Walter Reed Tries Yoga to Counter PTSD
May 17th, 2008
Derrick Farley, a 29-year-old Army sergeant stationed at Fort Bragg, N.C., has seen many people die. He served in Iraq for three year-long tours of duty with only six-month breaks between them. He remembers driving trucks along the dirt roads of Tikrit, ever alert for telltale signs of a sniper or the sudden blast of a hidden roadside bomb. His vehicle, he said, was hit 13 times.
After he returned home from his last tour, it was often the less tense moments from Iraq that ran through his mind. For months, he had nightmares during which he screamed out in Arabic as he relived run-ins with detainees. At times, the sound of shots ringing out from the firing range at Fort Bragg would launch him right back onto the roads of Iraq.
Farley is far from alone: A Rand study released last month said 20 percent of the approximately 1.6 million U.S. military personnel who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan suffer from symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
But recently Farley has found a way to quell the symptoms of PTSD. Instead of allowing his mind to flash back to the roadside carnage, the truck driver pictures himself sitting on a yoga mat at the District’s Walter Reed Army Medical Center, taking deep, relaxing breaths.
The techniques Farley learned there from yoga teacher Robin Carnes help him to realize that he’s "actually here on Fort Bragg and not in Iraq," he explained by phone from the base.
‘They’re Not as Angry’
The Specialized Care Program at Walter Reed focuses on helping service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan leave their wartime experiences behind.
Yoga, Carnes said, has become a large part of that effort.
In conjunction with a team of psychologists, a physical therapist, two nurses, a social worker and a general internist, Carnes has worked with hundreds of service members.
Tags: air, fort, show, smith
May 17th, 2008 at 2:48 am
You’re doing it wrong.
May 17th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Then giving up, backing out of the drive-way, ting hit by a truck and taking out half the block.I know, bad science, but that would be cool, right?
May 17th, 2008 at 4:29 am
You may want to know how producing of hydrogen polluts the air: wikipedia
May 17th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Tests show that making hydrogen dirties the air. We just managed to move around the pollution source.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:10 am
So many things don’t add up here…Carbon Monoxide should have no place in this combustion, either as a product (where it would be “used up”) or reactant.2 H2 (fuel) + O2 (oxidizer) = 2 H20 + Released Energy.Hell, CO doesn’t burn in any (standard) case. Unless the car has filters then there is no reason for the CO levels to decrease; and if this is the case it would eventually seep out anyway.The only thing I can think of is they were testing directly in the exhaust system where any present atmospheric CO would be displaced by the produced water and the inert atmospheric gases (mostly Nitrogen). If this is the case it really doesn’t “clean” anything.I’m sure there is an answer, but the shitty blog repost cut it out. Anyone on Reddit know what’s going on or have a link to a real article?
May 17th, 2008 at 7:01 am
using as regular motor instead of a fuel cell, doesn’t sound very efficient. also, currently creating hydrogen isn’t efficient, and it’s harder to transport and takes way more space, meaning less miles per storage unit.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:51 am
but why go through electrolysis to create hydrogen to burn, when you have the electricity to begin with?
May 17th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Hydrogen would be easier to “refuel”. Charging of an electric battery takes what, 3 or 4 hours on the Tesla roadster? Hydrogen cars could be refueled in maybe 5 minutes at a filling station.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
There are clean forms of energy you know.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Can they power a 4000 pound car?
May 17th, 2008 at 11:13 am
It is not cleaning the air unless it takes in more carbon dioxide than it puts out. However just because the emission has less carbon dioxide than the surrounding air, it does not mean it is taking carbon out of the air.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I’m imagining some BMW owner, depressed at the car payments, trying to commit suicide by running his car in the garage.
May 17th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Not in all cases. For example, if you were to use solar cells to power electrolysis there would be no byproducts besides oxygen.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
##ButSolar Panels are increasing in efficiency all the time.Electrolysis -.pdf “Some of NHE’s electrolysers have an efficiency of over 80% (this from the oil folks themselves)Generators can be quite efficient.Overall, the point is not quite to compare the efficiency of these components to some mysterious standard, but to look at the efficiency of what we’re driving now. How much fuel was burned to create the manufacturing facilities for the steel? the plastic?How efficient is it to extract crude? or shale? or tar sands?The point is that with EXISTING vehicles, anyone can burn hydrogen produced a mere few inches away from the place it’s needed. Electrolysis doesn’t take very much juice. Hydrogen is an incredible energy transfer tool/storage medium. Why do you think the concept exists in the first place?The solar panels are unnecessary, but recharging batteries while not driving is a boon.What you’d be burning is a stoichiometric mix of hydrogen and oxygen, not just hydrogen.A few people in Eugene, Or have done this. And there are videos galore. Hydroxy looks like fun, too.I’m gonna stop.Good luck out there
May 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hydrogen power is a marketing/lobbying campaign to get massive subsidies from governments for automakers and defense contractors–since we will need the “next generation” of nuclear plants (GE/Westinghouse) to make enough hydrogen to replace gas guzzlers with H guzzlers (because conservation=communism). But the real purpose of the greenwash is to get the upfront money from taxpayers and stage some dog and pony shows to keep the rubes on the hook.