This website is open to anyone who wishes to publish or share an article about anything to the virtual public.  Opinionli.Com encourages you to have a say or to criticize and evaluate the most pressing issues surrounding your life.  We do not judge.  Any opinion is respected in our community.  For more information on how to be a contributor, kindly visit our Contact Us page to get in touch with us.

Are you a smoker with an “it won’t happen to me” mindset? If the state of your health is not enough to stop you, is the price of your good looks? It’s a fact — apart from sun damage, smoking ages the skin faster than anything else. So why are so many of us still lighting up?

Smoker’s Face

The term was coined by medical dictionaries in the ’60s to describe the ageing effect cigarette smoke has on the skin. Wrinkles, a grey, lifeless complexion and bony contours were the words used — surely enough to scare off any potential smokers? Apparently not: 27 percent of Aussie women are still lighting up, puffing on an average of 18 cigarettes a day.

But let’s face it, today’s smokers are more likely to be greeted by shock and gore ads showing tar being squeezed out of a lung and a blackened gangrenous foot awaiting amputation rather than the pallor of a smoker whose looks have gone up in smoke.

According to anti-smoking specialist Natalie Clays from Allen Carr Clinics, “These scare tactic campaigns just don’t work”. Perhaps appealing to the mortality of a generation who think they’re immortal isn’t the most effective way to get the smoking-is-bad-for-you message across.

Instead, why not appeal to their sense of vanity and point out the damage cigarette smoke can do to your skin — and your looks?

The damage

Nicotine adds years and, according to Clays, the effect smoking has on the ageing process is significant — and it gets worse, the damage begins as soon as the first puff of smoke is inhaled. With just one drag more than 1 trillion free radicals are produced by your lungs, triggering the erratic behaviour of cells that sets the premature ageing wheels in motion.

What Happens Next?

Once the draw back begins, the serious skin damage gets underway, including: An increased production of the enzyme matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which breaks down the body’s supply of collagen;

A reduction in the body’s store of vitamin A, which provides protection from skin damage;

Restricted blood flow through capillaries, which prevents oxygen and nutrients getting to the skin;

Restricted absorption of vitamin C, which is a vital antioxidant for skin protection and health; and

More wrinkles around the mouth, caused by continual puckering of the lips when drawing back, and more wrinkles around the eyes caused by squinting in reaction to cigarette smoke.

Saving Your Skin

The million-dollar question is what can be done to reverse the damage? Forget about pricey eye creams and skin-renewing serums, the first step is the most obvious — stop smoking. If the cancer and stroke warnings seen in advertising campaigns and cigarette packaging aren’t enough to encourage you to quit, perhaps the very real possibility of adding years to your complexion will.

While smokers in their twenties are yet to notice the real damage smoking is doing to their skin, Clays says once you begin creeping into your thirties and forties the effects are there for all to see. In fact, she says smoking can “easily add 10 years” — and if you’re in your fifties or sixties, make that 20 years.

But, on the flip side, quitting can quickly restore some of that youthful vitality, bringing back your colour and getting rid of the dullness associated with ‘smoker’s face’. In fact, Clays says, “After quitting, one of my clients was actually asked if she’d had a facelift.” This woman was in her forties.

The sobering news is that, while you won’t be able to completely reverse the damage already caused to your skin’s elasticity and vitality, quitting coupled with a healthy, balance diet, skin supplements and anti-ageing skin care will help to restore some of your skin’s youthful vigour.

A monokini, sometimes referred to as a unikini, is a woman’s one-piece garment comprising only the lower half of a bikini, leaving the breasts uncovered. The term monokini is also used for any topless swimsuit, particularly a bikini bottom worn without a bikini top.

Monokinis also come in a number of different colors, prints, and patterns that are always beautifully fresh and fabulous. Stylishly funky and fashion-forward, a monokini is a great swimsuit style that every fashionista should have in her closet!

Wondering which hues for shoes will be must-haves for consumers next fall? According to Leatrice Eiseman, executive director of the Pantone Color Institute and the head of the Eiseman Center for Color Information and Training, buyers may want to look to the past, present and future to get a sense of coming color trends. “The big picture theme is a Mosaic of Color and Style,” she says. “This reflects cultural, universal time frames and seemingly disconnected elements. Though new technologies continue to reinvent the future, we may notice some things have a vaguely nostalgic feeling.”

The interest in making everything old new again stems from, yes, the current economy. “Since people are thinking about the economy, that’s telling us some of the styling of the past isn’t discarded, but instead brought back in a new way. What’s important today is to think in terms of practicality. People are going to ask themselves, gee, I already have six pairs of black shoes, so why do I need another pair? Retailers are going to want to give them something new, and this is where color plays an important role. For example, maybe a consumer is drawn to a purple car, but when they get to the show room they decide to go with the black version. But you need to have that purple car to get their attention.”

“One theme under the larger Mosaic idea is called Molecular. It embraces a lot of darker shades, which are typical for the season, but it includes a purpled wine, a very deep green and, of course, a navy black and a coffee brown. Brown will stay very, very important. But the introduction of yellow, orchid, a purplish blue and jade green will be accents. In footwear, those could show up as gemstones, ribbon trim or any embellishment with unexpected color.

“There’s an element of glitter attached to the Byzantine theme. A lot of the illustrations to convey this are stained glass church windows, but these colors can be as modern as a Mondrian and very abstract, playing into the Mosaic idea. This theme includes metallics, shimmery gold, rich reds, vibrant blues and purples. There will be a wine color, but it’s a truer wine color. What this palette conveys is modernized nostalgia, in that it’s not duplicating a previous time period, but applying modern technology to it. In terms of shoes, we might be thinking about a platform sole and heel made with a new plastic or reconstructed wood, materials that speak of a new technology being used in a new way.

“Deconstructing-Reconstructing also follows the theme of revisiting the past, but it focuses more on neutrals, grey, gunmetal and cream. Ochre, brown and black are accented with topiary greens and lipstick red. You could describe this as old school. There has been a movement toward looking to The Gap and Ralph Lauren, but this is still a reinvented look. It’s buffalo plaids and Americana, but not as it was in the 80s. It’s a bolder way of combining plaids and checks.

“Multiple Indentity is inspired by human coloring. The blues, irises and browns we see in eye color and the pink browns and roses we see in skin tone. It’s the mosaic of human coloring, and it makes for an unpredictable but interesting palette. It also has broad appeal. The consumer can find something he or she relates to. Someone with dark skin may look at a pair of brown shoes and say, hmm, if I wear those it will look as if I’m not wearing shoes at all, lengthening the leg. There’s lots of potential in this palette.”

Source

1. Utilize the full resources of his office to continuously educate the flying public about the dangers of flying with lap children;

2. Update the economic and safety data concerning families traveling with small children, including incidents and accidents involving injuries and deaths;

3. Based on the information provided by these findings, the Secretary should take necessary action, which may include a rulemaking or other appropriate next steps.

At a minimum, there should be greater education on this issue from the Federal Aviation Administration and the airline industry, and obviously that educational effort needs to be continuous since the pool of new parents is constantly evolving. However, when I raised this issue before the FAAC (on behalf of Consumers Union), we lobbied for more than education, and instead requested the FAA mandate that all lap kids be properly secured.

Physics 101

Unfortunately, far too many parents don’t understand that this issue is all about physics. In October, Boeing organized a meeting with the nation’s best experts on this topic: representatives from the FAA, DOT, National Transportation Safety Board, the Air Transport Association, the Association of Flight Attendants, Boeing and the airlines. I opened by asking a simple question: Is there any reputable source—from government, industry or academia—that advocates lap children are as safe or safer than children secured in proper restraint systems? The answer was no.

This point truly cannot be overstated. Consider that from a safety perspective there are no pending studies, no suspect science, no warring camps. The evidence is overwhelming and conclusive that lap children are at greater risk of injury and death, not only during catastrophic events but even at other times, such as during routine turbulence. As one flight attendant testified, at certain intervals crewmembers are required to secure all loose cabin items, from electronic devices to coffee pots. Everything, that is, except the smallest and most vulnerable passengers.

And make no mistake: No matter how much you love that little one, the laws of physics make it impossible for you to protect an infant or small child under such tremendous g-forces. That’s a scientific fact. Most parents would not think of violating the laws that exist in all 50 states to secure babies in car seats, yet the forces in commercial aircraft at high altitudes are many times greater. Simply put, no one can argue that a lap child is not at risk.

Now, can purchasing a seat for an infant pose a financial hardship for some families? No question. It’s a real concern. But it’s important to separate the safety issues from the economic.

In fact, the economic issue has become a safety issue for the FAA. The NTSB has long advocated for a ban on lap children, but the FAA has refused because of what it terms “diversion,” the possibility that families that cannot afford to purchase a seat for kids under 2 will instead elect to drive, and driving is statistically more dangerous than flying, so theoretically more children will be at risk. (Of course, the same argument could be made for any potential trip, regardless of the traveler’s age.)

Speaking directly to the NTSB and FAA staff members that advocate opposing views on this topic deepened my respect for both sides. It’s clear that many dedicated and caring officials in both organizations are sincere in their contrary beliefs. But I believe the current FAA policy is the wrong course and ALL children should be properly secured on all U.S. commercial flights. Other safety advocates also argue there are problems with the diversion theory, and that’s why the FAAC asked the DOT to update its research on this topic.

Spreading the word

I addressed this topic as ” Why you should never fly with a child in your lap” back in 2008. And what was true then is just as true now.

To its credit, during the holiday season, the DOT increased its educational efforts in this area. And in December, the FAA revamped the ” Child Safety on Airplanes” page on its site; a helpful brochure is available as well.

The NTSB has been ramping up its educational endeavors as well. In December, I attended an NTSB forum that focused on child passenger safety. And last week, the NTSB launched a Child and Youth Transportation Safety Initiative to enhance education.

Challenges to overcome

Even if a ban on lap kids was enacted tomorrow, it’s clear there would be a transition period, and potential problems would need to be addressed. Among them:

• Cost. Last week I watched an ill-informed news report broadcast by a major television network that speculated airlines could add to their list of ancillary fees in 2011 by charging for infants, yet there was no mention whatsoever of the safety component. Since millions of airline passengers already are quite fed up with nickel-and-diming, it would be a grave mistake to view such a safety initiative as just one more carrier revenue stream. The airline industry could serve the public good, improve customer relations, and still increase revenues by charging a nominal fee for infant seating. Southwest, for example, has long offered infant fares and hopefully other carriers would follow suit if a lap child ban were instated.

• Compatibility. The good news is there is much greater compatibility between automobile and airplane safety restraints than there was even a decade ago; overwhelmingly most can be used for dual purposes. The bad news is “much greater” is not the same as universal (particularly on some regional aircraft). This issue was exemplified just last week when a mother found her infant seat was incompatible with a United Airlines aircraft in San Francisco. There are still hurdles, both with compatibility and with communication.

• Convenience. New policies bring confusion, and many travelers will need to be educated. The fight for overhead bin space that evolved from checked baggage fees has led to many boarding delays, and—let’s face it—securing child safety restraints could add to the confusion in the short term. What’s more, many parents have spoken out about the inconvenience of schlepping a safety seat through airport security. That’s why the need to increase educational efforts is greater than ever; this is a critical issue that far too many parents and caregivers unknowingly view merely as an annoyance. It’s not—it’s quite literally life and death.

USA Today

Forget weeks of carrot sticks and stomach crunches to get your tummy in sexy shape. We’ve got quick, painless remedies that will do the trick in a matter of days. By Victoria Storr

It’s the holy grail of the diet industry: the pursuit of a flat stomach. Yet, no matter how many kilojoules we shave off or sit-ups we endure, there’s no guarantee we’ll take centimetres off the one place we want to $#151; our middle.

Why? Because a round belly is often not to do with bad diet or lack of exercise, but bloating. “Most people suffer a little bit of natural bloating every day through eating and digestion,” says Laura Sutherland from the Dietitians Association of Australia.

“However, some of us put up with more than others due to everything from the food we eat to how much we drink.”

Here we tell you how to deflate fast with eight tips that will do the trick.

Remember, you are what you eat

While it won’t surprise you to learn that the quicker you eat, the more air you swallow and the more you bloat, did you know that the naturally occurring sweeteners found in some sugar-free lollies and gum can also lead to discomfort and distension. Why? “This is because these compounds that cause them to be sweet don’t actually get broken down, which is why they can be classed as sugar-free,” says Sutherland. “Instead, they [the compounds] end up in our large bowel and cause bloating.”

Take it slow Check the label of any artificially sweetened products, suggests Sutherland. “If it has the disclaimer ‘excess use may have a laxative effect’ or something similar, then it’s one of the sweeteners that can cause bloating in some people,” she explains. Try to reduce your use of these products.

Hormonal?

Who’d have thought the key to a flat stomach would lie in a simple little pill? But, according to CW Randolph, MD and author of From Belly Fat to Belly Flat, adding calcium D-glucarate and B-complex supplements to your regular vitamin regimen could do the trick. “Excess oestrogen causes the body to retain fat around the waist, but both supplements have been shown to help you excrete the hormone, which can lead to a smaller middle.”

Supplement solution Randolph suggests taking a calcium D-glucarate supplement twice a day with meals. B-complex supplements should be taken at the same time every day and consumed after or during a meal to aid absorption. (Before taking either supplements consult your GP if you are pregnant, breastfeeding or on any medication, including the Pill.)

Feeling stuck

While it may seem too obvious to mention, it’s important to set aside time to go to the bathroom every day. It’s all too easy to ignore the urge to empty your bowels, but once you’ve trained your brain to dismiss your body’s signals, you set the stage for bloat-inducing constipation.

Make time for the toilet Go when you feel the urge. Some people’s signals are not as strong as others, but as a guide most people need to empty their bowels about 20 minutes after eating a meal – particularly breakfast. And take your time. Give yourself at least several minutes to ensure proper emptying.

NineMSN

One of the story lines going into this weekend’s Super Bowl between the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers is how the Packers got so far with so many of their players sidelined. The team has 16 players out for the season with injuries, including its star tight end Jermichael Finley, running back Ryan Grant and a good portion of its defense. The team struggled with injuries all year. It barely qualified for the playoffs. But by the time it did, it had figured out how to get the most out of substitutes.

The Packers’ opponent, the Steelers, have been more fortunate. Even so, it could be missing four of the five offensive linemen who started the season.

In football, this triumph over adversity is greatly admired. It would be admired in other lines of work as well. But there are no others with a 30% attrition rate — which is what the Packers have suffered this year.

For all the NFL’s appeal, its playing fields almost certainly are the most dangerous workplace in America. According to the NFL Players Association, 352 players were placed on the season-ending injured reserve list this year. That’s 21%. Hundreds more suffered injuries of a lesser nature, from concussions to dislocations, that put them out for at least one game.

Each week, according the NFLPA, teams sustain an average of 3.7 injuries to their 53-man active rosters. About 1.4 require a player to miss at least one game.

Nearly all of this carnage is wrought even though the typical starting player is on the field for only about eight hours a year during the regular season. Yes, just eight hours. Add one or two more for playoff teams.

The demolition derby nature of the sport — not the length of games, the frequent stoppages, or the rowdiness of fans — is its biggest detraction. It adds a significant element of luck in a game otherwise ruled by athleticism, effort, strategy and tactics. Worse yet, it can mean a lifetime of impairment. There are many examples of ex-players in tragic circumstances either from a single blow or an accumulation of them. Darryl Stingley, who died in 2007 after being paralyzed by a collision three decades earlier, is the most iconic.

And what’s being done to slow the growth of injuries? A lot less than it might seem.

The league has instituted new penalties for certain hits and new rules requiring more convalescing for concussed players. But when push comes to shove — which apparently happens a lot in football, and not just on the field — money rules. The league is pushing to add two more games to the regular season.

The fans have never complained about a little violence. They even enjoy it. Not long ago, sports network ESPN had whole segments of their shows glorifying bone-crunching hits.

The Players Association, for its part, brings the issue of injuries up quite often these days. But the union seems to have discovered the issue only as it and the league enter a critical phase in trying to hammer out a new collective bargaining agreement.

The NFL’s new rules are a good start, and plainly there is no magic answer in a violent sport where players grow ever bigger and faster. Certainly, adding two games needs great thought, as does new equipment.

What’s most needed is a single-minded focus on injuries by someone. The Players Association would be the logical group. But it has to show that its interest in the issue is more than a bargaining chip.

Sunday’s Super Bowl is more than a game. It’s the demolition derby finals, and injuries are as likely as skill to decide the winner.

USA Today

Seen through the eyes of the exhilarated protesters in Cairo ‘s Tahrir Square, President Hosni Mubarak ‘s peace offering Tuesday was infuriating. Revolutionaries like their rebellions to end with the despised leader’s head on a stake, at least figuratively, not controlling a seven-month transition to a new government. Mubarak should have resigned. He is toxic, and his presence can only contaminate the process and undermine trust in the next government.

But emotions and pacing aside, the protesters appear destined for an extraordinary victory, and in the rebellion’s triumph lies enormous opportunity for the United States, along with a hefty serving of risk.

This is a rare chance for the U.S. to align its policies with its democratic ideals — not by trying to impose democracy, as in Iraq, but by simply letting it rise.

Nowhere is the United States more reflexively despised than in the Arab world, partly because of its unshakeable support for Israel, but also because of its support for repressive regimes such as Mubarak’s. Should frustrated Egyptians now begin to see the U.S. as an ally in achieving their aspirations, the United States might eventually have a democratic ally rather than a repressive one. If they do not, the next government of Egypt could end the Mideast peace process, disrupt oil supplies and aid terrorists.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s brief, matter-of-fact response Tuesday to Mubarak’s actions did little to inspire admiration. In fact, his tacit acquiescence to Mubarak’s plan might have done the opposite.

Granted, the president was walking a tightrope, trying to strike a balance between the protesters’ desires to throw off their shackles and the fears of leaders of American allies such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan that the U.S. could abandon them as well.

Granted, too, that any path toward democracy is sure to be treacherous. Democracy takes decades to mature, and it can’t guarantee that Egyptians will share American goals. In the short term, autocrats are more reliable.

But support for democracy is still the right path.

Obama should continue to push for Mubarak’s rapid departure. His administration should cultivate relationships with opposition leaders, and if Mubarak still refuses to go, Obama should insist on international supervision of elections and prod Mubarak to separate himself from the transition process.

Mubarak might yet try to maintain power by military force. That’s how China ended the equally inspiring Tiananmen uprising in 1989, and how Iran put down protesters last year. But even if the military goes along, Mubarak will still be gone soon.

When that happens, the emerging forces of Egyptian democracy need to see America as an ally, not a defender of their oppressor.

USA Today

Who would have thought that almost a decade after the 9/11 attacks, imprisoning terrorists and bringing them to trial would still be almost as vexing a problem as hunting and capturing them in the first place?

From the start, Americans have been deeply conflicted about how to treat terrorists taken alive. Are they criminals, prisoners of war or some entirely new category of bad guys? Do they have the full legal rights, some rights or none at all? Should they be tried in federal courts or before military commissions? Can some be held forever without any charges, and never tried at all?

These questions arise again now because Congress washed its hands of the problem late last year, barring any movement of detainees to the U.S. The message to President Obama: Whatever you do, don’t bring them here.

That effectively bars the president from keeping his promise to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a place Obama has correctly called a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda. Guantanamo could have been closed long ago if Congress weren’t too timid to lock detainees in a federal supermax prison in the U.S.The congressional action also stalls or kills efforts to try some detainees in federal court. It leaves Obama with only two options: try them before military commissions at Guantanamo, where looser rules of evidence mean convictions will be easier to win than in federal court, but less credible in the court of world opinion, or don’t try them at all. This is no small matter. The adherence to the rule of law, often at great cost, gives the U.S. moral force and influences the course of other nations.

That said, the record of military commissions so far shows they’re hardly the kangaroo courts critics feared. Judges appear to take seriously their responsibility to make sure that more permissive rules on hearsay and coerced testimony are not an excuse for prosecutors to abandon traditional U.S. jurisprudence. Trying detainees there is better than never trying them at all — which brings us to the most difficult problem.

There has long been a core group of detainees whom officials claimed would be impossible to try — because the evidence against them is classified or tainted by torture — but too dangerous to let go, because they would quickly become a serious threat to U.S. lives again.

A task force identified 48 such detainees, and the White House is reportedly preparing rules to allow them to be held indefinitely. Imprisoning people without charges or trial is what dictators do. It strikes at the very heart of the U.S. tradition of justice.

Even so, we can’t agree with those who would roll the dice, try these detainees and free them if they couldn’t be convicted. We have only the word of the administration, but it’s not hard to imagine that they would return to attacking Americans. One in four detainees released from Guantanamo were confirmed or suspected of having returned to the fight.

Two steps are needed if this goes forward. One is that these detainees be put before an independent board to determine whether they remain a threat and to certify that they cannot be tried effectively.

Finally, it’s crucial that this mechanism be strictly temporary, valid only for these 48 detainees. Building a permanent way for the government to lock up anyone deemed to be dangerous and hold them forever without trial would be far worse. That must not happen.

USA Today

After reviewing about 1,000 studies on the supposed links between low Vitamin D levels and higher risk of serious diseases, the panel concluded that they showed inconsistent results, sometimes due to shoddy research methods.

The experts also issued new guidelines — the first since 1997 — for North Americans, saying people should take between 700 and 1,300 milligrams of calcium and anywhere from 600 to 800 international units of vitamin D each day.

Most people “probably don’t have vitamin D deficiency, that is the first message,” said Glenville Jones, a Canadian doctor who was on the 14-member committee for the US-based Institute of Medicine.

“We think there has been an exaggeration of the public’s interest in vitamin D deficiency. (People) should be reassured that vitamin D deficiency is quite rare in North Americans at this point in time.”

Just by eating a balanced diet and possibly taking a vitamin supplement in the winter, because sun exposure boosts vitamin D levels, most North Americans would have no difficulty meeting the recommended allotment, he said.

By: Kerry Sheridan