Rotator Cuff Exercises
After starting up Tennis again I’m already experiencing what I think is a rotator cuff irritation so it’s time to look for some rotator cuff exercises so hopefully I can play without injury or pain. It’s hard getting old!
The Rotator cuff is a complex of thin muscles on your shoulders that allow the extensive motion you have in this area – motion that allows things like ball throwing and racket or club swinging, and more. Irritation in this area is very common, especially with sports, and should be considered potentially serious. Rotator cuff exercises help prevent injury to the shoulder.
Rotator cuff exercises:
Side-lying lateral raise. Instructions from “FitBie”
Standing rows with free weights and tubing. Not sure if this is what is meant by that or not:
Prone horizontal abuduction.
Wall pushups.
Internal and external rotation.
Weight and lifespan / longetivity
This really interesting summary just popped up in some research of the effect of weight on lifespan. In the very interesting advocacy documentary film “Fathead” (which I’ll review at length later), it’s suggested that fat people tend to live longer. This is not consistent with any other information I’ve heard and I think it’s probably just based on a silly interpretation of the challenges faced in hospitals by low weight folks who are stressed by illness. In some specific cases like that it may help to have extra body fat, but the general findings of many studies are of course consistent with the studies noted in this 1992 paper, summarized below: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1600586
<cite>The study was conducted to evaluate one aspect of the entropy theory of aging, which hypothesizes that aging is the result of increasing disorder within the body, and which predicts that increasing mass lowers life span. The first evaluation of the impact of human size on longevity or life span in 1978, which was based on data for decreased groups of athletes and famous people in the USA, suggested that shorter, lighter men live longer than their taller, heavier counterparts. In 1990, a study of 1679 decreased men and women from the general American population supported these findings. In the present study data on the height, weight, and age at death of 373 men were obtained from records at the Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Diego, CA, USA. Men of height 175.3 cm or less lived an average of 4.95 years longer than those of height over 175.3 cm, while men of height 170.2 cm or less lived 7.46 years longer than those of at least 182.9 cm. An analysis by weight difference revealed a 7.72-year greater longevity for men of weight 63.6 kg or less compared with those of 90.9 kg or more. This corroborates earlier evidence and contradicts the popular notion that taller people are healthier. While short stature due to malnutrition or illness is undesirable, our study suggests that feeding children for maximum growth and physical development may not add to and may indeed be harmful to their long-term health and longevity.</cite>
Day 180 of the Davies’ Happy Meal Project
Day 180, 2010 Sally Davies Happy Meal Project
Originally uploaded by sally davies photo
Sally Davies took pictures of a MacDonald’s burger and fries for 6 months. Most viewing these, and I’m guessing Sally, would suggest this shows something about the unhealthiness of MacDonald’s food.
The problem with that “logic” is that the same approach using, say, a Big Mac and a Coke – a far less healthy meal than this reasonable meat and potato meal – would be a nasty mess.
Michael Pollan, crusader against fast food for both reasonable and silly reasons, has suggested that rotting food is a good sign of healthy food, and I think this test may have been inspired by that somewhat twisted logic.
A natural foods challenge that is not discussed nearly enough is that while unprocessed, unpreserved foods often offer the nutritional benefits of complexity, protein balancing, and more, they also
generally carry a greater risk of spoilage and in that case can harbor some very nasty bacteria.
Moderation, in all things …
Changing the world, one PR firm at a time
The CES 2010 pitches are coming in strong now as John and I get ready to cover the year’s biggest technology event over at Technology Report.
I was so happy today to see one of them signing off saying they were a proud supporter of the Room to Read Project, which is a major effort to work towards world wide literacy and education. Readers of this blog know I’m a huge fan of that kind of project, and one of the reasons I’m very optimistic about the world’s future is that for I think the first time in history it’s become very, very “fashionable” to support global poverty reduction efforts in even the strongest bastions of capitalism (e.g. big time PR firms).
Now, cynics will suggest – correctly to some extent – that part of the motivation when capitalists support charity is to benefit from the positive buzz. However I’m fine with that, and furthermore I’m *glad* to see potential win-win economic relationships develop around charities like this.
Hot Air and the CO2 Problem
A few years ago I felt compelled to learn a lot more about global climate change because I kept hearing about all the pending climate caused catastrophes looming just over the horizon. Hearing this not just from poorly informed journalists and TV news looking to stir the pot to increase viewers and thus ad revenue. I was increasingly hearing these alarms from the very scientists I felt would be responsible, objective, unbiased voices on the topic.
Like Joe Friday on the ancient crime series DRAGNET, I figured NASA, USA, UK scientists would take a “Just the facts please” approach and give me the objective information I needed to make informed decisions about how much economic well-being we should sacrifice to appease the climate change god who was threatening us with rising seas, monster storms, and killer heat waves. Something just wasn’t adding up here. I know science and I know how stable large systems tend to be and I know a catastrophe when I see one, and climate just wasn’t looking catastrophic to me. A lot more research would be needed.
Enter the controversial author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” Bjorn Lomborg. A statistician, teacher, and environmentalist, Lomborg’s initial enthusiasm for the “Green” movement led him to skepticism as he “did the math” on a variety of environmental issues and concluded there was more than a little fuzzy math being used to support many well accepted talking points about pending environmental collapse.
Lomborg’s analyses made him both famous and infamous in science circles where, in a series of articles in Scientific American, Lomborg was attacked as if he was an enemy of reason itself – accused of using the same data “cherry picking” tactics he’d suggested often lie at the heart of many environmental concerns, but more often than not simply attacked as an enemy of good science. This struck me as odd because Lomborg was easy to read and to understand and it appeared to me he was generally starting with a common sense question and looking for the answers in the math rather than using the math to support his contentions. Ironically this approach seemed very unlike the scientists who in the same Scientific American series had been attacking Lomborg almost exclusively on personal grounds rather than by carefully addressing his many reasonable points about how alarmism appeared to be trumping reason even within the scientific community.
This in turn led me to a very interesting private exchange with the editor of Scientific American who seemed overly alarmed I’d been “taken in” by Lomborg’s misleading math. He encouraged
me to spend more time studying the issues. Armed with my reasonably robust background in the sciences (BS Botany & Psychology, MS Social Sciences) I started to review the IPCC reports, participate actively at RealClimate.org and ClimateAudit.org – the two most intelligent Climate Blogs, and more.
RealClimate is written by several of the top climate researchers in the world so it was conspicuous to me how often they seemed to be waxing very philosophically about climate catastrophes and defending even the most flagrant propaganda points in the film “An Inconvenient Truth” and in the papers by James Hansen, NASA’s top climate spokesperson and an often cited proponent of pending climate catastrophes. Comments at RealClimate are even worse – personal abuse and reckless pseudo-science are tolerated when they support the case for catastrophic warming while reasoned questions are often moderated or attacked irrationally if they challenge the prevailing groupthink. In the blogOspheric chatterbox that kind of intolerance is nothing new, but RealClimate pretends to take a higher road and be a watering hole for intelligent climate debate. Unfotunately that is only a pretense, and this realization has led me to question how much personal bias has infected climate science itself.
Preliminary conclusion: Personal biases of climate scientists affect their generalizations a lot. So much so that the studies are always at risk for opportunistic data analysis( “cherry picking” ), influences from grant money (studies that “find” warming are much more likely to get headlines / additional funding) and perhaps most importantly a bias that insulates skeptical research from funding. Skepticism lies at the heart of good science and the newfound tendency of otherwise respectable scientists to disparage global warming skeptics as “corporate shills”, “deniers”, and worse is simply dispicable and outrageous. Just the facts please, and if you don’t agree address the idea, not the person. Of course the *reason* for this approach is that the science behind global warming hysteria is much weaker than advertised – a concern I’d actually rejected until recently.
I don’t think the weakness of the human caused warming hypothesis is enough to throw the basic warming hypothesis into serious doubt, but enough to want more support for human caused warming than we’ve seen so far from heretofore unreliable and non-falsifiable computer modelling and the fact that – since 1998 – the global surface temperature trend is DOWN. This fact is discarded out of hand by climate alarmists but it is important for the very reasons you won’t see discussed at RealClimate. CO2 is going up while temperatures are going down. The models did not anticipate this and there appears to be no good explanation other than the natural variability that is (quite reasonably) invoked to explain a lot of climate fluctuations. But if nature routinely swamps out the effects of human caused CO2 then why are so many suggesting we should forego trillions in GDP to stem the CO2 tide? Why are people deluding themselves into thinking the developing world will go along with our CO2 efforts even as their people clamor for more development?
The answer is simple: They are thinking politically, hysterically, irrationally. OR they aren’t looking at the data. Usually it’s both.
Another preliminary conclusion is that Lomborg’s analyses are spot on.
There is global warming and it’s probably mostly caused by humans but the significance is exaggerated and – most importantly – it is totally unreasonable to assume we’ll be able to do enough reduction of CO2
to make enough of a difference to matter much. Far better to focus on the *existing catastrophic conditions* in much of the developing world than a massive, expensive, quixotic CO2 fight we are going to lose anyway. This is not to suggest we should do *nothing*, rather that we should seek cheap ways to mitigate CO2 while spending the big money on mitigating dead children in the developing world, noting that raising standards in poor countries leads to lower birth rates so even the most Machiavellian or population obsessed among us should support expansion of food and health aid to developing world as long as it reaches the needy.
To Eat or Not to Eat, THAT is the question
I’m trying to attain a BMI of 24.9 so I can rest a little easier knowing I’m at less risk for the various unhappy consequences of being overweight. The doctor didn’t seem concerned last time I talked to him about this, and now I’m only about 13 pounds from the goal.
This calorie counter at About.com is answering some of the questions I’ve wondered about for some time such as how many calories you need just to maintain your current weight = basal metabolic rate. For me it’s about 2000 per day, more with more exercise.
Although that article recommends eating 500 calories less to lose weight I DO NOT agree and think people generally fall off of diets because they are making them too painful. If, for example, you shave off 100 calories a day from your basal metabolic burn (or exercise another 10 minutes or so), you’ll lose weight over time. It’ll obviously take longer at 100 calorie deficit per day, but the point is that you are probably a lot more likely to stick to an “easy” diet than a hard one. More importantly if you can’t shave off a measly 100 calories a day you really need to question what you expect out a harsher diet, which is only going to work if you KEEP OFF THE WEIGHT which means invoke long term lifestyle changes. 100 calories is simply forsaking ONE Tablespoon of oil, a couple pats of butter, a single slice of bread).
Everybody is different but I think a good approach is to start by experimenting with long term lifestyle changes in terms of diet and excersize while keeping track of your weight on a daily basis (yes it’ll fluctuate but it’s good to have a lot of data!). Your first goal is to find out comfortable ways for you to maintain your weight or lose slightly – sort of a benchmark of the life you’ll be living for the long haul. When you find that comfortable balance of excersize and enjoyable eating simply shave off 100 calories per day until you hit your desired weight. If you are inspired to go for more do that, but just focus on the long term healthy lifestyle and not the weight loss part. DO FOCUS on weight gain, which means you probably miscalculated what you can afford to eat. I’ve even toyed with the idea of weighing myself every morning when I get up and if I weight MORE than the day before I cannot eat more than 1000 calories that day. Sticking to that plan will guarantee weight loss, but it’s more severe than I think I need as I’m making progress now with modest reduction in calories and increase in exercise.
Eating healthy can be more enjoyable if you savor things, eat smaller portions, add fruits and vegetables rather than sweets and carbs) You do NOT need to make radical changes but you do need to stick to your guns. A couple friends of mine have knocked off substantial weight and both did it mostly by simply sticking to their plans which were to limit calorie intake and get modest exercise. Fancy gimmicks are not your answer – calories and exercise define the whole show so figure out what’s up with your metabolism…. and go baby go !
Got Happy? Harvard Study suggests seven factors that predict personal happiness and well being
From the Atlantic – thanks to Tommo for pointing it out!
What allows people to work, and love, as they grow old? By the time the Grant Study men had entered retirement, Vaillant, who had then been following them for a quarter century, had identified seven major factors that predict healthy aging, both physically and psychologically. Employing mature adaptations was one. The others were education, stable marriage, not smoking, not abusing alcohol, some exercise, and healthy weight. Of the 106 Harvard men who had five or six of these factors in their favor at age 50, half ended up at 80 as what Vaillant called “happy-well” and only 7.5 percent as “sad-sick.” Meanwhile, of the men who had three or fewer of the health factors at age 50, none ended up “happy-well” at 80. Even if they had been in adequate physical shape at 50, the men who had three or fewer protective factors were three times as likely to be dead at 80 as those with four or more factors. What factors don’t matter? Vaillant identified some surprises. Cholesterol levels at age 50 have nothing to do with health in old age. While social ease correlates highly with good psychosocial adjustment in college and early adulthood, its significance diminishes over time. The predictive importance of childhood temperament also diminishes over time: shy, anxious kids tend to do poorly in young adulthood, but by age 70, are just as likely as the outgoing kids to be “happy-well.” Vaillant sums up: “If you follow lives long enough, the risk factors for healthy life adjustment change. There is an age to watch your cholesterol and an age to ignore it.” The study has yielded some additional subtle surprises. Regular exercise in college predicted late-life mental health better than it did physical health. And depression turned out to be a major drain on physical health: of the men who were diagnosed with depression by age 50, more than 70 percent had died or were chronically ill by 63. More broadly, pessimists seemed to suffer physically in comparison with optimists, perhaps because they’re less likely to connect with others or care for themselves.
Swine Flu Pandemic deaths in USA: 1 Other USA Flu Deaths: 36,000
Update: The 2009/2010 H1N1 Swine Flu season is more severe than last year when I wrote this post, though the statistics haven’t shaken out yet. My current take is that while initial concerns may have been overblown we are *now* facing a fairly serious health risk and I’d encourage folks to take the vaccine when it’s available in your area. I’m actually optimistic that the *total deaths from flu* will go down this year as people are taking far greater precautions than usual.
——————
You’ve got to hand it to the hype machine on this one for exaggerating the chances that the Swine Flu is going to get ya. I certainly understand why the CDC would be concerned that a new virus will spread and become dangerous, but the near-panic we’ve seen over the past week is simply not warranted by a reasonable interpretation of the data. I’m hardly a flu expert but it appears that the contagion, far from exploding, has been kept almost completely in check with only a handful of cases outside of the likely area of origin in Mexico and no rapid spread even in Mexico. It’s possible all the fear and masks have kept things in check but more likely this just isn’t that deadly a virus.
For example if we had followed all the precautions many are following *right now* by wearing masks, avoiding mass public activities, and obsessive hand washing the number of *regular* flu deaths would likely have been on the order of many thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands, less than they were in the 2009 Flu season (which roughly corresponds to “winter” and takes on average about 36,000 lives each year in the USA alone based on the CDC data cited below.
I’m seeing some parallels with the hysterical responses to minor weather events which are often foolishly attributed to climate crisis when in fact they are simply minor changes in the weather. At least in the case of this flu there is an objectively identifiable new flu strain – H1N1, that *theoretically* could create massive trouble along the lines of the 1918 flu pandemic. That flu pandemic killed more people than any event with the possible exception of WWII depending on death toll estimates which generally fall between 50 million and 100 million for the flu. The “better documented” WWII death toll was about 73 million worldwide. Obviously this means that flu pandemics are of critical importance, but it’s also important to recognize that millions die every year from very easily preventable diseases like malaria and rotoviruses to which we have historically paid far too little attention.
In the USA WWII took about 400,000 lives while the 1918 Pandemic took about 500,000
So with 1 US death so far, and that I think from a victim sent to Texas from Mexico, we are looking at a death toll 1/500,000th as large as in 1918. Not sure that calls for the response we’ve seen so far.
Clearly the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic is nothing to sneeze at but I think it’s also clear that the 24 hour news and even the CDC – perhaps practicing for a real threat – have hyped this event out of proportion to the real threat. If that’s because the threat really, really cannot be known I supposed it’s fine, but if it’s because this type of thing keeps people focused in ways that are profitable to TV News or grant and funding producing for CDC I hope we take a close look at all this when it’s over. Although epidemiologists are probably going to say “better safe than sorry” with Pandemic alerts it’s also true that overhyped events can lead to a lax future response from a public that becomes too used to “crying wolf” when the threat is actually quite low.
The world currently faces several catastrophic health, poverty, and human rights crises in the developing world and will face more global crises in the coming decades – we don’t need more fake ones.
Prescription Report on Tamiflu, an antiviral treatment for Swine Flu. NO, you probably don’t need this drug!
CNN on flu hysteria as the “real problem”. Hey, talk about a two for one story here! Hype the flu news and then hype the hype about the flu news. However in this case I’m not sure TV News is to blame as the CDC and government folks have been quick to talk about “inevitable” pandemic and other statements that have led to much of the trouble. In fact I think we’re seeing the same challenge of bureaucratic interpretations here we see with global warming alarmism. There are often political and social penalties for bureaucrats who fail to identify major problems. There are *huge* rewards if you manage to convince grant and government funders that minor problems are major problems. Yet we don’t tend to punish folks for “exaggerating risks” which is part of the reason … we have a lot of exaggeration of catastrophic risk in our society and too little attention to “mundane” but real risks like normal flu deaths, gun deaths, and highways deaths which account for well over 100,000 dead each year. Add heart disease and cancer to the list – they are also largely preventable grim reapers – and you find we are under quiet attack 24/7 by deathly dangers that make the 9/11 toll look completely trivial by comparison.
Think about this – if we *knew* that a terror group was going to kill 100,000 Americans next year with an assault of viruses, guns, and car bombs there would be a near panic with calls for martial law or on the other end of the spectrum perhaps an armed revolution. But since these risks are less dramatic we don’t fret enough about them, while worrying far too much about swine flu and the terrorists who only rarely materialize and appear to rarely if ever pose a truly catastrophic risk. I would caveat this last point saying there are certainly terror groups out there that would consider catastrophic action and we certainly should seek to get them, but we always need to monitor the costs in terms of lives and money and compare this to alternatives.
Mr. President: This budget won’t work.
I remain a fan of President Obama but it has been painful to watch him and congress move to adopt the most reckless example of massive and excessive government spending since the founding of our remarkable American experiment. The founders knew that solutions spring not from large and cumbersome governments, but from the hard work and inspired innovation of a free and vibrant people.
The budget problem is another great example of how chickens tend to come home to roost, and expensively. After inheriting a spectacular financial situation from the Clinton years, GW Bush managed to drive up the national debt by about $6,000,000,000,000, doubling this critical measure of our future prosperity potential even as Republicans whined about how “tax and spend” liberalism was ruining the country. Note also that only a small part of this was war spending and war is not a legitimate economic excuse for long term deficit spending. As they shifted our costs to the far future rather than balanced the bloated budgets Republicans adopted a “don’t tax, just spend!” philosophy that is now …. wait for it …. being used by Obama and the Democrats to speciously justify spending of far-greater-than-biblical proportions. Meanwhile, having lost almost all of their “fiscal responsibility” credibility over the past 8 years Republicans *very correct* concerns about the new budget are reaching a lot of deaf ears.
Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who turned down a major administration appointment probably due to these differences - has been one of the most articulate critics. He notes that the proposed budgets for the next decade will create a massive wall of debt – probably an insurmountable debt – such that our children will have to choose between massive taxation levels or dangerous inflationary measures such as printing money to repay the huge sums we are borrowing now from other governments.
Senator Gregg is right on with this, and it will be tragic if he does not become a key architect of the solutions needed.
Democrats, who tend to choose optimism over realism, suggest that we’ll jump start the flailing economy and restore the prosperity train and live happily ever after. It’s probably true that the current budget and high spending will help keep the economy from tanking. Most economists agree we need a massive injection of Government money to stimulate things. However I think few experts – and even fewer real people (who often have at least as good a power of prediction) would make the case that we aren’t heading for major trouble down the line.
Much of the solution is clear:
Stimulus should be smaller, more targeted, and eliminate the tens of billions in costly projects with dubious benefits.
Health Care cost reductions should be massive, aggressive, and all options must be kept on the table. Europe and Canada have vastly superior models to our system with comparable care at half the cost. Whining about the relatively small numbers of underserved patients isn’t convincing anybody anymore. If free market enthusiasts can come close to Canada / Europe health costs then propose plans that do this NOW. Otherwise shut up and adopt a single payer or nationalized health care system. The “quality of care” arguments are largely bogus and designed to scare people into opposing cheaper solutions. The current system is not sustainable and we have alternative cheaper and viable models.
Defense cost cuts should be massive and aggressive. We’ve massively overspent on defense since WWII and both parties refuse to view this spending rationally, where ROI is measured in logical terms of achieving objectives. Simply eliminating the military pork projects will cut *tens of billions* We need to use our highly effective targeted strike capabilities, humanitarian assistance, and public relations to gain far more international support at a fraction of the cost. Note to Republicans – stop your knee jerk nonsensical support of indefensibly massive defense spending.
Entitlements should be cut gradually but eventually massively and as soon as the economy shows clear signs of stability. We’re living on the money of future workers, not our own, and if this does not stop soon it could be the greatest case of intergenerational theft of all time. With respect to many entitlement programs we are all little Bernie Madoffs, pushing the Government to pay us from money they are borrowing from America’s children.
Note to Democrats: stop your knee jerk nonsensical support of excessive entitlements.
These three measures would allow a balanced budget as soon as the economy stabilizes.
We must end the era of tribal thinking and “political finance” where the government – to please constituents and party hacks – keeps running things wrong and not in the long term best interests of the country.
The world’s most important “to do” list: The Copenhagen Consensus
The Copenhagen Consensus is arguably the world’s most rational approach to Government spending. The group, which includes many luminaries in economics, science, and development, reviews many approaches to making the world a better place and ranks them in terms of global priority. The approach takes the return on investment in terms of dollars for lives very seriously. Unlike political spending these decisions are looking at the most bang for the buck, rather than the most political benefits which are often strongly influenced by irrational concerns from lobbyists or personal agendas. Obviously there’s no perfect way to allocate money but it’s certainly the best major effort to date and people *opposed to this approach* should be the ones making their case against it. One of the most pressing reasons to move ahead with these efforts – even during a time of economic crisis – is that they are very, very cheap ways to do a huge amount of good both morally and strategically. The reason we do not proceed? Ignorance, pure and simple ignorance.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=953
|
Solution
|
Challenge
|
|
|
1
|
Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc)
|
Malnutrition
|
|
2
|
The Doha development agenda
|
Trade
|
|
3
|
Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization)
|
Malnutrition
|
|
4
|
Expanded immunization coverage for children
|
Diseases
|
|
5
|
Biofortification
|
Malnutrition
|
|
6
|
Deworming and other nutrition programs at school
|
Malnutrition & Education
|
|
7
|
Lowering the price of schooling
|
Education
|
|
8
|
Increase andimprove girls’ schooling
|
Women
|
|
9
|
Community-based nutrition promotion
|
Malnutrition
|
|
10
|
Provide support for women’s reproductive role
|
Women
|
|
11
|
Heart attack acute management
|
Diseases
|
|
12
|
Malaria prevention and treatment
|
Diseases
|
|
13
|
Tuberculosis case finding and treatment
|
Diseases
|
|
14
|
R&D in low-carbon energy technologies
|
Global Warming
|
|
15
|
Bio-sand filters for household water treatment
|
Water
|
|
16
|
Rural water supply
|
Water
|
|
17
|
Conditional cash transfers
|
Education
|
|
18
|
Peace-keepingin post‐conflict situations
|
Conflicts
|
|
19
|
HIV combination prevention
|
Diseases
|
|
20
|
Total sanitation campaign
|
Water
|
|
21
|
Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level
|
Diseases
|
|
22
|
Microfinance
|
Women
|
|
23
|
Improved stove intervention
|
Air Pollution
|
|
24
|
Large, multipurpose dam in Africa
|
Water
|
|
25
|
Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles
|
Air Pollution
|
|
26
|
Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles
|
Air Pollution
|
|
27
|
Diesel vehicle particulate control technology
|
Air Pollution
|
|
28
|
Tobacco tax
|
Diseases
|
|
29
|
R&D and mitigation
|
Global Warming
|
|
30
|
Mitigation only
|
Global Warming
|
Copenhagen is not focused on reviving the flailing global economy although I’d love to see us evaluate the types of global stimulus we’d see by funding innovative solutions to pressing global problems. New grass for the national mall might put a few fertilizer guys to work for a few months, but it would be a lot more interesting (let alone morally imperative) to throw a tiny fraction of that budget item towards some innovative new jobs in the health and poverty sectors, where simply improving health and reducing poverty will have powerful positive effects on raising the US and global GDP. Raising living and health standards lowers birth rates so one of the consequences of spending the relatively tiny sums budgeted by Copenhagen Consensus is helping to reduce population pressure as well as improve the quality of life for those already here.
-
-
Recent Comments
Gus on Palm Treo Problems Ayako on MicroHooBook rumors are very p…
Please subscribe to the feed
