Government Study: Higher Levels Of Urinary Fluoride Associated With ADHD In Children

(Natural Blaze) Higher levels of urinary fluoride associated with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children, a government-funded study has just found.

The study looked at both Canadian and United States communities and included researchers from Harvard School of Public Health. 

Higher levels of urinary fluoride during pregnancy are associated with more ADHD-like symptoms in school-age children, according to University of Toronto and York University researchers.

“Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the growing fetal nervous system may be negatively affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure,” said Dr. Morteza Bashash, the study’s lead author and researcher at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

Recommended: Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included

The study, “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms in Children at 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico City,” published today in Environment International, analyzed data from 213 mother-child pairs in Mexico City that were part of the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project, which recruited pregnant women from 1994 to 2005 and has continued to follow the women and their children ever since.

Tap water and dental products have been fluoridated in communities in Canada and the United States (as well as milk and table salt in some other countries) by varying amounts for more than 60 years to prevent cavities. In recent years, fierce debate over the safety of water fluoridation — particularly for children’s developing brains — has fueled researchers to explore the issue and provide evidence to inform national drinking water standards.

The research team — including experts from the University of Toronto, York University, the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, University of Michigan, Indiana University, the University of Washington and Harvard School of Public Health — analyzed urine samples that had been obtained from mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to reconstruct personal measures of fluoride exposure for both mother and child.

The researchers then analyzed how levels of fluoride in urine related to the child’s performance on a variety of tests and questionnaires that measure inattention and hyperactivity, and provide overall scores related to ADHD. Analyses were adjusted for other factors known to impact neurodevelopment, such as gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure.

“Our findings show that children with elevated prenatal exposure to fluoride were more likely to show symptoms of ADHD as reported by parents. Prenatal fluoride exposure was more strongly associated with inattentive behaviours and cognitive problems, but not with hyperactivity,” said Bashash.

Recommended: Foods Most Likely to Contain Glyphosate

This work builds off of previous research the team published on this population demonstrating that higher levels of urine fluoride during pregnancy are associated with lower scores on tests of IQ and cognition in the school-age children.

ADHD is the most common psychiatric disorder diagnosed in childhood, affecting between five and nine per cent of all school-aged children.

“The symptoms of ADHD often persist into adulthood and can be impairing in daily life,” said Christine Till, Associate Professor of Psychology at York University and co-author on the study.

“If we can understand the reasons behind this association, we can then begin to develop preventive strategies to mitigate the risk,” said Till, who is also the principal investigator of another National Institutes of Health-funded grant examining fluoride exposure in a large Canadian sample of pregnant women.

This article (Government Study: Higher Levels of Urinary Fluoride Associated with ADHD In Children) appeared at Natural Blaze and can be republished with attribution/link back to the homepage.

Can A Home Garden Produce Enough Food To Live On?

(Natural Blaze by Tess Pennington) Have you ever wondered why you should start your own garden when food is readily available at grocery stores?  What about those who would love to be self-sufficient to the point of living off the food they can grow on their own land? The simple answer is yes, this is possible, but it will take hard work and dedication.

Most Americans firmly believe its impossible to be self-sufficient, and those values are all but permanently engrained into their minds from a young age. Even people who know that organic agriculture is just as productive as industrial agriculture often think you need to have acres and acres of land to grow all of your own food. But that simply is not true.  According to the Small Footprint Family, applying certain techniques and principles can get you set on the lifetime journey of potentially being able to grow all your food on as little as a quarter of an acre!  Even people in most suburbs could give this a try!

Obviously, how much food you need and can grow will depend on a variety of factors, space being just one of them.  You will also need to take into consideration the size of your family and how much food they actually require. A large man will eat quite a bit more than a 5-year-old girl, however, that girl will also grow to consume more.  These are a few factors to keep in mind when beginning to consider self-sufficiency. You should also consider the climate in which you live.

In the 1970s, research by John Jeavons and the Ecology Action Organization found that 4000 square feet (about 370 square meters) of growing space was enough land area to sustain one person on a vegetarian diet for a year, with about another 4000 square feet (370 square meters) for access paths and storage. The math works out to a garden plot around 80 feet x 100 feet (24m x 30m). But that is only the beginning.

After determining if you have enough space (calculate more for a larger family) you should also calculate how many pounds of each vegetable you consume as a family in one week.  This will give you an idea of what you should be trying to grow. For example, if you eat 5 lbs (about 2kg) of potatoes each week as a family, that’s 20 lbs (9kg) a month and 240 lbs (109kg) a year. You’ll need to grow at least 240 lbs, plus a little more to make up for any loss of plant to disease, pests, and other often unforeseeable problems.

*Another helpful tip to keep in mind: There is no sense in wasting good garden space growing onions if no one in your family likes them.  Plant what you eat and the reward for doing so will be greater.

You should also try to plant early, mid, and late varieties of your crops. This will provide a steady flow of produce spread throughout the growing season even if yours is shorter. It can also help to reduce losses due to pests and diseases as your plants will be in different stages of growth at different times. For example, GoVeg.com suggests if you’ve decided on growing potatoes you could choose 3 different varieties – one each of first early, second early, and maincrop varieties. Many other crops have seasonal varieties too, including peas, beans, apples, onions, and corn. You’ll also want to replant as you harvest your first early potatoes in June.  You could then plant, for example, a quick growing crop such as some beets and still have enough time to harvest them as well.

You could also employ the use of greenhouses, cold frames, or a hoop house to add an extra few weeks at the start and end of the growing season. In cooler climates, this will ensure you are much more successful with tender crops like tomatoes, cucumbers, and melons. They will also help to protect your crops from unseasonal weather such as wet summers and from some pests such as birds, small mammals, and deer (although an effective fence to keep deer out is still recommended).  It’s always an added and welcome bonus to be able to harvest fresh produce early in the season!

Another important thing to keep in mind is just because you may not have the knowledge or skillset yet to master a self-sufficient garden, that is not a reason to give up. Growing your own food doesn’t have to be about being totally self-sufficient, as that is going to have to come in time and with often several seasons of practice. Whether you have a few containers by your back door or have a 2 acre plot of land you can use, you’ll be able to add fresh ingredients to your meals, reduce your grocery bills, and maybe even discover a love for nature and gardening along the way!  Another great side effect of growing even small amounts of your own food is that children often learn early how to eat better and stay healthier as they grow into adults. Getting your kids involved at a young age will spike their curiosity, as they love to eat the foods they have helped nurture an grow.

*Helpful Hint: grow snap peas along a fence just for your kids. They are easy to grow and withstand a frost quite well. Help your kids plant the seeds and water them.  Show them how the peas look when they are ready to eat. Allow them to eat their peas off the plants whenever they would like as a healthy snack.  My children love this and they go out on their own to weed their snap peas and taste the fruits of their labor all summer.  It’s very rewarding for a rather small cost.

Just 10 Streams Carry 95 Percent of Plastic Into Oceans

(Dr. Mercola) Every minute, another truckload’s worth of plastic trash ends up in the ocean, amounting to 8 million tons every year.1 That plastic is ending up in sea turtle and whale stomachs, strangling seabirds and, perhaps even worse, being broken down into microplastics that are consumed by fish and plankton — with unknown consequences.

How to clean up the swirling garbage patches in the world’s oceans is a daunting question. At least one organization, The Ocean Cleanup, is tackling it from a practical standpoint, using a passive trash-collecting system that they estimate may remove half the plastic from the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (which covers 1.6 million square kilometers (nearly 618,000 square miles) of the Pacific Ocean’s surface) in just five years.

Another option is to tackle the garbage at its source, a task that may be more achievable than it seems because 95 percent of the riverborne plastic flowing into the ocean comes from just 10 rivers.2

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

10 Rivers Carry Almost All Plastic Into the Ocean

Researchers from the Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research in Leipzig, Germany, looked at the concentration of plastic in 57 rivers throughout the world.

Data on both microplastics (particles less than 5 millimeters (mm), such as microfibers and microbeads) and macroplastics (particles greater than 5 mm, such as plastic bags and bottles) were analyzed, with researchers multiplying the concentrations of plastic in the river with water discharge to figure out how much plastic (by weight) was entering the oceans.

“They then fed these data into a model that compared them with the estimated weight of plastic litter generated per person per day along each river,” Scientific American reported.3 The study authors added, “A substantial fraction of marine plastic debris originates from land-based sources and rivers potentially act as a major transport pathway for all sizes of plastic debris.”4

Their analysis revealed that large rivers with dense populations along their shores delivered a disproportionate amount of mismanaged plastic waste into the ocean. “The 10 top-ranked rivers transport 88 to 95 percent of the global load into the sea,” the researchers concluded.5

Eight of the rivers (the Yangtze, Yellow, Hai, Pearl, Amur, Mekong, Indus and Ganges Delta) are found in Asia while two (the Niger and Nile) are in Africa. The worst polluter of the bunch, by far, is the Yangtze, located in China, which releases 1.5 million tons of plastic waste into the Yellow Sea annually (more than is released by the other nine rivers combined6).

Related: Ocean Plastic to Triple Within a Decade

Together, the 10 rivers are responsible for dumping 0.47 to 2.75 million tons of plastic into the world’s oceans every year.7 The silver lining to the finding, if there is one, is that better waste-management practices targeting these 10 rivers could have a major effect in curbing the amount of plastic flowing into the ocean.

The Top-Polluting Rivers Are Located in Asia, With the Yangtze River Topping the List

A similar study published in 2017 in Nature Communications created a global model of plastic inputs from rivers into oceans, based on waste management, population density and hydrological information.8 The model estimated that between 1.15 and 2.41 million tons of plastic waste enter the ocean every year from rivers, with 74 percent of the emissions occurring between May and October.

The researchers, from The Ocean Cleanup, also found that rivers account for a hefty share of ocean plastic, in this case revealing that the 20 top-polluting rivers, most of them located in Asia, accounted for 67 percent of the global total of river plastic emissions into the ocean.

Again, the Yangtze River in China, which is the third-longest river in the world, earned the dubious moniker of top polluter. The Ocean Cleanup researchers stated:9

“Most of this river plastic input is coming from Asia, which emphasizes the need to focus on monitoring and mitigation efforts in Asian countries with rapid economic development and poor waste management … there is very little data to document these assumptions and thoroughly verify the validity of our model.

Yet, the relatively high concentrations of ocean plastic found at the surface of the North Pacific Ocean where buoyant plastics originating from Asia can accumulate, suggest that our assumptions are plausible.”

Fisheries, fishing vessels and other ships contribute less than 20 percent of plastic debris in the oceans. The rest, more than 80 percent, starts off on land. Once in the ocean, it’s known that nearly 700 species (and probably many more) are negatively impacted by such debris.

According to environmental advocacy group Ocean Conservancy, some plastic products persist for so long, even in salty ocean water, that they’ll still be recognizable after 400 years.10

In the U.S., one of the top waste-generating countries, littering is a major issue, especially in the form of single-use plastics, like soda bottles, drinking straws and potato chip bags. In much of Asia and Africa, however, plastic debris ends up in rivers due to lack of proper disposal and handling of general waste as well as that from landfills and industry.

Efforts to Curb Plastic Pollution Should Target Freshwater Environments

Rivers, being a major source of transport of plastic into oceans, should be a major focus of cleanup and prevention efforts, not only to curb the transport but also because, as Martin Wagner, an associate professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology’s (NTNU) department of biology, “Rivers are wonderful and complex ecosystems in themselves.”11

In a book on the topic titled “Freshwater Microplastics: Emerging Environmental Contaminants?” Wagner points out that there are more than 5,300 grades of synthetic polymers, each with different physicochemical properties. As such, each is likely to exert very unique effects once in the environment.

Related: Microplastics in Sea Salt – A Growing Concern

“In light of this, treating microplastics as a single pollutant does not make sense,” he writes. The book continues:12

“Due to the chemical makeup of plastic materials, receiving environments are potentially exposed to a mixture of micro- and nano-sized particles, leached additives and subsequent degradation products, which will become bioavailable for a range of biota.

The ingestion of MPs [microplastics] by aquatic organisms has been demonstrated, but the long-term effects of continuous exposures are less well understood.”

Further, much of the study on plastics in the environment has centered on the ocean, while little is known about plastics in freshwater systems. As of the book’s writing, less than 4 percent of publications referred to plastics in freshwater, “reflecting the idea that streams, rivers and lakes are mere transport routes transferring plastics to the oceans similar to a sewer … this is too simplistic,” the books preface notes.13

Wagner believes that focusing on removing plastic from the ocean is a shortsighted solution because in order to stop it in the long run, it has to be traced back to its source, which in most cases is land and the rivers that transport it. “We have to go to the source of the problem to stop it, and the source is on land,” he said in an NTNU news release, adding:14

“We also don’t know how much plastic there is in rivers and lakes. This is crucial knowledge to be able to identify and understand the most important sources of plastic litter — which in turn is essential to find effective solutions to the problem … Plastics break down into microplastics.

We know very little about the impact of microplastics on ecosystems, whether we’re talking about freshwater or oceans … Long-term experiments and new methods are needed to find out how microplastics affect nature — and us.”

Majority of Fish in Freshwater Environments May Contain Plastic

What little research that has been done on plastics in freshwater environments is not reassuring. In one such study, 83 percent of the fish had plastic debris in their gut, mostly microplastics, particularly microfibers.15

The fish appeared to consume more microplastics near urbanized sections of the river and when fish ate a lot of the plastics, they appeared to eat a less diverse variety of other food items. Microfibers have also been found in most water samples collected from the Hudson River,16 and studies show concentrations of fibers tend to be particularly high in beach sediment near wastewater treatment plants.17

So, ironically, the practice of recycling plastic bottles into clothing items, which is done by certain outdoor companies as a way to reduce waste, may ultimately end up being environmentally destructive, as microfibers from clothing are released during washing.

These microscopic plastic fibers soak up toxins like a sponge, concentrating PCBs, flame retardant chemicalspesticides and anything else found in the water. It could be that the longer the particles stay inside the fish, the more chemicals may leach into its body. So the microfibers may be harming marine life via two mechanisms: physical blockage and chemical poisoning.

One solution to the microfiber pollution problem would be to install filters in washing machines — similar to lint traps in dryers — that could catch the fibers prior to their being released with the wastewater. Special coatings may also help to stop the loss of microfibers during washing, but the apparel industry has been slow to respond in taking steps to stop microfiber pollution.18

Doing Your Part to Curb Plastic Pollution

Efforts to improve waste management in Asia are urgently needed to help curb plastic pollution, but you can also make a dent in the waste by using less plastic in your daily life, especially in the case of single-use disposable items like straws, bottles, bags and cutlery.

Data obtained by The Guardian suggests 1 million plastic bottles are purchased every minute worldwide. Worse still, this is expected to increase by 20 percent by 2021 and reach more than half a trillion sold every year by 2020.19

Fewer than half of the plastic bottles purchased in 2016 were recycled, and only 7 percent were made into new bottles,20 which means the rest end up in landfills or marine environments. Don’t underestimate the impact even one person can have by making simple tweaks to their routine.

Will you really miss that plastic straw with your water? Do you really need a throwaway bag to carry home one or two items from the store? It’s time to rethink our throwaway society and choose reusable over single-use whenever possible (and it’s usually possible).

Following are some of the most straightforward steps you can take to cut down on plastics usage in your life. Share them with a friend or two and the positive impacts will only continue to be magnified:

Use reusable shopping bags for groceries Take your own leftovers container to restaurants
Bring your own mug for coffee, and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water Request no plastic wrap on your newspaper and dry cleaning
Store foods in glass containers or mason jars rather than plastic containers and plastic freezer bags Avoid disposable utensils and straws and buy foods in bulk when you can
Opt for nondisposable razors, washable feminine hygiene products for women, cloth diapers, handkerchiefs instead of paper tissues, rags in lieu of paper towels, and infant toys made of wood rather than plastic

How We Can Turn Plastic Waste Into Energy

(The Conversation) In the adventure classic Back to the Future, Emmett “Doc” Brown uses energy generated from rubbish to power his DeLorean time machine. But while a time machine may still be some way off, the prospect of using rubbish for fuel isn’t too far from reality. Plastics, in particular, contain mainly carbon and hydrogen, with similar energy content to conventional fuels such as diesel.

Plastics are among the most valuable waste materials – although with the way people discard them, you probably wouldn’t know it. It’s possible to convert all plastics directly into useful forms of energy and chemicals for industry, using a process called “cold plasma pyrolysis”.

Pyrolysis is a method of heating, which decomposes organic materials at temperatures between 400℃ and 650℃, in an environment with limited oxygen. Pyrolysis is normally used to generate energy in the form of heat, electricity or fuels, but it could be even more beneficial if cold plasma was incorporated into the process, to help recover other chemicals and materials.

Related: How to Detox From Plastics and Other Endocrine Disruptors

The case for cold plasma pyrolysis

Cold plasma pyrolysis makes it possible to convert waste plastics into hydrogen, methane and ethylene. Both hydrogen and methane can be used as clean fuels, since they only produce minimal amounts of harmful compounds such as soot, unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon dioxide (CO₂). And ethylene is the basic building block of most plastics used around the world today.

As it stands, 40% of waste plastic products in the US and 31% in the EU are sent to landfill. Plastic waste also makes up 10% to 13% of municipal solid waste. This wastage has huge detrimental impacts on oceans and other ecosystems.

Of course, burning plastics to generate energy is normally far better than wasting them. But burning does not recover materials for reuse, and if the conditions are not tightly controlled, it can have detrimental effects on the environment such as air pollution.

Related: Many Hand-me-down Plastic Toys Are Toxic for Kids

In a circular economy – where waste is recycled into new products, rather than being thrown away – technologies that give new life to waste plastics could transform the problem of mounting waste plastic. Rather than wasting plastics, cold plasma pyrolysis can be used to recover valuable materials, which can be sent directly back into industry.

How to recover waste plastic

In our recent study we tested the effectiveness of cold plasma pyrolysis using plastic bags, milk and bleach bottles collected by a local recycling facility in Newcastle, UK.

We found that 55 times more ethylene was recovered from [high density polyethylene (HDPE)] – which is used to produce everyday objects such as plastic bottles and piping – using cold plasma, compared to conventional pyrolysis. About 24% of plastic weight was converted from HDPE directly into valuable products.

Plasma technologies have been used to deal with hazardous waste in the past, but the process occurs at very high temperatures of more than 3,000°C, and therefore requires a complex and energy intensive cooling system. The process for cold plasma pyrolysis that we investigated operates at just 500℃ to 600℃ by combining conventional heating and cold plasma, which means the process requires relatively much less energy.

Related: Microplastics in Sea Salt – A Growing Concern

The cold plasma, which is used to break chemical bonds, initiate and excite reactions, is generated from two electrodes separated by one or two insulating barriers.

Cold plasma is unique because it mainly produces hot (highly energetic) electrons – these particles are great for breaking down the chemical bonds of plastics. Electricity for generating the cold plasma could be sourced from renewables, with the chemical products derived from the process used as a form of energy storage: where the energy is kept in a different form to be used later.

The advantages of using cold plasma over conventional pyrolysis is that the process can be tightly controlled, making it easier to crack the chemical bonds in HDPE that effectively turn heavy hydrocarbons from plastics into lighter ones. You can use the plasma to convert plastics into other materials; hydrogen and methane for energy, or ethylene and hydrocarbons for polymers or other chemical processes.

Best of all, the reaction time with cold plasma takes seconds, which makes the process rapid and potentially cheap. So, cold plasma pyrolysis could offer a range of business opportunities to turn something we currently waste into a valuable product.

The UK is currently struggling to meet a 50% household recycling target for 2020. But our research demonstrates a possible place for plastics in a circular economy. With cold plasma pyrolysis, it may yet be possible to realise the true value of plastic waste – and turn it into something clean and useful.The Conversation

Anh Phan, Lecturer in Chemical Engineering, Newcastle University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Study Finds Disinfectant Cleaners May Alter Children’s Gut Microbiome

(Natural Blaze) The right balance of good and bad bacteria in our gut affects our ability to extract nutrients from our food, supports our immune system function and affects mental health. Yet it seems the microbiome of children is potentially compromised by common household products, such as disinfectant cleaners.

The Study of Children’s Microbiome

A new Canadian study analyzed the microbiome of 757 babies. Using the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development birth cohort, the scientists studied the microbes in these children’s fecal matter.

The researchers initially assessed infants at age of 3-4 months. Then, they checked the weight of these your subjects at ages 1 and 3 years. In addition, the researchers used the World Health Organization growth charts to compare the participants’ body mass index to peers their age.

Furthermore, the scientists assessed how often common household products were used in the home of these children. The study included products such as detergents, disinfectant cleaners, and eco-friendly products.

Related: How To Heal Your Gut

Household Disinfectant Cleaners Impact Home Environment

The findings of the study confirmed that using household disinfectants affects much more than germs living on household surfaces. Researchers discovered that babies 3-4 months old who lived in homes where disinfectants were frequently used had the biggest associations with altered gut flora. The same trend was found in homes that cleaned with disinfectants more frequently.

Specifically, infants from these households had lower levels of Haemophilus and Colstridium bacteria, while levels of Lachnospiraceae were higher.

Anita Kozyrskyj, a University of Alberta pediatrics professor, studies how alterations of the gut microbiome impact long-term health. As the principal investigator on this project, she shares:

We found that infants living in households with disinfectants being used at least weekly were twice as likely to have higher levels of the gut microbes Lachnospiraceae at age 3-4 months; when they were 3 years old, their body mass index was higher than children not exposed to heavy home use of disinfectants as an infant

Eco-friendly Cleaning Products

Interestingly, the Canadian study did not report the same gut biome association with detergents and eco-friendly products. The researchers reported that infants in homes that used eco-friendly cleaners were less likely to be overweight at age 1 and 3, compared to the disinfectant group.

Related: Sugar Leads to Depression – World’s First Trial Proves Gut and Brain are Linked (Protocol Included)

Kozyrskyj explains:

Those infants growing up in households with heavy use of eco cleaners had much lower levels of the gut microbes Enterobacteriaceae. However, we found no evidence that these gut microbiome changes caused the reduced obesity risk.

Of course, it is possible that homes that use eco-friendly products are more conscious in general about living healthy. One must consider that the general health of the parents and the family’s food choices may have also contributed to some of the subjects’ healthier weight.

Conclusion

Clearly, the study brings up a very important point: whatever chemicals you use within your home could end up in your gut. Using antibacterial cleaning products, as well as personal care products such as antibacterial soap, may help keep your home germ-free…but are you willing to risk your family’s long-term health?

Epidemiologists Dr. Noel Mueller and Moira Differding of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health share their findings from another study:

There is biologic plausibility to the finding that early-life exposure to disinfectants may increase risk of childhood obesity through the alterations in bacteria within the Lachnospiraceae family.

Let’s be realistic. It will likely take many more studies for the word to spread about the dangers of the overuse of disinfectant cleaners. As such, it is up to you to make an educated decision that is best for your family and your health.

Related: How to Use Vinegar and Baking Soda to Clean Your Home

There are many perfectly safe and effective ways to clean your home naturally. Click here for some simple ideas on how to make your own DIY household cleaners. As well, there are plenty of eco-friendly brands offering a variety of safe home cleaning products.

Read more articles by Anna Hunt.

Anna Hunt is writer, yoga instructor, mother of three, and lover of healthy food. She’s the founder of Awareness Junkie, an online community paving the way for better health and personal transformation. She’s also the co-editor at Waking Times, where she writes about optimal health and wellness. Anna spent 6 years in Costa Rica as a teacher of Hatha and therapeutic yoga. She now teaches at Asheville Yoga Center and is pursuing her Yoga Therapy certification. During her free time, you’ll find her on the mat or in the kitchen, creating new kid-friendly superfood recipes.

This article (Study Finds Disinfectant Cleaners May Alter Children’s Gut Microbiomewas originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Anna Hunt and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.