8 oz glass per hour for every waking hour of the day. We could never eat the amount of nutrition we drink with these juices. Potassium Benzoate
Potassium Benzoate is the potassium salt of benzoic acid. 1 gram of the salt is soluble in 2 ml of water, in 75 ml of alcohol, and in 50 ml of 90% alcohol. The salt is insoluble in ether. Probenz® Potassium Benzoate is used as a food preservative. Potassium benzoate offers an alternative to sodium benzoate for products that require a low-sodium content. Potassium benzoate may be employed in a wide range of preservative applications because of its antimicrobial action and low taste. It is also generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the FDA. It is most suitable when used in foods and beverages with a pH of 4.5 and below and is not recommended for use when the pH exceeds 4.5.
The lower the pH level, the greater the effectiveness of potassium benzoate on Yeats, molds and bacteria. To maximize its effectiveness against enzyme formation, it is recommended that it be added at the earliest processing step possible.
If you would like to learn more about potassium benzoate and other quality products available at Velsicol Chemical, follow this link: Velsicol Products
Potassium Benzoate Uses
The use of potassium benzoate as an alternative to sodium benzoate is becoming more popular for applications where a low sodium content is desirable. It is used in a number of the products we consume every day. Potassium benzoate is used in both carbonated and non-carbonated beverages, fruit and fruit juices, syrups, jams and jellies, prepared salads, tomato-based products, margarine, olives, pickles, and other condiments.
If you would like to learn more about potassium benzoate, you can read our potassium benzoate information bulletin at Potassium Benzoate Information
Potassium Benzoate: Preventing Spoilage
Food spoilage has long been a problem in the food industry. Most food spoilage is due to enzyme action upon the food. Enzymes are complex organic compounds that may act as catalysts and cause a chemical change to occur. Potassium benzoate helps to prevent these changes from occurring. The effectiveness of using potassium benzoate as a preservative increases as the pH is decreased.
If you are interested in learning more about potassium benzoate or the other many great products offered by Velsicol, please follow this link: Velsicol Product Catalog.
Velsicol is the technology leader in high performance plasticizers, food additives and industrial intermediates. We are best known around the world for our innovative technology, quality products, and the exceptional level of service we provide.
Caffeine
Caffeine is one of the most comprehensively studied ingredients in the food supply. We know a lot about caffeine and it has been consumed safely for centuries. Caffeine exists in our diet from a variety of sources - primarily coffee, tea, chocolate, cola drinks, and both prescription and nonprescription drugs. While much is known about caffeine, many questions and misperceptions still exist; these facts and resources can help to set the story straight.
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF CAFFEINE?
Caffeine is a mild stimulant to the central nervous system. It is not addictive, though it can be habit forming. When caffeine intake is stopped abruptly, some individuals can experience headache, fatigue or drowsiness. Age and body size can make a difference in effect. A child or a smaller person may feel caffeine's effects more strongly than an adult or a heavier, taller person. A cup of strongly brewed coffee or tea has more caffeine than a weakly brewed cup.
HOW MUCH CAFFEINE IS "SAFE?"
MODERATION is the key. Most experts agree that 300 mg. of caffeine (about the amount contained in 3 cups of coffee) is a moderate intake. People who have certain health problems need to check with their doctor as they consider their caffeine intake. At this time, there is NO evidence that caffeine intake is associated with heart disease, hypertension, osteoporosis or high cholesterol. Because research is ongoing, recommendations about caffeine in the presence of these conditions seems conflicting. Talk with your doctor for guidance about your consumption. Some people are more sensitive to caffeine's effects than others and may feel effects at smaller doses. Pregnancy and aging may affect one's sensitivity to caffeine. There is no evidence that caffeine in beverage form is dehydrating. Its diuretic effects are usually compensated for by the beverage's fluid content. If you ingest caffeine from sports supplements (Clif Bar Ice series) or from prescription drugs or over-the-counter sources (No-Doz, etc.) be sure to drink adequate fluid to rehydrate yourself from caffeine's mild diuretic action.
WILL CAFFEINE HELP ME STUDY?
Caffeine may help you stay awake and be alert to study, but it will not improve your performance on an exam the next day if you have not gotten enough rest or are exhausted from an all-nighter.
HOW CAN I ENERGIZE?
Instead of reaching for another Coke(c), try these non-caffeinated strategies to maintain good energy levels:
• Get a good night's sleep. If you are tired during the day, take a short nap.
• Take a brisk, 10-minute walk.
• Eat regular, healthful meals. Use the food guide pyramid to build your meals. Fatty foods and alcohol can make you feel "draggy."
• Try not to skip or delay meals. Avoid eating very large meals - digesting a large meal can make you want a nap.
CAN I SAFELY HAVE CAFFEINE IF I AM PREGNANT OR IF I AM CONSIDERING PREGNANCY?
At this time, moderate caffeine intake is not believed to affect either fertility or the health of a mother or fetus. Talk with your doctor - research is always in progress.
I GET MY CAFFEINE FROM COFFEE AND NO-DOZ - AND I WOULD LIKE TO LOSE WEIGHT.
IS IT SAFE TO TAKE AN HERBAL SUPPLEMENT TO HELP ME LOSE WEIGHT OR TO STAY AWAKE?
Herbal supplements for weight loss often contain high levels of caffeine and/or quarana or ephedra (ma huang) - other nervous system stimulants. Using weight loss supplements containing ephedra have been associated with illness and death. For additional ephedra information visit this hyperlink: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/ds-ephed.html. Taking diet supplements containing these ingredients, and maintaining your usual caffeine intake can push you past the recommended moderate level of caffeine intake.
Remember the "moderate" caffeine limit is 300 mg/day - and realize that herbal stimulants can be very dangerous. If your caffeine comes from pills vs. drinks, be sure to keep your fluid intake high to address the moderate dehydrating effects of caffeine.
HOW CAN I QUIT OR REDUCE MY CAFFEINE CONSUMPTION?
Cut back gradually. Eliminate a cup or glassful a day rather than going "cold turkey."
• Keep a log to see how much caffeine you consume. Remember to count medications and supplements. Experiment with your intake to see how you feel both physically and psychologically
• Limit your intake to 200-300 mg of caffeine per day.
• Substitute herbal tea, hot or cider or decaf coffee for caffeinated drinks.
• Be active or be still - run, walk, bike ride, swim, do yoga or meditate.
• Eat regular meals
• Stop smoking - caffeine and cigarettes often go together.
• Ask others in your house or office to decrease their caffeine with you. There is strength in numbers.
• Remember that coffee does NOT help you to sober up after drinking alcohol.
Moderation is the key to caffeine intake. When your caffeine intake is not moderate, be prepared to experience jangly nerves and poor sleep patterns. Caffeine's effects vary according to the individual - some people feel very little effect and some people feel frazzled by the smell of a coffee bean.
The amount of caffeine in some common foods and beverages is as follows:
• Coffee, brewed - 40 to 180 mg. per cup
• Coffee, instant - 30 to 120 mg. per cup
• Coffee, decaffeinated - 3 to 5 mg. per cup
• Tea, brewed American - 20 to 90 mg. per cup
• Tea, brewed imported - 25 to 110 mg. per cup
• Tea, instant - 28 mg. per cup
• Cocoa - 4 mg. per cup
• Chocolate, milk - 3 to 6 mg. per ounce
• Chocolate - bittersweet - 25 mg. per ounce
• Cola and other soft drinks, containing caffeine - 36 to 90 mg. per 12 ounces
• Cola and other soft drinks, decaffeinated - 0 mg. per 12 ounces
Some common brands of medications that contain caffeine are:
• Caffedrine Caplets
• Enerjets
• NoDoz Maximum Strength Caplets
• Vivarin
citric acid
Related: Organic Chemistry
or 2-hydroxy-1,2,3-propanetricarboxylic acid, HO 2 CCH 2 C(OH)(CO 2 H)CH 2 CO 2 H, an organic carboxylic acid containing three carboxyl groups ; it is a solid at room temperature, melts at 153°C, and decomposes at higher temperatures. It is responsible for the tart taste of various fruits in which it occurs, e.g., lemons, limes, oranges, pineapples, and gooseberries. It can be extracted from the juice of citrus fruits by adding calcium oxide (lime) to form calcium citrate, an insoluble precipitate that can be collected by filtration; the citric acid can be recovered from its calcium salt by adding sulfuric acid. It is obtained also by fermentation of glucose with the aid of the mold Aspergillus niger and can be obtained synthetically from acetone or glycerol. Citric acid is used in soft drinks and in laxatives and cathartics. Its salts, the citrates, have many uses, e.g., ferric ammonium citrate is used in making blueprint paper. Sour salt, used in cooking, is citric acid.

Friday, May 02, 2008

Transformed

[from a private source]

In the beginning I didn’t believe I was put on this earth to preach God’s word or to convert non-Christians to Christianity. I didn’t want to have anything to do with evangelism or trying to convince people that Jesus was the ONLY way. I struggled with even being comfortable enough to talk with others (family, friends, loved ones) about my faith and what I knew to be the Truth.

When I gave it ALL over to God, my ENTIRE life, and said ‘Your will be done, not mine’ my life CHANGED – forever. He has given me the knowledge, the passion, and the courage to be outspoken about my faith, my convictions, and His Truth.

I believe what I believe because it is written in God’s word. I own His way because I’ve studied it and mostly because He’s spoken it to my heart and shown me what is true and good.

I know that MY way is NOT the right way – no man’s WAY is the right way. Only HIS WAY is the RIGHT way.

If you have faith, love Jesus, and have love and compassion for your fellow man then you would show them God’s way, the RIGHT way. You would yearn to help them see the truth and to be FREE in their lives, instead of in bondage to sin.

God is our Father and our Master Parent – he teaches us through trials and tribulations in our own lives. He loves us like only a parent can love a child. This is probably the best analogy I can give as to why you would seek to change other’s lives, to set them free from the bondage of sin. Just like walking along side your toddler to make sure they don’t go running off the stairs.

One day a couple of years ago I found myself stuck in my driveway and unable to get out. It was the dead of winter and we had recently had a large snowfall. I had shoveled and shoveled and was NOT able to get out of the driveway. I was late for work. God sent me a nice man to help me get on my way. The man had absolutely no reason to stop and help me. There was not a single thing in it for him, except maybe being late to wherever he was headed. He shoveled some more for me and then made sure I could get out before leaving. I thanked him profusely.

God wants us to reach out to others like this man reached out to help me. He wants us to help others dig themselves out of the bondage of sin.

I’ve never been more free in my entire life. This is a different kind of FREEDOM. It’s a freedom that stems from the love I know my Master Parent has for me. His love and His Gift set me FREE.

I grew up with the great ideal of living my life in bondage to sin. In other words – life was about having STUFF! and feeling good. A good education, a great career, a good husband, a great sex life, a fantastic family, a NICE HOUSE, the RIGHT car, nice clothes, a library full of books, a huge kitchen to entertain with, all the right friends.

Somewhere in the midst of the development of my path to bondage as a kid, God planted His seed in me. A seed that said, nope, this just isn’t fulfilling for me – I longed for much more than having the RIGHT EVERYTHING. I think deep down He showed me the hollowness of a life filled with sin and the bondage that brought. THINK about it! SIN = BONDAGE…in my case it goes something like this: always striving for more, better, and bigger STUFF.

Instead I’m living my life FOR GOD. To do HIS WILL sets me free.

God is the KING of MLM! Multilevel Marketing. The more you grow in Faith, the more you know HIM, the closer you grow to HIM, the MORE you want and seek to do HIS will. How cool is that?!

Is living God’s word through love, compassion, and forgiveness ENOUGH?

My God is a God of love, mercy, and compassion. James Alexander Langteaux said it best in his book God.com - He is a God of risk.

Ham and Potatoes

Pages

Friday, May 30, 2008

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Thessalonians 1)

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Thessalonians 2)

Words of Wisdom (from 1 Thessalonians 3)

Words of Wisdom (from Ecclesiates 2)

Words of Wisdom (from Jeremiah 10)

Words of Wisdom (from Jeremiah 11)

Words of Wisdom (from Jeremiah 17)

Words of Wisdom (from James 1)