How much do know about your FaceBook privacy settings?

I quit FaceBook some time ago, but I do associate people who do, so I'm indirectly affected.

If you post pictures to FaceBook, you need to read these, to see how they could affect you.

Otherwise, you could soon find your pictures in places you never expected... And there very well could be nothing you can say about it.

You may have heard about the Zuckerberg picture posting flap...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/12/28/is-facebooks-privacy-policy-too-confusing

Educate yourself. Know what your social media privacy settings are.

Judge for yourself, and act accordingly.

Dated Dec. 17, 2012

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559710-38/instagram-says-it-now-has-the-right-to-sell-your-photos/

Dated Dec. 18, 2012

http://betanews.com/2012/12/18/tell-us-what-you-think-about-instagrams-new-screw-you-policy/

Earmarks. How much do you know?

I was aware of earmarks introduced by our congressmen, but I didn't really understand them all that well. One of the questions that woke me up and got me thinking is... of all our illustrious senators and representatives, who are the biggest offenders and how much money are we letting them tack in on bills that are introduced?

Well, there is a lot of information out there if you know where to look. I only scratched the surface, but it sure gave me a lot more than I wanted to know.

A couple good sites to start, if you're curious...

A fact sheet on earmarks and earmarking on the site for Taxpayers for Common Sense. This is an FAQ that lays it all out for you, and tells you probably more than you wanted to know.


For the 2010 fiscal year, lawmakers who sponsored the most earmarks. This is a short page, but summarizes our biggest offenders. Any guess who are the biggest spenders?

From OpenSecrets.org, a complete list of the 111th Congress Earmarks. 
This site is very interesting, and you should spend some time here. At the top of the page you can select the subject (Senate or House) to be viewed. Once you have it, the data can be sorted by Name, State, Total Earmarks ($), Total Contributions ($), Contrib Earmark %, Earmark Rank, All Earmarks (in $), All Earmarks (%). This was quite enlightening.

And in case you're wondering...
Which presidency had the most in earmark spending?

It is very difficult to assign earmark spending to certain time periods because of the lack of transparency and oversight. Clearly, earmark spending rose significantly during the tenures of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.

The book hasn't been written on this administration yet.

The Fiscal Cliff is just a metaphor, and not a very good one at that. You can read a lot of slanted views and a lot of crap on the subject, but finding out what is exactly going on and how it will affect you is more difficult (I'm still looking). Maybe this will help.

That's about it. Now that I have you wondering, I can go back to bed and try to get a little more sleep.

Children Waiting for the End of the World

This is a reprint of an article I found in eSkeptic magazine.  What do you think?

Children Waiting for the End of the World

BY DANIEL LOXTON

As a child in the 1970s and 80s, I often had an experience which must have been even more familiar to children of the 1960s: lying awake at night, alone in my room, paralyzed with terror about nuclear armageddon. In those Cold War days, the end of the world seemed oppressive and omnipresent, especially for a child. Every Hollywood movie, every news story about the arms race and the Doomsday Clock seemed to whisper in my ear at night, “It could happen at any moment. It could happen before you wake up.”

Not every kid my age had that fear, but many did — I think probably millions. Perhaps you were one of the kids who felt yawning horror at each unexpected flash on the horizon, or relief at the sound of ordinary thunder?

I was recently reminded of those feelings when I received a kind letter from a man named Jason Guay. A child mental health therapist with Niagara Child and Youth Services, Jason wrote to share one of the most encouraging things I’ve heard during my tenure at Junior Skeptic:

Many of the children I serve suffer from mental illness and I think they deserve only the best science has to offer if they are to have a chance. Your issues of Junior Skeptic are read to my children in my social skill class and compliment cognitive-behavioural therapy nicely! They often come in with irrational beliefs (phobias/generalized anxiety) and by reading Junior Skeptic they are able find courage to challenge many of these irrational beliefs and start to think like a scientist, resulting in reduced anxiety. …

I often use the Scooby Doo issue to help ease children’s anxiety of ghosts and the unknown and it is very effective. Good job!

I have a young son of my own, so you can imagine what a letter like that feels like. But Jason went on to say something more, something I thought I should share with you.

Lately, I have had a lot of kids who come very concerned about the end of the world in 2012. … These poor children often tell me that have had countless sleepless nights, and have lower grades as a result of their worry.

I think you may be able to imagine how I — as a father — feel about that, too.
I’ve long suspected that we skeptics may underestimate the amount of distress the 2012 idea is causing. Skeptics know that the end of the world has come and gone hundreds of times, and so we feel in our hearts that this 2012 business must be a trivial issue. It’s easy to feel cavalier about fears we don’t share. It’s easy to forget what those night terrors feel like — especially for children.
Of course kids are worried about 2012. Hype about the coming end of the world is everywhere. Nor is it only kids who are concerned. In my immediate circle, I know at least three adults who are deeply worried, and others who have at least occasional moments of “what if?” unease. At a picnic yesterday, sitting there in the evening sun, a friend with a hard science degree asked, “Doesn’t it seem like there’s something weird going on with the Earth? All these earthquakes, volcanoes…?”
That’s not a dumb question. It does seem that way. I know I’m thinking a lot more about earthquakes after Haiti. But seeming doesn’t make it so, and thankfully there are ways to find out. “Well, you have an iPhone in your hand,” I said. “Why don’t you Google it right now?”

Google autofill reveals concern about "rising" number of earthquakes

And that’s what she did, right there on the beach. Of course, my friend has the research habits to have done that without my suggestion. She also has the scientific background to feel satisfied with the answers from the US Geological Survey or this short, simple New York Times article from British Geological Survey seismologist Roger Musson. (Incidentally, the answer is “No.” Recent earthquake activity has been especially tragic, but not unusually powerful or frequent.)

But not everyone has those skills (or, for that matter, confidence in science). I don’t mean a word of judgment when I say that. When grandmothers hear from their friends or grocers or televisions that the hundreds of thousands of 2010 earthquake victims are just the beginning, why shouldn’t that give them pause? When children hear the same thing, why shouldn’t they be afraid?

As I type this, some of those children are lying awake with the terrified belief that the world will end in two years. Their nightmares are like my own childhood nuclear horror, but different in one critically important respect: 2012 fears are not based on an actual danger. What’s the harm of 2012 scaremongering? Children suffering for no reason.

What do we, as skeptics, do about that? Step one is simply to internalize the same truth again and again and again: when paranormal beliefs burn out of control, people get hurt. Ordinary, smart, good people — people like your loved ones, and mine.

And then, we need to roll up our sleeves. With that in mind, I’d like to ask you to do something this week, something small: try to make someone feel better about 2012. Talk to a friend. Tweet a resource. Share a link.

Here’s mine: Skeptic magazine has made available our recent “A NASA Scientist Answers the Top 20 Questions About 2012” cover story (by Dr. David Morrison, Director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute and Senior Scientist in the NASA Astrobiology Institute). It’s free in both English and Spanish translation.

Are Microwave Ovens Really Safe?

I have mixed feeling about using microwave ovens. Yes, they are easy and convenient, but they do alter what is put in them. This includes the containers that hold the objects inside them, when it is anything other than glass. The unknowns are still to be discovered, and being a grandfather has changed my viewpoint. I want to know more, but the data still is not there, or suppressed by the very people that sell us those very items (tobacco, BHT, BPA, high fructose corn syrup, yellow #5, trans fats, aspartame, MSG, cyclamate, olestra, saccharin, nitrates and nitrites, etc. The list goes on.). In many cases, years, and even decades will pass before the truth comes out about things we felt were safe.

Educate yourself. Make it your business to know what is safe and what is hype. I make no claim to know, but my own education will continue until it is replaced with certainty.

To learn more about microwave oven radiation, go here.

"To Nuke or Not to Nuke"

By Mark Sisson on 06/25/2009

 

The verb itself suggests the unleashing of atomic destruction, but we wondered, “Is there a grain of truth behind the slang?” What’s the real story behind these boxes of convenience sitting in so many of our kitchens? Are microwaves a benign bastion of modern handiness or, as some claim, a sinister contributor to our physiological (at least nutritional) undoing?

It’s likely that we find ourselves in a variety of camps on this issue. Some of us swear them off. Others unapologetically swear by them to get through the normal course of a busy day. And then there are those of us in the dithering middle who routinely stare at each plate of leftovers or bowl of frozen vegetables, sometimes reaching for the pots and pans and other times giving into convenience but always questioning whether we’re paying for it.

Should we be plagued by these pangs of conscience? Are we emitting dangerous radiation into our homes or killing off the nutritional value of our unsuspecting food? Are we making a mountain out of a molehill? What should we believe? Is there enough evidence to really tell either way?

We definitely know this much. Grok didn’t have a microwave. But, then again, he didn’t have a jet shower, Bose stereo system, or Hammacher Schlemmer thumper massager. (Trade-offs, you know…) As much as we love Grok and think his era has been unduly disparaged, we aren’t arguing that he had the best life possible or that anything he didn’t have isn’t worth having. Nonetheless, while it’s a naturalistic fallacy to assume that everything post-Paleo is an abomination, it’s both fair and reasonable to question the safety of today’s customary appliances.

Here’s what we found. First, to the question of transforming your home into a radiation zone… There is, not surprisingly, disagreement about this point. However, occasional home use of a fully functional microwave appliance is generally considered safe. Microwaves do, make no mistake, emit radiation, and the FDA has established what it considers “safe” levels for microwaves: over the machine’s “lifetime” the allowable level is “5 milliwatts of microwave radiation per square centimeter…approximately 2 inches from the oven surface.” Guidelines from the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) suggest overall radiation limits of 1 milliwatt per square centimeter “averaged over 6 minutes (0.1 h) period.” Unless you’re using your microwave on a perpetual basis, there’s little reason to worry.) Because the radiation diminishes quickly over distance, standing further away from the microwave during operation cuts your exposure even more significantly. (That instinct to not press your face against the glass door while your lunch was cooking turns out to be right after all…) Additionally, the FDA requires two interlock systems that effectively offer backup security as well as a monitoring system that shuts the microwave down if one of the systems isn’t working or if the door is opened during operation.

Common sense adds that you might want to make sure the microwave seal isn’t compromised by built up tomato sauce or other grime. (Hmmm…anyone?) And, of course, it’s a good idea to replace an old, dilapidated microwave even if it’s a great conversation piece. Safety versus vintage flare…

And now for the more common question. What about the nutrients? (We should mention quickly that microwaving of food isn’t the same as food irradiation, which involves a higher level of energy and is considered much more damaging in terms of “complex chemical changes … in food components.”) But how do nutrients fare behind the closed, latched, double interlock system door? Well, it varies. As we’ve reported in the past, cooking of any kind can sometimes reduce the nutritional value of food and occasionally enhance it. Slow and low are typically the way to go with cooking, as we’ve said. A pretty much universal concept for our friends, fruits and veggies: steaming or cooking/microwaving with small bits of water trumps boiling or deep frying. When it comes to microwaving itself, studies suggest some mixed reviews for individual vegetables or nutrients but indicate, overall, that microwaving generally preserves nutrient levels.

One study using Brassica vegetables found that microwaving resulted in comparable nutrient (glucosinolates, a possible cancer preventative compound) loss when compared to steaming or stir frying.  (Actually, shredding the vegetable ahead of time had more impact on nutritional value than the cooking method.) However, another study using broccoli suggests that antioxidants can be significantly depleted.  (Antioxidants, particularly water soluble vitamins, appear to be most at risk while minerals tend to be generally preserved in microwave preparation.) Yet another study review showed that microwaving with low power settings offered “equal or better retention of nutrients … as compared with conventional, reheated foods for thiamin, riboflavin, pyridoxine, folacin, and ascorbic acid.” University of Illinois research also showed that microwave blanching (brief exposure to high heat used for pre-freezing preparation to lengthen storage ability of frozen produce) was as or more successful in retaining nutritional value than conventional blanching methods. (Nonetheless, blanching does diminish nutrient levels.)

But how could microwaving actually preserve more nutrients in many cases? Not only do we generally use less liquid when cooking in the microwave, cooking times are typically shorter than those for conventional cooking. (As a side note, new ceramic cookware designed for microwave use shows promise to cut cook times further still, which can mean even greater nutrient preservation.)

Our best advice: nuke wisely. If the convenience of a microwave keeps you committed to PB eating, use it as you need to. (We’re all for leftovers, freezing fresh produce to save money, etc.) Nonetheless, thinking outside the micro box is likely a good idea as well. Invest in some small pans for single servings or small cooking jobs. (If it takes up less space in the dishwasher/sink, it seems like less of a chore.) And, of course, avoid heating (and especially reheating) whenever you can to retain the most nutrition. Heat only the ingredients you must to make a dish palatable, and keep water use, time and temp (power level) as low as possible. (Bonus: it helps you avoid those nasty steam burns from handling overheated dishes.)

Beware... pseudoscience is all around us.

What do you believe? How much of what is rolling around in your brain fact and how much is pseudoscience? Do you know the difference? You might be surprised at how much information that has been presented as good science is actually just so much bunk, myself included.

What is pseudoscience? Simply put, it is a set of ideas, exhibited as scientific, when in fact they are not. It masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy, which it would not otherwise be able to achieve.

I am particularly interested in the subject, but I must confess, I am truly just a rookie at it. I am intrigued by so many subject, that when given scrutiny don’t hold up, and in some ways, I still find some of them believable… or want to. That’s the unskeptical part of my brain still wanting to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. I suppose we have a little of that in all of us. Without it, there would be many less drugs, miracle cures, books, movies, television shows, and experts on the subject. Where would we be without the ghosts, UFOs, infomercials, astrologers, creationists, etc. in our lives. It might be a pretty boring place.

There is so much to know, and the availability of good and factual information, is difficult to decipher from what is presented as the truth, but is in fact anything but.

The following is a collection of facts, descriptions, and narratives collected on the subject, from multiple sources readily available to you. I find them thought provoking, and elevates my curiosity to know more and enhance the knowledge I do have. I hope you find some of some of the following information interesting and in finds a way to peak your own curiosity. Some you may not agree with, but that is part of what the scientific process is designed to do. As Fox Mulder so often repeated, “The truth is out there”. Find it for yourself, develop your own skills, but enjoy the ride, but above all, never stop asking questions or being satisfied with the status quo.

Pseudoscience has one or more of the following features:

Hostility towards scientific criticism

Science requires criticism. Bad ideas and methods get knocked down. Pseudoscientists can feel picked on by such criticism and cry conspiracy. Science provides a system for validating ideas and forces disconfirmation of wrong beliefs.

Ignorance is a virtue

Pseudoscientists can fancy themselves as being untainted by the scientific community and therefore able to think outside the box. Science thrives on creative thinking for problem solving and testing hypotheses to explain existing data.

Start with a conclusion and work backwards

Pseudoscientists can start with a "theory" and then retrofit or cherry pick evidence to fit the conclusion that they want. Creationists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature. Scientists modify or discard theories based on new evidence, granted that the process can be slow.

Unnecessary jargon

Pseudoscientists can use jargon to dazzle and obfuscate instead of illuminate. Scientists use jargon to increase precision and remove ambiguity. Scientologists are a good example of this pseudoscience feature.

Shift the burden of proof

Pseudoscientists can shift the burden of proof away from themselves and challenge others for disproof. But the burden of proof is on the claimant. And the more extraordinary the claim, the higher the bar of evidence.

Failure to consider all hypotheses

Pseudoscientists can prefer sensational hypotheses over more likely mundane ones, and they can even propose whole new laws of physics to explain phenomena instead of considering existing ones.

Reliance on anecdotes

Pseudoscientists can rely heavily on personal testimonies and anecdotes rather than well-documented studies. This is especially the case with health and medicine. And it's a red flag when fundemental principles are based on a single case, such as with chiropractic and iridology. Scientists count the misses, not just the hits.

Simple solutions to complex problems

Pseudoscientific solutions can range from a universal theory of everything to a single medicine, procedure or product that cures all ills. As to why such simple solutions have been overlooked all this time can be attributed to grand conspiracies.

What are the warning signs of bogus science?

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.

The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially.

Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.

2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government.

3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.

Alas, there is never a clear photograph of a flying saucer, or the Loch Ness monster. All scientific measurements must contend with some level of background noise or statistical fluctuation. But if the signal-to-noise ratio cannot be improved, even in principle, the effect is probably not real and the work is not science.

4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.

If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't.

5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.

There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.

6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.

The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.

7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.

A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.

Some pseudoscientific claims are based on an authoritative text rather than observation or empirical investigation. Creation science devotees, for example, make observations only to confirm dogmas, not to discover the truth about the natural world. Such dogmas are static and lead to no new scientific discoveries or enhancement of our understanding of the natural world. The main purpose of creationism and intelligent design is to defend a set of religious beliefs.

A scientific theory like the theory of natural selection is not based on a text. Creationists* distort the truth when they call evolution "Darwinism," as if the science were based on a belief in the infallible words found in Origin of Species or Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. Natural selection is one of several mechanisms put forth by scientists to explain the fact of evolution. The various theories of evolution, i.e., mechanisms that explain how evolution occurs, are defended not by deference to texts but by empirical evidence from several scientific fields: embryology, the fossil record, homology, genetics, biogeography, molecular biology.

Pseudoscientists claim to base their ideas on empirical evidence, and they may even use some scientific methods, though often their understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many pseudoscientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their ideas with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by the facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but a theory or hypthesis that is consistent with the facts is not necessarily a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis that plague is due to evil spirits is not established by the correctness of the deduction that you can avoid the disease by keeping out of the reach of the evil spirits"

Ockham’s Razor:

“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate” or “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.”

The words are those of the medieval English philosopher and Franciscan monk William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349).

Simple is Best

One of the principal techniques, if not the primary technique of the practitioners of thought control and Deskeption, is the unethical use of Knowledge Filtering through Simplicity.  The core technique involves the mis-use of Ockham’s Razor in two ways:

1. as an application to filter out unwelcome DATA as not fitting my ‘simple’ truth.

2. as a way to enforce the ‘simplest’ explanation as already proven, when in fact, no science has been done to support it.

These are both practices of pseudoscience.

Ockham’s Razor, or the discernment of Plurality versus Singularity in terms of competing Hypotheses, is a useful tool in determining whether Science should be distracted by bunk theories which would potentially waste everyone’s time and resources. But it is an act of pseudoscience to apply Ockham’s Razor to data.

Data stands on its own.  Additionally, when found in abundance, and not eliminated one at a time by the false anecdotal application of “Occam’s” Razor Knowledge Filtering or through Plausible Deniability Extrapolation, can eventually be formulated into a construct, which then will vie for plurality under the real Ockham’s Razor, a useful science method principle. Data should not be dismissed for the sole reason that it does not fit or that one does not like it. This is pseudoscience.

The full text, along with other sources can be found with the following links:

http://debunkatron.com/Pseudoscience.html

http://mukto-mona.net/new_site/mukto-mona/Articles/randi/science_pseudoscience.htm

http://woofighters.org/2010/06/warning-signs-that-something-is-not-scientifi/

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/signs.html

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4037

http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

http://deskeption.wordpress.com/tag/occams-razor/

Your smart phone is wrecking your health

 I don't own a smart phone and have no intention of doing so. They are a costly distraction and are responsible for unintended consequences that are happening everywhere because of them. Among these is the fact that they are detrimental to your overall health. I found this article by Bill Phillips and the editors of Men's Health, and felt that it typifies the kinds of things that a phones like these are doing to reduce your overall health. If you use one, keep these things in mind to minimize the negative effects a smart phone is having on you.

Another thing to note: this article refers to smart phones as cell phones. The terminology is blending over the years. A smart phone may be a cell phone, but a cell phone may not be a smart phone. Think about it. There is a clear distinction.

1. Your Cellphone Is ... Destroying Your Ability to Focus

You don’t own your phone—it owns you. Researchers in Finland found that most people obsessively check their menu screen, news, e-mail, and apps, even though the likelihood of seeing new and interesting information keeps decreasing. “The more you do it, the less you gain,” says study author Antti Oulasvirta, Ph.D.
Your move: Oulasvirta recommends setting specific times to touch base with your touchscreen, such as on the hour—or half hour if the withdrawal is too much.

2. Your Cellphone Is ... Making You Sick

All that tapping, typing, and swiping may make your touchscreen as germy as your computer keyboard, according to a study published in the Journal of Applied Microbiology. “We found that about 20 percent to 30 percent of viruses on a glass surface similar to a smartphone screen will transfer to your fingertips,” says study author Tim Julian, Ph.D. And it’s a short trip from there to your mouth or eyes.
Your move: If your phone has Gorilla Glass (many do, including the iPhone) and it’s not coated to resist fingerprints or glare, you can safely clean the screen with a disinfecting wipe, like Clorox’s. Also avoid texting and crying, so you have no reason to wipe your eyes.

3. Your Cellphone Is ... Hurting Your Eyes

The combination of holding your phone too close and staring at a sadistically small font can lead to eye strain, headaches, dry eye, and blurred vision, according to research from the SUNY State College of Optometry.
Your move: Increase the font size to twice the smallest size you’re able to read, says study author Mark Rosenfield, O.D., Ph.D., and maintain a distance of at least 16 inches between the screen and your eyes. If you’re reading for longer than a few minutes, take regular 20-second breaks.

4. Your Cellphone Is ... Causing You Stress

You bought your phone so you’d be accessible 24-7, but now you never seem to have time to unwind. Why? Because you’re never unreachable, you’re constantly expecting to be reached. In fact, a University of Worcester study showed that this constant stress can actually trick people into believing that their phone vibrated from a new text or e-mail even when no messages came in.
Your move: Start by shutting off your phone for an hour every day, and slowly work your way up to 2-hour breaks. And, no, while you’re sleeping doesn’t count.

The Pursuit of Happiness: Practical Ways to Beat Depression

 By Carisa Holmes

A team of researchers took a critical look at all the studies done on antidepressants and reported their findings in The New England Journal of Medicine. They dug up some serious dirt. After looking at 74 studies involving 12 drugs and over 12,000 people, they discovered that, while only 14 of 36 drug studies with negative results were published, 37 of 38 drug studies with positive results were published. Also, those that showed even the negative results were, in their words, "published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome." The problem is much worse than it sounds, because even the positive studies showed little benefit in the first place. A startling 80 percent of people got better with just a placebo.

Taking antidepressant drugs is not the answer for the epidemic of depression. After all, we are not depressed because we are all suffering from a deficiency of antidepressants! The real cure lies in re-balancing the systems in your body, mind and spirit that are at the root of the problem.

Here are simple, practical things you can do to prevent or relieve depression:

1. Move It: Exercising vigorously five times a week for 30 minutes increases levels of BDNF, a natural antidepressant in your brain. If you aren't able to keep that schedule, know that even milder forms of exercise can lift the spirits, get your blood and chi flowing and make you feel more alive.

2. Cool the Inflammation: Food allergies and sensitivities and the resultant inflammation they cause have been connected with depression and other mood disorders. Continually eating foods to which you are allergic or sensitive throws your body into a tailspin of imbalances that can cause anything from mind fog and irritability to compulsive behavior, panic attacks and full-blown hallucinations.

Even if you have no food allergies or sensitivities, your mood can still be affected by foods that cause inflammation in the body. Shift your diet to primarily anti-inflammatory foods, like whole vegetables and fruits, fish and other seafood and filtered water to reduce inflammation and elevate your moods.

3. Focus on the B Complex: It is vital to get the whole range of B vitamins for overall health, but be sure to get adequate B12 (1,000mcg a day), B6 (25 mg) and folic acid (800 mcg) if you are experiencing depression. These vitamins are critical for metabolizing homocysteine, which can play a factor in depression, and folate also affects neurotransmitters that impact your moods. To keep the good mood foods at hand, stock up on dark leafy greens, eggs, fish, beans, lentils and chicken.

4. Let in the Light: Deficiency in “vitamin” D (actually a steroid hormone) can lead to serious depression. Additionally, lack of sun or bright light in general can trigger Seasonal Affective Disorder, or SAD, a form of depression that plagues many people during the winter months. To preserve your 'sunny' disposition, expose a maximum amount of your skin to sunlight for as long as your skin can tolerate without damage. If you are not able to sun yourself regularly, supplement with at least 2,000 to 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 a day and test your blood levels at least twice a year, as it is easy to overdose on supplemental forms.

5. Balance Your Omegas: Humans need omega fats to stay healthy and happy. The two most crucial, omega-3 and omega-6, need to be in balance at a 2:1 ratio, or two parts omega-6 to one part omega-3. The omega-3 fats help increase your serotonin levels, which fights depression and other mental and emotional difficulties. If you are low in omega-3’s, it’s no wonder you may be feeling a little less than joyful.

In order to balance yourself and feel happier, cut back your consumption of omega-6 laden foods, (corn, soy, canola, fried foods and most processed foods) while increasing your intake of omega-3 with mercury-free fatty fish (like wild Alaskan salmon or barramundi), chia seeds or Neptune krill oil supplements. Additionally, note that free-range and pasture-raised meats are higher in omega-3 fats than conventionally raised meats. Also, animal source omega-3 is much easier for the human body to process and absorb than omega-3 from plant sources. If you are vegan, be very careful about how much omega-6 you eat, as you will not likely be able to absorb enough omega-3 from plant foods to compensate.

6. Check for Hypothyroidism and/or Adrenal Fatigue: These largely unrecognized epidemics are a leading cause of depression. Hypothyroidism can cause lethargy and low mood while adrenal fatigue can cause you to feel “burnt out”, easily overwhelmed by little things and inexplicably fatigued. A blood and saliva test can tell you if you suffer from either of these conditions, but you can take action to heal yourself with or without getting an official diagnosis. Get more minerals from food-based supplements and whole foods like organic land and sea vegetables to help correct any deficiencies that may be causing poor adrenal/thyroid function.  

7. Get Checked for Metal: Heavy metal toxicity has been correlated with depression and other mood and neurological problems. It is not uncommon to see toxic levels of lead, mercury, aluminum and copper on lab test results of people suffering from mood and behavioral disorders. Most heavy metals are free radicals (substances that cause oxidative stress) that have an affinity for the brain, damaging brain tissue structure and metabolism. Reduce your exposure to heavy metals by using all natural body, lawn and home care products, safely removing metal tooth fillings and consuming whole, organic foods and low-mercury seafood. Be sure to have your blood tested for heavy metals if you suspect this form of toxicity is sabotaging your health.

8. Be Grateful: An attitude of gratitude is perhaps the most powerful weapon we have against depression. Placing your focus on that which you are grateful for, rather than what's seemingly missing from or “wrong” in your life, shifts your mind to a more positive vibration. Consciously shifting into gratitude helps us to attract more positive feelings and things in our lives rather than attracting what we do not want. With these ways to beat depression, you are now empowered to discover the happiness that is available to you, right now, no matter what else is going on in your life. You deserve to lead a joyful life, so get busy cultivating those good feelings; you will always reap what you sow.

About the Author: Carisa Holmes is a holistic health advocate, Reiki practitioner and author based in Columbus, Ohio. Carisa has worked in the holistic health and natural beauty fields for nearly 10 years

The Perils of Texting While Parenting

The technology is great, but it also has its demons. We all think we are all great multi-taskers, but plenty of studies have shown that we are fooling ourselves.
====================================
Are too many parents distracted by mobile devices when they should be watching their kids? A recent rise in injuries, reversing the longstanding trend, has doctors worried that the answer is yes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One sunny July afternoon in a San Francisco park, tech recruiter Phil Tirapelle was tapping away on his cellphone while walking with his 18-month-old son. As he was texting his wife, his son wandered off in front of a policeman who was breaking up a domestic dispute.

"I was looking down at my mobile, and the police officer was looking forward," and his son "almost got trampled over," he says. "One thing I learned is that multitasking makes you dumber."

Injuries among young children are on the rise as the number of Americans who own a smartphone grows. Many child-health experts see a possible connection between device distraction and increased injuries. WSJ's Linda Blake and Ben Worthen report.

Yet a few minutes after the incident, he still had his phone out. "I'm a hypocrite. I admit it," he says. "We all are."

Is high-tech gadgetry diminishing the ability of adults to give proper supervision to very young children? Faced with an unending litany of newly proclaimed threats to their kids, harried parents might well roll their eyes at this suggestion. But many emergency-room doctors are worried: They see the growing use of hand-held electronic devices as a plausible explanation for the surprising reversal of a long slide in injury rates for young children. There have even been a few extreme cases of death and near drowning.

Read the entire article at "The Perils of Texting While Parenting".

Making the Grade

This article comes from a friend of mine. Read through it. Ask yourself the questions she proposes. How do you stack up?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Making the Grade by Marlene Harris, NSCA-CSCS, NASM-CES

While chatting about knots and kinks in nutrition and fitness efforts, I inadvertently stumbled upon a concept that seemed to resonate with a couple people. In this edition, I’m going to cast a broader net highlighting the discussion in hopes that it may stimulate thinking about where your own efforts shake out on the continuum.

In one instance, following a somewhat lackluster weigh n’ measure, I was discussing nutrition efforts with a gal at the gym, and I asked her to name, as a percentage, the amount of time she was “on task” in following her program. She reported “about 70-75% of the time”. I responded, “Oh, a “C”.

She looked at me quizzically, so I followed up with; “You’re getting a “C” as a grade, you’re doing C (average) work.” She responded; “Wow! I never thought of it that way!” This seemed to clarify things for her, and she noted that perhaps some improvements were in order to spark better results.

Most of us are brought up in educational systems that assign a letter grade as a representation of the quality or quantity of our efforts. Add to this my protracted (understatement!) tenure as a college student, and assigning a letter grade to a percentage is about as automatic as Pavlov’s pup’s response to the dinner bell. Outside of academia, the idea and has a good track record here in the rest of life as well; wonky efforts, wonky results, average efforts, average results, above average efforts, above average results, and so forth.

Here’s the connector; recent research is suggests that, in order to make any measurable and motivating progress on fat loss, you need to be “at least 90% compliant” in your chosen plan of attack. In other words, you need to be following your plan at least 90% of the time and over the long haul, not just for a day or a week or two. Of course, in the world of grades this 90%+ designation is the equivalent of maintaining an “A” average, doing honor’s level work.

So, how’s your progress? Try to step back and, as objectively as possible, assess the percentage of time you’ve been true to your game plan. Don’t have one? Well, there’s the first issue. If you don’t have a game plan, get one. Words to live by: “Fail to plan, plan to fail”. If you do have a game plan, that’s a great start, but you actually have to follow the fool thing in order to get any results. Yes, I know, that’s the tough part. But, what percentage of time are you true to your plan? Below 20%? The big F. Epic fail. 50%? Better than nothing, but still, essentially a fail. 60%? Below average—how’s those results looking, D list? 70-ish? Well, we already have some idea of how that plays out (yawn..). 80%? Not bad, but you’re not fast trackin’ it are you? 90%+? Things should be looking pretty good for you, unless, of course, your plan is flawed (as in, you’re really, really good at following a really bad plan).

All that aside, be honest with yourself as you look at your fitness and fat loss efforts. How’s your report card looking? How are you doing, really? Assign yourself a grade based on the percentage of your efforts. If you’re doing “A” work and getting the results you want, use that as point of congratulations and put yourself on the honor roll. If you’re not, use the unfavorable grade as sign that you need to step up your efforts, same as in school. Want to make the grade? Up the percentage of your efforts, pretty please!

The Unknown Unknowns

This article is courtesy of the Wednesday August 1 edition of eSkeptic: the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society

The Unknown Unknowns

BY MICHAEL SHERMER

At a press conference on February 12, 2002, the United State Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld employed epistemology to the explain U.S. foreign entanglements and their unintended consequences: “There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

It is this latter category especially that is the focus of Stuart Firestein’s sparkling and innovative look at ignorance, and how it propels the scientific process forward. Firestein is Professor and Chair of the Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University, where he teaches a wildly popular course on ignorance, inviting scientists in as guest speakers to tell students not what they know but what they don’t know, and even what they don’t know that they don’t know. (Would you rather earn an A or an F in a class called “Ignorance”?, he muses.) This is a slim volume about a fat topic, but Firestein captures the essence of the problem by contrasting the public’s understanding of science as a step-wise systematic algorithm of grinding through experiments that churn out data sets to be analyzed statistically and published in peer-reviewed journals after a process of observation, hypothesis, manipulation, further observation, and new hypothesis testing, with the Princeton University mathematician Andrew Wiles’ description of science as “groping and probing and poking, and some bumbling and bungling, and then a switch is discovered, often by accident, and the light is lit, and everyone says, ‘Oh, wow, so that’s how it looks,’ and then it’s off into the next dark room, looking for the next mysterious black feline” (p. 2), in reference to the old proverb: “It is very difficult to find a black cat in a dark room. Especially when there is no cat.”

If ever there was a time to think seriously about ignorance it is in our age of digital knowledge. Consider an Exabyte of data, or one billion gigabytes (typical thumb drives that most of us carry around consist of a couple of gigabytes storage capacity). It has been estimated that from the beginning of civilization around 5,000 years ago to the year 2003, all of humanity created a grand total of five exabytes of digital information. From 2003 through 2010 we created five exabytes of digital information every two days. By 2013 we will be producing five exabytes every ten minutes. The 2010 total of 912 exabytes is the equivalent of 18 times the amount of information contained in all the books ever written. It isn’t knowledge that we need more of; it is how to think about what we know and what we don’t know that is becoming ever more critical in science, through a process Feinstein calls “controlled neglect.” Scientists “don’t stop at the facts,” he explains, “they begin there, right beyond the facts, where the facts run out” (p. 12). It must be this way, he argues, because “the vast archives of knowledge seem impregnable, a mountain of facts that I could never hope to learn, let alone remember” (p. 14). Doctors and lawyers and engineers need many facts at their ready, as do scientists, but for the latter “the facts serve mainly to access the ignorance” because this is where the action is. “Want to be on the cutting edge? Well, it’s all, or mostly, ignorance out there. Forget the answers, work on the questions” (pp. 15–16).

To Rumsfeld’s epistemological categories Firestein would one add more: unknowable unknowns, “things that we cannot know due to some inherent and implacable limitation.” He puts history in this category, but I would not, for if we take the broader construct of history as anything that happened before the present then most of astronomy, cosmology, geology, archaeology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology are historical sciences, subject to testing hypotheses no less rigorously than their experimental scientists in the lab. And I worry slightly that an overemphasis on our ignorance about this or that claim opens the door to creationists, Holocaust deniers, climate deniers, and post-modern deconstructions who wish to challenge mainstream scientists because of religious or political agendas. Acknowledging our ignorance is good, but let’s acknowledge and celebrate what science has confidently given us in the way of well-supported theories.

That caveat aside, Ignorance includes an important discussion about scientific errors and their propagation in textbooks. I’m embarrassed to admit that I perpetrated one of these myself in my latest book, The Believing Brain, in which I repeated as gospel the “fact” that the human brain contains about 100 billion neurons. Firestein reports that his neuroscience colleague Suzana Herculano-Houzel told him it is actually around 80 billion (after undertaking an actual neural count!), and that there are an order of magnitude fewer glial cells than the textbooks report. As well, Firestein continues, the “neural spike” every neuroscientist measures and every student learns as the fundamental unit of neural activity when the cell fires, is itself a product of the electrical apparatus employed in the lab and ignores other forms of neural activity. And if that isn’t bad enough, even the famous “tongue map” in which sweet is sensed on the tip, bitter on the back, and salt and sour on the sides that is published in countless popular and medical textbooks is wrong and the result of a mistranslation of a German physiology textbook by Professor D. P. Hanig, and that the localization differences are much more complex and subtle.

These and other errors are the result of our lack of skepticism of the knowledge we have and our lack of respect for ignorance. “Ignorance works as the engine of science because it is virtually unbounded, and that makes science much more expansive” (p. 54). Indeed it is, and as the expanding sphere of scientific knowledge comes into contact with an ever increasing surface area of the unknown (thus, the more you know the more you know how much you don’t know), we would do well to remember the mathematical principle of surface area to volume ratio: as a sphere increases the ratio of its volume to surface area increases. Thus, in this metaphor, as the sphere of scientific knowledge increases, the ratio of the volume of the known to the surface area of the unknown increases, and it is here where we can legitimately make a claim of true and objective progress.

Just a quick note about kids and water

Now is the time when kids spend a lot of time in and around swimming pools.

Watch your kids around water!

Check this out

Finished. Now it's time to begin.

I just finished reading Fit2Fat2Fit.

There were a few surprises in it, but the best parts were when Drew Manning related the unexpected lessons he learned along the way, during his journey. He made personal discoveries and connected with the rest of us on a level that only doing what he did can accomplish. It made for some interesting sideline stories, and it drove the point home that we all have the same kinds of stories in our own life from which we can draw.

He stressed the importance of having a support community around you, and this may be my weak point. As I gather the impetus to pursue my own weight loss/ conditioning program, this is the area where I am the most susceptible to hiccups along the way. I have long ago cast off the need for sodas and fries (except on rare occasions), and I have adopted Drew's spinach shake, but I worry that my ability to maintain the workout and food regimen, is all too easily thwarted by a loss of momentum, which has always been a problem. All the good intentions in the world can be easily derailed with out a firm and realistic execution plan. This one is going to be almost all on me.

Fit2Fat2Fit has shown me that anyone can do it. Now it's up to me to chart my own journey and make it work. Wish me luck.

Smartphone and driving: A bad mixture

I was coming home from a short trip the other day and there was a car going a little slower in the right-hand lane. As we got further from the intersection, this car cross over the bike lane and very nearly crashed into the curb. As I drove by this person, I could see that it was a young girl, still texting on her smartphone, apparently unmoved by the fact that she nearly crashed her car into the curb.

I couldn't believe what I had witnessed. This girl was seemingly oblivious to the danger she was causing to herself and the people around her, because using her smartphone to talk to someone else was more important. As a driver in another car there was nothing I could do, but what I wanted to do was pull her over and knock some sense into her, or at the very least report her for her dangerous driving tactics.

I don't own a smartphone and have no intention of owning one in the future. Seeing things like this on an everyday basis makes me even more set against them. I know I have to devote even more attention of my driving time to be on the lookout for people like this. I have a feeling it's just going to be a matter of time before habits like this is going to eliminate these people or their unsuspecting victims from the gene pool.

If you use a phone while driving, STOP IT. Wake up, pay attention, be alert. You are driving a mobile weapon, and what you do behind the wheel, affects more than your need to send a text.

If you need any more proof, go here...

Watch the movie clips!
Dangers of Text Messaging and Driving

Texting while driving

Texting While Driving: How Dangerous is it?

Be safe. Do the right thing.

Getting the old me back

I began reading Drew Manning’s Fit2Fat2Fit, and he has done a nice job so far of talking about his anxiety and frustrations. It will be interesting to see how this book develops and I get further into it. I am inspired though.

I certainly can identify. My own journey began as far back as 2001, so in some ways his short term experience exhibits a lot of what most of us feel as we move along the rocky path to lose weight and get into better condition. In most cases though, the bad habits and poor diet we’ve established are well ingrained into our daily life. We have no recent memory of eating well and working out to draw from. For many of us, this compounds the problems we face.

I, at least, have a mixed bag of good and bad, so it’s not as dire for me as for many others, but my issues have their own history.

To begin with, I have a life long history of ADD. I have long ago learned adult coping skills to deal with it, but in truth, we never outgrow it, so it is an ever present bug in my brain's software, and I have to be mindful of its presence. Maybe this is why I have been so poor at execution of a number of things I've done in my life. I am very good at some things, and have had some real brainstorms at times, but for some reason, I never saw them through to their most positive conclusion. Don't get me wrong, I have had some great successes, like my early effort at racing motorcycles, getting my bachelor degree, reaching 18,800 ft while mountaineering, achieving black belt status in Japanese swordsmanship, raising two great boys, and building a street rod from scratch, but these things could have been even better. The misses are the ones that haunt me at times. They could have made my life a lot different.

I have known about the importance of eating right and conditioning my body, but old habits are tough to break. When you add in the spans of time when doing these, it makes a difficult combination. Too much work, unplanned distractions, and self-doubt, make it easy to fall off the wagon.

I was doing OK in 2006. I was a little overweight, but was maintaining, and working out at a reasonable pace. Then my brain tumor struck, and everything changed. Although the surgery and therapy rid me of this menace, the chemo kicked my butt. From the time I began it until I was over the residual effects of the fatigue, was around two and a half years. By that time, I was far behind the eight-ball, and picking up martial arts again was a bigger hill to climb than I expected. Although the desire was there, I just couldn't muster enough encouragement to make it a priority. People around me were too busy with their own lives to take an interest in challenges that weren't their own. I never faulted anyone else, but it made my own climb an even steeper one.

I knew better though. In 2004, I gained my certificate as a personal fitness trainer, so I knew that deep inside it was up to me, it was just that all the effort to get it and all that had happened in between, seemed like a mountain I would never scale again. In the last two and a half years, if felt like my body's metabolism had changed. I was eating about the same, but the lack of any real physical activity, was helping me to pack on the pounds. Before I knew it, I was courting 200, and not very successful at getting it back off. I was still playing racquetball with my son, and going to the gym, but nothing was making a difference. I even hired a trainer at the gym to help me regain my old form, but despite this effort, I made little progress. I seem to be resigning myself to the fact that this was going to be the new me. I've tried several times since to make a difference, but nothing to date has taken off more than a few temporary pounds.

It was only by chance that I stumbled onto Drew Manning's clip on the news. I was intrigued by his experiment. Could this be the difference I was missing? Did this guy understand what many of us had tried and failed to do? That still remains to be seen, but contacting him through his web site, gave me a little hope.

The one thing that he told me though that I still am not sure I have, but he stressed as a very important part, and that is the support from those around me. I'm not talking about occasional patronizing remarks. I'm talking about solid, measurable support. All the diet, and exercise you can gather, is not going to get you where you need to go (particularly for someone like me), unless there is something more. I aim to try my best, but it will be tough to break old (practically hard-wired) habits, and put on a new suit of discipline.

The desire is there. Let's see how well it holds up when the rubber hits the road. Wish me luck.

Fit2Fat2Fit

I caught wind of Drew Manning a short while ago, and I have to admit, I was pretty inspired by him. He made a gutsy move to abuse his good condition, and stop working out, eat badly, and gain the kind of weight we are all fighting. Then, lost it all again and got back to his former self, and he did all this to help him identify with the rest of us overweight slobs, and to show us that we can do it if we want to.

You can check it all out on his web site Fit2Fat2Fit.com.

Anyway, I bought his book and am going to try to do something about my own situation. At my age, I'm not going to get many more opportunities to make a difference in my physical condition, health, etc. Growing old is not for sissies, and I don't want to hear my granddaughter tell me how fat I am anymore.

The gauntlet has been thrown down. I wonder if I still have what it takes to pick it up and run with it.

Who we are

We have seen and done more than you can imagine, and are still alive to talk about it. We have no ego to bruise, nobody we feel we need to impress, and nothing to prove to anyone. We are...... Old Guys.

Think

Slow down, Pay attention, Question everything, Start now

Space music

I don't know how many of you out there can use it like I can, but I found a music station on the internet that plays some of the best relaxation music I've found. If you go to Sky.fm, and choose the station Space Music, you can get some of the best easy to listen to music around. I can listen to this when I'm working of just chilling out. Give it a look. Here's a sample of what you'll hear. Click here to enjoy.

Our last goodbye to those we lost in 2011

It has become a sort of ritual for me to take a last look at the list of those who have passed on during the year. Some I knew, and others were unexpected, but in every case, I find an opportunity to reflect on them and the contributions they have made.

We always hope that the next year will be better than the last, but it is never done without looking back to see where we have been, and this past year is no exception. As expected, we lost some memorable people in 2011. For some, their name and their legacy will live on. Others will pass by us for the last time. Some have influenced us, and others have had no impact at all.

This list seems a little long, but in fact is just a smattering of the true loss we have had. Read through the list and see how many you recognize. Take the time to look up the ones you don't (I did). They won't pass your way again.

========================================

January

• Anne Francis, 80, American actress (Honey West, Forbidden Planet, The Twilight Zone), pancreatic cancer.
• Jack Ertle Oliver, 87, American scientist, provided seismic evidence supporting plate tectonics.
• Tom Cavanagh, 28, American ice hockey player (San Jose Sharks), blunt force trauma.
• John Dye, 47, American actor (Touched by an Angel), heart attack.
• Bill Bower, 93, American aviator, last surviving pilot of Doolittle Raid, complications from a fall.
• David Nelson, 74, American actor (The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet), colon cancer.
• Mississippi Winn, 113, American supercentenarian, Louisiana's oldest person.
• Susannah York, 72, English actress (Tom Jones, Superman), bone marrow cancer.
• Barney F. Hajiro, 94, American soldier, was oldest living Medal of Honor recipient.
• Poppa Neutrino, 77, American adventurer, crossed Atlantic Ocean on raft made of discarded material, heart failure.
• David Frye, 77, American satirist and Richard Nixon impersonator, cardiopulmonary arrest.
• John Barry, 77, British film score composer (From Russia with Love, Chaplin, Out of Africa), five-time Academy Award winner, heart attack.
• Eunice Sanborn, 114, American supercentenarian, oldest living person in America at the time of her death.

February

• Lena Nyman, 66, Swedish actress (I Am Curious (Yellow), I Am Curious (Blue), Autumn Sonata), cancer.
• Gary Moore, 58, Irish rock guitarist and singer (Thin Lizzy), heart attack.
• Christian J. Lambertsen, 93, American diving engineer, inventor of first SCUBA device, renal failure.
• Frank Buckles, 110, American supercentenarian soldier, last living U.S. World War I veteran, natural causes.
• Jane Russell, 89, American actress (The Outlaw, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes), respiratory illness.

March

• Johnny Preston, 71, American pop singer ("Running Bear"), heart failure.
• Alberto Granado, 88, Argentine-born Cuban biochemist and writer, travel companion of Che Guevara (The Motorcycle Diaries).
• Hugh Martin, 96, American songwriter ("Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas") and film composer (Meet Me in St. Louis), natural causes.
• John Nettleship, 71, British teacher, inspiration for character of Severus Snape, cancer.
• Joe Morello, 82, American drummer (The Dave Brubeck Quartet).
• Dorothy Young, 103, American actress, assistant to Harry Houdini.
• Mayhew Foster, 99, American brigadier general, flew captured Hermann Goering to interrogation.
• Dame Elizabeth Taylor, 79, British-American actress (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Cleopatra, BUtterfield 8), heart failure.
• Harry Coover, 94, American inventor (Super Glue).
• Carl Bunch, 71, American drummer (Buddy Holly and the Crickets).

April

• Wayne Robson, 64, Canadian actor (The Red Green Show).
• Violet Cowden, 94, American pilot, member of Women Airforce Service Pilots during World War II, heart failure.
• Walter Breuning, 114, American supercentenarian, world's third oldest man ever.
• Trevor Bannister, 76, British actor (Are You Being Served?, Last of the Summer Wine, The Dustbinmen), heart attack.
• Michael Sarrazin, 70, Canadian actor (They Shoot Horses, Don't They?; The Flim-Flam Man; For Pete's Sake), cancer.
• Phoebe Snow, 60, American singer-songwriter ("Poetry Man"), brain hemorrhage.
• Yvette Vickers, 81–82, American actress (Attack of the 50 Foot Woman), singer and model (Playboy). (body discovered on this date).

May

• Jackie Cooper, 88, American actor (Skippy, Our Gang, Superman) and director (M*A*S*H).
• Lawrence Johnson, 97, American boat trailer inventor and manufacturer, natural causes.
• Bill Summers, 75, American car builder (Goldenrod).
• Seiseki Abe, 96, Japanese shodo and aikido teacher.
• Joseph Brooks, 73, American Grammy-winning songwriter ("You Light Up My Life"), suicide by asphyxiation.
• Jeff Conaway, 60, American actor (Grease, Taxi, Babylon 5).

June

• Andrew Gold, 59, American singer-songwriter ("Lonely Boy", "Thank You for Being a Friend"), heart attack.
• James Arness, 88, American actor (Gunsmoke), natural causes.
• Lilian Jackson Braun, 97, American author (Cat Who series), natural causes.
• Fred Steiner, 88, American television composer (Perry Mason, Star Trek, The Twilight Zone).
• Peter Falk, 83, American actor (Columbo, Murder, Inc., Pocketful of Miracles, The Princess Bride).
• George Ballas, 85, American entrepreneur, inventor of the Weed Eater.

July

• Betty Ford, 93, American First Lady (1974–1977) and co-founder of Betty Ford Center.
• Roberts Blossom, 87, American actor (Doc Hollywood, Escape from Alcatraz, Home Alone).
• Jerry Ragovoy, 80, American songwriter ("Time Is on My Side"), stroke.
• Amelia Trice, 75, American Kootenai tribal leader and activist, leader of the last Indian war against the United States, cancer.
• Elliot Handler, 95, American businessman, co-founder of Mattel, namer of the Barbie doll, creator of Hot Wheels, heart failure.
• Linda Christian, 87, Mexican-born American actress, first Bond girl (1954 television adaptation of Casino Royale).

August

• George Devol, 99, American inventor, creator of Unimate, the first industrial robot.
• Albert Brown, 105, American veteran, oldest survivor of Bataan Death March.
• Gun Hägglund, 79, Swedish television personality, world's first female television news presenter, after short illness. (Swedish)
• Jerry Leiber, 78, American songwriter ("Stand By Me", "Hound Dog", "Jailhouse Rock", "Kansas City"), cardiopulmonary failure.

September

• Liu Huang A-tao, 90, Taiwanese activist, first comfort woman to sue Japan for compensation.
• 44 ice hockey players and coaches killed in the Lokomotiv Yaroslavl plane crash.
• Cliff Robertson, 88, American actor (Charly, Spider-Man, PT 109), natural causes.
• Walter Bonatti, 81, Italian mountain climber.
• Tom Wilson, Sr., 80, American cartoonist (Ziggy).
• Wilson Greatbatch, 92, American engineer, inventor of the implantable cardiac pacemaker.

October

• Kenneth H. Dahlberg, 94, American businessman and World War II fighter ace, natural causes.
• Steve Jobs, 56, American computer entrepreneur and inventor, co-founder of Apple Inc., pancreatic cancer.
• Roger Williams, 87, American pianist (Autumn Leaves), pancreatic cancer.
• Bob Galvin, 89, American businessman, CEO of Motorola (1959–1986).
• Dennis Ritchie, 70, American computer scientist, developer of the C programming language and the Unix operating system. (body discovered on this date)
• Paul Leka, 68, American pianist, arranger and songwriter ("Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye", "Green Tambourine").
• Chuck Ruff, 60, American drummer (Edgar Winter, Sammy Hagar), after long illness.
• Edgar Villchur, 94, American inventor of the acoustic suspension loudspeaker.

November

• Andy Rooney, 92, American journalist, 60 Minutes correspondent (1978–2011), surgical complications.
• Joe Frazier, 67, American boxer, World Heavyweight Champion (1970–1973), liver cancer.
• Bil Keane, 89, American cartoonist (The Family Circus), heart failure.
• Evelyn Lauder, 75, Austrian-born American philanthropist (The Breast Cancer Research Foundation), creator of pink ribbon symbol, complications from ovarian cancer.
• Lee Pockriss, 87, American songwriter ("Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini").
• Karl Slover, 93, Slovak-born American actor (The Wizard of Oz).
• Anne McCaffrey, 85, American science fiction writer (Dragonriders of Pern series), stroke.
• Vasily Alekseyev, 69, Russian Olympic gold-medal winning weightlifter (1972 and 1976), heart failure.

December

• Bill McKinney, 80, American actor (Deliverance, The Outlaw Josey Wales), esophageal cancer.
• Bruno Bianchi, 56, French cartoonist and animator (Heathcliff and The Catillac Cats), co-creator of Inspector Gadget.
• Pusuke, 26, Japanese dog, world's oldest known living dog at time of death, natural causes.
• Jerry Robinson, 89, American comic book artist (Batman) and reputed creator of The Joker.
• Harry Morgan, 96, American actor (M*A*S*H, Dragnet), pneumonia.
• Bonnie Prudden, 97, American rock climber and physical fitness advocate.
• Bert Schneider, 78, American film and television producer (Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, The Monkees), natural causes.
• Kim Jong-il, 69 or 70, North Korean Supreme Leader (since 1994), heart attack.