by Terence Newton, Staff Writer,Waking Times

More than ever the world needs renewable energy, and as solar power becomes more efficient and the cost of outfitting your home or business with solar panels declines, there is a real possibility that solar will become a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Google’s Project Sunroof sheds light on this issue by combining data from Google Maps with information on how much sunlight falls on rooftops, providing an accurate estimate of how much power one can generate if their rooftop were to be outfitted with solar panels.

“In a new expansion of its Project Sunroof, the company has built 3-D models of rooftops in all 50 states, looked at the trees around people’s homes, considered the local weather, and figured out how much energy each house or building can generate if its owners plunk down for some panels.” [Source]

Surprisingly, a recent study with Project Sunroof revealed that up to 80% of household rooftops in America would be good locations for solar panels, meaning that the U.S. could easily generate a substantial amount of renewable energy if the proliferation of rooftop solar panels were to go mainstream.

“Top among the findings is that nearly 80 percent of all buildings the team modeled are “technically viable” for solar panels, meaning they catch enough rays each year to make generating electricity feasible. That sounds pretty good, and a post on Google’s blog goes on to highlight the rooftop-solar potential for several cities.” [Source]

The tool is quite interesting in that you can enter your street address and instantly find out how much rooftop square footage on your home would be optimal for solar, as well as find out how to access financing and local suppliers and installers. The findings of the survey of solar ready rooftops offers unique insight into the emerging solar industry.

“Seventy-nine percent of all rooftops analyzed are technically viable for solar, meaning those rooftops have enough unshaded area for solar panels.


Over 90 percent of homes in Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada and New Mexico are technically viable, while states like Pennsylvania, Maine and Minnesota reach just above 60 percent viability.


Houston, TX has the most solar potential of any U.S. city in the Project Sunroof data, with an estimated 18,940 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of rooftop solar generation potential per year. Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Antonio, and New York follow Houston for the top 5 solar potential cities — see the full top 10 list in the chart below.” [Source]

Commercial installations of solar power are on the rise, almost doubling in 2016, however, the greatest progress for solar in America could be residential. The costs of outfitting your home with solar panels continues to decline, and there are a number of agencies who readily provide financing for the switch to solar power, an investment which can quickly pay for itself as personal solar power can often replace a person’s independence on the electric grid.

About the Author

Terence Newton is a staff writer for, interested primarily with issues related to science, the human mind, and human consciousness.

This article (Google’s New Tool Says 80% of Rooftops Are Sunny Enough to be Outfitted with Solar Panels) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Terence Newton and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.


Being Married Won’t Make You Any Healthier

It might even make you sicker than being single

by Tracy Moore

In sickness and in health really counts in marriage, and a new study proves it should, because contrary to popular belief, it turns out married people are in worse health than when they were single, TheNew York Times reported.

For the study, published in Social Forces, sociologists took a 16-year survey of 11,000 Swiss adults, asking them to log their health and illnesses each year, on the assumption that married people would be healthier than when they were out there prowling for love. In theory, they’d get even healthier by being married over the long term. But they weren’t, and they didn’t. The Times writes:

People who married reported slightly worse health than they had when they were single. Over time, their health did not improve — it tended to deteriorate, even after taking into account changes in health as people age. On the measures of illness, marriage made no difference at all. People who married did not become any more or less ill than they were when they were single, and their level of illness did not change over the course of their marriage.

One, as the Times notes, this is, if nothing else, good news for single people, who can now enjoy a smug superiority all their own that they are just fine and even better by this metric. (Not to mention many others, like mattress space.)

As for married people, while this news seems like a big deal, slightly worse health or no health benefit is not exactly a death sentence. Yes, it’s a curious thing that marriage, something we imagine to be such a fundamental personal and societal good, is not the equivalent of a giant dose of Emergen-C for your life, but we’re also a species that believes in an exclusive utopian afterlife above the clouds.

And even though it’s important for us to dispel all the myths here — particularly when the only around half of these marriages will stick, anyway — it’s safe to say people aren’t getting married for the health protection.

People get married for plenty of reasons — money, sex, revenge, a New Year’s Eve date — but it’s safe to say that largely, it’s for the companionship. To have someone to go through this crazy thing together with, somebody who will often be a pain in your ass and the reason you are sick, either because they literally brought the flu home or wear you down just being themselves. Got kids? Start buying tissues in bulk. Still, better to have someone nearby to take care of you when that happens, even if they are, in fact, the reason it’s happening.

Which is why what people did report with marriage was greater life satisfaction. But not even a lot. Over time, that declined slowly. And if they got divorced, the negative effect was three times stronger than the impact of the original gain, according to the study authors.

“We speculate that marriage is primarily linked to a more positive evaluation of one’s life rather than to better health,” they write. That makes sense, because some 90 percent of people in Western society will marry by the time they are 50 years old. And in the end, being married feels good because you think it’s important and want to do it, so doing so makes you feel like you did the thing you wanted to do that you felt you should. What married people want, and what married people get, is not an immune boost, but simply not to be alone.


The Runaway Bride Explained

What is the Best Location for a Cache On Your Property?

ReadyNutrition Readers, recently I suggested 5 projects to undertake in the Spring to get a head start on preparing for emergencies.  As the title suggests, this article will outline several methods to hide your stuff underground.  Be advised: this means you’ll have to have some property at your disposal.

(Sign up for our FREE newsletter to get the latest prepping advice, gardening secrets, homesteading tips and more delivered straight to your inbox!)

Caches are the ultimate back up plan because everyone wants to hide their “stuff,” but hiding it effectively is a different matter.  Yes, everyone wants a set of diagrams and ideas, but you should have a plan before you implement your construction.  Let’s outline some basic principles and considerations first that it would do you good to keep in mind.

A Word to the Wise

Firstly, OPSEC (Operational Security) is paramount with any kind of project such as this.  You must keep everyone out of the loop: nosy, big-mouthed neighbors; prying relatives; overly curious co-workers; ad infinitum.  You can’t “advertise” what you’re doing and expect any measure of success.  What you place in what we’ll call your “storage room” is your business and your business alone.  The only ones in the loop with you should be ones you can rely on absolutely to keep their mouths shut.

The Perfect Location For Your Cache

You must take time to find the ideal location on your property for your storage room.  Be advised: there are local cops, the Sheriff’s department, the IRS, ad infinitum ad nauseam…an endless “conga” line of creeps who can metamorphose and metastasize almost instantly overnight with a full-blown tyranny.  They have everything at their disposal courtesy of your tax dollars: infrared scanners, metal detectors, drug and bomb-sniffing canines, etc.

That said, if you think you are going to be able to hide something from them right next to the house, you had better think again.  They’ll sweep the entire area with a fine-toothed comb…with you there or with you in matching silver bracelets, being “chauffeured” to jail.  You can optimally hide your supplies by doing two things:

1.Throw them a bone

They must pick up something and can’t leave empty handed…I’m not talking about anything illegal, mind you, such as drugs or bombs.  I’m talking about if they wish to confiscate your weapons, etc. when the government morphs into tyranny.  Throwing them a bone means you should give them a few things.  One or two rifles, per se, and a couple of pistols, along with some ammo.

For anyone who disagrees with this and recites the “when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers” line, go ahead…they will.  They’ll either do that or worse.  You won’t be able to face them and defeat them head on.  It’s better to lose a small part than to lose it all.

If you can’t part with your firearms, consider hiding some less innocuous items like tools, food and/or old clothing.

2.Have your storage room in the most unlikely place to find it that you can.

You know your own property.  It’s going to be up to you to know these unlikely places, and whether it is feasible to use them.  Let’s go over some ideas and general spots:

  • Near the septic tank: Yes, indeed, that septic tank can be a perfect cover for an “adjoining structure” in the form of a concrete tube or cubicle set into the ground right next to it. You can really make it look good by ensuring they both physically touch, and then throwing some cement in the “joint” to make it appear as if they’re one structure.
  • Farthest points on the property: The “four corners” and adjacent spots…the greater the distance between the storage room and the house, the better.
  • Surface running water camouflage: a small stream or creek flowing across your property? Stick that storage room under it.  You temporarily divert all or part of the creek…sink that storage room underground, and then allow the stream to return to its normal flow.  This method is best done with a “cache” rather than a walk-in storage room, for obvious reasons…you won’t be able to get to it rapidly.
  • Under something innocuous: A children’s swing set, or a decorative fountain/goldfish pond in your front yard.
  • Under/near a stone wall, panel partition, or fence: Not a “normative” place for the “normal” people to look.

There are several decisions you must make before you undertake all of this.  Most of them deal with structure and logistics.  How much stuff do you want to store, and what?  Are you going to close it off in the manner of a cache, or are you going to make it more accessible?  How much time and labor are you willing to put into it, along with money?  If someone else is building it…are they reliable in terms of keeping their mouths shut?  Even more: Will they take what you have if they are given the opportunity?  Or in a SHTF situation, might they “show up” on your doorstep to take what you have?

You can’t rule out any of these possibilities.  You may also want to screen off the area that is most visible while it is being built.  Part II we will have some diagrams for you to use and 3 different ideas for a storage vault/structure, modifiable by size and only limited by your imagination or the resources you can afford.  You’ll have to consider it all: the nosy neighbors, friends, and relatives, and the governmental “pests” in all their taxing and enforcing forms.  Until next time, keep your powder dry and well-hidden!  JJ out!


First impressions count

Resultado de imagem para Senator John F Kennedy shaking hands during his presidential campaign. Photo by Paul Schutzer/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty

Senator John F Kennedy shaking hands during his presidential campaign. Photo by Paul Schutzer/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty

A judgment of competence is made in a tenth of a second on the basis of facial features. Thus political decisions are made

Alexander Todorov is professor of psychology at Princeton University. He is the head of the Social Perception Lab, which studies the cognitive and neural mechanisms of social cognition. His research has been published in Nature, among others. He is the author of Face Value: The Irresistible Influence of First Impressions (2017).

I became interested in studying first impressions after my research group discovered that such impressions can predict the outcomes of important political elections. First impressions mattered.

I was in my first few years as an assistant professor at Princeton with a tiny lab consisting of one half-time research assistant and two graduate students. There was no easy way to collect data online at the time, so we participated in one of the ‘questionnaire days’ organised by the department of psychology. These Q days were advertised among students on campus, and those willing to trade an hour of their time for $10 or so were handed a thick bundle of different questionnaires to fill out.

Buried among those were some of our questionnaires presenting pairs of images of the winner and the runner-up from all the United States Senate races for 2000 and 2002, excluding races with highly recognisable politicians such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Different students were assigned to different questions, for example ‘Who looks more competent?’ and ‘Who looks more honest?’ We were hoping that some of these questions would predict who won the elections. When we analysed the data, our hopes were surpassed. Judgments of who appeared more competent predicted about 70 per cent of the elections.

A general rule of science is that results should be replicated, especially if these results are surprising. So we put everything else on hold and started preparing new questionnaires.

We ultimately replicated our initial results and eventually wrote up the findings. The paper was published in Science. This spurred a number of replications by different research groups and in different countries. This was not just a US election phenomenon.

Unexpected findings are typically met with skepticism. Before our findings were published, I applied for funding for this research. The way funding applications work is that you write a research proposal and that proposal is reviewed by anonymous reviewers. The reviews covered the whole range, from the very positive to the very negative. One of the reviewers basically wrote that the kinds of effects we had documented – naive judgments from facial appearance predicting political elections – must occur only in my lab. In their words: ‘Before I would find these proposed studies at all compelling, I would like to see some evidence that this situation occurs anywhere outside of the PI’s laboratory.’ The PI stands for me, the principal investigator. Needless to say, I did not get the funding.

After the findings were published, I received my first hate email. I still don’t understand what instigated it, but its author was pissed off with our ‘trivial’ results. Buried among the profanities, he actually had a plausible alternative explanation of our findings. According to him, it was patently obvious that the observed effects were due to media exposure. Although our participants did not explicitly recognise the faces of the politicians, they must have been exposed to these faces before, and this exposure made them rate more familiar politicians as more competent. If more familiar politicians are more likely to be the winners, this could explain our results. Though plausible, this hypothesis turned out to be false.

The right way to question unexpected findings is to conduct replication studies and test alternative explanations. Political scientists were the first to test trivial explanations, such as differences in the pictures’ image quality or in campaign spending. But such differences could not explain the appearance effects on election outcomes, nor could differences in gender and race. In fact, we obtained our best results when the prediction was limited to elections in which the candidates were matched on race and gender. Familiarity with the candidates’ faces could not explain the effects either…





by Sigmund Fraud, Staff Writer Waking Times

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” ~J. Krishnamurti

Society is directed by a never-ending mainstream narrative which is always evolving, and always reaching new dramatic peaks in sensationalism and hype. They fill your mind with topics they select, they keep your attention on these topics, and they invite and encourage you to argue amongst each other about these topics. In this way our collective attention is permanently commandeered, preventing us from diving too deeply into matters which have more than a superficial impact on day-today life.

Free-thinking is the ability and willingness to explore of ideas and areas of the mind which are yet undiscovered or are off-limits. It is a vanishing art that is deliberately being stamped out by a control system which demands conformity, acquiescence and obedience of body, mind, and spirit.

For your consideration, here are three questions you’re not supposed to ask about life in our profoundly sick society.

1. Who owns the money supply, and the world’s debt?

Pretty much the entire world is in financial debt, an insidious form of slavery which enables the exploitation of human beings and of all things in nature. It’s maddening when you think about it. The United States alone supposedly owes some $20 trillion, while the world at large owes a shocking $215 trillion?

But to whom, precisely?

Money is just a medium of exchange which facilitates transactions between people. In and of itself it has no intrinsic value as we could just as easily use sea shells instead of dollar bills and still be able to get things done. But today’s money is the property of private third-parties who rent it out to national governments, who then use the labor of their citizens as collateral against these loans. This is a highly refined form of slavery, which has already put future unborn generations of human beings in debt.

But who, exactly does the human race owe? Who are our debt-slave masters?

2. Who owns your body?

Ownership means having the explicit right to use, control and dispose of something in the manner of your choosing. The one thing you are born with that you take with you to your death is your own body, but do you own it? If not you, then who does own your body?

If this question were already settled in our society then there wouldn’t be ever-increasing pressure on those who choose to refuse vaccines. Children battling cancer and other serious illnesses wouldn’t be forced to take chemo and radiation under penalty of law and under threat of being taken from their parents. Water wouldn’t be fluoridated without our consent. Natural medicines wouldn’t be outlawed under threat of fines and prison time.

We are rapidly approaching a time when people will be required by law to take psychotropic medications as citizens were in Aldous Huxley’s dystopian classic, Brave New World.

Do you own your body, or does it belong to the state?

3.  Why is the exploration of consciousness restricted and illegal?

The most effective prisons are not material, but are constructed inside the mind. Perception, opinion and understanding are all dynamic concepts, not at all static. These can all change in the blink of an eye just because a new idea or experience resonates with you in a special way. Our evolution depends on our ability to expand the frontiers of what’s possible, and when the mind is held in confinement by an entrenched system and powerful cultural paradigm, progress, even happiness, is stunted.

In this societal trap you are given free rein to debase your consciousness and your spirit with alcohol, dangerous drugs, pharmaceuticals, television, pornography, theatrical violence, and then some, yet many natural medicines which elevate consciousness and provide a window into the soul are illegal.

“This is the way freedom is hijacked—not all at once, out in the open, but stealthily, little by little, behind closed doors, and with our own agreement. How will we be able to resist when so many of us have already willingly handed over the keys to our own consciousness to the state and accepted without protest that it is OK to be told what we may and may not do, what we may and may not explore, even what we may and may not experience, with this most precious, sapient, unique, and individual part of ourselves?

If we are willing to accept that then we can be persuaded to accept anything.” ~Graham Hancock


About the Author

Sigmund Fraud is a survivor of modern psychiatry and a dedicated mental activist. He is a staff writer for where he indulges in the possibility of a massive shift towards a more psychologically aware future for humankind. Follow Sigmund on Facebook here.

This article (3 Questions You’re Not Supposed to Ask About Life in a Sick Society) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Sigmund Fraud and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright


What’s in This?: Alka-Seltzer

All three ingredients in this hangover and indigestion cure, explained (yep, even anhydrous citric acid)

We’re often told that you should never eat anything if you don’t recognize everything on the ingredients list. But since most of us have no idea what xanthan gum and potassium benzoate are— or more importantly, what they’re doing to our bodies — we’re decoding the ingredients in the many things Americans put in (and on) themselves with the help of an expert. This edition: Alka-Seltzer, which is made from just three separate ingredients, which we’ve broken down in the exact order they appear on the box.

The Ingredients

1) Anhydrous Citric Acid: “Citric acid [which we discussed in our exploration of all 26 ingredients in Doritos Nacho Cheese Tortilla Chips] is a weak organic acid that’s often used as a pH-adjusting agent, a flavoring agent or a preservative [although it’s mainly added to Alka-Seltzer to instigate a chemical reaction with sodium bicarbonate, which we’ll touch on momentarily],” explains Dagan Xavier, ingredient expert and co-founder of Label Insight. “Anhydrous citric acid is simply citric acid that contains no water, and therefore, comes in a dry, powdered form.”

2) Aspirin: Aspirin, as many of us know, is an anti-inflammatory drug that relieves pain and reduces fevers. This ingredient is why drinking Alka-Seltzer water might help with that headache.

3) Sodium Bicarbonate: Better known as baking soda, sodium bicarbonate can be used to treat heartburn, indigestion and acid reflux by reacting with and neutralizing excess stomach acid. “In the case of Alka-Seltzer, sodium bicarbonate also reacts with the citric acid [see #1 above], which creates the effervescent bubbles present when the tablets dissolve in water,” Xavier explains. According to a 2002 study, these effervescent bubbles do indeed help provide relief from both indigestion and constipation.

The Takeaway

Alka-Seltzer does what it’s meant to do — that is, calm the unfortunate effects of too many late-night tequila shots, or negate the effects of that third helping of summer barbecue cheeseburgers — and that’s all it does. It doesn’t contain any mystery ingredients that will slowly chew away at your insides (unlike some of the other consumables we’ve covered). For that, and for making our hangovers just a bit more bearable, Alka-Seltzer wins our hearts (and our stomachs).

Ian Lecklitner is an L.A.-based writer and reporter. He last wrote about how to put suntan lotion on your own back.