New research brings some good news for lovers of spicy foods, after finding that eating hot red chili peppers might help to extend lifespan.

    Consuming（消耗）hot red chili peppers might reduce death risk, say Chopan and Littenberg from the research team. In hot peppers, such as Mexico peppers, the strong flavor comes from a compound（复合物）, which does not exist in sweet peppers or onions. Studies have suggested that this compound can offer a wealth of health benefits.

    A study of more than 16,000 people in the United States showed that people who consumed red chili peppers had a lower risk of death from all causes over an average of 18 years than those who did not eat the spicy food. Compared with people who did not consume hot red chili peppers, those who did were found to be at 13 percent reduced risk of all-cause death.

    For example, a recent study reported by Medical News Today, found that the compound might have the potential to stop breast cancer, while an earlier study linked the compound to a reduced risk of digest system cancers. Still, the available data suggested that hot red chili pepper consumption was most strongly associated with a reduced risk of death from heart disease.

    While the researchers are unable to discover the concrete compound by which red chili peppers might extend lifespan, the team says that it is likely due to the compound that is effectively against obesity.

    Overall, the team says that these latest findings support those of the 2015 study, linking spicy food intake to reduced risk of death by showing ''an significant decrease in death associated with hot red chili pepper consumption.” However, Chopan and Littenberg note that the earlier study was only conducted in Chinese adults, so the new research makes these findings more credible.

    Environmentalists said our planet was bound to die. Now one man says they are wrong. “Everyone knows the planet is in bad shape,” thundered a magazine article last year. “Species are being driven to die out at record rates, and the rivers are so poisonous that fish are floating on the surface, dead.”

    But there's growing belief that what everyone takes for granted is wrong: Things are actually getting better. A new book is about to overturn our most basic assumptions about the world's environment. Rivers, seas, rain and the atmosphere are all getting better.

    The total amount of forests in the world is not declining. The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, is an attack on the misleading claims of environmental groups, and the “bad news” culture that makes people believe everything is getting worse.

    Now the attacks are increasingly coming from left-wing environmentalists such as Lomborg, a former member of Greenpeace. The accusation is that, although the environment is improving, green groups — with profits of hundreds of millions of pounds a year — are using scare tactics (战术) to gain donations. Lomborg's book doesn't deny global warming — probably the biggest environmental threat — but destroys almost every other environmental claim with many official statistics.

    The Worldwatch Institute claims that deforestation(采伐森林) has been speeding over the last 30 years. Buy Lomborg says that is simply rubbish. Since the dawn of agriculture the world has lost about 20% of its forest cover, but in recent decades the forest area's depleting has come to a stop. According to UN figures, the area of forests has remained almost steady, at about 30% of total land area, since 1940s. Forests in countries such as the US, UK and Canada have actually been expanding over the past 40 years. Despite all the warnings the Amazon rainforest has only shrunk by about 15%.

    Nor are all our species dying out. Some campaigners claim that 50% of all species will have died out within 50 years. But other studies show only 0.08% of species are dying out each year. Conservation efforts have been successful. Whales are no longer threatened and the bald eagle is off the endangered list.

    Environmental groups claim that many of the improvements are the results of their campaigns. Stephen Tindale, director of Greenpeace UK, said, “There are important examples, such as acid rain and ozone, where things weren't as bad as predicted, and that's because our behavior changed.”

    Here's a list of books I'm looking forward to this fall season. Not all of them will rise to the level of the advertisement, but it's an abundant crop.

    "Home After Dark" by David Small (Liveright, Sept.11)

    In 2009, Small published a celebrated graphic memoir (回忆录) called "Stitches". Now the Caldecott Medal winner is back with a graphic novel about a motherless 13-year-old boy brought up in an unhappy home in California. This is a tale told in few words and many striking images. On Sept. 11 at 3p.m. . Small will be at Amazonbooks at Union Market. More information at www.amazon.com/graph-tale.

    "Waiting for Eden" by Elliot Ackerman (Knopf, Sept. 25)

    This brief novel is related by a dead soldier who is watching over a horribly burned partner in a Texas hospital. That sounds embarrassingly emotional, but Ackerman, who served in a Navy in Iraq and Afghanistan, is one of the best soldier-writers of his generation. More information at www.amazon.com/military-essay.

    "All You Can Ever Know" by Nicole Chung (Catapult, Oct. 2)

    Chung, the editor of the literary magazine Catapult, was adopted as a baby by a white family in Oregon. In this memoir, she writes about her childhood, her Asian American identity and her search for the Korean parents who gave her up. More information at www.amazon.com/politics-prose.

    "Unsheltered" by Barbara Kingsolver (Harper, Oct. 16)

    Alternating between past and present, this novel tells the story of a woman investigating a late-19th-century science teacher who was caught up in the controversy over Darwinism. Like her other novels, this one promises to explore social and scientific problems. Visit www. amazon.com/tech-science for more information.

    More than two thirds of the world's polar bears will be wiped out by 2050, according to a shocking new study. By then, scientists say, global warming will have melted 42 percent of the Arctic sea ice. By 2100, only a very few of these important creatures will be left.

    The report has been produced by the US Geological Survey. The scientists have publicized their findings in the hope of influencing US Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who has been asked to put polar bears on the US endangered species list.

    Polar bears depend on floating sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, which are their main food. Without enough ice, polar bears would be forced to go onto the land, where they are poorly skilled hunters, and would be unlikely to adapt to the life on the land in time. Experts say few little bears would survive and the stress could make many females unable to get pregnant.

    The team of American and Canadian scientists spent six months studying bears, on the ground, from spotter planes and in the lab, using computer models. Some team members fear the result is even worse for the bears than what their report says. They say the Arctic is warming faster than anywhere in the world and much faster than their computer had been forecasting. Satellite observations have showed that the ice has decreased to an all­time low.

    However, not everyone in the scientific community believes that global warming is happening on such an alarming scale. Another investigation has found that polar bears are still being hunted by wealthy “sportsmen” who want their skins and heads. At least ten international companies offer bear­hunting trips.

    It is generally acknowledged that young people from poorer socio-economic backgrounds tend to do fess well in the education system. In an attempt to help the children of poor families, a nationwide program called "Headstart" was started in the US in 1965. A lot of money was poured into it. It Look children into pre-school institutions at the age of three and was supposed to help them succeed in school. But the results have been disappointing because the program began too late. Many children who entered it at three were already behind their peers in language and intelligence and the parents were not involved in the process. At the end of each day, "Headstart" children returned to the same disadvantaged home environment.

    To improve the results, another program was started in Missouri that concentrated on parents as the child's first teachers. This program was based on research showing that working with the family is the most effective way of helping children get the best possible start in life. The four-year study included 380 families who were about to have their first child and represented different socio-economic status, age and family structure. The program involved trained educators visiting and working with the parent or parents and the child. The program also gave the parents some guidance, and useful skills on child development.

    At three, the children involved in the "Missouri" program were evaluated with the children selected from the same socio-economic backgrounds and family situations. The results were obvious. The children in the program were more advanced in language development, problem solving and other intellectual skills than their peers. They performed equally well regardless of socio-economic backgrounds or family structure. The one factor that was found to affect the child's development was the poor quality of parent-child interaction. That interaction was not necessarily bad in poorer families.

    The "Missouri" program compares quite distinctly with the "Headstart" program. Without a similar focus of parent education and on the vital importance of the first three years, some evidence indicates that it will not be enough to overcome education unfairness.

Let's face it. No one drinks diet sodas for the taste. People drink diet sodas in the hope that it will help them lose weight or at least keep them from gaining it. Yet it seems to have exactly the opposite effect, according to a new study.

Researchers from the University of Texas said those who drank two or more diet sodas a day had waist size increases that were six times greater than those who didn't drink diet sodas. "What we saw was that the more diet sodas a person drank, the more weight they were likely to gain," said Sharon Fowler.

The study was based on data from 474 participants in a large, ongoing research project, where the participants were followed for nearly 10 years.

While the findings are surprising, they also offer some explanations.

Nutrition expert, Melanie Rogers, who works with overweight patients in New York, has found that when patients are switched from regular to diet sodas, they don't lose weight at all. "We weren't seeing weight loss necessarily, and that was confusing to us," said Rogers.

So why would diet soda cause weight gain？No one knows for sure yet, but it could be that people think they can eat more if they drink diet sodas, and so over﹣compensate (补偿) for the missing calories.

A related study found some sweeteners (甜味剂) raised blood sugar levels in some mice. "Data from this and other potential studies suggest that the promotion of diet sodas and artificial sweeteners may be risky," said Helen P. Hazuda, professor at the University of Texas's school of medicine." They may be free of calories, but not of consequences. "