Review of the documentary "End of the Line: Where Have All the Fish Gone?"

Review by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com

My husband, an ecologist, keeps a list of people whose profession matches their name, such as peanut specialist Shelly Nutt, ornithologist Christopher Bird, editor Zachary Read. But the best is Dr. Boris Worm, a marine biologist at Canada's Dalhousie University. He's always been our favorite, because we loved the peculiar marine worms we learned about in grad school.

Abundance of marine fish has decreased 90%
So I was thrilled to finally see Dr. Worm, on screen. He is perhaps the "star" of  the new and excellent documentary "End of the Line".  Worm is much more charming than his name might suggest, but the news he delivered was bad. A dogmatic researcher, Worm analyzed Japanese fish-capture records gathered over several decades, looking for trends in numbers of marine fish.  What he found was disturbing, to say the least. Since "large scale fishing" began in 1952,  the abundance of large oceanic fish has decreased globally by 90%!  

Worm said that when he first realized the magnitude of what we've lost, "it sent shivers down my spine."

The angels would weep
What exactly is "large scale fishing"? The documentary does a wonderful job of impressing upon the viewer the magnitude and power of today's modern fishing techniques. "High-tech industrial vessels are hunting down every known edible species of fish," said narrator Ted Danson.  Too many boats with too much capacity are chasing too few fish. For example, the "long-lining industry" sets 1.4 billion hooks annually, on heavy-duty fishing line that could encircle the globe more than 550 times. The mouth of a single large trawling net could accommodate thirteen 747 jetliners. Fishing vessels, and airplanes that track schools of fish illegally, are equipped with so much technological equipment, fish have no chance of escaping.  Bottom trawlers, which drag nets across sea beds and coral reefs, cut down everything in their path including the inedible, such as sea fans, corals, and sponges. The unintentionally caught or "by-catch" include sea birds, hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, sharks, whales, and dolphins.  Seven million tons of by-catch are tossed back into the ocean each year, dead.

Said Dr. Callum Roberts of York University in the U.K., "the signs of destruction brought up on deck would make an angel weep."

The film's strengths are its personal portraits
Most of the stats and data presented in the documentary are probably available from various websites, journals and books.  But the strengths of the DVD are its emotional impact, and the persuasive presentation of the whole story in one sitting. Its emotional impressions are delivered via personal stories of passionate scientists on a quest for the truth and solutions, and indigenous fishermen in handmade boats, now unable to feed their families. Said Adama, a young Senegalese fisherman, "The sea has betrayed us. If my children grow up here today where there is no future, how will they think of me as a father?".

China falsified catch data for 14 years, concealing a global decline
Until 2002, the scientific community was under the impression that, despite all odds, the world catch was increasing each year.  So, although scientists were worried, no one was too alarmed. Turns out, China had been reporting false catch data for years. The world catch is actually decreasing every year and has been since 1988.

Mitsubishi stockpiles a disappearing species - for future profits?
Another of the compelling stories told on the DVD involves the demise of bluefin tuna, as related by Roberto Mielgo, a man dedicated to identifying the perpetrators of an impending extinction. Scientists have recommended that fishing of bluefin be limited to 10,000 tons per year to allow the species to recover from previous overfishing. A ceiling as high as 15,000 might prevent collapse of the population. But for political reasons, governments have sanctioned a catch of 29,000 tons annually. In reality, 61,000 tons were caught in  one recent year - 1/3 of the entire remaining bluefin population. Fishermen and corporations cheat because they can, and they don't get caught. In the documentary, a passionate Mielgo described the role of Mitsubishi in the decline of bluefin tuna.  He believes the company is stockpiling bluefin for the day when the species will be extinct and the price of their highly regarded flesh will skyrocket. The bluefin situation demonstrates what multinational corporations, international fishing policy, and consumer demand can do to a wild species.

"We are crazy!"
Several scientists and fisheries workers expressed pessimism about human nature and the ultimate depletion of the ocean. Said professional diver Haidar El Ali, "Man is not going to change and the sea is going to be dead.  Because man is crazy.  We are crazy!"

Steve Palumbi of Stanford University said that, assuming things remain the same, the ocean will be devoid of edible fish by the year 2048.  Added Charles Clover, the author of the book on which the documentary is based, "When we start really feeling the effects of climate change, when we start running out of food to feed ourselves, at the same time we will have squandered one of the best resources we've ever had on the planet."

What will remain? Jellyfish, plankton, and.....worms.  Lots of marine worms.

Solutions
Toward the end, the DVD turned to solutions. Farmed fish is not a solution, because more wild fish (such as anchovies) are harvested to feed the farmed stock than are produced for our consumption...a clearly illogical and unsustainable endeavor.  Five kg of anchovies are required to produce 1 kg of farmed salmon.

Future "global marine reserves" comprising 20-30% of the oceans were proposed with some enthusiasm in the DVD - large areas of ocean where commercial fishing would be banned.  Nice idea, but much of today's commercial fishing is carried out in violation of governmental or international regulations.  How would protection of these reserves be enforced?  The DVD said $12-14 billion per year could manage the reserves.  Maybe.

According to the filmmakers and Dr. Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, Alaska is on the frontline in the battle to conserve the sea.  The number of fishing boats off the coast of Alaska is carefully monitored.  Catch limits are set at sustainable levels or below.  Fishing boats are given only a limited amount of time to fish.  While the catch rate in the North Sea is 50%, Alaska's catch rate is only 10%.

The documentary mentioned several companies that are making an effort to conserve marine fishes.  By 2011, Walmart will sell only fish approved by the Marine Stewardship Council, a board that certifies sustainable fishing.  Ninety percent of the fish served by McDonalds are MSC approved. Two-thirds of Birds Eye fish are from sustainable sources.

Recommendations for consumers
The filmmakers asserted that, among the world's problems, the overharvesting of marine fish is one of the easiest problems to fix. They recommended:
1) Ask before you buy. Eat only sustainably harvested seafood. (For a guide, see www.seafoodwatch.org). 
2) Tell politicians to cut the fishing fleet.
3) Join the campaign for protected marine reserves and responsible fishing.

I wish they had stressed...
The DVD mentioned the value of eating lower on the marine food chain - eating anchovies ourselves instead of feeding them to farmed fish. And it mentioned very briefly changing consumer habits. But the film never addressed, that I recall, the option of not eating fish at all. We don't need to eat fish, or food from any animal sources. Ecologists, MDs, nutrition scientists and many, many popular writers have asserted that humans can reduce our ecological impact and our carbon footprint, and improve our health, by avoiding animal products in our diet altogether. Why does a filmmaker on such a dire subject as complete depletion of the oceans not explore this avenue of future action?

The other topic I would like to have seen explored is the obvious suffering of the fish in many of the scenes in the DVD. Conscious animals were often hauled on board boats by stabbing and yanking them with large hooks, then clubbing them to death or tossing them down chutes to be buried by more live fish.  The camera many times showed rivers of blood on decks of ships. Fish are vertebrates, like ourselves, and have brains not that dissimilar from our own.  They feel pain; they feel fear. They don't look as much like us as other vertebrates, they're not cuddly - but they are sentient. For more details about studies demonstrating the sensibilities of fish, see Peter Singer and Jim Mason's book about animals as food, The Way We Eat.

Awareness is key....show this important film to students
The strength of the DVD, in my opinion, was not its prescription for solutions, but its touching and memorable portrayal of the scientists and activists so desperately trying to educate consumers of the world....our oceans are on track to be empty 38 years from today.  If we're not part of the solution, we're part of the problem.  Awareness is the first step toward change. And this documentary does an excellent job of dramatically increasing awareness. I strongly recommend it to teachers. Show it to your classes. Talk about it and brainstorm solutions. The next generation has a short window of opportunity to take action. Or the jellyfish, plankton, and motly assortment of marine worms my husband and I found so intriguing will be the sole inhabitants of our grandchildren's seas.

Extra material with the DVD:
The DVD comes with a wallet-sized card, "National Sustainable Seafood Guide." The card lists Best Choices, Good Alternatives, and Avoid.  It also mentions these websites as useful:

• www.seafoodwatch.org (info about selecting sustainable seafood)
• www.endoftheline.org
• www.msc.org (the Marine Stewardship Council website)

Some of my earlier posts on fishing, fish farming, greenhouse gases from raising livestock:

End of the Line: new book about how overfishing is changing the world 

Farmed salmon versus wild salmon 

North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to rising seas

Lice from fish farms attack wild salmon

Number of imperiled fish doubles in 20 years

Livestock account for 51% of annual greenhouse gases

Puffins and whales endangered by fishing industry; online guides to choosing healthiest fish

Celebrity Chef imbraces animal welfare and eco-friendly fishing

I fell off a cliff while seeking whales, seals, and other marine mammals

Tuna is the biggest source of mercury from fish: is it safe to eat fish?

Top 10 ways to help wildlife

My book about the hazards of overfishing and of fish farms:

Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet 

Key words: ocean fish long-lines longlines gill nets overfishing overharvesting of ocean declining fish populations depletion of the oceans marine biology trawlers trawling coral reefs End of the Line Boris Worm Charles Clover marine fish oceanography fish farms Marine Stewardship Council

10,000 pythons breeding in Florida, says new USGS report

This post now on Google News!

Nine species of introduced giant snakes could pose risks to U.S. ecosystems, according to a report recently released by the U.S. Geological Survey. The giant species now present in the U.S. are descended from imported pets that have been released outdoors.  Already there are more than 10,000 Burmese pythons reproducing in the wild in south Florida.  Boa constrictors are also known to be reproducing in south Florida. The USGS says there's "strong evidence" that an African python may have a breeding population in Florida too.

Some snakes big enough to eat people
All nine potentially risky species are constrictors - nonpoisonous species that kill their prey by wrapping around them and squeezing until the prey can't breathe.  The USGS report says that "most...would not be large enough to consider a person as suitable prey."  But some of then are large enough to eat people, such as the reticulated python, which can grow longer than 26 feet.  This python is the snake "most associated with unprovoked human fatalities in the wild."  Reticulated pythons have been both sighted and captured in south Florida, but are not yet known to be breeding there.

Mature individuals of other species - Burmese python, northern and southern African pythons - have also been documented killing people in their native range, although unprovoked attacks are rare.

Invasive giant snakes threaten more states than Florida
Several species of giant snakes are considered more "high-risk species" for the U.S.than others because they
(1) tolerate cooler temps and could put larger areas of the U.S. mainland at risk - not just Florida
(2) are a major threat to native mammals and birds
(3) are common in the pet trade, hence likely to be released within the U.S.

Among these "high risk" species are the boa constrictors and yellow anacondas, which could breed north of Florida in areas with mild winters.  

Above, a boa constrictor in Manuel Antonio Parque Nacional in Costa Rica.  Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Above, our friend Jose Luis holding up an immature boa on his farm near Limon, Costa Rica.  

Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Nicole the resident biologist, Ken Kneidel and Sadie Kneidel examine an immature boa at Palo Verde Biological Station of OTS, in Costa Rica.  Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Several species of anacondas have also been sighted or captured in south Florida. Anacondas can grow longer than 25 or 26 feet too, and I believe have been known to kill humans, although the USGS report didn't say that.  I've read that the record length on an anaconda is 28 feet.

Deep in the jungle, we found a beheaded anaconda 
Below are two anaconda pictures my son Alan took on a foray into the Amazon rainforest in 2008. We were slopping and tripping through a difficult swamp in an effort to spot hoatzins (birds) when we passed a family of indigenous Peruvians heading back toward the river, returning from a hunting/foraging trip. All of them, including grandma, were slogging barefoot through the most treacherous swamp I've ever experienced, having submerged 3" long thorns. (I stepped on two of those thorns; they went right through my rubber boots.) But the Peruvian family seemed unperturbed. The whole family had homemade packs on their backs, and one pack carried a chopped up anaconda they intended to eat. The head, as you see, they had left behind.

The head of an Amazonian anaconda, severed by an indigenous family hunting for food. Photos by Alan Kneidel.

Introduced snakes can devastate native wildlife
The USGS scientists who wrote the new report said that U.S. birds, mammals, and reptiles in areas of potential invasion have never been exposed to huge snakes before, snakes longer than 20 feet and weighing more than 200 pounds.  Said Dr. Gordon Rodda, a USGS scientist, "Compounding the risk to native species and ecosystems is that these snakes mature early, produce large numbers of offspring, travel long distances, and have broad diets that allow them to eat most native birds and mammals."  He also said that most of these snakes can live in a variety of habitats, including urban or suburban areas. Boa constrictors and northern African pythons are already thriving in metropolitan Miami.

"We have a cautionary tale with the American island of Guam and the brown treesnake," said Robert Reed, an invasive-species scientist with the USGS, and coauthor of the report.  "Within 40 years of its arrival, this invasive snake has decimated the island's native wildlife -10 of Guam's 12 native forest birds, one of its two bat species, and about half of its native lizards are gone."  Reed goes on to say that "these giant snakes threaten to destabilize some of our most precious ecosystems and parks, primarily through predation on vulnerable native species."

What can you do?
Don't keep snakes as pets, and if you must do so, don't get snakes that grow into large constrictors. If you have one, or know someone who does, there are alternatives to letting them go outdoors after they grow too large to keep at home. Google "reptile sanctuary" to find a facility near you that accepts unwanted pets. If googling doesn't help, call a nature center or zoo near you for referral to a nearby sanctuary for unwanted pets. Releasing non-native pets outdoors is never a good idea.

More snake pics by Sally, below

A coiled and wary Bushmaster, among the most venomous vipers in Latin America. Photo taken along a trail at La Selva Biological Station by Sally Kneidel, PhD

 

A coral snake at Arenal Volcano Parque Nacional in Costa Rica, photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD.

Sources:

Catherine Pucket (USGS) et al.  10/13/2010."Report documents the risks of giant invasive snakes in the U.S."  USGS Release. USGS: science for a changing world.

Paul Rauber. Jan/Feb 2010. "Woe is us: ready, set, panic. Snakes on plains." Sierra magazine.

Some of my previous posts on the pet trade, invasive species, and snakes:

Why do girls fear snakes and spiders more?

Lawn is a dirty word.

Housecats are invasive species. 

Housecats kill hundreds of millions of species annually

How to convert a lawn to a lawn to a native meadow or woodland

Lawns are 5th largest "crop" in terms of lawn use 

Monkeys and parrots pouring from the jungle

Keywords: invasive species snakes threats to wildlife wildlife trade endangered ecosystems python anaconda, boa constrictor python predation by housecats predation on birds

U.S. imports 20,000 primates per year

Photo of vervet monkey in Africa by Sally Kneidel, PhD

This post now on Google News and on BasilandSpice

Text and photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

U.S. is world's leading importer of primates
I learned while researching our book Going Green that the United States is the biggest importer of primates worldwide. According to an American University document, the U.S. imports more than 20,000 primates per year!  The U.S. imports four times more primates than any other single country, and many of those primates are wild-caught.

I was shocked and puzzled to hear it. And not very happy.

The primate trade threatens populations of wild primates
This information is disturbing because more than 130 of the world’s primate species are endangered. Although the leading threats to primate populations are destruction of tropical forests and poor protection of nature reserves, the primate trade and black-market trade are major contributors to the worldwide decline of wild primates and other wildlife.. In tropical countries, wild primates are captured and sold for food, for pets, and increasingly, for use in our research labs.

Here's the real puzzler: I also learned that the U.S. is third in the world in the export of primates - those that are bred here in captivity. Why would the U.S. import wild-caught primates, and then export the ones that are bred here in cages?

Turns out the answer is pretty easy. Wild-caught primates cost only a third as much as cage-bred animals. Big savings for a research outfit on a tight budget.

Paul McCartney was right...
So what happens to the 20,000 primates that are imported here each year for medical and pharmaceutical research? When I contemplate that question, I think about Paul McCartney's saying "If slaughterhouses had glass walls, we'd all be vegetarians." Likewise, if research facilities that use animals as subjects had glass walls, we'd all pay attention to those little labels on personal-care products that say "Not tested on animals." And we'd put pressure on medical schools and pharmaceutical companies to use more computer modeling, films, and plastic models for training and testing purposes.

Animals as commodities
Animals in research labs do not, in general, lead happy lives. Many suffer lives of torment and profound discomfort, boredom, or pain, equivalent to the lives of animals raised on factory farms. Research animals and animals on factory farms are regarded as commodities to generate profit for their owners, who are motivated to shave pennies off animal care by skimping on rations, on housing, on cleanliness, space, and medical attention. If you doubt it, check out the footage of Covance, one of the biggest companies to do this work under contract to medical and pharmaceutical companies. Yet...the public knows little about it. How can we care if we don't know?

Two companies make a small step in the right direction
That's why I was mildly excited to learn about a sort-of new approach announced by two North Carolina animal research facilities. North Carolina is the third largest biotech hub in the United States, with more than two dozen animal labs that keep primates, dogs, pigs, mice, and other animals for lab research.  For decades, the location and specific activities of these labs have been guarded secrets, to protect against public outrage, and sabotage by animals-rights groups. But two of those companies, Hamner Institutes for Health Sciences (in Research Triangle Park) and Synecor Labs in Durham, have recently announced a collaboration with the UNC Pharmacy School to form the N.C. Biomedical Innovation Network. (Synecor provides dogs, cats, and pigs to test medical stents and other surgical devices.)  This new collaboration requires the involved organizations to follow "good laboratory practices" that include "proper animal husbandry" says Naina Bhasin, a biologist who heads business and tech development at Hamner. "You want to reduce stress to make sure that the animals are happy and healthy," Bhasin said. Colleen Stack N'diaye, medical director for Synecor Labs, agreed, adding that crowded and dirty conditions skew lab results.

We need transparency
Animal activists are skeptical.  The fact that the two companies announce that they intend to strive for less-stressful conditions says volumes about what's going on right now. Still, their statement is an indication that these companies are feeling the heat from animal-rights activists. Change often starts small. Let's hope the rate of change accelerates rapidly. Because right now, too many animals are suffering for our medical, pharmaceutical, and personal care products, and for the animal products for sale in your local supermarket.  It's not necessary, and as Paul McCartney said, transparency could put an end to the abuse very quickly. 

Source:
Sabine Vollmer. "New team lifts veil on animal testing: 2 Research Triangle labs, UNC Chapel Hill school will employ stricter treatment standards than is the norm" The Charlotte Observer.  February 15, 2010.

Some of my previous posts about animal testing, the black market in animals, and factory farming:
U.S. labs import thousands of wild primates for research.

The wildlife trade, forestry, and the value of activism

Monkeys and parrots pouring from the jungle

Obama to fight consolidation of farms: good news for small farms and consumers.

Vervet monkey in Africa, photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Key words:  animal research primate research Covance imported primates medical research pharmaceutical research Hamner Institute Synecor Laboratories North Carolina Biomedical Innovation Network factory farming Paul McCartney if slaughterhouses had glass walls

Recovery of endangered fox a model for conservationists

Text and photos by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com

A red fox on San Juan Island. Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Red foxes are common on lots of islands on the west coast of the U.S., many of them introduced. But Santa Cruz Island, near Santa Barbara, CA, has its own native fox species. The "Santa Cruz Island fox" looks very much like a red fox, but is a distinct species. It was added to the endangered species list in 2004, after a decline from 1500 to fewer than 100 individuals.  

DDT to blame
Their decline was due to a series of events that started with DDT.  Ocean dumping of DDT wiped out the island's fish-eating bald eagles.  When that happened, golden eagles moved in from the mainland to take advantage of the vacated space and dine on the island's feral pigs.  But the golden eagles ate not only the pigs but the foxes too. The golden eagles hunted the foxes almost to extinction.

Luckily for the foxes, the island is jointly owned by the Nature Conservancy and the National Park Service.  So when the foxes were declared endangered, 10 pairs were captured and bred in captivity.  Meanwhile, the Park Service and Nature Conservancy together relocated the golden eagles and brought in bald eagle chicks.  The feral pigs and sheep, which had overgrazed the island, were removed.

Fox dilemma fixed
Today, the island and foxes are making a speedy recovery.

Says Lotus Vermeer, the Nature Conservancy's project director for Santa Cruz island, "This is the fastest recovery of a listed endangered species in U.S. history that we know of."

Endemic succulents and other native plants are regrowing.  Oak seedlings abound, now that feral pigs no longer eat the acorns. The island has seven pairs of breeding bald eagles. And the foxes are rebounding.  Says Vermeer, "Five years ago, I never saw a fox on the island; a sighting was a rare event. Now you see foxes all the time - you can't help it."


New model for other endangered-species recovery plans
Vermeer says that the partnership between the Nature Conservancy and the Park Service is a new model for endangered-species recovery.  She expects the fox to be removed from the endangered species list in 5 to 10 years. 

 Red fox scratching, on San Juan Island. Photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD

There are plenty of other candidates who could use a successful model of species recovery, such as black-footed ferrets, gray wolves, grizzly bears, prairie dogs, red wolves, Florida panthers, mountain lions, lynxes, badgers - to name a few.  No doubt, the fact that the Park Service and Nature Conservancy jointly own  the island was a major factor in their ability to manipulate animal populations - removing invaders and reintroducing native species. As owners, they also had no complaints from private property owners or commercial outfits to contend with.  I don't know how much money was spent on this project, but with the Park Service involved, it could have been plenty.

Still, a good model is a good model. It provides hope that other ecosystems can be restored to their original state. Nothing like a good success story to thwart objectors.  And where commercial interests are involved, there will always be objectors.

Source:
Curtis Runyan. "Outfoxed: Island restoration brings record recovery." Nature Conservancy Magazine. Summer 2009.

Some of my previous posts about wildlife on the west coast of North America:
Best place in the world to spot Orcas from shore

Puffins and whales endangered by fishing industry: online guides to choosing healthiest fish

In search of Northwest birds

We saw one humpback whale: the good and bad on whale-watching

I fell off a cliff while seeking whales, seals, and other marine mammals

Some of my previous posts about wolves:
Gray wolves booted from endangered species list

On Friday, Wyoming condemns wolves to slaughter

Wolves in danger from the U.S. government, once again

Keywords: Santa Cruz Island fox red fox west coast wildlife endangered species recovery plan Nature Conservancy wolves whales

Why do girls fear snakes and spiders more? Does it start in infancy?

Text by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com
Photos by Alan Kneidel
See Alan's blog at http://goodbykneidel.blogspot.com 

 Photo of gopher snake by Alan Kneidel

I love snakes. Every time I take a walk around the neighborhood, I stop and examine every squashed snake carcass I see on the road, of which there are many. I lament the loss of every one of them.

My parents, on the other hand, killed every snake they saw when I was a kid, and called all of them "copperheads."  They were protecting us young'uns, or so they thought. I didn't realize how many people kill all snakes until I spent three years teaching elementary science.  I used to bring a lot of snakes in to show my students. Every single time I did this, a dozen hands would shoot up begging to make a comment.  And almost every single comment was "My daddy killed a snake last week with a shovel" or "My granddaddy chopped a snake in half in the garden."  No one ever said that a snake their family saw was a welcomed or even a tolerated sight. And all of the snakes were allegedly "copperheads." After awhile, I began my snake lessons by banning stories about family members killing snakes; I couldn't take it anymore.  It's a miracle that the U.S. has any remaining snakes at all. 

Why are we so afraid of snakes? As a person partial to snakes, I have little patience with it.

Are girls genetically primed to fear snakes?
I read recently an intriguing study about fear of snakes, published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior. That study is the subject of this post.  Researcher David Rakison of Carnegie Mellon University looked at differences in the way 11-month-old humans react to pictures of snakes and spiders.  Specifically, he looked at differences between male and female children. His findings surprised me.  

Rakison showed pairs of images to the youngsters in his study.  First he paired either a happy or a fearful cartoon face with a snake, a spider, a flower, or a mushroom.  After that, Rakison timed how long each baby looked at new pairings of images that were different from the orignial pairings they had viewed. He wanted to see if the new pairings would seem odd to them and would cause them to look longer, out of puzzlement or curiousity.

Here's what Rakison found
Apparently the girls more readily associated the snake or spider with a fearful face. When the girls were subsequently shown a happy face with the snake or spider, they looked at it a long time (as if trying to make sense of something surprising).  With the little boys, no pairings of images were more interesting than any others. The boys did not find the snake or spider paired with a happy face surprising or interesting.

Photo of tarantula in Amazon rainforest by Alan Kneidel

Rakison said that this finding (if confirmed by other studies) indicates that human females have evolved an aversion to snakes and spiders. That trait evolved because women in our evolutionary history were in charge of protecting their children from the bites of snakes or spiders. Another study in Sweden found that snake and spider phobias are four times more common in women than in men.

Photo of black-tailed rattlesnake by Alan Kneidel

Not so fast...
says Vanessa LoBue of the University of Virginia. She disagrees with Rakison's findings. If girls gaze longer at the pairing of a snake with a smiling face, it's because 11-month-old girls are better at recognizing facial expressions than male babies, and therefore understand the pairings better. This understanding would account for their surprise and longer gazes.

LoBue offers evidence from her own studies that 5-year-old girls recognize threatening and nonthreatening expressions faster than boys. Do 11-month-old girls have that capacity too? We need to find out! What do you think?

Maybe women are squeamish because of gender stereotypes
I personally don't believe that girls are "primed" genetically to be more fearful of snakes and spiders. I think it's cultural, that little girls learn to act squeamish and fearful by watching older females. I believe women often behave as though they're fearful and vulnerable because that's the sexy female prototype that's been promoted by our Western culture since who knows when. Powerful fearless women are, in popular culture, not widely admired. That's changing slowly. But women are still encouraged (often very subtly) to appear helpless and afraid like Olive-Oyl, while Popeye eats his spinach and beats the tar out of Brutus. I agree with LoBue. Rakison's results can be explained by female children's acuity in reading human facial expressions.

Or maybe girls already been affected by cultural expectations for their gender, at the age of 11-months!

I would love to hear reader comments.

 Photo of a hunting spider in Bolivia by Alan Kneidel

Sources:
David Rakison. "Does women's greater fear of snakes and spiders originate in infancy?" Evolution and Human Behavior. Volume 30. November, 2009.

Bruce Bower. "Girls but not boys may be primed for arachnophobia, ophidiophobia: Fear of crawly, slithery things could begin before first birthday. Science News, September 26, 2009.

Antidepressants may not work for the mildly or moderately depressed

 Text and photo by Sally Kneidel, PhD, of sallykneidel.com

According to the CDC, about one in five Americans are affected by depression and/or anxiety. That seems about right to me, or maybe even a low estimate. Perhaps women talk about it more, but it seems to me at least half my close friends struggle with anxiety or depression at some point. Could be because it's February right now. You know, seasonal affective disorder (SAD).  SAD is depression brought on by the diminished daylight hours of winter. Check out the symptoms and solutions for season affective disorder on WebMD. It's more common than I used to think.

But anyway, I didn't start this post to discuss depression.

What caught my attention, and what I want to tell you about, is a recent report about antidepressants. This  report was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.. The authors of the study concluded that antidepressants don't seem to work well for people with mild or moderate symptoms of depression.

A depression-rating questionnaire
To back up for a moment, it turns out that pharmaceutical companies test their new medications only on subjects who are severely or very severely depressed, because the tests are then more likely to show that the medicines are effective.  In order to qualify for a clinical trial of a new antidepressant, a subject must score over 19 on a standardized test (the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ) that rates the degree of depression. A score of 20 or more qualifies you as severely or very severely depressed.  I understand the pharmaceutical companies' perspective - they want their drugs to be approved by the FDA, so they pick the subjects most likely to improve on the med being tested.

But is it ethical, to then claim that the medicine is effective for people with any degree of depression?

Perhaps not. Says Gregory Simon, a mental health researcher in Seattle, "About half the people treated by doctors fall into the moderate or even mild range."

Do antidepressants work better than placebos?
In the JAMA study referenced below, Fournier and DeRubeis and their colleagues compared depressed people taking an antidepressant with depressed people taking a placebo. They grouped their subjects according to their score on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. For subjects who scored less than 25 on the test, the antidepressants had so significant effect or only "a small effect" over the placebo.  For subjects scoring higher than 25 on the test, the antidepressants did have "a clearly significant effect."

The authors of  the JAMA article concluded that "the magnitude of benefit of antidepressant medication may be minimal or nonexistent, on average, in patients with mild or moderate symptoms."

So what does it mean? Should mildly or moderately depressed people be prescribed antidepressants? Is there any chance of their being significantly helped by the medications?

Dr. Philip Wang, deputy director of the National Institute of Mental Health, says that consumers with mild symptoms shouldn't necessarily be scared off drugs.

"They don't not work for everyone, and they don't work for everyone," Wang says. "I think buried within the group are people who do respond if they have mild or moderate depression." He recommends that doctors monitor patients who don't respond to meds, and offer then alternative treatments instead.

Wang sounds a bit evasive.

$9.5 billion in 2008 sales of antidepressants
One option for doubtful patients is to take the test (link below), print this post, and show it to your doctor. Why take meds if they're not helping? Most antidepressants have side effects that can be unpleasant...including sexual dysfunction, headaches, constipation, and stomach upset. Are we being bilked by the pharmaceutical companies?  According to www.forbes.com, antidepressants were the third most popular type of drug dispensed in 2008, with $9.5 billion in sales! The strategies of the huge pharmaceutical companies are working, that much is clear. But then again…..when meds do help with depression, they can help a lot.

It’s hard to know for sure. I do know that we need more studies to tell us definitively if antidepressants can help mildly or moderately depressed people, who comprise a huge segment of our population.

Sources:
"Treatment works: get help for depression and anxiety". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
www.cdc.gov

"What is seasonal affective disorder (SAD)?" www.WebMD.com

Jay C. Fournier, Robert J. DeRubeis et al. "Antidepressant drug effects and depression severity." Journal of the American Medical Association 303:47-53. January 6, 2010.

Alix Spiegel. "Meds may only help those with severe depression." All Things Considered, NPR. January 6, 2010.

Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Rebecca Ruiz. "America's most medicated states." 8/17/09 www.forbes.com

Keywords:: depression, health, medication, antidepressants, antidepressants work only for severe depression, depression questionnaire, depression rating scale

Climate change is speeding up insect breeding

Orange-sulphur butterfly, photo by Alan Kneidel

This post now appearing on the DailyMe

Those of us concerned about greenhouse gases and climate change have a new study to ponder. This study, from Dr. Florian Altermatt at UC Davis, documents once again the biological effects of global warming.

Altermatt examined insect data from Central Europe. Temperatures have been increasing there for decades, but particularly since 1980. This European warming trend is increasing the number of generations per year for some insects.

Altermatt discovered this by analyzing climate records and population data for 263 butterfly and moth species in Central Europe. He included only species that are known to have more than one generation per year, at least occasionally.

Because the warming trend in Central Europe has been more dramatic since 1980, he compared insect-breeding data before 1980 to insect-breeding data after 1980.

He found that, for 190 of the 263 species examined (=72%), the second or subsequent generation became more pronounced after 1980 compared with before 1980.  In other words, for most of the species he examined, there were more generations per year after 1980.

So what?
What difference does that make to the ecology of our planet?  There are a number of potential repercussions, few of them good.

For one thing, many crop pests are larvae of moths or butterflies, such as the cabbage white and the tomato hornworm - to name just a couple from my own garden.  A population that is having more generations per year will grow in number faster than a population with fewer generations per year, all other things being equal. So global warming could mean faster-proliferating insect pests, hence higher numbers of insect pests on crops.

In addition to that, higher numbers of a particular insect species can lead that species to deplete its food source, or outcompete and eliminate its competitors for limited resources such as food or breeding sites.

Ecosystems can be altered if just one species goes awry
Another potential result of an overblown insect population could be increases in the predators of this insect species. Predators of butterflies, moths, and their larvae include birds, lizards, mice, toads, parasitic wasps, and many more. If these predator populations increase, this could have a dampening effect on the other prey of these predators, prey that could have economic value - or could be significant species in their respective ecosystems.  As ecologists have demonstrated repeatedly, eliminating any species from an ecosystem, or even just changing the density of one species, can have profound effects on the stability of the ecosystem as a whole.  Ecosystems are highly complex systems whose parts are intricately interdependent. 

The principle that Altermatt demonstrated is far more significant than the particulars he reported.  Specifically, he showed that 72% of the moths and butterflies he looked at in Central Europe have more generations per year now that the climate is warmer.  But his data suggest something far more sinister....that any or all terrestrial invertebrates may have their breeding disrupted in some fashion by climate change.

Most animal species are invertebrates
The vast majority of animal species on this planet are invertebrates, which are much more directly susceptible to temperature changes, since their body temperature fluctuates with the air or water around them. When invertebrates are warmer, all of their physiological processes are speeded up.  This is unlike warm-blooded mammals and birds (including humans), whose body temperatures remain the same regardless of ambient temperatures (disregarding accidents such as a plunge into frigid waters).

Are negative consequences inevitable?
We don't really know. Animals that have more generations can adapt faster to changing conditions. Or maybe more insects could mean more prey for birds that are declining.  It's conceivable that there could be benefits to having insects breed faster.  Is that the most likely outcome?  I don't know.  But I don't think so.  The few stable ecosystems we have remaining are the result of millions of years of co-evolution.  It's hard to think that a few years of random interference is going to improve millions of years of fine-tuning.

What can be done?
Reduce your own carbon footprint.  Residents of the United States generate more greenhouse gases per person than residents of any other country in the world.

The easiest thing you can do, every day,  is to eat fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute).  The Worldwatch Institute, a prominent environmental think-tank, reports that the livestock sector generates 51% of greenhouse gases worldwide.

Find ways to drive less. Carpool, ride your bike, take public transportation.  If you do drive, use a fuel-efficient car.

Choose a passive-solar home, which can reduce your heating and cooling needs to almost nothing.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has reported that our diets, our transportation, and the way we heat and cool our homes are the biggest consumer contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in general.

Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and learn more about how to reduce your own carbon footprint.

We have only a short window of opportunity over the next few years to have any hope of slowing global climate change.  Once the ice sheets are all melted, the loss of all that white ice reflecting solar radiation away from the planet will accelerate the process of global warming.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:
Florian Altermatt.  12/22/2009. "Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths." Proceedings of the Royal Society B.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my recent posts about climate change:
North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to climate change

Tree deaths have doubled due to climate change

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car 

Keywords:: climate change greenhouse gases global warming carbon footprint Florian Altermatt increase number of generations in butterflies Central Europe voltinism Proceedings of Royal Society B UC Davis

Natural daylight may improve youngsters' eyesight

Photo by Sally Kneidel, Phd

This post now a Google News Link and on wwwbasilandspice.com

In the last 30 years, the number of nearsighted Americans has increased dramatically, by 66%.  Nearsightedness, or myopia, is the inability  to focus on distant objects. In the early 1970s, 25% of Americans were nearsighted. Now, says epidemiologist Dr. Susan Vitale of the National Eye Institute, 42% of Americans are nearsighted.

Why?

Does too much reading cause nearsightedness?
Scientists have believed for decades that nearsightedness is caused by genetics (family history) and the amount of "near-work" that a person does, such as reading. For Americans, that could include watching TV and playing video games. Dr. Don Mutti, an optometrist at Ohio State, says, "Kepler wrote...400 years ago, that he thought his nearsightedness was due to his intense study of astronomical tables and so forth."

Dr. Mutti has been researching the causes of myopia.  For the past 20 years, Dr. Mutti has followed a group from childhood to adulthood, tracking their habits to see who develops myopia.  Heredity does, to a large degree, influence who will become myopic later on.  But Dr. Mutti has discovered something else, something surprising and unexpected.

In his study, the amount of "near-work" such as reading and watching TV did not predict who would be nearsighted later. Said Dr. Mutti about his most current research, "near-work had no influence at all".

Dr. Mutti found an unexpected cause...
What did predict nearsightedness was the amount of time spent indoors vs. outdoors during childhood.

Said Dr. Mutti: "If you have two nearsighted parents and you engage in a low level of outdoor activity, your chances of becoming myopic by the 8th grade are about 60%. If children engaged in over 14 hours per week of outdoor activity, their chances of becoming nearsighted were now only 20%.  So it was quite a dramatic reduction in the risk of becoming myopic."

This could seem to support the "near-work" theory - if you're not outside, then you must be inside reading or watching TV. But Mutti looked at that possibility, and ruled it out. Mutti looked at exercise too, and ruled that out as well.  Children exercising indoors did not get the same benefit of better vision as children spending time outdoors.

Outdoor light may benefit the eye
Mutti is now conducting a study to test his suspicion that outdoor light levels may be responsible, that outdoor light may have a beneficial effect on the eye. He suspects that outdoor light may change some aspects of retinal physiology.

Let's use natural lighting in all our schools
Sounds good to me. Daylight can save energy, as well as possibly preserving our vision.  In fact, one of the most cost-effective changes a school can make toward saving energy is using natural daylight to illuminate classrooms.  See Jeff Barrie's award-winning documentary "Kilowatt Ours" or the article on Treehugger to learn more about schools that have made the move to natural daylight, and have saved money and reduced their carbon footprint by doing so. Could these progressive schools be protecting eyes and protecting the planet at the same time?

Sources:
Susan Vitale, PhD, et al. December 2009. "Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004." Archives of Ophthalmology 127(12):1632-1639.

Deborah Amos. January 11, 2010. "Medical detectives focus on myopia". Morning Edition, National Public Radio.

Nathan Seppa. January 16, 2010. "Nearsightedness increasing." Science News. www.sciencenews.org

Jeff Barrie. "Kilowatt Ours".

Jasmin Malik Chua. "Natural light gives you smartypants". August 28, 2007. www.treehugger.com

I took the photo of the child above in the village of Welverdiend, South Africa. A few of my previous posts about Welverdiend are "An African village seeking solutions" and "African village of Welverdiend believes in the power of good" and "My visit to a traditional healer".  Enter the word Welverdiend in this blog's search window to find more about visiting the village.

North Carolina's vital coastal breeding grounds vulnerable to rising seas

This post now on Google News and on wwwbasilandspice.com

 Map of coastal NC with barrier islands,  

courtesy of www.cop.noaa.gov

I've written posts about Florida and Louisana losing ground to rising seas. Both states are projected to lose at least 10% of their land mass this century.

North Carolina hasn't gotten has much press as Louisiana and Florida, but NC is among the states most vulnerable to rising seas, reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Coastal inundation in North Carolina would affect industries and wildlife far beyond the state's borders.

The Outer Banks protect the mainland
North Carolina's mainland coast is at present protected by a continuous arc of barrier islands known as the Outer Banks. The Outer Banks take the full brunt of the hurricanes and tropical storms that often strike the Atlantic coast of the southern U.S. Over the past few decades, the Outer Banks have become increasingly developed with expensive vacation real estate as well as year-round communities.

One undeveloped area on the Outer Banks is the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, which remains a breeding ground for sea turtles and for thousands of shore birds, including endangered species such as the Piping Plover.

The people and the wildlife of the Outer Banks are extremely vulnerable to rising seas.

NC seas could rise 4.6 feet, says panel on January 16
A panel of scientists and engineers reported on January 15, 2010, that the sea level on the NC coast may rise as much as 4.6 feet this century. Even a rise of 3 feet, they report, would wipe out the Outer Banks. If or when that happens, the repercussions will be far flung.


Rising seas likely to wipe out vital breeding grounds
Between the Outer Banks and North Carolina's mainland are brackish wetlands and the calm waters of the Pamlico Sound, an area of fewer predators than the open ocean. The Pamlico Sound serves as a nursery for much of the young sea life of the entire East Coast. But if the Banks are submerged, the Sound and 2300 square miles of low-lying marshland will be flooded with saltier sea water, which will destroy the brackish ecosystem, as well as the fishes that are adapted to the less salty water of the Pamlico Sound as youngsters.

This is not just a nightmare for naturalists and ecologists. The commercial fishing industry would also be devastated by the loss of this important breeding ground.

Although scientists cannot predict with certainty how much sea levels will rise this century, estimates by climate scientists are leaning toward higher numbers. Ice sheets in Greenland are are shifting faster than expected, and indications of unstable ice are appearing in Antarctica, reports Gordon Hamilton of the University of Maine. Writes Bruce Henderson of the Charlotte Observer, "Ice sheets in Greenland alone could raise global seas some 20 feet."  This is a generally accepted approximate figure. The question is, how long will it take?  And will we be able to stop or slow the process?

What can you do?
We can work to slow the process by reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions. As residents of the United States, we have the highest per capita generation of GG in the world. We can reduce our output by
eating fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute), by driving less, carpooling, driving fuel-efficient cars, choosing passive-solar homes, and in general burning fewer fossil fuels. Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and learn more how to reduce your own carbon footprint. We all have to participate, if we are to reduce global climate change during the short window of opportunity we have over the next few years.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:
Bruce Henderson. "Sea rising along N.C., but how quickly? Accelerating upward creep could reshape the coast and endanger Outer Banks, scientists say." The Charlotte Observer. January 16, 2010.

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. 2008. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. Fulcrum Books.

Some of my recent posts about climate change:

Tree deaths have doubled due to climate change

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car


Keywords: rising sea levels climate change Outer Banks North Carolina fisheries devastated endangered birds

Trees deaths have doubled due to climate change

This post now on www.basilandspice.com

Climate change is killing our trees.  This is an unfortunate irony, because we rely on living trees to remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Dead trees do the opposite - their decomposition releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas primarily responsible for global climate change. 

This tree data comes from a study published recently in the prestigious journal Science. The authors examined records of tree deaths from 76 plots of healthy old-growth temperate forests in the western U.S. and Canada, ranging from British Columbia to Arizona.  The scientists reported that trees are falling twice as fast as they were 50 years ago.

The study included only trees that died for "noncatastrophic" reasons.  That is, they were not victims of wildfires or huge outbreaks of pine beetles, but were routine deaths.  Overall, more than 58,000 trees were monitored for the study.

Little numbers add up to a big number
The number of routine deaths were relatively small, said co-author Mark Harmon of Oregon State University in Corvallis, but "a lot of little numbers can add up to a big number."

If this trend continues, forests of the future may be composed of younger and thinner trees that store less carbon than the larger trees of today.  Such an effect, in addition to increased decomposition, would speed the rate of global warming.

Warm temps have changed water dynamics
The scientists concluded that the deaths were not due to air pollution such as ozone because many of the trees were in national forests with relatively clean air.  The more likely explanation, they wrote, is that the deaths are occurring as a result of climate change.  Warming temperatures have changed water dynamics in the West, with more precipitation falling as rain than snow, with earlier snow melts and longer droughts. Trees are getting less water.  Also, climate change is giving a boost to tree pathogens that prosper in warmer temperatures.

Scientists in tropical forests have not found the same effect.  In the tropics, the growth of new trees is keeping pace with the death of old ones.

What can be done?  
Author Simon Lewis of Leeds University concluded that "systemic long-term monitoring of forests is essential as a warning system to potentially more dramatic changes."  Yes, monitoring could be useful.

In addition to that, we can all try to reduce our own carbon production: by eating fewer animal products (see "Livestock and Climate Change" by Worldwatch Institute), by driving less, carpooling, driving fuel-efficient cars, building passive-solar homes, and in general burning fewer fossil fuels. Take the Environmental Footprint quiz and see how to reduce your own carbon footprint. We all have to participate, if we are to reduce global climate change during the short window of opportunity we have over the next few years.

For more practical suggestions about how to reduce your carbon footprint, see our book Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet. The book offers strategies regarding diet, housing, transportation, clothing, and other consumer choices that we all make every day.

Sources:   
Phillip J. Van Mantgem et al.  "Widespread Increase of Tree Mortality Rates in the Western United States." Science 23.  January 2009.

Susan Milius. "Everyday tree deaths have doubled". Science News. Feb 14. 2009

Sally Kneidel, PhD, and Sadie Kneidel. Going Green: A Wise Consumer's Guide to a Shrinking Planet: Fulcrum Publishing. 2008.

A few of my recent posts about climate change:

Livestock account for 51% of annual global climate change.

Famous ice caps of Kilamanjaro gone by 2022

Copenhagen data: 10% of Florida underwater by the end of the century 

One-tenth of Louisiana to be submerged by 2010 

Irvine CA schools go solar; most comprehensive solar school plan in the U.S.

Less meat.....smaller footprint

Most earth-friendly mass transit

Green tip #1: Annex the outdoors and save energy and materials

How to buy a used, fuel-efficient, and green car

Keywords: trees dying climate change carbon footprint greenhousee gases environmental footprint

H1N1 weekly deaths increase, but spread of virus decreases

This post now a Google News Link and on www.basilandspice.com.

Wonder what's going on with the H1N1 virus?  If there's going to be a third wave of the epidemic this flu season, we should know soon.  But the CDC is still not sure what lies in store for the rest of this winter.

The Centers for Disease Control closely monitor and analyze all data on H1N1, and do their best to make predictions. On their very thorough website, they posted their most recent H1N1 reports on January 4. As you can see, the report has mixed indicators of future trends for H1N1.  It also has a lot of information about what you can do to protect yourself.

Number of deaths has increased
The Jan 4 report says that, for the most recent week analyzed (Dec 20-26), the number of flu deaths increased over the preceding week. The number of deaths is now back above the "epidemic" threshold, after dipping below it for the first time in 11 weeks. Almost all of the influenza viruses identified this winter in the U.S. continue to be 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus, which is susceptible to the H1N1 vaccine now being widely offered to the public.

Doctor visits up; hospitalization rates steady
For the week Dec 20-26, visits to doctors for flu-like symptoms increased over the previous week. Overall hospitalization rates for flu and its most dangerous complication (pneumonia) were unchanged from the previous week.

Antivirals still effective
For persons very sick with H1N1 and pneumonia, the currently circulating H1N1 virus remains susceptible to the antiviral drugs oseltamivir and zanamivir "with rare exception."

Is the virus in decline?
The number of states reporting widespread influenza activity decreased for the last week analyzed (Dec 20-26).  In addition, the number of pediatric deaths has decreased, even though the total number of deaths increased.

Get the shot!
The CDC continues to urge the public to get inoculated against H1N1. The shot or mist is offered widely at county health departments and doctors' offices. When I went to get a shot at my local county health department, the vaccine was free. There was a $15 administration fee, which is covered by insurance. The CDC has said repeatedly that widespread vaccination of the public can be a major factor in preventing a third wave of the disease. The vaccine will continue to be widely available through January.

Vulnerable groups
On January 2, Science News ran an online story saying sickle-cell increases vulnerability to H1N1 in children, although I didn't see that on the CDC website.

According to the CDC, the persons most vulnerable to complications from H1N1 are:
People 65 and older
Children under 5
Pregnant women
African Americans
People with these health conditions:
HIV/AIDS, severe immunosuppresssion, diabetes, disabilities, cardiovascular disease, asthma, arthritis, cancer patients and survivors, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.

People who interact a lot with the public in their jobs may be more likely to contract H1N1 than others.

See Source #4. below for more info about vulnerable groups.

Symptoms
According to the CDC, you may have the flu if you have some or all of these symptoms:
fever (may or may not be present)
cough
sore throat
runny or stuffy nose
body aches
headache
chills
fatigue
sometimes diarrhea and vomiting

Prevention
To prevent infection in yourself and your children: get the vaccine, wash your hands frequently with soap or alcohol gel, avoid contact with those who are ill, avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth when out in public.  And if you have flu-like symptoms, call or see your health care provider. Stay home at least 24 hours after your fever is gone.  

Sources:
1. Centers for Disease Control. 2009 H1N1 Flu: Situation Update January 4, 2009
2. CDC. 2009 H1N1 Flu: Situation Update - Key Flu Indicators January 4, 2009
3. CDC. General Information about 2009 H1N1 Vaccines (and where to find a vaccine)
4. CDC. People at High Risk of Developing Flu-Related Complications. November 10, 2009
5. CDC. Flu View. (a map of state-by-state influenza activity). For week ending Dec 26, 2009
6. Nathan Seppa.  "H1N1 Hits Sickle Cell Kids Hard". Science News. January 2, 2009

My previous posts about H1N1:
H1N1 shot made my son vomit, but GO GET THAT SHOT  12/24/2009

H1N1 widespread but declining. Experts disagree about a third wave of H1N1 this winter. 12/02/2009

Second wave of H1N1 declining in numbers but not severity. Third wave may be the worst 11/18/09

The most dangerous cases of H1N1  11/12/2009

My daughter says elderberry got rid of her H1N1 10/22/2009

Why is swine flu likely to return in winter? It's not because we're cooped up together in winter 5/8/2009

H1N1 is a swine flu and has its roots NC, the land of Smithfield 5/2/2009

Smithfield blamed for swine flu by Mexican press   4/29/2009

Keywords: CDC H1N1 vaccine influenza swine flu vulnerable groups epidemic

Exposure to a widely used chemical in utero leads to less masculine play in male children

Boys exposed in the womb to chemicals called phthalates are less likely to engage in masculine play during childhood.  So says a study soon to be published in the International Journal of Andrology.  Masculine play was defined as playing with guns, cars, trucks and other toys typically favored by boys.  The greater the exposure during pregnancy, the more dramatic was the behavioral effect later. Girls' play was not affected.

Hormones program the fetal brain
According to Heather Patisaul, a neuroendocrinologist at NC State, male sex hormones program fetal brain development, and this programming explains why boys like trucks and girls tend to prefer dolls. Anything that interferes with this hormonal influence can subtly reduce masculinization of a male's brain.

Phthalates have previously been reported to affect male hormones, but it was not known how this affected behavior.  The current study began several years ago when researchers measured phthalates during mid-pregnancy in a group of women across four states.  Three to six years later, the researchers asked the mothers to rate their children's play using the Pre-school Activities Inventory.  Each mother recorded how often in the past month her child had engaged in activities such as playing house, playing with dolls, dressing up in girls' clothes, playing with toy cars and trucks or guns, or play-fighting.  The study included 71 girls and 74 boys.

Less masculine play; more gender neutral play
The behavioral assessment revealed that boys with the highest exposure to phthalates in the womb had the lowest incidence of typically male play and a higher incidence of gender-neutral play. The phthalate-exposed boys did not have higher scores for typically female play. The lead researcher, Shanna Swan of the University of Rochester School of Medicine & Dentistry, said "We'd describe their play as less masculine," but not more feminine.

These findings are thought to be particularly significant because exposure to phthalates is so widespread and includes virtually everyone in the U.S.  Phthalates are industrial chemicals widely used as solvents, including use in cosmetics such as nail polish and hair spray. They are also widely used in plastic tubing involved in food processing.

The summary I read of the study, in Science News, did not offer any suggestions about how to avoid ingesting phthalates.  If I do find any information about that, I'll post it on http://veggierevolution.blogspot.com and on http://sallykneidel.com.  I'll keep an eye out for the report of the study that will soon be published in the academic journal mentioned above.

by Sally Kneidel, PhD

Source: 
Janet Raloff. "Chemicals from plastics show effects in boys: Fetal exposure to phthalates linked to less masculine play." Science News. December 19, 2009.

My previous post on behavioral effects of chemical exposure in womb:  

BPA exposure in womb linked to childhood behavioral changes  Dec 26, 2009.