‘One year is enough’: Thousands of anti-Macron protesters march in Paris (WATCH LIVE)

READ MORE: Fall of ‘Jupiter’? Macron’s popularity down, as hopes for the ‘political wonderboy’ seem to vanish

Workers’ unions in France have been holding protests against Macron’s planned labor reforms, which will grant employers the power to negotiate conditions with their workers, making it easier for them to hire and fire staff while also capping payouts. Job cuts and salary freezes will also be implemented across the public sector, including in education, transportation and the courts. Critics have branded the reforms an “assault” on the rights of French workers.

The protests are the latest in a series of demonstrations that have taken place across the country in recent weeks. In April, events turned violent after officers in riot gear fired tear gas and used water cannons to disperse protesters on the streets of Paris.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Source Article from https://www.rt.com/news/426587-macron-protest-paris-france/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=RSS

Green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning.

How can cities that have green building codes have zoning bylaws that protect low-density single family housing?

These days it seems that everyone is fighting over zoning. Housing costs in many cities are unaffordable but the great proportion of the cities are locked into single-family zoning and building anything but a detached house seems almost impossible. Right now we see these battles in Seattle, San Francisco, and Toronto, but they are happening just about in every successful city.

And the hilarious thing about it all is that these are also cities that have green building standards. San Francisco has a green building code designed to reduce energy use, Seattle’s green standard “saves resources and promotes renewable, clean energy”, Toronto’s standard’s intent is to “reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The great hypocrisy is that the single biggest factor in the carbon footprint of our cities isn’t the amount of insulation in our walls, it’s the zoning.

Archetypes study Urban form and Energy consumption/Public Domain

The Archetypes study by Natural Resources Canada demonstrated this a decade ago; here is an example from Calgary, where the people living in the leaky old buildings in Mission use a fraction of energy inputs as the people living in suburban Lake Bonavista- they live in smaller apartments and don’t have to drive everywhere.

We have been saying it for years: denser urban living is the key to reducing our carbon footprint. Some, like David Owen, call for really high density; I have called for the Goldilocks Density; the fashionable phrase now is the missing middle; both describe density high enough to support local businesses so that one can mostly get around by walking, but buildings that are low enough that they can be efficiently built out of low carbon materials like wood.

Alex Steffen has written in Carbon Zero:

Urban density reduces the number of trips residents take in their cars, and shortens the distance they drive for the remaining trips. It is possibly the best-documented fact of urban planning that the denser the neighborhood (all other things being equal), the less people drive, and the more their transportation emissions drop.

Everybody knows this; there have been dozens of studies that prove it. One that wasn’t paywalled, The Influence of Urban Form on GHG Emissions in the U.S. Household Sector, showed that “doubling population-weighted density is associated with a reduction in CO2 emissions from household travel and residential energy consumption by 48% and 35%, respectively.” It concludes that “given that household travel and residential energy use account for 42% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, these findings highlight the importance of smart growth policies to build more compact and transit friendly cities as a crucial part of any strategic efforts to mitigate GHG emissions and stabilize climate.”

Yet when cities approve higher densities, they do it just in pockets and strips, around the Main Streets, many of which are louder and more polluted. The density isn’t spread around but is spiky, avoiding the established and protected single family houses. Instead, it should be everywhere, “like butter across a piece of bread.”

Looking at Toronto, Planner Gil Meslin has been documenting examples of “missing middle” housing that was built before the city formalized its zoning and stopped this kind of development.

They are very popular places to live in wonderful, quiet residential neighbourhoods and they co-exist just fine. Yet you can’t do them now, even though they could create thousands of more affordable units. Instead, all the apartments are crowded into former industrial areas or onto noisy main streets where residents recently had to go to war with the Mayor over his plan to have all road work done at night.

We have been talking about the relationship of density and carbon for years, and we have been talking about green building codes, certifications and bylaws. But green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning. Any civic government that calls itself green while protecting low density single family housing is just being hypocritical.

Source Article from https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/green-building-isnt-enough-we-need-green-zoning.html

Green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning.

How can cities that have green building codes have zoning bylaws that protect low-density single family housing?

These days it seems that everyone is fighting over zoning. Housing costs in many cities are unaffordable but the great proportion of the cities are locked into single-family zoning and building anything but a detached house seems almost impossible. Right now we see these battles in Seattle, San Francisco, and Toronto, but they are happening just about in every successful city.

And the hilarious thing about it all is that these are also cities that have green building standards. San Francisco has a green building code designed to reduce energy use, Seattle’s green standard “saves resources and promotes renewable, clean energy”, Toronto’s standard’s intent is to “reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The great hypocrisy is that the single biggest factor in the carbon footprint of our cities isn’t the amount of insulation in our walls, it’s the zoning.

Archetypes study Urban form and Energy consumption/Public Domain

The Archetypes study by Natural Resources Canada demonstrated this a decade ago; here is an example from Calgary, where the people living in the leaky old buildings in Mission use a fraction of energy inputs as the people living in suburban Lake Bonavista- they live in smaller apartments and don’t have to drive everywhere.

We have been saying it for years: denser urban living is the key to reducing our carbon footprint. Some, like David Owen, call for really high density; I have called for the Goldilocks Density; the fashionable phrase now is the missing middle; both describe density high enough to support local businesses so that one can mostly get around by walking, but buildings that are low enough that they can be efficiently built out of low carbon materials like wood.

Alex Steffen has written in Carbon Zero:

Urban density reduces the number of trips residents take in their cars, and shortens the distance they drive for the remaining trips. It is possibly the best-documented fact of urban planning that the denser the neighborhood (all other things being equal), the less people drive, and the more their transportation emissions drop.

Everybody knows this; there have been dozens of studies that prove it. One that wasn’t paywalled, The Influence of Urban Form on GHG Emissions in the U.S. Household Sector, showed that “doubling population-weighted density is associated with a reduction in CO2 emissions from household travel and residential energy consumption by 48% and 35%, respectively.” It concludes that “given that household travel and residential energy use account for 42% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, these findings highlight the importance of smart growth policies to build more compact and transit friendly cities as a crucial part of any strategic efforts to mitigate GHG emissions and stabilize climate.”

Yet when cities approve higher densities, they do it just in pockets and strips, around the Main Streets, many of which are louder and more polluted. The density isn’t spread around but is spiky, avoiding the established and protected single family houses. Instead, it should be everywhere, “like butter across a piece of bread.”

Looking at Toronto, Planner Gil Meslin has been documenting examples of “missing middle” housing that was built before the city formalized its zoning and stopped this kind of development.

They are very popular places to live in wonderful, quiet residential neighbourhoods and they co-exist just fine. Yet you can’t do them now, even though they could create thousands of more affordable units. Instead, all the apartments are crowded into former industrial areas or onto noisy main streets where residents recently had to go to war with the Mayor over his plan to have all road work done at night.

We have been talking about the relationship of density and carbon for years, and we have been talking about green building codes, certifications and bylaws. But green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning. Any civic government that calls itself green while protecting low density single family housing is just being hypocritical.

Source Article from https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/green-building-isnt-enough-we-need-green-zoning.html

Green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning.

How can cities that have green building codes have zoning bylaws that protect low-density single family housing?

These days it seems that everyone is fighting over zoning. Housing costs in many cities are unaffordable but the great proportion of the cities are locked into single-family zoning and building anything but a detached house seems almost impossible. Right now we see these battles in Seattle, San Francisco, and Toronto, but they are happening just about in every successful city.

And the hilarious thing about it all is that these are also cities that have green building standards. San Francisco has a green building code designed to reduce energy use, Seattle’s green standard “saves resources and promotes renewable, clean energy”, Toronto’s standard’s intent is to “reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The great hypocrisy is that the single biggest factor in the carbon footprint of our cities isn’t the amount of insulation in our walls, it’s the zoning.

Archetypes study Urban form and Energy consumption/Public Domain

The Archetypes study by Natural Resources Canada demonstrated this a decade ago; here is an example from Calgary, where the people living in the leaky old buildings in Mission use a fraction of energy inputs as the people living in suburban Lake Bonavista- they live in smaller apartments and don’t have to drive everywhere.

We have been saying it for years: denser urban living is the key to reducing our carbon footprint. Some, like David Owen, call for really high density; I have called for the Goldilocks Density; the fashionable phrase now is the missing middle; both describe density high enough to support local businesses so that one can mostly get around by walking, but buildings that are low enough that they can be efficiently built out of low carbon materials like wood.

Alex Steffen has written in Carbon Zero:

Urban density reduces the number of trips residents take in their cars, and shortens the distance they drive for the remaining trips. It is possibly the best-documented fact of urban planning that the denser the neighborhood (all other things being equal), the less people drive, and the more their transportation emissions drop.

Everybody knows this; there have been dozens of studies that prove it. One that wasn’t paywalled, The Influence of Urban Form on GHG Emissions in the U.S. Household Sector, showed that “doubling population-weighted density is associated with a reduction in CO2 emissions from household travel and residential energy consumption by 48% and 35%, respectively.” It concludes that “given that household travel and residential energy use account for 42% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, these findings highlight the importance of smart growth policies to build more compact and transit friendly cities as a crucial part of any strategic efforts to mitigate GHG emissions and stabilize climate.”

Yet when cities approve higher densities, they do it just in pockets and strips, around the Main Streets, many of which are louder and more polluted. The density isn’t spread around but is spiky, avoiding the established and protected single family houses. Instead, it should be everywhere, “like butter across a piece of bread.”

Looking at Toronto, Planner Gil Meslin has been documenting examples of “missing middle” housing that was built before the city formalized its zoning and stopped this kind of development.

They are very popular places to live in wonderful, quiet residential neighbourhoods and they co-exist just fine. Yet you can’t do them now, even though they could create thousands of more affordable units. Instead, all the apartments are crowded into former industrial areas or onto noisy main streets where residents recently had to go to war with the Mayor over his plan to have all road work done at night.

We have been talking about the relationship of density and carbon for years, and we have been talking about green building codes, certifications and bylaws. But green building isn’t enough; we need green zoning. Any civic government that calls itself green while protecting low density single family housing is just being hypocritical.

Source Article from https://www.treehugger.com/urban-design/green-building-isnt-enough-we-need-green-zoning.html

Cop Who Was Fired For Not Writing Enough Tickets Finally Speaks Out On Video

A police officer in Alpharetta, Georgia, claims he was fired for not issuing enough traffic tickets to motorists in the area.

Officer Daniel Capps was on the force for nine years and was ultimately terminated because he declined to issue a traffic ticket to a driver after he bumped into another car. According to a department memo directed at officers, if there is an accident with any “damage that needs to be fixed with more than a little wax and elbow grease, you need to write the citation” — even if there are no injuries and the damage is minor.

As long as officers are called to the scene of a car accident, this rule is supposed to apply. But Capps decided to let the motorist who caused the minor incident off with a warning.

“Someone’s already needing to pay the insurance. It’s a hassle. There’s no need to have a ticket on top of that,” he told local outlet CBS 46, adding that he doesn’t believe it’s a police officer’s job to make people’s lives miserable.

According to Charles Westover, who rear-ended the driver in front of him at a slow speed, “To have a blanket policy that applies to all kinds of incidents doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

He said that when Capps arrived at the scene, he was “extremely courteous, very professional, acknowledging it was a minor fender bender and there was no need to issue a ticket.

According to Capps’ police report, no one was injured, and only the bumpers of the cars were damaged. The person whose car was hit did not object to Capps’ decision not to write a citation.

“I was pretty appalled, I am appalled. That doesn’t seem right to put that kind of mark on this gentleman’s life,” Westover said.

CBS 46 attempted to obtain comment from Police Chief John Robison, but he did not reply. Capps, who says he issued a lot of warnings as an officer, expanded on his views, suggesting the policy is the work of a single city supervisor:

YOU CAN VIEW THE VIDEO BY CLICKING BELOW

KPTV – FOX 12

He’s just one of those guys who likes writing tickets. He just gets off on, in their words, causing other people pain. I wasn’t like that. I gave a lot of warnings. If someone needed a ticket, they would get one. If they were courteous and understood what they did wrong, I wouldn’t write a citation. Same thing with accidents.”

In a statement, assistant city manager James Drinkard told CBS 46 the traffic incident was only the latest example of Capps’ insubordination:

“While the decision to terminate employment was based, in part, on the former employee’s decision to ignore lawful departmental policy and refuse to properly cite at-fault drivers who caused traffic crashes that resulted in property damage, that behavior was part of a pattern of performance and poor decision making that was simply not acceptable. The City of Alpharetta makes no apology for holding our personnel responsible for properly carrying out their assigned duties, being stewards of the public trust, and advancing our mission to enhance the quality of life of our residents, businesses, and visitors.”

Some examples of Capps’ “poor decision making” include wearing earrings against dress code, stopping by his home to use the restroom instead of using public restrooms, leaving his gun attended at a police firing range, and declining to charge a juvenile for shoplifting after she was caught stealing from a Macy’s department store. He opted instead to hand the girl over to her parents.

Further, after being reprimanded for not issuing enough tickets back in january, he asked other officers if they had an issue with the strict ticketing policy. “According to official documents, the lieutenant considered it an attempt to undermine his authority and Capps was later suspended before eventually being fired,”CBS 46 reported.

In a country where law enforcement agents are given paid vacations for killing unarmed citizens, Capp’s ‘transgressions’ seem tame by comparison, though he is not the first police officer to be punished for attempting to be kind to the people they patrol.

 

via:

theantimedia

Source Article from https://worldtruth.tv/cop-who-was-fired-for-not-writing-enough-tickets-finally-speaks-out-on-video/

Two Hours and Counting…Nets Can’t Get Enough of Comey Book Tour

Today marks the official release of fired FBI director James Comey’s new book A Higher Loyalty and the Big Three (ABC, CBS, NBC) networks already have done their part to boost its sales, packing a total of two hours, 24 minutes in five days of coverage on their evening and morning news programs. 

This exorbitant total doesn’t even include ABC’s Sunday night interview special with George Stephanopoulos – which took up an hour of primetime. 

The nets began teasing the book Thursday night, as they highlighted the most salacious allegations against President Donald Trump. On that evening’s ABC’s World News Tonight, chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas zeroed in on Comey’s smear of Trump acting like an infamous mafia underboss: “Comey claims at that dinner, President Trump told him, ‘I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.’ In his book, Comey writes, he thought to himself, ‘The demand was like Sammy ‘The Bull’s’ Cosa Nostra induction ceremony.’”

 

 

On NBC’s Today show, on Friday, co-host Savannah Guthrie excitedly proclaimed: “Taking his shots. Fired FBI Director James Comey’s book leaks overnight, and it’s a bombshell. Calling the President a liar, comparing him to a mob boss, and saying his administration is a ‘forest fire.’ This morning, we have a first look inside the pages.”

ABC, which hyped its exclusive Stephanopoulos interview with Comey, was the most obsessed network, as it loaded its programs with 77 minutes, 52 seconds of book coverage. NBC came in second, spending a total of 35 minutes, 43 seconds. CBS offered 30 minutes, 35 seconds to the Comey book. 

 

 

For this study MRC analysts reviewed the network morning shows (ABC’s Good Morning America, CBS This Morning and Sunday Morning, NBC’s Today) and evening programs (ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News).

Source Article from https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/geoffrey-dickens/2018/04/17/two-hours-and-countingnets-cant-get-enough-comey-book-tour

UK: Father’s benefits cut after son’s death deemed not good enough reason to miss assessment

UK: Father's benefits cut after son's death deemed not good enough reason to miss assessment

    

Geoffrey Williams, who receives Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), was due to have an assessment on 15 February but was unable to attend as he mourned the death of his 24-year-old son Leon just over two weeks before.

The 50-year-old, currently living with his brother in Rimini Road, said he called the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) four times to confirm he was in Northamptonshire with family following his son’s sudden death and that they were understanding to his situation.

But when asked to put his reasons for missing the assessment in writing, he then failed to receive his payment on 22 February and when he appealed the action, he received a letter on 7 March saying he had “not shown good cause for failing to attend the medical assessment” and that he was no longer entitled to ESA.

The department has apologised to Mr Williams but he said the experience caused him distress and while he has accepted the apology, he believes it should not have happened.

He said: “I’m still not satisfied, the apology was OK but I still want to get my point across [that] it is out of order [that] they could stop someone’s payments when it is something as bad as a death, especially the death of my son.

“It has caused distress and added to what’s happened already.

“If it was ‘my car had broken down’ and it hadn’t, I understand that is not a good enough reason, but this is a totally different ball game.”

Mr Williams put in a complaint to DWP after receiving his rejection letter, but one day after the DWP’s refusal, he was sent a payment on 8 March.

The letter from the DWP rejecting Mr Williams’ appeal read: “I am unable to change/revise the decision dated 22 February. This is because you have not shown good cause for failing to attend the medical assessment on 15 February. Therefore you are not entitled to Employment and Support Allowance.

“You requested a Mandatory Reconsideration of this decision because you disagree with the decision. In your request you stated you did not attend the assessment because your son died in January and the funeral will take place in April.

“As you have not provided any supporting evidence to support your statement and because you have previously failed to attend a number of assessment appointments in the past 12 months. I am unable to change the previous decision.”

Since contacting the DWP, the department told The Advertiser it has apologised to Mr Williams and reinstated his claim.

A spokesperson said: “We have apologised to Mr Williams for the distressed caused, and have reimbursed him in full.”

Source Article from https://www.sott.net/article/381605-UK-Fathers-benefits-cut-after-sons-death-deemed-not-good-enough-reason-to-miss-assessment

Court Rules There Is Enough Evidence for Victims to Sue Saudi Arabia for Role in 9/11

saudi arabiasaudi arabia

New York, NY — Last year, for the first time since that fateful September morning 16 years ago, families of victims of the 9/11 terror attacks used a new law to go after Saudi Arabia in lawsuits for their role in the attacks. After evidence was revealed during the lawsuit showing the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington may have funded a “dry run” for the hijackings carried out by two Saudi employees, Saudi Arabia went into panic mode. In response, Saudi Arabia quickly attempted to use their pull inside the United States to have the lawsuits thrown out. However, this attempt has now failed.

According to Reuters, “U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan said the plaintiffs’ allegations “narrowly articulate a reasonable basis” for him to assert jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a 2016 federal law.”

Despite Barack Obama’s attempt to deny recourse to the victims of 9/11 by vetoing JASTA, the Senate quickly answered back with a near-unanimous override, thus making it law. The landmark decision by the Senate became the first and only override of the Obama presidency.

According to Reuters, “Daniels said the plaintiffs could try to prove that Saudi Arabia was liable for the alleged activities of Fahad al Thumairy, an imam at the King Fahad Mosque in Culver City, California, and Omar al Bayoumi, said to be an intelligence officer. They were accused of helping two hijackers acclimate themselves to the United States, and begin preparing for the attacks.”

Naturally, lawyers for Saudi Arabia are denying all allegations and are demanding that the lawsuits be dismissed immediately. According to the Saudi newspaper Okaz, in January of this year, the government of Saudi Arabia called on a US federal judge to immediately reject the lawsuit. Because of the decision this week, that will not happen.

James Kreindler, a lawyer for many of the plaintiffs, said he was “delighted” the case can proceed, according to Reuters.

“We have been pressing to proceed with the case and conduct discovery from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, so that the full story can come to light, and expose the Saudi role in the 9/11 attacks,” he said in a phone interview.

As TFTP has previously reported, thanks to the release of the 28 pages, Americans and the rest of the world now know that Saudi Arabia played a significant role in the September 11th attacks. Also, thanks to the release of 28 pages, we know that the US government was complicit in covering up Saudi Arabia’s role in the attacks.

Even the severely flawed and biased “9/11 Commission Report” did not did not “exclude the likelihood that charities with significant Saudi government sponsorship diverted funds to Al-Qaeda.”

For a decade and a half, Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush kept secret the alleged role Saudi Arabia played in the September 11 attacks on America. Becuase of the cozy relationship the US has with the terrorist nation—which Trump is complicit in maintaining—special interests within the government have chosen to protect their Saudi friends instead of telling Americans the truth about what happened that fateful day.

Only because of the vigilance of those seeking the truth is this lawsuit and others like it now a reality. In fact, another lawsuit, filed last year, produced evidence of Saudi embassies giving aid to the hijackers.

According to an exclusive report by PIX 11, the lawsuit contains evidence which:

details how officials from Saudi embassies supported hijackers Salem al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar 18 months before 9/11.

 

The officials allegedly helped them find apartments, learn English and obtain credit cards and cash. The documents state that the officials helped them learn how to blend into the American landscape.

 

The suit also produces evidence that officials in the Saudi embassy in Germany supported lead hijacker Mohamed Atta. It claims that a Saudi official was in the same hotel in Virginia with several hijackers the night before the attacks….

 

The lawsuit asserts that the Saudi royals, who for years had been trying to curry favor with fundamentalists to avoid losing power, were aware that funds from Saudi charities were being funneled to al-Qaida.

Aviation attorney Jim Kreindler told PIX11 News: “The charities were alter egos of the Saudi government.”

“The Saudis were so duplicitous,” Kreindler said. “They claim to be allies fighting with U.S. against Iran, while at the same time working with the terrorists. There’s no question they had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.”

Daniel’s decision affects the claims of 25,000 victims, families of victims, businesses, and insurers who can now move forward with their lawsuits.

While this is good news, Daniels did, however, dismiss claims against Saudi businesses and a government-linked charity, saying that those did not overcome the presumption of immunity. This decision could limit the ability of plaintiffs to seek payment for the billions in damages as the only one who would now be paying would be the Saudi government.

Source Article from http://thefreethoughtproject.com/court-rules-there-is-enough-evidence-for-victims-to-sue-saudi-arabia-for-role-in-9-11/

Are you getting enough vitamin D? If you don’t take magnesium, you may not be absorbing your "D"


Image: Are you getting enough vitamin D? If you don’t take magnesium, you may not be absorbing your “D”

(Natural News)
In order to have enough of vitamin D in the body, you must take an adequate amount of magnesium, according to a study published in the The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.

Researchers from the University of Rwanda College of Medicine & Health Sciences and Harvard University collaborated for the study in order to examine the role of magnesium in the activation and function of vitamin D.

The researchers found that vitamin D will not metabolize properly and can remain stored and inactive within the body without sufficient magnesium. They explained that magnesium allows vitamin D to be transformed into a usable form within the body. They further explained that magnesium is needed for the two-stage process within the liver and kidneys which converts vitamin D into its biologically active form 1,24-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25[OH]2D). Likewise, the activity of the vitamin D binding protein, which is responsible for transport of the vitamin in the blood, also relies on magnesium. (Related: Magnesium Is Crucial to the Proper Functioning of a Healthy Body.)

“Magnesium is an essential cofactor for vitamin D synthesis and activation, and in turn, can increase intestinal absorption of magnesium and establish a feed-forward loop to maintain its homeostasis,” said study co-author Mohammed Razzaque.

Their findings are important because there is a high prevalence of magnesium deficiency. In fact, approximately 75 percent of the American population is estimated to have inadequate dietary intakes of magnesium. The recommended daily allowance (RDA) for magnesium is 310 milligrams (mg) per day for women and 420 mg per day for men. However, in the U.S., the regular diet contains only about half of the RDA for magnesium. The Western diet is composed of processed foods that are high in refined grains, fat, phosphate, and sugar, but is low in magnesium.

“By consuming an optimal amount of magnesium, one may be able to lower the risks of vitamin D deficiency, and reduce the dependency on Vitamin D supplements,” Razzaque suggested.

“People are taking Vitamin D supplements but don’t realize how it gets metabolised. Without magnesium, Vitamin D is not really useful or safe,” added Razzaque.

Magnesium is found in a wide variety of foods, such as nuts like almonds, bananas, beans, broccoli, brown rice, cashews, egg yolk, fish oil, flaxseed, green vegetables, milk, mushrooms, oatmeal, pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds, soybeans, sunflower seeds, sweet corn, tofu, and whole grains.

However, the magnesium content of different foods has declined by around 25 to 80 percent since 1950, according to the researchers. This is a result of the increased use of pesticides and fertilizers, as well as the refining process of grains and oils that removes magnesium.

Signs and symptoms of magnesium deficiency

In order to determine whether you have enough magnesium or not, here is a list of some signs and symptoms of magnesium deficiency.

  • Lack of sleep – According to studies, magnesium increases gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in the brain, which is a neurotransmitter that stimulates relaxation and sleep. Thus, when magnesium levels are low, it is more difficult to stay asleep.
  • Muscle spasms – Magnesium, together with calcium, regulates muscle movement. If the body has excess calcium, but inadequate magnesium, the muscles of any part of the body can go into spasm, such as leg cramps, muscle pain, tightness, and general aches.
  • Eye twitches – One of the most common symptom of magnesium deficiency is eye twitching. This symptom related to magnesium’s ability to regulate muscle movement.
  • Irregular heartbeat – Magnesium helps maintain a normal heart rhythm. It is also sometimes administered by doctors intravenously in the hospital to lower the risk of atrial fibrillation and cardiac arrhythmia. The mineral can help in this aspect because it is involved in transporting other minerals, including calcium and potassium into cells. Thus, a deficiency in magnesium increases irregular heartbeats because it causes levels of nutrients like calcium in the blood to decline.

If you’d like to read more news stories and studies on vitamin D, you may go to VitaminD.news.

Sources include:

NutraIngredients.com

DailyMail.co.uk

<!–

–>

Source Article from http://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-27-are-you-getting-enough-vitamin-d-if-you-dont-take-magnesium-you-may-not-be.html