The Emotional Effects of OAB

Overactive bladder is a physical issue, but it has an impact on the rest of your life as well. Few people want to sit around and chat about their need to rush to the bathroom, though.

"A woman who's growing older sees men on television talking about erectile dysfunction, but not women sharing their stories about continence," says Linda Brubaker, MD. She's the director of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery at Loyola University Health System.Do Diaphragms Cause Urinary Tract Infections?

In every issue of WebMD the Magazine, we ask experts to answer readers' questions about a wide range of topics, including some of the most common beliefs about medicine. In our September 2011 issue, we asked Jane Miller, MD, an associate professor of urology at Washington University's School of Medicine, about the link between diaphragms and painful bladder infections. Q: My friend says I'm getting urinary tract infections because I use a diaphragm. Is she right? A: It's TRUE. Diaphragm...

Read the Do Diaphragms Cause Urinary Tract Infections? article > >

Because of the relative silence on the subject, it might seem you're alone -- but you aren't. And there is support for you.

"Especially as overactive bladder and other continence problems become more severe, they can be very distressing, embarrassing, and ultimately isolating," says Ross Rames, MD. He's an associate professor of urology at the Medical University of South Carolina.

People with OAB often don't want to be out in public because they're afraid they'll have to keep rushing to the bathroom. When you stay home, though, you miss out on things you enjoy doing, and being with friends and family. Instead of relieving your stress, you're building up more worry and frustration.

Limiting your activities can affect your physical health, too. "Women may stop going for walks because they're afraid to be that far from the bathroom," Brubaker says. "Or they may stop playing sports -- even 'grandma soccer' with the kids -- because they're afraid of leakage accidents. So their lives become more [inactive]." And that can lead to other health problems.

OAB can also make it tough to do your job. "Imagine if you're a schoolteacher and you have to stand up in front of a classroom of 4th-graders for an hour or more without a break," Rames says. What if you're an executive who has to make a long presentation, or a surgeon who can't just rush out to the bathroom in the middle of an operation? That's why it's so important to work with your doctor to control those sudden, strong urges to go.

An overactive bladder can get in the way of intimate relationships, too, says Rames. You might leak during orgasm, which can make both sex and masturbation a lot less fun. If worries about bladder problems get in the way of your sex life, don't ignore them. Talk to your partner and your doctor.

Interrupted sleep from getting up to go can leave you feeling groggy, exhausted, and overwhelmed. Over time, this lack of sleep can lead to depression. In a series of online interviews, women who made two or more nighttime bathroom trips were more likely to say they were depressed than women who said they have OAB without nocturia, or the need to urinate several times a night.

View the original article here

Sugar Trumps Fat in Driving Unhealthy Eating: Study

Sugar, not fat, is the major reason why people are drawn to unhealthy treats, a new study says.

Researchers monitored the brain activity of more than 100 teens as they drank chocolate-flavored milkshakes that had the same number of calories but were either high in sugar and low in fat, or the other way around, The New York Times reported.

Both types of shakes activated pleasure centers in the brain, but those that were high in sugar did so far more effectively and triggered a food reward network involved in compulsive eating, according to the study in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

The findings add to a growing body of research that's improving understanding of what causes overeating.

"We do a lot of work on the prevention of obesity, and what is really clear not only from this study but from the broader literature over all is that the more sugar you eat, the more you want to consume it," study lead author Eric Stice, a senior research scientist at the Oregon Research Institute, told The Times.

"As far as the ability to engage brain reward regions and drive compulsive intake, sugar seems to be doing a much better job than fat," he said.

View the original article here

Treating Sleep Apnea Might Be a Win-Win for Golfers

Lower handicap after treatment attributed to sharper focus

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

(HealthDay News) -- Treating their sleep apnea improved middle-aged men's golf games, according to a small new study.

"The degree of improvement was most substantial in the better golfers who have done a superior job of managing the technical and mechanical aspects of golf," said study lead author Dr. Marc Benton, medical director of SleepWell Centers of New Jersey, in Madison.

Researchers looked at 12 men with an average age of 55 who had moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea. The sleep disorder is characterized by frequent episodes of disrupted breathing during sleep.

Their golf performance was assessed before and after up to six months of a sleep apnea treatment called continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which helps keep a person's airway open by providing a steady stream of air during sleep.

The therapy led to less daytime sleepiness and improved sleep-related quality of life. The men also had a significant 11 percent drop in their average golf handicap index, a formula used to estimate a player's skill level.

Among better golfers who had a handicap of 12 or less at the start of the study, the average handicap fell by almost 32 percent after CPAP treatment, according to the study, which was published in the Dec. 15 issue of the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine.

The men attributed their improved golf performance to factors such as improved concentration, endurance and decision making.

"With the cognitive enhancement afforded by successful treatment of their sleep apnea, they saw measurable improvement early and more significantly than those who were less skilled," Benton said in a journal news release.

The researchers said most avid golfers in the United States are men aged 40 to 70, which is a group with a high rate of sleep apnea.

View the original article here

Typical Gum Disease Treatments Won't Help Ease Diabetes, Study Finds

Despite ties between the two illnesses, gum therapies didn't help with blood-sugar control

By Robert Preidt

HealthDay Reporter

(HealthDay News) -- Typical, nonsurgical treatment of gum disease in people with type 2 diabetes will not improve their blood-sugar control, a new study suggests.

There's long been a connection between gum disease and wider health issues, and experts say a prior study had offered some evidence that treatment of gum disease might enhance blood-sugar control in patients with diabetes.

Nearly half of Americans over age 30 are believed to have gum disease, and people with diabetes are at greater risk for the problem, the researchers said. Well-controlled diabetes is associated with less severe gum disease and a lower risk for progression of gum disease, according to background information in the study.

But would an easing of gum disease help control patients' diabetes? To find out, the researchers, led by Steven Engebretson of New York University, tracked outcomes for more than 500 diabetes patients with gum disease who were divided into two groups.

One group's gum disease was treated using scaling, root planing and an oral rinse, followed by further gum disease treatment after three and six months. The other group received no treatment for their gum disease.

Scaling and root planing involves scraping away the tartar from above and below the gum line, and smoothing out rough spots on the tooth's root, where germs can collect, according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

After six months, people in the treatment group showed improvement in their gum disease. There was no difference, however, in blood-sugar control between the two groups, according to the findings, which were published in the Dec. 18 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

These findings do not support the use of nonsurgical gum disease treatment to improve blood-sugar control in people with diabetes, the researchers said.

Experts said the finding was in line with what is known on the subject.

"The results don't surprise me," said Dr. Gerald Bernstein, director of the Diabetes Education Program at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City. "[Gum disease] requires physical intervention to remove offending plaques and microinfection that does not easily clear with brushing and rinsing."

What is really important is how inflammation linked to gum disease is related to wider cardiac inflammation, Bernstein said. That relationship might influence the rate at which artery-hardening plaques are deposited in blood vessels.

Dr. Spyros Mezitis, an endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said it's well known that gum disease is "associated with worsening of [blood-sugar] control in diabetics."

But the current study suggests that "[gum] treatment improves the common disease and preserves teeth but should not be used to control diabetes," he said.

"Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings," Mezitis added.

View the original article here

TVA Pulls the Plug on More Coal Plants; Others Will Surely Follow

Last week, the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) board of directors voted in favor of retiring 3,300 megawatts (MW) of coal power capacity. This action is good news for consumers and the environment in the region. It also continues the drumbeat of retirement announcements nationwide and provides further evidence of the eroding economic viability of the aging U.S. coal fleet. A recent UCS analysis, Ripe for Retirement, documents why many more U.S. coal generators should also be considered for closure.

TVA’s latest announcement includes eight coal generators: all five units at their Colbert plant in Tuscumbia, Alabama; two of three generators at the Paradise plant near Central City, Kentucky; and one of the two remaining operating generators at the Widows Creek facility in Stevenson, Alabama.

TVA’s Colbert coal plant in Tuscumbia, Alabama is slated for retirement. Credit: TVA.

Historically one of the largest coal-power providers in the country, TVA has now become a national leader in terms of its decisions to retire its oldest, dirtiest, and least efficient coal generators. Previously, TVA had announced that 10 generators at its Johnsonville plant (near Dupont, Tennessee) and six other generators at Widows Creek would close operations by 2017. All told, TVA has now announced the retirement of more than 5,350 MW of coal capacity—second only to American Electric Power Company.

In making the decision to retire the latest slate of coal generators, TVA President and CEO Bill Johnson said that “the plan is what’s best in terms of its positive impact on TVA’s rates, debt and the environment; and it will bring the greatest benefit to the people of the Valley.” That’s refreshing to hear, as many leaders in the electric power industry would seemingly rather spend billions of dollars in ratepayer money to keep old coal plants running than invest in cleaner, more affordable options.

There is no question that these closures will have a direct impact on jobs and the communities where they are located. That’s why it is critical for TVA to work with state and local officials to develop and carry out a plan that secures a fair and just transition. But there are a lot of positive takeaways as well.

Burning coal is no longer always the cheapest way to produce electricity. Investments in wind power, solar, and other renewables, as well as investments in energy efficiency and natural gas, are all better options.

Spending billions to upgrade old coal plants would likely have been a poor decision for TVA, as instances elsewhere have shown. For example, Brayton Point Station, the largest coal plant in New England, was announced for closure last month even after Dominion Resources, its previous owner, had spent more than $1.1 billion over several years to upgrade the facility and install new pollution controls. The plant operators decided that it couldn’t compete in the current market, with financial analysts projecting the facility would lose more than $3 million in 2014 alone.

TVA’s combined slate of coal plant retirements will avoid more than 20 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually (based on 2009 generation levels), as well as significant amounts of coal ash and harmful sulfur dioxide, smog, and mercury pollution. In addition, coal plants require a lot of water resources to operate. The TVA retirements will avoid the need for hundreds of billions of gallons of water withdrawals and billions of gallons of water consumption from the region’s lakes and rivers each year.

Like TVA, an increasing number of utilities are making decisions to shut down uneconomic coal plants. In fact, just last Friday Central Iowa Power Cooperative closed its 1960s-era Fair Station coal plant (63 MW) near Montpelier, Iowa, due to economic reasons. Nationwide, nearly 21 gigawatts (GW) of coal-fired electricity generation has already retired since 2009, representing 6 percent of the U.S. coal fleet. Including TVA’s latest announcement, another 34.2 GW of coal generators are slated for retirement in the next several years (see map).

Since 2009, more than 34.2 gigawatts (GW) of coal generators have been announced for retirement. Source: SNL.

Why is coal failing? There are plenty of reasons, including an aging and inefficient coal fleet, the low cost of natural gas, the falling costs of renewable energy, slowing growth in electricity demand, rising construction costs for coal plants, and rising coal prices.

In addition to these market dynamics, state renewable energy and energy efficiency policies have bolstered the economic viability of renewable energy and energy efficiency. And of course, there is also increasing pressure to reduce the pollution from coal plants that harms public health and contributes to climate change.

As a result of this changing economic landscape, we have now reached a critical moment for utilities, investors, and electricity regulators and planners to take stock and make smart investment, policy, and planning decisions. To help with that, late last year we released our Ripe for Retirement analysis, which examined the economic viability of our nation’s coal generators. Our findings showed that, even with all the recent retirement announcements, there are still many more uncompetitive coal generators that should be considered for closure.

In fact, another 285 coal units—totaling more than 49 GW of capacity—failed the economic test we used and remain on our ripe for retirement list (see map below). That means the power they produce—after being upgraded with modern pollution controls—is more costly than electricity generated from existing natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) power plants, and in many cases is also more expensive than wind power.

Importantly, in light of last week’s announcement, this ripe-for-retirement list includes an additional 11 coal generators (3,450 MW) owned and operated by TVA.

As many as 285 coal generators are ripe for retirement (orange dots) according to UCS analysis, which compares the cost of operating coal-fired generating units with the cost of operating existing natural gas combined-cycle generating plants.

As TVA embarks this fall on its next round of integrated resource planning, their remaining ripe-for-retirement coal units (along with all its other coal generators) should be carefully evaluated. If the cost of keeping them operating exceeds the cost of cleaner alternatives, then they too should be retired.

Retiring uneconomic coal plants creates an opportunity to accelerate our nation’s transition to a cleaner energy future by shifting more of the electricity sector’s investment dollars toward new renewable energy resources, energy-saving technologies, and an expanded and modernized electric grid. TVA is taking positive steps in this direction that other power providers should follow.

SPECIAL NOTE: Several of my UCS colleagues and I have been working to update our 2012 Ripe for Retirement analysis, using more recent data and a few refinements in our methodology. The results, which we expect to release in December, are very interesting. Stay tuned to The Equation in the coming weeks for more information.

Posted in: Energy, Fossil Fuels Tags: clean energy, coal, Coal Plants, TVA

About the author: Jeff Deyette is a senior energy analyst with expertise on the economic and environmental implications of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies at the state and federal level. He holds a master’s degree in energy resource and environmental management & international relations. See Jeff's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

The Global Carbon Budget and Why the Warsaw Climate Talks Matter

As the latest round of United Nations climate negotiations opened this week in Warsaw, the tragedy and destruction of typhoon Haiyan dominated news coverage around the globe. The disaster in the Philippines, with countless lives and livelihoods lost, is a stark reminder of the suffering and tremendous heartbreak that is at stake as the world’s nations meet to find an agreement to curb our heat-trapping emissions.

The aftermath of typhoon Haiyan. Source: Oxfam

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) states its objective is to stabilize emissions “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” This oft-quoted phrase takes on a new dimension as we see the aftermath of one of human history’s most powerful storms, with sustained winds of almost 200 miles per hour and waves up to 30 feet high wreaking havoc on hundreds of local communities.

It is clear that human influence has been the dominant cause of our warming climate over the last half century. If the global ocean and atmosphere continue to warm from unchecked emissions, our future will likely be marked by more intense typhoons and hurricanes equal to the strength of Haiyan and Sandy. It’s also clear that if we are to stay within the carbon budget necessary to keep climate impacts from becoming unmanageable, we will need to decarbonize and leave fossil fuels in the ground.

The global carbon budget is the estimated amount of total carbon we can dump into the atmosphere and still have a reasonable chance of avoiding “dangerous” climate change. The “dangerous” temperature level has been pegged at a warming of 2°C (3.6°F) above the pre-industrial global average temperature. However, many would argue this temperature limit should be lowered in light of the impacts we are already seeing, as discussed in a recent UCS blog here and in the latest UNEP report on the Emissions Gap. As a benchmark, the difference in global average temperature between an ice age and an interglacial (a warm period) is only about 5°C, so a 2°C temperature increase is significant.

Source: University of Cambridge, Program for Sustainability and Leadership

The total amount of carbon that would take us to this level of warming has been estimated at 1000 billion tonnes of total carbon starting from the Industrial Revolution. We’ve already spent half of that budget – see the University of Cambridge’s full infographic here.

Of course, the impact of spending our entire carbon budget depends to some degree on the assumptions made about how the earth’s system responds, but most estimates using the 2°C threshold agree that we are about halfway through our allowance.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explains that we may blow our entire carbon budget in the next 30 years or so at the rate we are going. But if you read the fine print, the carbon budget proposed by the IPCC doesn’t even give us a sure guarantee of staying below the 2°C threshold – it only gives us a 2 in 3 chance of doing so. Not great odds.

Another way of visualizing the carbon budget is to show an estimate of the remaining reserves that we need to leave in the ground. The amount in the ground is truly massive compared to what we have already used. The design website “Information is Beautiful” has an infographic that uses data from the International Energy Agency, NASA, NOAA, and the World Bank to show the current overall balance. It’s sobering. By their estimates, if carbon emissions continue to increase at 3 percent a year – as they have been – the point where we break our 2°C carbon budget limit is a mere dozen years away. (See the full version here.)

Source: Information is Beautiful

Carbon dioxide may be colorless and odorless and seemingly benign, but it is long-lived and the most powerful heat-trapping emission from human activity. Two-thirds of the carbon dioxide you and I produce today from burning oil and gas in our cars and for our electricity will still be around in the atmosphere in a hundred years – it takes that long to be naturally removed. It is past time to give up our fossil fuel addiction and instead focus on balancing the ecological budget. Whether we exceed our “safe” carbon level in ten years or forty years really is up to us.

As the Philippines lead negotiator Naderev “Yeb” Saño so poignantly requested on the opening day, let’s hope the talks in Warsaw do reach a “meaningful outcome.” Saño’s hunger strike, in solidarity with the millions affected in the Philippines, has now spread to some participants at the Warsaw COP19 meeting and to wider civil society around the world. With the Philippines now faced with thousands of people dead and millions homeless, Saño implores us to act. Collectively, we must step up to the challenge of tackling this immense global crisis.

Posted in: Global Warming Tags: carbon budget, climate, climate-change, COP 19, Haiyan, Philippines, Typhoon Haiyan, UNFCCC, Warsaw Talks

About the author: Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the UCS Climate and Energy Program, is an expert on local and global impacts of climate change. She holds a Ph.D. in Geophysics from the University of Washington, specializing in the role of sea ice and clouds in Antarctica. See Melanie's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

The EPA and Biofuels: Smart Goals, but an Outdated Roadmap

It may sound backwards, but the EPA’s proposal at the end of last week to reduce the 2014 biofuels mandates in the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) is just what we need to make sure we realize the promise of truly low carbon biofuels that cut oil use while minimizing competition with food. But while adjusting mandates in light of up-to-date data is smart, the EPA’s proposal goes too far, and could slow forward progress. Before finalizing the rule, the EPA should carefully balance near term challenges with the need to maintain progress toward long term oil saving and climate goals.

I am a staunch defender of the RFS, because it has smart goals that help us cut oil use and reduce carbon pollution from transportation. The RFS also moves the biofuels industry in the right direction, progressing from today’s corn ethanol to lower carbon advanced and cellulosic biofuels. Such fuels allow us to make even bigger reductions in oil use, without excessive pressure on food markets.

That said, while the RFS goals are smart, the detailed roadmap for implementation is seriously out of date. Two major challenges have emerged which require particular attention:

Cellulosic biofuels play an important role in the EPA’s RFS. Image credit: Niels BD

According to the original schedule, cellulosic biofuels should deliver three fourths of the growth in biofuels production between now and 2022. But the hope that we could have 16 billion gallons of the stuff in 2022 is no longer realistic.

By my simple estimates, 2030 is the soonest we can realistically anticipate reaching this goal. This does not mean we don’t need low carbon cellulosic biofuels, but it does mean we need realistic expectations to guide our path forward. We have been urging the EPA to recognize this and update their roadmap for all biofuels based on the delayed availability of large volumes of cellulosic biofuels. In this proposal the EPA is doing just that.

Other challenges involve the blending constraints associated with moving past E10 (a blend of 10 percent ethanol in gasoline)—the so-called “blend wall.

Essentially there is a mismatch between the mandated levels of biofuel use, most of which is ethanol, and the fueling infrastructure to use it. Much of my analysis and argument about the future of the RFS focuses on the oil saving potential of biofuels over the next 20 years, but E10 blending constraints must be addressed relatively soon so that the RFS survives for the long term.

The gasoline powered cars on the road can all use E10, and that’s what most gas stations sell. But going forward, the RFS mandates imply that an E10 blend is not sufficient to meet the targets. I will have a lot more to say about this in my next blog, coming soon, in which I describe a congressional briefing I did with Professor Bruce Babcock from Iowa State University, who has done a lot of work in this area recently. To preview our findings: E10 is not the end of the road for biofuels, or even for ethanol.

Yet the fueling infrastructure challenge is a significant speed bump on the road to better biofuels, and will require the EPA to carefully assess how fast mandates can realistically grow beyond the E10 blending level.

Without adjustment, the RFS is quickly becoming untenable. Forecasters of the energy and agricultural markets have ceased to treat the 36 BG target for 2022 (called for when Congress created the RFS in 2007) as credible, and confusion about the future policy environment has already created policy instability that stopped the flow of investment needed to make progress on advanced and cellulosic biofuels. A number of advanced biofuel companies have already responded to the EPA’s announcement by expressing concern over the lack of policy certainty, and the chilling effect that has on investment in the industry. My expectation is that more realistic policy targets will ultimately stabilize policy, and that a stable policy is the foundation needed to support investment and realize the long term goals of the RFS.

It’s disappointing to acknowledge the delay, and the process of revising the targets is sure to be messy. This would have been easier if the EPA had started this process last year, as we urged, but that is ancient history. Now is the time to grapple with these challenges.  

The EPA’s task is to make adjustments that address the real short term challenges while maintaining forward progress towards advanced biofuels. Several key experts that I respect have offered specific analysis and guidance for 2014:

The EPA’s proposal goes considerably farther than these experts (and I) suggest. Rather than slowing the speed of growth, by holding the 2014 mandates at 2013 levels, the EPA proposal cuts it all the way back to nearly 2012 levels. When you get into the nitty-gritty of the EPA’s 2014 proposal, the first and in some respects most critical question is how quickly the mandates can realistically advance beyond the E10 blending level. This will be the subject of my next post.

Public participation is important to many administrative processes, but the comment period for the 2014 RFS volumes is especially important. The EPA’s proposal marks a significant change in two critical ways. First they are using their discretion to set targets under the RFS, and second they are grappling with the importance of infrastructure constraints to the forward progress of the policy.

They have to make complex decisions and balance competing priorities, and a lot is at stake for the future of fuels. They need data and guidance from experts, stakeholders and the public. The public comment period will likely run through the end of January: as we review the details of the rule we will be coming back to you here with thoughts on the smart path forward and opportunities to weigh in.

Stay tuned!

Posted in: Biofuel Tags: biofuels, EPA

About the author: Jeremy Martin is a scientist with expertise in the technology, lifecycle accounting, and water use of biofuels. He is working on policies to help commercialize the next generation of clean biofuels (made from waste and biomass rather than food) that can cut U.S. oil dependence and curb global warming. He holds a Ph.D. in chemistry with a minor in chemical engineering. See Jeremy's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

A Celebration of Carl Sagan: The Man, the Legacy, and the Unanswered Question

Yesterday, I was fortunate to attend “A Celebration of Carl Sagan” at the Library of Congress. Hosted by Emmy award-winner and science-supporter Seth MacFarlane, the event welcomed The Seth MacFarlane Collection of Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Archive to the library and included 13 esteemed speakers all of whom had personal connections to the man being honored. Each speaker had different stories to tell, but many concluded their talk with the same unanswered question.

The Seth MacFarlane Collection of Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan Archive is 798 boxes of Sagan’s documents including everything from drawings to to-do lists to a handwritten note from Sagan to President Carter.

Each speaker described in detail the ways Carl Sagan had affected their lives. For Bill Nye, it was a story of Sagan agreeing to meet with Nye, a former student of his, when Nye was first considering a TV show about science (what would later become Bill Nye The Science Guy) and wanted Sagan’s advice. For Neil deGrasse Tyson, it was a personal offer to stay with Sagan’s family when a young Tyson was visiting Cornell and the Ithaca snow threatened to cancel his bus ride home. For Jonathan Lunine, it was a series of letters he and Sagan had written back and forth when Lunine was a 14-year-old aspiring astronomer. The stories were a testament to the late great Carl Sagan, who in many ways was America’s first prolific and widely known science communicator.

By the time I enrolled as an undergrad at Cornell University, Professor Sagan had passed nearly six years prior, but his legacy there was still alive and well. The Sagan-inspired Planet Walk still marked much of downtown Ithaca and it ended with Pluto located at the Ithaca Sciencenter, which Sagan himself helped conceive. From Global Warming to Public Speaking to Environmental Law, my classes were filled with examples of the lasting work of Sagan both in his scientific field and for public outreach of science. “The best example of this is Cornell scientist Carl Sagan” I heard my professors say again and again.

“Carl Sagan believed in democracy. The more people who knew the science, he believed, the better off society would be.”

—Ann Druyan, author, producer, and Carl Sagan’s widow and long-time collaborator

At yesterday’s event, the question speaker after speaker asked was the following: If Sagan were alive today, how would he react to our current state of affairs in science and society? “One of Sagan’s greatest achievements was his fight against pseudoscience,” noted David Morrison, the Carl Sagan Center Director at SETI, “but could he fight the pseudoscience of today?”

Other speakers wondered too: Would Sagan speak out about the misuse of science for political gain that is all too common now? Would he challenge the misinformation spread by politicians and journalists? Would he harshly condemn the recent harassment of climate scientists? What everyone wondered was this: Would Carl Sagan have done a better job at pushing back against these dangerous anti-science trends than we are today?

Carl Sagan felt it was his responsibility to communicate scientific information to diverse audiences from the general public to the Dalai Lama. Photo: Cornell University

These are tough questions and surely folks have pondered them before (Heck, there are even “What would Carl Sagan do?” shirts for sale.) But we now live in a different time than Sagan did. As Seth MacFarlane noted in his opening remarks, “There has always been politicization of science, but in recent years this politicization seems to be on steroids.” Indeed, this appears to be the case. UCS has found such problems in everything from chemical safety to gun control to endangered species to climate change.

Whether or not Sagan would be better at combating the challenges we face today in science literacy and (what should be) science-based policy, I believe he gave us the tools we need to take on these challenges ourselves. We can lament the loss of a great one, but let’s look to the future and carry his legacy forward through our own work. Sagan taught us that as scientists it is OK to step outside of our labs to bring science to the people; he showed us how to captivate the public with the wonders of science; and he demonstrated the need for science to inform broader societal challenges like international peace and STEM education.

For me, one of most important lessons from Carl Sagan is that achievement in science doesn’t stop with the scientific community. Scientists can and should apply their technical knowledge and training to the people and places that need it outside of their scientific fields and above all else, we should remain optimistic that these challenges are surmountable. As Christopher Chyba, a Princeton Professor and Sagan’s PhD student, concluded in his talk, “We need scientists operating at every point along the policy advising highway…Let’s teach both science and hope.”

Frontpage image courtesy of NASA.

Posted in: Science and Democracy Tags: Bill Nye the Science Guy, Carl Sagan, Corporate Interference, Neil deGrasse Tyson, political interference in science, Science Advocacy, science network, science-based decision making, Seth MacFarlane

About the author: Gretchen Goldman is an analyst in the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. Her current work looks at political and corporate interference in science policy. She holds a PhD and MS in environmental engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology and a BS in atmospheric science from Cornell University. See Gretchen's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

Brazil’s Deforestation Progress Takes a Step Backward

This morning, Brazil released its annual data on the rate of deforestation in the Amazon over the past year. But unlike previous years, this year’s figure doesn’t show continued progress.

The new figure is 5,843 square kilometers deforested. That compares to 4,571 km2 last year and 6,418 km2 the year before.

The data, released on the web site of INPE, the Brazilian Space Agency, is the annual total for the “Amazon year” lasting from August 2012 through July 2013. So far it’s only available in Portuguese, but the graph showing the trend in the annual figures since 1988 is pretty clear in any language:

Deforestation in the Amazon region of Brazil from 1988 through 2013. SOURCE: INPE (Brazilian National Space Agency, http://www.inpe.br/)

There are various ways to spin this figure, but there’s no way it’s good news. On the one hand, compared to the previous year, it’s an increase of 28 percent. On the other hand, in terms of the longer-term trend it’s still way below the levels of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Compared to the official baseline period — the average from 1996-2005 — it’s a reduction of 70 percent (last year’s number was a reduction of 76 percent).

Although many factors can be invoked in explaining this year’s number, certainly the amendments last year to Brazil’s Forest Code were one reason. Those modifications, although a complex mixture, included various changes that weakened forest protection.

What does this mean for the future? A single step backward doesn’t necessarily wipe out the long-term trend. See, for example, the one-year reversal in 2008, which was followed by significant reductions in the following years.

But it’s a warning that although deforestation can be reduced rapidly and dramatically by strong policies, it can also increase again when those policies are weakened.

Posted in: Global Warming Tags: Brazil, climate-change, Deforestation, Tropical Forests

About the author: Doug Boucher is an expert in preserving tropical forests to curtail global warming emissions. He has been participating in United Nations international climate negotiations since 2007 and his expertise has helped shape U.S. and U.N. policies. He holds a Ph.D. in ecology and evolutionary biology from the University of Michigan. See Doug's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

Beef, the Climate, and Human Health: Changing our Wasteful Food and Land Use System

Today UCS is releasing a new report at the international climate negotiations in Warsaw, entitled “Climate-Friendly Land Use: Paths and Policies toward a Less Wasteful Planet.” The theme of the report is waste and inefficiency — how our current global pattern squanders resources, endangers human health, and damages our climate.

My three co-authors and I review evidence that there is enormous systemic waste in how we use land today. Important sectors of the food and agriculture system — in particular, beef — use enormous amounts of land, produce large amounts of global warming pollution, fritter away a substantial proportion of the cereals produced, and yet produce very little food for humans.

The report not only examines inefficiency in the beef sector but also in other forms of land use — palm oil, biofuels and natural forest management. In each case we show that policies today lead to great inefficiency, producing far less than the potential of less wasteful approaches. We not only criticize the current pattern (and projected future changes) but also show how there are positive alternatives. For example, not only plant-based foods but also other animal sources such as chicken, eggs, milk and pork, are also much better than beef from the land, climate, health and productivity points of view.

Ruminants, such as cattle and sheep, use large amounts of land and feed and emit methane, a potent source of global warming pollution.

Two important recent reviews, summarizing many different scientific studies, provide evidence sustaining this argument. Durk Nijdam and colleagues’ article on “The price of protein”, published last year in Food Policy, reviewed 52 different studies of the land needs and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) associated with different protein sources. Their data shows that beef production — even the most intensive systems — requires much more land and emits much more GHGs. “Meadow” and extensive systems were the most land-hungry and GHG-emitting. Beef was high not only in comparison with vegetarian foods, but also with other meats and with milk and eggs.

Another paper from last year, by Pete Smith and colleagues in Global Change Biology, makes the inefficiency of cattle and other ruminant animals clear, by tracing how much land and biomass is consumed and how much food is produced, by different parts of the global food system. (Full disclosure: I’m a co-author with Smith and other colleagues on a forthcoming paper in Nature Climate Change on this subject, although I wasn’t involved in the Global Change Biology review).

They found that ruminants use 28 hectares of land, on average, to produce a ton of food, versus just 1.4 hectares for “monogastric” animals such as chickens and pigs. Even if you ignore the ruminants’ pasture needs, and just look at the cropland used to produce their feed, they still require twice as much as chickens and pigs — 2.8 hectares per ton.

From a climate point of view, poultry and other kinds of animal protein are far preferable to beef.

In terms of biomass, ruminants consume a total of 6.22 billion tons annually, while the monogastrics consume only 0.79 billion tons. Yet the amount of food that results is almost the same — 0.14 billion tons of food (dry biomass) from ruminants, versus 0.12 from monogastrics.

Read the full report for more details — not only about the problems, but also our recommendations about what policies are needed to deal with them. It shows how we can make this world “a less wasteful planet.”

Posted in: Food and Agriculture, Global Warming Tags: agriculture, beef, climate-change, Global warming, land use

About the author: Doug Boucher is an expert in preserving tropical forests to curtail global warming emissions. He has been participating in United Nations international climate negotiations since 2007 and his expertise has helped shape U.S. and U.N. policies. He holds a Ph.D. in ecology and evolutionary biology from the University of Michigan. See Doug's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

Seven Takeaways for the Warsaw Climate Talks from the New IEA Report

There’s a distinct lack of optimism here at the Warsaw climate meeting. A recent report from UNEP shows that we are falling far short of the emissions reductions necessary to limit the global temperature increase to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The IPCC working group 1 report points out the grave implications of our rising carbon emissions. But, like the previous reports, IEA’s World Energy Outlook released today shows that, despite the grim emissions trends, we do still have choices: yes, we can cut our emissions sharply and, yes, that means making serious policy decisions now.

Here are seven important takeaways from the IEA report relevant for the climate negotiations:

What happens in the energy sector is crucial to our climate future. The sector is responsible for two-thirds of global warming emissions currently, and without significant policy action annual energy-related CO2 emissions will rise by 20% to 37.2 gigatonnes (Gt) by 2035, meaning that we would be headed for a long-term average temperature increase of 3.6 °C.Policy decisions that countries make right now can make a tremendous difference in how much more carbon we emit. This includes support for renewable energy and energy efficiency and removal of subsidies to fossil fuel producers.The energy sector is in tremendous flux globally with a lot of new capacity (mainly in China and India) and replacement capacity (mainly as old power plants are retired in the U.S. and Europe) being added. This creates an opportunity to make low carbon choices; taking full advantage of that opportunity is critical to meeting climate goals.Natural gas use will likely expand globally under a business as usual scenario. (But, as a recent UCS report points out, an overreliance on natural gas comes with significant climate risks.)The IEA says that under a business as usual scenario, renewable energy will grow significantly, from 20% of electricity generation in 2011 to 31% in 2035, approaching coal as a leading source of power. But this would still mean growing emissions from the power sector (an increase of between 13 to 15 Gt in that timeframe), leaving its share constant at about 40% of global emissions. NREL’s recent 80% by 2050 renewable energy report and the IPCC special report on renewable energy shows we can be much more aggressive in cost-effective renewables deployment both in the U.S. and globally.The power sector has several affordable low-carbon alternatives available already, including wind and solar energy, and electricity demand is growing rapidly. Therefore policies that encourage renewable electricity and energy efficiency are particularly vital to bending the emissions curve globally.Globally, nearly 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity and 2.6 billion still depend on traditional biomass for energy (with grave health and pollution consequences). Global climate talks have to address this fundamental inequity, even as they negotiate a pathway to lower global emissions.

Here in the U.S. we have an incredible opportunity to make deep cuts in our power sector emissions. Uneconomic coal-fired power plants are being retired at record levels and renewable energy costs are declining sharply every year. There’s no doubt we can capitalize on this momentum through strong policies, including power plant carbon standards, renewable electricity standards and soon, one hopes, through a national price on carbon. Putting a strong target for emissions reductions on the table shouldn’t be a stretch for the U.S. And that would have a very significant effect on raising the level of ambition of a global climate agreement.

“Setting expectations” is a game everyone seems to play at the UNFCCC climate talks. No one wants to seem naïve about what’s possible here at Warsaw. After all, we are in the coal capital of Europe at a conference backed by fossil-heavy corporate sponsors. And bizarrely the Polish government has chosen to have the International Coal and Climate Summit simultaneously in Warsaw during the UNFCCC meeting. (Seriously, you couldn’t make this stuff up!)

But yesterday we all had a moment of heart-wrenching clarity. As Yeb Saño, the lead negotiator from the Philippines, so powerfully reminded us: “If not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not here in Warsaw, where?”

Posted in: Energy, Fossil Fuels, Global Warming Tags: IEA, IPCC, power plants, Renewable energy, UNEP, UNFCCC, Warsaw, World Energy Outlook

About the author: Rachel Cleetus is an expert on the design and economic evaluation of climate and energy policies, as well as the costs of climate change. She holds a Ph.D. in economics. See Rachel's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

Arizonans Stand Up for Solar Power

Blogged about a proposal that Arizona Public Service (APS) submitted to its regulator, the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), to dramatically reduce incentives to install solar panels on homes and businesses. On Wednesday more than 100 people descended on ACC to protest it. The event kicked off two days of hearings that will decide whether to maintain Arizona’s existing net metering policy, which allows solar customers to receive credit on their electricity bills for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated by their solar panels.

Update (Nov. 15): Yesterday afternoon, the ACC voted 3-2 to maintain a solar net metering program, with a fee on rooftop solar customers of $0.70 per kilowatt (kW) installed. The fee will be imposed on new solar customers and is far less than that proposed by APS, which was in the $5.00 per kW range. The reduced fee is seen as a compromise, but it makes Arizona the first state to target rooftop solar customers with new fees.  Greentech Media reports that some in the solar industry believe this new charge is a slippery slope.

Photo: U.S. Department of Energy

A whopping 43 states plus the District of Columbia have adopted net metering policies, which has had a huge impact on the number of people going solar across the country.

In Arizona, the number of installed solar systems in APS’s service territory has increased from just 900 in 2009 to more than 18,000 today, and the ACC attributes much of this growth to the success of net metering.

A Republican pollster from Public Opinion Strategies named Glen Bolder recently surveyed 300 Arizonans, and found that 81 percent opposed APS’s proposal to reduce net metering incentives. Notably, 77 percent would be less likely to vote for a candidate who ends solar savings. While 300 people is just a small sample of the state’s population, those numbers are consistent with national polling showing Americans favor solar over all other energy types.

UCS supporters are among the thousands of Arizonans who have taken action to tell the ACC to protect solar. In October, ACC staff listened and recommended that the utility’s request be rejected so that the issue can be taken up during the next hearing on APS rates in 2015. The memorandum from ACC staff also emphasized that the benefits of solar, such as avoiding fossil fuel costs, are integral to the conversation, and concluded that the value of these benefits can best be determined in the context of a general rate case.

When all the relevant facts can be considered, APS deserves props for the progress it is making on solar, including the innovative Solona project that provides solar power even when the sun does not shine. But APS has admitted to funding groups behind ideological attacks on solar in Arizona, including a fact-check-failing ad attempting to deceive Arizonans about the cost of net metering to non-solar customers. Many of the groups siding with APS are known for their history of climate denial, including the Edison Electric Institute and 60 Plus Association. Just last year, 60 Plus urged members of Congress to “oppose confirmation of any adherent of ‘global warming’ to the EPA.”

Recent headlines have highlighted “unlikely” support for solar policies from conservatives. In Arizona, it is easy to see why this support is actually not at all surprising. One APS proposal “removes a basic choice from the customer,” according to ACC staff, while another “denies the residential customer the right to offset energy purchases from the utility with self-generation on a one-to-one basis.”

Still, the outcome of Arizona’s solar debate could have far reaching implications. APS recently rejoined the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the same fossil fuel-funded group behind this year’s failed attacks on state renewable energy standards. As ALEC looks to weigh in on net metering, signs point to state solar policies as the next target of fossil fuel funded think tanks and advocacy groups.

The final decision could be made as soon as today by ACC’s elected commissioners, which means you still have time to take action by clicking here. Tell the ACC to maintain Arizona’s successful solar incentives!

Posted in: Energy Tags: ACC, APS, arizona, net metering, PV, Renewable energy, solar power

About the author: Laura Wisland is a senior energy analyst and an expert on California renewable energy policies. She holds a master’s degree in public policy. See Laura's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

All Eyes on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles at the LA Auto Show

Hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles will take center stage at this week’s LA Auto Show. Three companies — Toyota, Honda and Hyundai — will unveil prototypes of new hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles and announce details of their rollout plans for 2014 and 2015. Fuel cell vehicles may not be as well-known as hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles, but they are a vital part of the solution to reduce pollution and oil use from transportation. These vehicles have been promised for some time, so it’s exciting to be on the cusp of having fuel cell vehicles in new car showrooms.

Filling up a hydrogen vehicle is similar to a gasoline vehicle in time and effort. (Credit Flickr user uonottingham)

Hydrogen fuel cells join the advantages of clean, efficient electric vehicles with the convenience of fast refueling. The fuel cell combines hydrogen gas stored in a tank with oxygen from the air to produce electricity and water. The electricity from the fuel cell then powers an electric motor, similar to today’s plug-in electric vehicles. And like battery electric vehicles, there is no smog-forming or climate-changing pollution from the vehicle’s tailpipe.

However, just as producing electricity to charge a plug-in vehicle creates emissions, hydrogen also generates emissions. Hydrogen made today from natural gas gives about the same total emissions per mile as charging a plug-in vehicle with electricity generated from natural gas. But hydrogen can also be made from renewable sources like biomass and solar power, so in the future hydrogen-powered vehicles can be much cleaner than gasoline-burning vehicles.

Another advantage of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is that they can be refueled at a filling station in a short time.  This means that drivers who would rather not plug in a battery electric car can still use a clean electric motor to get around. The filling time is about the same as a gasoline vehicle, about 5-10 minutes for a 300-mile range.

Of course, to take advantage of a hydrogen car, the filling stations need to be available. California is building the first wave of hydrogen filling stations with 28 currently operational or under construction and 68 planned for use by 2016. Starting in the Los Angeles and San Francisco metro areas, these stations are designed to fuel the first 20,000 fuel cell vehicles.

Adding more range or power to a battery electric vehicle requires more battery cells, but adding cells increases costs. In fuel cell vehicles, the amount of energy stored can be increased without a proportional increase in cost because only a larger hydrogen tank onboard is required. The practical result is the ability to make an electric-drive SUV-style vehicle with the same cargo capacity and range as a gasoline version. In real-world tests in southern California, a fuel cell-powered Toyota Highlander SUV demonstrated a range of more than 400 miles range and the equivalent of 69 miles-per-gallon efficiency.

On an even larger scale, the Bay Area’s AC Transit runs clean hydrogen fuel cell buses by our Berkeley office many times a day. These buses have logged over 750,000 clean miles in the last 13 years, showing that fuel cells are a workable solution for electrifying large vehicles.

Battery electric, fuel cell electric, and more efficient gasoline vehicles have often been portrayed as competitors. However, this isn’t a winner-take-all situation because these technologies are complementary. Plug-in electrics can take advantage of the existing electric infrastructure and smaller electric cars can be especially efficient and cost-effective. Hydrogen fuel cells are a good option for larger vehicles, longer distance driving, and for drivers without a spot to recharge. And since many gasoline-powered vehicles will be sold in the coming years, more efficient conventional vehicles will also play a key role in transportation. All of these technologies are part of our strategy to cut projected oil use in half and tackle climate change. I’m excited that with the addition of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, some car buyers will soon have more clean vehicles to choose from at the dealership.

Posted in: Vehicles Tags: electric car, fuel cell, fuel cell electric car, hydrogen

About the author: David Reichmuth is a senior engineer in the Clean Vehicles Program, focusing on oil savings and vehicle electrification. See Dave's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

CDC’s “Get Smart About Antibiotics” Campaign Still Ignoring Animals

“Although previously unthinkable, the day when antibiotics don’t work is upon us. We are already seeing germs that are stronger than any antibiotics we have to treat them.” These are the words Dr. Arjun Srinivasan of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used last year to kick off the agency’s educational campaign on antibiotic resistance, “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week 2012.”

In a blog posted at the time, I registered my surprise and disappointment that CDC had failed to include animal settings in its 2012 campaign and urged the agency to expand the focus this year. I’m sorry to report that CDC did not get the message. Get Smart About Antibiotics Week 2013 (November 18-24) again focuses almost exclusively on human medical use.

CDC’s Dr. Tom Chiller explained (in a letter to a colleague) that the agency’s educational site aimed at food animals, Know When Antibiotics Work on the Farm, 

is not currently funded and doesn’t have any dedicated staff.

Given the urgency of the issue, why, for heaven’s sake, not?

Crowded pigs in a confinement facility. Source: AgStock.

How many swine producers know that routine use of antibiotics doesn’t deliver economic benefits in finisher pigs? Dan Charles of National Public Radio did a great piece highlighting this fact, but it needs to be hammered home across farm country. Swine producers, just like human patients, need to be educated about opportunities to reduce the demand for antibiotics.

There are many avenues animal producers could take to avoid unnecessary use of antibiotics, among them encouraging appropriate weaning times, all-in-all-out animal management systems, and clean, uncrowded facilities. Consumers could be urged to do their part by looking for and purchasing meat produced with fewer antibiotics.

Ignoring the problem of animal antibiotic use has not made it go away. FDA 2010 data reveal that 80 percent of antibiotics sold in the US were intended for use in animals. Many of those drugs–for example, penicillins, tetracyclines and erythromycin–are in the same classes as drugs critical for human medicine.

Feeding enormous quantities of antibiotics in feedlots and poultry and swine houses generates huge populations of bacteria in animal guts that are resistant to human drugs. Resistant bacteria have easy routes to humans: on food, through the environment, and via people who work with and around the animals.

Antibiotic-resistant food-borne illness is becoming all too common. Recently, Costco announced an expanded recall of Foster Farm chicken implicated in an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella

 that has already sickened over 320 people.

Scientists agree that antibiotic use on farms contributes to increasing levels of severe and difficult-to-treat human (and for that matter, animal) disease. Just this month, two former Commissioners of the FDA, Donald Kennedy and David Kessler, wrote to the Executive Office of the President urging “swift action to curb unnecessary use of medically important antibiotics in food animal production.”

In September of this year, CDC itself issued a report, Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013

, calling antibiotic use the single most important factor leading to antibiotic resistance and noting that there is more use of antibiotics in food production than human medicine. The report endorsed phasing out the use of antibiotics for growth promotion, saying the drugs should “only be used to treat infections.”

Just like the CDC’s human campaign, the CDC campaign on animals should be aimed at unnecessary uses: feed efficiency and growth promotion (purely economic uses) and routine disease prevention, which often compensates for stressful conditions in crowded animal facilities.

The best approach is to legally restrict the sale of antibiotics for routine purposes, a goal that would be accomplished with the passage of the Preventing Antibiotic Resistance Act of 2013 introduced by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2013 introduced by Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY). But even with successful legislation, a broad appreciation of the opportunities to reduce antibiotic use in food production would be important.

I applaud the CDC’s campaign to address the overuse and inappropriate use of antibiotics in human medical settings. Such use is an essential driver of antibiotic resistant disease. But the CDC should be campaigning with equal vigor against overuse and inappropriate use in food animal production.

It simply makes no sense to urge the parents of sick children to forgo unneeded antibiotics, while silently standing by as producers of cattle, swine and poultry continue to overuse the same drugs just to avoid the transition to modern management systems.

Expanding CDC’s Get Smart campaign to include animal settings would have been a smart idea last year–and it still will be next year. CDC should find the funds to make it happen.

Posted in: Food and Agriculture Tags: agriculture, animal food production, antibiotics, public health

About the author: Margaret Mellon is one of the nation's most respected experts on sustainable agriculture as well as the potential environmental risks of biotechnology. She holds a doctorate in molecular biology and a law degree. See Margaret's full bio.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

View the original article here

10 Reasons to Come to ACE East

Still trying to decide whether ACE East is for you? We have 10 reasons to help make your decision easier. Join us on October 17-19 in Orlando for three days of carefully selected programming and a showroom full of the latest products and research.

1. Amazing Speakers

Hear insight from 40 of the brightest minds in the industry including Chris Freytag, Bill Parisi, Chris McGrath, Jonathan Ross, Bill Sonnemaker, Vonda Wright and others.

2. Rich Real Estate

Our exhibitor showroom will be packed with new equipment, apparel and research from SPRI®, EAS®, VIVOBAREFOOT™, TRX®, Power Music®, Total Gym® and more.

3. Stylish Digs

Booking a room at the luxurious Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld will keep you in the middle of all the action and near tons of attractions including Walt Disney World.

4. Up to 2.0 CECs

Take care of all the continuing education credits you need for recertification in one swoop by attending workshops, lectures and interactive sessions hosted by top experts.

5. Learning Upon Learning

Cast your net for knowledge wide by attending your choice of 60 sessions on kettlebells, health coaching, biomechanics, weight loss, group fitness, nutrition, obesity and more.

6. Free Stuff

In addition to merchandise and samples you can snag in our exhibitor showroom, you’ll receive a grab bag of free swag from ACE to rock while you’re at work or play.

7. A Chance to Reconnect With Your Inner Kid

Who doesn’t love Walt Disney World? Turn your ACE East stay into a fun getaway by meeting Mickey and checking out SeaWorld, Aquatica, Universal Studios and more.

8. Networking, Networking, Networking

Connecting with other professionals will be easy at ACE East. We’ve put together a networking events designed to help you get up close with peers and industry experts.

9. A Certain Gold Medalist

Don’t miss hearing Bryan Clay share how he went from a troubled, drug-abusing kid to the “World’s Greatest Athlete” by earning a gold medal at the 2008 Olympic Games.

10. Inspiration

Get inspired by hundreds of leaders who spend their time helping people change their lives through fitness. There’s no better place to fuel your passion than ACE East.

Click here to register for ACE East.

View the original article here