Excellent Artist, I found on Jamendo, you can find him on Itunes, AMazon and a few other music sites for purchace / Download.
Better by Square a Saw
The River by Stingray Szn
Nick Ray – Divide & Conquer (Electronic Remix)
Don’t hate your gut: It may help you lose weight, fight depression and lower blood pressure
Jasenka Zubcevic, University of Florida and Christopher Martyniuk, University of Florida
A universe of organisms living inside you may affect every part of your body, from your brain to your bones, and even your thoughts, feelings and your attempts to lose weight.
This is a universe of trillions of microorganisms – or what we biologists call microbiota – that live in your gut, the part of your body responsible for digestion of the food you eat and the liquids you drink.
As researchers, we have been looking increasingly into the effect these bacteria have on their host’s body, from obesity to mental illness and heart disease. With obesity, for example, these tiny organisms may play a big role by influencing what foods we crave and how our bodies hold onto fat.
In a recent study of the gut microbiome, we set out to determine whether the microbiota in the gut can be affected not only by our nervous system but also by an unsuspected source – our bone marrow.
Our hope is that, by understanding the interactions of the microbiome with other parts of the body, one day treatments could be developed for a range of illnesses.
The gut-brain-bone marrow connection
The gut, which includes your esophagus, stomach, small and large intestines, colon and other parts of your digestive system, is the first line of defense and the largest interface between the host – in this case, a person – and the outside world.
After birth, the gut is the first point of entry for environmental and dietary influences on human life. Thus, the microbiota in the gut play a crucial role during human growth, as they contribute to development and maintenance of our immune system throughout our lifetime.
While we initially thought of the microbiota as relatively simple organisms, the fact is that they may not be so simple after all. Gut microbiota can be as personal and complex as a fingerprint.
There are more bacteria in your gut alone than cells in your entire body. This vast bacterial universe contains species that combined can have up to 150 times more genes than exist in humans. Research suggests that the bacteria in our gut predates the appearance of humans and that they may have played an important role in evolutionary separation between our ape ancestors and us.
Healthy bacteria actively interact with the host immune system in the gut. They contribute to the barrier between disease-causing microorganisms or infections introduced via ingestion. They also help prepare the host immune system to defend the body. The wrong mix of microbes, on the other hand, can contribute to many digestive, immune and mental health disorders and even obesity.
These tiny organisms work very hard in digestion. They help digest our food and can release nutrients and vitamins essential for our well being, all in exchange for the privilege of existing in a nutritious environment.
Researchers are actively exploring the many facets of this symbiotic relationship. Recent data show a link between gut microbiota diversity and richness and the way we store fat, how we regulate digestion hormones and blood glucose levels, and even what types of food we prefer.
This may also be a reason our eating habits are so difficult to change. Some research suggests that microbiota may generate cravings for foods they specialize in – even chocolate – or those that will allow them to better compete for resources against other bacteria.
A three-way call?
There’s growing evidence of a link between the brain and our microbiota as well. The brain is the equivalent of a computer’s main processor, regulating all physiological variables, including the immune system, the body’s defense against infection and illness.
All immune cells are “born” in the bone marrow. From our previous research, we knew that increased bone marrow inflammation, one of many consequences of high blood pressure, was driven by a direct message from the brain. The gut, too, plays an important role in preparing the immune system for battle.
So we wondered: Could the bone marrow immune cells be playing a role in signaling between the brain and the gut? We wanted to find out.
Using a novel experimental mouse model, we replaced the bone marrow that occurs naturally within a mouse with bone marrow cells from a different, genetically modified mouse. This replacement marrow was deficient in a specific molecule called adrenergic receptor beta, which made the bone marrow less responsive to the neural messages from the brain.
In this way we could investigate how the host brain-immune communication will modify gut microbiota.
Indeed, by studying this new mouse model, we determined that our nervous system – directed by our brain – can modify the composition of gut microbiota by communicating directly with the bone marrow immune cells. The brain, therefore, can change our gut microbiota indirectly by talking to the bone.
Fewer inflammatory cells in bone marrow resulted in fewer in the gut
Based on our experiments, we observed that fewer inflammatory cells were present in the circulation of mice that received the special bone marrow replacement than in those that didn’t. This means there are fewer immune cells able to infiltrate the gut and influence the bacterial environment.
Thus, by suppressing the communication between the brain and the bone marrow, we observed a muted inflammatory response in the gut and a consequent shift toward a “healthier,” more diverse microbiome.
This appears to be mediated via specific changes in inflammatory genes in the gut. However, this interaction between the host and the gut microbiota is very complex, and much more research is needed to pinpoint the exact mechanisms of their close communication.
This may also be protective against weight gain, due to the very important role that both microbiota and the immune system play in obesity.
A key to heart health, mental health and weight loss?
This finding may also have implications in immune diseases as well as treatments either resulting in or employing immunosuppression. The latter may affect the gut microbiota, which in turn may cause unwanted effects in the body, including those associated with digestive and mental health conditions.
In the context of cardiovascular disease, this muted inflammatory response appears to be beneficial, as it leads to beneficial lowering of blood pressure in our experimental mice.
Most interestingly, a link between gut microbiota and our mental health has recently become clearer. In particular, some have suggested that gut microbiota influence the stress and anxiety pathways in the brain in a way that can alter mood and behavior both positively and negatively, giving a whole new meaning to the term “gut feeling.”
This could soon lead to a new class of drugs, called psychobiotics.
Much like the “chicken and the egg” scenario, however, this complex interplay warrants further investigation to fully understand the consequences (or benefits) of perturbing one single component of the gut microbiota. This understanding is essential if we are to fully harness the power of manipulation of gut microbiota in health and disease, without negative side effects.
Jasenka Zubcevic, Assistant Professor, University of Florida and Christopher Martyniuk, Associate Professor of Toxicology, University of Florida
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Want to do something good for your health? Try being generous
Ashley Whillans, University of British Columbia
Every day, we are confronted with choices about how to spend our money. Whether it’s thinking about picking up the tab at a group lunch or when a charity calls asking for a donation, we are faced with the decision to behave generously or not.
Research suggests that spending money on others can improve happiness, but can it also improve your physical health?
There is some evidence that donating time can improve physical health, but no one has looked at whether donating money has the same effect.
So my colleagues and I at the University of British Columbia decided to conduct an experiment to find out if spending money on others could lower blood pressure, which was published in the journal Health Psychology.
Helpful people might be healthier
A 1999 study examining whether volunteering had an effect on mortality provided initial evidence for an association between helping others and physical health. In the study, adults age 55 and older reported how many organizations they helped, how many hours they spent volunteering, and then underwent a physical exam.
Researchers controlled for several factors, including how healthy participants were when the study began and their available social support. After five years the adults who reported providing more help to others were 44% more likely to be alive.
In a more recent study, researchers measured blood pressure and volunteering once at baseline and again four years later. They found evidence that older adults who volunteered at least four hours per week in the 12 months prior to the baseline blood pressure measurement were less likely to develop high blood pressure four years later.
Additional studies suggest that volunteering is associated with greater physical health in part because volunteering helps to buffer against stress and prevents against declines in functional health, such as declines in walking speed and physical strength.
So does being helpful cause better health?
It might seem simple – helping is good for your health. But so far, most research studying the health benefits of helping have been correlational. These studies cannot determine whether helping others actually causes improvements in physical health or just happens to be related to it.
Also, most research has focused on the health benefits of volunteering one’s time. As it turns out, people think about time and money in vastly different ways. For example, whereas thinking about time leads people to prioritize social connections, thinking about money can lead people to distance themselves from others.
It remains unclear whether the benefits of generosity extend to donating money. Our latest work provides the first empirical evidence that this decision might also have clinically relevant implications for physical health.
Can spending money on others lower blood pressure?
We gave 128 older adults (ages 65-85) US$40 a week for three weeks. Half of our participants were randomly assigned to spend the money on themselves and half were told to spend it on others. We told participants to spend their $40 payment all in one day and to save the receipts from the purchases they had made.
We measured participants’ blood pressure before, during, and after they spent their study payments. We chose to examine blood pressure in this study because we can measure it reliably in the lab, and because high blood pressure is a significant health outcome – having chronically elevated blood pressure (hypertension) is responsible for 7.5 million premature deaths each year.
What did we find? Among participants who were previously diagnosed with high blood pressure (N=73), spending money on others significantly reduced their blood pressure over the course of the study. Critically, the magnitude of these effects was comparable to the benefits of interventions such as anti-hypertensive medication and exercise.
The participants who were previously diagnosed with high blood pressure, and who were assigned to spend money on themselves, showed no change in blood pressure during the study. As expected, for people who didn’t have high blood pressure, there was no benefit from spending money on others.
Whom you spend money on matters
Interestingly, we found tentative evidence that how people spent their money mattered for promoting the benefits of financial generosity. People seemed to benefit most from spending money on others they felt closest to. This finding is consistent with previous research from our lab showing that people derive the most satisfaction from spending money on others when they splurge on close friends and family.
For instance, the first participant in our study was a war veteran. He donated his payments to a school built in honor of a friend he had served with in the Vietnam War. Another participant donated her payments to a charity that had helped her granddaughter survive anorexia.
Of course, there is still a lot to learn about when and for whom the health benefits of financial generosity emerge.
For example, we don’t know a lot about how or how much people should spend on others to enjoy long-lasting health benefits. Indeed, research suggests that the positive benefits of new circumstances can disappear quickly. Thus, to sustain the health benefits of financial generosity, it might be necessary to engage in novel acts of financial generosity, while prioritizing people that you are closest to.
And financial generosity might not always benefit health. Drawing from research on caregiving, financial generosity might provide benefits only when it does not incur overwhelming personal costs. After reading this article, you probably should think twice before donating your entire life savings to charity, because the stress of helping so extensively could undermine any potential benefits.
Although more research is needed to replicate these results, our initial findings provide some of the strongest evidence to date that daily decisions related to engaging in financial generosity can have causal benefits for physical health.
Stepping toward better health (and happiness) may be as simple as spending your next $20 generously.
Ashley Whillans, PhD student in Social & Health Psychology, University of British Columbia
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The latest blood pressure guidelines: What they mean for you
John Warner, UT Southwestern Medical Center
Updated blood pressure guidelines from the American Heart Association mean that many more Americans, notably older people, are now diagnosed with high blood pressure, or hypertension. This may sound like bad news, but the new guidelines highlight some important lessons we cardiologists and heart health researchers have learned from the latest blood pressure studies. Specifically, we have learned that damage from high blood pressure starts at much lower blood pressures than previously thought and that it is more important than ever to start paying attention to your blood pressure before it starts causing problems.
High blood pressure accounts for more heart disease and stroke deaths than all other preventable causes, except smoking.
As president of the AHA and a cardiologist, I completely support the latest guidelines. I know they will save lives, especially when blood pressure is accurately checked and when people make therapeutic lifestyle choices to lower their blood pressure.
How high blood pressure damages
High blood pressure, which occurs when the force of blood pushing against blood vessel walls is too high, is similar to turning up the water in a garden hose – pressure in the hose increases as more water is blasted through it. The added pressure causes the heart to work too hard and blood vessels to function less effectively. Over time, the stress damages the tissues within blood vessels, which can further damage the heart and circulatory system.
The AHA, the American College of Cardiology and nine other health professional organizations reviewed more than 900 studies as part of a rigorous review and approval process to develop this first update since 2003 to comprehensive U.S. high blood pressure guidelines.
Here’s what’s new:
- High blood pressure, previously defined as 140/90 mm Hg or higher, is now defined as 130/80 mm Hg or higher. This change reflects the latest research that shows health problems can occur at those lower levels. Risk for heart attack, stroke and other consequences begins anywhere above 120 mm Hg (for systolic blood pressure, the top number in a reading), and risk doubles at 130 mm Hg compared to levels below 120.
- Blood pressure in adults will be categorized as normal, elevated, stage 1 hypertension or stage 2 hypertension. The category “prehypertension” is no longer used; it previously referred to blood pressures with a top number (systolic) between 120-139 mm Hg or a bottom number (diastolic) between 80-89 mm Hg. People with those readings are now categorized as having either Elevated or Stage I hypertension.
- Determination of eligibility for blood pressure-lowering medication treatment is no longer based solely on blood pressure level. It now also considers a patient’s risk of heart disease or stroke over the next 10 years, based on a risk calculator. For people with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, medication is recommended regardless of risk level.
Putting the guidelines to work
Hypertension is known as the “silent killer” because often there are no obvious symptoms. The only way to know whether you have it is by having your blood pressure measured. Accurate blood pressure measurement is critical to a correct diagnosis.
The guidelines emphasize use of proper technique to measure blood pressure, whether taken by a health care professional in the clinic or by the patient using a home blood pressure monitoring device. Blood pressure levels should be based on an average of two to three readings on at least two different occasions.
A number of common errors can inflate a reading. These include having a full bladder, slouching with unsupported back or feet, sitting with crossed legs, or talking while being measured; using a cuff that is too small or wrapping the cuff over clothing; and not supporting the arm being measured on a chair or counter to keep it level with the heart.
An accurate reading is critical to a correct diagnosis, faster treatment and the most appropriate care.
The lower threshold for a diagnosis of high blood pressure increases the percentage of U.S. adults (ages 20 and older) who have the condition, from approximately 1 in 3 to nearly half (46 percent).
Even with the new threshold, the percentage of U.S. adults for whom medication is recommended (along with lifestyle management) will increase only slightly. Most of the people who are newly diagnosed with high blood pressure will be advised to make lifestyle changes to shift their blood pressure into a healthy zone.
The promise of healthy lifestyle changes
Damage to blood vessels begins soon after blood pressure is elevated. Early intervention can help prevent problems, slow damage that has already started and lower the risk for a heart disease or stroke. Lifestyle changes should be on the front lines of efforts to tackle the high blood pressure epidemic.
Here are some of the best proven nondrug approaches to prevent and treat high blood pressure:
- Lose weight. For each kilogram lost, systolic blood pressure is expected to fall by about 1 mm Hg.
- Eat better. Choose a dietary pattern rich in fruits vegetables, whole grains, and low-fat dairy products, reduced in saturated and total fat, lower in salt (aim to cut current intake by 1,000 mg/day sodium), and rich in potassium (aim for 3,500-5,000 mg/day, focusing on potassium-rich foods such as bananas, potatoes, avocados and dark leafy vegetables).
- Move more. Get 90-150 minutes per week of both aerobic physical activity and resistance training.
- Moderate alcohol intake. Limit to one drink or fewer per day for women and two drinks or fewer per day for men.
Personal responsibility for one’s health behaviors is important, but a number of other complex, interrelated aspects of the physical, social and policy environments influence these behaviors.
Public health practices and policies leading to changes in systems and environments support individuals’ efforts to make healthy lifestyle choices. For example, well-maintained sidewalks, bike lanes and parks support physically active lifestyles, and healthier food options in corner stores, vending machines and other public places promotes better eating habits. Community-based efforts can shift social norms and help transform the environments where behaviors occur to make healthier choices easier – more accessible, affordable, and attractive – for everyone.
John Warner, Executive Vice President, Health Affairs, UT Southwestern Medical Center
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Why mental health treatment is not an easy solution to violence
Sarah L. Desmarais, North Carolina State University
In the wake of mass shootings and other tragedies, a frequent refrain is: Why don’t we get those dangerous people off the streets? And, just as frequently, people suggest that mental health treatment is the answer.
Yet, for two main reasons, mental health treatment is not an easy solution to violence. The process of treating mental illness is difficult and complicated. More importantly, the vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent and the vast majority of lethal acts of violence are not perpetrated by people with mental illnesses.
I am a forensic psychologist and professor of psychology. I have studied mental illness, violence and mental health treatment at length. Here are some reasons that mental health treatment is not going to “cure” violence.
Identifying symptoms of mental illness
Recognizing that someone is experiencing mental health problems is a necessary first step to treatment. This requires that either someone recognizes and discloses his or her own symptoms of mental illness, or that others identify a person’s symptoms.
People may not want to come forward with their symptoms because of stigma and concerns that friends and others will view them as dangerous. They also may not recognize that they have a mental illness. Indeed, lack of insight or unawareness of symptoms is a feature of many serious mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.
Alternatively, mental health and other professionals can use universal screening protocols to screen everyone in a given setting, such as a school, workplace or doctor’s office, for symptoms of mental illness. These are short questionnaires that survey a range of symptoms that may indicate the presence of mental illness.
A positive screen does not mean that someone has a mental illness, however. It means that he or she may be at risk. To be diagnosed after a positive screen, that person would have to receive an in-depth evaluation by a health care professional.
Routine screening requires a place of regular contact. Federal laws mandate that Medicaid-eligible children are screened for mental health conditions and recommend screening in schools more generally. The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends routine screening of children and youth in primary care settings.
But many schools and primary care offices don’t conduct routine mental health screening. Even when they do, they are not equipped with the skills or resources to follow up with comprehensive mental health treatment.
Challenges to providing treatment
Providing mental health care is not necessarily a straightforward task. People with mental illnesses may not want to seek treatment, and family, friends or teachers can’t simply force them to go. People with mental illnesses also have the legal right to refuse treatment, except in severe cases.
In such cases, discussion typically turns to involuntary treatment. Every state has civil commitment laws that establish criteria for determining when involuntary treatment is appropriate.
Although the specific legal standards vary by state, these laws generally describe criteria relating to the physical danger a person presents to himself or herself or to others due to a mental illness. In other words, for someone to be treated against their will in a hospital or in the community, a mental health professional must determine that: a) the person is suffering from a serious mental illness; b) he or she presents a serious, typically physical, threat to himself, herself or others; and c) that the threat is due to the mental illness.
Civil commitment is a legal process. There are two key points here. First, if the threat to self or others cannot be attributed to serious mental illness, then involuntary treatment standards do not apply. Second, a caregiver cannot make this decision; it must be made by a court. People looking for solutions to violence should not overlook these points.
People with mental illnesses are as heterogeneous as those without when it comes to the causes and motives for violence. While some have symptoms that lead them to act violently, others have symptoms that are not relevant or even decrease their risk of violence.
And, while some mental health conditions are more clearly and strongly linked to violence, such as personality disorders and substance use disorders, these conditions would not typically meet involuntary treatment standards.
Long waits and limited resources
What happens when someone seeks mental health treatment voluntarily or is involuntarily committed? It depends. Our mental health services are overburdened and under-resourced. For example, we need somewhere between 40-60 beds per 100,000 people, but there are only about 11 beds per 100,000. Mental health settings across the United States have long wait lists and are under pressure to discharge patients quickly because of overcrowding, limitations on what insurance will cover, or lack of insurance altogether.
A recent report on barriers to outpatient mental health services in Massachusetts, for example, found that children, those who needed a psychiatrist, and adults covered by Medicaid were among those who waited the longest – often months. While waiting for treatment, symptoms may worsen. Untreated symptoms can result in acute mental health crises that lead to stays in hospital emergency departments or in jails, where their symptoms worsen.
In addition, while there are many treatments with demonstrated effectiveness, providers may be limited in terms of the services they can provide and bill for. For example, insurance may not cover certain types of treatment or may limit the number of treatment sessions. There also can be challenges to the implementation of evidence-based practices in mental health settings that reduce their availability. Many people with serious mental illnesses have publicly funded insurance, such as Medicaid, or are uninsured, further limiting their treatment options.
About one-third of those diagnosed with mental illness do not receive mental health services.
Treatment for mental illness isn’t going to lower rates of violence
If we were able to successfully treat people with serious mental illnesses, how would this change rates of violence in the United States?
Not much.
Although serious mental illnesses are associated with increased risk for violence, the rate of violent incidents in the United States that is attributable to mental illness is quite small – only about 3-5 percent. And, the rate of gun violence perpetrated by adults with mental illnesses is even lower – about 2 percent.
In fact, adults with mental illnesses are much more likely to be victims than the perpetrators of violence.
There are many social, legal, and even financial reasons why providing mental health treatment – and increasing funding to do so – is the right thing to do. But my research, and that of others, shows that addressing violence in the United States just isn’t one of them.
Sarah L. Desmarais, Professor of Psychology, North Carolina State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
What’s the 411 on the new 988 hotline? 5 questions answered about a national mental health service
Derek Lee, The Ohio State University
Beginning July 16, 2022, people struggling with mental health crises can now call 988, a new number focused on providing lifesaving suicide prevention and crisis services. But 988 is not just a shorter, easier-to-remember replacement for the current suicide hotline. Congress and the Federal Communications Commission also established the 988 Lifeline to address longstanding concerns in mental health care.
The Conversation asked Derek Lee, a PhD student at The Ohio State University in Counselor Education and Supervision and a therapist, to explain the new service and how it is different from the old hotline. Lee’s academic and research focus is on suicide, including training, intervention and prevention.
What is 988?
The three-digit number is part of a new national mental health program. In 2020, the Federal Communications Commission designated 988 as the help line number, and Congress authorized funding for the 988 Lifeline Program.
Can people still call 1-800-273-TALK?
Sure. The soon-to-be old number has been operational since 2005, but it will not be going away just yet.
July 16 is when 988 went live nationally and callers can also begin using it to call, text or chat.
What’s wrong with the old number?
The system behind it, including its 200 call centers currently in the national crisis line network, according to a 2019 report on the program.
A major problem is that call centers don’t always have the staff or the technology to handle growing numbers of calls.
Calls that in-state centers are unable to answer get rerouted to centers out of state through the system’s backup network. This means that the operator may be less familiar with local crises, according to a spokesperson for Vibrant Emotional Health, the nonprofit that administers the crisis line program. Or incoming calls might simply “bunch up,” creating a telephone logjam, and leave callers waiting on hold “too long,” a time period the report does not define.
The report does note, however, that there isn’t a consistent standard for wait times, staffing or other operational aspects of the call centers. State governments regulate them, and they are independently operated.
How will 988 be different?
That’s unclear. Vibrant hasn’t released specific plans. Congress hasn’t either, but the Behavioral Crisis Services Expansion Act introduced last year requires call centers to “offer air traffic control-quality coordination of crisis care in real-time.”
Where will the money come from to pay for all this?
The shift to 988 comes with funding at the state and federal levels, as well as federal oversight to assure equitable access. Initial funding is coming through federal channels, including the American Rescue Plan, Community Mental Health Services Block Grant and President Biden’s proposed 2022 fiscal year budget. Most of the long-term funding will come from individual states.
Why is all this happening now?
Much of the discussion began during the pandemic, which really brought mental health issues to the forefront. A study of 8 million calls to help lines in 19 countries and regions found that call volumes jumped during the initial wave of coronavirus infections. At the six-week peak, the total number of calls was 35% higher than before the pandemic.
In the U.S., the coronavirus national emergency and the widespread lockdown that followed brought nationwide increases in the number of people struggling with depression, anxiety and other mental conditions. Alcohol use increased, particularly among women and college students.
Who does 988 benefit?
Anyone who needs help with their mental health, particularly people in crisis. A major goal of the 988 Lifeline is creating equity in mental health services, especially for those who have not always had consistent or reliable access to mental health care.
For example, Vibrant will provide operators who speak both English and Spanish and telephone interpreter service in over 150 additional languages.
One improvement experts would like to see is the implementation of virtual visits with mental health professionals for those who can’t travel to in-person appointments, like people with disabilities or those in rural areas.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect Vibrant Emotional Health’s most recent plans for the 988 Lifeline.
Derek Lee, Doctoral Student in Counselor Education and Supervision, The Ohio State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Star City Community Gazette January 24th
It is a New year, Many surprises have came with the birth of this year, Everything from the Increase in Cell Data Limit to Mega. Simply Put we can build larger builds, have more action code etc. Tart sugar Is hosting The 8th EBTS in the world of Wild which judging starts from 11th February until 24th February, and the winners will be announced on Saturday 4th march. They have some fantastic prizes for the EBTS 8 Which are as follows
1st place is $125.00
2nd place is $50.00
3rd place is $25.00
These prizes are from donations , Thank you Contributors !
I have also learned That Nursemom Has Handed over all of the Free hosting accounts to Maxpoly and for Free hosting you can Contact him or Visit him in Winter world.
Star City has several Projects planned for this year, A New Citizen Area, An Actual Landing Zone Area and a possible Building contest in the new future if all things pan out. Of course we still have lots available for all citizens to build on and though we aim towards a more futuristic style builds we do not really have a set theme, So there will be no limitations on your imagination or builds.
We also have a Maglev Train build in progress, TenYearsGone is the main builder on that project amongst all the other projects he kindly donates his time to as well.
I want to take this moment to say thanks to all of the builders that have contributed to Star city Thus far and some special thanks to the Loose Screw Crew AKA Star City Staff for all their hard work and time spent helping me on The Star City Project. Also I want to thank those whom have helped to promote Star City and their events and those who were there from the beginning giving me support and even nudging me to move forward.
Now a new year is here, let us all learn to work together for the common goal of making our beloved AW the best 3d Environment / Chat / Sandbox & community we can.
RJB Networks 