Noise pollution in US is a big threat to protected wildlife areas, says study

A new study says that noise pollution caused by humans is 'pervasive' in the US protected areas, posing a threat to land masses that harbour wildlife and provide places for respite, recreation, and natural resource conservation.

Protected areas in the US represent about 14 per cent of the land mass.

Researchers, including those from Colorado State University in the US, analysed millions of hours of sound measurements from 492 sites around continental US.

The results summarised predictions of existing sound levels, estimates of natural sound levels, and the amount that human-made noise raises levels above natural levels, which is considered noise pollution.

Researchers found that human-made noise doubled background sound levels in 63 per cent of US protected areas, and caused a ten-fold or greater increase in background levels in 21 per cent of protected areas.

In other words, noise reduced the area that natural sounds can be heard by 50 to 90 per cent. This also means that what could be heard at 100 feet away could only be heard from 10 to 50 feet, researchers said.

This reduced capacity to hear natural sound reduces the restorative properties of spending time in nature, such as mood enhancement and stress reduction, interfering with the enjoyment typically experienced by park visitors.

The Remarkable Stories Behind a Few Interesting Photographs (29 pics)

NASA's Hubble telescope captures massive galaxy cluster 6 billion light years away

The Hubble telescope helped show that this arc is composed of two distorted images of an ordinary spiral galaxy that just happens to lie behind the cluster.

NASA's Hubble Telescope has captured a beautiful image of a massive galaxy cluster which is located six billion light years away.

The image shows the extremely faint features which have never been seen before.

Made up of hundreds of galaxies, Abell 370 is located in the constellation Cetus (the Sea Monster). In the mid-1980s high-resolution images of the cluster showed that the giant luminous arc in the lower left of the image was not a curious structure within the cluster, but rather an astrophysical phenomenon – the gravitationally lensed image of a galaxy twice as far away as the cluster itself.

The Hubble telescope, jointly operated by NASA and European Space Agency (ESA), has helped show that this arc is composed of two distorted images of an ordinary spiral galaxy that just happens to lie behind the cluster.

Abell 370’s enormous gravitational influence warps the shape of spacetime around it, causing the light of background galaxies to spread out along multiple paths and appear both distorted and magnified.

The effect can be seen as a series of streaks and arcs curving around the centre of the image.

Massive galaxy clusters can therefore act like natural telescopes, giving astronomers a close-up view of the very distant galaxies behind the cluster – a glimpse of the universe in its infancy, only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

The new image of Abell 370 was captured as part of the Frontier Fields programme, which used a whopping 630 hours of Hubble observing time, over 560 orbits of the Earth.

Six clusters of galaxies were imaged in exquisite detail, including Abell 370 which was the very last one to be finished.An earlier image of this object – using less observation time and therefore not recording such faint detail – was published in 2009.

The Frontier Fields programme produced the deepest observations ever made of galaxy clusters and the magnified galaxies behind them.These observations are helping astronomers understand how stars and galaxies emerged out of the dark ages of the universe, when space was dark, opaque, and filled with hydrogen.

Studying massive galaxy clusters like Abell 370 also helps with measuring the distribution of normal matter and dark matter within such clusters.By studying its lensing properties, astronomers have determined that Abell 370 contains two large, separate clumps of dark matter, contributing to the evidence that this massive galaxy cluster is actually the result of two smaller clusters merging together.

Unmanned solar system mission to seek life on Saturn's moons up next on NASA's agenda?

The world of space is one which hold its secrets really close and getting to them is a difficult task. Scientists shouldering that responsibility should know.

NASA, a pioneer in the field of space and aeronautics, has time and again revealed the most amazing facets of the universe to the world.

Keeping space enthusiasts on their toes with all the latest updates regarding the goings on in space, NASA has once more raised anticipations by saying that the space agency is reviewing 12 proposals for future unmanned solar system mission to be launched in the mid-2020s.

Since NASA has always been open to the existence of life beyond our own world, the space agency also said that a new mission to Saturn's moons Titan or Enceladus to find signs of life beyond Earth cannot be ruled out.

The proposed missions of discovery – submitted under NASA's New Frontiers programme – will undergo scientific and technical review over the next seven months, the US space agency said in a statement on Friday.

Selection of one or more concepts for Phase A study will be announced in November. At the conclusion of Phase A concept studies, it is planned that one New Frontiers investigation will be selected to continue into subsequent mission phases.

Investigations for this announcement of opportunity were limited to six mission themes – comet surface sample return; lunar South Pole-Aitken basin sample return; ocean worlds (Titan and/or Enceladus); Saturn probe; Trojan tour and rendezvous; and Venus in situ explorer

"New Frontiers is about answering the biggest questions in our solar system today, building on previous missions to continue to push the frontiers of exploration," said Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

"We're looking forward to reviewing these exciting investigations and moving forward with our next bold mission of discovery," Zurbuchen said.

The New Frontiers Programme conducts principal investigator (PI)-led space science investigations under a development cost cap of approximately $1 billion.

This would be the fourth mission in the New Frontiers portfolio. Its predecessors are the New Horizons mission to Pluto, the Juno mission to Jupiter, and OSIRIS-REx, which will rendezvous with and return a sample of asteroid Bennu.

What’s the Difference Between Sulfured and Unsulfured Fruit?

Dried fruit has many health benefits and provides a nutritious option when you’re looking for a sweet snack. But have you ever wondered why some dried fruit is sulfured and some isn’t? Read on to find out the pros and cons of sulfuring fruit, and what other choices you have.

WHAT IS SULFURED FRUIT?

Sulfured fruit has been dried using sulfur dioxide as a preservative. This should be listed in the ingredients on a dried fruit’s package, so you can check if a fruit has been sulfured before buying it.

Sulfur dioxide prevents dried fruit from spoiling and turning brown. It’s often used for brightly-colored fruit to keep them more attractive. Some of the most commonly sulfured fruits are dried apricots, peaches, apples, pineapple, papaya, mango and golden raisins.

Sulfur dioxide is a gas. It’s typically produced by burning elemental sulfur, which is a byproduct collected from burning natural gas and oil in industrial operations. Sulfur dioxide is also used in wine making, as a disinfectant or fumigant, in bleaching agents and processed into sulfuric acid.

IS SULFUR DIOXIDE BAD FOR YOU?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers sulfur dioxide safe to consume when used as a food additive. Dried fruit contains very small amounts of sulfur dioxide, which are well below recognized toxic amounts.

Despite this fact, there is reason to be cautious about eating sulfured fruit. Sulfur dioxide can induce asthma when inhaled or ingested by those who are sensitive to it, even in small amounts.

Another concern is that sulfur dioxide is a type of sulfite. This means if you have an allergy or sensitivity to sulfites, avoid anything containing sulfur dioxide. It can cause symptoms like difficulty breathing, hives, skin rash or facial swelling.

In addition, sulfur dioxide is considered one of the top six most harmful air pollutants in the world. It’s a primary component of acid rain and causes many health problems globally. Sulfur dioxide gas in the atmosphere is primarily created by burning fossil fuels like coal and gasoline. This may not relate directly to your consumption of dried fruit, but using less of this chemical will only help the environment.

Inhalation of sulfur dioxide pollution can cause a burning sensation in your nose and throat or difficulty breathing, especially in people with asthma. Short-term exposure to high levels of sulfur dioxide can be life-threatening. And long-term exposure can lead to changes in lung function and worsen existing heart disease.

Also, exposure to high amounts of sulfur dioxide in air or food can harm the development of a baby during pregnancy.

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?

The natural alternative is unsulfured fruit, which has been dried without using preservatives. It’s usually dried by sun exposure, a commercial dehydrator or simply air drying.

You can look for unsulfured dried fruit in your local health food or other grocery store. The label will often state that the fruit is unsulfured. Another benefit of unsulfured fruit is that it usually won’t have any added sugar, which you can often find in sulfured fruit.

Organic dried fruit is guaranteed to be unsulfured as organic regulations don’t allow the use of sulfur or other preservatives. Organic dried fruit may not last as long because of this, but you can always freeze dried fruit to make it last longer if needed.

If you have an abundant source of fresh fruit, another great option is to dry your own fruit. That way you’ll know exactly what’s in it. Penn State Extension has a great overview of how to dry your own fruit and vegetables.

How the Industry is Making Money Off of Your Health

The whole food is greater than the sum of its parts. How, then, do unscrupulous marketers use evidence that ties high blood levels of phytonutrients with superior health to sell dietary supplements that may do more harm than good?

In my video below, I discuss a famous study that started so many down the wrong track. Thousands of men were followed for 19 years, and there was a stepwise drop in risk of lung cancer for smokers who got more and more beta-carotene in their diet. Researchers estimated this simply by adding up how much fruit, vegetables, and soup the men ate. So, did they start treating smokers with fruit, veggies, and soup? No, they gave them beta-carotene pills. However, those taking the pills got more lung cancer than those who didn’t, and there were more deaths from lung cancer, heart disease, and stroke, and a shorter average lifespan overall. This didn’t stop them from trying it over and over again, though. Six more studies were performed, and beta-carotene pills continued to increase mortality. In a compilation of 20 other studies in which they gave beta-carotene and other antioxidant supplements, mortality was significantly increased.

As one study pointed out, “An obvious conclusion is that isolated nutrients are drugs, but not studied or regulated as drugs, and perhaps they should be. Food, on the other hand, needs to be treated in a different way, cognizant of the food synergy concept.” The whole food is greater than the sum of its parts.

Yes, low beta-carotene levels in the blood increase the risk of heart disease mortality, but that’s basically just saying low intake of carrot, pumpkin, collard greens, and kale increases the risk of heart disease mortality or that there is a carrot, spinach, and sweet potato deficiency in the United States.

It is true that the more carotenoids we have in our blood, the healthier we may be. However, we should consider the following cautionary advice: “Though unscrupulous marketers may use the carotenoid health index for selling dietary supplements, responsible scientists and food producers need to emphasize the use of foods and whole food products to improve [blood] carotenoid concentrations.”

Indeed, “[w]e can now see that giving supplements of [beta]-carotene was a misguided way to prevent cancer. Instead, researchers should have sought to determine which foods have the most convincing negative association with cancer” and then put those fruits and vegetables to the test in randomized controlled trials.

“‘Science’ tends to be reductionist, looking for discrete causes and effects. It is hard to get food studies past peer grant reviewers unless they take the food apart, which seems to us to miss the point.” “The key is to encourage consumers to increase the total amount to 9 to 13 servings of fruits and vegetables” every day.

“The past 30 years have seen the development of an enormous body of evidence on the importance of plant-based foods in preventing or reducing the risk of chronic disease.” However, “despite broadly disseminated public information programs on how to eat healthily…it is extremely difficult to get people to change their diets.”

One proposed solution is to add back the health-promoting phytonutrients that are missing from many convenience foods. By eating more fruits and vegetables? No, silly, by genetically engineering phytonutrients into fast food.

People eat ketchup, not kale, so who needs greens when you can genetically engineer high-folate tomatoes? Why buy berries when you can make tomatoes purple by stitching in two genes from snapdragons to make transgenic tomatoes? Instead of soybean burgers, we can have soybean genes in the ketchup on our burgers. And you’ve heard of grape tomatoes? How about really grape tomatoes?

Pills are more profitable than plants, but when pills don’t work, industry will try patenting the produce itself.

8 Delicious Ways to Eat Less Salt

Most Americans eat far more than the recommended limit, but cutting back on salty food can be tough, especially if your palate has adjusted to a high-salt diet. Here are some ways to reduce the salt in your diet without sacrificing flavor.

Here in the U.S., we chronically oversalt our food. Whether we’re eating salty, processed foods or reaching for that salt shaker too often, all of that excess salt adds up. Too much salt makes us eat more and drink less water, and it puts us at risk for heart disease.

The recommended limit for salt is between 1500 mg and 2300 mg per day: between 3/4 and one teaspoon. The average American eats 3400 mg of salt per day, more than one-and-a-half times the highest recommended limit.

I cut way back on salt when I was pregnant to help ease pregnancy-related swelling. It was not easy at first, but over time I came up with a strategy and some tricks to make the transition more smooth. These are the things that helped me learn how to eat less salt.

1. Cut back gradually.

If you’ve been eating a lot of salt for a long period of time, your palate has likely adjusted. If you just cut the salt out of your food right away, it’s going to seem flavorless. Instead, try tapering the amount of salt you’re eating over a week or two until you reach your goals. 

2. Hide the salt shaker.

This is a great first step when you’re tapering. Try not salting your food once it’s prepared. Almost all recipes already call for salt in some form, and shaking on even more salt isn’t doing us any favors.

If you really don’t feel ready to do this right away, try limiting how much salt you shake on. If you usually do three shakes, see if you can get by with two for a few days, then one, then get that shaker out of there.

3. Choose low-sodium soy sauce.

I don’t know about you, but I tend to use soy sauce more than table salt to add sodium to my dishes. We don’t always think of soy sauce as salt, but if you’re trying to get down to 2300 mg or less per day, soy sauce can be a big contributor.

Low-sodium soy sauce has about one third less sodium than traditional. Just make sure you’re not adding more low-sodium soy sauce to your food. Like the salt shaker, don’t reach for the soy sauce after you food is plated.

4. Cut back on processed foods.

Processed food tends to be high in salt for two reasons. First of all, salt is a cheap way to make things taste delicious. Salt is also a good preservative. Cutting out all packaged foods isn’t realistic for everyone, though, and that’s okay!

When you do buy packaged food, look for ones marked low-sodium or reduce sodium. And don’t let front-of-package labeling fool you. Turn that bag of chips over and read the nutrition label to see what percentage of your daily sodium is in that bag.

5. Cook at home.

You don’t have to give up all take-out forever when you cut back on salt, but cooking at home definitely helps you control how much salt is on your food. Restaurants love salt, because salt makes food taste good without adding much cost to a dish. The good news is, you can make home-cooked meals taste good with less salt!

6. Reach for the herbs.

Salt enhances your food’s flavor, but you can also add flavor by adding more fresh or dried herbs to your dishes. Try upping the herbs and spices in your favorite recipes while cutting back on the added salt. You may find that you didn’t need that added sodium in the first place!

7. Drop some acid.

Into your bowl! A squeeze of lemon juice or dash of vinegar was one of my favorite ways to compensate for the “missing” salt when I started cutting back. Acidic foods like citrus add a similar bite to your dishes, no sodium needed.

8. Choose low- or no-sodium broth.

Broth is a major culprit when it comes to added salt, but it doesn’t have to be! One of my favorite tricks for keeping the flavor while cutting the salt in my soups was to use no-sodium broth cubes, but use twice as many cubes as the package called for.

You can also use broth to add flavor to your grains, beans and stews. Almost any time you see water in a savory recipe, you can sub no-sodium broth for a flavor boost. This is really just a cheater’s way to add more herbs without having to chop more herbs.