Drug and alcohol use are emotional topics, particularly in the United States today. Those who study and treat substance abuse must navigate extremely tricky waters. Among the most dangerous areas for psychologists are controlled drinking by former alcohol abusers and controlled use of illicit drugs such as cocaine and narcotics. Popular beliefs in this country, which strongly oppose these conceptions and the data that underlie them, have had a major impact on professional attitudes and policies. While it is risky to discuss such outcomes or to accept that clients may be capable of them, there are extreme dangers in denying their existence. The inability to air these issues is a mark of our society's failure to stem substance abuse.
I arrived at the study of addictive behaviors by an unusual route. I didn't study addiction in an academic or clinical program. In fact, I came to addiction as a social psychologist and not as a clinician, and my ideas often diverge from those of other psychologists who study and treat addiction. The impetus for my entrance into the field was my observations about the compulsive love relationships many young people of my era (the sixties) formed and about the ways in which drug use by my peers and others often did not conform with popular stereotypes about these substances. These observations forged the basis for a book, Love and Addiction, which drew me into the substance abuse field and its clinical concerns and emphases.
I began lecturing at addiction workshops and conferences, first at a local level and in continuing education programs, then at national (and some international) conferences. My appeal at these conferences was, I believe, my ability to translate social scientific research into experiential terms that clinicians could utilize, along with my very broad view of the nature and sources of addiction. At the same time, I quickly realized that these new settings in which I found myself differed very substantially from my staid academic background. For example, very shortly into the first extension course I taught, one woman rose and said she had to leave or otherwise she would have to kill either herself or me. Although the class ("Social and Psychological Aspects of Addiction") was part of a certificate program in alcoholism counseling, I discovered that many in the class were former alcoholics without any psychological training who differed markedly in their approach to learning from ordinary students or therapists in training.
Because most of these people were wedded to a particular view of alcoholism and addiction (indeed, they felt their sobriety depended on this view), open discussions about many topics were not possible. The chief of these restrictions was against questioning the validity of the disease theory of alcoholism and its hallmark, the necessity of complete abstinence for alcoholics. Thus the typical counselor emerges from such programs completely innocent of any other point of view than the disease perspective. In this way, major institutions of higher education lend their imprimatur to programs that do not meet fundamental requirements of an open educational process. If social-scientific researchers with opposing viewpoints appear at such programs (and generally they do not), they learn, as I did, to censor unpopular views that their audiences might choke on.
The views I expressed in the mid-1970s that were must controversial to the general public were not about alcoholism but rather concerned the nonaddicted use of narcotics. Since I understood addiction to be the result of a complex interaction of culture, immediate environment, individual disposition, and substance, data on the controlled use of narcotics made good sense to me. At the time I wrote Love and Addiction, the data about Vietnam veterans' narcotics use was becoming evident—data disconfirming all conventional pharmacological notions of narcotic addiction. Conducted under a team headed by Lee Robins, this research discovered that fewer than 10% of the veterans who used narcotics stateside became addicted. Among those soldiers who had been addicted in Vietnam, 61% of whom used a narcotic and 43% of whom used heroin stateside (including quite a few regular users), only 12% became readdicted in the United States (Robins et al., 1980).
Perhaps the most startling aspect of these data was how little impact they had on popular, clinical, and even research-oriented conceptions. Although these data were based on an unusually thorough investigation of a highly publicized subject group about which great concern was demonstrated, their implications were for the most part ignored. These implications concerned, first, the extent of nonaddicted heroin and other street narcotics use, and, second, the likelihood of recovery from addiction without abstinence. Furthermore, unless one accepted that alcoholism was essentially different in nature from narcotic addiction (which I did not), these data seemed also to reflect on the possibility of alcoholics' return to controlled drinking.
During the same period when the Robins group published its findings on Vietnam veterans, two sociologists and a psychologist at the Rand Corporation published their findings on outcomes at National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism treatment centers. The first of the two Rand studies (Armor et al., 1978) reported that those in remission at 18 months were as likely to drink without problems as to maintain stable abstinence. The reaction to this study when it appeared in 1976 was stunning. The June 12, 1976 issue of the Los Angeles Times carried a front-page story reporting that the California Alcoholism Advisory Board had declared the Rand study "methodologically unsound and clinically unsubstantiated" and indicated that "the lives of many persons with this disease are now endangered" (Nelson, 1976). On June 23 Ernest Noble, the Director of the NIAAA, released a bulletin expressing distress at the report's findings since they had "the potential for affecting so many lives in a negative manner." The National Council on Alcoholism presented a press release and convened a press conference in Washington on July 1 condemning in brutal terms the value and impact of the study (see Armor et al., 1978, Appendix B).
The modern alcoholism movement in the United States is directly descended from the temperance movement. As embodied by Alcoholics Anonymous and the National Council on Alcoholism, it is built on unquestioning dedication to abstinence. In no other country in the world do recovering alcoholics, AA, and abstinence dominate treatment for alcoholism the way they do in the United States (Miller, 1986). An indication that different climates of opinion on these questions exist in other countries comes from the British National Council on Alcoholism, which declared that "controlling one's drinking pattern and thereby one's behavior may be an alternative which many people prefer, and are able to achieve and sustain, and for this reason they deserve our support and guidance" (Boffey, 1993, p. C7). Fanny Duckert, a Norwegian researcher, described her approach to therapy: "It might be easier to agree upon a goal that states 'we want to reduce alcohol consumption, and we want to reduce problems connected with drinking.' But one can have this reduction in different ways ... For me it's not a dramatic difference between not drinking altogether, or reducing alcohol consumption to a level that's not going to create problems" (Marlatt et al., 1985, p. 132).
Of course, diversity on this question has existed in the U.S. as well. This diversity was apparent in the reaction to the Rand report itself. While NCA critics were blasting the report, NIAAA Director Ernest Noble solicited three reviews of the report from distinguished researchers; Lenin Baler, Professor of Community Mental Health at the University of Michigan, declared "The Rand report is the most exciting ... [NIAAA research report] I have seen. This is because it deals comprehensively, boldly, yet objectively with critical issues ... in the alcoholism field." Samuel Guze, Chairman of the Washington University Department of Psychiatry, found the results "offer encouragement to patients, to their families, and to relevant professionals." Gerald Klerman, Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, found the report's "conclusions are highly justified" and urged the NIAAA "to stand firm" in the face of "great political pressure" (Armor et al., 1978, Appendix B ).
As these evaluations indicate, at the time the first Rand report was published important clinicians and others could still unselfconsciously welcome controlled-drinking outcomes in alcoholism treatment. These quotes serve now only to show how much such ideas have been rejected, paradoxically as a result in many ways of the Rand report itself. For the report galvanized the opposition of the dominant treatment community and began a largely successful campaign to attack any therapy that accepted moderation of drinking problems as an outcome. This was clear when Noble responded to the reviews he solicited by insisting that "abstinence must continue as the appropriate goal in the treatment of alcoholism." Really, the Rand report showed that the basic premises of such therapy could not be questioned by research or contrary data.
The second Rand report (Polich et al., 1981) responded systematically to criticisms of the original report; again, the investigators found substantial numbers of what they termed "nonproblem" drinkers. Criticism by the NCA and related groups was somewhat muted this time around, while a large number of social scientific reviews in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and the British Journal of Addiction were almost uniformly positive. The most remarkable consequence of the second report was that the Director of the NIAAA, John DeLuca, and his executive assistant, Loran Archer (neither of whom had a research background), offered their own summary of its results. This summary emphasized that abstinence ought to be the goal of all alcoholism treatment and that AA attendance offered the best prognosis for recovery, statements the report explicitly rejected (Brody, 1980).
The NIAAA executives' summary of the second Rand report made clear that the treatment community had already rejected the report's findings by consensus, and that it would have no noticeable impact on treatment or on attitudes toward alcoholism in this country. In the early 1970s, several teams of behavioral psychologists had reported good results in training alcoholics to drink moderately. By the time the second Rand report appeared in 1980, however, behavioral psychologists had already decided these techniques should be restricted to problem drinkers—those with less severe drinking problems. In this sense, the major potential constituency for the Rand study had already rejected the Rand finding that nonproblem drinking was possible in a severely alcoholic sample (nearly all Rand subjects reported signs of alcohol dependence, such as withdrawal, and the median level of alcohol consumption on intake was 17 drinks daily).
The most frequently cited research on the benefits of moderation therapy for alcoholics had been conducted by Mark Sobell and Linda Sobell in 1970-71 at Patton State Hospital in Southern California. These researchers had reported that a group of 20 alcoholics who were taught moderate-drinking techniques had fewer days of alcoholic drinking after two and three years than did alcoholics receiving standard abstinence treatment at the hospital. In 1982, the prestigious journal Science published a refutation of the Sobells' study by two psychologists, Mary Pendery and Irving Maltzman, and a psychiatrist, L. Jolyon West. The Science article reported numerous instances of relapse by controlled-drinking subjects in the Sobells' experiment.
At the time the Science article appeared, I had been writing a monthly column in the U.S. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, a trade publication in the field. Initially, I was reluctant to become involved in the dispute. Although I knew people with severe drinking problems who had reduced their drinking over the years, I hadn't trained any alcoholics to drink moderately. Especially since behavioral psychologists themselves were now downplaying the possibility of moderate drinking by alcoholics, it seemed foolhardy for me to defend a 10-year-old piece of research. Nonetheless, when the ARF panel issued its report, I felt compelled to summarize the dispute in my column. I followed this with an article in Psychology Today (Peele, 1983) that, coincidentally, appeared in the first issue published under the masthead of the American Psychological Association (APA) after it purchased the magazine.
Shortly after my Journal column on this matter, my editor concluded we should end my monthly contributions to that publication. Following the appearance of my Psychology Today article, this editor told me he couldn't accept anything I wrote, and my name hasn't appeared in that publication to my knowledge (except for a report on Mary Pendery's attack on me at the 1983 NCA conference) in the intervening years. Meanwhile, prior to my PT article, I had been scheduled to present a keynote speech at the Texas Commission on Alcoholism's well-known summer school, held on the campus of the University of Texas in Austin. My invitation was retracted after my article appeared. I protested both on grounds of academic freedom and legal grounds and was finally reinstated. Since 1983, however, the number of invitations I have received from conferences like that in Texas has dropped dramatically.
My experience with this alcoholism dispute has given me a strong idea of the political power of the alcoholism movement to suppress discordant views. What astounded me most was how academic, professional, and government associates recommended that I drop the matter with the Texas Commission, saying simply that these events were typical. Apparently, those in the field had given up expecting freedom of speech or that a range of views should be represented at conferences receiving government funding and conducted at major universities. What I had uncovered was a matter-of-fact acceptance that those who do not hold the dominant point of view will not be given a fair hearing; that even to mention that there is doubt about accepted wisdom in the field endangers one's ability to function as a professional; and that government agencies reinterpret results of which they disapprove from research they themselves have commissioned.
NCA and other critics of the Rand reports justified lurid accusations and resulting headlines on the grounds that simply learning of results like those reported by the Rand investigators could lead alcoholics to relapse and to death. As Dr. Luther A. Cloud, having "learned that some alcoholics have resumed drinking as a result of...the Rand study," felt compelled to indicate, "this could mean death or brain damage for these individuals" (Armor et al., 1978, p. 232). Thus, these critics believe there are good grounds to suppress such information. Several efforts were made to prevent the release of the first Rand report. The L.A. Times reported that Rand board member Thomas Pike "had tried unsuccessfully to get the Rand report killed" (Nelson, 1976, p, 17). Mary Pendery, chair of the California Advisory Board, announced at the NCA press conference that she had called the head of domestic programs at Rand in a last-minute attempt to delay the report so that it could be reanalyzed in line with the opinions of "top scientists" (NCA Press Conference, 1976 , p. 5).
Of course, the impact of different treatment strategies and goals is an empirical question, one which the Rand research was intended to investigate. Both of the Rand reports analyzed the results of patients' moderated drinking or abstinence for later relapse. Neither discovered one approach to be inherently superior for preventing relapse. The primary goal of the Sobells' study was to compare the success of controlled-drinking versus conventional abstinence treatment on patient outcomes. Its conclusion was that although relapse was not uncommon for either group, controlled-drinking therapy yielded significantly less relapse. The primary criticism of the Pendery et al. study by the ARF panel and others was its failure to present any comparative follow-up data for the hospital abstinence group in the Sobells' study, which meant it was never able to refute the Sobells' claim that controlled-drinking therapy led to better outcomes.
Pendery et al. reported that four controlled-drinking subjects had died in the ten years following treatment. In response to the ARF investigation, the Sobells discovered (simply by writing to California authorities) that six of the abstinence subjects had died in the period covered by the Pendery et al. report. Moreover, Sobell and Sobell (1984) found the first of the controlled-drinking deaths occurred more than six years after treatment and the last two ten years or more after. The latter two subjects, who died while intoxicated, had both recently been released from traditional abstinence programs. Overall, Sobell and Sobell (1984) noted, the death rate for controlled-drinking subjects in this study was less than that reported in typical studies of alcoholic patients.
Why then was such a fuss made about the tragic outcomes of controlled drinking treatment? Of course, any death is horrible, the more so when brought on by self-destructive behavior. Yet the Pendery et al. data could not cast light on the risks of controlled-drinking versus abstinence treatment. Nonetheless, deaths in the experimental treatment group were highlighted in media accounts of the case. The CBS Evening News, in its report on the Science article, showed a lake where one controlled-drinking subject drowned. 60 Minutes, in a segment strongly supporting the Pendery et al. argument (screened in March, 1983), filmed Harry Reasoner walking alongside the grave of one subject. Such scenes are, after all, how television dramatizes the news. Naturally, they pack a tremendous emotional punch. We might compare these circumstances to those in which David McClelland (1977) reported on results of a nonabstinence socialized power approach to treating alcoholism. McClelland noted with academic caution that five in the standard hospital treatment program used as a comparison died while none died in the socialized power treatment. Imagine the potential consequences if this finding had been reversed!
At the time of the 60 Minutes program on the Sobells' case, the ARF panel's report was already available. Mary Pendery and Irving Maltzman had declined to cooperate with the ARF investigation, they said, because it lacked subpoena powers (Maltby, 1983). This made it easy for 60 Minutes to ignore the report (which ran 124 pages in length). Reasoner's reason for discounting the report was that the panel had not interviewed the patients in the study. A later investigation conducted by the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) likewise exonerated the Sobells of intentional or serious wrongdoing. This investigation solicited materials from a subject, Raymond Miller, who had been central to the Pendery et al. and 60 Minutes investigations. The report found nothing inconsistent in this man's evidence with the Sobells' published data.
The ADAMHA report ("Report of the Steering Group," 1984) described how several times, Pendery and or Maltzman either volunteered or agreed to send additional materials to support their assertions (p. 11). "However, despite repeated requests from the investigators, neither Pendery nor Maltzman submitted any documents ... in support of their allegations" (p. 2). In two other cases, investigators were stymied in efforts to enlist the cooperation of the Science article authors. James Jensen, an investigator for the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversights of the United States Congressional Committee on Science and Technology, also found no basis for any claims of fraud against the Sobells. Jensen mentioned that "in several conversations" he had been unable to convince Pendery to present her evidence (Maltby, 1983, p. 1). Lastly, two psychologists interested in alcoholism treatment and controlled drinking and known for their balanced positions had arranged with Pendery and Maltzman to examine the latters' evidence against the Sobells. Based on this understanding, William Miller (letter to Mary Pendery dated July 5, 1984) composed a detailed list of 14 questions he and a colleague planned to address, including such basic issues as the protocol the investigators used to conduct follow-up interviews with subjects, which has nowhere been reported. However, Miller (personal communication, October 8, 1984) informed me, "Maltzman has withdrawn the offer made to me by Mary Pendery to examine their data first-hand" because he claimed this would "compromise the class action [suit] by the patients against the Sobells."
In explaining why she had cooperated with the 60 Minutes program but no other investigation, Pendery announced, "It did a terribly thorough investigation .... I was aware you have to cooperate with some people because you lose credibility if you don't" (Maltby, 1983, p. 3). At the 1983 NCA conference at which Pendery made an "emotional address" against controlled drinking, critics of her work, and the APA and psychologists in general, a tape of the 60 Minutes program was continuously screened ("Controlled Drinking Gets Rough Review...," 1983). As exemplified by the wide distribution of the version of their article rejected by Science, the Pendery et al. use of the media has been highly successful. There would seem to be little reason for these authors to cooperate with elaborate institutional or scientific investigations that have not yet provided much support for their case. Instead, they have achieved their aims through the national media and presentations to alcoholism groups. Describing one such presentation, entitled "Controlled Drinking; A Pseudo-Controversy that Kills," Marlatt (1984) reported that Maltzman accused the Sobells of fraud and Pendery indicated that controlled drinking had caused the death of several alcoholics. In her 1983 speech before the NCA, Pendery announced the overriding purpose of her campaign was to secure "a correction in the textbook literature "eliminating mention of the Sobells' research and other studies supporting controlled drinking ("Controlled drinking...," 1983, p. 1).
The Science article authors were led to their conclusions in good part by their interviews with former subjects, many of whom had now accepted abstinence treatment. Some former subjects in the Sobells' study organized an "Alcoholism Truth Committee" to support the Pendery et al. investigation (Peele, 1985). Raymond Miller, a key individual in this group, was prominently featured on 60 Minutes and was singled out for acknowledgement in the Pendery et al. Science article. Miller co-authored a book entitled Alcoholic Heaven in which he described his participation in the Science investigation, including enlisting the support of other experimental subjects and gaining cooperation from one spouse when he found the subject himself uncooperative.
This entire enterprise of recruiting former subjects to testify against a therapy or therapists has tremendous implications for the conduct and evaluation of therapy. In an era of activist malpractice claims against all sorts of treatment, the psychotherapist would seem to be particularly susceptible to claims of failure or discontent by former patients. As indicated, a group of former Patton State patients has sued the Sobells and the state of California. Obviously, controlled-drinking therapists are not the only potential objects for such claims, since continued alcoholism sometimes leading to death is a frequent outcome of all treatment for alcoholism (cf. Helzer et al., 1985). As Marlatt (1983) pointed out, nearly all the Sobells' patients also underwent standard alcoholism treatment, so should these treatment centers also be liable for any patient failures and deaths? Under other circumstances, people may be more forgiving of the failure of therapists to succeed with patients. For example, news articles describing the appointment of Dr. Forest Tennant as chief of drug testing for major league baseball mentioned among his credentials his treatment of Steve Howe. Howe has relapsed several times and was released by two baseball teams after his treatment for cocaine addiction.
The dangers in one school of therapy spearheading legal and personal assaults against another have not roused psychology or the alcoholism field to action. In part, this is because the competing claims are often so difficult to evaluate. Moreover, psychology has traditionally been reluctant to take stands on matters of individual treatment doctrine or to censor those who go too far in criticizing others. One colleague of Irving Maltzman's wrote me, for example, that he feared editors had unfairly discriminated against Dr. Maltzman by not allowing him to publish articles they felt slandered the Sobells or other parties involved in this dispute. I find the reluctance of psychologists actively to disapprove this type of calumny and smear tactic very troubling. For me, the fear, self-protection, and disregard for individual rights surrounding the attack on controlled drinking (paradoxically justified by the academician who wrote me in terms of intellectual freedom) very closely resemble the atmosphere of the McCarthy era.
Continuous reinvestigation of the Sobells' work, affidavits by their research assistants, and the basic consistency of their data with all new claims by subjects and others about relevant events have somewhat lessened the impact of the attacks on the integrity of these researchers. (We may wonder how well many researchers and clinicians would hold up under the kind of scrutiny that has been applied to the Sobells' work.) Nonetheless, the harassment and obfuscation the Sobells and the Rand investigators experienced have clearly discouraged objective research of the type their work represented. The Sobells may no longer labor under the suspicion—at least among most fellow researchers and scholars—that they have committed a heinous crime against science and humanity. However, the burden of national television shows and popular magazine reports about the harmfulness of controlled-drinking therapy and those who perform it will not be so easily removed. For the public, many professionals in the field, and some opportunistic academics and others concerned with alcoholism, it has been proven that those who would recommend controlled drinking for alcoholics must be inept or dishonest and should not be considered seriously as scientists and therapists.
The imagery here is reminiscent of Reefer Madness and of the popular view of heroin—a view which the Vietnam research radically undermined (Robins et al., 1980 ). In fact, the epidemiological data on cocaine use are in line with similar data for other powerful mood-modifying substances. While 17% of 1985 college students used cocaine in the previous year, 7% in the previous month, .1% reported using it daily (Johnston et al., 1986). This compares, incidentally, with 57% of male college students and 34% of female who reported having a drinking bout (five drinks) at least once in the previous two weeks.
Siegel (1984) found the majority of long-term cocaine users were controlled users. Even those who abused the drug usually had intermittent episodes of excess and thus little resembled those who call cocaine hotlines or who are presented as typical cases in television documentaries. Clayton (1985) noted that, although large numbers of high school students and others were using cocaine, less than 5% of those in treatment reported it as their primary drug of abuse. Cocaine abusers abuse other drugs at the same time and share the characteristics of abusers of other drugs. For example, the best predictors of degree of cocaine use for high school students were marijuana use, truancy, and cigarette smoking. Similarly, although lurid stories of crack addicts are featured in the media, the very numbers of crack users in New York city and elsewhere strongly suggest there is a range of patterns of use of this form of the drug (Peele, 1987b).
Thus the federal cocaine trafficking trial in which several baseball players testified revealed primarily large numbers of users either whose use never got out of hand, or else who saw their use was detrimental to their game and desisted on their own (Peele, 1986). Yet the mood of the country today is not likely to support the idea that cocaine is a drug with widely variable effects and usage patterns. Even those whose research depicts such complexity slant their writing toward sensationalistic depictions of cocaine addiction and toward highlighting the inevitable dangers and damage from the drug. Fear of cocaine and other illicit drug use among the young, athletes, and others has created a hysterical atmosphere where almost any steps, from foreign invasion to invasion of privacy, can be justified.
What seems most remarkable about these alarmist campaigns is their lack of notable success. In 1982, 22 million people were found to have used cocaine—less than 4 million of whom were current users. Since that time, which marked a major escalation in various campaigns against the drug, cocaine use has continued at a remarkably high level (as indicated by the national student survey) and expert commentators have described epidemic levels of cocaine addiction (Peele, 1987a). At the same time, "'Crack has become in a very short time the drug of choice in New York City" (Kerr, 1986). Apparently, users do not believe the lurid depictions of cocaine's effects, or else they choose to use it anyway. The latest survey of young drug users finds nearly 40% of current high school graduates use cocaine before they are 27. These users report not believing the dangers typically attributed to cocaine, primarily because they and their friends have not experienced them (Johnston et al., 1986).
Many observers are forced to juxtapose these data showing massive exposure to cocaine with the idea that cocaine use invariably becomes compulsive. Some argue that young users don't know what they're talking about when they describe their own casual use, that inevitable tragic consequences await many of these, and that many already suffer these consequences but are not aware of them because they are so bound up in their drug addiction. Are we a massively addicted society, only many of those affected don't realize it? The clinical concept that expresses this viewpoint is "denial," or the incapacity of drug and alcohol users accurately to perceive themselves and their substance use.
This alleged denial is then often used to justify treatment interventions with unwilling clients, particularly the young. On May 20, 1985, CBS Evening News ran a segment in which a CBS employee posing as a father called a treatment program to report his daughter for using marijuana and for dating an older boy. Based on no other information, the daughter (also a CBS employee) was placed in residential treatment. She wore a hidden microphone, and when she told a counselor she didn't have a drug problem, he replied that most of their patients made similar claims. In other words, they were all practicing denial. Admissions like these, according to CBS, had caused hospitalizations of adolescents to more than quadruple between 1980 and 1984.
CompCare Medical Director Joseph Pursch was presented in an interview on the news segment with a case scenario like that which had actually occurred; he denied such a case would be admitted to inpatient treatment. In a later debate on this case and related issues, CompCare Vice President Ed Carels took an aggressive stand toward those involved in the CBS program: "I don't know why you think that when you're done, the mafia, NORML and all those supporting drug abuse in the world won't have you and Mr. Schwartz [referring to those who arranged the case in which the girl was committed] as their champions." Mr. Carels noted that parents weren't concerned "about treatment professionals doing something wrong with their child. 'They are worried about their kid dying because of lack of professional help'" ("Adolescent Treatment Debate Rages," 1986).
The idea of death as the progressive end state of untreated alcohol or drug abuse derives from the disease-theory notion of addiction as an inevitable and irreversible process. The recent best-seller, The Courage to Change, relies on the personal testimony of recovered alcoholics and others to point up the pervasiveness of alcoholism and the urgent need for treatment. Dr. S. Douglas Talbott indicated "22 million people have an alcohol problem related to the disease of alcoholism." The possibilities for any such person "are these three: he or she will end up in jail, in a hospital, or in a graveyard" (Wholey, 1984, p. 19). Naturally, according to this model, it is imperative to get anyone abusing alcohol into treatment.
Epidemiological data systematically dispute the disease model. Most young people outgrow substance abuse, even its severe forms. The most powerful data on the return to controlled drinking do not come from studies of treatment outcomes, but rather from surveys of drinkers who do not enter treatment at all. The Cahalan-Berkeley group have regularly found problem drinkers to attenuate their drinking with age, and only rarely to abstain (Roizen et al., 1978). Similar natural remission over the course of the individual's life appears regularly even among severe cases of alcoholism (Gross, 1977). Indeed, Room (1980) discussed the repeated finding that only those who enter treatment display the full array of alcoholic symptoms, which include inevitable loss of control and the impossibility of regaining control of the drinking function. Treatment here seems to be necessary for the development of the classical alcoholism syndrome.
The commonplaceness of the natural correction of drinking problems over time comes through even in research like George Vaillant's The Natural History of Alcoholism, which sets out to defend the disease view of alcoholism. The majority of the over 100 inner-city alcohol abusers the Vaillant study followed for 40 years ceased abusing alcohol, in nearly all cases without treatment. Twenty percent returned to moderate drinking and 34% abstained. However, Vaillant defined abstinence as drinking less than once a month (he also allowed his abstinent—but not controlled—drinkers the leeway of up to a week of alcoholic drinking during the year). As Vaillant (1983) indicated, "relatively few men with long periods of abstinence had never taken another drink" (p. 184).
Of course, all alcoholics do not recover on their own. Along with the inaccurate notion that alcohol abuse inevitably worsens without treatment, the medical model insists that treatment of the disease significantly enhances the recovery rate for alcoholism. Although Vaillant's case descriptions emphasize the requirement of AA membership, he actually found 37% of those who achieved a year or more of abstinence relied an AA (the controlled drinkers obviously had almost no contact with AA). Just as the Rand investigators discovered, Vaillant (private communication, June 4, 1985) found that long-term AA membership was associated with long periods of abstinence, but that those attending AA also relapsed more often than those who quit drinking on their own. Meanwhile, analyzing remission in 100 alcoholic men and women treated in a medical program he supervised, Vaillant found their progress after 2 and 8 years "no better than the natural history of the disorder" (pp. 284-285). Vaillant reported 95% of his patients relapsed. One emerges deeply puzzled by Vaillant's insistence that medical treatment and AA attendance are imperative for alcoholics.
An even more outstanding case of rationalizing conventional treatment verities in the face of almost total lack of treatment success was presented in a much-noted study in the New England Journal of Medicine, which found only 1.6% of treated alcoholics returned to moderate drinking (Helzer et al., 1985). What, then, were the outcomes of this hospital treatment where controlled drinking has been so thoroughly discouraged? Overall, treatment for alcoholism in this study produced results decidedly inferior to the natural remission rates for alcoholism Vaillant (1983) summarized (cf. p. 286). Moreover, of the four hospital units Helzer et al. examined, inpatient alcoholism treatment showed the lowest remission rate, one half the remission rate (among survivors) of that for patients treated in a medical/surgical hospital. Only 7% of those treated in the hospital alcoholism ward survived and were in remission at a follow-up period of from 5 to 8 years! It might seem that self-congratulations for the dominant views of alcoholism and addiction treatment are somewhat premature.
Yet treatment for substance abuse (or chemical dependence) has become more coercive than ever before (Weisner & Room, 1984). Most referrals now come from the court system or employee assistance programs, where treatment is offered as an alternative to prison or job loss. Treatment is almost always geared toward the disease model, abstinence, and 28-day hospital programs, so that, for example, a drunk driver under court-ordered treatment may be put in jail for showing any alcohol in a follow-up blood or urine test. The largest single category of such referrals is DWI; consider this analysis by the President of the Insurance Institute for Auto Safety: "the best research to date has found that drivers convicted of alcohol-related offenses have fewer crashes after their licenses have been suspended or revoked than after being sent through present types of rehabilitation" (Ross, 1984, p. xvii).
The person with a drinking problem who is directed to treatment by his company or the courts in fact infrequently qualifies as alcoholic. Nonetheless, he or she—like most people who present themselves for treatment—are often hospitalized and invariably instructed in abstinence and other disease-based recommendations (Hansen & Emrick, 1983). If people like this resist such diagnosis and treatment, they have proven their denial and thus that they are suffering from the disease of alcoholism! It is not surprising that most people—even those who acknowledge they may be abusing a substance—refuse to seek treatment. If they do seek treatment that contradicts their self-assessment, they frequently drop out or fail to benefit from therapy (Miller, 1983).
In this sense, the largest source of denial is the therapy itself and the belief systems of those who conduct it (Fingarette, 1985). When therapists gainsay the ideas that people can improve their drinking or drug-taking status without abstaining, or that people can use a drug regularly without abusing it or risking addiction—as has repeatedly been established by epidemiological research—we may say that it is therapists and addiction and alcoholism experts who are practicing denial. Thus we refuse either to support nonproblematic substance use or to help people with their problems before these are completely out of hand. As indicated by the type of person who voluntarily calls an 800 hotline, when people are finally willing to commit themselves to standard treatments they have usually progressed to the point where their life has collapsed and therapy is a stop-gap, emergency measure rather than a path to health and an ordinary lifestyle.
The failure of our policies to prevent the rapid rise in cocaine use or addiction, to eliminate high levels of problem drinking among young people (large numbers of whom seem destined to grow into alcoholism), or to help most alcoholics or addicts would seem to be severe indictments of these policies. Instead, the policies are apparently reinforced by their lack of success as we up the ante of military interventions against the production and importation of cocaine and we increasingly recommend drug-testing of athletes, young people, and practically everybody else. Consider that the 1986 deaths of athletes using cocaine occurred with one whose school was already aggressively drug-testing athletes and another whose club boasted the most active treatment program in the NFL—the two most popular methods for responding to drug abuse among athletes and others.
Is it really true, as our current model of addiction and its treatment suggests, that our only hope for keeping people from drowning in drugs is to blockade our shores and coerce people into therapy? Have we given up on the possibility of self-control, so that addiction and denial are concepts that require us to take control over more and more people's lives? If we accept this view, have we not already lost the war on drugs? It is fascinating, though not wholly unpredictable, that in this atmosphere alternative views of drug use and abuse, alcoholism, and treatment have all but been eliminated. For example, despite the repeated failure to show the efficacy of conventional treatment for DWI referrals, the Attorney General of New York recently petitioned the State Supreme Court to have a nondisease program for drunk drivers placed under the control of the State Division of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, which disapproved of the program's approach (State of New York Supreme Court, 1986). Is it possible that our programs are designed primarily to preserve and support conventional wisdom and those who are emotionally committed to it rather than for their actual effectiveness in dealing with the problem?
Advocates of traditional treatment approaches are undaunted by reports like Vaillant's that treated alcoholics did no better than untreated alcoholics and Helzer et al.'s that 93% of inpatient alcoholic patients either died or were still alcoholic after five to eight years. An editorial based on the Helzer et al. study warned that "Any treatment professional who holds out controlled drinking as a reliable option ... ought to consider getting very good malpractice insurance" ("Rx—Abstinence: Anything Less Irresponsible, Negligent," 1985). Responses to an article on moderate drinking in the Washington Post (November 27, 1985, p. 6) averred the discussion "has significant potential for causing great harm and even death to alcoholic persons" and that acceptance of this point of view "could, indeed, be fatal." A woman who drew the quite legitimate conclusion that the controlled-drinking "approach doesn't work for me" prompted Joseph Pursch (1986) to announce in his national column that "any program which prepares an alcoholic for controlled drinking is dangerous and should be condemned."
But this book worried me. Dr. Peele is widely read outside the scientific community. The distortions are subtle, the writing is slick, and to a person unfamiliar with the literature, the arguments are very seductive....First Amendment rights and a free press guarantee that such books be protected, like any other, but if [such] a book pretends to scientific neutrality..., what then? This is obviously different from a case of fraudulent data. Is there any court of appeal from slur and innuendo [Dr. Bean-Bayog refers here to my reinterpretation of Dr. George Vaillant's work]? I would be delighted to hear from readers who have thought about these issues.
I don't recall ever reading a review before in an important scientific publication which requested like-minded readers to contact the reviewer for possible action against a book's author. Perhaps it is not too late for me to recant and to endorse disease views of alcoholism and addiction.
On April 10, 1994, Mary Pendery was murdered by an alcoholic lover. Pendery left the alcoholism treatment program at the VA Hospital in San Diego which she headed to move to a VA hospital in Sheridan, Wyoming in 1992. In January 1994, Pendery recontacted George Sie Rega, whom she had first known while at the San Diego VA. Pendery was rekindling an old flame. By the time Sie Rega joined Pendery in Wyoming in April 1994, he was deep in alcoholic relapse. Extremely intoxicated, Sie Rega shot Pendery and then committed suicide.
In September 1992, Harvard psychiatrist Margaret Bean-Bayog surrendered her medical license rather than undergo a hearing by the Massachusetts Medical Board for improper treatment of former Harvard Medical School student Paul Lozano, who had committed suicide with a drug overdose. Bean-Bayog had treated Lozano for many years; she "remothered" Lozano by regressing him back to infancy. Her letters addressed him as a small child, totally dependent on her. When she terminated their intense relationship, Lozano was devastated. A psychiatrist who subsequently treated Lozano reported Bean-Bayog to the Medical Board. Lozano told several people that he and Bean-Bayog had had a sexual relationship. Bean-Bayog denied this claim, but hundreds of Bean-Bayog's intimate writings to and about Lozano, including elaborate sado-masochistic sexual fantasies, were discovered at Lozano's apartment after his death. Bean-Bayog admitted writing the fantasies, but claimed Lozano stole them from her office.
Adolescent treatment debate rages. (1986, June). U.S. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, pp. 4, 16.
Bean-Bayog, M. (1986). Review of The meaning of addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 314:189-190.
Boffey, P.M. (1983, November ). Controlled drinking gains as a treatment in Europe. New York Times, pp. Cl, C7.
Brody, J.E. (1980, January 30). Drinking problem dispute. New York Times, p. 20.
Clayton, R.R. (1985). Cocaine use in the United States: In a blizzard or just being snowed? In N.J. Kozel and E.H. Adams (Eds.), Cocaine use in America: Epidemiological and clinical perspectives (DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-1414, pp. 8-34). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Cohen, S. (1985). Reinforcement and rapid delivery systems: Understanding adverse consequences of cocaine. In N.J. Kozel and E.H. Adams (Eds.), Cocaine use in America: Epidemiological and clinical perspectives (DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-1414, pp. 151-157). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Controlled drinking gets rough review at NCA. (1983, April). U.S. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, pp. 1, 11.
Cook, D.R. (1985). Craftsman versus professional. Analysis of the controlled drinking controversy. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 46:432-442.
Fingarette, H. (1985). Alcoholism and self-deception. In M.W. Martin (Ed.), Self- deception and self-understanding (pp. 52-67). Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.
Gross, M.M. (1977). Psychobiological contributions to the alcohol dependence syndrome. In G. Edwards et al. (Eds.), Alcohol-related disabilities (WHO Offset Pub. No. 32, pp. 107-131). Geneva: World Health Organization.
Hansen, J,, & Emrick, C.D. (1983). Whom are we calling "alcoholic"? Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in the Addictive Behaviors, 2:164-178.
Helzer, J.E., Robins, L.N., Taylor, J.R. et al. (1985). The extent of long-term moderate drinking among alcoholics discharged from medical and psychiatric treatment facilities. New England Journal of Medicine, 312:1678-1682.
Johnston, L.D., O'Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G. (1986). Drug use among American high school students, college students, and other young adults (DHHS Publication No. ADM 86-1450). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Kerr, P. (1986, May 22). City is setting up new drug squad. New York Times, pp. 1, B14.
Maltby, K. (1983, June 1). Second US review of Sobell work underway: Pendery uneasy about participating. The Journal (Addiction Research Foundation), pp. 1, 3.
Marlatt, G.A. (1983). The controlled-drinking controversy: A commentary. American Psychologist, 18:1097-1110.
Marlatt, G.A. (1984). Letter to James Royce. Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in the Addictive Behaviors, 3:70.
Marlatt, B.A., Miller, W.R., Duckert, F., et al. (1985). Abstinence and controlled drinking: Alternative treatment goals for alcoholism and problem drinking? Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in the Addictive Behaviors, 4:123-150.
McClelland, D.C. (1977). The impact of power motivation training on alcoholics. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38:142-144.
Miller, W.R. (1983). Motivational interviewing with problem drinkers. Behavioral Psychotherapy, 11:147-172.
Miller, W.R. (1986). Haunted by the Zeitgeist: Reflections on contrasting treatment goals and concepts of alcoholism in Europe and the United States. In T.F. Babor (Ed.), Alcohol and culture: Comparative perspectives from Europe and America (pp. 110-129). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Nelson, H. (1976, June 12). Rand study on alcoholism draws storm of protest. Los Angeles Times, pp. 1, 17.
NCA Press Conference. (1976, July 1). Shoreham Hotel, Washington, DC (press package archived at library of the Alcohol Research Group, Berkeley, CA 94709).
Peele, S. (1983, April). Through a glass darkly: Can some alcoholics learn to drink in moderation? Psychology Today, pp. 38-42.
Peele, S. (1984). The cultural context of psychological approaches to alcoholism: Can we control the effects of alcohol? American Psychologist, 39:1337-1351.
Peele, S. (1986, March). Start making sense [about ballplayers' drug use]. Sports Fitness, pp. 49-50, 77-78.
Peele, S. (1987a). The limitations of control-of-supply models for explaining and preventing alcoholism and drug addiction. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 48:61-77.
Peele, S. (1987b). What does addiction have to do with level of consumption?: A response to R. Room. Journal of Studies on Alcohol , 48:84-89.
Peele, S., with Brodsky, A. (1975). Love and addiction. New York: Taplinger.
Polich, J.M. , Armor, D.J. , & Braiker, H.S. (1981). The course of alcoholism: Four years after treatment. New York: Wiley.
Pursch, J. (1986, April 16). Controlled drinking doesn't work. Detroit Free Press, p. 2C.
Report of the steering group to the administrator of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration regarding its attempts to investigate allegations of scientific misconduct concerning Drs. Mark and Linda Sobell. (1984, August).
Robins, L.N., Helzer, J.E., Hesselbrock, M., & Wish, E. (1980). Vietnam veterans three years after Vietnam: How our study changed our view of heroin. In: L. Brill & C. Winick (Eds.). The yearbook of substance use and abuse (Vol. 2, pp. 213-230). New York: Human Sciences Press.
Roizen, R., Cahalan, D., & Shanks, P. (1978). "Spontaneous remission" among untreated problem drinkers. In D.B. Kandel (Ed.), Longitudinal research on drug use (pp. 197-221). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Ross, H.L. (1984). Deterring the drinking driver: Legal policy and social control. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Rx—abstinence: Anything less irresponsible, negligent. (1985, August). U.S. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, p. 6.
Siegel, R.K. (1984). Changing patterns of cocaine use: Longitudinal observations, consequences, and treatment. In J. Grabowski (Ed.), Cocaine: Pharmacology, effects, and treatment of abuse (DHHS Publication No. ADM 84-1326, pp. 92-110). Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Sobell, M.B. & Sobell , L.C. (1984). The aftermath of heresy: A response to Pendery et al.'s (1982) critique of "Individualized behavior therapy for alcoholics." Behavior Research and Therapy, 22:413-440.
State of New York Supreme Court. (1996, June 26). In the matter of Creative Interventions. (Decision Index #8700/85).
Weisner, C. and Room, R. (1984). Financing and ideology in alcohol treatment. Social Problems, 32:167-184.
Wholey, D. (1984). The courage to change. New York; Houghton-Mifflin.


BLOOMSBURG, Pa. -- There are more than 1,400 livestock animals at the Bloomsburg Fair. Most of them are here to be judged on their looks, personality, posture, and more.
The people who handle these animals in the show arenas have a lot of practice. Many 4-H kids have been doing this their whole lives.
"It's kind of always been in my family. My family showed when they were younger. I just grew up wanting to show," said Courtney Shuman of Bloomsburg.
Last year, I learned what it was like to show a goat. I even got third place. This year, I wanted to show a cow in the large arena. First, Mark Shultz of Jerseytown showed me how to get the cow ready.
"It's not a beef animal. It's a milk cow, so you want it to look thin. The beef cow you want it to look fat," Shultz explained.
Shultz showed me how to style the cow's hair. He used a quart of hairspray.
Next, Shuman showed me how to brush the cow. Her cow Margo is who I would be walking in the show. After that, it was time to start walking.
Kate Dent of Berwick showed me where to put my hands.
"You just kind of coax forward. They're usually like puppy dogs," Dent said.
A 400-pound puppy dog! And Margo was smaller than many of the others in the show.
In the end, Margo really was like a calm puppy dog. We did not place in the top six, but we had a great time.


text:
These 3 GOP congressmen avoided the wall-to-wall media coverage Rep. Omar faced
214 news segments.
Ryan Koronowski Twitter Mar 13, 2019, 4:36 pm
Right to left: Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Steve King (R-IA), and Ilhan Omar (D-MN). Credit: Getty Images/Hai Phan
For the past few weeks, comments and tweets made by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) that were criticized for evoking anti-Semitic tropes have dominated the news cycle. Of course, Omar is far from the only member of the House to have faced such controversy. The outsize attention she has earned, however, is unique.
Since late 2018, Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Steve King (R-IA), and Jim Jordan (R-OH) have all tweeted or made comments that were also controversial. On occasions, they even evoked the same tropes. And yet, television news barely paid attention.
ThinkProgress examined transcripts of network and cable news shows starting on the day each lawmaker made a controversial comment and counted how many segments those news programs devoted to each of them in the weeks following.
Since Omar's first controversial tweet went viral on February 10, there were 214 media segments about her — 74 segments in response to a tweet in which she seemed to link support for Israel to money, and 140 in response to her suggestion that Americans who support Israel had dual loyalty. In comparison, only a single segment was devoted to Jordan's tweet that aimed an anti-Semitic attack at Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer. Similarly, McCarthy's tweet that billionaire and right-wing target George Soros was trying to "buy this election" was mentioned in eight instances, and King's promotion of an anti-Semitic white nationalist on March 5 didn't merit any attention at all.
On February 10, Omar tweeted a suggestion that pro-Israel organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) bought the support of U.S. lawmakers. On that occasion, Intercept journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted, "It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans." In reply, Omar tweeted, "It's all about the Benjamins, baby." Following that, Forward editor Batya Ungar-Sargon asked Omar who paid U.S. lawmakers to be pro-Israel, to which she replied, "AIPAC!"
Both Republicans and Democrats swiftly rebuked her, she apologized and deleted the tweet. Seventy-four news segments discussed and criticized and analyzed her comments.
A month later, while attending an an event with Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) in Washington, D.C., Omar said, "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country." Many criticized Omar for referring to the anti-Semitic trope of dual loyalty, and some called for her to be censured or removed from her committee assignments. The House voted on a resolution condemning hatred and bigotry. A 140-segment cable news feeding frenzy ensued.
Other House members have invoked some of the same anti-Semitic tropes, with far less media scrutiny.
McCarthy tweeted in late October, "We cannot allow [Democratic donor George] Soros, Steyer, and [former New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg to BUY this election!" He deleted the tweet a day later. Just one day earlier, law enforcement intercepted a pipe bomb addressed to Soros, a frequent subject of anti-Semitic attacks. The tweet from McCarthy, now the top Republican in the House, was condemned for engaging in anti-Semitic tropes, much in the same way Omar's "Benjamins" tweet was. Yet McCarthy only endured brief mentions in eight segments on television news, mostly on CNN.
In March, Jordan tweeted a reply to his colleague, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), which contained the phrase, "Jumps to Tom $teyer's conclusion." Nadler is Jewish, and Steyer, a major funder of progressive causes, identifies as Episcopalian, though he has some Jewish ancestry. Nadler called the tweet "inane and anti-Semitic," thanks to the replacement of the "S" with a dollar sign in Steyer's name.
C'mon @RepJerryNadler—at least pretend to be serious about fact finding.
Nadler feeling the heat big time. Jumps to Tom $teyer's conclusion—impeaching our President—before first document request.
What a Kangaroo court. https://t.co/BpNIzdON1e
— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) March 3, 2019
Jordan's tweet was briefly mentioned once on MSNBC. It has not been deleted.
In addition, Steve King promoted Faith Goldy, a Canadian white nationalist, on Twitter on March 1. Though this was hardly the first time he promoted an anti-Semitic white nationalist on the platform, he, too, deleted the tweet. Goldy has recited neo-Nazi slogans, appeared on neo-Nazi podcasts, and endorsed books that call for the "elimination of the Jews." This merited zero mentions on television news programs.
Omar is a freshman lawmaker, part of a new, more diverse wave of Democratic lawmakers elected last November. She is black, Somali-American, and Muslim. McCarthy, King, and Jordan are, by contrast, long-tenured, white, male congressmen.
Of the 214 segments about Omar's comments and tweets, CNN led the way with over half the total, followed by Fox and Fox Business with almost a third, and MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, and NBC with the remainder. Fox's segments tended to spend more time within each segment on the comments, while other networks' segments were often shorter.
Omar is not the only freshman Muslim lawmaker receiving more than her share of critical media attention. According to Media Matters, on January 4, Tlaib was the subject of 2.5 hours of cable news coverage for being recorded the previous evening saying "Impeach the motherfucker" in reference to President Donald Trump. In the 24 hours after King was quoted in The New York Times embracing white supremacy, the cable networks spent less than 30 minutes talking about it.
When asked about King's racist comments, Trump replied on January 14, "I haven't been following it — I really haven't been following it.
Pres. Trump says he hasn't been following controversy over Steve King's "white supremacy" comments, which have drawn increasing criticism from his Republican colleagues. https://t.co/4RIVART0Oy pic.twitter.com/8fmCmZvWvP
A note on methodology: ThinkProgress examined news transcripts from Lexis Nexis' database (and Snapstream when applicable) starting on the day each representative made a comment or tweet and ending March 12. The basic criteria were the lawmaker's name mentioned within a hundred words of keywords like "anti-Semitic" or "Israel", or more specific words related to their unique comments. ThinkProgress eliminated duplicate transcripts and focused on U.S. cable and network news channels.
Research credit: Victoria Fleischer, Katelyn Marmon, and Hai Phan.
CORRECTION: This story was updated to accurately reflect Rep. Ilhan Omar's remarks.
#Anti-Semitism, #Ilhan Omar, #Jim Jordan, #Kevin Mccarthy, #Politics, #Steve King

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Can I ask questions regarding a family member from MyChart?
Patients who wish to participate will be issued a MyChart activation code during their clinic visit. This code will enable you to login and create your own user ID and password. If you were not issued an activation code, ask to sign up during your next office visit.
For account activation assistance, please contact the Health Information Management Department at 414-266-2640. For general MyChart questions, e-mail us at MyChartSupport@chw.org.
Most test results are released to your MyChart account immediately after they are resulted. This means that you may see your test results before your provider. Some sensitive and imaging results are delayed for two business days to allow time for your provider to contact you to explain them.
Tests of a very sensitive nature are not released to MyChart. Also, test results that are scanned into our system cannot be released to MyChart.
Yes you can. This is called Proxy access and allows a parent (or guardian) to log into their personal MyChart account, and then connect to information regarding their family member. Contact your provider/clinic to request access to this convenient service. If you would like access to a child under the age of 14, you can click here to request an activation code online.
MyChart parent/proxy accounts are allowed to send medical advice request messages regarding family members.
You may contact our Health Information Management Department at 414-266-2640 to request a new, secure password. You may also click the "Forgot password" link on the sign-in page to reset your password online.
Contact the Health Information Management Department at 414-266-2640 and after we verify your information, a new code will be sent via U.S. Postal Mail or e-mail.
MyChart is owned and operated by CHW and is fully compliant with federal and state laws pertaining to your privacy. Your name and e-mail address will be treated with the same care and privacy given your health records and will never be sold or leased by CHW.
For your security, your activation code expires after 60 days and is no longer valid after the first time you use it. Contact the Health Information Management Department at 414-266-2640 and after we verify your information, a new code will be sent via U.S. Postal Mail or e-mail.
No, your activation code is not your MyChart ID or password. You will use this code only once to log into MyChart for the first time. (The code will expire after you have used it or after 60 days). When you log into MyChart the first time, you will then be asked to create your own unique MyChart User ID and password.


I seem to be unable to communicate except through this method. I am 73 and not on social media. I just purchased your book Extreme Transformation. Began my journey yesterday. I know I will succeed The book is an eye opener. My concern: areas in the book that have very small print is also so light I find it nearly impossible to read. Otherwise I'm excited to know I will reach my 74th birthday 50-60 pounds lighter and 90-100 by the end of 2017.
Sure I understand. It just is frustrating. I have asked my husband if we could move where there would be options. Yuma has been where God wanted us to serve the last 12 years, but it is time to move. God will work it out somehow. God bless your dreams Heidi, all the best in the competition. Its never too late so maybe one day I will do something like that on the senior level.
Loved the quiz! I thought Heidi's giggle was so cute. And I love Chris's voice. Ya'll are adorable!
Enjoyed your Valentines day Quiz, very cute.
I absolutely love the two of you and your show. You are both the perfect mix of friend & task master when it comes down to working with the people you choose for transformation. Something I have been wanting forever to ask is…..Do you ever take on people who are not extremely in need of serious help. I am 48 years old and in decent shape, BUT I have not been able to reach my dream of being in like near Body Builder shape. My home is in Yuma, AZ, Chris you may know it, and I have joined gyms in the area, signed up for and paid for trainers only to be let down by them. They either missed our appointments, failed to get me or some just jabbered through the entire sessions. I tried to get a private trainer and that fell through twice, told they were currently booked out and put me on a waiting list, never to called. On my own I get so far and then fall short. I am keen and serious about working out and really want to hit my goals, on my own I am lacking too many key things to nail it all down. I am 5'4′, 135 lbs, strong and have a wonderful husband who supports me, but he is the total opposite as far as the fitness goes, it is not his thing. He is naturally lean, tall and is happy golfing and riding bike. My favorite episode was Mitzi, her weight lifting and training with Miss Ernestine Shepherd, who I also find amazing. What can you suggest for me? I don't want to give up my dream, but several times failing is really wearing out my mojo! My only health issue is my back. I have scoliosis with an S-curve twisting right to left, disc degeneration and spinal arthritis, but use no prescription medications, a true miracle I am told. As far as I know that is my only real area of concern, otherwise strong. Thank you for all you do and the inspiration it sends out. Keep it up. Grace2U Both!
Oh Gosh thought that would only be seen by the Powell's!!! Oh well out there now.
Hi Missy: Chris and Heidi would love to personally help everyone, but they're not able to take on clients at this time. Heidi goes to Pro Physiques in Arizona, and they have been coaching and training her for her own goals. http://www.theprophysiques.com. We wish you the best as you work to achieve your goals – you can do this!


Latest news on 8 October 2018 State Bank of India clerk mains exam score card has been released now which can be downloaded from the link given here.
Latest news on 21st September 2018 State Bank of India has declared the result of mains exam on official website. The roll number wise list of candidates who has shortlisted for the appointment has been displayed on the link given in the end.
The selected candidates will required to qualify the regional proficiency test before getting appointment as per the requirement of the advertisement.
On 23.07.2018- SBI Clerk Pre Result has been Declared now.
SBI has uploaded advertisement for recruitment of 8301 posts Junior Associate in Clerk Cadre and online applications are invited from 20.01.2018 to 10.02.2018 on the official website www.sbi.co.in.
Those candidates who have been waiting for this recruitment can apply online from the link and steps given here.
· Go to apply online link given here.
· A new window will be opened. Click on 'Click here for new registration' button given at the right top in yellow colour.
· A PDF file will be downloaded for instruction. Read the instructions and click on the continue button.
· Note down the registration number and password at the before uploading your photo & sign in prescribe size.
· Make the payment by online mode/ Net banking.
· Finally, take printout of the application form.
Note – Don't confuse with the application form. No application form will be sent to the bank by post or any other means. Secure the application form, registration and password for future requirements of admit card, result and interview letter.


Casio's Exilim phone (vaguely NSFW ad here) looks to cram in just about every feature you can get on a Verizon dumbphone, with a few higher-end bonuses: It's military-grade ruggedized and features an impressive 5.1MP camera.
Exilim is Casio's digital camera line, so when they've branded a phone with the name, you know the lens is going to get some attention. Who knows if the pictures look good (the camera line is not particularly well-reviewed) but it's got autofocus, an image stabilizer, and video recording, so it's likely one of the better phone cameras out there. Otherwise, you've got the standard Verizon features (VZ Navigator, visual voicemail, V Cast Music) in a rotating flip phone package that just happens to meet military standards for durability.
BASKING RIDGE, N.J., and NEW YORK – Verizon Wireless and Casio introduce the Casio® EXILIM, a picture perfect blend of digital camera functionality and entertainment features for the adventure seeker. The Casio EXILIM boasts a 180-degree rotating display, professional 5.1 megapixel camera and access to instant messaging, Visual Voice Mail and V CAST Music with Rhapsody.
· The Casio EXILIM is available for $279.99 after a $50 mail-in rebate with a new two-year customer agreement. Customers receive the rebate in the form of a debit card; upon receipt, customers may use the card as cash anywhere debit cards are accepted.
· VZ Navigator is available for $2.99 daily access, and Visual Voice Mail is available for $2.99 monthly access. Other charges may apply when downloading or using applications.
· Customers can purchase the Casio EXILIM beginning today online at www.verizonwireless.com or in Verizon Wireless Communications Stores. For additional information on any Verizon Wireless products and services, visit a Verizon Wireless Communications Store, call 1-800-2 JOIN IN or go online to www.verizonwireless.com.


Discussion in 'Humor - Jokes - Games and Diversions' started by ChemicalGal, Mar 6, 2006.
WHEN HER NEIGHBOR PEERED OVER THE FENCE.
DOING HE ASKED,"WHAT ARE YOU UP TO THERE, NANCY?"
WITHOUT LOOKING UP "AND I'VE JUST BURIED HIM."
"THAT'S A REALLY BIG HOLE FOR A GOLDFISH, ISN'T IT?"
Cute CG! I like it.. thanks for the laughs!
Sounds like my daughter !!!


text:
Trump taps ex-Tennessee House speaker for TVA board
FILE – In this Jan. 23, 2018, file photo, Republican Beth Harwell addresses the audience during the Gubernatorial Forum on Education at Belmont University in Nashville, Tenn. President Donald Trump has nominated Harwell to serve on the board of directors of the nation's largest public utility. In a news release Tuesday, Jan. 28, 2020 Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander praised the nomination of Beth Harwell to the Tennessee Valley Authority board.
(George Walker IV/The Tennessean via AP, Pool, File)
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — President Donald Trump has nominated a former Tennessee House speaker to serve on the board of directors of TVA.
In a news release Tuesday, Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander praised the nomination of Beth Harwell to the Tennessee Valley Authority board.
Harwell, a longtime Nashville Republican lawmaker, was elected speaker in 2011. She left the role and the Legislature in her unsuccessful 2018 bid for governor.
Since leaving office, Harwell also has been hired as a visiting professor of political science at Middle Tennessee State University.
Alexander also praised the nomination of East Tennessee State University President Brian Noland to the federal utility's board. He took over as the university's president in January 2012 after serving six years as chancellor of the West Virginia Higher Education System.
TVA serves almost 10 million people in parts of seven southeastern states.
Nominations to the utility's board are subject to U.S. Senate approval.
More Tennessee Stories
Seventh Nashville Police officer credited for saving lives before Christmas Day bombing
by Erica Francis / Jan 15, 2021
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) - There's a fine line between our personal and professional lives.
The line in this story happens to be thin and blue.
State lawmaker to call for 'no confidence' vote of TN Department of Education Commissioner Schwinn
by Robert Holder / Jan 15, 2021
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) -- A state lawmaker plans to call for a "no confidence" vote of Tennessee Commissioner of Education Penny Schwinn.
The call is planned during the education special session that is to begin Jan. 19.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee's GOP-dominant Legislature has approved a contentious plan for a drastic overhaul of the state's Medicaid program.
On Friday, the House followed the Senate's vote a day before in hopes of making it difficult for the incoming President-elect Joe Biden's administration to overturn the deal.


"NINE YEARS ago Asia Bibi, a poor farm labourer from Pakistan's tiny Christian minority, went to fetch a jug of water from a well for the Muslim women working beside her in the fields. It was a hot day. She took a sip before passing the water on, inadvertently initiating a furore that has lasted ever since.
Islam is a non-violent religion, a religion of tolerance. So we're told over and over.
I agree with Richard Dawkins; there are two religions in the world that are truly dangerous. The first is Islam, and the second is Roman Catholicism. Absolutely agree. Religion is a mass delusion. It can have benefits, such as the Salvos and other caring organisations run by churches, exclusively Christian churches as far as I can see.
But throughout history all the wars, periods of darkness, torture, partitions, repressions, pogroms, mass genocides (witness the Rohingyas) have been due to religion. It is the scourge of mankind!
Witness Pakistan itself, created by the inability of Hindus and Muslims to get along, and what was formerly called East Pakistan and is now called Bangladesh was due to one sect of Islam being unable to get along with another. And Shi'ites and Sunnis, even in the same religion, are ready to tear each others' eyes out!
It's barbaric and cruel. Religion is the cause of hundreds of millions of deaths over the centuries of history. It may be the death of us all now that nuclear weapons are being openly displayed again. Dog help us.
Aaah, warm sunny weather again. Not real warmth yet, but I've thrown the light blanket off the top and don't need to wear a cardigan any more.
I'm floating the idea of buying a car in Brisbane and driving it back to Perth. I wish I'd done it a month ago when it was still spring, because the east looks as if it's heading into heatwave conditions already, and the cruel drought is still in force, making large parts of the country dry and dusty. I suppose sticking to the coast, which I would do, will still see plenty of green.
It's still just a vague plan at the moment, but I'd better do something to firm it up soon or the car might disappear. I've been looking at it for at least a month.
Don't assume I've got money. It's nine years old and not expensive, half the price of a new small car.
Aaah, Aussies, don't you love 'em?


text:
The James Altucher Show Ep. 255 – Marcus Lemonis: The Way To Gain Confidence in Yourself and Your Business
How does Marcus do everything that he does? How does he fit it all in?
Marcus is the CEO of Camping World, and is also invested in about 109 companies
He estimates he has at least 50 active businesses that he's involved in at this time (on which he helps at least twice a week, for more than two minutes)
He also has his TV show – The Profit
"It's very difficult to be a small business owner and have balance" – Marcus says he doesn't have great balance, but he loves what he does
He doesn't have kids, this obviously helps
People, Process, Product
These are the things Marcus looks for
Product – people need to be able to understand it, relate to it, and it must be relevant
People – everything involves relationships, so you have to be able to connect with people
Process – all about implementation
Why do businesses typically fail? – people don't get along, and then the process and product either fall apart or don't get developed
The Profit
Before he goes to the businesses, he has no information (no financials etc., just the company name)
"To grow a business, put your personal self out there and connect with people. Put a heart with a face, not a name with a face."
"One of the mistakes people make in business is not connecting with people (vendors, neighbors, stakeholders, employees). Get people to really uncover who they are."
Marcus does the show so he can change people's minds about why businesses are successful
The art of persuasion is very important. You can persuade people to do things by being appealing to people's senses and inspiring them, or intimidating them
Great Book – Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion
Marcus doesn't think we appeal to people's senses enough. That's what the key to business is for him.
He tries to impart a sense of how to think about other people in relation to business
How did Marcus deal with losing his mother?
He hasn't really gotten over it
It forces him to be more empathetic
Marcus was born in Beirut. He was eventually adopted by two American parents and was an only child.
He suffered from many fears of abandonment, he was molested, had an eating disorder, and attempted suicide twice – WE'RE ALL HUMAN
Marcus still suffers from depression/anxiety. He stays as busy as he does to help him not fall into these traps.
"If you want to gain confidence in yourself, get into business"
Little goals and wins can really change a person
What's a business mistake that's occurred for Marcus that's changed his outlook on business?
One investment he made in Farrell's Ice Cream
The mistake – he misjudged the character of multiple people
He continually makes the mistake of falling in love with people, and then romanticizes them
Why does Marcus think he can fix people?
He's really good at understanding people's motivations, why they do certain things, and act certain ways
He likes pushing people to really see the logic behind their decision making
How did Marcus unlock the skill of self-awareness? How did he learn about himself so he could build these businesses?
He used to think he knew all the answers
Now, he asks for more opinions and asks more questions
If you're young and single, you can be reckless and make more mistakes
As he got older, and was responsible for a family, his decisions had to be more calculated
General Business Advice
Think in terms of a consumer when evaluating your business. Would you buy this?
Ultimately, we're all better when we receive help from experts
It's really important to be able to ask for help, no one knows everything
Another huge business mistake – not being able to admit you don't know something.
James cause this the 'smoking crack' bias
Go out and ask questions
An example where Marcus got stuck and asking questions helped him
Aug-Sept 2008 when the market crashed
Being in the RV business, things weren't looking too good
Marcus started reaching out to lots of people for advice (peers, even employees)
"When you take care of your people, as best as you can, when shit goes bad, you'll find out who's gonna be there"
If you take care of your employees, they'll take care of your customers
Negotiation Tactics
Marcus thinks if he doesn't put enough money in today, he'll have to put more in later, so it doesn't make sense to just dribble in a little
Solve it now or later
He wants the founders/owners to have skin in the game
He's investing for the long game, in the people more so than the business
There's lot's of cross collaboration between his businesses, they all help each other
Marcus' Rules
Don't do business with people you don't like
Marcus only does things he gets enjoyment out of, it's always been this way
Cut your losses quick, don't chase things
"I want to leave this world with a legacy. I want to be the guy who changes the way people think about small business."
The handshake does matter
You have to have a purpose in business, and it can't be charitable. Charity can be a side effect.
You don't have to be an asshole to be good at business
More people is better than less people. Different people offer different, helpful things to the business.
James Altucher Show : business, tv
Notes By MMiller
More Notes on these topics
BEST OF 2022: PART 2 – Malcolm Gladwell, Casey Neistat, Peter Attia, Gabor Maté, Sylvia Earle and Many More! | The Rich Roll Podcast
Ultra-athlete & author Rich Roll presents Part Two of his annual yearbook—conversations from some of his best podcast guests of the...
Jocko Willink: How to Become Resilient, Forge Your Identity & Lead Others | Huberman Lab Podcast 104 with Andrew Huberman (Preview)
Jocko Willink and Dr. Andrew Huberman discuss identity, movement, nutrition, exercise, deliberate cold exposure, BUDS, mindsets in the...
Ryan Holiday Reveals How Much Best Selling Authors Make, Crazy Peter Thiel Stories & More | My First Million With Sam Parr and Shaan Puri (#370)
In this episode, Sam Parr speaks with best-selling author, podcaster, and bookshop owner, Ryan Holiday about the ins and outs of the...


text:
University of Kansas sorry for Snoop Dogg show with stripper poles
06 October, 2019, 11:25 am
Last modified: 06 October, 2019, 11:29 am
A representative for Snoop Dogg did not immediately return a call
The University of Kansas has apologized for a performance by rapper Snoop Dogg that featured drug references and dancers on stripper poles, saying the show fell short of creating a "family atmosphere."
The California rapper, whose songs include "Murder Was the Case" and "Sexual Eruption," appeared in Lawrence, Kansas, on Friday night at an annual event dubbed Late Night in the Phog, which ushers in the school's basketball season.
Video posted online showed Snoop Dogg sporting a KU jersey while women in blue shorts and midriff tank tops twirled around poles and a mascot in a dog costume held up a giant marijuana blunt prop.
"I take full responsibility for not thoroughly vetting all details of the performance and offer my personal apology to those who were offended," KU Athletic Director Jeff Long said in a statement.
"We strive to create a family atmosphere at Kansas and fell short of that this evening," he said.
A representative for Snoop Dogg did not immediately return a call or email seeking comment.
Many social media users who commented on the performance wondered what school officials had expected from a show by the Grammy-nominated musician, who is known for expletive-laden lyrics and his enthusiasm for marijuana.
"What type of morons think there's anything family friendly about snoop dog? Dummies," Justin Termine, the host of "NBA Today" on Sirius XM Satellite Radio, wrote on Twitter.
Long posed with Snoop Dogg in a pair of photos that KU's athletics department posted on Twitter ahead of Friday's performance, showing them back-to-back and scowling in one and smiling in the other.
Long's apology came less than two weeks after he had to respond to a notice from the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) alleging KU's men's basketball and football programs violated the association's bylaws.
The school had a "lack of institutional control," the NCAA said.
Long responded that the university self-reported football program violations that have since been presented by the NCAA. He also said KU officials "strongly disagree" with the allegations against its basketball program.
Snoop Dogg / University of Kansas
Dhaka International Film Festival-2021 kicks off
What the Fry: Anam Biswas's entertaining and comic short
'Nonajoler Kabbo' best film in Asian category at Kolkata International Film Festival
PM Hasina to distribute Nat'l Film Awards 2019 Sunday
19th Dhaka Int'l Film Festival to begin today
Liam Neeson says he's retiring from action films


Make these quick-and-easy appetizer recipes in advance, and you'll never be short on snacks when opportunity (to party) knocks. And if your unexpected guests don't show? That's cool. These 5-star bites make sensational TV binge-watching snacks, too. Just add a glass of wine on the side.
"A spicy appetizer of jalapeno peppers stuffed with beans, chicken and cheese," says TTAYLOR239. "Topped with sour cream, this appetizer is unbelievably good!"
"Simple and delicious," says Caroline. "To go along with it, I found Easy Pizza Sauce III. It's great to go with these delicious Pizza Moons!"
"While not 'authentic,' these crispy crab and cream cheese wontons are one of the most addictive, delicious, and crowd-pleasing appetizers ever created," says Chef John. "That is, if the filling has enough crab in it. I'm using a 1-to-1 ratio of crab to cream cheese."
"I find this technique much easier than the stovetop pan method," says Chef John. "You'll get beautiful, perfectly frosted nuts that are roasted evenly, with no bitter burned spots."
"Store-bought marinated artichokes are too expensive," says KnifeForkandaSpoon. "I created this recipe with simple ingredients that are already found in the kitchen. Enjoy immediately or chill the marinated artichokes for at least an hour before serving."
Make, freeze, and thaw in the fridge. "These aren't done with graham wafers but with vanilla wafer cookies," says Ginny. "They're fast, easy, and excellent! Any flavor fruit filling will do."
Another recipe to freeze and thaw in the fridge. "The requests for this family recipe never stop, so here it is for everybody to enjoy," says Ann. "These cheese balls freeze well for months and make wonderful holiday gifts."
"This wonderful picked egg recipe is quick and easy," says Cheryl. "Perfect for a nice gift, or just to have on hand for entertaining. Plan ahead though, they need to be refrigerated for at least 3 days before they're ready for eating."
"Wonderful and so easy," says KELMOM. "I make it for all my holiday get togethers, and it's always the first thing to run out." It's great with buttery round crackers.
"They take barely any time to prepare and go great with spinach artichoke dip," says Tarryn. "Add Italian seasoning, herbs, or Parmesan cheese for a twist!"
Keep a can of artichokes in the pantry so you can chop them up and mix them with mayo and grated Parmesan cheese to create this incredibly easy dip. Serve with sliced baguettes or pita chips.
Check out our complete collection of Quick and Easy Appetizer Recipes.


text:
atom: everything around you is made up of atoms. Atoms are so tiny that it takes a very powerful microscope to see them. The atoms join together to make elements, and the elements join together to make compounds, and so on ... until everything is joined together to make - YOU! (Back to Hot Summer Days)
chimney: a device used to light a charcoal grill. It's about the size and shape of a coffee can, and it has little air holes cut in the side near the bottom. The air holes help the flame from the match concentrate on lighting the charcoal and paper in the grill. Chimneys take the place of lighter fluid. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
compound: a compound is made up of two or more elements combined after a chemical reaction. The salt on your kitchen table is a compound. It is made out of sodium, which is a silvery metal, and chlorine, which is a greenish gas. But salt is not silver or green, and it's not a metal or a gas. The little white crystals of salt were made when sodium and chloride chemically reacted with each other and changed into something completely new - salt! (Back to Hot Summer Days)
ecosystem: an ecosystem is made up of all the plants and animals that live in an area and depend on each other to survive. Ecosystems also include things like rocks and streams that are used by the plants and animals. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
emit: to release something into the air or the environment. For instance, smelly fumes are emitted from the tailpipe of a car. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
fossil fuel: fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) make up the biggest part of our sources of energy. They are called fossil fuels because they were formed over millions of years from dinosaur bodies and from prehistoric plants. When fossil fuels are burned, they produce pollution. Also, it takes a long time to form new fossil fuels - millions of years - and we're using up the existing ones before new ones can form. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
ground-level ozone: ozone that is formed in the troposphere when chemicals produced by cars, power plants, factories, and other pollutants are baked in the hot sun. Ground-level ozone makes it hard for us to breathe, and is harmful to the leaves of plants and trees. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
nitrogen oxides (NOx): nitrogen and oxygen combine to form different varieties of this compound. Each variety has a different number of oxygen atoms that have joined together with a nitrogen atom. (The 'x' at the end of NOx can stand for 1, 2, 3 or more oxygen atoms. That's why it's an 'x' and not a number.) When NOx is baked with VOCs in the hot summer sun, ground-level ozone is created. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
nonattainment areas: regions of the United States where air pollution (including ground-level ozone) has been measured at unhealthy levels. These regions are required by the Clean Air Act to reduce the amount of pollution in order to protect the health of people, plants and animals. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
pollutant: A pollutant is something that makes our environment dirty or harmful. Ozone is a pollutant because it makes the air unhealthy to breathe. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
react: to undergo a chemical change. For instance, flames from a fire react with the wood to form smoke, and eventually you are left with ash or charcoal instead of wood. This is a chemical change that happened because the wood reacted with the fire. NOx and VOCs react to form ozone. Ozone can react in a similar way with rubber, plants, and our lungs to cause them to break down. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
secondary pollutant: a pollutant created when two or more pollutants are mixed together and a chemical reaction happens to turn them into a new pollutant. Ground-level ozone is a secondary pollutant because it is formed when two other types of pollutants, NOx and VOCs, get baked by the sun. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
stratosphere: the layer of the atmosphere that is found 6 to 30 miles above the ground. It contains stratospheric ozone. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
stratospheric ozone: ozone found in the stratosphere. Stratospheric ozone is the same chemical as ground-level ozone, but because it is high above the Earth (instead of close down, where we could breathe it), stratospheric ozone is helpful, not harmful. It protects us by blocking the most harmful rays of the sun - ultraviolet rays - which can cause skin cancer. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
tissue: these tissues aren't the kind you blow your nose on. Our bodies are made up of cells. Cells are so tiny that we can't see them without using a microscope. These cells get together to form tissues, and tissues get together to form organs, like our lungs and heart. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
troposphere: the layer of the atmosphere reaching from the ground up to 6 miles. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
tropospheric ozone: tropospheric ozone is also known as ground-level ozone. See ground-level ozone for more information. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
ultraviolet, or UV: Have you ever gotten a sunburn? (ouch!) You can thank ultraviolet light. The beams of the sun are rays of light. Light rays can be divided into three main groups: visible light, ultraviolet light, and infrared light. Visible light is what humans can see. We can't see ultraviolet light and infrared light, but they are present in sunlight, and can have an effect on us, like sunburns. Although sunlight is good for us, too much ultraviolet light can cause skin cancer or other health problems. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
unstable: when a chemical is unstable it means that the chemical can change into other chemicals easily, or react with other substances. Ozone is unstable and it can react with our lungs to damage the tissues. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
volatile organic compound (VOC): In chemistry, organic means something containing carbon. Volatile means 'easily evaporated' - like water boiling away in a kettle. It can also mean explosive. And a compound is something that is made up of two or more other elements. If you put it all together, then a volatile organic compound is a carbon substance that is made up of two or more elements, is easily evaporated, and may be explosive. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
voluntary: voluntary actions are things that people do without being made to do them, or without being paid to do them. Volunteering to walk or bike to the store on an Ozone Action! Day is a good example of this. The benefit you get from doing this is not money or toys, but something better - clean air and exercise. (Back to Hot Summer Days)
Back to Hot Summer Days.


Custom bathroom vanities are the essential decorative item for the perfect bathroom remodel or upgrade. Custom bathroom vanities are bathroom vanities that are designed according to specific requirements of customers. There has been a rapid growth in the custom bathroom vanity industry in recent days, and these vanities are widely known for their interesting and innovative designs. There are many new styles and designs in vanities for the bathroom. The size and design of your bathroom will be important factors in your choice of cabinetry. You might choose the classic or traditional style or contemporary, or something between the two.
Label: bathroom vanities custom custom vanities for bathrooms bathroom vanities designs custom bathroom vanities ideas custom bathroom vanities designs .


Is it possible to get cheap internet in Dallas?
Dallas, Texas or popularly known as the Lone Star State of the United States of America is considered to rank 31st as most connected. Dallas is also called home by 266 internet service providers which are great but what makes it incredible is the fact that there are approximately 56,000 residents that are not and never have been connected or have access to the internet.
It has been found that out of the total 26.5 million populations in Texas, 3.1 million are held hostage by just one broadband service provider. The monopoly of this single broadband provider have over 3.1 million people can make us conclude that rates, services, and contracts can readily be dictated and followed simply because these people have no other option.
There's more. It has also been discovered that 1.2 million residents put up with low data caps through the courtesy of mobile broadband or fixed wireless plans. With these statistics, is it possible then for residents of the Lone Star state to avail of cheap internet packages or the cheapest internet options?
Fortunately, yes. Some of the options for cheap internet needs for one to be qualified for low-cost internet connections. Some giant broadband internet service providers such as AT&T, Comcast, and Suddenlink offer different types of internet connections from DSL, cable or mobile for dirt-cheap prices ranging from free use to a monthly charge of $14.95. All it takes for one to avail of these cheap internet connections is to be eligible for the service.
There are other cheap internet options to think about if you don't qualify under the programs offered by the above-stated internet service providers. Other options for cheap internet can be taken advantage of that do not have anything to do with your income level.
However, there's a small price to pay such as a one-time up-front fee before you can avail of the low-priced monthly charges for an internet connection. Other cheap internet choices can be had using different plans for mobile devices. Just make sure you know what you are getting into before you sign up for the services.
Local communities offer free public WiFi which can be accessed in all government offices such as public libraries, parks, bus stops, train stations, and more. Restaurants, coffee bars, and hotels also offer customers free WiFi. Just don't expect to get fast services, though.
Another unfortunate fact for residents of the Lone Star State is their state law prohibiting their municipalities from offering broadband services, both private and public to their citizens. This may change in the future especially when it concerns the convenience of residents with their home internet connections.
Be that as it may, this site has several cheap internet options you can take advantage of to get the one you need for your home. Check us out today to choose the services that can level up the digital lifestyle you deserve.