LPG-powered tricycles safe?

DOE sounds alarm on LPG-powered tricycles
/
"The Department of Energy (DOE) on Tuesday raised its concern on the safety of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG)-converted tricycles amid reports of exploding tanks and the health risks involved in using cooking gas to power vehicles. During its meeting with members of the industry, DOE officials urged manufacturers installing LPG kits on tricycles to ensure that they follow safety standards. The warning came after the energy department received reports that some tricycle operators in the provinces attached LPG tanks on the rooftop of their sidecars..."
/
Actually, LPG is non-toxic, non-corrosive, and lead-free. It is also cheaper per liter by almost 50% than ordinary gasoline.
It has already been in use in other countries as a cheaper alternative for gasoline-fed vehicles.
If installed properly, it could even be safer than gasoline. Check out this report.

Now with respect to LPG tanks attached to the rooftop of sidecars...hmm that's pretty ingenious. However...
Pray that it doesn't slip off and land on your head.
When that happens, you might as well been hit by a truck.
From above.

Pope St. Gregory the Great

Today, September 3, is the feast day of St. Gregory.

Gregory was content to be a monk, but he willingly served the Church in other ways when asked. He sacrificed his own preferences in many ways, especially when he was called to be Bishop of Rome. Once he was called to public service, Gregory gave his considerable energies completely to this work. In the fourteen years of his pontificate, he crowded work enough to have exhausted the energies of a lifetime.
When Gregory became pope in 590 (the first monk ever to become pope), the world was in chaos. Things were so bad Gregory sincerely believed the end of the world was at hand. But he reached a peace accord with the Lombards in 593, administered a great relief program for the poor, helped organize political order in our troubled empire, developed church music and liturgy, wrote an important book on Pastoral Care, and expanded upon Christian doctrine such as his teaching on purgatory. He is associated with creating the form of music that has come to be known as Gregorian chant.

What makes his achievements more wonderful is his constant ill-health. He suffered almost continually from indigestion and, at intervals, from attacks of slow fever, while for the last half of his pontificate he was a martyr to gout. In spite of these infirmities, which increased steadily, his biographer, Paul the Deacon, tells us "he never rested". He was the first Pope to use the term “servant of the servants of God”. No wonder he was called “great” and shortly after his death in 604 AD, he was canonized a saint by public acclaim. It is interesting to note that he was reluctant to be a Pope, and preferred the secluded life of a monk. To this end, Pope Gregory the great had to say:

"Perhaps it is not after all so difficult for a man to part with his possessions, but it is certainly most difficult for him to part with himself. To renounce what one has is a minor thing; but to renounce what one is, that is asking a lot" (St. Gregory, Homilies on the Gospels).

What an awesome Pope.

And truly great as well.

St. Gregory, pray for us.

The wonders of Nature in a woman’s fertility cycle

Ovulation--the release of an ovum by the ovary--is the most important event of the fertile cycle; it occurs only once at a moment in time during the cycle, even when more than one ovum is released.

The ovulatory mechanism also produces the two ovarian hormones, oestradiol and progesterone.

Oestradiol is produced alone by the developing follicle before ovulation; it stimulates the glands of the cervix to secrete a particular type of mucus ("mucus with fertile characteristics") which is essential for the sperm to pass through the cervix and reach the ovum. Oestradiol also stimulates growth of the endometrium lining the uterus (womb).

After ovulation, progesterone and oestradiol are produced by the corpus luteum which forms from the ruptured follicle. This progesterone causes the abrupt change in the mucus which occurs immediately after ovulation and defines the Peak symptom.

Progesterone also prepares the oestrogen-primed endometrium for implantation of the fertilized ovum.

In the absence of pregnancy, production of oestradiol and progesterone begins to decline approximately 7 days after ovulation and this results in shedding of the endometrium as menstrual bleeding 11-16 days after ovulation.

The Billings Ovulation Method utilises the changes in cervical mucus production as observed by the woman herself for identifying the underlying events of the ovulatory cycle.
/
Source: Pituitary and Ovarian Hormones of a Woman's Reproductive Cycle
by J.B. Brown D.Sc. Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Australia

http://www.woomb.org/bom/hormones/index.html
WOOMB - World Organisation of the Ovulation Method Billings
/
MY SIDE NOTES:

- My wife and I, with the CFC Prolife Ministry, took a refresher/update teacher’s course for Natural Family Planning (NFP) conducted by WOOMB Phils. last weekend. I am sharing some material above and some other information here.

- The typical mentrual cycle is around 28 days, wherein ovulation occurs only once. At this time, the egg is available for fertilization from 12 to 24 hours, the only window where a woman is capable of conceiving within her entire menstrual cycle (of 28 days). NFP practitioners determine this fertile window by means of the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM) , in order to achieve or postpone pregnancy.

- BOM is effective regardless of the length/ regularity of a woman’s menstrual cycle.

- Mothers who fully breastfeed their child will not ovulate for up to 6 months. This is nature’s way of spacing births and protecting the health of the mother. I also learned that the act of breastfeeding also releases hormones for the fast natural healing of wounds and stress of child-bearing. Breast milk also contains natural ingredients that strengthen the baby’s immune system and food for brain development at the crucial 2-month period.

- I am amazed at the way natural hormones interact with the woman’s body for fertility, health, and child-care. It is a wonderfully intricate and amazing mechanism.

- Nature is great. God be praised.
/

What to eat when poor as a rat?

Cambodians eat rats to beat global food crisis

Cambodians have found a way to cope with the rising prices of meat, and quite a number are settling for an alternative that is increasingly becoming popular - rat meat. In Cambodia, a kilogram of rat meat costs from 1,200 to 5,000 riel, compared to beef which costs 20,000 riel per kg. (A thousand riel is approximately a quarter of a US dollar). Cambodia is not unique in developing this exotic culinary treat, as field mice have long been eaten in certain regions of Thailand and India where fast food sellers are enjoying a boom in sales. And before you say "YUKKK!", consumers say it is tastier than other meats and that rats caught from rice fields are definitely clean compared with those found in towns or cities. Field mice eat fruits and grains, and is usually cooked spicy with garlic. It probably only takes a paradigm shift to appreciate that field rats are indeed, a welcome alternative to traditional sources of meat.

Personally, I couldn't bring myself to take that paradigm shift, but when the going gets tough and the stomach rumblings get even tougher, who cares about paradigm shifts. The new benchmark for poverty, called the Asian Poverty Line, means the poor earn less than USD $1.35 a day. Roughly 1/3rd of the Philippine population qualifies as such, according to this report. Certainly traditional meat such as beef is way, way beyond reach, as beef in the Philippines cost about $7 USD per kg. Pork costs $4 USD/kg. Then we should seriously think about requesting Cambodia for the recipe and cooking instructions?

Poor as a rat? Make your own conclusions.

Please don't throw up. So sorry about that.

By the way, do you want fries with that?

25.4M Filipinos are living below $1.35/day Asian Poverty Line

25.4M Filipinos are living below $1.35/day Asian Poverty Line

"About 25.4 million Filipinos are living below the new benchmark for estimating how many are poor in Asia and the Pacific region, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) report released Wednesday showed. The new benchmark, called the Asian Poverty Line, is roughly at $1.35 a day. Of the poor among the 16-member countries of ADB—totaling between 843 million to 1,042 million, depending on methods used in computing poverty estimates—the Philippines's 29.5 percent poverty level is better than India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and worse than Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam and Sri Lanka."

This hardly qualifies for fresh news anymore, as the recent NCSB press release states that

"In terms of poverty incidence among population, out of 100 Filipinos, 33 were poor in 2006, compared to 30 in 2003."

Yet the Philippines continues to grow economically, and has posted a real GDP growth rate of 7.3% in the year 2007, its fastest pace in three decades. Where does all the money go? According to the 2003 Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES), the richest 20% of the population account for 53% of total national income while the bottom 20% get only 4.63 percent. The income of the richest 10% of households is 21 times that of the poorest 10 percent.

Income inequality is horrendous, but in a democratic country like the Philippines, the rich doesn’t seem to be so keen in spreading out some of the money they have in opulent excess. How they earned that much is another story, but try thinking along the lines of land ownership, labor exploitation, and government corruption.

Now, the simple “pro-choice” solution goes like this: If there are 33 poor Filipinos out of 100, depopulate the country of those 33 poor Filipinos. Presto: Poverty is eradicated.

Brilliant.

the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail

Aug 24'08 Sunday Gospel: Mt 16:13-20

/
"...And so I say to you, you are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church,
and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)
/
If we consider the above passage from today's Gospel with Christ's promise in
(John 14:16)...
/
"...And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always,"
/

CLEARLY:

-The Church that Christ built was founded upon Peter, who was given the authority to "bind" and "loose".
-The Holy Spirit guards the Church always.
-The forces of evil cannot prevail against His Church.
-Not in the past.
-Not now.
-Not ever.
-Simply because Jesus said so.

God be praised.

The Erroneous Conscience

Are we called morally good or bad when in striving to follow our conscience, we err?

There is an interesting development of theological opinion on the question.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) , distrusted human knowledge and believed that the root of sin is ignorance. He emphasized the virtue of humility and adherence to the law. Actions contrary to the law and its teaching, even though done out of ignorance, were according to Bernard, bad. Thus if we accept that telling a lie is always wrong, Bernard would say if we told a lie, regardless of our motivation, we sinned.

Theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142), taught differently. He held that the will, in particular its consent, determines actions as good or bad. If we are in error, but we do not consent to it, there is no sin. Thus if we told a lie in order to protect the life of another, Abelard would call us and our action, good. Faced with the question whether the action from a sincerely erroneous conscience is a sin, Bernard says yes, and Abelard, no.

Upon the powerful influence of Bernard, who accused Abelard of 19 errors, the Council of Sens (1140) condemned Abelard, although his sentence was later lifted.

Later, Thomas Aquinas entertained the question whether a person is good when following an erroneous conscience. For Thomas Aquinas, conscience is the act of applying our knowledge of good and evil to what we do (or might do). So in order to know what is a good action or a bad one, one needs to understand how things are naturally ordered by God -- primarily what human nature is, and what things it needs and deserves. Thomas' question concerned sincerity and understanding regarding the error: Could one have known otherwise? Interestingly, Thomas did not call the person good who despite striving to know the right, followed an erroneous conscience; rather, Thomas argued that such a person is "excused" from blame.

By the 16th century, most theologians agree with Thomas, that a dictate of conscience must be followed under pain of sin and that an erroneous conscience in good faith is, at least, excused from blame. In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned all those who taught that an invincibly ignorant conscience did not at least, excuse. Implicitly, Bernard's attack on Abelard is rejected.

We now see Vatican II upholding the dignity of the moral conscience, even when it errs from invincible ignorance. But it goes on to caution: "The same cannot be said of the man who cares little for truth and goodness, or of a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin" (Gaudium et Spes, 16).

Finally, Cathechism states:

1790. A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."
In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1755. A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

In conclusion, it must be noted that describing erroneous actions as "good", as contemporary relativists do, is rejected. Relativists rightly find goodness in the integrity of conscience, but they grossly overlook the need to evaluate what we do out of conscience and how we live. This simplistic description is favored by many in society today who praise people for following conscience but who refuse to measure the resulting activity; that each of us is considerably free from objective evaluation. A person who errs in good faith is a person who has struggled to find the right, has searched heart and mind, and in firm good faith and free will acted with conviction, albeit in error. This person is good, and what differentiates this person from another who strives in the same way but whose conduct is recognized as right is precisely the evaluation of the conduct as wrong. Calling the conduct wrong is the sufficient negative description for the activity of the erroneous conscience.
/