TasteLikePetrichor

As Google has worked to overtake the internet, its search algorithm has not just gotten worse.  It has been designed to prioritize advertisers and popular pages often times excluding pages and content that better matches your search terms 

As a writer in need of information for my stories, I find this unacceptable.  As a proponent of availability of information so the populace can actually educate itself, it is unforgivable.

Below is a concise list of useful research sites compiled by Edward Clark over on Facebook. I was familiar with some, but not all of these.

⁂

Google is so powerful that it “hides” other search systems from us. We just don’t know the existence of most of them. Meanwhile, there are still a huge number of excellent searchers in the world who specialize in books, science, other smart information. Keep a list of sites you never heard of.

www.refseek.com - Academic Resource Search. More than a billion sources: encyclopedia, monographies, magazines.

www.worldcat.org - a search for the contents of 20 thousand worldwide libraries. Find out where lies the nearest rare book you need.

https://link.springer.com - access to more than 10 million scientific documents: books, articles, research protocols.

www.bioline.org.br is a library of scientific bioscience journals published in developing countries.

http://repec.org - volunteers from 102 countries have collected almost 4 million publications on economics and related science.

www.science.gov is an American state search engine on 2200+ scientific sites. More than 200 million articles are indexed.

www.pdfdrive.com is the largest website for free download of books in PDF format. Claiming over 225 million names.

Flint, Michigan, was once synonymous with the American Dream. But now, it is at the epicenter of one of the most profound environmental and public health crises in recent memory. The Flint water crisis began in 2014 and has left an indelible mark on the community. It has exposed systemic failures, environmental injustices, and the vulnerabilities of marginalized populations. As we delve into the complexities of this crisis, it becomes apparent that its repercussions extend far beyond contaminated water. They reach into the very fabric of the community, affecting health, trust in institutions, and the socioeconomic landscape. In this article, we explore the origins of the Flint water crisis and its multifaceted impacts on the community. Impact on Public HealthSocioeconomic RamificationsOngoing Efforts and ChallengesFrequently Asked Questions About the Flint Water CrisisIs the Water in Flint Safe to Drink Now?How has the Flint water crisis affected property values?What are the long-term health effects of lead exposure?Final Thoughts About the Flint Water Crisis Origins of the Crisis The roots of the Flint water crisis can be traced back to April 2014. This was when the city, under state-appointed emergency management, switched its water source from Lake Huron to the Flint River. This decision was ostensibly made to cut costs, but it set off a chain of events with devastating consequences. According to a Sage Journal study, this switch also had a political agenda. The study states that the switch resulted from a White state project—the project aimed to regionalize the assets and natural resources controlled by the Black working-class city of Detroit. Almost immediately after the switch, residents began to complain about tap water's taste, smell, and appearance. The Flint River's water was contaminated by several toxins disposed of over the years. Despite these concerns, officials assured the public that the water was safe to drink. However, independent studies soon revealed dangerously high lead levels and other contaminants in the water supply. Impact on Public Health American Red Cross Volunteers Delivering Water and Filters to Flint Residents - Thumbwind Publications The health implications of the Flint water crisis are staggering. Lead exposure, especially in children, can lead to irreversible neurological damage, developmental delays, and behavioral problems. An NCBI study shows that the crisis's impact on children's educational outcomes is visible even after ten years. The study found a substantial decrease in math achievements, especially among students of low socioeconomic status and young students. Moreover, there's an increased need for special needs classification among boys. The consequences of lead exposure extend beyond cognitive effects. Lead poisoning can also affect various organs in the body, including the kidneys, liver, and reproductive system. Additionally, it can lead to cardiovascular issues such as hypertension and an increased risk of heart disease. The Flint water crisis exacerbated existing health disparities, disproportionately affecting low-income communities and people of color who were already facing socio-economic challenges. Beyond lead contamination, Flint's water was also found to contain other contaminants, such as bacteria and carcinogens. This posed additional health risks to residents, including gastrointestinal illnesses and potential long-term health effects, such as cancer. Cancer has always been a primary concern among those exposed to contaminated water. Camp Lejeune's water contamination is an example. The water supply at Camp Lejeune was found to be contaminated by industrial solvents like trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE). According to TorHoerman Law, military officials, their family members, and other civil workers exposed are at a higher risk of developing cancers. The contaminated water has been associated with cancers like bladder, breast, cervical, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, multiple myeloma, etc.

Jul 9, 2025

The Flint water crisis began in 2014, after lead-contaminated drinking water was found to be leaching out from aging pipes into homes citywide.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Natural Resources Defense Council, with help from other activists and nonprofits, have released statements on the recent progress, celebrating the milestone.

The statements which they chalk up the crisis to “cost-cutting measures and improper water treatment,” that the state “didn’t require treatment to prevent corrosion,” after a “a state-appointed emergency manager” switched the water supply to the Flint River.

There is no safe level of lead exposure; each nanogram causes harm. In addition to long-known risks, such as damage to children’s brains and certain cancers, there is also significant evidence that exposure to lead is linked to numerous cardiovascular diseases, including stroke and heart attack.

The coalition mobilized the citizenry and filed a lawsuit against Flint and Michigan state officials to secure safe water. The result was a settlement in March 2017, under which a federal court in Detroit ordered Flint to give every resident the opportunity to have their lead pipe replaced at no cost, as well as conduct comprehensive tap water testing, implement a faucet filter distribution and education program, and maintain funding for health programs to help residents deal with the effects of Flint’s tainted water, according to the NRDC.

The coalition then returned to court six times in six years to ensure the city and state kept to the timeline, which was delayed by COVID-19, and other reasons which The Detroit News described as “spotty record-keeping” and “ineffective management.”

On July 1st, the State of Michigan submitted a progress report to a federal court confirming that, more than eight years after the settlement, nearly 11,000 lead pipes were replaced and more than 28,000 properties were restored where the maintenance had taken place.

Of the 4,200 buildings where lead pipes are known to still be in service, their owners have either left the properties vacant, abandoned, or have declined the free replacement under the Safe Water Drinking Act. The coalition has said it will continue to monitor city and state progress on these remaining lines.

What a time to be alive.

For Black History Month, JSTOR Daily editors have gathered stories that draw on scholarship to explore Black life, culture, resistance, and creativity, with free access to the research behind each piece.

Inside, you’ll find pieces on Black radical traditions, community spaces like libraries and record stores, the Black press, visual culture, literature, and performance, alongside deep dives into archival discoveries and the scholars who help make these histories visible.

See the roundup.

In light of the recent Grammy Awards, it feels necessary to revisit a statement made by British comedian Ricky Gervais—originally delivered last year but resurfacing again in 2026—in which he argued that celebrities should refrain from making political statements during award shows. According to him, artists should simply accept their awards, thank the relevant people, and leave the stage, asserting that politics “has no place” in such moments. While this sentiment is widely echoed by many, it reflects a deeply flawed and ultimately harmful way of thinking—one that has significantly contributed to the political apathy and moral detachment that define much of the world today.

The idea that politics can be neatly separated from certain spaces, professions, or moments is not only unrealistic, but intellectually dishonest. Politics is not confined to parliaments, ballots, or debates—it exists in every aspect of daily life. It shapes the food we eat, the wages we earn, the borders we cross, the rights we are granted or denied, and even which lives are deemed worthy of protection or silence. To claim that politics has “no place” in cultural spaces like the Grammys is to ignore the reality that art itself has always been political. Music, film, comedy, and performance have historically been tools of resistance, protest, and social change—from anti-war anthems to civil rights movements to songs that challenge authoritarianism and injustice.

Award shows like the Grammys are not politically neutral spaces. They are massive global platforms watched by millions, funded by corporations, shaped by industry power dynamics, and embedded within larger social systems. To suggest that a brief political statement during an acceptance speech is somehow inappropriate—while allowing extravagant displays of wealth, corporate branding, and selective representation—is deeply inconsistent. A heartfelt “thank you” is not inherently more valuable or meaningful than using those same few moments to raise awareness about war, genocide, climate collapse, systemic racism, or humanitarian crises. In fact, when the entire world is watching, choosing silence can be more political than speaking at all.

Celebrities undeniably hold influence, whether they seek it or not. Their fashion choices spark trends, their endorsements move markets, and their words—spoken on the most visible stages—can shift public discourse. History repeatedly shows that a single sentence, delivered at the right moment, can mobilize support, inspire empathy, or pressure institutions into action. When an influential figure speaks about injustice, it can lead people to donate, to research, to protest, or simply to care. Dismissing this power as inappropriate or unnecessary reveals a level of privilege that assumes suffering can be ignored without consequence.

Statements like “politics doesn’t belong here” often translate to something far more callous: an insistence on comfort over conscience, entertainment over empathy. It is an indirect way of saying, “This doesn’t affect me, and I would rather not be reminded that it affects others.” For those whose lives are shaped daily by political decisions—refugees, marginalized communities, people living under occupation or oppression—politics is not an abstract debate or an inconvenient interruption. It is survival.

Encouraging political awareness should not be controversial; it should be expected. Free speech, critical thought, and open discussion are foundational to any functioning society. Discouraging people—especially public figures—from expressing political opinions does not create unity or peace; it fosters ignorance and complacency. Politics should not be treated as a forbidden or “voodoo” subject to avoid at social gatherings or public events. It should be discussed, challenged, and understood, because it quite literally governs the world around us.

To deny politics a place on influential platforms is not neutrality—it is a choice to uphold the status quo. And in a world where people are dying, displaced, and silenced every day, choosing comfort over awareness is not just passive; it is complicit.