Why We Must Filter Our Water

Botanist John Muir carried no bottled water when he hiked 1,000 miles through the wilderness from Indiana to Florida. Instead, the 29-year-old drank from streams, lakes and an occasional bayou to quench his thirst and lived to write about it.

Muir knew nothing of filtering chromium, lead, mercury or chlorine from water. In fact, his greatest concern when slurping from a watering hole was whether he dared the snakes or alligators lurking nearby. It was 1867 and our penchant for pouring poisons into the environment hadn’t yet caught up to us.

This month, 146 years after Muir wrote how he “enjoyed to the utmost the blessing of pure cold water” while meandering through the South, West Virginians were warned to not even wash their clothes in Charleston’s poisoned water.

The 7,000-gallon coal-processing chemical spill into the Elk River is merely the latest in a growing number of catastrophes to contaminate vast amounts of our precious, dwindling freshwater supply.

Officials only learned of the spill when residents began calling in complaints about a strong licorice-type smell in the air, according to a recent CBS News report.

So, for those who rely on their public utilities to test their water for contaminants, consider this from the news report:

“West Virginia American Water, which supplies 300,000 people with water in the central part of the state, said it would not have detected the chemical because utilities don’t test for it. Before the spill, no standards existed for measuring the chemical, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, in water, the utility said.”

When I called Hilary Ohm, owner of Highwater Filters, a Colville, Wash., water-filter supplier, about choosing a water filter, she told me public utilities generally only test for the most common and easiest-to-detect contaminants.

Municipal water reports, by law, must be made available to the public. Sometimes these reports are mailed annually to customers. At a minimum, reports must be publicly posted.

Even though a utility’s water meets government standards, homeowners should still have their water tested for other contaminants and check with their water supplier to learn what chemicals are being added.

“In order to determine the best filtering device, people should get their water tested,” Hilary said. “These reports can be very revealing.”

Besides chlorine and fluoride, a community water system may also add chloramines as disinfectants to the water. In this case, purchase a water filter that is certified to remove chloramines, as well as chlorine and trihalomethanes (a carcinogenic by-product of chlorination).

Even those of us who rely on a deep, drilled well for water should have the water tested for arsenic, metals, methane and other contaminants. The Environmental Protection Agency now recommends testing well water twice a year.

And, while the well water may be clean, it can be contaminated on the way to your faucet. Many homes built before 1998 have lead pipes that can corrode into drinking water, particularly hazardous to pregnant women.

Remember, many contaminants are tasteless, odorless and colorless, such as trihalomethanes or PCB’s, both known as dangerous carcinogens. Taste is not an indicator of purity or safety. The public can check with the EPA to learn about contaminants in a specific area.

Find out about the use of chemicals in your area. Groundwater in agricultural areas, for instance, is subject to contamination from pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer runoff.

Be aware of the industry in your area. During the past decade, for example, hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has come under fire as a possible pollution source as humans try to squeeze every last drop of fuel from the ground.

“Once you know what’s in your water, you can buy the right filter for your needs,” Hilary said.

The most popular home water filters on Highwater Filters’ website – carbon and ion exchange – are reliable and available in many styles to suit individual tastes. Instead of buying many different filters, it is more cost-effective to buy one filter certified to remove the widest range of contaminants.

Of the carbon filters, there are loose granular activated carbon and solid carbon block filters. Distillers are more costly, but do produce clean, purified water from murky sources. Reverse osmosis also is effective, Hilary said, although the system wastes water and is bulky.

Depending on what’s in the water, a shower filter also may be desired. Many contaminants, such as chlorine, are absorbed through the skin or inhaled as in a hot shower.

For a well or a spring-type water system, an inexpensive 10 to 15 micron pre-filter under the kitchen sink, before the line to the filter, will save the drinking water filter cartridge life. This pre-filter will capture the larger sediment particles and prevent premature clogging.

Replace filter cartridges according to the manufacturer’s guidelines, generally every six months to a year with normal use.

If this sounds like an unnecessary bother, consider that many poisons are cumulative. A lifetime of drinking treated tap water could cause irreparable harm to the heart, bladder, kidneys and reproductive organs.

“It’s unfortunate that we need to worry about contaminants in our water,” Hilary said, “but the reality is that most water in our environment is vulnerable in some way.”

Hilary said it is relatively easy to treat most water to make it fit to drink. It is also a lot cheaper and safer to filter your drinking water than hauling bottled water, which is still unregulated and packaged in potentially harmful plastics, from the store.

“By filtering water with a reliable system, you can provide your family a better sense of security,” Hilary said. “Eliminating the unknown risks is worth every penny you invest to rid your drinking water of unwanted contaminants.”

RUN OR TAKE SHELTER AFTER A NUCLEAR EXPLOSION? NEW RESEARCH MIGHT SURPRISE YOU

You wake up in the dead of night as a flash brighter than the sun streaks through your windows. Was it car headlights? No, you realize something isn’t right when all the electronics in your house are dead. Then you hear emergency sirens outside and you realize; it was a nuclear explosion.

Now what?

New research suggests rather than “sheltering in place” as many emergency programs insist, your best bet for survival after a nuclear detonation might be to run away from the blast zone and the deadly fallout, rather than staying in a building with only moderate protection from radiation.

Make a run for it? The mathematical model of nuclear fallout suggests that sheltering in place (first option above) is not always the best survival strategy. If you can reach higher quality shelter in less than 30 minutes (second option), you should go for it. And if you are out in the open, you need to find any shelter at all, and soon (third option).

Michael Dillon, an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, created a mathematical model of nuclear fallout survival after his relatives – who were curious about his work – asked what they should do if they saw a mushroom cloud.

“I realized that I really didn’t have a great answer,” Dillon said. The official U.S. government advice is to “take shelter in the nearest and most protective building.” For most people, that would be the basement of their home. But, Dillon says, “out in California there just are not that many basements,” offering little protection from fallout.

For those people, the official recommendations suggest “early transit” to find better shelter, ideally one with thick layers of concrete over your head and plenty of food and water. But if you spend too much time outside in the fallout, you’re toast. Dillon’s mathematical model results surprised him,Science reports:

For low-yield nuclear detonations, you can do far better than just sheltering in place, but you’ll need a watch and good knowledge of your surroundings. If your current shelter is poor and higher quality shelter is less than 5 minutes away, the model suggests that you should run there as soon as you can. If you have poor shelter but higher quality shelter is available farther away, you should get to that high-quality shelter no later than 30 minutes after detonation.

Depending on the size of the city, if everyone follows this advice, it could save between 10,000 and 100,000 lives Dillon claims, in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A.

Dillon’s strategy addresses gaps in sheltering strategies for people far enough from ground zero to survive the initial blast but close enough to face deadly fallout. He focused on a single low-yield nuclear detonation like those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world’s nuclear arsenal has grown far more powerful—today’s warheads can inflict thousands of times more damage—but security experts believe portable, low-yield bombs are the most likely terrorist threat.

Not everyone is on board with Dillon’s run-like-the-wind strategy, however.

“I disagree with the conclusions,” says Lawrence Wein, an operations research scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. “He fails to account for several important issues that are vitally important for policy recommendations.”

Such as, most injured, confused and panic-stricken people likely won’t be able to execute a flawless evacuation strategy. Simply stumbling to the basement sounds like a better mass plan than suggesting hundreds of thousands of people head into the apocalyptic wasteland without idea how long the transit time will really be.

Because of this uncertainty, Wein says, the official U.S. government recommendation is “to shelter for at least 12 hours” after the blast.

In TheBlaze’s example at the beginning of the article, the situation is made even worse at night. Without sunlight to assist in the “early transit” stage, a survivor would have little hope in making their way to a fallout shelter unless they had mapped out and practiced an escape route.

So, for example, this woman would need to start running fast away from the blast. If this were real. Not sure if those sunglasses are much help at this point.

Public health researchers at the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., say Dillon’s models are useful.

“As someone working with government and state and local planners, we find models extraordinarily useful to help us develop concepts of operations,” C. Norman Coleman, a researcher at USNIH says. For example, knowing how long the window of opportunity is for people to reach better shelter can help rank future evacuation plans. At the very least, Coleman says, Dillon’s model reveals what is “possible to do and what is not likely to be useful.”

Food in the sky? Highrise farming idea gains ground

Paris (AFP) - Imagine stepping out of your highrise apartment into a sunny, plant-lined corridor, biting into an apple grown in the orchard on the fourth floor as you bid "good morning" to the farmer off to milk his cows on the fifth.

You take the lift to your office, passing the rice paddy and one of the many gardens housed in the glass edifice that not only heats and cools itself, but also captures rainwater and recirculates domestic waste as plant food.

No, this is not the setting for a futuristic movie about humans colonising a new planet.

It is the design of Belgian architect Vincent Callebaut for a 132-floor "urban farm" -- the answer, he believes, to a healthier, happier future for the estimated six billion people who will live in cities by 2050.

With food, water and energy sources dwindling, the city of the future will have to be a self-sufficient "living organism", said the 36-year-old designer of avant-garde buildings some critics have dismissed as daft or a blight on the landscape.

"We need to invent new ways of living in the future," Callebaut told AFP at the Paris studio where he plies his trade.

"The city of tomorrow will be dense, green and connected. The goal is to bring agriculture and nature back into the urban core so that by 2050... we have green, sustainable cities where humans live in balance with their environment."

Each building, he said, must ultimately be a "self-sufficient, mini-power station."

The quest for sustainable urban living has never been more urgent as people continue flocking to cities which encroach ever more onto valuable rural land, gobbling up scarce natural resources and making a disproportionate contribution to pollution and Earth-warming carbon emissions.

Enter Callebaut with his project "Dragonfly" -- a design for a massive, twin-towered, "vertical farm" on New York's Roosevelt Island.

View gallery

French architect Vincent Callebaut poses in front of a picture of one of his futuristic projects on  …

From each tower springs a large, glass-and-steel wing, so that the edifice resembles the insect after which it was named.

The draft structure includes areas for meat, dairy and egg production, orchards, meadows and rice fields along with offices and flats, gardens and public recreation spaces.

Energy is harvested from the Sun and wind, and hot air is trapped between the building "wings" to provide heating in winter. In summer, cooling is achieved through natural ventilation and transpiration from the abundant plant growth.

Plants grow on the exterior shell to filter rain water, which is captured and mixed with liquid waste from the towers, treated organically and used as fertiliser.

And at the base of the colossus: A floating market on the East River for the inhabitants to sell their organic produce.

"They made fun of me. They said I created a piece of science fiction," Callebaut says of his detractors.

But as awareness has grown of the plight of our planet, overpopulation and climate change, his ideas have gained traction, and the Dragonfly design has been exhibited at an international fair in China.

No buyers, but rising interest

Callebaut has also drafted a concept for a floating city resembling a lily pad that will house refugees forced from their homes by climate change.

And he hopes to sell a design for a "farmscraper" in Shenzhen, China that will include housing, offices, leisure space and food gardens.

As yet, Callebaut has found no buyers for these big projects.

"With the recent economic recession, politicians and government may... have been reluctant to venture into such new, large-scale endeavours that have not been tested before," Emilia Plotka, a sustainability expert at the Royal Institute of Royal Architects, told AFP of Dragonfly and similar projects.

But she pointed out the concept has inspired other, smaller projects.

"Instead of majestically tall bionic towers plonked in riverbeds, vertical farms have been rather more modestly integrated into existing buildings, derelict industrial sites and floating barges," said Plotka.

One example is the Pasona Urban Farm -- a nine-storey office building in Tokyo that allows employees to grow their own food in specially reserved green spaces at work.

"Whilst the buy-in may not be as noticeable at the moment, it certainly is widespread and growing," said Plotka of the "vertical farm" movement.

"I suspect most other new vertical farms will remain hidden in disused urban spaces or existing business and domestic blocks, which is not bad at all as they will use fewer resources to be set up and enhance their surrounding environments and communities."

U.S. Cattle Herd Is At A 61 Year Low And Organic Food Shortages Are Being Reported All Over America

If the extreme drought in the western half of the country keeps going, the food supply problems that we are experiencing right now are only going to be the tip of the iceberg.  As you will see below, the size of the U.S. cattle herd has dropped to a 61 year low, and organic food shortages are being reported all over the nation.  Surprisingly cold weather and increasing demand for organic food have both been a factor, but the biggest threat to the U.S. food supply is the extraordinary drought which has had a relentless grip on the western half of the country.  If you check out the U.S. Drought Monitor, you can see that drought conditions currently stretch from California all the way to the heart of Texas.  In fact, the worst drought in the history of the state of California is happening right now.  And considering the fact that the rest of the nation is extremely dependent on produce grown in California and cattle raised in the western half of the U.S., this should be of great concern to all of us.

A local Fox News report that was featured on the Drudge Reportentitled "Organic food shortage hits US" has gotten quite a bit of attention. The following is an excerpt from that article...

Since Christmas, cucumbers supplies from Florida have almost ground to a halt and the Mexican supply is coming but it's just not ready yet.

And as the basic theory of economics goes, less supply drives up prices.

Take organic berries for example:

There was a strawberry shortage a couple weeks back and prices spiked.

Experts say the primary reasons for the shortages are weather and demand.

And without a doubt, demand for organic food has grown sharply in recent years.  More Americans than ever have become aware of howthe modern American diet is slowly killing all of us, and they are seeking out alternatives.

Due to the tightness in supply and the increasing demand, prices for organic produce just continue to go up.  Just consider the following example...

A quick check on the organic tree fruit market shows that the average price per carton for organic apples was $38 per carton in mid-January this year, up from an average of just $31 per carton last year at the same time. At least for apple marketers, the organic market is heating up.

Personally, I went to a local supermarket the other day and I started to reach for a package of organic strawberries but I stopped when I saw that they were priced at $6.99.  I couldn't justify paying 7 bucks for one package.  I still remember getting them on sale for $2.99 last year.

Unfortunately, this may only be just the beginning of the price increases.  California Governor Jerry Brown has just declared a water emergency, and reservoirs throughout the state have dropped to dangerously low levels.

Unless a miracle happens, there is simply not going to be enough water to go around for the entire agriculture industry.  The following is an excerpt from an email from an industry insider that researcher Ray Ganorecently shared on his website...

Harris farms has released a statement saying they will leave about 40,000 acres fallow this year because the FEDS have decided to only deliver 10% of the water allocation for 2014. Lettuce is predicted to reach around $5.00 a head (if you can find it). Understand the farmers in the Salinas valley are considering the same action. So much for salad this summer unless you grow it yourself.

The reason why the agriculture industry in California is so important is because it literally feeds the rest of the nation.  I shared the following statistics yesterday, but they are so critical that they bear repeating.  As you can see, without the fruits and vegetables that California grows,we would be in for a world of hurt...

The state produces 99 percent of the artichokes grown in the US, 44 percent of asparagus, a fifth of cabbage, two-thirds of carrots, half of bell peppers,89 percent of cauliflower, 94 percent of broccoli, and 95 percent of celery. Leafy greens? California’s got the market cornered: 90 percent of the leaf lettuce we consume, along with and 83 percent of Romaine lettuce and 83 percent of fresh spinach, come from the big state on the left side of the map. Cali also cranks a third of total fresh tomatoes consumed in the U.S.—and 95 percent of ones destined for cans and other processing purposes.

As for fruit, I get that 86 percent of lemons and a quarter of oranges come from there; its sunny climate makes it perfect for citrus, and lemons store relatively well. Ninety percent of avocados? Fine. But 84 percent of peaches, 88 percent of fresh strawberries, and 97 percent of fresh plums?

Come on. Surely the other 49 states can do better.

Are you starting to understand how much trouble we could be in if this drought does not end?

About now I can hear some people out there saying that they will just eat meat because they don't like vegetables anyway.

Well, unfortunately we are rapidly approaching a beef shortage as well.

On January 1st, the U.S. cattle herd hit a 61-year low of 89.3 million head of cattle.

The biggest reason for this is the 5 year drought that has absolutely crippled the cattle industry out west...

Back in the late fall 2013 there was a freak snowstorm that killed close to 300,000+ cattle. This is a major hit to the cattle market.

I know in Texas where they still have a 5 year drought they are dealing with, they are having to ship grass bails in from Colorado, Utah and other parts of the country just to feed the cattle. Ranchers are sending their female cattle to the slaughter houses becasue they can not afford to feed them anymore. It is the females that help re-stock the herd. SO if you are slaughtering your females, your herd does not grow. It is expected that the US will not see cattle herd growth returning until 2017, maybe even later.

This is a problem which is not going away any time soon.

According to the Washington Post, the U.S. cattle herd has gotten smaller for six years in a row, and the amount of beef produced is expected to drop to a 20 year low in 2014...

The U.S. cattle herd contracted for six straight years to the smallest since 1952, government data show. A record drought in 2011 destroyed pastures in Texas, the top producing state, followed the next year by a surge in feed-grain prices during the worst Midwest dry spell since the 1930s. Fewer cattle will mean production in the $85 billion beef industry drops to a 20- year low in 2014, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said.

It would be hard to overstate how devastating this ongoing drought has been for many ranchers out west.  For example, one 64-year-old rancher who lives in Texas says that his herd is 90 percent smallerthan it was back in 2005 because of the drought...

Texas rancher Looney, who is 64 and has been in the cattle business his whole life, said his herd is still about 90 percent below its size from 2005 because of the prolonged dry weather. It will take years for the pastures to come back, even if there is normal rainfall, he said. About 44 percent of Texas was in still in drought in the week ended Jan. 7, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

And it isn't just the U.S. that is dealing with this kind of drought.  The largest freshwater lake in China that was once about twice the size of London, England has almost entirely dried up because of the ongoing drought over there.

Meanwhile, global demand for food just continues to rise.

If this drought ends and the western half of the nation starts getting lots of rain, this could just be a temporary crisis.

However, the truth is that scientific research has shown that the 20th century was the wettest century in the western half of the country in 1000 years, and that we should expect things to return to "normal" at some point.

So is that happening now?

Over the past couple of years, I have warned that Dust Bowl conditions are starting to return to the western half of the United States.  Just seethis article, this article and this article.

Now the state of California is experiencing the worst drought that it has ever gone through and "apocalyptic" dust storms are being reported inColorado and Nevada.

Just because things seem like they have always been a certain way does not mean that they will always stay that way.

Things out west are rapidly changing, and in the end it is going to affect the lives of every man, woman and child in the United States.

A Voice Said "I Am Not A Son"

A 'tsunami' of store closings expected to hit retail

Get ready for the next era in retail—one that will be characterized by far fewer shops and smaller stores.

On Tuesday, Sears said that it will shutter its flagship store in downtown Chicago in April. It's the latest of about 300 store closures in the U.S. that Sears has made since 2010. The news follows announcements earlier this month of multiple store closings from major department stores J.C. Penney and Macy's.

Further signs of cuts in the industry came Wednesday, when Target said that it will eliminate 475 jobs worldwide, including some at its Minnesota headquarters, and not fill 700 empty positions.

Experts said these headlines are only the tip of the iceberg for the industry, which is set to undergo a multiyear period of shuttering stores and trimming square footage.

Shoppers will likely see an average decrease in overall retail square footage of between one-third and one-half within the next five to 10 years, as a shift to e-commerce brings with it fewer mall visits and a lesser need to keep inventory stocked in-store, said Michael Burden, a principal with Excess Space Retail Services.

"I believe we're going to hear a lot more announcements in the coming months," Burden said. It's "an indication that there is a shift in the retail environment and it's one that will continue."

January is typically a busy month for retailers to announce store closings. According to the International Council of Shopping Centers, 44 percent of annual store closings announced since 2010 have occurred in the first quarter. But this year's closings are likely indicative of a new trend, sparked by more and more shoppers turning to the Web, experts said.

This holiday, online spending increased by 10 percent on desktop devices—a number that will likely grow another 2 percentage points when factoring in the role of mobile devices, according to data tracker comScore. Paired with a compressed holiday shopping calendar and a spate of freezing weather across much of the U.S., online shopping contributed to a nearly 15 percent decline in foot traffic this past holiday season, according to ShopperTrak.

"Stores are making a long-term bet on technology," said Belus Capital Advisors analyst Brian Sozzi. "It simply doesn't make strategic sense to enter a new 15-year lease as consumers are likely to continue curtailing physical visits to the mall."

Play Video

Future of American malls

Rick Caruso, Caruso Affiliated founder and CEO, discusses the future of American malls and explains what shopping malls need to do to become relevant again. "Retail brick and mortar has a great future," Caruso says.

Sozzi said that after a profitable but below-expectations holiday season, the retail industry will face its second "tsunami of store closures across the U.S.," only a few years after what he called the "fire sale holiday season of 2008."

During the recession, the number of shopping center vacancies rose by 5.5 percentage points to 11 percent, according to ICSC data, and has since recovered only 2.1 percentage points.

In addition to J.C. Penney—which announced last week that it will close 33 stores—there are about a dozen retailers that still have too many stores, Sozzi said. Among them: American Eagle, which needs to move some of its aerie lingerie locations into its main stores; Aéropostale, which is on track to close 175 stores over the next few years; and Wal-Mart, which has about 100 stores in the U.S. producing same-store sales declines deeper than 3 percent, Sozzi said.

As for Penney's, Wells Fargo analyst Paul Lejuez said that its store closures are a step in the right direction, but they barely scratch the surface of how many are needed.

"With mall traffic trends very challenging and J.C. Penney facing its own significant company-specific issues, we do not believe a 1,000-plus store fleet is appropriate," Lejuez said in a research note. "In our view, the company needs to close several hundred stores to operate more efficiently, but that is not easy to accomplish overnight."

Retailers need a new approach

That's not to say there aren't a number of young retailers who still have plenty of room to build their store base, Lejuez said. Among them: Lululemon and the fashion-forward Michael Kors and Vince brands, which both recently went public. Kors, which increased its store base by nearly 100 stores last year, is on track to open 50 U.S. stores in 2014.

In a separate note, Lejuez said that the ideal way for young brands to build a retail business today is very different than it was 20 years ago. These days, he said, it makes more sense for a retailer to have half the number of stores they once thought appropriate, and instead concentrate on a small store network and e-commerce business. This will take time to accomplish, however, as the vast majority of store locations are leased and not owned, making them harder to unload, he said.

"There is often a mismatch between the number of stores retailers operate today compared to how many they would choose to operate if they had to do it all over again," Lejuez said.

But it's not just the number of stores that are shrinking—it's also their size, said David Birnbrey, chairman of retail real estate advisory group The Shopping Center Group. As fewer shoppers buy items at the physical store, retailers don't require the same inventory levels to be kept in an attached storage room.

Play Video

Buy retailers with strong e-commerce: Trader

CNBC's Courtney Reagan dissects the latest action in the retail sector, saying retailers need to ensure a strong online presence. FMHR trader Pete Najarian agrees the best names in e-commerce are buys.

By placing more of their stock in fulfillment centers, they can shrink their stores to cut back on commercial real estate expenses, Birnbrey said. Although retail rents are still well below where they were prior to the recession, they have begun to stabilize, and are expected to show a slight uptick in 2014, according to CB Richard Ellis.

"I think stores are typically downsizing right now, and I think they're doing it because they had unsustainable inventory levels," Birnbrey said.

Steering clear of traditional malls

One big shift in store closings has come from retailers shying away from indoor malls, instead favoring outlet centers, outdoor malls or stand-alone stores. Although new retail construction completions are at an all-time low, according to CB Richard Ellis, the supply of new outlet centers has picked up in recent quarters.

"There's no question that mall stores are closing quicker than open air, as far as the department stores," Birnbrey said.

Rick Caruso, founder and CEO of Caruso Affiliated, said at the recent National Retail Federation convention that without a major reinvention, traditional malls will soon go extinct, adding that he is unaware of an indoor mall being built since 2006.

"Any time you stop building a product, that's usually the best indication that the customer doesn't want it anymore," he said.

But retailers aren't throwing in the towel just yet. Turning brick-and-mortar shopping into a retail experience was one of the main topics discussed at the NRF convention this month, with retailers brainstorming ways to integrate targeted mobile couponing and high-tech gadgets to entice shoppers who may have been lost to the Web.

"They're not giving up at all," Birnbrey said.

FACT CHECK: NO, ‘ACTUAL’ UNEMPLOYMENT ISN’T 37.2 PERCENT (PROBABLY BUT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 37.2% and 13%) DEPENDING

A Wall Street adviser in a recent memo to his clients said that the “actual” unemployment rate in the United States is 37.2 percent.

Obviously, this has many asking whether this is indeed the case. In short, it isn’t. But of course this requires some explanation.

David John Marotta’s memo, which was picked up by the Washington Examiner, stated that unemployment is much worse than what is being reported by the federal government.

Marotta’s claim is based primarily on the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ data on the current labor force participation rate, which is about 62.8 percent:

The above graph represents the adult, non-military and non-jailed population that is currently employed or actively seeking work.

But how did Marotta arrive at that 37.2 percent figure? Simple: He subtracted the current labor force participation rate from 100 (“100” representing full labor force participation), AEI’s James Pethokoukis reported. If the current labor force participation rate is 62.8 percent, then that means 37.2 percent of the civilian, noninstitutional population is “unemployed.”

Obviously, this does not give us an accurate calculation of unemployment.

Marotta in his calculation includes everyone: Retirees, adolescents, college students and stay-at-home mothers. In other words, he includes people who would ordinarily be excluded from what we refer to as the labor force.

The Wall Street adviser’s figure “is absolutely ridiculous and tremendously overstates labor market weakness. A total joke,” Pethokoukis said in a fiery blog post. “Using Marotta’s ‘logic,’ maybe the ‘real’ unemployment rate is merely the share of … the civilian noninstitutional without a job. That comes out to a whopping 44.5%!”

Now this isn’t to say that the official unemployment rate, which currently rests at 6.7 percent, doesn’t seriously understate the reality of the unemployment situation in the United States.

Indeed, as noted every month by TheBlaze, the U-6 unemployment rate, considered a broader measure of actual unemployment in the U.S., regularly posts a much higher figure than the “official” unemployment rate.

The U-6 rate, which includes not just the unemployed, but also the underemployed and the discouraged, currently sits are around 13.1 percent.

So although it is absolutely accurate to say that the commonly reported figure on unemployment in the United States regularly downplays “real” unemployment, saying that the “actual” unemployment rests somewhere around 37 percent is highly — dubious.

Get Prepped: Food Get the Basics on Stockpiling, Resupply, and Food Preservation

Americans like to eat—the average male consumes just under 2,500 calories a day, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And we’re accustomed to an abundant supply and selection of food no matter what the season, which means that much of it has been transported long distances to our tables. But if a cataclysmic event that disrupted the agricultural industry and the supply system for food, supermarket shelves might quickly empty, and we quickly could go from feast to famine.

One big problem, says Practical Preppers consultant Scott Hunt, is that “people don’t have a good understanding of their needs.” Some will purchase what they’re told is a year’s supply of preserved food, and then find out later that their supply only allows them 800 calories a day—about half of what the typical female normally consumes, and a third of the average requirement for males of all ages. And while someone sitting in a bunker all day might be able to survive on drastically reduced rations, a survivor who is walking long distances and performing tasks with muscle power instead of relying on machines is likely to need even more calories than before. “Start cutting your own wood and using hand tools and going on patrols, and pretty soon you’re up to needing 5,000 or 6,000 calories a day,” Hunt warns. Worse yet, lack of nutritional foresight may mean a diet low in crucial nutrients such as vitamin C or protein, making a survivor weaker and vulnerable to illness.  

“If your food and water are squared away, you’ll be in a much better position to deal with whatever happens,” Hunt explains. “You’re going to have to expend a lot of energy on security to protect yourself. You don’t want to be sick and run down from just eating beans and drinking dirty water. Plus good food is a reward, a morale-boosting thing. I’m not a survivalist. I want to survive in style, and have my fresh salads and an occasional steak.”

That’s why Hunt says that preppers must plan carefully how to maintain their food supply and fill their nutritional needs in the event that chaos erupts. That plan should include storing ample supplies of food, finding sources to replenish that supply, and learning how to preserve food so that it will last as long as possible. Here are some more tips from Practical Preppers:

Stored Food:  Preppers should store at least a year’s supply of food in some location where it is not only secure from theft, but will remain useable for as long as possible. Buying a large supply of canned or freeze-dried food and long-lasting staples such as beans is one way to go. But Hunt says it’s crucial to make sure that the supply provides at least 2,200 calories per day, and covers basic nutritional requirements. Additionally, he suggests that preppers try as much as possible to replicate the sort of diet that they are accustomed to eating. “Don’t buy food just to buy food,” he says. “Make sure it’s something that you’re going to want to eat.” Since dairy animals won’t produce as much milk when they don’t have high-protein grain, it’s wise to store a large supply of powdered milk.

Food Resupply Plan:   Eventually, you’re probably going to need to produce your own food to replenish your food cache. Preppers have a lot of options for becoming nutritionally self-sufficient, but they have to learn how to grow crops and raise animals, and take into account the particular pluses and challenges of their local climate zone. “You have to know what grows in your area,” Hunt explains. “In New York, for example, I could grow a lot of spinach, but not oranges. Ideally, prepper cultivators should develop the ability to grow different crops and to produce harvests throughout the year; in climate zones with colder and harsher winters, greenhouses and indoor hydroponic cultivation may help. Animal protein is a more difficult challenge. Hunting is an option, but in the event of a cataclysm, Hunt expects that local deer and squirrel populations will quickly vanish. Raising cattle is water and land-intensive, so rabbits, goats and chickens—which have the added advantage of producing eggs—are probably a better use of resources. Aquaculture systems to raise fish are another useful protein source.

Methods to Preserve:  An overflowing bounty of food won’t do preppers much good if it all quickly spoils. That’s why learning preservation methods is crucial. A cool cellar for storing fruit and vegetables can prolong their shelf-life. Preppers should learn methods for preserving meat, such as canning and dehydration, and amass an ample supply of food-storage containers. Additionally, it’s vital to have the right equipment, and enough fuel to provide the necessary amount of heat to run a pressure cooker to properly can meat.

Welcome To The Survival Summit Day 2

How to make your own BioDiesel

Cold Weather Preparedness

Hypothermia is a condition where the core body temperature drops below 95 degrees Fahrenheit. The normal body core temperature is defined as between 97.5-99.5 degrees Fahrenheit (36.0-37.5 degrees Celsius).

In your efforts to be medically self-reliant, one of the major factors that must be taken into consideration is your environment. If you haven’t prepared for the weather, you have made your environment your enemy, and it is a formidable one.

The last ice storm caused 27 deaths, some of which were avoidable. Therefore, it’s important to be prepared to prevent death from exposure and to know how to treat someone who is hypothermic.

HOW YOUR BODY LOSES HEAT

Your body has various methods it uses to control its internal “core” temperature, either raising it or lowering it to appropriate levels. The body “core“ refers to the major internal organ systems that are necessary to maintain life, such as your brain, heart, liver, and others.

In cold weather, your blood vessels constrict to conserve heat. Muscles “shiver” as a method of heat production. You can voluntarily increase heat by exertion; it is recommended to “keep moving” in cold environments for this reason. Part of the healthcare provider’s role is to educate each and every member of their family or group on proper planning for outdoor activities. Monitor weather conditions as well as the people you’re sending out in the heat or cold.

The body loses heat in various ways:

Evaporation – the body perspires (sweats), which releases heat from the core.

Radiation – the body loses heat to the environment anytime that the ambient (surrounding) temperature is below the core temperature (say, 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit). For example, you lose more heat if exposed to an outside temperature of 20 degrees F than if exposed to 80 degrees F.

Conduction – The body loses heat when its surface is in direct contact with cold temperatures, as in the case of someone falling from a boat into frigid water. Water, being denser than air, removes heat from the body much faster.

Convection – Heat loss where, for instance, a cooler object is in motion against the body core. The air next to the skin is heated and then removed, which requires the body to use energy to re-heat. Wind Chill is one example of air convection: If the ambient temperature is 32 degrees F but the wind chill factor is at 5 degrees F, you lose heat from your body as if it were actually 5 degrees F.

Most heat is lost from the head area, due to its large surface area and tendency to be uncovered. Direct contact with anything cold, especially over a large area of your body, will cause rapid cooling of your body core temperature. The classic example of this would be a fall into cold water. In the Titanic sinking of 1912, hundreds of people fell into near-freezing water. Within 15 minutes, they were probably beyond medical help.

PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF HYPOTHERMIA

Aside from shivering, the most noticeable symptoms of hypothermia will be related to mental status. The person may appear confused, uncoordinated, and lethargic. As the condition worsens, speech may become slurred; the patient will appear apathetic and uninterested in helping themselves, or may fall asleep. This occurs due to the effect of cooling temperatures on the brain; the colder the body core gets, the slower the brain works. Brain function is supposed to cease at about 68 degrees Fahrenheit, although I have read of exceptional cases in which people (usually children) have survived even lower temperatures.

To prevent hypothermia, you must anticipate the climate that you will be traveling through, including wind conditions and wet weather. Condition yourself physically to be fit for the challenge. Travel with a partner if at all possible, and have enough food and water available for the entire trip.

PREVENTION STRATEGIES FOR HYPOTHERMIA

In your efforts to be medically self-reliant, one of the major factors that must be taken into consideration is your environment. If you haven’t prepared for the weather, you have made your environment your enemy, and it is a formidable one.

Remember the simple acronym C.O.L.D. This stands for: Cover, Overexertion, Layering, and Dry:

Cover. Protect your head by wearing a hat. This will prevent body heat from escaping from your head. Instead of using gloves to cover your hands, use mittens. Mittens are more helpful than gloves because they keep your fingers in contact with one another. This conserves heat.

Overexertion. Avoid activities that cause you to sweat a lot. Cold weather causes you to lose body heat quickly, and wet, sweaty clothing accelerates the process. Rest when necessary; use rest periods to self-assess for cold-related changes. Pay careful attention to the status of your elderly or juvenile group members.

Layering. Loose-fitting, lightweight clothing in layers insulate you well. Use clothing made of tightly woven, water-repellent material for protection against the wind. Wool or silk inner layers hold body heat better than cotton does. Some synthetic materials work well, also. Especially cover the head, neck, hands and feet.

Dry. Keep as dry as you can. Get out of wet clothing as soon as possible. It’s very easy for snow to get into gloves and boots, so pay particular attention to your hands and feet.

Any unconscious person that you encounter in a cold environment is hypothermic until proven otherwise.Immediate action must be taken to reverse the ill effects.

TREATMENT OF HYPOTHERMIA

A person who is hypothermic is in danger of losing their life without your help. Important measures to take are:

Get the person out of the cold and into a warm, dry location. If you’re unable to move the person out of the cold, shield him or her from the cold and wind as much as possible.

Take off wet clothing. If the person is wearing wet clothing, remove them gently. Cover them with layers of dry blankets, including the head (leave the face clear). If you are outside, cover the ground to eliminate exposure to the cold surface.

Monitor breathing. A person with severe hypothermia may be unconscious. Verify that the patient is breathing and check for a pulse. Begin CPR if necessary.

Share body heat. To warm the person’s body, remove your clothing and lie next to the person, making skin-to-skin contact. Then cover both of your bodies with blankets. Some people may cringe at this notion, but it’s important to remember that you are trying to save a life. Gentle massage or rubbing may be helpful, but vigorous movements may traumatize the patient

Give warm oral fluids. If the affected person is alert and able to swallow, provide a warm, nonalcoholic, non-caffeinated beverage to help warm the body. Remember, alcohol does not warm you up!

Use warm, dry compresses. Use a first-aid warm compress (a fluid-filled bag that warms up when squeezed), or a makeshift compress of warm (not hot) water in a plastic bottle. Apply a compress only to the neck, chest wall or groin. These areas will spread the heat much better than putting warm compresses on the extremities, which sometimes worsens the condition.

Avoid applying direct heat. Don’t use hot water, a heating pad or a heating lamp to warm the person. The extreme heat can damage the skin, cause strain on the heart or even lead to cardiac arrest. Don’t rub on extremities that may be frostbitten, as the skin is already traumatized and the condition may be worsened.

Don’t give alcohol. You have all seen photos of St. Bernards with casks of brandy around their necks for lost alpine travelers. Alcohol may give you a warm and fuzzy feeling, but it also expands blood vessels, which causes heat loss!

If left untreated, hypothermia leads to complete failure of various organ systems and to death. Make sure your people are well clothed for the temperature, and monitor them closely if they are outside for extended periods of time in cold weather.