This morning the car thermometer marked 39 degrees celsius. That means it is probably something around 35 or 36 degrees. The balcony railing is hot. It is a dry, hot and still. We are not yet prepared and now more than ever we better be careful. Drink water, eat fruits and vegetables in abundance. If then we practice outdoor sports, we should be way more careful. Rehearsals of summer, let's be ready!
In China distributors of oxygen because now you can not breathe anymore. Then here the new whatsappitis syndrome, a pathology found on a pregnant woman who sent messages with her smartphone for six hours straight. One behind the other these two news today, news of a world that goes wrong, a progress that could be sothing else. I do not believe in happy degrowth, but I do believe in smart growth. And this is not it.
Finallu, the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) in Lyon and has found and made t official that pollution in the cities causes cancer. Maybe because we had to sell more cars, I don't know, but for so many years researchers said it was not so obvious. It was obvious for people like me who think that human lungs have not evolved to breathe these dusts and products of oil combustions. We urgently need to return to Nature.
A U.S. study finds that technology, unlike what many people think, do not stimulate creativity, actually it is a limit. Four days immersed in nature and your mind is free from the "too much information". In a million years, maybe two, then we are really accustomed to technology, for now let us trust the nature of which we are part.
Smog increases the risk of (read "causes") stroke and heart attack. Now we have proof. Do we really need proof? Is it possible that common sense and a simple but not simplistic mathematical logic is not enough to say something so obvious? And we are asked to try even evidence in medicine? And where it is not so easy to try something for limits of the research (samples, duration), then does it means that something is not true?
Following the French study that showed that GMO maize and a certain herbicide are carcinogenic, as mentioned in my previous entry, Russia has blocked the import of maize NK 603 (GMO) until further studies can guarantee its safety. This is called the principle of prudence, a principle that apparently most of the scientific community all too often ignores. Wouldn't it be nice if Italy were to follow Russia's example. Let's see ...
A French study tackles once again the controversy over GMO and health, linking the consumption of GMO maize and the use of a certain herbicide with tumor growth in the lab. Scientists get defensive and claim that certain procedures used in the study were not valid. Yet studies confirming the harmlessness of GMOs never seem to receive the same scrutiny. When not pleased with the results they contest even small details. But when they are pleased...
A crowded outdoor restaurant. A hot and muggy August evening without the slightest breeze. Two infants in their carriages. Two or more diners light up, they hold their cigarettes slightly off to the side and turn their heads to blow the smoke away from themselves and towards the other tables. This is outright rudeness. Addiction? Go, be addicted in your own home, blow the smoke on your own food and on the faces of those who choose your company.
Whoever it was that invented it can be the one to eat it. This was the first thought that came to my mind when I read the news about an American company that has genetically modified the common apple so that it won't brown once it is cut open. Actually, all it takes is a few drops of lemon juice on the sliced part to ensure that it doesn't brown. Why do we make such heroic efforts to alter nature instead of to conserve and respect it?
There seems to be a legislative initiative in Australia to reduce the population of dromedaries. The dromedaries, supernumerary (the same phenomenon in rabbits) would be creatures who because of their digestive system produce "a lot" methane, fearful for the greenhouse effect. I can not tell if this idea in stupidity exceeds that of the man who ran pollute as much as a car. Oh boy...
I can't believe it. Yet it is true. They compare the amount of carbon dioxide that a man running emits with the amount that emits an average car. Man pollutes as a car, I read this. Better the woman, when she runs she emits less carbon dioxide. Articles like this surely make culture and (in) formation. Yeah. Quoting a well-known American TV series... "Pplease."
I read that it has been scientifically established (or perhaps better to say "accepted"?) that looking at natural landscape induces emotional tranquility and harmony even at the cerebral level. On the other hand, watching a metropolitan landscape brings disconnection in communication between the synapses, intellectual confusion and a state of agitation. That's nice, one day they will also tell us that fishes swim in the water!