Skip to content Skip to site navigation
Gristmill: Fresh, whole-brain news.


To avoid diabetes, eat fruit, don’t drink fruit juice

Blueberries are bloomin' delicious -- and they can help stave off type 2 diabetes.

Another study has shown that fruit is good for you. Just be sure to eat it in solid form.

Research published Thursday in the British Medical Journal analyzed the results of long-term health studies that tracked the diets of nearly 200,000 people over two decades, some of whom developed type 2 diabetes.

The scientists found that those who ate at least a couple of servings per week of certain whole fruits -- notably blueberries, grapes, and apples -- were 23 percent less likely to develop type 2 diabetes than those who avoided them.

Click to embiggen.
This graph from the paper shows that blueberries are particularly good at staving off type 2 diabetes. Cantaloupe -- not so much. (Click to embiggen.)

On the other hand, those who drank at least one serving of fruit juice daily were 21 percent more likely to develop the disease. The BBC breaks it down:

The study calculated that replacing weekly fruit juice consumption with whole fruits could bring health benefits.

For example, replacing fruit juice with blueberries could reduce the risk of contracting type-2 diabetes by 33%, with grapes and raisins by 19%, apples and pears by 13% - and with any combination of whole fruit by 7%.

Read more: Food, Living


Kalamazoo pipeline protester could get two years in jail

"Remember the Kalamazoo" sign
Erica F

One oil spill in his community was more than enough for Kalamazoo resident Christopher Wahmhoff.

To protest Enbridge's replacement of the pipeline that burst along a Michigan riverbank in 2010, Wahmhoff spent 10 hours of his 35th birthday inside the new pipe, slowing construction for a single day in June.

Now Wahmhoff, a member of the Michigan Coalition Against Tar Sands, has been charged with two felonies and a misdemeanor, charges that could see him put behind bars for more than two years.

“It was worth it, without a doubt,” he told the Battle Creek Enquirer on Tuesday following a preliminary hearing before a district judge. “We got awareness out.”

Read more: Climate & Energy


Cool news: Big fridges to get more efficient under new Obama rules

Ben & Jerry's in supermarket case
Michael Kappel
Soon Ben & Jerry's will get to live in more efficient freezers.

After sitting on two energy-efficiency rules for more than a year and a half, the Obama administration finally released them on Thursday. They won't be official until early next year, after the public has time to comment and regulators have time to consider those comments, but at least they're now moving forward.

The proposed rules would require commercial refrigeration equipment, like restaurant fridges and deli cases, to use less energy. OK, that might not sound like the sexiest initiative, but efficiency matters -- a lot. Plus this means you'll soon have one more reason to feel better about buying Ben & Jerry's.

As The Washington Post reports, "The proposals have a significant environmental impact because of the size of the appliances involved." The White House says the new rules "could cut energy bills by up to $28 billion and cut emissions by over 350 million metric tons of CO2 over 30 years."


North Carolinians could be forced to accept fracking on their property

Chatham County
Donald Lee Pardue
Forced fracking could be coming to Chatham County, N.C.

Not willing to sell out to frackers? If you're a property owner living above natural gas reserves in North Carolina, you might not have a choice.

A panel charged by the state's legislature with developing hydraulic fracturing guidelines recommended Wednesday that property owners be forced to allow drilling beneath their property if enough of their neighbors want it. From the Associated Press:

A panel commissioned by state government said Wednesday that forced fracking should be allowed in North Carolina.

Forced or compulsory pooling allows the state to let energy companies drill into natural gas reserves under non-consenting property owner's land. Property owners in the state receive a percentage of the profits from gas extracted from under their property.


Bobby Jindal doesn’t think Big Oil should have to clean up its mess

La. Gov. Bobby Jindal
Derek Bridges
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal wants everyone to stop picking on poor oil companies.

Oil and gas companies have ruined coastal wetlands that formerly helped protect Louisiana from storms and floods, but Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) doesn't believe they should have to pay to repair the damage.

The governor opposes a lawsuit filed last month by the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East. The suit seeks billions of dollars from energy companies, including BP and ExxonMobil, to restore coastal ecosystems that have been trampled to make way for oil and gas infrastructure along the state's coast. The Times-Picayune explains:

Jindal said the state needs to protect and restore the coast, "but this lawsuit is not the way to do it." [His] statement also called the lawsuit "a potential billion dollar plus windfall" for the attorneys representing the levee authority.


Superstorm Sandy washed away half of Fire Island’s sand

Fire Island after the storm
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Cleaning up Fire Island after Hurricane Sandy.

It was obvious to locals that Fire Island, N.Y. -- Long Island’s longest barrier island -- lost a lot of sand during Superstorm Sandy. And now federal scientists have quantified the staggering loss: 54.4 percent.

The researchers warn that the disappearance of more than half of the island's sand dunes and beachfront sand has left the tourist mecca more vulnerable to further storms and floods.

During winter storms that followed Sandy, the shoreline on the exposed island was sucked back a further 200 feet in one place, though most of the sand lost during those smaller storms washed back into place by April. Much of the sand lost during the superstorm, by contrast, is still missing.

Read more: Climate & Energy


Fukushima keeps on leaking, Japan keeps on issuing confusing explanations

Oh, fuk ... ushima.

Problems continue to burble up at Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant -- or, in this case, gush out.

We learned last month that contaminated water has been leaking from the plant into the sea at a rate of about 300 tons a day. Then last week came word of a more serious spill of 300 tons of extremely radioactive water, which the government classified as a level 3 incident on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

The scale runs from zero, where everything is peachy, past level 3, which indicates a “serious incident,” up to level 7, which means the kind of living hell that engulfed the facility when its reactors melted down following an earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

From CNN:

The decision to issue the level 3 alert came two days after a Japanese government minister had compared the plant operator’s efforts to deal with worrying toxic water leaks at the site to a game of “whack-a-mole.”


U.S. government paid $17 billion for weather-withered crops last year

Drought corn
Drought-ravaged corn.

Desiccated corn and sun-scorched soybeans have been in high supply lately -- and we're paying through the nose for them.

The federal government forked out a record-breaking $17.3 billion last year to compensate farmers for weather-related crop losses -- more than four times the annual average over the last decade.

The losses were mostly caused by droughts, high temperatures, and hot winds -- the sizzling harbingers of a climate in rapid flux.

Click to embiggen.
Click to embiggen

Could some of these costs have been avoided? The Natural Resources Defense Council says yes. In a new issue paper [PDF], NRDC analyst Claire O’Connor argues that these taxpayer-reimbursed, climate-related losses could have been largely avoided if farmers used tried-and-true conservation-oriented strategies. But she points out that the Federal Crop Insurance Program provides little incentive to farmers to employ techniques that save water and soil.


Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant to shutter

Vermont Yankee
Vermont Yankee, on the Connecticut River, will soon be shut down for good.

Yet another American nuclear power plant is going to shut down permanently, giving New Englanders reason to be as excited as the nucleus of a decaying uranium isotope.

Entergy Corp. announced Tuesday that it will power down the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant next year.

This is just the latest in a string of bad news for the industry. Nuclear plants are also being shut down in California, Florida, and Wisconsin, and plans to build new ones are being canceledFrom Reuters:


Wind turbines don’t hurt property values

Stone house
The owners of this Flintstones-style house are no poorer because of the neighboring wind turbines.

Some people who learn that wind turbines are going to be built in their neighborhood freak out about a couple of things, but science can help put their minds at ease.

First, they worry that their health will be harmed if they develop so-called "wind turbine syndrome." But there is no evidence that wind turbines actually cause any of the ailments commonly blamed on them.

Next, they worry that the value of their property will fall. "Here come those eggshell-colored spinning things that produce energy but no pollution," they might mutter to one another in hushed tones. "There goes the neighborhood."

Fortunately, this concern is equally unwarranted, according to a comprehensive new study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers [PDF]. From the study:

We collected data from more than 50,000 home sales among 27 counties in nine states. These homes were within 10 miles of 67 different wind facilities, and 1,198 sales were within 1 mile of a turbine -- many more than previous studies have collected. The data span the periods well before announcement of the wind facilities to well after their construction. ...