Saturday, April 27, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 6

    Upgrade your Rock Island 10mm and reload for accuracy

    Robert Kay
    -
    0
    Upgrade your Rock Island 10mm and reload for accuracy

    Upgrading your handgun to meet your own needs is obligatory. In my case that means adding a Caspian slide that will accept an optic. (Of course having a gunsmith fit a custom slide is going to improve accuracy dramatically).

    But let’s get back to the subject of optics on handguns.

    Over the last few years manufacturers of polymer guns, such as the Glock MOS system, the Smith & Wesson M&P series and others are now configuring slides many of their models that will accept optics.

    Of course, adding optics to “old fashioned” handguns such as 1911s or wheel guns is nothing new. Bullseye shooters have been doing this for generations.

    The difference is that putting an optic on a 1911 almost always entails outfitting them with a rail type mount. What’s new with this platform is that Caspian Arms, the venerable manufacturer of 1911 kits, now offers a optics-ready slide to accommodate a red dot. Providing a mounting platform, along with the appropriately tapped holes, allows the end-user to easily place a red dot directly on the slide.

    My starting point with this project was the Rock Island Armory Pro Match Ultra 6″. Out of the box this is a decent, well-finished gun. I simply tweaked it, so that it would easily accept a red dot and to improve accuracy.

    So I turned to Caspian Arms.

    Caspian is one of the most respected manufacturers of 1911 parts and accessories, is a small company and they don’t spend much on marketing. They don’t have to. They have a great reputation for their products, mostly frames and slides which are used almost exclusively for competition guns. I suspect a good number of the winners at Camp Perry use Caspian frames or slides. I own a 1911 built with a Caspian frame and it’s one of my most prized possessions.

    The Caspian/C-More combination on the RIA 10mm will work for everything from home defense to pig hunting

    When I learned about the new Caspian optic-ready slide option I knew that’s how I wanted to modify my RIA PRO Match Ultra.  Essentially you tell the Caspian folks what optic you want mounted on your gun and they’ll machine a Caspian slide to match the footprint. This is not exactly a mass produced product but it’s faster and less expensive than having a gunsmith do a custom job.

    I was introduced to this model at the 2016 SHOT Show in Vegas and was smitten. It was accurate, well finished and reasonably priced. RIA guns are manufactured in the Philippines which gives them a competitive edge in pricing. Just because the Phillipines is not traditionally thought of as gun manufacturing mecca don’t let that dissuade you from a purchase. RIA, aka Armscor, makes more 1911s than anyone else in the world and based on this model, I would not hesitate to recommend them.

    Street price is about $950 which is a bargain, considering that you are getting a match grade 1911. The stock gun served as the perfect platform for this project.

    You’re not going to be shooting Bullseye matches with a 10 mm handgun but it’s ideal for hunting and taking to the silhouette range. The 10 mm chambering, combined with the extra velocity afforded by the 6” barrel, makes it perfect to reach out and touch something at a long distance.

    It’s a great little gun but with a red dot it becomes more functional by an order of magnitude. That was my rationale for adding this slide/optic combo.

    For the optic, I opted for the C-More RTS2.

    C-More Systems is a family owned optics company that you may not hear about as much as the larger manufacturers but don’t let that put you off. They specialize in high end gear for race guns and have been doing so for years.

    Founded in Manassas, Virginia in 1993, its primary products are red dot sights for M1911 pistols, Glock pistols, and AR-15s. Their sights come recommended by FN Herstal for the M249 SAW (light machine gun) and M240 machine gun. The company also manufactures the M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System for the United States Armed Forces.

    I really liked the lock-down feature which ensures that your windage and elevation adjustments stay put.

    Quality is first class because it has to stand up to the pounding it’s inevitably going to get in a competitive or combat scenario. Hence many of C-More’s clientele tends to be Bullseye competitors. That said, it’s reasonably priced—much less than the expensive stuff from Europe or this country for that matter.

    The C-MORE RTS2 series reflex sight is C-More’s newest product and is among their smaller reflex sights. It offers the shooter a parallax free design which means you can acquire a target without having to center the dot in the lens. The company uses a “beam-splitter lens” manufactured of hard coated glass to protect the product from scratches.

    The housing is manufactured from aviation alloy and the electronics are designed to deal with hot loads from large caliber firearms. In short this system is perfect for an energetic round like the 10 mm. It offers 1 moa click adjustment for both windage and elevation. A 10 position, manually operated push button switch offers plenty of options for intensity adjustment and it will shut off automatically after eight hours of inactivity. A nice touch is that after setting your adjustments you can lock them down securely with a separate tweak using an Allen wrench.

    One of the coolest features about the RTS2 is that you can replace the battery (a CR2032 lithium model) without dismounting the sight. That means you don’t have to re-zero it every time you replace it—which shouldn’t be that often. Very clever those Americans. What’s more, the battery compartment has an O-ring seal to keep it waterproof.

    It’s a cool little optic that works splendidly for longer shots, which was exactly what I wanted.

    Mounting the optic couldn’t have been more straight forward. The Caspian machine shop tapped the holes so all I had to do was to cinch down the RTS2 and apply a little Loctite.

    Adding the slide assembly to the frame is pretty standard stuff if you own a 1911. However, the RIA model has a 20 lb recoil spring to contend with. Shall we say it’s a bit challenging to put back on.

    I did need the services of a gunsmith to fit the barrel to the slide. The slide fit on the rails of the frame perfectly so nothing had to be done in that department.

    I preferred Magpul grips over the stock RIA offering, which I felt were overly aggressive.

    Magpul Grips

    In addition to the slide assembly I added one more essential item to transform this gun into a much more user-friendly firearm–a set of Magpul MOE grip panels. Why do so? There’s nothing inherently wrong with the stock (VZ) grips on the RIA but like all things in life it’s a matter of preference. I thought they were too aggressive for my sensibilities and started to literally grate on me. I understand that control is an issue with a 10 mm handgun. However I found the Mapguls, which have diamond-shaped cross section to prevent twisting in the hand, offered both control and great ergonomics. They felt better in my hands and at $19.95, didn’t break the bank.

    Working up a load

    It’s not enough to have a fully accurized pistol with cool optics without decent ammo.

    By rolling your own, you can manufacture cartridges precisely to your own requirements — often with more accuracy than a factory round.

    The challenge is of course coming up with an alchemical equation that takes into account the weight of your bullet, the length of your barrel, the make of your primer and a half a dozen other factors.

    What I found really useful in the 10 mm space was to join the 10mm Firearms forum. As you’d expect, these are hard core enthusiasts who have done a lot of experimentation when it comes to reloading. They were incredibly helpful.

    Finally, none other than famed shooter Jerry Miceluk was also a source of info. He likes heavier bullets for longer distance shooting which meant at least 180 gr. I wasn’t about to second guess him.

    So what did I discover? After hundreds of experimental rounds one of the primary lessons that I learned (and this most likely is not going to be an epiphany to hand loaders) is that hollow point bullets are the most accurate. However, at 25 yards and under, I didn’t see that much of a difference between the flat point and the hollow points.

    The Montana Gold 10 mm 180 gr HP bullet was accurate at 100 yards.

    Shooting at 50+ yards was a different story. Jacketed hollow points (such as Montana Gold) worked the best. Between the jacketed and the plated I would say the former were more accurate than the plated bullets at longer distances. I used both 165 and 180 grain bullets, jacketed and plated.

    I also opted to experiment with some locally cast 180 gr bullets from a true craftsman here in Hawaii. The results were somewhere between plated and jacketed bullets.

    The bottom line: A really competitive shooter will appreciate the difference between the jacketed and plated bullets. The average shooter, just plinking away, is not going to see much of a difference if any between plated jacketed and cast bullets.

    Standardize with one type of brass and prepare accordingly

    For accuracy and consistency stick with one brand of brass for reloads. My first choice is Starline. (Note their distinctive logo).

    When it comes to brass, none other than legendary gunsmith Jim Clark stated in Gil Hebard’s The Pistol Shooter’s Treasury  that case consistency is key to accurate reloads. Using brass from different sources is an anathema to creating uniformly made ammo. Thus if you’re serious about “standardizing” your ammo, use one brand of quality brass.

    Why?

    Reloading with scrounged range brass runs counter to consistency and quality control. Brass collected from different manufacturers is by definition going to have slightly different dimensions and varying quality.

    My suggestion? Go with Starline. 

    I’ve used their brass over the years with great success. Their QC is second to none and, the cases are very durable. Starline management keeps on top of things because it’s a family-owned business rather than some corporate entity that is owned by a hedge fund. They care about their products in a very personal way.

    A chamfer/deburr tool from Brownells is crucial for preparing new brass. Starline recommends this in their documentation and I concur.

    Prepping new cases

    One note regarding preparation: When using new brass you’ll need to chamfer the case mouth. 

    Why?

    A new case will have a jagged mouth which can create problems when you seat the bullet (especially if it’s a plated bullet) so you’ll need to smooth out the sharp edges.

    That can be done with a chamfer/deburr tool which you can pick up from Brownells or other reloading outlets. Once the brass is fired you won’t have to go through this process again.

    Pick your powder

    My selection of powder was not entirely scientific.

    I have a quantity of Accurate Arms (aka AA) powder from Western Powders on hand so I used it for my experimentation. I’ve used this brand for years with 357 and .41 magnum loads with stellar results. The very same powders that excel in the magnum space, AA #7 and AA #9, are excellent for the 10 mm which is essentially a magnum round. (For good measure, I also tried AA#5 which also worked well).

    What I liked about AA #7 and AA#5 is that you don’t have to max out on the load to get good efficiency. AA #9 on the other hand usually (but not always as I found out) needs to be loaded on the heavier side. Thus you can get away with less than a full-on load with AA#5 and #7 and get some very impressive results.

    Why does this matter?

    My bias, perhaps from shooting Bullseye guns for years, is come up with a load that is the most accurate with the least recoil. A full house load has it’s place but too much recoil too much of the time is a drag. Not only is it going to put more stress on you, but on your firearm as well.

    My go-to powder for the Caspian/RIA 10mm was AA No. 9 for 180 gn bullets.

    With this in mind, I managed to come up with a couple of balanced loads for this gun which worked exceptionally well:

    • I found that 12.5 gr of Accurate #9 over a 180 gr (plated) bullet from a plated or jacketed bullet such as Montana Gold hollow point was particularly effective. This load also worked well for the Rainier 180 gr FP (a bullet with a flat point that resembles a truncated cone).
    • For a 165 gr jacketed or plated bullet (either hollow point or FP) 11-11.5 gr of Accurate #7 worked great. 8 gr of AA#5 also worked wonders for the 165 gr plated bullet.
    • If you’re shooting a cast 180 gr bullet, a light but very accurate load was 8 gr of AA #7.
    • The recipes for all of the AA powders on this round usually fills at least half of the volume of the cartridge. That’s a good thing because if you accidentally double-charge, the powder will spill thus tipping you off.

    Picking the right load for a plated bullet

    There is one important issue to consider when loading for the 10 mm or similar magnum style round. Donny Shride, former owner of Rainer Ballistics, suggests that you use the recipes for jacketed bullets of the same weight and style. Thus if the recipe calls for 165 gr hollow point, jacketed bullet, that same recipe can be used for a plated 165 grain hollow point.

    However there is an important caveat.

    Shride stresses that you should only load plated bullets to a “mid range” level. Thus, if the reloading guide says use 10 to 13 grains of powder for the particular load, you shouldn’t go higher than 11.5 grains.  The base of plated bullets (unlike jacketed) tend to deform more easily under high pressure loads so it’s not a good idea to push them too much.

    Western Powders publishes a very useful reloading guide and there’s no shortage of “pet loads” on forums. Of course you have to be a bit careful about using data off the internet. Naturally the standard reloading guides from Speer, Lyman and others also have data.

    A tack driver at 25 yards. Montana Gold 165 gr bullet.

    Shooting the gun

    The RIA/Caspian hybrid was wickedly accurate. At 25 yards it wasn’t much of a chore to get a decent group. At 50 yards, it’s going to take a bit more work, as you’d expect. Within a few minutes of getting the sight zeroed in, I got some pretty good groupings that I’m sure would be even better with a few more outings.

    I was also able to accomplish a personal goal with this setup–to whack an 8″ diameter gong at just over 100 yards.

    For those not familiar with the 10 mm, it’s not a handgun for the fainthearted. You’re going to get a good dose of recoil commensurate with magnum-like character of the round. Of course recoil can be tweaked with your loads. If you don’t like the heavier loads, 8 gr of AA#5 was a sweet load for a 165 gr plated bullet.

    Other Tweaks

    The only other modification I made was lightening up the trigger perhaps by half a pound. The stock trigger is excellent but I wanted it modified to my own specs. At the time of publication I’m also experimenting a bit with the recoil spring. The stock spring is 20 lbs. With the heavier Caspian slide to move I put in a lighter spring and so far that seems to help the gun to cycle. Of course, it still needs to be broken in so we’ll see how this plays out. Ordinarily I don’t think it’s a good idea to second guess the factory settings but in this case I did–at least for the time being.

    Conclusion

    Let’s begin with the optics. The C-More worked splendidly.

    The use of a red dot, particularly for longer shots, was exactly what I wanted. The red dot is a crisp little orb and 6 MOA functioned perfectly for my needs. The C-More RTS2 retails for $418.49 on Amazon.

    There are several advantages going with a custom slide/optic combination. First off there’s no rail to contend with. All you do is mount the optic on the slide by screwing it on. It sits lower and is aesthetically more pleasing and cleaner than a rail. There’s nothing between the optic and the slide.

    To fit the barrel, material had to be removed from the slide in several areas including the edge of the dust cover.

    The disadvantage is that you can’t change your brand of reflex sight unless it has the exact same footprint as the original optic. It’s also going to be a bit more expensive adding the whole assembly rather than a rail.

    Price for the Caspian Long Slide (which I needed for the RIA gun) is $302 with an additional $61 to machine the rear sight cut. The serrated round top option for the slide is $38. Caspian will be able to machine a cut for any slide. However, in some cases Caspian may want you to send your optic to them to make certain they have the correct dimensions in order to do the work. Your best bet is peruse their parts on Brownells or head directly to the Caspian website.

    One more caveat. Note as alluded to earlier, you may have to spend a few more bucks to get your Caspian slide fitted with the barrel. This necessitated some removal of metal from the slide in several areas with a dremel. It wasn’t major surgery but you want to leave this to the pros. In my case it was the deft hand of my gunsmith, “Bobot” Duquez, a superb Hawaii gunsmith.

    The entire upgrade endeavor will set you back about $1000, including gunsmithing. However, considering the price of a decent accurized 1911 without optics will run at least $2000, this is a bargain.

    If you’re a 1911 owner and you want to add a red dot, the Caspian “Optics-ready Option”, in combination with a quality sight such as the C-More RTS2, is an upgrade worthy of consideration.

    More Tax Hikes Coming

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    More Tax Hikes Coming

    It isn’t very far into the new year, but already the tax hike proposals have begun.

    As reported by Hawaii News Now, Gov. Josh Green is proposing some “revenue raisers” to have resources available to fight wildfires and other environmental disasters.

    He is proposing to raise $100 million by either hoisting the Transient Accommodations Tax, or TAT, by one percentage point, or by imposing a “check-in fee” of 25 bucks each time someone checks into a transient accommodation, be it a hotel, inn, or short-term rental.

    These proposals are significantly different from the “Visitor Green Fee” proposed by his administration in the 2023 legislative session.  Last year, the proposal was to create an entirely new fee that would need to be paid for a tourist to enter parks and other state natural resource areas.  We at the Tax Foundation of Hawaii complained that such a new fee probably wouldn’t be constitutional and would be beset with practical difficulties in enforcement.  Hopefully, that incarnation of the Visitor Green Fee has been shelved.

    This year’s proposals, adding on to existing taxes, are probably constitutional.  As long as the TAT is applied to all transient accommodations, and there is no discrimination against tourists from the mainland or from foreign countries, the proposal will probably pass constitutional muster.

    Whether passing the tax is a wise idea, however, is another question entirely.  One hospitality industry consultant interviewed by Hawaii News Now made the point that Hawaii’s TAT is already the highest in the nation.  (Before rushing out to look up rates from other states and countries, consider this:  Hawaii has a base TAT rate of 10.25%, which would become 11.25% under Gov. Green’s proposal.  The county in which the transient accommodation is located can and does tack on another three percentage points to fund county projects.  Then there is the General Excise Tax, which adds on another four points, and the county surcharge on the GET adding another 0.5 points statewide beginning this year.  That gives you a total of 15.75% to compare against the other states; you will find that their sales taxes don’t typically apply to rentals.)

    The alternative $25 check-in fee may have a greater impact in percentage terms.  An extra 25 bucks of TAT equals an additional 1% when the tourist’s hotel accommodations bill hits $2,500.  For short-stay tourists or others who don’t rack up $2,500 or more, the $25 causes even more of a dent in the tourist’s budget than the 1% would.

    In either case, as HNN’s hospitality consultant pointed out, the message being sent to the tourists isn’t good.  We’re essentially telling the tourists to go somewhere else, and if they do come here our government is going to milk them like dairy cows.  They are already getting mixed messages in the aftermath of the Maui wildfires, and the new burdens may sour them on Hawaii even more.

    And then, let’s not forget that at least some government agencies here in Hawaii have been having a tough time spending the money that is thrown at them.  We’ve seen this phenomenon with the Department of Transportation, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and most recently the Department of Education.  If we are going to cast the pearls of additional revenue before our state agencies, we had better make sure that they are up to the new tasks that lawmakers have in mind for them.

    Rolling blackouts cloud Hawaii’s energy future

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Rolling blackouts cloud Hawaii’s energy future

    By Keli‘i Akina

    If you spent part of this week sitting in the dark without any electricity, you probably have some questions about the state’s energy plan. So do I.

    Power shortages on Monday forced Hawaiian Electric Co. to institute rolling blackouts that left 120,000 customers on the island without power for 30-minute periods throughout the late afternoon and evening.

    Keli’i Akina

    HECO has blamed those shortages on bad weather, problems at the H-POWER and Waiau power plants, and inadequate solar and wind reserve power.

    But as a policy issue, the blackouts have raised questions about why state regulators were comfortable with requiring HECO to shut down its only remaining coal power plant in September 2022 when it was problematic that it had adequate energy reserves to compensate.

    State Sen. Glenn Wakai told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that the blackouts were evidence that closing the coal plant was premature.

    “The recent rains showed us solar, wind and batteries are incapable of ensuring we have a reliable grid,” he said.

    In fairness, at least one case of rolling blackouts happened a few years before the coal plant was shut down, in 2015, which affected 27,000 customers.

    But one outage from nine years ago doesn’t negate the fact that the state still seems to be over its head when it comes to grid reliability and its ambitious renewable energy goals.

    The fact is, we are being squeezed between two big projects: HECO’s efforts to upgrade its 80-year-old electrical infrastructure, and the plans of state lawmakers to have Hawaii achieve “net zero” carbon emissions” by 2045 through greater reliance on renewable energy sources.

    Both are complex endeavors in themselves. Having them happen simultaneously highlights our need for reliable backup power.

    The main problem with renewables is that they seem to work well only under ideal weather conditions — and in the case this week, a merely moderate storm was enough to turn out the lights. In other words, renewables are not reliable.

    Combine that with the problems that go along with HECO’s existing antiquated power grid and we’re bound to see more rolling blackouts in the future.

    Basically, it’s looking like state lawmakers have rushed into switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources before Hawaii is really ready for it.

    Improving Hawaii’s electric grid is critical. Exploration of sustainable energy is also important. But if we want our lights to stay on during rough weather, we need to ask tough questions about the feasibility of the state’s renewable energy mandates — and demand good answers.
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    How to Give Yourself Breast Cancer in 10 Easy Steps

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    How to Give Yourself Breast Cancer in 10 Easy Steps

    If you are a woman who wants to get breast cancer, or if you know of any woman who wants to get breast cancer, then you’re in luck. It’s easier than you think. 

    I am a breast cancer researcher, especially of the cultural causes of this disease, such as the exposure to toxic chemicals, or the wearing of tight bras for long hours daily. 

    In the early 1990s, my wife and I performed the world’s first study that looked directly at the bra and its impact on breast cancer incidence. We described our research in the book Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, and there are now dozens of studies confirming a bra-cancer link. For example, Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer .  You can see more references on my website BrasAndBreastCancer.org. 

    My study, which included nearly 5000 US women, half of whom had breast cancer, asked about past bra wearing behavior and attitudes, and showed that bra-free women have about the same risk of breast cancer as men. The tighter and longer the bra is worn, the higher the risk rises, to over 100 times higher for a 24/7 bra user compared to a bra-free woman. 

    You would think the American Cancer Society would be happy to have this new way of preventing breast cancer. Simply reduce bra usage, and make sure it is not tight. And according to the bra industry, 90% of women wear bras too tightly. But the ACS isn’t happy about this at all. Bras are not something they ever considered, and they sell mastectomy bras and get funds from bra companies. They also get funds from mammography and cancer drug companies. 

    When there is money involved, forget about getting the truth from the media or industry or government. We live in a bra-using culture, with a multi-billion dollar bra industry, and a multi-billion dollar breast cancer detection and treatment industry. Lots of money is at stake. Lawsuits are feared. Don’t expect to hear the truth from the medical business about preventing disease, especially something as profitable as breast cancer.

    But truth does have a way of getting out. For an issue that the ACS says is ridiculous and unfounded, there are more women who know about it today than 30 years ago. That’s because they stopped wearing bras and their breasts got healthier. They then spread the news. 

    The leading cause of breast disease is the daily constriction and compression of the breasts with bras. And while it’s not a disease, bras also make breasts droop, as the natural suspensory ligaments in the breasts atrophy and weaken due to the artificial support from the bra.

    It is also increasingly clear that we live in a toxic, plastic world, although the plastics industry will deny their poisonous products are leaching toxic chemicals everywhere. Many of these chemicals cause cancer, and most bras are made of plastic material, like polyester, which break down into toxic chemicals. These synthetic fabrics leach chemicals into the breast skin and tissue, and the tight bra keeps the toxins in the breasts longer due to impaired circulation.

    After 30 years of studying breast cancer, I have developed a list of 10 things you can do to get breast cancer. 

    1. Get a training bra as early as possible. The younger you are when you begin constricting the breasts, the greater the harm from tight bras. This will help prevent your breasts from developing properly.

    2. Make sure your bra is synthetic. Cotton, silk, and hemp bras do not leach chemicals into the skin, so make sure you use leachable fabric to get a good daily dose of plastic chemicals in your breasts. 

    3. Create cleavage, the more the better. Use the bra to push your breasts as close together as possible, which is the best way to impair the lymphatics. The more pressure, the greater the impairment to circulation. So lift and shape your breasts however you want. If you leave them where nature intended then they will have proper circulation, which makes it difficult to get cancer. 

    4. Make sure the bra leaves marks and indentations in your skin. The deeper and darker the mark is, the better for your goal of getting cancer. Skin marks and indentations are great signs that you are cutting off some circulation, and maybe even compressing nerves. Way to go, girl!

    5. If you have large breasts, make sure to wear underwires to hold them up. These dig nicely into your chest wall, and can even cause scar tissue. You want this scarring, since that is known to impair lymphatic circulation. 

    6. Try to keep the breasts tight and immobilized in the bra. Immobilization will prevent the pumping of lymph fluid in your breasts as you move. The lymphatics are tiny and have one-way valves to propel fluid when you move, so don’t move your breasts. You want the lymph fluid in your breasts to stay stagnant so it can become toxic.

    7. Make sure you have plenty of toxins in your food. Opt for highly processed foods in plastic packaging. Avoid whole foods like meat, milk, cheese, eggs, and whole grains, and don’t grow your own garden. If you do grow your own food, make sure to use as many pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides as possible. The more synthetic chemicals in your food, the better it is for developing cancer. 

    8. Believe everything the American Cancer Society says. They are interested in early detection and treatment of cancer, which means you get cancer. So listen to what they say, since Cancer is their middle name.

    9. Get regular mammograms, which are x-rays. Not only can mammograms spot your cancer early, so you can begin on your cancer adventure; x-rays also cause cancer. So get your breasts x-rayed as often as you can, since radiation is cumulative and the harm to your genes from the x-rays adds up. 

    10. Wear a bra as long each day as possible, preferably 24/7. Only take it off to shower, and then put it back on immediately. Sleep in the bra. The more you wear the bra, and the tighter it is, the better it is for developing cancer. 

    Clearly, with a little life planning, and ignoring her body, any woman can get breast cancer. The key is to stay with the bra despite the discomfort. Work through the pain. Know that you are helping support the lingerie and cancer industries, including thousands of young workers in sweat shops around the world who need the money. Cancer makes the world go around. You can even get to wear a pink ribbon and attend a march for funds for the American Cancer Society, or for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which copies the ACS. 

    Yes, you, too, can have breast cancer and be special. Just follow the advice above, and your tumor is almost guaranteed. 

    Tax Word Find

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Tax Word Find

    The ball has dropped in New York and it is now 2024, and we are waiting for our lawmakers to convene and, among other things, remedy the consequences of some other folks who dropped the ball.

    As we did at the beginning of last year, we are taking some of the ideas we have been following and we put them into a Word Find puzzle.

    Some of the heat was on the Department of EDUCATION when legislators found out that nearly a half billion dollars of capital improvement projects would LAPSE because the Department wasn’t able to spend the money on time.  Many legislators had inserted PORK PROJECTS, specific improvements within their districts, that they wouldn’t be able to take credit for.  The deputy superintendent in charge of facilities was SHOWN THE DOOR.  The IRONY is that he will be working at the Legislature this session.

    The Department of Education, of course, is not the only agency that has had trouble spending appropriated money.  The Department of HAWAIIAN HOME Lands has often faced that problem over the years, and is now in the middle of working with a HISTORIC LEVEL of funding, $600 million, that was appropriated in 2022.  Legislators hoped that the money would make a dent in a DECADES-LONG waitlist for Hawaiian HOMESTEAD lands.

    Because the BUDGETARY surplus, once projected to be over $3 billion, has VAPORIZED, some lawmakers undoubtedly will introduce REVENUE RAISER bills to hoist taxes, user fees, or both.  Proponents say that they are necessary to pay for WILDFIRE RELIEF.  Critics would rather the government cut back on spending.

    Governor Green introduced and championed legislation last session targeting TAX RELIEF to ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) families, which earn more than the federal POVERTY LEVEL but are one emergency away from financial ruin.  His bill was amended beyond recognition in the Legislature but passed.  This year, he plans to reintroduce concepts like INDEXING income tax brackets for inflation. 

    The Governor also indicated that he would reintroduce legislation to advance the visitor GREEN FEE, envisioned as a DIRECT levy on tourists.  Lawmakers will have to be careful that the legislation does not violate the U.S. CONSTITUTION because the Privileges and Immunities Clause guarantees the right of FREE travel interstate.

    The terms in all capitals in this article can be found in the Word Find 15X15 matrix below.  Words and phrases can be forward, backward, up, down, or diagonal.  And please look carefully at the unused letters, because they contain a message.  Good luck in the New Year!

    Solution here.

    What Breast Cancer, Inc. Doesn’t Want You To Know About Bras

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    What Breast Cancer, Inc. Doesn’t Want You To Know About Bras

    Why is there still a breast cancer epidemic despite billions in research funding?

    In the pre-pandemic days, when we were able to focus on other diseases besides COVID, there were annual gala events to raise awareness, and funds, for breast cancer research. Literally billions of dollars went to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, which made a lucrative art out of fundraising off of breast cancer, as well as to the venerable  American Cancer Society, all with the promise of finding a cure. 

    Corporate virtue signaling in those days meant showing you were “pink” for breast cancer awareness month. Everything went pink, including football games. You couldn’t leave the grocery store without being hit up for a donation to some breast cancer charity, usually the ACS or the Komen Foundation. They made breast cancer fun, and profitable, for everyone, except for the women who went on to develop breast cancer. 

    Now, after decades of this highly-funded war on breast cancer, the incidence and death rates from this terrible disease are — get ready for it — about the same. 

    What went wrong? 

    Why did billions of dollars and decades of research fail to make a significant dent in the breast cancer epidemic? 

    Obviously, money can’t buy everything. It can’t, for example, make these researchers question their approach, which is still failing to explain the cause of over 70% of breast cancer cases. 

    Why can’t they change? The goal of the medical and research community is to make money for shareholders. Clearly, their current approach is a great business model.

    Indeed, breast cancer is now a multi-billion dollar business, offering genetic screening, tamoxifen, and preventative breast removal (prophylactic mastectomy) to prevent breast cancer before it occurs; mammography, ultra-sound, and thermography for diagnosing the tumor as early as possible; radiation, surgery, and chemotherapy for treatment of the cancer; and mastectomy bras, lymphedema support groups, and breast implants afterwards. 

    These people have the audacity to call themselves “experts”. Of what? Of their failed research and treatment approach? 

    Time for a change

    Their problem is the way modern medicine is framing breast cancer theories. They are using a biochemical model of breast cancer, hoping to come up with a drug to block some yet undiscovered biochemical process that causes cancer. They consider the body to be a biological machine, and believe the same mechanisms apply to other animals, too, making rats and mice the most studied organism for human breast cancer. 

    It never occurred to these breast researchers to consider what human women do to their breasts that rats and mice do not. Women wear bras. And bras are designed to be tight. 

    It should not be news to anyone, even the genius scientists studying the mammary glands of mice, that tight clothing can interfere with circulation. There are lots of studies showing the negative impacts of tight bras, including a reduction in immune function, the congestion of the breasts with lymph fluid, and overall reduction in blood and lymph circulation, compression injuries to nerves resulting in headaches and backaches, and even changes in body temperature, menstrual cycle duration, digestion and melatonin secretion, and breast cancer.

    Dressed to Kill

    My wife and I performed the world’s first study directly examining the bra-cancer link, called the 1991-93 US Bra and Breast Cancer Study, published in the 1995 book, Dressed to Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras, updated for a Second Edition in 2018. 

    Our study consisted of about 4,700 women, nearly half of whom had breast cancer, and asked about their past bra usage habits. Our results were stunning, and suggested that bra-free women have about the same risk of breast cancer as men, while the tighter and longer a bra is worn the higher the incidence rises, to over 100 times higher for a 24/7 bra-user compared to a bra-free woman. 

    The theory behind the bra link to cancer is that bras are tight and impair the circulation of blood and lymph in the breasts. This results in fluid accumulation and breast pain and cysts, as well as the progressive toxification of the breasts. This can ultimately lead to cancer. See the article, How Bras Cause Lymph Stasis and Breast Cancer. 

    At first, we were ignored by governmental and private cancer organizations and women’s groups. Questioning bras was too titillating and embarrassing for even medical people to discuss without blushing. Merely suggesting a connection was considered absurd, and all the experts, including the National Cancer Institute, arrogantly insisted bras could not cause cancer. 

    Nevertheless, our book was a media success, but it could have been bigger were it not met with disdain and denials by the experts, like the American Cancer Society. The bra industry threatened my publisher with a lawsuit if he published, which never materialized, a story the publisher shares in the Second Edition of the book. 

    Bra-dom versus Freedom

    Since announcing this discovery in 1995, many women who heard about it tried loosening up or eliminating their bras, and discovered for themselves how much healthier they felt without a tight brand around their breasts and chest.  We document women’s experiences becoming bra-free in our ongoing International Bra-Free Study. The preliminary findings are in the report, If Breasts Could Talk. 

    For 20 years, the American Cancer Society led the pack of experts in denying any bra-cancer link. They discouraged further research, and claimed the link was implausible. The ACS also receives funding from the bra industry, and sells mastectomy bras. For the medical cabal opposing the link, the growing awareness of, and support for, the bra-cancer issue demanded some drastic action. So the National Cancer Institute, which mirrors the ACS position on this issue, funded research at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to disprove the bra-cancer link. 

    In brief, this study was only on post-menopausal women, and did not include any women under 55, so the results have limited applicability to young and middle-aged women. There were also no women who were bra-free, so there was no control group for comparison. However, you can’t determine scientifically if wearing a bra is a problem if you don’t have bra-free women for comparison. 

    This lone study opposing the bra-cancer link was clearly biased and designed to find no difference in bra usage and cancer incidence, and it did what it had set out to do. The lead researcher, named Ms Chen, who was a graduate student, said this in a press release by Fred Hutchinson about the study, “We weren’t really surprised. We knew that the biological plausibility of a link between bras and breast cancer was really weak.”  

    Given the power of the medical industry and its control over the media, this one flawed study was touted as the final word on the matter. Around the world women were told they can wear bras without fear, due to this one, flawed study.   

    Positive Studies Ignored

    This fake negative study from the US was followed by positive studies from Brazil, Kenya, China, Iran, Singapore and elsewhere, all showing a bra-cancer link. You will never hear about these studies, though. (See below for references.) They are taboo and hidden by western medicine’s censors. 

    It is now 30 years since the cancer industry has been resisting, suppressing, and censoring the bra-cancer link. You would think breast disease experts would first ask about bras when considering the cause of breast disease, just as podiatrists ask about shoes when considering the cause of foot disease. How can these breast disease “experts” now admit that this issue is valid and warrants further research, including a warning to women about this simple way to prevent breast cancer, when they have been working so hard to deny it all these years?

    It is medically known that tight clothing is bad for circulation, if you bring the subject up with your doctor, although they will play it down. They will say there is a lack of research showing how bad tight clothing is to blood and lymphatic circulation, and will say they don’t know what happens from a lifetime of chronic clothing constriction. They also assume that if it was a significant problem, then there would have been tons of research showing that by now. 

    You would think cancer organizations would look at all leads to find a preventable cause of breast cancer. It’s amazing how negative they are on this lead.

    Here is what the ACS says about the bra-cancer link as of 1/1/23, under Disproven or Controversial Breast Cancer Risk Factors:

    “Online and social media rumors and at least one book have suggested that bras cause breast cancer by obstructing lymph flow. There is no scientific or clinical basis for this claim, and a 2014 study of more than 1,500 women found no association between wearing a bra and breast cancer risk.”

    They are referring to the 2014 Hutchinson study mentioned above. Nowhere are other studies mentioned that support the link, or the fact that the 2014 study had no bra-free control group and only looked at post-menopausal women.

    Why the resistance? 

    Why can’t they do further research, or even encourage further research? Why are they insistent that tight bras have nothing at all to do with breast cancer development? 

    It’s hard to put yourself into their heads, but my feeling is that the cancer industry cannot admit this issue has merit because it invalidates all their billions of dollars of research that ignored this vital risk factor for breast cancer. It’s like ignoring smoking while researching lung cancer, which researchers and the ACS did for years, denying the link and promoting smoking for health. 

    The psychological dependence women have on bras has helped this medical corruption continue. The cultural pressure to wear bras created a crisis for some women who heard about the hazards of bras. They needed to choose between comfort and health, or fashion and cultural norms. Women feeling the pressure to wear bras were happy to accept the denials from the medical industry, relieving their anxiety about the issue. 

    Where’s the Outrage!!!

    You would think that women would be up in arms against the ACS and NCI for their corrupted denial of any merit to this issue, and their censorship of the many studies which show a link. There should be outrage. The cancer industry has pandered to women for breast cancer funding, only to deliberately and systematically ignore the one factor that women have control over to prevent this disease.

    Unfortunately, the biases of the ACS are considered truth by new AI programs, like ChatGPT. It is nearly impossible to get past the misinformation, denials, and biased nonsense coming from AI about the bra-cancer link. Much of the misinformation comes from the Wikipedia page about Dressed to Kill, which is biased and managed by editors to exclude any support of the bra-cancer link. 

    Essentially, denial of the bra-cancer link has become dogma, institutionalized by the NCI, the Komen Foundation, the ACS, and all their copycat groups invested in early detection and drug treatments. Bras just get in the way of their business model.

    It may be difficult to face this truth about the corruption of medicine. We want to have trust in our researchers and public health leaders. But we can’t. Disease is a business for them. And the more money they get, the more invested they become in the disease continuing. 

    What can you do about this? Must women be victims of this corruption? Here are some ideas:

    1. Don’t wait for the ACS to tell you how to prevent cancer. If they knew, it would impact detection and treatment profits, so they wouldn’t say unless if could make more money than currently made. If you have concerns about something causing cancer, then avoid it. 
    2. It’s your life. Don’t rely on others to save you or give you the truth about your needs.
    3. Stop wearing bras. You can get support by joining the International Bra-Free Study.
    4. Do NOT donate to the ACS, Komen Foundation, or any other cancer nonprofit until it presents information about the bra-cancer link in an unbiased way and calls for more studies. 
    5. Any breast cancer organization that does not mention the bra-cancer link is probably a shill for the drug industry, which controls medicine and the media narrative about health and cancer. 
    6. Avoid tight clothing of all types. 
    7. Avoid synthetic fabric next to your skin. It leaches toxins as it breaks down. 
    8. Do not put cellphones in a bra. See my article, The Real Reason Why Cellphones Cause Breast Cancer.
    9. Avoid mammograms since these are x-rays and have a cumulative harmful impact on the breasts. 
    10. If you opt for thermography as a safer alternative to x-rays, stop wearing a bra one month prior to your thermogram. See my article, How Thermography Can Prevent Breast Cancer. 
    11. Imagine all the other causes of disease that the medical industry is ignoring and censoring.

    Your health is your responsibility. Don’t expect the medical business to see you for anything more than a pawn for profit.

    Housing regulations add up to solid brick wall against homebuilding

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Housing regulations add up to solid brick wall against homebuilding

    By Keli‘i Akina

    There is something very telling in the fact that it’s taken almost half a year to see anything come from the governor’s emergency proclamation aimed at speeding up homebuilding in Hawaii.

    The governor’s order, announced in July 2023, established a 36-member Beyond Barriers Working Group to guide the hastening of housing construction, but it wasn’t until late December that it was able to approve its first application.

    Keli’i Akina

    This highlights the challenges faced by the governor’s attempt to remove government barriers to housing construction and the severity of the problem.

    The first application to be approved by the working group was a request to waive the state-mandated school impact fee for a project in downtown Honolulu involving the conversion of an office building into 52 affordable rental apartments.

    The request was submitted by the project builder about two weeks before the working group’s Dec. 20 meeting, and had the support of the state Department of Education.

    But the seemingly minor request actually has called attention to a major issue.

    According to Honolulu Star-Advertiser reporter Andrew Gomes: “A couple members of the working group, which had difficulty establishing a quorum for the recent meeting, expressed frustration over spending what ended up being nearly 30 minutes assessing the school fee waiver request instead of five or 10 minutes.”

    Sterling Higa, executive director of Housing Hawaii’s Future and a member of the Beyond Barriers Working Group, told Gomes there is no good reason to charge downtown projects a school impact fee at all.

    “The schools in this area have shrinking student populations,” he said, “so whatever impact fee would be paid by the residents of this building isn’t actually going to help them get new schools in the area.”

    To make matters worse, the state Office of the Auditor has sharply criticized the DOE’s administration of impact fees, even questioning whether they violate the constitutional requirement that there be a “nexus” between the proposed new units and the need for more classroom capacity.

    Not surprisingly, some housing advocates say the Legislature should abolish or reform school impact fees, since they have not proven to be particularly useful in addressing education needs.

    They also can add up to be quite costly. The downtown area has a school impact fee of $3,864 per unit, which would have amounted to $200,928 for the 52-unit project that sought the exemption.

    My hope is that the 2024 Legislature will take a hard look at school impact fees and align them with our modern realities.

    More important, we must remember that the slow, expensive process of constructing homes in Hawaii isn’t caused by just one regulation or fee — it’s due to an endless web of regulations, mandates, fees, approvals and permitting delays that we have been forced to endure for many decades.

    Further proving my point: Gomes reported that this downtown conversion project has been proceeding under a 2019 city law intended to create 500 affordable rental units a year through financial incentives and regulation and fee waivers. Yet, as of November 2023, only two projects have been completed under the program.

    But don’t let that get you down. Resolving Hawaii’s housing crisis is possible, and there are numerous simple fixes available to lawmakers now that could make a big difference at no cost to taxpayers.

    You can learn about many of those possible fixes in a new report from the Grassroot Institute Hawaii titled “How to facilitate more homebuilding in Hawaii,” which you can read or download for free at the Grassroot website.

    Reforming school impact fees would remove one brick from the wall that stands between us and more affordable housing. Our goal must be to remove many more so we can resolve Hawaii’s housing crisis once and for all.
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    The Real Reason Why Cellphones Cause Breast Cancer

    Sydney Ross Singer
    -
    0
    The Real Reason Why Cellphones Cause Breast Cancer

    Nobody these days is without a cellphone. 

    We all live through our cellphones. But like every other human innovation that comes to define our lives, there are side effects and problems caused that must be discovered after the new technology is introduced.

    Cellphones stored in a bra are being shown to cause breast cancer. But is the cause of cancer the radiation from the cellphone, or is it the bra, or both?

    Why are cellphones a problem?

    Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation that heats things around it, including the human body. There are also magnetic fields created. While heat and magnetic fields are something the body knows how to handle, the cellphone concentrates these energies to levels that could theoretically exceed body limits, resulting in disease. This can potentially include cancer, which has been associated with heated tissue. 

    However, the research on the impact of cellphone radiation on health is unclear, especially since there is so much invested in cellphone use in our culture. Given the money involved, and the potential for liability for damages caused by this technology, there will always be conflicting results. 

    So it is not surprising that the industry-influenced National Cancer Institute takes a non-committed approach on the actual harms caused by cellphone radiation.  But they do say concerned people may choose to not hold their phones next to their heads, since radiation from the phone dissipates with distance. 

    This means using earbuds or the speaker would be a good idea if you are concerned about cellphone radiation, and don’t want to wait until the cellphone industry admits that their products are causing cancer. 

    But what about cellphones and breast cancer? 

    Recent research shows a clear association between cellphones and breast cancer, linked to storing the phone in a bra. You could see the tumors occurring where the phone was pressed against the breast.

    There are now lots of articles on the Internet about the hazards of placing the cellphone in a bra. It seems like a no brainer once you think about it. But the research results are mixed, as you can imagine. The American Cancer Society, which accepts industry funding, refuses to commit one way or the other about this. 

    What about the bra?

    But let’s step back a minute. We are talking about putting a phone in a bra. The bra has to be tight enough to hold the phone. But tight bras are a health risk by themselves, since they interfere with blood and lymph circulation in the breasts.

    This means that the heat from the phone will not dissipate from the breasts as it would without a tight bra interfering with circulation. 

    Of course, if a woman were bra-free and she held a cellphone to her breast for hours, the heat from the phone radiation would be flushed away with normal blood and lymph circulation. The skin may get warm, but the temperature would not go too deeply into the tissues. However, applying a bra to  hold the phone there will keep the heat in the breast longer. 

    Here is a thermographic image of a woman taken 15 minutes after she removed her bra. Note the shoulder grooves and indentations made by the bra, which are signs of compression and constriction. Note also the deeper red color between the bra straps, showing how the bra is altering circulation and increasing heat in that area.  

    Impaired circulation means toxin accumulation

    We are exposed to poisons everyday in our polluted air, food, and water, as well as from medications and our own metabolic waste. These are normally flushed away from the breasts through blood and lymph circulation. However, compression and constriction of the breasts impairs this drainage system, resulting in fluid and toxin accumulation in the breasts.

    This fluid accumulation in the breasts is common in bra-using women, over 90% of whom wear too tight a bra. The resulting backed-up lymph fluid causes pain and cysts. Over time, the cysts can become scar tissue and fibrous. This is how fibrocystic breast disease forms from the use of bras. 

    Failure to adequately flush away cancer-causing toxins due to the bra results in longer toxin exposure in the breast. This increases cancer incidence in the breasts relative to other, non-constricted organs where toxins are more adequately cleared. 

    There is another problem

    Bras also can be toxic, depending on the fabric and the chemicals used in its manufacture, storage, and cleaning. Synthetic fabrics include polyester and nylon and all elastic clothing. Phthalates, parabens, formaldehyde, “forever chemicals”, and other toxic substances are used in the production of synthetic bra materials, and leach out of the material and onto the skin, which can cause rashes, allergic reactions, infections, inflammation, and even cancer. 

    The bra company knows this about synthetic bras, and tells consumers to not over heat them when washing or drying, since heat speeds up the breakdown of the fabric of the bra, making it deteriorate. Of course, this means the bra becomes more toxic as it breaks down and releases toxic chemicals. 

    However, there is another way to heat the bra besides washing and drying. How about heating it with a cellphone placed against it? 

    It is likely (although don’t hold your breath for the research) that the radiation emissions from the cellphone can heat and accelerate the leaching of chemicals from the bra, increasing the toxin exposure of the breasts.

    This means that the cellphone not only heats the breasts, but it also heats the bra, and makes it deteriorate. The resulting heat and toxins are kept in the breasts for a longer time due to the bra. 

    But wait! There’s more!

    A tight bra also prevents the immune system from attacking infections and cancer cells that are developing in the breasts. The lymphatic system happens to also be the circulatory pathway of the immune system, carrying white blood cells, as well as transporting important chemical messages from the tissues to the lymph nodes for an immune response. White blood cells, which are the immune system’s army, cannot mobilize and properly do their jobs in bra-impacted breasts that are constricted and congested with backed-up lymph fluid (lymphedema). 

    This means that any insult to the breasts is made worse by constricting the breasts with tight bras. It could be heat, or ionizing radiation from mammograms or non-ionizing cellphones, or chemical toxins, or a punch to the chest. Whatever the insult, the immune system is charged with fixing the problem and cleaning it all up, but can’t do its job properly when the breasts are constricted by bras. 

    Flawed research ignores bras

    Getting back to the research on cellphones held in bras, there is a glaring problem. These studies do not recognize the impact of the bra on breast health, and ignore that variable completely. They tried to control for other variables that affect cancer incidence. But they ignored the bra completely, which is a big flaw.

    As a result, they never asked the women in the study about bra material, whether the fibers are synthetic and toxic, or nontoxic natural fibers. They didn’t ask about bra tightness, which affects how much interference there will be with circulation and the ability to remove heat from the breasts. They didn’t ask about how long each day these women used bras, with or without a cellphone.

    This is why research on breast cancer and cellphones is conflicting, as are other studies on lifestyle and breast cancer which ignore the bra. How long and how tightly a woman wears a bra has a major impact on breast cancer development, as studies around the world have shown. 

    You can’t study breast disease, including cancer, without considering bra usage, just as you can’t study lung disease without considering tobacco usage.

    Cellphones are clearly a problem for the breasts when held in a bra. The cellphone-caused damage is exacerbated by the bra-caused impaired circulation. But the solution is simple:

    1. Never wear a bra or any garment that leaves marks or indentations in your skin. These marks mean it is impairing circulation, and over time will cause tissue deterioration. 
    2. Only wear natural fabric next to your skin.
    3. Avoid bra usage as much as possible. This will also help eliminate breast pain, cysts, and help avoid breast cancer. 
    4. Never sleep in a bra.
    5. If you don’t wear a bra, you will not be able to store your phone next to your breasts, so this helps you avoid the habit of storing your phone there. No bra, no phone holder on your chest.
    6. Don’t store your phone in your pants pocket, either. Try avoiding keeping it next to your body. How about storing it in a purse or backpack, instead? 
    7. Don’t wait for the health authorities to come to your rescue. They will admit a problem only when they can no longer deny it. You can be dead by then.

    In conclusion, your bra is a greater risk to the breasts than the cellphone. If you get rid of the bra, you eliminate this cellphone problem completely, and reduce your overall risk of breast cancer, and other breast diseases. 

    For those who want more on the bra-cancer link, here are some references.

    SOME STUDIES THAT SUPPORT THE BRA-CANCER LINK

    • 1991 Harvard study (CC Hsieh, D Trichopoulos (1991). Breast size, handedness and breast cancer risk. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology 27(2):131-135.). This study found that, “Premenopausal women who do not wear bras had half the risk of breast cancer compared with bra users…”
    • 1991-93 U.S. Bra and Breast Cancer Study by Singer and Grismaijer, published in Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras (Second Edition, Square One Publishers, 2018). Found that bra-free women have about the same incidence of breast cancer as men. 24/7 bra wearing increases incidence over 100 times that of a bra-free woman.
    • Singer and Grismaijer did a follow-up study in Fiji, published in Get It Off! (ISCD Press, 2000). Found 24 case histories of breast cancer in a culture where half the women are bra-free. The women getting breast cancer were all wearing bras. Given women with the same genetics and diet and living in the same village, the ones getting breast disease were the ones wearing bras for work.
    • A 2009 Chinese study (Zhang AQ, Xia JH, Wang Q, Li WP, Xu J, Chen ZY, Yang JM (2009). [Risk factors of breast cancer in women in Guangdong and the countermeasures]. In Chinese. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2009 Jul;29(7):1451-3.) found that NOT sleeping in a bra was protective against breast cancer, lowering the risk 60%.
    • 2011 a study was published, in Spanish, confirming that bras are causing breast disease and cancer.  It found that underwired and push-up bras are the most harmful, but any bra that leaves red marks or indentations may cause disease.
    • 2015  Comparative study of breast cancer risk factors at Kenyatta National Hospital and the Nairobi Hospital     J. Afr. Cancer (2015) 7:41-46.  This study found a significant bra-cancer link in pre-and post-menopausal women.
    • 2016  Wearing a Tight Bra for Many Hours a Day is Associated with Increased Risk of Breast Cancer     Adv Oncol Res Treat 1: 105. This is the first epidemiological study to look at bra tightness and time worn, and found a significant bra-cancer link.
    • 2016 Brassiere wearing and breast cancer risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis  World J Meta-Anal. Aug 26, 2015; 3(4): 193-205  This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the association between 8 areas of brassiere-wearing practices and the risk of breast cancer. Twelve case-control studies met inclusion criteria for review. The meta-analysis shows statistically significant findings to support the association between brassiere wearing during sleep and breast cancer risk.
    • 2018 Lymph stasis promotes tumor growth Journal of Dermatological Science “(t)hese findings come as no surprise to us who for a long time have been aware that alterations in regional lymphatic flow may produce dysregulation in skin immune function and consequent oncogenesis. In fact, since 2002, our team has held the view that lymphedematous areas are immunologically vulnerable sites for the development of neoplasms as well as infections and immune-mediated diseases. In recent years, increasing evidence has confirmed this assumption.”
    • 2018 How Bras Cause Lymph Stasis and Breast Cancer Academic.edu  “Recent studies are showing that lymph stasis causes cancer by reducing immune function. This article draws on these studies to further explain how constriction from tight bras results in lymphatic impairment in the breasts and an increased incidence of breast cancer.
    • 2019  Wearing Brassiere – A Less Well Known Factor Associated with Breast Cancer in Women Nurs Midwifery J 2019, 16(12) 891-901. Wearing of brassiere is also a lifestyle-related habit that has sparked many debates today as a risk factor for breast cancer in women. This study was conducted to determine the behavioral Habits of wearing brassiere in women with and without breast cancer. Conclusion: The findings of this study revealed differences in some behavioral habits of wearing brassieres in women with and without breast cancer. So, in preventive interventions for breast cancer, women’s education should be considered in order to be aware of the proper behavioral habits in wearing brassieres.

    Three New Year’s resolutions I hope Hawaii lawmakers will take to heart

    Grassroot Institute
    -
    0
    Three New Year’s resolutions I hope Hawaii lawmakers will take to heart

    By Keli‘i Akina

    The new year is almost upon us, which means it’s time for one of my favorite traditions: making a list of resolutions for Hawaii’s policymakers.

    First and foremost, I suggest they resolve to reduce Hawaii’s tax burden.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: One of the best ways to increase tax revenues is to grow our economy, and one of the best ways to do that is to cut taxes.

    Keli’i Akina

    Since Hawaii has one of the biggest tax burdens in the country, there are plenty of places we could start — such as giving private practice physicians an exemption from the state general excise tax, which would make it easier for doctors to stay in Hawaii.

    Or pegging the state income tax brackets to inflation, which was part of the governor’s plan to reform the state income tax, presented during the 2023 legislative session. That way, our taxes won’t go up just because we receive a raise to keep up with inflation.

    State lawmakers could also cut the state corporate income tax, which would encourage business investment. And they could cut or repeal Hawaii’s estate or “death” tax, which interferes with building intergenerational wealth and essentially amounts to double taxation.

    My second resolution for legislators is to restrain their spending. This relates to my first resolution, because less spending would ease the need for taxes.

    Of course, some expenses are inescapable, such as relief for fire-ravaged Lahaina. But even so, state and Maui lawmakers still should look for ways to reduce spending and present a balanced budget that doesn’t require borrowing or spending-cap shenanigans.

    Third, isn’t it about time we start removing some of the many regulatory barriers to housing growth?

    As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii has issued a new report that lists multiple zoning and permitting reforms lawmakers could enact to facilitate more homebuilding at all levels of affordability — without having to launch massive and costly construction projects at the expense of Hawaii taxpayers.

    Such reforms include lot-splitting, upzoning, greater use of ohana units, reducing parking mandates, “adaptive reuse” of commercial and office buildings, by-right permitting and more.

    Considered separately, many of those proposals might seem like small steps. But implemented comprehensively, they would make a big difference in getting Hawaii residents into the homes they need — before they simply give up and leave for less expensive pastures elsewhere.

    Additionally, Hawaii lawmakers should resolve to join more interstate medical licensing compacts to allow more healthcare workers to come to Hawaii; remove the barriers to trading cryptocurrency; and curb the governor’s excessive use of emergency powers.

    Or would that be asking too much? If so, let’s go with the three big resolutions for 2024: Cut spending, lower taxes and increase Hawaii’s housing supply.

    That is a good, workable list, and the Grassroot Institute has provided a wealth of resources that could help our state and county lawmakers achieve those goals.

    Let’s start off 2024 with big dreams, big plans and a renewed dedication to making Hawaii more prosperous and free.

    But above all, I wish you a very happy and safe New Year!
    __________

    Keli‘i Akina is president and CEO of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

    Restaurants Getting Cooked

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Restaurants Getting Cooked

    A number of restaurants are in a pinch recently.  Here’s what happened to them.

    A few years ago, the COVID-19 pandemic began.  In the initial months of the pandemic, many governments including ours locked down the populace.  People who were shut in couldn’t spend money like they usually could, and businesses of all stripes suffered.

    Because of the national impact of the pandemic, various relief programs were enacted by the federal government and helped ease the pain of individuals and businesses throughout the State.  Four federal programs in 2020, for example, did much to alleviate the suffering caused by the national economic catastrophe:  the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program, Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), and Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA).  Some of these programs offered grants, or loans that were forgiven later, which normally result in income to the recipient of those benefits.

    At the end of 2020, the Department of Taxation published Tax Information Release 2020-06 (“TIR 2020-06”) in which the department concluded that despite a lack of any statutory exemption, our General Excise Tax (GET) would not be imposed on these federal benefits “in light of the severity of the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.” 

    In 2021, the federal government granted further relief to affected individuals and businesses, and in the American Rescue Plan Act it provided two more significant programs for affected businesses:  the Restaurant Revitalization Fund (RRF) program, and the Shuttered Venu Operators Grant (SVOG) program.  The RRF program was structured as a reimbursement program in that although it provided a funding amount to affected restaurants on the basis of their historic sales, the government specified certain categories of expenses on which the monies were to be spent, and informed the restaurants that unspent monies, or monies not spent on the proper expenses, needed to be returned to the federal government.

    In May 2022, we published an article calling on the Department to make up its mind about these programs.  However, no guidance came out in 2022.

    In 2023, however, as KITV reported, the Department started targeting restaurants and similar businesses that had received benefits under RRF.  The department said that those benefits were taxable and demanded back GET taxes from the businesses although the restaurants already had spent the money (which they were required to do under the federal program).  Some of these restaurants already had received benefits under PPP, which, under TIR 2020-06, were not subject to GET.

    When KITV asked the Department to explain why, they said “PPP loans were not considered income, as they were used to pay employees or rent.  But the RRF was considered replacement income and so would count toward a business’ bottom line.”

    For affected businesses, it is an unwanted big tax bill right in the middle of the businesses’ attempts to get back on their feet after being clobbered by the pandemic.

    And the Department’s position does not seem to be well founded.  The explanation it gave for the difference in GET treatment between PPP and RRF money does not seem to be true.  And even if it were, the Department itself expressed a rationale for exempting the proceeds – that the pandemic caused severe economic effects so federal programs giving relief from those effects should not be GET taxable – that seems to apply to RRF just as it does to PPP.  To be consistent, uniform and fair, as its own mission statement demands, RRF should get the same treatment as PPP.  And if the Department itself doesn’t recognize this, perhaps lawmakers could take steps to correct the injustice.

    1...567...2,029Page 6 of 2,029

    Recent

    Most Commented

    Popular

    Contact us