Being Oblivious To The Obvious 

Some select State Governments, as well as the Federal Government, is now engaged in selectively determining what products and innovations are allowed to be sold in America and who will profit. This is not based on law or on science, but on perception, speculation, and possibly money.

The electronic cigarette has no history of harming any American (or anyone to my knowledge). It has been sold in the US for over 3 years now (7 years world wide), without incident. Absent any unfounded marketing claims, there is no law current law preventing the sale of electronic cigarettes. So, some States are attempting to create a law banning the electronic cigarette while the Federal government continues to work to hand the product over to the well established pharmaceutical industry.

Where is the line between our free market and government intervention? If there is scientific evidence that a product will harm at least a certain percentage of American’s, then it reasonable to place restrictions and requirements on the product. But these restrictions should not be designed to stifle competition and should be analogous to the threat posed.

The current stance of our Government (the FDA) is that e-cigarettes need to be regulated more stringently than tobacco cigarettes. As a new drug and medical device, the e-cigarette could only be legally sold in pharmacies, not in gas stations competing with tobacco cigarettes. As a new drug, it may require a prescription. As a new drug, a pharmaceutical company would need to invest (pay the FDA) to bring it to market.

When comparing a product that hasn’t harmed anyone to a product that kills over 400,000 Americans per year, it should be obvious which needs greater restrictions. Being oblivious to the obvious may mean many American’s will continue to use the most deadly product in American history rather than a new innovation that hasn’t harmed anyone.

 

Don’t Be Oblivious to Off-Leash Etiquette

Have dog, will travel? I mean, like, everywhere!
Dog goes to the store. Dog goes on vacation. Dog goes for a mani/pedi. Dog goes to Anthropologie, to Sephora, to boutiques, to all the upscale stores where nothing is affordable but at least you can look like you’re cool because you have a dog! In New York City.

But take your dog to “the country” for some R&R and Running. Running free, right? No strings attached for you. No leash attached to the dog.

WRONG! Rural and suburban recreational/conservation areas are becoming more and more rigid about where dogs are wanted, and not wanted. And leashes, the bondage tool of the human over the canine, are required.

As a world-class city, New York settled a hot topic in 2007, when Parks & Recreation decreed that dogs can be off leash from 9 p.m. to 9 a.m. in many large parks, legalizing an already common practice. Dog haters and dog lovers seem to be co-existing under this plan. People have all day where they don’t run the risk of being slobbered or trampled on. In the evening or early-morning hours, dogs have an opportunity to run free — supervised, of course.

Born to Run

It’s a well-respected theory that dogs are less aggressive when allowed to socialize, run free and exercise. Dog bite reports in New York have plummeted in recent years.

Yeah! I am all in favor of tons of exercise for most dogs. A majority of my “behavior” cases in my clinic have to do with the dog in question not getting enough exercise. Many owners just don’t get it! A recent story I heard on NPR (“Wired to Run,” May 7) reported that dogs, like humans, can achieve “a runner’s high” from aerobic exercise. With long-distance running, our bodies actually make drugs called cannabinoids. When the researcher put dogs on a treadmill, they produced the drugs. Ferrets on a treadmill? They didn’t produce anything.

Conclusion? Dogs, like humans, can feel better and act happier, with exercise. Ferrets? Well, ferrets get pleasure in other ways.


Now, try finding that real open space to run your dog. It’s a problem. In Connecticut or Long Island, for example, you’ll find municipalities are less and less dog friendly. At the Trout Brook Valley nature preserve in Weston, Connecticut, dogs have been forbidden off leash since October because of a yearlong wildlife study. But many people at Trout Brook are happy with the temporary leash law and are fighting to keep the moratorium on unleashed dogs once the study is completed. In Westchester, dog owners have been trying to get two of the 775 acres of Hempstead Lake State Park zoned as an off-leash area. It has been continually defeated.

Wildlife protection is a valid reason to leash dogs. Many areas restrict dogs during nesting time in early spring. But I think wildlife and habitats could co-exist with off-leash dogs if the owners have a handle on their dog’s behavior.

Teach Your Dog Some Manners

Besides wildlife, the biggest concerns are, basically, aggressive dogs, and dogs without manners. This is because many owners are oblivious to what is considered appropriate off-leash etiquette. Dog owners who don’t keep their dogs from jumping and slobbering on people are giving all unleashed dogs a bad rep!
In Boulder, Colorado, for example, owners are required to register their dogs and take a special class in off-leash etiquette before Rover runs free. Maybe my town of Amherst, currently in a heated debate over a popular conservation area, should consider this!

Amherst, Mass., an academic town where only the “H” is silent (our town motto), is home to Amethyst Brook, a beautiful conservation area where, for many years, dog walkers and human walkers have co-existed. But add some nice weather, a growing population, a little dog poop on the soles of your Birkenstocks, and marauding Labradors on your karma, and you have a recipe for “This dog ain’t gonna’ walk. Here. Anymore. Off leash.”

The town fathers and the conservation committee have come up with a compromise: Dogs can be off leash from dawn until 10 a.m. That’s it. After 10 o’clock, it’s leash it or beat it.

Many of my clients wanted my opinion on this debate, assuming I would come down on the side of my canine friends who want to go naked on the beach. I’m afraid I see both sides. I am in favor of the leash law at this very popular recreational area. The reason? Safety for everyone wins out over the fantasy of all dogs of all temperaments and breeds frolicking happily among the many humans on the trail.

This area simply became too crowded, and the dog owners did not take responsibility for their pets’ behavior. Threatening or simply bothering people, and dog fights, have convinced me that the free dogs have to find less populated terrains. In this case, the “bad” children spoiled it for all the children.

Just this week, two of my biggest emergencies happened at Amethyst. An older cockapoo ON LEASH was attacked by a dog off leash. Two surgeries later, after surgical drains, lots of pain and anti-anxiety medication, the victim is going to be fine. But, like all dog fights, this was a harrowing experience, for dogs and owners alike.

My second emergency was more upsetting. The owner failed to leash his very young, free-spirited German Short Hair upon leaving the conservation area, and Dexter was hit by a car. He survived but suffered some very painful injuries to the foot, pad and hip. We’re having some difficulties with a pinched nerve in his hind limb causing intermittent but intense pain. Not fun. All in all, Dex is extremely lucky to be alive. If this dog was far enough away from the owner to be out of sight, not trained to voice commands, and young and goofy, he doesn’t belong running free where he could injure someone or, unfortunately, be severely injured himself.

Top Rules of Off-Leash Etiquette

So, here are my top rules of off-leash etiquette. And yes, I have seen all these things occur, and worse:

1. Teach your dog to listen. If you have a puppy or a dog that does not understand simple commands like “down” or “off,” he should not be able greet a person on a trail with “Here’s mud in your eye.”
2. If you have a dog-aggressive dog, make sure the area is very unpopulated or be able to leash him if you come upon another canine. This may be next to impossible if other dogs run up to your aggressor. I have sympathy for this problem. My favorite dog, Bruno, was an 80-pound border collie mix who loved people, hated strange dogs. I finally got him to stop and stand when another dog approached so I could leash him. But we traveled off leash in very remote areas. He had a few ugly moments with other aggressive dogs. Both owners (that means me) were to blame.
3. If your dog is soaking wet, don’t let him dry off on dry people. He may be having his day at the pond, but other people might have to go back to work. In dry clothes.
4. Don’t let your dog hump people who are sitting down. Did I even have to say this?
5. Keep your dog away from all picnic areas. Don’t let him urinate on personal items. (Did I have to say that?)
6. Pick up the poop! Even if nobody is watching. Does a dog —- in the woods? Of course he does. Is it biodegradable? Sort of, but not instantaneously on the bottom of your flip-flops.
7. Don’t play stick and encourage barking where people are resting. Find the “active” part of the park where the jocks are playing frisbee (in Amherst, we call it Ultimate).

There will always be people who hate dogs. And that is their loss. Personally, I don’t trust these people and worry about them. But we don’t need to make them hate dogs more. So abiding by some simple rules gives the rotten dog haters less to complain about.

Last week in New York, I guess my dogs — on leash — were taking up too much of the sidewalk. A huffy passer-by said to me, “Control your dogs, please.” There was nobody else on the street! On a quiet West Village block, no less, at 10 a.m. I wonder what he says to the tourists walking into you on the wrong side of the street. Or stopping short at a crosswalk to look at a map in a cluster. Or asking where the Sex and the City house is. “Go back to Japan?”

Let’s all play nice! It’s a big city and a big country. After all, life is just one big walk in the park!

How to be oblivious (Drama Avoidance 101) 

There has been a lot of drama it the RP Twitterverse lately. This is hardly surprising, since without drama, most of us would have long since gone away. Done properly (in character and as part of a storyline), it’s fun to read and participate in. It’s when it spills over into the personal, in or out of character, that it becomes problematic.

Personal drama is not fun. It’s not fun to watch and it certainly is not fun to be part of. The best advice is to avoid it or ignore it. This is easier said than done, sometimes. It is, however, possible to remain outside the fray. You just have to be oblivious or seem to be.

Here are a few tips for avoiding drama:
1.  Focus on yourself. Sure, it sounds egotistical, but let’s face it, the only behavior any of us have any control over is our own.  Focus your attention on what you are doing and saying, not what someone or everyone else is.

2.  Spend most of your time in your mentions (@s) and following a select list of others and SLs. Obviously the people who talk to you should get most of your attention. Well-executed SLs also merit your attention, whether you are involved with them or not.

3. Judge people on what they say/how they act to you. This is easier if you stay hidden in your mentions (@s) and DMs. The stream can get wild and busy. It is extremely easy to take something out of context. Here’s a good rule of thumb: if it isn’t said to you (using your @) it isn’t meant for you…even if it is. (The exception to this rule is notices from group accounts regarding rules, new members or SLs.)

4. Blogs, twitlongers, websites, Facebook pages and anything else associated with an RP character should remain in character. This does not mean you can’t comment on things happening around Twitter or even IRL just that you should keep the comments in character.

5.  What is said offline (in IMs or DMs or emails or phone conversations or whatever other form of personal conversations you may have), stays offline. NO EXCEPTIONS! Do not, I repeat, DO NOT repeat what you are told in private conversations, period but especially do not do it on stream or in a public way. EVER.
No doubt you’ve noticed that this list does not include the familiar saws “treat others the way you want to be treated” or “don’t say anything if you can’t say something nice”. “Don’t take it personally” isn’t really included either unless you consider it as part of #3. There is a reason for that. It’s because we’ve all heard them. We all say that is how we are behaving.

If it were, there wouldn’t be unscripted, personal drama onstream.

So let’s be honest. We treat others the way we want to treat them. We say mean things, sometimes intentionally. We do take things personally. We invest a great deal of ourselves in these characters, whether original or cannon. It hurts when someone doesn’t like them, or they get into fights, or they just get ignored. Pretending we don’t is silly. But, and this is a very big but (pun so intended), what we don’t see can’t hurt us.
Being largely oblivious is one way to avoid the drama and getting hurt. It doesn’t stop it. It just sets it at one remove. Which is far better than being in the center of a drama storm.

 

Medical profession 'oblivious' to role of chemicals in diabetes and obesity

US officials are beginning to take a greater interest in the reported links between the exposure to environmental chemicals, like Bisphenol A, with the development of diabetes and obesity

The medical profession remains largely 'oblivious' to the reported links between exposure to chemicals in our daily lives and the development of diabetes and obesity, leading health specialists have told the Ecologist.

Obesity and diabetes rates in children and adults are increasing in many countries across the world. In 2008 almost a quarter of UK adults and 16 per cent of children aged 2-15 were classified as obese, while 2.8 million people are being treated for diabetes. Medical costs associated with these conditions are also rising, with the NHS estimated to be spending £9 billion per year treating diabetes and a further £4.1 billion treating obesity.

The increase in these medical conditions over the last decade has led many researchers to look for a connection with various external factors. Although changes in diet and physical activity are predominantly blamed for these increases, recent research has been exploring the possibility that environmental pollution could cause both diabetes and obesity.

The main suspects highlighted by researchers include persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as chlorinated pesticides, many of which are now banned but continue to be widely detected in the US population. Studies have also found evidence that other chemicals, such as Bisphenol A (BPA), associated with both diabetes and obesity are still widely produced and found at detectable levels in the environment. BPA in particular has been the focus of campaigns calling for it to be banned, although it continues to be used to line plastic bottles and food containers.
Health specialists are adamant there is a connection and say further research is required to explore the complicated relationship.

‘There is no question in my mind that exposure to environmental chemicals is contributing to the increasing rates of diabetes and obesity, but understanding this relationship is absolutely critical’ Dr David Carpenter, Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany told the Ecologist. ‘This is especially true for the medical profession, and it is sad that at present the medical profession seems to be oblivious to the role of chemical contamination as risk factors for all of the diseases of older age, from cancer to obesity and diabetes to cardiovascular disease,’ says Dr Carpenter.

The UK’s Health Protection Agency (HPA) is yet to conduct any research and is taking a more neutral stance.

‘The HPA is not undertaking specific work in this area. However it is an interesting, emerging area of research. As such the HPA looks forward to the publication of future literature and will continue to monitor developments closely,’ says Ovnair Sepai, head of general toxicology at the HPA's Centre for Radiation, Chemicals and Environmental Hazards.

US government concern

However, government health officials in the US have taken a closer interest in the issue. In January 2011 the US Department of Health held a workshop to evaluate research linking exposure to environmental chemicals with the development of diabetes and obesity.
Only last year, the National Cancer Institute, which advises the US President, said the link between exposure to everyday chemicals and cancer risk had been 'grossly underestimated'.

Campaigners in the US now want tougher regulation to stop the use of the chemicals. 'There is growing evidence to support the possibility that lower levels of exposure to environmental chemicals can contribute to the development of diabetes,' says Sarah Howard from the US pressure group Collaborative on Health and the Environment. ‘Some of these chemicals are still in use and we should regulate those chemicals. Regulations could also help identify potentially problematic chemicals before they are introduced into the marketplace, and into our bodies.’

Health groups in the UK remain undecided: 'The link between pollution and diabetes needs to be explored further with more solid research before any accurate conclusions can be made,' says Dr Victoria King, Head of Research at Diabetes UK.