This section is devoted to the information that will be useful in the creation of a Kin's Domains.
Pregnancy and Birth: Why is Maternity Care Like This?
Many elements of the care most women receive during pregnancy and childbirth in the United States are not based on the most reliable research on what is safe and effective. Procedures that are useful—and sometimes even lifesaving— when applied to women and babies with specific high-risk conditions are often extended liberally to other women and babies—"just in case." Such unnecessary medical interventions are not helpful and can even be harmful.
One procedure that is badly overused is episiotomy (cutting the perineum in order to make the opening to the vagina bigger). While episiotomy can help when the baby is very large or when the baby needs to come out immediately, its use should be limited to clear cases of need because it increases the likelihood of serious tears into or through the anal muscle. Other overused interventions include continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, induction of labor, and cesarean section.
Overuse of obstetric interventions is a widespread problem. A national survey of mothers who gave birth in hospitals in 2005 found that nearly all women experienced some combination of interventions that can interfere with the normal progression of birth.4 Most of the women surveyed had continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, urinary catheterization, administration of intravenous fluids, and epidural or spinal analgesia. One in two received synthetic oxytocin to either start her labor or make her contractions stronger and more frequent, and slightly more than three in ten had a cesarean section. Most women also experienced practices that may do more harm than good, such as not eating or drinking anything during labor and lying on their backs during labor and while giving birth. The United States' C-section rate is more than twice the maximum rate recommended by the World Health Organization; this means that more mothers and babies are exposed to the negative effects of surgical birth.
While such procedures are overused, other practices that improve birth outcomes and increase women's satisfaction are widely underused. These practices include receiving continuous one-on-one support during labor; being able to change positions, get out of bed, and walk during labor; and using comfort measures such as massage, warm baths, and birthing balls. The same national survey mentioned above found that of every one hundred women giving birth in a hospital, only three were attended by a doula (a trained labor companion), only four used a shower to help cope with labor pain, and only six relaxed in a tub or pool of warm water during labor.
We need to turn these numbers around. Medical procedures that are potentially harmful should be used only when needed, and practices that are known to improve outcomes should be made widely available.
Most health systems struggle to ensure that people receive evidence-based care. It is difficult for busy health care professionals to keep up with and interpret a large and ever-growing body of studies. Even when providers understand lessons from the best available research, it is often hard to change established beliefs and routines. Many groups have a role in ensuring that mothers and babies receive high-quality care. These include health care providers and women ourselves, as well as policy makers, payers, administrators, educators, researchers, and journalists.
Why Is Maternity Care Like This?
Why are some medical interventions still being overused in the United States today, despite the evidence against them? And why aren't approaches that are known to be helpful offered to all women? Advocates for improving maternity care point to the following roadblocks to change.
OBSTETRICAL TRAINING AND THE MEDICAL SYSTEM
Obstetricians provide care for the vast majority of pregnant women in the United States. Obstetrics is a surgical specialty, and doctors training to become obstetricians learn, among other things, to perform cesarean sections, apply forceps, and cut and repair episiotomies. They generally receive less instruction in the natural progression of childbirth or in birth techniques that minimize perineal tearing. The focus is on external management rather than on facilitating a woman's own capacities for labor. In many training programs, obstetricians are not even required to sit with a healthy woman throughout her labor or observe one birth without any interventions. This training leads obstetricians to be far more comfortable managing childbirth with medication and technological interventions than without.
The widespread use of epidurals also has transformed childbirth in the United States. While epidurals are a very effective form of pain relief during labor, they sometimes have adverse effects and can alter the natural progression of labor. A woman who has an epidural is usually restricted in her movements and for safety reasons must be monitored continuously by electronic fetal monitoring (EFM). The restricted movement and muscle relaxation caused by the epidural can cause babies who are facing backward to stay that way, which results in a longer second stage of labor and a higher incidence of forceps and vacuum deliveries. Use of epidurals also can lead to less effective pushing.
The use of continuous EFM has also changed childbirth. Continuous fetal heart rate monitoring is used nearly universally in hospitals. Because the fetal heart rate patterns seen when the heart rate is continuously recorded are sometimes difficult to interpret, EFM has increased the number of labors considered "complicated" or "risky." The widespread routine use of EFM has led doctors to overdiagnose complications, too narrowly define what is normal, and treat deviations from those norms as evidence that something is wrong.7 For women who do not have labor interventions such as epidurals that make continuous monitoring necessary, intermittent monitoring appears to be as effective as continuous monitoring at detecting true problems, and is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean birth or of vaginal birth assisted by vacuum extraction or forceps.
Epidurals and EFM have changed the kind of nursing care women receive. In the past, personal one-on-one care was the hallmark of obstetrical nursing. Today, for a variety of reasons, including nursing shortages, budgetary constraints, and less training in the natural progression of birth, labor nurses increasingly rely on continuous electronic fetal monitoring to help them care for more than one woman at a time. Therefore, fewer laboring women have access to this vital one-on-one support.
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
Surgical interventions can save doctors time and money. Many payment systems offer a single or fixed fee to doctors regardless of whether a baby is born vaginally or by cesarean, and others offer a larger fee for a cesarean. Therefore, those doctors who patiently support natural labor, which starts at unpredictable hours and generally requires more time, are penalized financially.8 Some systems provide increased payment for a cesarean section, making planned surgery the most cost-efficient and time-saving scenario for doctors. Inducing labor instead of waiting for it to start on its own also helps doctors control their hours. Elective cesarean sections and scheduled induction of labor help hospitals make nursing staff schedules more predictable and shift more of health care providers' work to convenient weekday hours.
FEAR OF LAWSUITS
If something goes wrong, doctors may be blamed for not doing something, but rarely are they blamed for doing something that is not necessary. For example, malpractice lawsuits for not performing a cesarean section are much more common than lawsuits for doing one when it wasn't necessary. To avoid litigation, many doctors and some midwives feel compelled to do "too much" rather than be accused of doing "too little." Market forces, pharmaceutical advertising, and other medical industry marketing practices may also contribute to a drive to "do something" even when observation and emotional support would be better for mother and baby than an additional test or procedure.
A RUSHED, RISK-AVERSE SOCIETY
The desire to eliminate pain and control outcomes may cause both health care providers and expectant parents to embrace unneeded and potentially harmful procedures. U.S. society today has an aversion to risk that contributes to a climate of doubt in which all labors are treated as potential problems, and healthy women with low- risk pregnancies receive treatments that were designed for use by women with high-risk pregnancies. In addition, women sometimes are not allowed sufficient time for labor to progress and a vaginal birth to occur. Women's own expectations can contribute to rushing labor.
THE LANGUAGE OF "CHOICE"
Labor and birth approaches are sometimes presented as equivalent "choices" without full, accurate information about their potential consequences. For example, elective cesareans (cesarean sections done without a medical need) are increasingly presented by the media and some doctors in a misleading fashion— as a "reasonable" option for healthy pregnant women.
ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES AND OLDER MOTHERS
The use of assisted reproductive technologies is leading to more births by older women and more multiple births. In vitro fertilization has increased the number of births of twins, triplets, and other multiples, and such babies are often delivered by cesarean section.* Whether we have used assisted reproductive technologies or not, those of us who get pregnant when we are older are more likely to have medical conditions such as high blood pressure or diabetes that can make pregnancy more complicated. Women over age forty have higher rates of medical interventions, including cesarean sections. Nevertheless it is important not to assume that your pregnancy is "high-risk" and requires interventions simply because of your age; the majority of women over forty have healthy, uncomplicated pregnancies.
http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/
Image Copyright: http://www.free-writer.ru/
Alternatives to Traditional Hospital Birth
by Brette McWhorter Sember
If the idea of a traditional hospital birth does not appeal to you, a variety of options are available that offer you a choice about how to manage your pain and get through labor. It's important to note that these methods and styles of birth are not ruled out in a hospital. Many hospitals support these types of methods. You might also consider a birth center, where alternative methods of pain management are encouraged.
Hypnobirthing
Hypnobirthing is a relaxation technique that uses hypnosis to help a woman control pain during labor. The idea behind the concept is that tension increases pain. If a woman can remain relaxed through the use of hypnosis, she will feel less pain, and her labor will progress more smoothly.
Hypnobirthing also incorporates other commonly used techniques, such as visualization and breathing, to create relaxation. You can work with a hypnotherapist during your pregnancy only, or you can also have the hypnotherapist accompany you to a birth center or hospital for your birth.
How successful is a home birth likely to be?
Studies show that women who have previously had children are the most likely to have a successful home birth. One U.K. study showed that only 10 percent of women who gave birth previously were transferred to a hospital, compared to 40 percent of first-time mothers.
Water Birth
In water birth, a woman labors and delivers in a tub of warm water. The warmth of the water is soothing and is meant to ease pain. The baby is delivered under water, which is thought to be less stressful. Other advantages that are cited include reduced stress and anxiety during labor, pain relief, more rapid labor, and increased elasticity of vaginal and vulvar tissues, which makes labor easier and reduces tearing. You can purchase portable water-birth pools for use at a home birth or hospital birth.
One of the key concerns with water birth used to be the inability to monitor the labor, but there are now waterproof monitoring devices available that allow continuous or intermittent monitoring during birth. Babies who experience stress during labor due to umbilical cord compression or hypoxia (low oxygen) may gasp before the umbilical cord is cut and may suffer from water aspiration and even drowning. The warm water may keep the uterus from contracting effectively, predisposing the woman to postpartum hemorrhage. There is also a theoretical risk of maternal water embolism and breaking of the umbilical cord at birth.
There is considerable disagreement in the United States about the safety and advisability of water births. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has not endorsed water birth because there is a lack of data proving its safety. Most hospitals in the United States do not permit water births, so most are performed by midwives or in birthing centers.
Obviously, the final word is not in on water deliveries. It is important that you inform yourself and get several opinions as well as information about outcome rates (success rates) in the center that offers the procedure.
Birth Balls
A birth ball is a large air-filled ball similar to a large exercise ball. A woman sits on the ball during labor, and the position is believed to help open the pelvis and decrease discomfort. Some hospitals have birthing balls. Most birth centers do. You can purchase a birth ball for use at a home birth or at a facility.
Positioning
Although the most common position for giving birth is lying on your back with your legs elevated, there are a variety of other positions that might feel comfortable for you or be effective. Laboring on your hands and knees can be helpful for back labor. Standing, walking, swaying, and leaning are other positions that can be helpful. Squatting can also work for some women. If you are giving birth in a hospital, you need to speak up about your preferences for delivery.
http://www.netplaces.com/
Image Copyright:...
Watch Video:
Home birth vs hospital
Futuristic Food Project: Living Food
This conceptual food by Royal College of Art graduate Minsu Kim would wriggle around on the plate and in your mouth (from Show RCA).
Minsu Kim's Living Food project builds on developments in synthetic biology to propose meals that behave like living creatures.
"Synthetic biotech has already started to create artificial life in organic forms," says the designer, citing a swimming artificial jellyfish made of heart cells by researchers at Caltech and Harvard University. "Breathing life into artificial digestible forms in not merely a fantasy."
In the Design Interactions department of the Royal College of Art's graduate exhibition this week Minsu Kim presents three dishes, each exhibiting a different behaviour: wriggling around, waving tentacles or puffing up as though breathing.
This project explores new culinary experiences potentially through developments in synthetic biology. Living food finds its lineage in haute cuisine and molecular gastronomy. A set of future dining experiences were designed where food behaves like a living creature entertaining us through an empathetic connection.
Main objective of this project was to explore how food could evolve in the future from developments in emerging technologies. With this project I proposed a future where food shifts towards being a channel of aesthetic experiences: What if food were consumed alive, as a fictional character? What if food was able to play with our cutlery and create hyper-sensations in our mouth? Synthetic biotech has already started to create artificial life in organic forms, breathing life into artificial digestible forms no longer resides as a mere fantasy 1)2). Could this be an opportunity for us to venture into the fictional realms, through physical yet real interactions with nutritional consumables which offers a new dimension in our culinary experiences?
In this respect I propose a future dining experience where food takes a life-form for aesthetic gastronomy. In a material way, I experimented which kinds of impressions could be designed into life-like food and how it would shape our dining experience. For the big picture, I open the discussion up onto how we would build up a definition of this ingestible life-form, helping us to question our perception of food and its potential uses.
The image illustrates how some of our sensory organs recognise life-like food. Tongue has the most sensitive tactile fibers at the tip and front of it - positions 1 and 2. Roof of the mouth shows the most intensive reaction at the centre of it – positions 10 and 11, with it gradually reducing to outside showing an oval-shaped pattern.
NOTES ON SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY from "The science of synthetic biology" movie
It's not your grandfathers' genetic Engineering in a sense of taking two genes and placing them together. This is a radically new notion. People are actually composing live. What they do is they are writing DNS and they are writing it the same way that a software developer would write a code for a computer, except in this case they are writing a DNA and then it putting to a living thing that can replicate...
http://www.dezeen.com/
Frankenstein Foods, Inc.
by Hiyaguha Cohen
Old McDonald had a farm with some cows, horses, and pigs, but on that farm he probably didn't have synagriculture. Say what? Synagriculture is the latest trend in the world of farming, and it doesn't involve overalls, backhoes, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In fact, synagriculture makes GMOs look as dated as flat-screens make the old 90-pound consoles look.
Synagriculture originates from what is known as synthetic biology. According to an abstract in the Idaho Law Review, "Synthetic biology seeks to purge biology of some of its fundamental inefficiencies through the rigorous application of engineering principles. Rather than tinkering around the edges, biological engineering would remake living organisms from first principles, and employ standard parts to make qualitatively new biological devices and systems."
As applied to food, synthetic biology involves creating vegetables, fruits, grains, and other edibles from the beginning, either using synthesized genetic parts or by rearranging natural biological parts. In other words, it means creating entirely new types of engineered food that have never existed before on earth and may bear no biological relationship to what we now enjoy for dinner. It means foods that will have to be patented.
While advocates of synagriculture point to the possibility of creating wonderful new disease-resistant engineered food and thus feeding the world, there's plenty to be worried about. And the worries extend far beyond the obvious concerns about depending on synthetic nutrition created by corporate interests. The kicker is that as synthetic biology takes off in the lab, a new movement called DIYbio, or "Do it Yourself Biology," has young mad scientists working in their garages.2 Apparently, labs have been popping up in private homes and community locations at an ever increasing pace, allowing tinkering amateurs to try their hands at rearranging cells, genes, and organisms. The website, DIYbio.org has a forum with posts bearing titles such as "Free plasmids for amateur biologists," "Genome compiler," and "Translating bacterial DNA into plant DNA." More than 2000 people already participate in the network.
Who are the participants in DIYbio? According to Wikipedia, "Participants call themselves 'bio-hackers ', not hackers in the sense of infiltrating protected places and stealing information, but hackers in the original sense of taking things apart and putting them back together in a new, better (don't we hope) way. These bio-hackers often have mundane day jobs and pursue biology in their free time."
While it's true that Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs did a similar thing in their garages and ended up with Apple Computer, it's a whole different world to take apart living organisms or to try to create entirely new forms from the ground up -- by converting bacteria, for instance, into lunch. The website, SyntheticBiology.org, says, "Imaginable hazards associated with synthetic biology include (a) the accidental release of an unintentionally harmful organism or system, (b) the purposeful design and release of an intentionally harmful organism or system, (c) a future over-reliance on our ability to design and maintain engineered biological systems in an otherwise natural world."
The DIYbio site says it seeks "to work with the community to establish a code of ethics, develop norms for safety, and create shared resources for promotion of safe practice by amateurs." It doesn't mention anything about oversight, regulation, enforcement, or how to prevent an insane megalomaniac from getting hold of those genome compilers in the short run.
The other problem, of course, is that whatever new engineered food is created will not have stood the test of time. We won't know the long-term consequences, if any, of eating it. Does it impact hormones unfavorably in the body like soy? Do components in it inhibit the absorption of certain nutrients in the way phytates do, for example? Does it contain low-level allergens ala wheat gluten or dairy proteins? Does it promote cancer over time like high fructose corn syrup? I guess we'll find out 20 years down the road…when people start getting sick and dying.
Not to take a dark view here, but it would be appropriate to feel concern. But then again, history teems with worry about the crashing asteroid or the vengeful god bringing about our demise as a race. Somehow we humans seem to keep on truckin'. In the meantime, you would do well to keep a watchful eye, learn what you can about developments affecting what you eat, hope the FDA doesn't allow companies to slip these new foods into the food chain without proper labeling as they're now allowing for certain irradiated foods, and get yourself a patch of garden--and learn how to work the soil.
http://www.jonbarron.org/
Image Copyright: www.fotokanal.com
Watch Video:
Taste test: World's first test-tube burger revealed in London
Old but not wise? Our growing anti-ageing industry
by Alan Petersen
Growing old is generally viewed in negative terms in our society. And our individualistic and consumerist approach to health care leads us to believe that it's within our power to alter the "biological clock" — if we are willing and able to pay.
But while lifespans may be increasing (largely due to improvements in living standards), there's no evidence that medicine can alter the process of human biological ageing.
Still, numerous so-called anti-ageing treatments are currently advertised and available for purchase via the internet. These cover a broad spectrum, including cosmetic treatments, hormone replacement therapies, implants, prosthetic devices and stem cell treatments. Some providers even offer the treatments as part of a packaged holiday, offering surgery alongside sand and sunshine.
In Australia, some common treatments include non-surgical facelifts, anti-wrinkle injections and "dermal fillers", permanent hair removal and laser treatments.
Consumer organisation, Choice, has questioned some of the claims of those advertising anti-ageing treatments. In a review of such treatments, Choice notes, for instance, that there's "no such thing as a 'non-surgical' face-lift", and that such procedures "won't last as long as a surgical face-lift."
Despite the advertising of questionable claims, the anti-ageing industry is difficult to regulate.
One of the greatest challenges for regulating a market like this is that many treatments are advertised directly to consumers over the internet. If not available in Australia, treatments can almost certainly be purchased overseas. Clever advertising techniques give the impression that there's an effective treatment for almost any age-related "condition".
Another challenge for regulators is that the term "anti-ageing" is difficult to pin down. Treatments that were long part of complementary and alternative medicine have been relabelled as "anti-ageing". These include using antioxidants, vitamins and homeopathic products.
Some treatments that have actually undergone clinical trials and are used for treating conditions such as sexual dysfunction and heart disease have been relabelled to join the anti-ageing marketplace. And there are newer, clinically unproven treatments such as stem cell therapies, that are mostly only available for purchase overseas.
Clearly, many groups have a stake in the "anti-ageing industry". Chief among these are the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies that stand to profit from the sale of new pills, potions, prosthetic devices, and implants. And then there are numerous clinics and private hospitals that profit from providing the treatments.
The "anti-ageing industry" has grown from a low base to reach a net worth of $88 billion in just ten years. An industry newsletter predicts that it will be worth nearly $300 billion by 2015.
If these predictions are to be believed, many consumers will, in coming years, be submitting themselves to many treatments that are clinically unproven and potentially harmful. At minimum, these treatments may be ineffective. There's also the risk that people may be financially exploited.
The irony is, by making ageing a disease, the anti-ageing industry may in fact create illnesses.
There have been some reported increased rates of adverse events, including death, among healthy elderly people resulting from the use of human growth hormones. Adverse effects have also been associated with the use of stem cell-based cosmetics.
Older people are at greater risk because they may be taking multiple prescription drugs and may suffer harm from the interaction of supplements and drugs. Despite these potential multiple risks, there has been relatively little public debate about the pros and cons of the anti-ageing treatment market.
Growing old may not be desirable, but it is inevitable. In the end, it is better to live healthy, active lives for as long as possible with minimal medical intervention.
Professor Alan Petersen is a leading sociologist based in the School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University.
http://monash.edu/
Image Copyright: http://www.zdorovie.com
Watch Video:
Watch video: Don't Grow Old;
10 Natural Ways to Defy Your Age
by Carolanne Wright
Have you noticed that every magazine you pick up lately has advertisements for the many ways we can look younger than our chronological years? There are ads for injections and creams to remove our wrinkles, surgery to zap away our fat, and hair dyes to cover every bit of gray. It's as if aging is something to be ashamed of; something we should hide—and fight—every step of the way.
But aging is inevitable! The alternative isn't one I would like to choose. We should be proud of the years we accumulate. They are accompanied by wisdom, experience, and greater insight. Growing old, I'm on board with. But looking old? I'm not so hot on that idea yet.
Although anti-aging cosmetics and procedures may have a place in your overall routine, there are plenty of natural ways to slow the aging process. We shouldn't forget that the true key to looking younger is feeling younger. There is nothing that ages an individual more quickly than illness, pain and stiffness, or chronic stress. Therefore, much of what we do to take care of ourselves on a daily basis will also help us keep a youthful appearance.
Here is a rundown of the many things you can do that won't cost (or hurt) too much, but will make you feel vibrant and strong. Let's be proactive in our approach to aging and grow into our later years gracefully and beautifully!
Adjust Your Mindset: YOU Control How You Will Age
Research has found that the most serious aging occurs at the cellular level. Many of our lifestyle habits such as exercise, nutrition, stress management and sleep will enhance the body's ability to repair the cellular damage that is inevitable as we get older.
Traditional medicine focuses on treating illness to prolong life. But many healthcare professionals want to shift that focus to preventing disease in the first place. We want to not only add years to our life, but life to our years.
Disease occurs when we fail to keep our bodies and minds active; it is not an unavoidable result of getting older. Arthritis, osteoporosis, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart disease and even dementia often occur because of the accumulation of unhealthy lifestyle habits rather than as a result of years ticking by.
Much of what you decide to do on a daily basis will not only prolong the length of your life, but the quality of those years as well.
Exercise: The Fountain of Youth
When I visit my parents who live in a senior community in Florida, I can always tell who among their neighbors are lifelong exercisers: They stand taller, walk effortlessly, and easily look 10 years younger than their non-exercising contemporaries. They exhibit a youthful demeanor that comes with feeling and looking well. Not to mention that a good workout gives us naturally-flushed cheeks and sense of well-being—just a few more bonus reasons to include regular exercise in our arsenal of natural age-defyers! There are three types of exercise that can keep you looking and feeling young.
- Aerobic exercise increases circulation throughout the body and strengthens the heart and lungs. It aids in digestion, helps us reduce anxiety and stress, and enhances the quality of our sleep. Weight-bearing aerobic exercise, such as walking, jogging, hiking or dancing, can even slow bone loss.
- Strength training has been shown to build bone mass, which helps to prevent and slow down osteoporosis. Building muscle mass keeps us strong and revs the metabolism, which helps to maintain a healthy body weight and youthful figure. Strength training keeps us limber and improves balance, preventing debilitating falls and fractures. Ultimately, it keeps you independent and capable of more things even as you get older.
- Lifestyle activities, such as golf, gardening, bowling, tennis and ballroom dancing involve both physical and mental stimulation, keeping both our bodies and minds young. In general, experts agree that the more you can move—even if it's not as intense as traditional forms of exercise—the better off your body and your mind will be as you age.
|
You Are What You Eat, So Feed Your Face
Much has been written about the power of nutrition to ward off illness, boost the immune system and enhance your complexion.
Real food tend is more beneficial to your body and skin than supplements are, and eating a wide variety of super foods increases your chances of absorbing the most nutrients possible.
If maintaining healthy skin is your concern, foods containing vitamins A, C, and E, and polyphenols (antioxidants that have anti-inflammatory properties that protect and benefit the skin) should be part of your daily diet. Here are some examples of deliciously colorful foods that provide these key nutrients:
- Vitamin A: Sweet potatoes, broccoli, leafy greens (such as spinach and kale), red, yellow and orange produce (such as cantaloupe, carrots, bell peppers), and asparagus
- Vitamin C: Red bell peppers, broccoli, cauliflower, strawberries, pineapple, kiwifruit, oranges, and cantaloupe
- Vitamin E: Nuts and seeds, vegetable oils, tomato products, and spinach.
- Polyphenols: Green tea, cocoa and dark chocolate.
|
Most health professionals who study the effects of food on aging agree that a balanced diet made up of a wide variety of colorful fruits and vegetables, lean proteins, low-fat dairy products, healthy monounsaturated fats, seeds and nuts, and whole grains is the way to go. Minimize your intake of sugars and highly processed foods and drink plenty of purified water and green tea, and you'll be doing your best to keep your body functioning well as you age.
Get Your Beauty Sleep
Experience a night of insomnia or stay up into the wee hours for any reason, and you'll probably notice signs of sleep deprivation in the mirror the next day. Bags under the eyes and pallor to your skin can definitely make you look old and tired. Repeat this night after night, and the chronic sleep deprivation will age your body from the inside out.
Most of us don't get enough sleep, and that plays a significant role in our appearances. Individuals who get less than 6 hours of sleep a night may be at an increased risk for viral infections, heart disease, obesity and stroke, with an associated decline in mental functioning to boot.
If your lack of sleep is due to your desire to get more done each day, think about the time you waste due to fatigue interfering with your efficiency. Adjust your attitude and your habits, and begin working to get 7-8 hours of sleep a night.
If your lack of sleep is due to insomnia, a snoring partner or other nighttime disturbances, some simple lifestyle adjustments might help. Reduce afternoon caffeine, kick the dog out of your bed, or keep a pad by your bedside to write down things you need to remember in the morning. If that doesn't work, talk with your physician to rule out sleep apnea or other medical conditions that may be preventing you from getting the rest you need.
Calm the Years Away: Deep Breathing, Meditation and Yoga
Chronic unmanageable stress wreaks havoc on our bodies and makes us feel old before our time. It's been linked to high blood pressure, heart disease, obesity, and skin inflammation. Stress has also been shown to suppress our immune system, making us more prone to illness and disease.
Anything you do to manage and alleviate stress will have a positive impact on how you look and feel as you age. Setting aside a few minutes each day to be quiet, center yourself, and let your worries drift away is smart medicine. Make deep breathing exercises or meditation a part of your routine. Yoga has the added benefit of not only calming the mind, but also keeping the body flexible and strong.
Take Care of Your Smile
Most people don't take the time to connect the two, but the health of your mouth can also affect the health of your body. Individuals with gum disease are more prone to heart disease and lung problems. For people with diabetes, treatment of gum problems can also help control blood sugar levels. And nothing can make you look older than yellow, stained or missing teeth.
Make twice-a-day brushing and flossing a regular part of your daily routine. There are excellent whitening toothpastes and strips available over the counter, too. Schedule a professional cleaning with your dentist at least twice a year. And if you are already experiencing cavities, bleeding gums, or loose teeth, consider implants. A periodontist (a dentist who specializes in the treatment of gum disease), can restore you with a younger smile, fresher breath, and overall health.
Protect Your Skin (and Eyes) from the Sun
Nothing ages the skin faster than sun overexposure. Collagen, the structural protein of our skin, breaks down in response to UV radiation. The sun also increases the production of free radicals, which damage cells and break down collagen as well. Although sunscreen offers some protection, many people apply too little of it—and not nearly frequently enough.
Aside from being a fashion accessory, sunglasses will protect the health of your eyes and will help prevent the wrinkles that accompany squinting at the sun. Purchase sunglasses that provide 99-100% UV protection for both UVA & UVB rays. And protect your skin from exposure by wearing a wide-brimmed hat, longer sleeves and other sun-shielding apparel.
Don't Neglect Your Ears
Our ears contain tiny hairs that vibrate in response to noise. This then excites the auditory nerve, allowing us to hear and interpret sounds. However, too much vibration due to excess exposure to very loud noises frays those hairs, and could lead to hearing loss over time.
By all means, enjoy listening to music—but turn down the volume. You should still be able to hear outside noises above the music in your ears. Wireless headphones have saved my marriage, since my husband loves to stay up way later than I do watching movies. But if I try to talk to him and he can't hear me, I know they are too loud.
If you work in an environment that exposes you to constant loud noise, or you love a good rock concert, consider using earplugs or sound-reducing headphones to muffle the sound. Nothing will make you feel old faster than not hearing the conversation around you!
Stop Smoking and Limit Alcohol
Smoking can accelerate the aging process and shorten your lifespan (and quality of life) considerably. Decreased lung capacity, emphysema, and heart disease are all associated with smoking, not to mention the detrimental effect it has on your looks. Smoking correlates to wrinkles around the lips, yellowing of the teeth, and aging skin. If you want to look younger, feel younger and live longer, give up smoking!
Alcohol is another vice you should consider giving up to look and feel more youthful. One alcoholic drink a day for women and up to two daily for men (4 ounces of wine, 12 ounces of beer or 1.5 ounces of spirits) may have beneficial effects on the heart, but the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reminds us that chronic alcohol consumption can result in premature and exaggerated aging. Over time, excessive alcohol consumption negatively impacts almost every physiological system in the human body. So if you enjoy the occasional drink, go ahead and partake. But if you overindulge too often, cut back.
Your Brain: Use It or Lose It
When we meet an elderly individual with mental acuity, we are inspired. We say things like, ''Can you believe she's 90? She seems so much younger! Still sharp as a tack.
Although dementia does have a genetic component, lifestyle has a tremendous impact on whether history will repeat itself. Many habits, such as exercise and healthy eating, can keep our brain cells functioning well into our elderly years. Some research even shows that seniors who keep their brains stimulated enjoy the same quality of life as younger people.
To keep your mind sharp, play games such as Scrabble, chess, and Sudoku, or do crossword puzzles. Read, go to lectures, concerts and the theatre. Learn to play a musical instrument, or study a foreign language. Anything that continually stimulates your mind and keeps you learning new things is helpful to your brain.
Most importantly, maintain friendships and social connections. An Australian longitudinal study found that older adults with the strongest network of friends were 22% less likely to die during the study than those with weaker social networks.
Don't call a plastic surgeon to delay getting older! Grab a friend, go for a walk, or play a game of Scrabble. Do what you can to slow the aging process naturally, and enjoy all of your years to their fullest!
http://www.womansday.com/
Images Copyrights: http://www.theepochtimes.com/
Synthetic biology: the best hope for mankind's future?
by Johnjoe McFadden
If GM is agriculture's Ford Cortina, synthetic biology could give us Ferrari crops that feed the world without harming the planet.
The UK government has just declared that synthetic biology – the science of making novel living organisms – could lead to a new industrial revolution and should be a research priority. Many environmentalists argue instead that creating new life forms could endanger the existing ones. But it may be that synthetic biology is our best hope of preserving life on our planet.
Mankind has, and continues to have, a huge impact on the planet. About 50,000 years ago, much of Australia was covered in dense rainforests grazed by large herbivores who were preyed upon by roaming marsupial carnivores. Ten thousand years later the forests, the megafauna and the carnivores were all gone. What happened? Many explanations have been proposed, such as climate change or ecosystem collapse, but a recent extensive study of pollen samples by Susan Rule and colleagues of the Australian National University points the finger at a single culprit: man. People arrived on the northern coastline about 45,000 years ago and burnt and hunted their way across the continent, leaving a trail of destruction and extinctions in their wake.
A similar wave of extinctions followed the peopling of the Americas about 15,000 years ago; and also accompanied the arrival of modern man into Europe, in that case taking with it our Neanderthal cousins. Everywhere we have travelled we have squashed thousands of species beneath our boots.
Almost always the harm is unintentional, a kind of byproduct of our own success as we clear land to grow crops or kill game to roast in our fires. Conventional technology has given us a bigger boot print that treads even the upper layers of the Earth's atmosphere. This is only likely to get worse as populations expand and more people demand western lifestyles. The natural world's coping capacity may be close to critical. The solution may be to expand the natural world.
Most of human expansion came through manipulating nature. When we ran out of game to hunt, we domesticated the wild auroch and turned it into a cow. When we ran out of seeds to collect, we cultivated wild grass and turned it into wheat, corn and rice. Each of these, and many other domesticated species, is as much a product of technology as the mobile phone or the car.
But the future holds greater challenges than the past. Feeding nearly 10 billion people by 2050 while fuelling their cars and clearing up their waste threatens to exhaust the planet's handling capacity.
Synthetic biology may provide at least some of the answer. Scientists have already developed genetically modified crops that can provide higher yields from less land and more resistance to drought, disease and pests. But SB technology is to GM as a car designer is to a mechanic. Whereas a mechanic can improve the performance of an automobile, only a designer can make a Maserati 250F. No amount of tinkering will ever turn a Ford Cortina into a Ferrari.
Current GM crops are the Ford Cortinas of agriculture, but synthetic biologists aim to make Ferrari plants that perform photosynthesis more efficiently by harvesting light from wider regions of the spectrum, or even capture nitrogen directly from the air so they won't need nitrogen fertiliser. New microbes are being designed that eat and degrade toxic pollutants or turn agricultural waste into electricity.
Of course there are dangers. But doing nothing is also dangerous. Unchecked population growth is likely to cause far more extinctions than any synthetic organism. The current generation of synthetic organisms is being built with genetic weaknesses that will disable them if they escape from the laboratory.
Of course, for uses such as clearing up an oil spill, SB organisms will need to get out of the laboratory so they must be designed to at least survive in the environment. So could released synthetic bugs kill us? The astronomer Fred Hoyle famously compared the chances of random forces generating a living organism as similar to that of a hurricane blowing through a junkyard assembling a Boeing 747. A synthetic biologist would argue that the chances of an engineered oil-eating microbe being able to cause disease in humans would be similar to the chances of a Boeing 747 flying to the moon. Pathogens and environmental microbes are very different beasts and extremely unlikely to succeed in each other's territory.
Nothing is without risk but SB's forerunner, GM, is probably the only technology that, as far as we know, has never caused significant harm (and yet has fed millions). SB technology has, so far, been extremely safe. Far from being a threat to the planet, synthetic biology may be our best hope for a healthy future.
http://www.theguardian.com/
Images Copyright: http://www.innoros.ru
Food and Permaculture
by David Blume
I wrote this in response to post to the bioregional listserve from a woman at ATTRA who said something like "Of course you couldn't feed the world with such a hippy-dippy, hunter-gatherer, landscape system like permaculture." Well that got me a little steamed so this is what I wrote.
I would like to inject some real world experience into this otherwise abstract discussion of food and permaculture.
In addition to being an ecological biologist, a permaculture production food farmer for 9 years, and an expert on biomass fuels, I have also been teaching permaculture since 1997 and have worked in many countries on food/energy production design issues. I have certified more than 400 people in permaculture design since 1997. For more info on this see my site at www.permaculture.com
So in light of my experience I have a couple of things to say. Let us dispense, for the moment only, with the talk of hunter-gatherer models since, to return to that state or to imitate it with design would meet limited acceptance. This is not the core design goal of permaculture although some of our small scale subsistence agriculture designs vaguely look like a hunter-gatherer paradise (i.e. it never existed like this in nature.) The issue of private property as we now define it also complicates that model. We are living in an agricultural age and permaculture offers huge benefits to both production and subsistence agriculture.
As far as I know I was one of the only farmers fully utilizing permaculture to produce surplus food for sale in the US as a full time occupation. On approximately two acres— half of which was on a terraced 35 degree slope—I produced enough food to feed more than 300 people (with a peak of 450 people at one point), 49 weeks a year in my fully organic CSA on the edge of Silicon Valley . If I could do it there you can do it anywhere.
I did this for almost nine years until I lost the lease to my rented land. My yields were often 8 times what the USDA claims are possible per square foot. My soil fertility increased dramatically each year so I was not achieving my yields by mining my soil. On the contrary I built my soil from cement-hard adobe clay to its impressive state from scratch. By the end I was at over 22% organic matter with a cation exchange capacity (CEC) of over 25. CEC is an indirect measure of soil humus or the ability of the soil to hold nutrients available to crops. The higher the number the more nutrients are stored and available. For reference, most Class I commercial agricultural soil is lucky to hit 2% organic matter—the dividing line between a living and dead soil—with a CEC around 5.
At most times I had no more than half of my land under production with the rest in various stages of cover cropping. And I was only producing at a fraction of what would have been possible if I had owned the land and could have justified the investment into an overstory of integrated tree, berry, flower and nut crops along with the various vegetable and fruit crops. The farm produced so much income that I was routinely in the top 15% of organic farms in California (which has over 2000 organic farms) in most years on a fraction of the land that my colleagues were using. I grew over 45 different kinds of crops so my financial success cannot be attributed to growing a few high value crops like Yuppie Chow (salad mix).
Unlike other organic farmers, I almost never used even organic pesticides on my farm. The permaculture ecosystem I designed was so self-managing and self-maintaining with natural controls such as carnivorous insects, toads, lizards, snakes, owls, bats, and other allies, that it was rare that I needed to intervene (I can count the times on one hand that I intervened over 9 years). On the few occasions I did, I used coffee solution made from waste caf é coffee. You didn't think plants made caffeine to get you high did you? Caffeine is an extremely effective natural insecticide, which degrades in the sunlight or air in about 24 hours after use.
On the subsistence agriculture level, we permies regularly have designed productions systems around the world, which feed everyone living in a given house within a 50-foot radius of the house. This rule of thumb holds pretty well because the more folks who live there, the bigger the house, the larger the surface area, so no more than 50 feet is really necessary.
The math is easy. With a polyculture, yields of 3-10 pounds of food per square foot are easy to come up with in most climates. For comparison, commercial agriculture in California , which is way inefficient, routinely runs about 1.5-2.5 pounds per square foot per year across a wide variety of crops. People need to eat about two pounds of mixed food a day if active, or around 750 pounds a year. In a good but somewhat sloppy design, you need about 500 square feet per person MAXIMUM. In a very good design, 200 square feet will do the job. If your diet is heavy on grain you'll need more space but not an astronomical amount. Utilize a greenhouse to extend seasons and exchange air rich in carbon dioxide from chicken houses or human houses, which otherwise would go to waste, and yields ratchet up even more. Take a little more space and include ducks and aquaculture into the mix and the yields become quite diverse and substantial. This sort of system is typical in Vietnam now and there is no longer any measurable hunger there. Wouldn't it be nice if the US could do that with its "superior" first world agricultural system?
Can't do this on a commercial scale? Tell that to Archer Daniels Midland who operates many acres of greenhouses in Decatur using partially integrated production of fish, lettuce and other vegetables using waste carbon dioxide, grain by-products and other by-products from its 100-million gallon per year alcohol fuel production facility, while delivering these profitable agricultural products in trucks running on biodiesel (made from the corn and soybeans they process). This qualifies as commercial scale, very rudimentary permaculture that is wildly profitable and productive.
As a reality check, I'd like to remind everyone that in the 1850's, prior to refrigerated transport, New York City supplied all its food for a population of over a million from within 7 miles of the borders of the city. (It wasn't worth the cost of horse feed and time to go further than 7 miles to export food into the city). No one would discount a system of community food security for one million people as non-commercial.
There are two main reasons known for the dramatically increased productivity of a polyculture?\the benefit of mycorhyzzal symbiosis (which is destroyed in chemical agriculture) and less solar saturation. Solar saturation is the point at which a plants' photosynthetic machinery is overwhelmed by excess sunlight and shut down. In practice, this means that most of our crop plants stop growing at about 10am and don't start again until about 4 in the afternoon. Various members of a polyculture shade each other, preventing solar saturation, so plants metabolize all day. Polyculture as we pursue in permaculture uses close to 100% of the sunlight falling on its mixed crops. Monoculture rarely can use more than 30% of the total sunlight received before saturation. How long could you run any business without external support at 30% efficiency? When you look at a simple Mexican permaculture example, growth of the three sisters of corn, beans and squash (not even counting the 200 vegetables of various sorts growing in the shade of the sisters) you get close to 90% solar efficiency. When you total up the pounds of food from a Mexican acre you get FAR MORE FOOD than the highest yielding nitrogen soaked Iowa cornfield. This is the myth of the green revolution; that the highest total food yields occur in chemical monoculture.
Enough of this. The argument that we don't have enough food to go around is specious anyway. We currently produce more than twice the amount of food we need to feed everyone, even with the extremely inefficient model of monoculture. What starving people lack is money to buy food which is not considered a right but a commodity. Even being able to buy the food isn't a guarantee of access. Midwesterners find it cheaper to burn 5 cent a pound corn in stoves for heat even though Mexican families are willing to pay up to $1 a pound for corn to feed their family.
So you say, "Well if you're such a wiseguy and you obviously would make so much more money from the greater yields of a simple three crop permaculture system, why don't corporations in the Midwest do it to make more money?" This gets to the core of the problemw—hich is not population/resources and/or biological models of overpopulation which typically apply to wild animals.
Capitalism is concerned with more than just making money. The reason why monocultures are favored by corporations EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THE LEAST EFFICIENT WAY OF PRODUCING FOOD in pounds of food per acre is that it can be done with the least amount of labor. To harvest the three sisters you would need a digital harvester—i.e. two hands—not a combine. Even though the increased labor would be totally justified by the increased profit, corporations are totally allergic to dealing with labor. Labor is messy. It organizes, it wants a fair share of the profit, cities want tax money to pay for worker habitat infrastructure and other pesky things that corporations will avoid at all costs. Our current form of agribusiness is a textbook case of design maximizing the advantage of capital to the disadvantage of labor facilitated by the artificially low cost of energy.
The other reason is control of the market. It is now estimated that 80 percent of the world's arable (read European-style plowed) agricultural land is now in the hands of multi-nationals. It has served their needs to keep productivity low to make it possible to get a hold of as much of the means of production as possible. Farmers who are barely making a living sell their land for a fraction of those making a good profit. Midwest corn farmers generally net only about $50-75 per acre on corn on a gross income of $300 per acre.
My discussion above is not to be taken as a suggestion that population growth is not a problem, it is. So let me make a quick comment on population, from a designer's point of view, which is totally related to the structural issues above. I dare anyone to find an example in which population is stable yet there is no system for security in old age. It has been shown in countless studies that the ONLY consistent reason why population stabilizes is that people know they will have security in their old age. At that point they stop having excess children. Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the biological resource-population relationships. We are not wild animals and have markedly different behavior. In a developing country, or any country for that matter, without a secure social security system for the aged, you need at least two kids to support each elderly adult. In virtually every case studied where stabilization of social systems occurred, women immediately find systems to end unwanted pregnancy. Herbal indigenous methods for ending fertility are known all over the world. In my own Italian heritage—hardly a herb-oriented aboriginal tribe, even into the 1900's, utilized ergot obtained from the local apothecary to end unwanted pregnancy.
So structural adjustment—the neoliberal formula the World Bank and IMF impose on the developing world—ensures population growth. By intentionally eliminating a secure social safety net as a condition of borrowing money, population growth—and therefore market growth for various consumer goods—continues to grow. Therein lies the rub. If population doesn't continue to grow, capitalists rapidly run out of customers. Can't let that happen now can we?
Permaculture design offers an alternative security for old age when the family has even a little land. In the Deccan desert of India , where there is huge success with permaculture turning hundreds of square miles of man-made desert back into productive designed rain forest, there is a saying: "Trees are better than sons." Sons might take care of you in your old age but income or trade from your productive trees (food, timber and fuel) definitely will. This approach offers families security to limit population growth and takes the supply of old age security back into the people's hands.
Restorative agriculture?\which goes far beyond sustainable agriculture—depends on solar energy replacing fossil fuel use. Buckminster Fuller and I discussed this back in 1983 when he wrote the foreword for my book Alcohol Can Be A Gas!, that accompanied my ten part PBS television series at that time. (Alcohol is a virtually pollution free engine fuel which is superior in almost every way to gasoline.) World photosynthesis in its fully undesigned state, produces biomass in wasteful agriculture and in the wild which far exceeds human need. Our analysis shows that world biomass photosynthesis produces between 6 and 15 times what we used to power every human need every year, including food, electricity, transportation, and heat.
In a designed system, especially a permaculturally-designed system, we could increase the biomass produced by an order of magnitude and in so doing supply all our needs in a much smaller footprint. For instance, you only get about 200 gallons per acre of alcohol fuel from corn, but 1000 gallons from sugar beets, 1200 from Jerusalem Artichokes, 1500 gallons from annual sugar cane in southern states and a variety of other crops which, when properly designed for climate, might yield 2500 gallons per year from two crop cycles. This would be done while increasing soil fertility and providing all the animal food we need as a by-product (replacing the corn which largely goes for animal feed now) at a fraction of the energy cost of corn-soybean agribusiness. This is all possible right now without any new technology.
The Department of Energy-sponsored program to reduce the cost of cellulose-dissolving enzymes. Soon, yields based on that carbohydrate (cellulose) rather than the relatively scarce starch or sugar carbohydrate scenarios described above will ratchet up cost-effective yield another order of magnitude. (We could do it right now with current technology but the fuel would be about $1.65/gallon wholesale). Once again this is just scratching the surface.
I could go on for two weeks non-stop about this?\my colleagues and I do so in my permaculture design courses. The point is that although humans are great at creating deserts and poverty, we also have the incredible capacity to design ecological systems that work for everyone—even some corporations. The argument that we can't produce enough ecologically is, at its source, promoted by corporations who benefit from a view of scarcity and limited resources which they control. Their constant cry is TINA "There Is No Alternative". Right, and the wizard says, "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
Around the world people are demonstrating that, not only are there alternatives, there are alternatives that allow us all to take care of each other and the rest of the species we live with, and to direct surpluses from our designs back to this care. These are the three main tenets of Permaculture design. We aren't waiting for governments, corporations, or bureaucracies to solve the world's problems. We will do it with or without their help. We are already doing it and no one can stop us because we can't be forced to buy what we don't need anymore. Since few of us in permaculture education are hired by anyone in business or government, we can't be fired or threatened.
I like to say, if you want to end transnational capitalism, (the very opposite of bioregionalism), then stop giving them your capital. To do that you need to start producing what you need — plus some surplus for others — bioregionally and I would respectfully suggest that permaculture design is a good tool to begin that process.
http://www.permaculture.com/
Image Copyright: http://www.vedamost.info
Watch Video:
A Farm For The Future (BBC)
Pros and Cons of Solar-Powered Home Systems
by Milton Kazmeyer
Switching to solar power is one way to limit the impact your household has on the environment. By using photovoltaic cells, you can take advantage of the free energy provided by the sun every day without producing carbon emissions or running up your electricity bill. Solar power is not for everyone, however, and generating electricity with solar panels offers some distinct disadvantages to conventional generation, as well. Knowing the pros and cons of solar power can help you make the right choice for your home.
Emissions
Solar has a clear advantage over traditional electricity generation in its effect on the environment. Most power in the United States comes from burning coal, which produces a large amount of carbon dioxide in the process. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates from Energy Information Administration data that, as of 2001, the average household used 900 kilowatt-hours of electricity per month, generating 14,976 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Electricity generated via solar panels, on the other hand, produces no carbon dioxide emissions at all. Over the lifetime of your solar installation, solar panels can make a large difference in your family's carbon footprint.
Fuel Costs
Another area where solar power offers advantages is in the cost of generating electricity. Burning fuel for power costs money, and fossil fuel markets can be heavily dependent on world events and local supply issues. According to the EIA, the average cost of consumer electricity in December 2010 was 11.04 cents per kilowatt-hour (see References 3). A solar panel, however, produces electricity with no fuel or ongoing costs, and will do so for the life of the installation. Even if you only use a small panel installation to supplement your home's power needs, you will be able to see the benefit on your monthly power bills.
Installation and Repair
While generating power with solar cells is essentially free, purchasing and installing those panels is not. Installing solar power for your home can be an expensive proposition, especially if you are attempting to derive all your power from solar electricity. Solar installations can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and while you may be able to apply for grants or loans through your federal or state government, the initial costs of switching to solar will likely remain high, and repairing damaged panels may also be an expensive prospect.
Reliability
An inherent disadvantage of solar electricity is that it only works when the sun is up. Photovoltaic cells stop producing current when not in direct sunlight, which means you will need to have a backup power source or use storage batteries to provide power at night or during inclement weather. Furthermore, the amount of power you can generate using solar panels depends greatly on your local climate. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates that a solar panel installed in the Sun Belt may produce as much as twice the electricity per day as one installed in New England.
http://homeguides.sfgate.com/
Image Copyright:www.ekopower.ru
One year with solar energy at home: Mostly sunny!
By Kevin C. Tofel
Just over a year ago, we took the plunge at my house and covered the back roof with solar panels: 41 of them, to be exact. After 12 months, we've created 13.8 megawatt hours of electricity while using only 7.59 megawatt hours. The energy surplus becomes a credit on our electric bill and once per year, our electric company issues us a check for any unused credit. So what was the installation and usage experience like? Overall, it's been excellent and I'll share the pros, cons, and actual costs of our project in an effort to shed more light on any solar panel projects you might be considering.
First things first: Decisions and costs
Our family has always tried to be green when possible. We're avid recyclers, we tried a small composting project, we use CFL or LED bulbs throughout the house, and I can't tell you how many solar-powered chargers I've tried for my mobile devices. (The most recent one is outstanding.) But we never had the money to "go solar" even though we wanted to. That changed due to a unique financial situation. In the spirit of transparency, I'm going to share the details.
My wife inherited a family member's IRA account several years ago and the law required that the funds be liquidated over a five-year period. We got to the final year in 2011 and realized we were going to be hit with a large tax bill on the remaining IRA funds and decided to invest the funds into something with a tax incentive. After much research on solar energy — this is a great site to estimate system sizing, pricing and benefits – return on investment and such, we decided to go with solar panels, moved in part because our rear roof faces south.
It turns out that a local contractor nearby put solar panels on his office and became a certified solar panel installer. I requested a number of quotes from companies in the area, but he gave the best price at the time: $5.50 per watt. I then looked at our electricity usage for the prior year — we're a family of four, with two full-time work-at-home people — and over-specified the system by 25 percent capacity for two reasons. We have a four bedroom house, so I planned for the next homeowner to have five occupants. And I wanted to maximize the tax benefit, which was a 30 percent federal tax credit on the entire project.
The specified 9.43 kW (DC) system turned out to be 41 panels — 230 Watts each — which produced 12.05 megawatt hours of electricity from Nov. 1, 2011 to Oct. 31, 2012. That cost us $51,865 up front, including installation, permits, inspections, parts, labor and warranty. Yup, it's a big chunk of change but that federal tax credit totaled $15,560, which helped offset taxes on the IRA liquidation. And many states offer rebates on solar projects; ours provided us a check for around $7,100 once the system was up and running. Our net cost then was $29,205.
It's also worth considering companies in some states offer no-money down solar panel systems: essentially you let them install a system on your property and then lease the system. The company itself reaps the incentive benefits, but you may save money on your electricity bill.
Installation of the puzzle pieces
I had thought the system would be complicated by many parts, but it's actually quite simple. Obviously, we have the panels, which generate electricity from sunlight. All of that power is DC, or direct current, so the system needs an inverter for AC power. We considered one single inverter but instead opted for individual microinverters attached to every panel. There are several benefits to this approach.
For starters, if one panel or inverter fails, it's easier to locate and fix the issue. Second, the microinverters feed real-time data from every panel via Ethernet over powerline to a small web server included for monitoring purposes. I can get tons of useful information from the system. You can view most of my system details here online, for example.
Solar panel framingThe microinverters, as well as the small web server that tracks them, are made by Enphase. Each one converts the DC power from its connected panel to AC power. Each microinverter is linked to the next one in the solar panel array so essentially, these are plug-and-play devices. Each connects to the next, and the last microinverter feeds a power line, which we fed through our attic and down along the outside of our house near our electrical meter. The panels themselves are attached to the roof with aluminum framing so the install process is fairly simple: Install the frame, connect the microinverters to their respective panels, attach the panels to the frame and link the microinverters.
Because of the solar panels, two additional electrical meters were needed. We still have the original meter that measures our electricity use from the grid but a new meter is needed to measure power output and a third measures the difference between electricity created and used. More on that in bit.
So how well is the system working?
In a word: great! In this graph below — from Enlighten's web service that creates reports from our solar panel system — you can see exactly how much energy we produced on a daily basis.
In fact, this graph gives you rough history of the weather where we live in southeastern Pennsylvania. The drops on the graph represent days with little or sun, although even on a cloudy day we make a little energy. You can also see when the days get longer and provide more direct sunlight to our roof; we're in the downward trend now as the shortest day of the year is approaching.
There's no maintenance to the system; it's just always working to create power when there's enough light. I haven't yet had to do a thing to the panels, which have a 25 year warranty, same as the microinverters. So with the solar panels then, you'd think we'd be fine during a power outage, like the one we experienced for 4 days last week. Not quite...
Different systems for different needs
One of the upfront decisions you'll need to make when planning a solar panel system is will you still be tied to the electric grid? Or will you go off-grid? There are pros and cons to each; the former costs less up front while the latter provides stored power during the evening hours or during an outage. Since we had no power during Hurricane Sandy, you can guess which system we have: One that keeps us tied to the grid.
That means all of the power our panels create is actually fed back into the grid; we still get all of our power from our electric company in this configuration. And in the case of an outage, grid-tie systems such as ours are automatically disabled. Why? Because if we were feeding power into the grid during an outage, it would be unsafe for the workers trying to fix the outage.
To go completely off-grid and have batteries store excess power would have added approximately 20 percent to our up-front project costs. My wife felt we'd never regain that cost because we rarely have outages. During Hurricane Sandy, of course, I gave her one — and only one — light-hearted "I told you so." And at this point, I'm reconsidering what to do for backup power, but that's another post for another time.
Is solar right for you?
Solar panel materialsI can't answer that question, but hopefully, I've provided some insights to help you decide. Having a house some south-facing roof is a must unless you plan to have panels on your grounds. Local or state incentives vary by location as well so you'll need to check them in your area.
The biggest issue for most is likely the large up-front cost involved although you could start small and build up the system over time. I can't argue that the costs are still high, although they should be lower now than a year ago. And the payback period — which will vary based on your system, location and energy costs without solar — can be high. Our break-even point is around 7.3 years, but that includes the home appreciation expected due to the system.
We may not be here long enough to break even but we've already gained an appreciation benefit from the panels. Taking advantage of the low rates, we refinanced our home last month and the added value of the solar panels was around $30,000. And why not when the next owner of this home is unlikely to have an electric bill ever? We were paying around $2,500 per year for electricity before the system was built; now build up a credit in most months. But for us, it's not all about the money or the investment, even though we have a hedge against a rise in electricity costs: Any price increase means we'll get more for our excess energy production.
We feel we smartly took advantage of certain tax incentives, added value to our home and are one step closer to being energy independent, save for a backup system. If I could go back in time, I'd probably add some type of battery backup. At this point, we're making enough excess power that we're considering a plug-in car to replace our current vehicle. Why not let the sun power our home and our wheels while cutting down on our annual gasoline costs at the same time?
http://gigaom.com/
Image Copyright: www.facepla.net
Watch Video:
DIY Solar Panel System: Components, Cost & Savings
These articles come directly from researchers and are passed on to everybody. The company assumes no liability for any content in these articles.
For Educational purposes only. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease
For more great articles go to http://www.ringingcedarsofrussia.org/infoE.php#article
Mailing Address USA 
Mailing Address CANADA 
Customer service in ENGLAND 
Mailing Address