Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Consumption of grilled or baked fish at least once a week can preserve the brain structure of seniors and reduce the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease by three to five times, according to the results of a recent US study.

The study, conducted by the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in Pennsylvania, asked 260 volunteers with an average age of 76, about the frequency of their fish consumption. Ten years later, brain scans were carried out on those being researched. Those who regularly ate fish were found to have better preservation of parts of the brain related to memory. An additional five years later, 31% of those who did not regularly consume fish contracted mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer’s disease. Of those who ate fish at least once a week, between three and eight per cent contracted the aforementioned medical conditions.

According to The Daily Telegraph, consumption of grilled or baked fish increases the intake of Omega 3 fatty acids, providing a greater amount of blood flow to the brain; therefore prompting a reduction in inflammation and internal gathering of plaque encountered in the lead-up to Alzheimer’s disease. Fried fish does not reduce the risk of contracting Alzheimer’s disease due to the low amount of Omega 3 it contains.

Dr. Cyrus Raji, who took leadership of the study, called it “the first study to establish a direct relationship between fish consumption, brain structure and Alzheimer’s risk.” Raji concluded that “people who consumed baked or [grilled] fish at least one time per week had better preservation of grey matter volume on MRI in brain areas at risk for Alzheimer’s disease.”

The Alzheimer’s Society’s research manager, Dr. Anne Corbett, stated: “This moderately sized study adds weight to existing evidence suggesting that eating fish reduces your risk of developing cognitive decline.” However, she contested these findings, saying they “did not account for lifestyle factors such as other foods or exercise”, which may have affected the overall outcome. Dr. Corbett advised consumers to “eat a healthy diet including fruit and vegetables along with taking regular exercise and giving up smoking” to reduce the risk of contracting dementia.

Meanwhile, Alzheimer’s Research UK lead researcher, Dr. Simon Ridley, believed the study had not clarified “whether other underlying factors may have contributed to the lower risk in people who eat fish.” There is “a clear need for more conclusive research into the effects of dietary fish on our cognitive health,” according to Dr. Ridley.

The results of the study are to be presented today at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Monday, June 21, 2010

Sweden’s first royal wedding since 1976 took place Saturday when Crown Princess Victoria, 32, married her long-time boyfriend and former personal trainer, Daniel Westling, 36. The ceremony took place at Stockholm Cathedral.

Over 1,200 guests, including many rulers, politicians, royals and other dignitaries from across the world, attended the wedding, which cost an estimated 20 million Swedish kronor. Victoria wore a wedding dress with five-metre long train designed by Pär Engsheden. She wore the same crown that her mother, Queen Silvia, wore on her wedding day 34 years previously, also on June 19. Victoria’s father, King Carl XVI Gustaf, walked Victoria down the aisle, which was deemed untraditional by many. In Sweden, the bride and groom usually walk down the aisle together, emphasising the country’s views on equality. Victoria met with Daniel half-way to the altar, where they exchanged brief kisses, and, to the sounds of the wedding march, made their way to the the silver altar. She was followed by ten bridesmaids. The couple both had tears in their eyes as they said their vows, and apart from fumbling when they exchanged rings, the ceremony went smoothly.

Following the ceremony, the couple headed a fast-paced procession through central Stockholm on a horse-drawn carriage, flanked by police and security. Up to 500,000 people are thought to have lined the streets. They then boarded the Vasaorden, the same royal barge Victoria’s parents used in their wedding, and traveled through Stockholm’s waters, accompanied by flyover of 18 fighter jets near the end of the procession. A wedding banquet followed in the in the Hall of State of the Royal Palace.

Controversy has surrounded the engagement and wedding between the Crown Princess and Westling, a “commoner”. Victoria met Westling as she was recovering from bulemia in 2002. He owned a chain of gymnasiums and was brought in to help bring Victoria back to full health. Westling was raised in a middle-class family in Ockelbo, in central Sweden. His father managed a social services centre, and his mother worked in a post office. When the relationship was made public, Westling was mocked as an outsider and the king was reportedly horrified at the thought of his daughter marrying a “commoner”, even though he did so when he married Silvia. Last year, Westling underwent transplant surgery for a congenital kidney disorder. The Swedish public have been assured that he will be able to have children and that his illness will not be passed on to his offspring.

Westling underwent years of training to prepare for his new role in the royal family, including lessons in etiquette, elocution, and multi-lingual small talk; and a makeover that saw his hair being cropped short, and his plain-looking glasses and clothes being replaced by designer-wear.

Upon marrying the Crown Princess, Westling took his wife’s ducal title and is granted the style “His Royal Highness”. He is now known as HRH Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. He also has his own coat-of-arms and monogram. When Victoria assumes the throne and becomes Queen, Daniel will not become King, but assume a supportive role, similar to that of Prince Phillip, the husband of the United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Today, a federal judge heard the first of several lawsuits filed against the U.S. government over the Bear’s Ears National Monument.

Yesterday, the Utah Dine Bikeyah, a Navajo nonprofit, posted the fourth and latest of several lawsuits against the Trump Administration over plans announced Monday that would split the Bears Ears National Monument into several smaller parcels and greatly reduce its overall size. The Conservation Lands Foundation, Archaeology Southwest, Friends of Cedar Mesa, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Access Fund, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are all co-plaintiffs in the suit.

“President Trump has literally dismembered our sacred Bars Ears monument that five Tribes have worked tirelessly for many years to protect in order to preserve our culture and way of life,” reads a statement by Mary Benally of Utah Dine Bikeyah.

On Monday, shortly after the announcement, representatives of the five Native American tribes of the Bears Ears Inter-tribal Coalition, the Hopi, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Ute Indian Tribe announced plans to sue the administration of sitting United States President Donald Trump over the shrinking of protections on a Utah monument area that is home to Native American ruins and artifacts. Ten environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, National Resources Defense Council, and Wilderness Society are also filing lawsuits regarding another monument area, also in Utah. President Trump publicly announced his plans to redesignate both sites on Monday.

In a visit to Utah on Monday, President Trump announced plans to break up the Bears Ears National Monument into three smaller areas similarly reduce the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The coalition claims that the Antiquities Act of 1906 forbids the president from doing this. “The President was plainly aware that he lacked the authority to revoke a monument and is thus transparently attempting to evade that strict limitation by purporting to reduce it but, as described herein, the President’s action must be viewed as a revocation, particularly with respect to all objects not included in the two ‘new’ monuments,” the official filing argues.

In his announcement, President Trump said, “The families and communities of Utah know and love this land the best, and you know the best how to take care of your land. You know how to protect it. And you know best how to conserve this land for many, many generations to come,” and called the original designation government overreach.

According to documents acquired by The Washington Post, a uranium consortium called Energy Fuels Resources had engaged a professional lobbying firm to convince the Trump Administration to reduce the size of the monument so that it could access the uranium deposits inside. Uranium is the raw material used as fuel in nuclear power plants, and the only uranium mill in the United States is just outside Bears Ears. Secretary of the Interior Zinke says this was not a factor, however: “This is not about energy,” he said on Tuesday. “There is no mine within Bears Ears.”

Navajo Nation President Russel Bageye called the decision “an open invitation for mining companies to come in and start mining uranium and other minerals in the area.” Many uranium mines have been opened on or near Navajo land. Most were never cleaned properly and the land and water remain heavily contaminated.

There is some legal precedent for a president shrinking a national monument—Woodrow Wilson shrank the Mount Olympus National Monument during the early 20th century, but no court cases ever rejected or endorsed the decision.

Although the specifics were not confirmed until Monday, the fact that the administration had plans to reduce protections on Bears Ears and Escalante in some way has been public knowledge, and the Bears Ears Inter-tribal Coalition had already been planning to sue. In a statement issued Thursday, Nov. 30, President of the Navajo Nation Russel Beyaye said, “At the very least, President Trump should have consulted with the original local governments of the Bears Ears region: our five Indian Nations. Instead, our many requests for consultation were ignored. An action to diminish the Bears Ears National Monument in any way will be an action against the Navajo Nation and the Navajo people who have worked so tirelessly to protect these lands.”

“The tribes view this as an affront to themselves and their own self determination,” said attorney for the Native American Rights Fund Natalie Landreth earlier this month in the Salt Lake Tribune. “All of us, all five tribes will be suing jointly the day he makes an announcement.”

Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante were declared protected areas by then-Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and both are home to artifacts and archeological sites. Bears Ears had a problem with looters before President Obama declared it a national monument. The changes will split the monuments up into many smaller parcels and reduce the overall protected area by more than a million acres collectively. According to some White House documents, protected status will be “confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects identified” as in need of protection.

The Antiquities Act gives the sitting U.S. President the authority to set aside spaces already within federal territory that he feels are in danger without requiring approval from Congress, for example, by prohibiting industrial development and motor vehicle access. Over the past century, legal scholars and a U.S. attorney general have claimed that the Act does not permit a sitting president to reverse a previous president’s decision.

Several Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, support the president’s decision: “I believe his proclamation, following Secretary [of the Interior] Zinke’s fair, thorough, and inclusive review, will represent a balanced solution and a win for everyone on all sides of this issue.”

Other groups, including the clothing retailer Patagonia have also announced plans to sue. Patagonia, which sells outdoor clothing and equipment, argues that by reducing the size of areas where customers would use the company’s products, the government is denying Patagonia business. However, the Inter-tribal Coalition’s lawsuit was the first one filed.

“The tribes feel it was important to file first, to be ahead of the line, to make it very clear that this is not just a conservation issue,” said attorney Natalie Landreth of the Native American Rights Fund, which is representing the coalition. “To them, it is a tribal sovereignty issue.”

This comes days after President Trump was condemned by the National Congress of Native Americans for his use of the term “Pocahontas” during ceremony meant to honor Navajo Code Talkers, Native American men who developed and used a Navajo language-based military code for the U.S. military forces during World War II. “Pocahontas,” is President Trump’s nickname for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, a reference to Warren’s claims that her family has Native American ancestry. The ceremony was held in front of a picture of former president Andrew Jackson, who presided over the Trail of Tears in the early 1800s, in which thousands of Cherokee perished in a forced migration west.

[edit]

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Penske Automotive Group, Inc., an Ohio-based investment group and Telesto Ventures have indicated separately that they are interested in purchasing the Saturn auto brand from General Motors (GM).

According to The Wall Street Journal, Nissan-Renault is interested in purchasing Saturn. Bloomberg, however, indicated that Nissan-Renault may be a partner of Penske’s potential bid. If Penske acquired the brand, they would distribute Saturn vehicles and outsource the assembly.

GM revealed that the Saturn brand along with Saab and Hummer were up for sale when unveiling their restructuring plans to Congress for governmental loans. While the Pontiac brand was originally to be a niche brand, GM had changed their plans recently and decided to eliminate the brand.

Telesto Ventures is an investment group that includes private equity firm Black Oak Partners LLC of Oklahoma City and several Saturn dealerships. Initially, Telesto will purchase Saturn branded cars from GM then act as a general retailer for foreign brands. Telesto is in talks with several foreign manufacturers.

The Ohio group includes many former senior auto company managers plus private financial backers, chemists and engineers who live in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Florida. This group plans to initially purchase cars from GM then purchase existing but closed plants due to automaker restructuring. Additionally, one of the partners indicated a willingness to accept some “legacy” cost in relation to the United Auto Workers. The Ohio group is also pursuing possible loans or other support from national and state governments.

GM is reviewing several offers for Saturn. GM has contracted with S.J. Girsky & Co. to advise them on the sale.

Friday, December 8, 2017

Today, a federal judge heard the first of several lawsuits filed against the U.S. government over the Bear’s Ears National Monument.

Yesterday, the Utah Dine Bikeyah, a Navajo nonprofit, posted the fourth and latest of several lawsuits against the Trump Administration over plans announced Monday that would split the Bears Ears National Monument into several smaller parcels and greatly reduce its overall size. The Conservation Lands Foundation, Archaeology Southwest, Friends of Cedar Mesa, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Access Fund, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are all co-plaintiffs in the suit.

“President Trump has literally dismembered our sacred Bars Ears monument that five Tribes have worked tirelessly for many years to protect in order to preserve our culture and way of life,” reads a statement by Mary Benally of Utah Dine Bikeyah.

On Monday, shortly after the announcement, representatives of the five Native American tribes of the Bears Ears Inter-tribal Coalition, the Hopi, Pueblo of Zuni, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, and Ute Indian Tribe announced plans to sue the administration of sitting United States President Donald Trump over the shrinking of protections on a Utah monument area that is home to Native American ruins and artifacts. Ten environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, National Resources Defense Council, and Wilderness Society are also filing lawsuits regarding another monument area, also in Utah. President Trump publicly announced his plans to redesignate both sites on Monday.

In a visit to Utah on Monday, President Trump announced plans to break up the Bears Ears National Monument into three smaller areas similarly reduce the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The coalition claims that the Antiquities Act of 1906 forbids the president from doing this. “The President was plainly aware that he lacked the authority to revoke a monument and is thus transparently attempting to evade that strict limitation by purporting to reduce it but, as described herein, the President’s action must be viewed as a revocation, particularly with respect to all objects not included in the two ‘new’ monuments,” the official filing argues.

In his announcement, President Trump said, “The families and communities of Utah know and love this land the best, and you know the best how to take care of your land. You know how to protect it. And you know best how to conserve this land for many, many generations to come,” and called the original designation government overreach.

According to documents acquired by The Washington Post, a uranium consortium called Energy Fuels Resources had engaged a professional lobbying firm to convince the Trump Administration to reduce the size of the monument so that it could access the uranium deposits inside. Uranium is the raw material used as fuel in nuclear power plants, and the only uranium mill in the United States is just outside Bears Ears. Secretary of the Interior Zinke says this was not a factor, however: “This is not about energy,” he said on Tuesday. “There is no mine within Bears Ears.”

Navajo Nation President Russel Bageye called the decision “an open invitation for mining companies to come in and start mining uranium and other minerals in the area.” Many uranium mines have been opened on or near Navajo land. Most were never cleaned properly and the land and water remain heavily contaminated.

There is some legal precedent for a president shrinking a national monument—Woodrow Wilson shrank the Mount Olympus National Monument during the early 20th century, but no court cases ever rejected or endorsed the decision.

Although the specifics were not confirmed until Monday, the fact that the administration had plans to reduce protections on Bears Ears and Escalante in some way has been public knowledge, and the Bears Ears Inter-tribal Coalition had already been planning to sue. In a statement issued Thursday, Nov. 30, President of the Navajo Nation Russel Beyaye said, “At the very least, President Trump should have consulted with the original local governments of the Bears Ears region: our five Indian Nations. Instead, our many requests for consultation were ignored. An action to diminish the Bears Ears National Monument in any way will be an action against the Navajo Nation and the Navajo people who have worked so tirelessly to protect these lands.”

“The tribes view this as an affront to themselves and their own self determination,” said attorney for the Native American Rights Fund Natalie Landreth earlier this month in the Salt Lake Tribune. “All of us, all five tribes will be suing jointly the day he makes an announcement.”

Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante were declared protected areas by then-Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, and both are home to artifacts and archeological sites. Bears Ears had a problem with looters before President Obama declared it a national monument. The changes will split the monuments up into many smaller parcels and reduce the overall protected area by more than a million acres collectively. According to some White House documents, protected status will be “confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects identified” as in need of protection.

The Antiquities Act gives the sitting U.S. President the authority to set aside spaces already within federal territory that he feels are in danger without requiring approval from Congress, for example, by prohibiting industrial development and motor vehicle access. Over the past century, legal scholars and a U.S. attorney general have claimed that the Act does not permit a sitting president to reverse a previous president’s decision.

Several Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, support the president’s decision: “I believe his proclamation, following Secretary [of the Interior] Zinke’s fair, thorough, and inclusive review, will represent a balanced solution and a win for everyone on all sides of this issue.”

Other groups, including the clothing retailer Patagonia have also announced plans to sue. Patagonia, which sells outdoor clothing and equipment, argues that by reducing the size of areas where customers would use the company’s products, the government is denying Patagonia business. However, the Inter-tribal Coalition’s lawsuit was the first one filed.

“The tribes feel it was important to file first, to be ahead of the line, to make it very clear that this is not just a conservation issue,” said attorney Natalie Landreth of the Native American Rights Fund, which is representing the coalition. “To them, it is a tribal sovereignty issue.”

This comes days after President Trump was condemned by the National Congress of Native Americans for his use of the term “Pocahontas” during ceremony meant to honor Navajo Code Talkers, Native American men who developed and used a Navajo language-based military code for the U.S. military forces during World War II. “Pocahontas,” is President Trump’s nickname for Democrat Elizabeth Warren, a reference to Warren’s claims that her family has Native American ancestry. The ceremony was held in front of a picture of former president Andrew Jackson, who presided over the Trail of Tears in the early 1800s, in which thousands of Cherokee perished in a forced migration west.

[edit]

Sunday, February 17, 2008

In a press release today, California-based Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. indicated that it has voluntarily recalled just over 143 million pounds (65 million kilograms) of raw and frozen beef products, which is considered to be the largest single recall of beef products in U.S. history. The move follows an investigation by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) into allegations of animal cruelty and mishandling of cattle destined for the human food chain.

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) had determined that beef products produced by the Chino, California company were unfit for human consumption as the cattle had not received “complete and proper inspection.”

The recall has been designated as Class II, which the USDA describes as “a health hazard situation where there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from the use of the product.”

On Friday, Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer indicated that charges had been laid against employees of the plant alleged to have taken part in the mistreatment of cattle. “Today [Friday], the San Bernardino District Attorney filed felony animal cruelty charges against two employees who were terminated by Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company,” said Schafer. “It is regrettable that these animals were mistreated and I am encouraged and supportive of these actions by the San Bernardino District Attorney in response to this mistreatment.”

The USDA learned of the possible inhumane handling of non-ambulatory (disabled) cattle at the packing plant on January 30 and has since suspended activities at the plant. “We continue to conduct a thorough investigation into whether any violations of food safety or additional humane handling regulations have occurred,” said Secretary Schafer in a press release. “On February 8, our Office of the Inspector General took the lead on the investigation. At that time, USDA extended the administrative hold on Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company products for the National School Lunch Program, the Emergency Food Assistance Program and the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations while the investigation continues,” said Schafer.

The FSIS reported that Hallmark/Westland had not contacted the FSIS public health veterinarian, as required, when cattle became ill or disabled after undergoing ante-mortem (slaughter) inspection, putting the company out of compliance with FSIS regulations. “Because the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection FSIS has determined them to be unfit for human food and the company is conducting a recall,” explained Secretary Schafer.

The cruelty charges stem from an undercover video that reportedly showed sick cattle being moved by crews using forklifts.

“Words cannot accurately express how shocked and horrified I was at the depictions contained on the video that was taken by an individual who worked at our facility from October 3 thru November 14, 2007,” said Steve Mendell, President, Westland Meat Co. and Hallmark Meat Packing. “We have taken swift action regarding the two employees identified on the video and have already implemented aggressive measures to ensure all employees follow our humane handling policies and procedures. We are also cooperating with the USDA investigators on the allegations of inhumane handling treatment which is a serious breech of our company’s policies and training.”

The USDA stressed that it is “extremely unlikely” that the cattle involved were at risk for Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad-cow disease due to the employment of multiple safeguards. The USDA felt the recall was required, however, as the plant had allegedly violated USDA regulations.

The recall involves raw and frozen beef products produced on various dates from February 1, 2006 to February 2, 2008. For further information about the recall, consumers, media, and distributors are encouraged to contact Hallmark/Westland’s Plant Manager Stan Mendell or Food Safety Consultant Steve Sayer at (909) 590-3340 or the FSIS website, www.fsis.usda.gov.

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Food deliveries from the RMT were allowed into the Vestas plant in Newport, England yesterday, but were cut off by Vestas management this afternoon.

Protesters at the Isle of Wight factory celebrated the delivery of supermarket bags filed with groceries, which entered with a police escort. This morning, the sixteen remaining occupiers were told to prepare a list of items for future deliveries. But, according to “Mark”, an occupier in the Vestas plant, this afternoon Vestas management reversed their decision, terming the August 1 food delivery a one-time “goodwill gesture” and saying food would no longer be allowed in. The food delivery followed a formal complaint by the RMT that denying the occupiers food was a violation of their human rights. The people inside the factory have been conducting their occupation since July 20, in protest against the closure of the factory, which produces wind turbine blades for the generation of wind power, and the loss of 625 jobs in the Isle of Wight and nearby areas.

Mark went on to praise the “brave people” who have circumvented the security ring around the plant in order to get food and other items to the occupiers. An electric kettle thrown at the end of a rope up to the occupiers is said to be working well. Mark also noted that Louise Christian, a prominent British human rights lawyer, is now representing the Vestas occupiers.

While the number of occupiers at the Vestas plant — originally nearly thirty, now only sixteen — have dwindled, Mark says the ones who remain are “very determined” and furthermore hold no ill will toward their co-workers who have left the occupation. In particular, the occupiers offered sympathy for Luke Paxton, who they say left the occupation due to a combination of personal issues and malnutrition brought on by the deprivation of food. Paxton, Mark said, has the remaining occupiers’ “full support” and continues to campaign for the Vestas workers.

Mark also clarified the origins of the occupation. In contrast to claims that green socialist group Workers’ Climate Action were behind the occupation, Mark presented a more nuanced picture: the Vestas workers’ initial contacts were with veterans of the occupation of Visteon‘s auto parts plants, with the AWL, SWP and Socialist Party becoming involved later with “quite a big involvement” from all groups. Members of Workers’ Climate Action attended Vestas workers’ meetings and gave their opinions, but, Mark says, a committee organised by the workers and composed of workers was making all the decisions.

Mark also strongly rejected the support of Solidarity, a “nationalist trade union” closely associated with the BNP. In a July 24 statement, Solidarity backed the Vestas workers, with union executive member David Kerr saying “We are behind the Vestas workers 100 per cent. British jobs must be protected.” Mark, in reply, told Wikinews: “We do not want their support…they go against a lot of the things people believe in here. We have Polish workers with us. They’re our friends.”

Most of the Vestas occupiers remain independent of trade unions, with only three of the sixteen people inside being members of any union.

Mark closed with a message of solidarity with the occupiers of two Thomas Cook branches in Dublin, Ireland, whose employees began a sit-in at their offices on Friday after the announcement of surprise closures. “We fully support what you’re doing. Don’t back down…do not be pushed around, do not be intimidated”.

The Vestas occupiers have also exchanged messages of solidarity with SsangYong Motor Company in South Korea. Workers at SsangYong have been occupying their factory since May 22 in protest against a 36% cut in employees there.

The occupation continues accompanied by a warning of increased union unrest in Britain. Neil O’Brien of centre-right think tank Policy Exchange told The Daily Telegraph that, while labour unrest had increased, the current state of affairs is “nothing compared to what is going to happen once the brakes are slammed on public spending.”