Hot Trends Newsletter and Information

The rich have been getting richer for so long that the trend has come to seem almost permanent.

They began to pull away from everyone else in the 1970s. By 2006, income was more concentrated at the top than it had been since the late 1920s. The recent news about resurgent Wall Street pay has seemed to suggest that not even the Great Recession could reverse the rise in income inequality.

But economists say - and data is beginning to show - that a significant change may in fact be under way. The rich, as a group, are no longer getting richer. Over the last two years, they have become poorer. And many may not return to their old levels of wealth and income anytime soon.

For every investment banker whose pay has recovered to its prerecession levels, there are several who have lost their jobs — as well as many wealthy investors who have lost millions. As a result, economists and other analysts say, a 30-year period in which the super-rich became both wealthier and more numerous may now be ending.

The relative struggles of the rich may elicit little sympathy from less well-off families who are dealing with the effects of the worst recession in a generation. But the change does raise several broader economic questions. Among them is whether harder times for the rich will ultimately benefit the middle class and the poor, given that the huge recent increase in top incomes coincided with slow income growth for almost every other group. In blunter terms, the question is whether the better metaphor for the economy is a rising tide that can lift all boats - or a zero-sum game.

Just how much poorer the rich will become remains unclear. It will be determined by, among other things, whether the stock market continues its recent rally and what new laws Congress passes in the wake of the financial crisis. At the very least, though, the rich seem unlikely to return to the trajectory they were on.

Last year, the number of Americans with a net worth of at least $30 million dropped 24 percent, according to CapGemini and Merrill Lynch Wealth Management. Monthly income from stock dividends, which is concentrated among the affluent, has fallen more than 20 percent since last summer, the biggest such decline since the government began keeping records in 1959.

Bill Gates, Warren E. Buffett, the heirs to the Wal-Mart Stores fortune and the founders of Google each lost billions last year, according to Forbes magazine. In one stark example, John McAfee, an entrepreneur who founded the antivirus software company that bears his name, is now worth about $4 million, from a peak of more than $100 million. Mr. McAfee will soon auction off his last big property because he needs cash to pay his bills after having been caught off guard by the simultaneous crash in real estate and stocks.

"I had no clue," he said, "that there would be this tandem collapse."

Some of the clearest signs of the reversal of fortunes can be found in data on spending by the wealthy. An index that tracks the price of art, the Mei Moses index, has dropped 32 percent in the last six months. The New York Yankees failed to sell many of the most expensive tickets in their new stadium and had to drop the price. In one ZIP code in Vail, Colo., only five homes sold for more than $2 million in the first half of this year, down from 34 in the first half of 2007, according to MDA Dataquick. In Bronxville, an affluent New York suburb, the decline was to two, from 17, according to Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage.

"We had a period of roughly 50 years, from 1929 to 1979, when the income distribution tended to flatten," said Neal Soss, the chief economist at Credit Suisse. "Since the early '80s, incomes have tended to get less equal. And I think we've entered a phase now where society will move to a more equal distribution."

No More '50s and '60s

Few economists expect the country to return to the relatively flat income distribution of the 1950s and 1960s. Indeed, they say that inequality is likely to remain significantly greater than it was for most of the 20th century. The Obama administration has not proposed completely rewriting the rules for Wall Street or raising the top income-tax rate to anywhere near 70 percent, its level as recently as 1980. Market forces that have increased inequality, like globalization, are also not going away.

But economists say that the rich will probably not recover their losses immediately, as they did in the wake of the dot-com crash earlier this decade. That quick recovery came courtesy of a new bubble in stocks, which in 2007 were more expensive by some measures than they had been at any other point save the bull markets of the 1920s or 1990s. This time, analysts say, Wall Street seems unlikely to return soon to the extreme levels of borrowing that made such a bubble possible.

Any major shift in the financial status of the rich could have big implications. A drop in their income and wealth would complicate life for elite universities, museums and other institutions that received lavish donations in recent decades. Governments - federal and state - could struggle, too, because they rely heavily on the taxes paid by the affluent.

Perhaps the broadest question is what a hit to the wealthy would mean for the middle class and the poor. The best-known data on the rich comes from an analysis of Internal Revenue Service returns by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, two economists. Their work shows that in the late 1970s, the cutoff to qualify for the highest-earning one ten-thousandth of households was roughly $2 million, in inflation-adjusted, pretax terms. By 2007, it had jumped to $11.5 million.

The gains for the merely affluent were also big, if not quite huge. The cutoff to be in the top 1 percent doubled since the late 1970s, to roughly $400,000.

By contrast, pay at the median - which was about $50,000 in 2007 - rose less than 20 percent, Census data shows. Near the bottom of the income distribution, the increase was about 12 percent.

Some economists say they believe that the contrasting trends are unrelated. If anything, these economists say, any problems the wealthy have will trickle down, in the form of less charitable giving and less consumer spending. Over the last century, the worst years for the rich were the early 1930s, the heart of the Great Depression.

Other economists say the recent explosion of incomes at the top did hurt everyone else, by concentrating economic and political power among a relatively small group.

"I think incredibly high incomes can have a pernicious effect on the polity and the economy," said Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist. Much of the growth of high-end incomes stemmed from market forces, like technological innovation, Mr. Katz said. But a significant amount also stemmed from the wealthy's newfound ability to win favorable government contracts, low tax rates and weak financial regulation, he added.

The I.R.S. has not yet released its data for 2008 or 2009. But Mr. Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said he believed that the rich had become poorer. Asked to speculate where the cutoff for the top one ten-thousandth of households was now, he said from $6 million to $8 million.

For the number to return to $11 million quickly, he said, would probably require a large financial bubble.

Making More Money

The United States economy experienced two such bubbles in recent years - one in stocks, the other in real estate - and both helped the rich become richer. Mr. McAfee, whose tattoos and tinted hair suggest an independent streak, is an extreme but telling example. For two decades, at almost every step of his career, he figured out a way to make more money.

In the late 1980s, he founded McAfee Associates, the antivirus software company. It gave away its software, unlike its rivals, but charged fees to those who wanted any kind of technical support. That decision helped make it a huge success. The company went public in 1992, in the early years of one of biggest stock market booms in history.

But Mr. McAfee is, by his own description, an atypical businessman - easily bored and given to serial obsessions. As a young man, he traveled through Mexico, India and Nepal and, more recently, he wrote a book called, "Into the Heart of Truth: The Spirit of Relational Yoga." Two years after McAfee Associates went public, he was bored again.

So he sold his remaining stake, bringing his gains to about $100 million. In the coming years, he started new projects and made more investments. Almost inevitably, they paid off.

"History told me that you just keep working, and it is easy to make more money," he said, sitting in the kitchen of his adobe-style house in the southwest corner of New Mexico. With low tax rates, he added, the rich could keep much of what they made.

One of the starkest patterns in the data on inequality is the extent to which the incomes of the very rich are tied to the stock market. They have risen most rapidly during the biggest bull markets: in the 1920s and the 20 years starting in 1987.

"We are coming from an abnormal period where a tremendous amount of wealth was created largely by selling assets back and forth," said Mohamed A. El-Erian, chief executive of Pimco, one of the country's largest bond traders, and the former manager of Harvard's endowment.

Some of this wealth was based on real economic gains, like those from the computer revolution. But much of it was not, Mr. El-Erian said. "You had wealth creation that could not be tied to the underlying economy," he added, "and the benefits were very skewed: they went to the assets of the rich. It was financial engineering."

But if the rich have done well in bubbles, they have taken enormous hits to their wealth during busts. A recent study by two Northwestern University economists found that the incomes of the affluent tend to fall more, in percentage terms, in recessions than the incomes of the middle class. The incomes of the very affluent - the top one ten-thousandth - fall the most.

Over the last several years, Mr. McAfee began to put a large chunk of his fortune into real estate, often in remote locations. He bought the house in New Mexico as a playground for himself and fellow aerotrekkers, people who fly unlicensed, open-cockpit planes. On a 157-acre spread, he built a general store, a 35-seat movie theater and a cafe, and he bought vintage cars for his visitors to use.

He continued to invest in financial markets, sometimes borrowing money to increase the potential returns. He typically chose his investments based on suggestions from his financial advisers. One of their recommendations was to put millions of dollars into bonds tied to Lehman Brothers.

For a while, Mr. McAfee's good run, like that of many of the American wealthy, seemed to continue. In the wake of the dot-com crash, stocks started rising again, while house prices just continued to rise. Outside's Go magazine and National Geographic Adventure ran articles on his New Mexico property, leading to him to believe that "this was the hottest property on the planet," he said.

But then things began to change.

In 2007, Mr. McAfee sold a 10,000-square-foot home in Colorado with a view of Pike's Peak. He had spent $25 million to buy the property and build the house. He received $5.7 million for it. When Lehman collapsed last fall, its bonds became virtually worthless. Mr. McAfee's stock investments cost him millions more.

One day, he realized, as he said, "Whoa, my cash is gone."

His remaining net worth of about $4 million makes him vastly wealthier than most Americans, of course. But he has nonetheless found himself needing cash and desperately trying to reduce his monthly expenses.

He has sold a 10-passenger Cessna jet and now flies coach. This week his oceanfront estate in Hawaii sold for $1.5 million, with only a handful of bidders at the auction. He plans to spend much of his time in Belize, in part because of more favorable taxes there.

Next week, his New Mexico property will be the subject of a no-floor auction, meaning that Mr. McAfee has promised to accept the top bid, no matter how low it is.

"I am trying to face up to the reality here that the auction may bring next to nothing," he said.

In the past, when his stock investments did poorly, he sold real estate and replenished his cash. This time, that has not been an option.

Stock Market Mystery

The possibility that the stock market will quickly recover from its collapse, as it did earlier this decade, is perhaps the biggest uncertainty about the financial condition of the wealthy. Since March, the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index has risen 49 percent.

Yet Wall Street still has a long way to go before reaching its previous peaks. The S.& P. 500 remains 35 percent below its 2007 high. Aggregate compensation for the financial sector fell 14 percent from 2007 to 2008, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association - far less than profits or revenue fell, but a decline nonetheless.

"The difference this time," predicted Byron R. Wein, a former chief investment strategist at Morgan Stanley, who started working on Wall Street in 1965, "is that the high-water mark that people reached in 2007 is not going to be exceeded for a very long time."

Without a financial bubble, there will simply be less money available for Wall Street to pay itself or for corporate chief executives to pay themselves. Some companies - like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, which face less competition now and have been helped by the government's attempts to prop up credit markets - will still hand out enormous paychecks. Over all, though, there will be fewer such checks, analysts say. Roger Freeman, an analyst at Barclays Capital, said he thought that overall Wall Street compensation would, at most, increase moderately over the next couple of years.

Beyond the stock market, government policy may have the biggest effect on top incomes. Mr. Katz, the Harvard economist, argues that without policy changes, top incomes may indeed approach their old highs in the coming years. Historically, government policy, like the New Deal, has had more lasting effects on the rich than financial busts, he said.

One looming policy issue today is what steps Congress and the administration will take to re-regulate financial markets. A second issue is taxes.

In the three decades after World War II, when the incomes of the rich grew more slowly than those of the middle class, the top marginal rate ranged from 70 to 91 percent. Mr. Piketty, one of the economists who analyzed the I.R.S. data, argues that these high rates did not affect merely post-tax income. They also helped hold down the pretax incomes of the wealthy, he says, by giving them less incentive to make many millions of dollars.

Since 1980, tax rates on the affluent have fallen more than rates on any other group; this year, the top marginal rate is 35 percent. President Obama has proposed raising it to 39 percent and has said he would consider a surtax on families making more than $1 million a year, which could push the top rate above 40 percent.

What any policy changes will mean for the nonwealthy remains unclear. There have certainly been periods when the rich, the middle class and the poor all have done well (like the late 1990s), as well as periods when all have done poorly (like the last year). For much of the 1950s, '60s and '70s, both the middle class and the wealthy received raises that outpaced inflation.

Yet there is also a reason to think that the incomes of the wealthy could potentially have a bigger impact on others than in the past: as a share of the economy, they are vastly larger than they once were.

In 2007, the top one ten-thousandth of households took home 6 percent of the nation's income, up from 0.9 percent in 1977. It was the highest such level since at least 1913, the first year for which the I.R.S. has data.

The top 1 percent of earners took home 23.5 percent of income, up from 9 percent three decades earlier.

by David Leonhardt and Geraldine Fabrikant, The New York Times

Labels: financial assets, hot trends 2009, rich, super rich, trends newsletter

Labels: assisted suicide, dignitas, Edward Downes, hot trends 2009, trends newsletter

You may have more Facebook friends as the years go by, but when it comes to your close friends, you lose about half and replace them with new ones after about seven years, new social research suggests.

As a result, the size of your social network stays about the same.

People might like to think they have control over whom they choose as friends, but social networks could also be influenced by the context in which we meet one another. Sociologist Gerald Mollenhorst of Utrecht University in the Netherlands was interested in finding out exactly how much our networks are shaped by social context or by personal preference.

He conducted a survey of 1,007 people ages 18 to 65, and then contacted the participants seven years later. From the original group, 604 people were re-interviewed. The survey contained questions such as: Who do you talk with, regarding personal issues? Who helps you with DIY in your home? Who do you pop by to see? Where did you get to know that person? And where do you meet that person now?

The results showed that personal network sizes remained stable, but that many members of the network were new. About 30 percent of discussion partners and practical helpers had the same position in a typical subject's network seven years later. And only 48 percent were still part of the network. This finding goes against previous research which had showed that social network sizes are shrinking.

Mollenhorst also established that networks were not formed based on personal choices alone. Our friend choices are limited by the opportunities to meet. He saw that people frequently choose friends from a context in which they have previously chosen a friend. Also, whether or not our friends know each other strongly depends on the context under which people meet.

Mollenhorst's research is part of the project "Where friends are made. Context, Contacts, Consequences," set up by Beate Völker.

LiveScience.com

Labels: hot trends 2009, personal network, social networks, social research, trends newsletter

This may come as little surprise to most people: In times of crisis, women are more likely to take a shopping spree than in normal times.

A new survey finds almost half of UK women are frightened or scared by the recession, and 45 percent felt their financial situation had taken a hit. A full 75 percent said they would be making cutbacks.

Yet 79 percent of them said they would splurge to cheer themselves up.

Of the 700 women surveyed, 40 percent said depression was an excuse to overspend; 60 percent said "feeling a bit low" was a good enough reason.

"This type of spending, or compensatory consumption, serves as a way of regulating intense emotions," said Karen Pine, a University of Hertfordshire professor and author of "Sheconomics" (Headline Publishing Group, 2009).

The itch to shop has long been known to overwhelm some people, either because of simple materialism or to compensate for emotional problems. Many researchers liken it to addiction, and some think it has been a growing problem in the modern consumerism society.

The problem is likely not confined to women. A 2006 study in the United States found 6 percent of women have it so bad they are labeled compulsive buyers, but so are 5.5 percent of men.

Pine says this compensatory behavior could become more pronounced in a recession. People use drugs and alcohol similarly to regulate emotions, Pine explains, but she thinks shopping is increasingly employed by women for this purpose. And, paradoxically, worrying about money could lead women to spend more, she said.

"If shopping is an emotional habit for women they may feel the need to keep spending despite the economic downturn," said Professor Pine. "Or, perhaps worse still, if they can't spend we might see an increase in mental health problems such as anxiety and depression."

Problem is, the splurges don't always have the intended effect.

About 25 percent of the women surveyed said shopping sprees in the week prior to being surveyed left them with feelings of regret, guilt or shame.

Sounds a lot like other addictions, Pine said.

LiveScience.com

Labels: compulsive buyers, hot trends 2009, recession, shopping spree, splurges, trends newsletter

LOS ANGELES (Reuters Life!) – When the going gets tough, some of the tough get going to the plastic surgeon's office.

The recession clearly took a cut out of plastic surgery in 2008 with U.S. cosmetic surgeries down 9 percent to $11.8 billion, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS).

But some surgeons and patients are now citing increased interest in surgery among people wanting to look younger and "fresher" for the ever-competitive job market.

"I'm 56 and I've been in the music business for 35 years. We're not having a good year and I know I'll soon have to interview," said Jeff Grabow, a music marketing executive in Los Angeles, who recently spent $17,000 on a facelift.

"The surgery made sense for me. I look at least 10 to 15 years younger and I have more confidence," he said.

Grabow's surgeon, Payman Simoni, performs what he calls a "wide awake facelift" using only local anesthesia, which he says slashes the recovery time as well as the cost by as much as $6,000, making it popular among job seekers.

"Before the economy turned down, people would come in because they wanted to have more fun and enjoyment out of life," he said. "But now plastic surgery has become a necessity for some. People cannot only rely on their skills in this market. They want to look refreshed and youthful so they can compete for jobs," he said.

COSMETIC TUNE-UPS

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) released a recent survey showing that American women were looking at cosmetic surgery to get a competitive edge in the workplace.

About 13 percent of the 756 women surveyed, between the ages of 18 and 64, say they would consider having a cosmetic medical procedure to make them more confident and more competitive in the job market.

About 3 percent said they already had a cosmetic procedure to increase their perceived value in the workplace, and 73 percent said they believed that appearance and youthful looks play a part in getting hired, a promotion, or getting new clients, particularly in these challenging economic times,

Linda Mason, a television producer and photographer in Los Angeles, said she recently got a facelift because she is in a "young business."

"I deal with young people and the best way to succeed in this business is to stay young," she told Reuters.

Manhattan plastic surgeon Stephen Greenberg saw an opportunity in this growing trend and recently began promoting a "Job Fighter Package" for men and women.

"We've probably done no less than 50 to 60 tune-ups since launching the package about five months ago," Greenberg said, noting that not all the "tune-ups" have involved surgeries, but also less costly and invasive procedures like cosmetic injectables.

"Men and women in their 40's and 50's are competing with peers 10 to 15 years younger and employers naturally tend to go to a person who looks fresher and younger, despite who is better qualified," Greenberg said, adding that a lot of his patients view the surgery as an investment and are financing it with loans.

Plastic surgery loans can involve financing charges of 12 to 19 percent, according to industry experts.

In addition to the perceived competitive advantage from a face lift, some surgeons believe the recession is starting to cause more and more patients to get "work done" for an emotional lift in these dark times.

"I think when people are down about the economy, they want to do things to make them feel better," Greenberg said.

New York City plastic surgeon Steven Pearlman agreed.

"People are fed up and are starting to figure that it's time to live a little. Cosmetic surgery is about investing in yourself. It makes you look good and feel better about yourself, a dozen times a day when you look in the mirror," he said.

By Sue Zeidler Sue Zeidler – 2 hrs 42 mins ago

Labels: American Society of Plastic Surgeons, facelift, hot trends 2009, plastic surgeon, plastic surgery, trends newsletter

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon plans to create a new military command for cyberspace, stepping up preparations by the armed forces to conduct both offensive and defensive computer warfare, the New York Times said on Friday.

The military command will complement a civilian effort President Barack Obama plans to announce on Friday that will overhaul the way the United States safeguards its computer networks, the newspaper said on its website.

Citing Obama administration sources, the Times said the president will detail on Friday the creation of a White House office that will coordinate a multi-billion-dollar effort to restrict access to government computers, protect systems that run U.S. stock exchanges, clear global banking transactions and manage the air traffic control system.

The Times said the civilian office would be responsible for coordinating private sector and government defenses against thousands of cyber-attacks mounted every day against the United States, largely by hackers but sometimes by foreign governments.

Administration sources said the president would not discuss the Pentagon plan on Friday. But Obama is expected to sign a classified order in the coming weeks that will create the military cyber-command.

The need for improved U.S. cyber-security was driven home in April when the Wall Street Journal reported that cyber-spies had penetrated the U.S. electrical grid and left behind software programs that could be used to disrupt the system.

The Times said the United States already has a growing number of computer weapons in its arsenal and must prepare strategies for their use as a deterrent or alongside conventional weapons in a wide variety of possible future conflicts.

Reuters has reported that companies in the cyber-security market range from security-software makers Symantec Corp and McAfee Inc, to traditional defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman Corp and Lockheed Martin Corp, to information technology companies such as CACI International.

The Pentagon had been working on a cyberspace strategy for several months. It was completed weeks ago, but was delayed because of ongoing arguments over the authority of the White House office and budgets for the entire effort, the report said.

(Reporting by World Desk Americas; Editing by Valerie Lee)

Labels: cyberspace, hot trends 2009, military command, pentagon, trends newsletter

Forget sticks, and stick with carrots instead. So says Brent Schulkin, founder of a fledgling movement of activist consumers who are employing a kind of reverse boycott that he calls a Carrotmob. The concept is simple: instead of steering clear of environmentally-backward stores, why not reward businesses with mass purchases if they promise to use some of the money to get greener?

"Traditional activism revolves around conflict," says Schulkin, 28, a San Francisco-based activist turned entrepreneur. "Boycotting, protesting, lawsuits - it's about going into attack mode," says the former Googler and onetime game developer. "What's unique about a Carrotmob is that there are no enemies." The focus is on positive cooperation, using the power of the casual consumer to help save the planet. (See pictures of a grocery store auction.)

The movement was born on March 29, 2008, when hundreds of green-minded patrons poured into a San Francisco convenience store after Schulkin solicited bids from 23 stores in the area to find the business that would promise to spend the highest percentage of Carrotmob profits on more energy-efficient lighting. The crowd spent more than $9,200 at the K&D Market, which then fulfilled its pledge to plow 22% of the day's revenue into greener lighting - with the haul from the Carrotmob providing enough cash to make all the improvements recommended by an energy auditor (and Carrotmob supporter).

Since then, Carrotmobs have branched out to 10 U.S. cities - with offshoots in Finland and France - and this summer will be expanding into Philadelphia, where hundreds of consumer activists are gathering today to discuss ethos and strategy. Organizer Tony Montagnaro, 19, a sophomore at Rutgers, has been lugging 50-lb. bags of carrots across Philadelphia's college campuses, handing out thousands of carrots labeled with his blog address to spread the word about Carrotmobbing.

The New Jersey student and part-time pizza chef says his carrot-toting antics are inspired by Schulkin's manifesto/music-video mash-up. But the biggest surprise to Montagnaro - who says he plans to start aiming Carrotmobs at small stores in the center of Philadelphia - is how quickly older people grasp the concept. "Someone 65 or 70 often gets this right away," he says. "People my age can be slower." (See 10 things to buy during the recession.)

The reverse boycott is perfect for the growing cadre of slactivists, i.e., slackers who care just enough about causes to sign online petitions and join Facebook protest pages, but lack the time, money or drive to do much else.

Carrotmobs also carry extra appeal during tough economic times. Participants don't have to donate anything. They just shop for products they were planning to buy anyway, but adjust the time and place of purchase. By doing so, they help green a local business.

So what's next for Carrotmobbers? In addition to Montagnaro's plans for Philadelphia, activists in Hoboken, Kansas City and elsewhere are gathering forces through Facebook, Twitter and the main Carrotmob.org hub.

Meanwhile, Schulkin is focusing on a for-profit Carrotmob spinoff called Virgance, which starts up and acquires small organizations that offer collaborative market solutions to social and environmental challenges. One of the first fruits of the effort is 1BOG, a community-based program that organizes residents locally to negotiate group discounts from companies that install solar-energy panels. Says Schulkin: "What's good for activism is also good for business."

Carrots are looking greener every day.

By JEREMY CAPLAN, Time.com

Labels: activism, Carrotmob, hot trends 2009, reverse boycott, trends newsletter

The warp drive, one of Star Trek's hallmark inventions, could someday become science instead of science fiction.

Some physicists say the faster-than-light travel technology may one day enable humans to jet between stars for weekend getaways. Clearly it won't be an easy task. The science is complex, but not strictly impossible, according to some researchers studying how to make it happen.

The trick seems to be to find some other means of propulsion besides rockets, which would never be able to accelerate a ship to velocities faster than that of light, the fundamental speed limit set by Einstein's General Relativity.

Luckily for us, this speed limit only applies within space-time (the continuum of three dimensions of space plus one of time that we live in). While any given object can't travel faster than light speed within space-time, theory holds, perhaps space-time itself could travel.

"The idea is that you take a chunk of space-time and move it," said Marc Millis, former head of NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Project. "The vehicle inside that bubble thinks that it's not moving at all. It's the space-time that's moving."

Already happened?

One reason this idea seems credible is that scientists think it may already have happened. Some models suggest that space-time expanded at a rate faster than light speed during a period of rapid inflation shortly after the Big Bang.

"If it could do it for the Big Bang, why not for our space drives?" Millis said.

To make the technique feasible, scientists will have to think of some creative new means of propulsion to move space-time rather than a spaceship.

According to General Relativity, any concentration of mass or energy warps space-time around it (by this reasoning, gravity is simply the curvature of space-time that causes smaller masses to fall inward toward larger masses).

So perhaps some unique geometry of mass or exotic form of energy can manipulate a bubble of space-time so that it moves faster than light-speed, and carries any objects within it along for the ride.

"If we find some way to alter the properties of space-time in an imbalanced fashion, so behind the spacecraft it's doing one thing and in front of it it's doing something else, will then space-time push on the craft and move it?" Millis said. This idea was first proposed in 1994 by physicist Miguel Alcubierre.

In the lab

Already some studies have claimed to find possible signatures of moving space-time. For example, scientists rotated super-cold rings in a lab. They found that still gyroscopes placed above the rings seem to think they themselves are rotating simply because of the presence of the spinning rings beneath. The researchers postulated that the ultra-cold rings were somehow dragging space-time, and the gyroscope was detecting the effect.

Other studies found that the region between two parallel uncharged metal plates seems to have less energy than the surrounding space. Scientists have termed this a kind of "negative energy," which might be just the thing needed to move space-time.

The catch is that massive amounts of this negative energy would probably be required to warp space-time enough to transport a bubble faster than light speed. Huge breakthroughs will be needed not just in propulsion but in energy. Some experts think harnessing the mysterious force called dark energy - thought to power the acceleration of the universe's expansion - could provide the key.

Even though it's a far cry between these preliminary lab results and actual warp drives, some physicists are optimistic.

"We still don't even know if those things are possible or impossible, but at least we've progressed far enough to where there are things that we can actually research to chip away at the unknowns," Millis told SPACE.com. "Even if they turn out to be impossible, by asking these questions, we're likely to discover things that otherwise we might overlook."

Clara Moskowitz, Staff Writer, SPACE.com

Labels: Einstein, General Theory of Relativity, hot trends 2009, Star Trek, trends newsletter

For the first time, an image of a memory being made at the cellular level has been captured by scientists.

The image shows that proteins are created at connections between brain cells when a long-term memory is formed. Neuroscientists had suspected as much, but hadn't been able to see it happening until now.

The experiment also revealed some surprising aspects of memory formation, which remains a somewhat mysterious process.

Kelsey Martin, a biochemist at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues investigated memory formation in neurons from the sea slug Aplysia californica, a good model for brain cells in other organisms, including humans.

The researchers exposed the neurons to the chemical serotonin, which has been shown to stimulate memory formation (this discovery won Eric Kandel and collaborators the Nobel Prize in 2000). But in a new twist, the scientists devised a way to determine whether any new proteins were created when the memory was made.

The researchers used a fluorescent protein that can change from green to red when exposed to ultraviolet light. They flashed the cells with light, so that any proteins that already existed turned red. But when the scientists induced the cells to form memories, they saw new green proteins appear under the microscope.

"One distinction between short-term and long-term memory is this requirement for making new proteins," said co-investigator Wayne Sossin, a neuroscientist at McGill University in Montreal. "To make it last you do need protein synthesis."

While the details aren't clear, scientists suspect that the new proteins help strengthen synapses, which are the connections between neurons.

"Most neuroscientists believe that memories occur when you change the strength of synaptic connections," Sossin told LiveScience. "In terms of what actually happens when you make a memory, there are a number of different models for how that increase happens."

One of the surprising revelations of the new study is that more regions of RNA, a protein-building instruction manual similar to DNA, are required to form the new proteins than previously thought.

The researchers also saw that both sides of the synapse (called the pre- and post- sides) are involved in forming the memory, rather than just one, as some experts thought.

"That was sort of surprising," Martin said in a phone interview. "What's really different here is being able to look at a memory being formed at the level of individual synapses."

Scientists still want to understand more about how our brains translate memories made on the go into long-term storage. Since synapses are connections between cells, experts think that fortifying these connections, or perhaps even making new ones, helps our minds associate different ideas and form memories of connected events.

Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Staff Writer

Labels: hot trends 2009, image of a memory, memory formation, trends newsletter

LOS ANGELES - Michael Jackson, the sensationally gifted child star who rose to become the "King of Pop" and the biggest celebrity in the world only to fall from his throne in a freakish series of scandals, died Thursday. He was 50. Jackson died at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. Ed Winter, the assistant chief coroner for Los Angeles County, confirmed his office had been notified of the death and would handle the investigation.

The circumstances of Jackson's death were not immediately clear. Jackson was not breathing when Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics responded to a call at his Los Angeles home about 12:30 p.m., Capt. Steve Ruda told the Los Angeles Times. The paramedics performed CPR and took him to UCLA Medical Center, Ruda told the newspaper.

Jackson's death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music's premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage.

His 1982 album "Thriller" - which included the blockbuster hits "Beat It," "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" - remains the biggest-selling album of all time, with more than 100 million copies worldwide.

The public first knew him in the late 1960s, when as a boy he was the precocious, spinning lead singer of the Jackson 5, the music group he formed with his four older brothers. Among their No. 1 hits were "I Want You Back," "ABC," and "I'll Be There."

He was perhaps the most exciting performer of his generation, known for his feverish, crotch-grabbing dance moves and his high-pitched voice punctuated with squeals and titters. His single sequined glove, tight, military-style jacket and aviator sunglasses were trademarks second only to his ever-changing, surgically altered appearance.

"For Michael to be taken away from us so suddenly at such a young age, I just don't have the words," said Quincy Jones, who produced "Thriller." "He was the consummate entertainer and his contributions and legacy will be felt upon the world forever. I've lost my little brother today, and part of my soul has gone with him."

Jackson ranked alongside Elvis Presley and the Beatles as the biggest pop sensations of all time. In fact, he united two of music's biggest names when he was briefly married to Presley's daughter, Lisa Marie.

But as years went by, Jackson became an increasingly freakish figure - a middle-aged man-child weirdly out of touch with grown-up life. His skin became lighter, his nose narrower, and he spoke in a breathy, girlish voice. He surrounded himself with children at his Neverland ranch, often wore a germ mask while traveling and kept a pet chimpanzee named Bubbles as one of his closest companions.

In 2005, he was cleared of charges he molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor at Neverland in 2003. He had been accused of plying the boy with alcohol and groping him. The case took a fearsome toll on his career and image, and he fell into serious financial trouble.

Jackson was preparing for what was to be his greatest comeback: He was scheduled for an unprecedented 50 shows at a London arena, with the first set for July 13. He was in rehearsals in Los Angeles for the concert, an extravaganza that was to capture the classic Jackson magic: showstopping dance moves, elaborate staging and throbbing dance beats.

Singer Dionne Warwick said: "Michael was a friend and undoubtedly one of the world's greatest entertainers that I fortunately had the pleasure of working with........we have lost an icon in our industry."

Hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital as word of his death spread. The emergency entrance at the UCLA Medical Center, which is near Jackson's rented home, was roped off with police tape.

"Ladies and gentlemen, Michael Jackson has just died," a woman boarding a Manhattan bus called out, shortly after the news was announced. Immediately many riders reached for their cell phones.

In New York's Times Square, a low groan went up in the crowd when a screen flashed that Jackson had died, and people began relaying the news to friends by cell phone.

"No joke. King of Pop is no more. Wow," Michael Harris, 36, of New York City, read from a text message a friend sent to his telephone. "It's like when Kennedy was assassinated. I will always remember being in Times Square when Michael Jackson died."

By LYNN ELBER, Associated Press

Labels: hot trends 2009, King of Pop, Michael Jackson, trends newsletter

BALTIMORE - At one of the nation's top trauma hospitals, a nurse circles a patient's bed, humming and waving her arms as if shooing evil spirits. Another woman rubs a quartz bowl with a wand, making tunes that mix with the beeping monitors and hissing respirator keeping the man alive.

They are doing Reiki therapy, which claims to heal through invisible energy fields. The anesthesia chief, Dr. Richard Dutton, calls it "mystical mumbo jumbo." Still, he's a fan.
"It's self-hypnosis" that can help patients relax, he said. "If you tell yourself you have less pain, you actually do have less pain."

Alternative medicine has become mainstream. It is finding wider acceptance by doctors, insurers and hospitals like the shock trauma center at the University of Maryland Medical Center. Consumer spending on it in some cases rivals that of traditional health care.

People turn to unconventional therapies and herbal remedies for everything from hot flashes and trouble sleeping to cancer and heart disease. They crave more "care" in their health care. They distrust drug companies and the government. They want natural, safer remedies.

But often, that is not what they get. Government actions and powerful interest groups have left consumers vulnerable to flawed products and misleading marketing.

Dietary supplements do not have to be proved safe or effective before they can be sold. Some contain natural things you might not want, such as lead and arsenic. Some interfere with other things you may be taking, such as birth control pills.

"Herbals are medicines," with good and bad effects, said Bruce Silverglade of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Contrary to their little-guy image, many of these products are made by big businesses.

Ingredients and their countries of origin are a mystery to consumers. They are marketed in ways that manipulate emotions, just like ads for hot cars and cool clothes. Some make claims that average people can't parse as proof of effectiveness or blather, like "restores cell-to-cell communication."

Even therapies that may help certain conditions, such as acupuncture, are being touted for uses beyond their evidence.

An Associated Press review of dozens of studies and interviews with more than 100 sources found an underground medical system operating in plain sight, with a different standard than the rest of medical care, and millions of people using it on blind faith.

How did things get this way?

Fifteen years ago, Congress decided to allow dietary and herbal supplements to be sold without federal Food and Drug Administration approval. The number of products soared, from about 4,000 then to well over 40,000 now.

Ten years ago, Congress created a new federal agency to study supplements and unconventional therapies. But more than $2.5 billion of tax-financed research has not found any cures or major treatment advances, aside from certain uses for acupuncture and ginger for chemotherapy-related nausea. If anything, evidence has mounted that many of these pills and therapies lack value.

Yet they are finding ever-wider use:

_Big hospitals and clinics increasingly offer alternative therapies. Many just offer stress reducers like meditation, yoga and massage. But some offer treatments with little or no scientific basis, to patients who are emotionally vulnerable and gravely ill. The Baltimore hospital, for example, is not charging for Reiki but wants to if it can be shown to help. Other hospitals earn fees from treatments such as acupuncture, which insurance does not always cover if the purpose is not sufficiently proven. The giant HMO Kaiser Permanente pays for members to go to a Portland, Ore., doctor who prescribes ayurvedics - traditional herbal remedies from India.

_Some medical schools are teaching future doctors about alternative medicine, sometimes with federal grants. The goal is educating them about what patients are using so they can give evidence-based, nonjudgmental care. But some schools have ties to alternative medicine practitioners and advocates. A University of Minnesota program lets students study nontraditional healing methods at a center in Hawaii supported by a philanthropist fan of such care, though students pay their own travel and living expenses. A private foundation that wants wider inclusion of nontraditional methods sponsors fellowships for hands-on experience at the University of Arizona's Program in Integrative Medicine, headed by well-known advocate Dr. Andrew Weil.

_Health insurers are cutting deals to let alternative medicine providers market supplements and services directly to members. At least one insurer promotes these to members with a discount, perhaps leaving an incorrect impression they are covered services and medically sound. Some insurers steer patients to Internet sellers of supplements, even though patients must pay for these out of pocket. There are networks of alternative medicine providers that contract with big employers, just like HMOs.

A few herbal supplements can directly threaten health. A surprising number do not supply what their labels claim, contain potentially harmful substances like lead, or are laced with hidden versions of prescription drugs.

"In testing, one out of four supplements has a problem," said Dr. Tod Cooperman, president of ConsumerLab.com, an independent company that rates such products.

Even when the ingredients aren't risky, spending money for a product with no proven benefit is no small harm when the economy is bad and people can't afford health insurance or healthy food.

But sometimes the cost is far greater. Cancer patients can lose their only chance of beating the disease by gambling on unproven treatments. People with clogged arteries can suffer a heart attack. Children can be harmed by unproven therapies forced on them by parents who distrust conventional medicine.

Mainstream medicine and prescription drugs have problems, too. Popular drugs such as the painkillers Vioxx and Bextra have been pulled from the market after serious side effects emerged once they were widely used by consumers. But at least there are regulatory systems, guideline-setting groups and watchdog agencies helping to keep traditional medicine in line.
The safety net for alternative medicine is far flimsier.

The latest government survey shows the magnitude of risk: More than a third of Americans use unconventional therapies, including acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic, and native or traditional healing methods. These practitioners are largely self-policing, with their own schools and accreditation groups. Some states license certain types, like acupuncturists; others do not.

Tens of millions of Americans take dietary supplements - vitamins, minerals and herbs, ranging from ginseng and selenium to fish oil and zinc, said Steven Mister, president of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, an industry trade group.

"We bristle when people talk about us as if we're just fringe," he said. Supplements are "an insurance policy" if someone doesn't always eat right, he said.

In fact, some are widely recommended by doctors - prenatal vitamins for pregnant women, calcium for older women at risk of osteoporosis, and fish oil for some heart patients, for example. These uses are generally thought to be safe, although independent testing has found quality problems and occasional safety concerns with specific products, such as too much or too little of a vitamin.

Some studies suggest that vitamin deficiencies can raise the risk of disease. But it is not clear that taking supplements will fix that, and research has found hints of harm, said Dr. Jeffrey White, complementary and alternative medicine chief at the National Cancer Institute. A doctor with a big interest in nutrition, he sees the field as "an area of opportunity" that deserves serious study.

So does Dr. Josephine Briggs, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the federal agency Congress created a decade ago.

"Most patients are not treated very satisfactorily," Briggs said. "If we had highly effective, satisfactory conventional treatment we probably wouldn't have as much need for these other strategies and as much public interest in them."

Even critics of alternative medicine providers understand their appeal.

"They give you a lot of time. They treat you like someone special," said R. Barker Bausell, a University of Maryland biostatistician who wrote "Snake Oil Science," a book about flawed research in the field.

That is why Dr. Mitchell Gaynor, a cancer specialist at the Weill-Cornell Medical Center in New York, said he includes nutrition testing and counseling, meditation and relaxation techniques in his treatment, though not everyone would agree with some of the things he recommends.

"You do have people who will say 'chemotherapy is just poison,'" said Gaynor, who tells them he doesn't agree. He'll say: "Cancer takes decades to develop, so you're not going to be able to think that all of a sudden you're going to change your diet or do meditation (and cure it). You need to treat it medically. You can still do things to make your diet better. You can still do meditation to reduce your stress."

Once their fears and feelings are acknowledged, most patients "will do the right thing, do everything they can to save their life," Gaynor said.

Many people buy supplements to treat life's little miseries - trouble falling asleep, menopausal hot flashes, memory lapses, the need to lose weight, sexual problems.

The Dietary Supplement and Health Education Act of 1994 exempted such products from needing FDA approval or proof of safety or effectiveness before they go on sale.

"That has resulted in consumers wasting billions of dollars on products of either no or dubious benefit," said Silverglade of the public interest group.

Many hope that President Barack Obama's administration will take a new look. In the meantime, some outlandish claims are drawing a backlash. The industry has stepped up self-policing - the Council for Responsible Nutrition hired a lawyer to work with the Council of Better Business Bureaus and file complaints against problem sellers.

"We certainly don't think this is a huge problem in the industry," Mister said, but he acknowledges occasionally seeing infomercials "that promise the world."

"The outliers were making the public feel that this entire industry was just snake oil and that there weren't any legitimate products," said Andrea Levine, ad division chief for the business bureaus.

The FDA just issued its first guidelines for good manufacturing practices, aimed at improving supplement safety. Consumer groups say the rules don't go far enough - for example, they don't set limits on contaminants like lead and arsenic - but they do give the FDA more leverage after problems come to light.

The Federal Trade Commission is filing more complaints about deceptive marketing. One of the largest settlements occurred last August - $30 million from the makers of Airborne, a product marketed with a folksy "invented by a teacher" slogan that claimed to ward off germs spread through the air.

People need to keep a healthy skepticism about that magical marketing term "natural," said Kathy Allen, a dietitian at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla.

The truth is, supplements lack proof of safety or benefit. Asked to take a drug under those terms, "most of us would say 'no,'" Allen said. "When it says 'natural,' the perception is there is no harm. And that is just not true."

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE, AP Medical Writer

Labels: alternative medicine herbal remedies, hot trends 2009, reiki therapy, trends newsletter

They were childhood chums. Then they drifted apart, lost touch completely, and only renewed their friendship decades later, when illness struck.
Not so unusual, really.

Except she is Lucy Vodden - the girl who was the inspiration for the Beatles' 1967 psychedelic classic "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" - and he is Julian Lennon, the musician son of John Lennon.

They are linked together by something that happened more than 40 years ago when Julian brought home a drawing from school and told his father, "That's Lucy in the sky with diamonds."

Just the sort of cute phrase lots of 3- or 4-year-olds produce - but not many have a father like John Lennon, who used it as a springboard for a legendary song that became a centerpiece on the landmark album "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."



"Julian got in touch with me out of the blue, when he heard how ill I was, and he said he wanted to do something for me," said the 46-year-old Vodden, who has lupus, a chronic disease where the immune system attacks the body's own tissue.

Lennon, who lives in France, sent his old friend flowers and vouchers she could use to buy plants at a local gardening center, since working in her garden is one of the few activities she is still occasionally well enough to enjoy. More importantly, he has offered her friendship and a connection to more carefree days. They communicate mostly by text message.

"I wasn't sure at first how to approach her. I wanted at least to get a note to her," Julian Lennon told The Associated Press. "Then I heard she had a great love of gardening, and I thought I'd help with something she's passionate about, and I love gardening too. I wanted to do something to put a smile on her face."

Vodden admits she enjoys her association with the song, but doesn't particularly care for it. Perhaps that's not surprising. It was thought by many at the time, including BBC executives who banned the song, that the classic was a paean to LSD because of the initials in the title. Plus, she and Julian were 4 years old in 1967, the "Summer of Love" when "Sgt. Pepper" was released to worldwide acclaim. She missed the psychedelic era to which the song is indelibly linked.

"I don't relate to the song, to that type of song," said Vodden, described as "the girl with kaleidoscope eyes" in the lyrics. "As a teenager, I made the mistake of telling a couple of friends at school that I was the Lucy in the song and they said, 'No, it's not you, my parents said it's about drugs.' And I didn't know what LSD was at the time, so I just kept it quiet, to myself."

There's no doubt the fanciful lyrics and swirling musical effects draw heavily on the LSD experiences that were shaping Lennon's artistic output at the time - although many of the musical flourishes were provided by producer George Martin, who was not a drug user.

"The imagery in the song is partly a reflection of John's drug experiences, and partly his love of `Alice in Wonderland,'" said Steve Turner, author of "A Hard Day's Write," a book that details the origins of every Beatles song. "At the time it came out, it seemed overtly psychedelic, it sounded like some kind of trip. It was completely new at the time. To me it is very evocative of the period."

Turner said his research, including interviews with Vodden and Julian Lennon, confirm that she is the Lucy in the song. He said it was common for John Lennon to "snatch songs out of thin air" based on a simple phrase he heard on TV or an item he read in the newspapers. In this case, Turner said, it was the phrase from Julian that triggered John's imagination.

Veteran music critic Fred Schruers said Julian Lennon's reaching out to help Vodden as she fights the disease is particularly moving because of the childlike nature of the song.

"It's enormously evocative but with a tinge of poignancy," he said. "It's the lost childhood Julian had with that little Lucy and the lost innocence we had with the psychedelic era, an innocence we really cherished until it was snatched away."

Vodden was diagnosed with lupus about five years ago after suffering other serious health problems. She has been struggling extreme fatigue, joint pain, and other ailments.

"She's not given up, she's a fighter, and she has her family backing her, that's a good thing," said Angie Davidson, campaign director for St. Thomas' Lupus Trust, which funds research. "We need more people like her, more Lucys."

Davidson, who also has the disease, said it affects each person differently, typically causing exhaustion and depression. When the disease kills, she said, it does so by attacking the body's internal organs.

It has become difficult for Vodden to go out - most of her trips are to the hospital - but recently she and her husband went to a bookstore and heard the song playing over the store's music system. When they went to another shop, the song was on there as well.

"That made me giggle," she said.

AP

Labels: beatles, hot trends 2009, lsd, lucy in the sky with diamonds, trends newsletter

NEW YORK - More than 2 million households are in danger of seeing their major broadcast TV channels disappear into a fuzz of static when analog service ends Friday, according to surveys.

That is nearly half the number that were unready in February, when most analog TV broadcasts were originally scheduled to be turned off. The shutdown was delayed for four months at the behest of the Obama administration.

Research firm SmithGeiger LLC said Thursday that about 2.2 million households were still unprepared around the beginning of June. Sponsored by the National Association of Broadcasters, it surveyed 948 households that relied on antennas and found that 1 in 8 had not connected a digital TV or digital converter box.

Nielsen Co., which measures TV ratings with the help of a wide panel of households, put the number of unready homes at 2.8 million, or 2.5 percent of the total television market, as of Sunday. In February, the number was 5.8 million.

"We know some viewers will wait until the very last minute, or even after June 12, until they take action," said Paul Karpowicz, second vice chair of the television board of the NAB.

Requests for $40 converter box coupons from the government have spiked this week, according the to the Department of Commerce. On Monday alone, it received requests for 179,000 coupons, nearly twice the daily rate it saw a month ago. However, those coupons won't get to viewers by Friday. It takes nine business days. Without the government discount, converter boxes generally cost between $40 and $60.

Nielsen said minority households are less likely to be prepared, as are households consisting of people under age 35. Households with people older than 55 are far more likely to be prepared than the average.

The Albuquerque-Santa Fe area continues to be the nation's least ready market in the Nielsen survey, with 7.6 percent of TV households still unprepared.

Nielsen does not survey Puerto Rico, which is also believed to have many unready households. Both the Caribbean island and New Mexico have relatively few households connected to cable. Households that have all their sets connected to cable or satellite service are unaffected by the analog broadcast shutdown.

Both the Nielsen and SmithGeiger surveys count households as unprepared even if they have taken some steps toward getting digital signals, like ordering a converter box coupon.

Stations will start cutting their analog signals Friday morning, but many will wait until the evening. Nearly half of all U.S. stations have already ended analog transmissions, though most big-city stations have held off until Friday.

By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer

Labels: analog tv, digital tv, hot trends 2009, trends newsletter, tv

Labels: hot trends 2009, make money, online money, to money, trends newsletter

Labels: fusion power, hot trends 2009, Lawrence Livermore, National Ignition Facility, super laser, trends newsletter

WASHINGTON - A mass extinction some 260 million years ago may have been caused by volcanic eruptions in what is now China, new research suggests.

The so-called Guadalupian Mass Extinction, devastating marine life around the world, was preceded by massive eruptions in the Emeishan province of Southwest China, researchers led by Paul Wignall of Britain's University of Leeds report in Friday's edition of the journal Science.

Because the eruptions occurred in a shallow sea the researchers were able to study both the volcanic rock and the overlying layer of sedimentary rock containing fossilized marine life, making it possible to compare dates.

The injection of hot lava into a sea would have produced a massive cloud formation that could spread around the world, cooling the planet and producing acid rain, according to the scientists.

While they don't claim this is proof of cause-and-effect, the researchers conclude that their study "provides evidence for a potential link between mass extinction and the eruption ...."

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer

Labels: Guadalupian Mass Extinction, hot trends 2009, Paul Wignall, trends newsletter

Frequent questions and their answers. The best defense right now? Stay on top of the news.

The outbreak of a new form of swine flu has prompted the United States and the World Health Organization to declare a public health emergency.

President Obama has called the emergency a "precautionary tool," since so far the outbreak has had only limited impact in the United States. But public health officials are scrambling to determine the extent of the outbreak.

This outbreak could peter out, like a 1976 swine flu outbreak did. Or the virus could spread easily from one person to the next, sparking a pandemic in which millions of people are infected.

Richard Besser, the acting CDC director, says it's too early to say if we'll see more severe disease here in the United States. "Viruses are unpredictable and variable over time," he said yesterday. "What we say and what we learn will change."

Here's the rundown on what we know so far, as well as the options for avoiding swine flu and for treating it if you get it.

How is swine flu different than seasonal influenza and bird flu?

This is a new flu bug that includes genetic segments from human, swine, and avian flu viruses. It is an influenza A H1N1 strain, named for two proteins in the bug's protein coat. H1N1 viruses often circulate without causing major outbreaks. But since this flu virus is new, people might not have immunity to it. That's why the global public health system is on alert. No one knows where this outbreak might lead.

What symptoms would tell me I have swine flu?

Swine flu symptoms are similar to the symptoms of regular seasonal flu, according to the CDC. Those include:

-Fever
-Lethargy
-Lack of appetite
-Coughing

Some people with swine flu have also reported runny nose, sore throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea.

How can I tell if someone sitting next to me has swine flu?

You can't. If someone is showing the symptoms described above, it couldn't hurt to keep your distance. Jeff Duchin, chief of the communicable disease section at Public Health Seattle, says it's best to say 6 feet away from someone who has the flu because the virus spreads in droplets when people talk, cough, or sneeze. Of course, your neighbor might just have a stuffy nose caused by a mild cold or seasonal allergies.

Should I be wearing a face mask, like they're wearing in Mexico?

Not unless you're taking care of a person who's sick with swine flu or are sick yourself. Wearing masks is a popular reaction to respiratory outbreaks in parts of the world, but it's not a step that the U.S. government has recommended for the current outbreak. The CDC has an online guide to using masks and respirators to prevent flu transmission.

Is there a vaccine available for this new swine flu?

No. Developing and producing a vaccine matched to this flu virus will take several months. Anne Schuchat, director of the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, said yesterday that a swine flu vaccine could be added to the seasonal flu vaccine now being produced for next fall, either as a replacement for one of the three strains in that vaccine or as an addition that makes it a four-strain vaccine.

What's the best way to avoid getting exposed to the swine flu virus?

For now, avoid people who are coughing or sick. The CDC also recommends hand washing to reduce the risk of flu. Though frequent hand washing hasn't specifically been proved to protect against swine flu, it does reduce the risk of respiratory infections generally.

What other things can I do to get my family prepared?

It never hurts to think about what you would do if swine flu hits your community hard, the CDC's Besser says. That may mean that schools would be closed, as has been done in Mexico. The federal government's pandemic flu website has suggestions on getting ready at home and at work. One example: Do you have enough food in the house to feed your family if you had to stay home for a week? You can also check with your employer to make sure the company has a plan in case of a flu pandemic. And you can prepare yourself for the possibility you'd have to work from home for a while.

Is it dangerous to eat pork?

No. This flu virus is spread from person to person by touching surfaces infected with the virus or by inhaling viruses from someone coughing. You can't get swine flu from eating pork.

What should I do if I or someone in my family is sick?

"Calling the doctor is never the wrong thing to do," says Mark Metursky, a professor of medicine at the University of Connecticut School of Medicine and immediate past chair of the chest infection network for the American College of Chest Physicians. You'll know you have the flu and not just a cold if you've got a fever of 102 or more, a headache, and muscle aches.

"If you have a respiratory infection with fever, don't go to work or school," says Duchin. To minimize the risk of infecting others, avoid traveling by air and taking public transportation if you have the flu.

People aren't at risk of swine flu for now, Metursky says, unless they have traveled to Mexico of are exposed to someone who has.

What medications work against swine flu?

Laboratory tests suggest this swine flu is susceptible to the antiviral drugs Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and Relenza (zanamivir). To be effective, these drugs need to be taken as soon as possible after a person has flu symptoms. "The sooner you talk to your doctor the better," Metursky says. The CDC has new recommendations for using antivirals to treat swine flu; people who are sick and have recently been to Mexico or who have been exposed to people with swine flu should speak with a doctor about whether to take an antiviral medication.

Should I stockpile Tamiflu?

The federal government doesn't recommend that people stockpile Tamiflu at home, saying it should be saved for people who are sick with influenza now. But many public health scientists have set aside some Tamiflu for themselves in the past few years because of concern about the possibility of a pandemic caused by bird flu. It's your call.

I'm not sick. Should I avoid traveling?

This might not be the wisest time to vacation in Cancun, but travel hasn't been banned by the CDC and WHO, so it's up to you. Airlines will let passengers to certain destinations re-book their trips at no cost. Check the CDC or WHO website before traveling, because the advisories could change at any time.

Why has the swine flu been deadly in Mexico but not in the U.S.?

No one knows for sure. It could be that Americans who've gotten infected had better, faster access to health care. Or it could be that the U.S. is just at an earlier stage in the outbreak, Duchin says. If that's the case, U.S. deaths could occur as the outbreak matures.

Where do I look for more news on swine flu?

The CDC's new swine flu website is a good place to start, for information both on the state of the outbreak and on how to keep your family healthy.

Other good options:

-The World Health Organization is tracking swine flu cases worldwide.

-The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy is following swine flu, bird flu, and the possibility of a flu pandemic.

-The Infectious Diseases Society of America gears its swine flu news to doctors, but that information on treatment and avoidance is useful for individuals, too.

-The federal government's pandemic flu website provides a broad range of information on preparing for a pandemic.

By Nancy Shute, US News

Labels: cdc, H1N1 viruses, hot trends 2009, swine flu, trends newsletter

Labels: blogger, blogging granny, hot trends 2009, Maria Amelia Lopez, trends newsletter

MOSCOW (AFP) - - The United States and Russia on Tuesday began the first round of negotiations aimed at replacing a landmark Cold War-era nuclear disarmament treaty that expires in December, officials said.

The talks on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) are a central part of US President Barack Obama's desire to "reset" strained ties with Russia and their result could have far-reaching implications for global security.

They hark back to Cold War days where US and Soviet officials met for tense negotiations on reducing their vast atomic arsenals and lowering the chances of nuclear Armageddon.

Productive negotiations would boost Obama's vision of a world free of atomic weapons and help set the stage for a fence-mending summit in July when Obama travels to Moscow to meet Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.

For Russia, the closed-door talks are also a matter of prestige as they imply strategic parity with the United States as Moscow seeks to play a greater role on the world stage.

Speaking in Geneva, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon hailed a "new momentum for disarmament" and gave his "best wishes" to the negotiators in Moscow.

A Russian foreign ministry spokesman Igor Lyakin-Frolov, said the talks took place Tuesday and would continue Wednesday as planned. He made clear though there would be little public information about them.

"By agreement of both sides the talks will be discreet and they will only release an agreed joint statement at the end," Lyakin-Frolov told AFP.

The two-day negotiating session marks the formal start of the process though the two sides had several preliminary meetings to help break the ice.

Ahead of the talks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he hoped they would be "fruitful" but also cautioned that they would be linked to controversial US missile defence plans in Eastern Europe.

"We believe that the START treaty cannot be discussed in a vacuum," Lavrov was quoted as saying by news agencies late Monday.

"It must reflect the issue of global security, which certainly includes Russia's, and this implies that we must sort out the situation on missile defence," Lavrov added.

Moscow has reacted angrily to US plans to place elements of its planned global missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Washington has tried to keep missile defence off the negotiating table at the START talks, saying that the shield is not directed against Russia and is instead meant to protect against Iran.

But that rationale was called into question in a report published Tuesday by the New York-based EastWest Institute, which said Iran was far away from having long-range missiles and that the shield would not work anyway.

"European missile defences will not provide dependable protection against an Iranian threat if and when it emerges," the institute said in a statement, citing the report written by a joint US-Russian team of experts.

Obama has pledged to continue with missile defence but only if it is cost-effective and proven to work. The project was strongly backed by his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The Russian daily Vremya Novostei wrote on Tuesday that it would be "practically impossible" to reach a deal on START unless Obama reconsidered Bush's missile shield.

Even aside from the missile defence issue, negotiators face a tough task as they seek to find a successor agreement to the hugely complex treaty before it expires on December 5.

Talks on START made little progress under Bush, and despite warming ties under Obama, many stumbling blocks remain.

For instance, Moscow wants a broad treaty that limits both nuclear warheads and their carriers, such as missiles and bombers, while Washington prefers to focus only on deployed warheads that are ready for launch.

The US negotiating team in Moscow is led by Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller while the Russian team is headed by Anatoly Antonov, head of the foreign ministry department for security and disarmament.

Signed in 1991, START led to deep cuts in the US and Russian atomic arsenals and is seen as a cornerstone of strategic arms control.

Labels: hot trends 2009, start, Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, trends newsletter

Perfectly preserved fossil Ida, unveiled in New York today, provides unprecedented insight into our ancestry. Photograph: Atlantic Productions Ltd

Ida, one of the most complete primate fossils ever found, a 47-million-year-old human ancestor.

Scientists have discovered an exquisitely preserved ancient primate fossil that they believe forms a crucial "missing link" between our own evolutionary branch of life and the rest of the animal kingdom.

The 47m-year-old primate - named Ida - has been hailed as the fossil equivalent of a "Rosetta Stone" for understanding the critical early stages of primate evolution.

The top-level international research team, who have studied her in secret for the past two years, believe she is the most complete and best preserved primate fossil ever uncovered. The skeleton is 95% complete and thanks to the unique location where she died, it is possible to see individual hairs covering her body and even the make-up of her final meal - a last vegetarian snack.

"This little creature is going to show us our connection with the rest of all the mammals; with cows and sheep, and elephants and anteaters," said Sir David Attenborough who is narrating a BBC documentary on the find. "The more you look at Ida, the more you can see, as it were, the primate in embryo."

"This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years," said Dr Jørn Hurum, the palaeontologist from Oslo University's Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil. "It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far. It's been hidden because the only [other] specimens are so incomplete and so broken there's nothing almost to study." The fossil has been formally named Darwinius masillae in honour of Darwin's 200th birthday year.

It has been shipped across the Atlantic for an unveiling ceremony hosted by the mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg today. There is even talk of Ida being the first non-living thing to feature on the front cover of People magazine.

She will then be transported back to Oslo, via a brief stop at the Natural History Museum in London on Tuesday, 26 May, when Attenborough will host a press conference.

Ida was originally discovered by an amateur fossil hunter in the summer of 1983 at Messel pit, a world renowned fossil site near Darmstadt in Germany. He kept it under wraps for over 20 years before deciding to sell it via a German fossil dealer called Thomas Perner. It was Perner who approached Hurum two years ago.

"My heart started beating extremely fast," said Hurum, "I knew that the dealer had a world sensation in his hands. I could not sleep for 2 nights. I was just thinking about how to get this to an official museum so that it could be described and published for science."

Hurum would not reveal what the university museum paid for the fossil, but the original asking price was $1m. He did not see the fossil before buying it - just three photographs, representing a huge gamble.

But it appears to have paid off. "You need an icon or two in a museum to drag people in," said Hurum, "this is our Mona Lisa and it will be our Mona Lisa for the next 100 years."

Hurum chose Ida's nickname because the diminutive creature is at the equivalent stage of development as his six-year-old daughter. Hurum said Ida is very excited about her namesake. "She says, 'there are two Idas now, there's me I'm living and then there's the dead one.'"

"It's caught at a really very interesting moment [in the animal's life] when it fortunately has all its baby teeth and is in the process of forming all its permanent teeth," said Dr Holly Smith, an expert in primate development at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, who was part of the team. "So you have more information in it than almost any fossil you could think of."

The fossil's amazing preservation means that the scientific team has managed to glean a huge amount of information from it, although this required new X-ray techniques that had not previously been applied to any other specimens.

The researchers believe it comes from the time when the primate lineage, that diversified into monkeys, apes and ultimately humans, split from a separate group that went on to become lemurs and other less well known species.

Crucially though, Ida is not on the lemur line because she lacks two key characteristics shared by lemurs – a grooming claw on her second toe and a fused set of teeth called a tooth comb. Also, a bone in her ankle called the talus is shaped like members of our branch of the primates. So the researchers believe she may be on our evolutionary line dating from just after the split with the lemurs.

According to the team's published description of the skeleton in the journal PLoS ONE, Ida was 53cm long and a juvenile around six to nine months old. The team can be sure Ida is a girl because she does not have a penis bone.

"She was at this vulnerable age where you are no longer right with your mother," said Smith, "Just as you leave weaning you are not full grown, but you are on your own."

The unprecedented preservation of Ida meant working out how she died was more like a modern day crime scene investigation than the informed guess-work that palaeontologists usually make do with. The team noticed that she had a broken wrist that had begun to partially heal. The injury did not kill her, but they speculate that it contributed to her premature demise.

"It might be that her mother dropped her once or that she fell down from a tree earlier in her life," Smith said. She survived the accident, but her climbing abilities would have been impaired. Unable to drink from water trapped by tree leaves, she would have had to venture down to the lake to drink. This would have proved to be a fateful decision.

The huge range of magnificently preserved fossils at Messel suggest that the volcanic lake was a death trap. Scientists believe that it sporadically let forth giant belches of poisonous volcanic gases that would have immediately suffocated anything in, around and even over the water. Ida would then have fallen into the water and been preserved in the sediment deep at the bottom.

James Randerson, Guardian.co.uk

• Atlantic productions' programme, Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link, will be broadcast in the UK on Tuesday, 26 May at 9pm on BBC1. Colin Tudge's book, The Link, is published on 20 May by Little Brown.

Labels: Dr Jørn Hurum, hot trends 2009, ida, missing link, primate fossils, Thomas Perner, trends newsletter