This is stated by Lierre Keith, author of 'The vegetarian myth', who argues that, in the face of the belief of vegans, agriculture is doing untold damage to the planet

"Agriculture is carnivorous: what it eats are ecosystems and ingests them whole," explains the writer, who was vegan for 20 years... until her diet took its toll

Neither fertilizers nor antibiotics

"The population's capacity for growth is infinitely greater than the earth's ability to produce food for man." One Thomas Malthus said it back in 1798. According to his calculations, 1880 was the estimated date for the situation to be unsustainable. But it did not take into account famines or wars, which decimated the world population, nor the exponential development of the industrial revolutions that were to come. And yet, that guillotine is still there, threatening to cut off our heads because of growth that doesn't seem to know limits. These limits exist and we have already exceeded them. As the shed is mounted, in 2050 we will be about 10,000 million inhabitants on this wonderful and crazy planet.

We try to get into this labyrinth of data, catastrophic predictions, food fashions and the omnimous power of the food industry. The magic solution to improve food, health and combat environmental damage lies in vegetables. Or so some claim. It was unquestionable for Lierre Keith, feminist writer and ecologist, author of The Vegetarian Myth (Captain Swing), a book halfway between the personal diary, the essay and the call to arms. Keith held on to that idea as something irrefutable during the 20 years he was vegan, until his body said enough. What he now intends to call into question is the identity built around vegetarianism, trying to dismantle the moral, political and health reasons wielded by vegans. He does not always succeed, but firing at everything and against everyone causes at least one debate that seems necessary." The people who care most about environmental destruction do not understand that they are part of the problem," he explains by phone from California.

Vegans who use ethical arguments not to eat animals cling to the idea that they do not participate in the death of any living being. His hands are not stained with blood and, therefore, his conscience is calm. "Monocultures devastate the original inhabitants so that invaders can take over the land," he says in the book. «It is a biological cleaning, a biocide. It is not peaceful. It is not sustainable. And every small portion of food is loaded with death ». Industrial agriculture ends the richness of the soil, displaces and extinguishes species, modifies the riverbeds, dries them out and pollutes: «Agriculture is carnivorous: what it eats are ecosystems and ingests them whole».

Keith is aware that up to 70% of the grain produced in the world is destined for animal consumption, an effective way to fatten cattle to produce cheap meat but not without risks and devastating consequences. «Everything they say about industrial livestock is true. It is a cruel, wasteful and destructive activity ». But, Keith argues, eating a tofu burger and a veal burger does not differ so much in terms of its impact on the environment and biodiversity.

Is it true that the more meat we eat the more carbon footprint our food has?

The real problem is that only the environmental costs of industrial livestock meat are taken into account, which has a gigantic carbon footprint because it is feeding the animals wrongly. Especially corn is used, which contributes directly to global warming, because all its fertilizers are made from oil and gas. But corn is not the natural food of ruminants, but grass. The moment you put the cattle back to eat grass, you recover a biological system that works perfectly and absorbs carbon instead of releasing it. The problem is not ruminants, but the dependence of human beings on fossil fuels.

Of course, we prefer to focus on food waste: “FAO itself assumes that the Green Revolution, which was designed to exponentially increase food production, is an exhausted model and has left us with a terrible inheritance. This productivist model has led us to produce such a quantity of cereals that in the end we are throwing a third part, a surplus with which we could feed the population we will have in 2050”. The Green Revolution of which the Greenpeace spokesperson speaks began in the late 1960s and was based on high-yield varieties of cereal grains, distribution of hybrid seeds, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. The initiative was reinforced in the US, Keith argues, “for a public policy that argued that everyone should adopt a diet low in fat and high in carbohydrates. It was an experiment conducted with the entire American population. 50 years later, we can say that all they got was to make us fatter, sicker and more stupid. And they are not insulting, but the description of a reality. It is something that has destroyed us. Now we come to the other workhorse of the author of The Vegetarian Myth, the main reason she started writing the book: her deteriorated health. After 20 years of vegan diet, she developed a degenerative joint disease (spondylosis) that will accompany her for the rest of her life. To this we must add episodes of hypoglycemia, exhaustion, nausea, anxiety, depression, disappearance of the rule... Symptoms that are responsible for linking the deficiencies of your diet in the pages of the book.

The whole truth about the effect of animal protein on the body

If you think that the passion for vegetarianism has long abated, and the question itself is no longer relevant, then you are mistaken: there are even more requests for meat that are harmful or useful in our time than 10 years ago. Science does not give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether meat should be abandoned altogether.

What happens to the body when you stop eating meat?

Vegetarianism is a nutrition system based on the complete or partial rejection of meat. The popularity of vegetarianism has been consistently high for the past year: in almost all restaurants, in addition to the main menu, there is a whole list of vegetarian and raw food dishes. If we discard the moral aspect and tribute to fashion, we consider the rejection of meat from a scientific point of view.

There is no unequivocal evidence that vegetarianism is useful or harmful.

However, speaking about the benefits of vegetarianism, the following is always noted:-

Plant foods have little energy value. On the one hand, it is good to lose weight on vegetables, but the difficulty of this method is that saturation is very fast.

If the meat is completely replaced with vegetables and fruits, then you can not only reduce subcutaneous fat, but also remove toxins and toxins from the body. There is nothing better to normalize metabolic processes in the body. However, a 5-day course of refusing meat is sometimes enough to detox. Unlike animal food, vegetable does not cause auto-toxicity, does not poison the human body with decay products during digestion.

As many studies show, adherents of vegetarianism suffer less from hypertension, diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases.

Plant products do not contribute to the development of atherosclerosis, as they do not have atherogenic properties.

What happens to the body when you stop eating meat?

Refusal of meat guarantees a reduction in the risk of obesity, coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

But the coin has a downside. Deficiencies of amino acids, iron, zinc, calcium, vitamins D and B12, polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids, and dietary fiber are considered universally recognized deficiencies in vegetarian nutrition. In addition, vegetable protein has a small amino acid composition and is absorbed worse by the body. A serious lack of protein over time can affect the functioning of the immune and reproductive systems.

In products of animal origin is the so-called heme iron, which is better absorbed than iron from plant products (15-35% versus 2-20%). At the same time, absorption is dependent on concomitant factors: for example, tannin contained in tea and coffee affects the absorption of iron, as well as its phytic acid found in legumes, nuts, seeds and grains. In addition, soy protein can create an insoluble compound with iron.

What happens to the body when you stop eating meat? 

You should be aware that milk and eggs are not a sufficient source of iron, therefore lacto-vegetarians are also susceptible to iron deficiency, as are vegetarians and vegans.

How to solve the problem: monitor the sufficient intake of ascorbic acid, which prevents the formation of insoluble iron compounds and improves absorption by 3-4 times.

Foods rich in ascorbic acid must be taken at the same time as foods containing iron.

Plant foods are rich in omega-6 fatty acids, but poor in omega-3s. Omega-3 fatty acids, which include Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), or their pro forma alpha linolenic acid (ALA), are important for the cardiovascular system, eyes and brain development. If a person eats fish, eggs or a large amount of algae, then the problem of deficiency of omega-3 fatty acids does not arise.

How to solve the problem: if the diet does not include seafood and eggs, then you should pay attention to the fact that the diet contains a sufficient number of sources of alpha-linolenic acid in the diet, such as flaxseed, walnuts, soy. It is possible to use soy milk enriched with appropriate additives or prepared breakfasts.

What proteins should be in a vegetarian diet?

The main difference between proteins of plant and animal origin is the content of amino acids.

Products of animal origin contain all the essential amino acids, and products of plant origin may lack one or more essential amino acids. In this case, you need to add dairy products, soy, and use food artificially enriched with the desired amino acid composition.

Zinc is found both in animal products (oysters, shellfish, liver, poultry and dairy products), and plant origin (legumes, nuts, soy products). However, phytic acid in legumes, nuts, seeds, and grains reduces the bioavailability of zinc. Special methods for preparing food products - soaking, the use of sprouted grains, beans and seeds, as well as bread baking powder - reduce the phytic acid content and increase the bioavailability of zinc.

The problem of calcium deficiency in vegetarians is caused by the use of foods rich in substances that reduce the absorption of calcium (oxalates and phytic acid), and plant proteins that contribute to increased excretion of calcium in the urine. This problem is more pronounced among vegans, since lacto-vegetarians can get enough calcium with milk and dairy products.

It is important to understand that it does not follow from the above that vegetarians necessarily suffer from calcium deficiency, but if this problem is identified, attention should be paid to these nutritional features.

Foods rich in calcium and low in oxalates and phytic acid: cabbage, mustard leaves, turnips, broccoli, dried figs. But with these products it is difficult to fill the body's need for calcium: for this you need to eat them in a huge amount. I recommend getting calcium extra in special supplements.

Given that dairy products and eggs alone do not have enough vitamin B12, it is natural that all vegetarians suffer from a deficiency. Accordingly, it is necessary to daily receive vitamin B12 from other sources: dosage forms, products artificially enriched with cobalamin.

Vegetarians consume more dietary fiber in plant foods than people who eat meat. A person with ordinary food consumes an average of 23 grams of dietary fiber, a vegetarian - 37 grams, a vegan - 47 grams. However, the recommended dose of dietary fiber is unknown.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that both a vegetarian diet and a diet containing meat have a number of advantages and disadvantages. If your goal is to lose weight, remove toxins, feel light, then a vegetarian diet will be the right decision for you. However, in this case, you must adhere to the above recommendations for a balanced diet or practice partial rejection of meat courses, for example, for periods of 5 days.

Millions of Americans eat processed food every day, and it’s killing us.

Research has linked processed foods to a range of diseases, including the notorious cardiovascular health problems. The epidemic effects both the quality and quality of food. According to the US Department of Agriculture, in 2009, about 17 million people in the country experienced a "lack of food." The most vulnerable in this situation, according to agency statistics, single mothers, African American and Hispanic families. In 2008, 24.8 million Americans received food stamps every month.

With food stamps you can buy any food in almost any supermarket, even in the most expensive one. You can’t buy alcohol and household goods, such as shampoo, laundry detergent, and so on.

Grocery vouchers, which are not at all like vouchers, but rather on an electronic metro pass, have another limit: a little more than $ 200 can be spent per month. Food stamps were awarded to those whose monthly net income per person does not exceed $ 903, for two - $1,215, for three - $1,526.

 “They told me that: these products are not for you, but for your children,” recalls Vayrim, a mother of two. Two little daughters revolve around a mother laying out food on plates.

“You can buy any food at food stalls in almost any supermarket, even the most expensive one,” says Vayrim. “You can’t buy alcohol and household goods, such as shampoo, laundry detergent, and so on. And you can’t buy ready-made take-away food.”

I went to different shops and chose where it is cheaper, I tried to buy meat, vegetables and cereals. We did not starve.

I look at my last check from the supermarket - almost $30 for a couple of vegetables, 2 kg of fruit, yogurt and a package of granola. I look at another check from the Whole Foods supermarket, which is famous for selling environmentally friendly products. For the same fruits, vegetables and salads - $40. How to live on a little over 200 a month with two young children?

To eat well, you need to cook

On the website of the US Department of Agriculture, which in addition to issuing food stamps has a ton of other functions. There are instructions on healthy eating, such as amount of proteins, fats and carbohydrates per day.

How to lead a healthy lifestyle to a person who would like to, but cannot afford to buy the "right" foods in the required quantity, I ask the professor of New York University and the author of numerous books on healthy eating Marion Nestle.

“This is possible if a person knows how to cook,” the nutritionist Nestle is convinced. “But this requires skills and time, and if both adults work in the family, then where to get this time?”

"On the other hand, the availability of certain products is the result of a national policy. The state subsidizes some products and does not subsidize others, so as a result of such a policy the products that have been processed are the cheapest, but the substances that are least useful to the body in them," she adds.

Food in America has become almost the main determinant of social status. If earlier such a marker was fashion, clothes, now food has taken this place.

Epidemiologist Adam Drewnowski of the University of Washington in Seattle is one of the most respected specialists in his field. In a study he conducted last spring, Drevnovsky showed how prices for some products in Seattle and its environs changed from 2004 to 2008.

Food prices have risen by an average of 25% over these four years, but the most nutritious products (red pepper, oysters, spinach, green salad, etc.) have risen in price by 29%, while the prices for the least nutritious (white sugar, cola, candy) rose only 16%.

Why healthy foods cost more than junk food

Vegetables and fruits from this New York market are not available to everyone.

“Food in America has become almost the main determinant of social status,” says Drevnovsky. “If fashion and clothes were such a marker, now food has taken this place: the rich buy food in some supermarkets or on organic farms, and the poor in others".

However, unlike many other specialists who say that people with a small income do not pay attention to the nutritional value and usefulness of the products they buy because of a lack of knowledge in this area, Drevnowski believes that this is not a matter of education, but of lack of money.

"It's not their fault. They buy what they can afford," the epidemiologist is sure.

“It’s not they who are to blame, but all of us, including the people who determine the country's food policy: how did it happen that wholesome foods cost more than junk food? This should not be,” he said.

Adam Drewnowski says that not only the price has changed, but also the attitude to food.

Drewnowski notes that in this regard, US food policy is not much different from European. "This is a systemic mistake that occurred several decades ago when bets were placed on the mass production of cheap calories - corn, soy and sugar. Subsidies in America and Europe are used to grow these crops," explains Adam Drewnowski.

As a result of this policy, vegetables, fruits, and other healthy vitamin-containing products have become, as Drevnovsky says, a luxury not only for the poor, but also for many members of the middle class. Not only the price has changed, but also the attitude to food.

Food as a medicine

In America, poverty is perceived as a moral loss; the man himself is always blamed for this. I believe that poor people are not always guilty of their poverty and therefore the state should not tell them what to buy and what to eat.

 “Instead of a dining table, people buy a coffee table or eat while sitting at the TV, but mostly those who practically do not cook at home. There are more and more such people,” says Drevnovsky. In America people look at food primarily as a source of calories. Food has become almost a medicine with which you can either cure the disease or aggravate it".

Not so long ago, the American media discussed on their pages a proposal that immediately raised complaints: to ban recipients of food stamps from buying carbonated drinks on them. Health ministry officials say this could be one way to fight obesity among schoolchildren. Opponents called this proposal state intervention in private life.

"I believe that by taking such a measure, the state would thereby show that people using food stamps are making the wrong choice when buying soda," says Drevnowski.

But he makes a reservation: “Another sensitive point: in America, poverty is perceived as a moral loss, the person himself is always blamed for this. I believe that poor people are not always guilty of their poverty and therefore the state should not tell them what to buy and what to eat".

Poverty and obesity

US government subsidizes corn, soy and sugar production. As for obesity, here, according to Drevnovsky's research, among those who use food stamps and other state subsidies, there are not so many overweight people.

"The highest percentage of obesity among those whose annual income ranges from 25 to 50 thousand dollars a year for the whole family," the epidemiologist emphasizes.

Once upon a time, people with this level of income were considered the middle class in America. Now, says Drevnovsky, they can be called "almost poor": this money is enough to feed a family, but not to buy the "right" products.

Many years of research by the scientist indicate that obesity in America is not suffered by those who live below the poverty line (whose income does not exceed 25 thousand dollars a year), but those who barely crossed this line.

“Money, education, and profession — these three categories make it possible to judge whether a person eats well or poorly,” concludes Adam Drevnovsky.

The average American spends 13% of his income every month on food, including going to a restaurant and ordering ready-made meals at home.

My friend Alexandra, who has been living in New York for more than 10 years, also spends about 20% of her salary on food, i.e. $1,000 a month. She also believes that he eats fully, buying almost all the products in expensive supermarkets specializing in the sale of organic food.

It seems that toys are not the only product contaminated with traces of lead. As reported by a group of consumers in the US, more than half of the lipstick contains traces of this metal and a third of the bars have higher levels than those authorized in sweets. Authorities have requested that the issue be analyzed in our country.

At the moment, the FDA (the US agency that regulates drugs and food) has already said that it will investigate this complaint, although it has clarified that in the past these types of alarms have not been confirmed.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics group bases its complaint on the analysis of 33 red lipsticks of popular cosmetic brands, which they acquired in different establishments in several American cities.

According to their study, twenty lipstick (61%) contained detectable levels of lead. In the US, health authorities do not set a limit for the levels of this metal allowed in lipsticks, although there is a threshold for the amount of lead allowed in candy: 0.1 ppm (parts per million). In the present analysis, one third of the bars contained higher levels. Specifically, several products of the Maybelline, Cover Girl, Peacekeeper, Dior and L'Oreal brands.

The accumulation in the body of high amounts of this metal can pose health risks, especially in children and pregnant women. The presence of lead in cosmetic products and their ingredients is prohibited. Before the report of the American consumers, many countries hastened to request an investigation on the presence of lead in the lipsticks of the mentioned marks.

Sources of the Institute have clarified that, being a cosmetic product, the issue is not among its powers. They have indicated that they are still studying the subject. Since being a report is not prepared with cosmetic products, they have to analyze to what extent it affects those that are commercialized.

For its part, FDA immediately proceeded to check if the products indicated in the study are for sale in the US with the same composition and, in If necessary, proceed to its rapid withdrawal.

The manufacturers speak

Representatives of the cosmetic industry have rushed to reassure users: "The cosmetic industry, for the sake of the safety of its consumers, does not add lead in its products (...). The potential traces of lead that might be present in the ingredients, they are strictly controlled by the manufacturers of cosmetic products. The finished product goes through strict controls and a safety assessment that guarantees that it is absolutely safe for use," according to sources.

"The levels of lead measured in the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics organization's report are very far from the daily allowable amounts established by the World Health Organization," L'Oréal said in a statement, which stressed that they comply " rigorously "international safety standards. "There is absolutely no safety problem with the products that L'Oréal sells," the group said.

"Lead is never used in cosmetics intentionally. Even then there are regular claims of lead presence in cosmetics. This heavy metal is present naturally in the earth’s environment. We get exposed to lead in our everyday life through breathing, eating and drinking water. At the same time, the lead present in lipsticks is like 1000 times lesser than what we are exposed to during our everyday life." the US employer said in a statement.

The US agency also recalled that in the past these types of warnings have not been substantiated, although it has assured that it will carry out the pertinent investigations following the new report. "In general, these concerns have not been endorsed by the FDA's own analysis of the products on the market. In the present case, we are analyzing the specific details of the issue," said a spokeswoman for the agency." We will have to confirm the actual basis of these reports independently, to determine what action, if any, may be necessary."

Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says that this is "an unnecessary and avoidable problem", because in 13 of the bars studied (39%) they did not find detectable levels of lead. The presence of the metal was not related to the price. One of the products that in his analysis showed to have more traces was the most expensive, while other cheap bars did not contain any lead.

Amazon accused of selling expired food! The American site CNBC unveiled a survey on October 20, highlighting dozens of dissatisfied customer reviews claiming to have received expired food ordered via the platform of the American giant. To establish this survey, the media also relied on data analysis established by a specialized company. As Business Insider reports, the disputed products include Doritos crisps, dried beef, tea, and baby food. These foods have been the subject of complaints from customers ensuring that they were expired, damaged or even moldy.

According to data gathered by CNBC, 40% of the hundred most popular food products on the Amazon marketplace are offered by companies subject to more than five complaints related to the distribution of expired products. Among the examples cited, lots of portions of organic vegetables for children whose expiration date has been passed according to comments. Infant formula is also said to be released too late, with potentially harmful effects on children. Some cookies were delivered six months after the expiration date. Another example, that of Teavana tea, still offered for sale on Amazon two years after the end of its production by Starbucks.

In an emailed statement to Business Insider, an Amazon spokesperson said the site has put in place "proactive processes to ensure customers receive products with sufficient shelf life". Processes are listed online, but the exact application by Amazon is not known.

The spokesman assured Business Insider that "if Amazon found a product that did not meet these guidelines, it would be quickly withdrawn from sale". Contacted by CNBC, the American giant claims that the sales of expired products constitute "isolated incidents" which do not require the implementation of new control measures.

You can find almost everything on Amazon. It is even an integral part of Jeff Bezos' strategy. The company, which recently announced its ambition to sell drugs, also allows teachers to sell their lessons. In short, we are now very far from the early e-commerce platform. But it's not all good either. Beyond the classic scams finally, there were also recently expired products that found themselves on sale. Not really reassuring when it comes to baby milk or brownies for example. But, in the food sector, the bad surprises do not stop there.

This is an investigation that was carried out by the Wall Street Journal after reports from several users that food recovered from trash cans was sold on Amazon.

Between freegan and gleaning, the concept of recovering food that would be thrown away when necessary by supermarkets is nothing new. Part of the population eats frequently this way, legally. However, it is the resale part that is the problem.

Journalists were thus able to sell a jar of lemon cream that they had collected outside a supermarket. It was approved for resale through Amazon Prime.

According to the Wall Street Journal, workers inspect these products well when they arrive in warehouses. Or rather they try. But faced with the quantity, it would often be superficial. If there is no rot on top, everything is fine.

While some of these products can be fully compatible with human consumption, they still pose serious health problems. Amazon has promised to investigate what the multinational defines as problems.

The American Medicines Agency (FDA) has rejected the request for marketing authorization of Qnexa, the experimental anti-obesity treatment of the laboratory Vivus Inc, because of health risks, according to a press release from the firm.

If the government takes no action, half of the American adult population will be obese by 2030. In any case, this is what a report published last week by the English medical journal, The Lancet, claims.

For public health experts, the societal changes that have taken place over the past century have helped to create an "obesogenic" environment which, whatever the will of Americans, makes it very difficult to maintain a healthy weight.

This study on the global obesity crisis gives some ideas for combating this scourge. The researchers recommend, in particular, to tax food that is too rich and unhealthy, and to invest in research and in monitoring programs.

The healthcare system on the front line

The authors of the text also specify that the obesity crisis will continue to worsen and therefore weigh more and more on the finances of the health system.

According to an article published last year by an American researcher at Duke University, Eric A. Finkelstein, obese people have 48% more hospital days per year than people who are not. Another example shows that an obese diabetic spends 6 times more on pharmaceutical products than a “classic” diabetic.

Companies also affected

According to the same article, the proper functioning of businesses would be more disturbed by obese employees than by others. An overweight person would have 0.5 to 5.9 more days of absence per year than an employee with a healthy weight. Also, according to the study, the obese would make more claims. They would ask for studied infrastructures, additional scheduling arrangements, etc.

More anecdotal, the rising rate of obesity among young Americans could jeopardize the future of their military. "It threatens the strength of our future army," said two former chiefs of staff, John Shalikashvili and Hugh Shelton. In fact, the more the number of obese people increases, the more the number of potential recruits decreases.

Although the report recognizes that everyone should be free to decide what they eat and how they want to live their lives, it also notes that the government has largely given up on this scourge.

Stephen Westaby, one of the largest medical eminences in the United Kingdom, has operated more than 12,000 hearts throughout his 40-year career, and estimates that he saved 97% of his patients.

However, it is the deaths he could not avoid that he remembers most.

Westaby has not only saved lives with his hands, he also created inventions that will continue to save lives once he is gone.

His story began in Scunthorpe, in the north of England, where he grew up in a state dwelling.

The renowned cardiac surgeon talked about his life and his work and recalled how he suffered during his childhood, watching his grandfather - a lifelong smoker - die slowly because of a heart problem.

"He suffered from severe heart failure, which is a miserable way of life," he said.

"Patients with this condition," he said, "can't wear shoes because their ankles are too swollen, they need bigger clothes because their bellies swell and there comes a time when they can't sleep lying down because they lack air."

Little Stephen, at 7, was present at the last moments of his grandfather's life. " I saw how it turned blue and died without being able to breathe, " he says.

That experience would mark him for life.

At that time - in the mid-1950s - cardiac surgery was just beginning to develop.

Doctors in the United States had just invented the heart-lung machine, better known as "the pump", which allowed a cardiopulmonary bypass: a technique that temporarily supplements the function of the heart and lungs during surgery.

This meant a giant breakthrough. Westaby learned of this novelty in 1955, when his parents bought his first black and white television and watched a program which showed cardiac surgery.

" I want to do that, " he thought.

The accident

He believed he could become talented as a surgeon because of something his grandfather had discovered when he was little: Stephen was ambidextrous and could use both hands with skill.

He was also a very good student and was the first of his family to go to college. But while studying in London, Westaby discovered that he had a great flaw: he was very shy and nervous.

"I was not encouraged to raise my hand in class to ask a question," he recalls.

The problem was no less for someone who aspired to become a cardiac surgeon, a profession that requires a lot of boldness to make life or death decisions in seconds.

However, your problem was solved in the most unexpected way.

One day, playing rugby, he suffered a severe blow to the head that fractured his skull. The impact damaged the part of your brain that controls inhibition and risk taking.

"Suddenly, I became the social secretary of the Faculty of Medicine and organized the parties," he says. "Very soon they named me captain of the rugby team. I was just fiercer."

This is how Westaby acquired the three talents necessary to be a successful surgeon: skillful hands, intelligence and boldness.

Operating children

He obtained scholarships to train abroad, working in a hospital in New York (USA) and in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). And he specialized in pediatric surgery, one of the most difficult branches of medicine.

The stories he tells about his little patients who failed to survive move even tears. One of the most heartbreaking was the case of a baby who managed to operate successfully in Riyadh.

The baby had a heart tumor and Westaby managed to remove it. But during the night the little boy died due to a failure in his pacemaker. The boy's mother, broken by pain, took her son, went to the roof of the hospital and jumped.

When Westaby tells it, one's blood is frozen. But he says that hours after that incident another baby continued to operate.

"I strongly believe that if you are going to perform extreme surgeries, if you are going to help patients who are sicker, you have to take distance if things do not go well," he says.

His dedication to medicine also had a high personal cost: he married and had a daughter, but less than a year later, he was already divorced.

You think you are the person who pollutes the planet the least. You try to avoid plastics, recycle the cardboard and share an Insta Stories every Friday to make people aware. You buy local and you take a house bag to not use a plastic one.

Another Friday comes – you go out to party. The next morning you take ibuprofen, without thinking that the triad of ibuprofen, cocaine and heroin is the dangerous cocktail that pollutes our rivers.

The experts have warned that we must consider the "emerging contaminants" in drinking water, the drugs. You still think that "you are doing well", that you have fulfilled your part and your sustainable quota is settled. Now your environmental cricket nugget will tell you how the drugs you consume are destroying the planet.

Our bodies only metabolize a part of the drugs we consume. This study by Harvard University demonstrates the adverse effects that these substances may have that are excreted through feces, urine and sweat and that end up in drains and surface waters.

When you use drugs and go to the bathroom, showers or loo, you are releasing a few pollutants and contaminants that passes sewage treatment plants because they are difficult to screen.

But there is also drugs that end up directly in the sea because drug traffickers hide them there to get rid of it. Not to mention the amount of gases and waste resulting from cutting and making synthetic drugs.

The current treatment plants were designed to eliminate organic matter and pathogens and although they do stop some substances, they are not designed to eliminate substances of such low concentration. If these pollutants continue to accumulate in the long term, they may end up affecting the health of rivers and their ecosystems.

The problem of drugs in water is nothing new. Already in 2006, a study conducted by the UB on the River showed that in the areas near the mouth the river carried daily loads between 1 and 15 grams of cocaine, 1 to 8 grams of ecstasy and 0.08 to 4 grams of amphetamine. The same study showed that during the holiday period, both summer and Christmas, a higher concentration of drugs in the water had been observed.

In 2011, a study highlighted the presence of drugs in the underground waters and found unmetabolized cocaine in several wells, in addition to other substances such as opiates, amphetamines or benzodiazepines.

From the IMDEA, some of the treatment plants in different regions have been studied – it has been concluded that there is enormous variability in the concentration levels of these substances between some treatment plants and others depending on the area.

The problem is that all these elements can seriously affect marine flora and fauna and rebound our health. The remains of cocaine and ketamine found in prawns in the United Kingdom and the hyperactivity of the Thames eels because of cocaine show that the problem of drug contamination would have reached the animals, altering their behavior.

This is a global problem that is catching up as environmental sensitivities increase. In several European countries, such as in France or Germany, the subject has been investigated to find a possible solution, but so far, we don’t have any.

Not only recreational drugs pose a high risk to the environment – the percentage is relatively small compared to other chemical pollutants that end up in the water and contribute to the destruction of our planet.

Some of the drugs that we usually use and that would most affect the environment would be the consumption of antibiotics, antidepressants, hormones (estrogen, progesterone or testosterone) or analgesics. Other substances such as caffeine, face or body creams or perfumes also potentially contaminate the waters of rivers and seas.

Scientists have already learned to deepen and accelerate the recovery processes that occur in our brain in a dream. Will this make us feel better, even when we go to bed too late and wake up too early?

We often talk about our difficulties with sleep. After all, they testify that we lead an extremely busy life.

Recall Thomas Edison, Margaret Thatcher and Donald Trump, all of them are famous for their short night's rest – 4-5 hours of sleep, much less than recommended by doctors for adults 7-9 hours.

It seems that many of us are following the example of these people: according to the US Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, more than a third of US adults regularly lack sleep. We ourselves sleep less often, and the consequences are very disturbing.

The consequences are known – from memory impairment to an increased risk of infectious diseases, from decision-making difficulties to obesity – but they are often ignored.

When our work needs exceed the capabilities of the usual daily schedule, the first thing we sacrifice is the hours of sleep.

But what if we could optimize the hours that we spend in a dream and make them more effective? Would we need less sleep then, and would it be deeper?

Such an opportunity is more realistic than we think. Techniques for optimizing sleep already exist, and experiments conducted around the world prove: we can very well increase the efficiency of brain activity at night.

First, we speed up the immersion in deep sleep, and then we increase the quality of our relaxation.

You think that sounds too beautiful to be true? Let's get it right.

Slowing down the rhythm

During a normal night, the brain goes through various stages of sleep, each of which has its own characteristic structure of “brain waves”. At the same time, neurons in different areas of the brain work synchronously, in a certain rhythm (approximately like a large crowd chanting something in chorus).

During the REM sleep phase, which is also called the phase of rapid eye movements (RGD), the rhythm of neurons is relatively fast – at this time we usually see dreams.

Those who suffer from lack of sleep are extremely difficult to convince of the need to change their lifestyle.

But at certain moments, our eyes stop moving, dreams stop occurring, and the rhythm of brain activity drops to one “heartbeat” per second.

And here we are immersed in that deepest unconscious state, which is called the phase of slow sleep.

It is this stage that is most interested in scientists studying the possibilities of optimizing sleep.

Margaret Thatcher, among other things, was also known for sleeping four to five hours a day – at least in those years when she was British Prime Minister