Reserve your spot in my free Pronunciation Masterclass running at various times. englishlikeanative.co.uk/english-pronunciation-masterclass-registration/
Thank you very much for your pronuntiation lessons, very important for people like me who aren't in a English-speaking place, so can't listen these sounds often, and have to immaginate them, not always right
Obviously Anna, speakers of latin languages such as French, Italian, Spanish will be better off and won't find these words too tricky (except maybe for the pronunciation they'll have to get right) as medical terms in English as well as scientific terms more generally have usually either a Greek or Latin or French origin. To be convinced of this, and if that is of interest to you, here are their equivalents in French; I give you the IPA too ;-): You can consider the (ə) I put in parenthesis as ~silent. Cardiovascular system: système cardiovasculaire / sistɛm(ə) kaʁdjɔvaskylɛʁ(ə) Blood vessels: vaisseaux sanguins / vɛso sɑ̃gɛ̃ Cardiologist: cardiologue / kaʁdjɔlɔg(ə) Vascular surgeon: chirurgien vasculaire / ʃiʁyɾʒjɛ̃ vaskylɛʁ(ə) Hypertension: hypertension / ipɛʁtɑ̃sjõ High blood pressure: pression sanguine élevée / pʁɛsjõ sɑ̃gin(ə) eləve Hypotension: hypotension / ipɔtɑ̃sjõ Low /weak blood pressure: pression sanguine basse/faible / pʁɛsjõ sɑ̃gin(ə) bas/fɛbl Cholesterol: cholestérol / kɔlɛsteʁɔl Atherosclerosis: athérosclérose / ateʁɔskleɾoz Angina (stenocardia): Angine de poitrine (sténocardie) / ɑ̃ʒin(ə) də pwatʁin(ə) (stenɔkaʁdi) Cardiac arrhythmia: arythmie cardiaque / aʁitmi kaʁdjak(ə) Myocardial infarction: infarctus du myocarde / ɛ̃faʁktys dy mjɔkaʁd Congestive heart failure: insuffisance cardiaque congestive / ɛ̃syfizɑ̃s kaʁdjak kõʒɛstiv Coronary artery disease: maladie coronarienne / maladi kɔʁɔnaɾjɛn(ə) coronaropathie / kɔʁɔnaʁɔpati Stroke: A.V.C. (accident vasculaire cérébral) / a.ve.ce (aksidɑ̃ vaskylɛʁ seʁebʁal) Palpitations: Palpitations / palpitasjɔ̃
Very useful lesson for hypochondriacs 😂 loved it, I use your podcasts for shadowing, the speed is perfect for me. Thank you very much indeed 😊 loved especially the Doc character.😂
Hi miss I would like to add up two expressions in your list_by your consent though, which are, #1 cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Would you please differentiat between hypochondria and valetudinarian. Thanks
Hi, Anna. It is the first time I watch your video; indeed, I really love it after watching, becasue (1) you are using modern Received Pronunciation (RP) and (2) the pace you are speaking in English is fairly moderate for the purpose, which I would think, of letting ESL (English as Second Language) learners to be able to listen to and understand what you are saying and talking about. To me, it is particularly nice, because I am based in Hong Kong; many people here are speaking in English with RP, rather than Cockney and Estuary English. I think it is a main reason that HK was a colony before; many counterparts who came to here before were from south part of England, and more importantly, BBC English (another description of RP or standard English) is so well-known over the world. One issue I am much interested in is that there are those subtitles shown next to you in the video. What and how is the purpose of it?
Thank you so much my dear Anna! Yes, forgive me, I had indeed omitted the thesis of an accident always possible indeed. For Jordan Peterson Yes, I know him a little. It's funny you should mention him, because I came across some of his lectures and interviews a few months ago, I think. A very interesting character in terms of his background and his theses. I found his analysis of belief systems, belonging (to social groups) and meaning very relevant. It also seems to me that he refuted what here in France we call 'La théorie du genre' (gender theory) and I have to say that there again I agree with him entirely on this point, as well as on 'wokism' as far as I'm concerned, and I could explain why but I'd need a few hundred characters no doubt ... other ideas of his appeal me less however but I can't develop here. I differ more in particular on his positions on ecological and environmental issues. Of course, he's right to point out that climate systems are very complex, and that's true. But I disagree when he claims that this undermines the idea that we can draw conclusions and forecasts about the future of the earth's climate. It seems to me that here, he's stepping out of his field of expertise, which is more focused on religion/mythology, psychology/neurosciences, literature and philosophy, on which he's had some pretty brilliant outings. On science-related issues, and to quote a few brilliant French-speaking sources I know best, I much prefer the expertise of Jean Marc Jancovici (an engineer, brilliant, specializing in energy and climate issues) and above all the excellentissim Aurélien Barrau, astrophysicist PHD and Doctor of Philosophy, whose incredible relevance, insight doubled with an extraordinary eloquence I can't recommend to you enough! In my opinion, he's the one the whole world should be listening to today, even if he possibly has a few English-speaking alter egos. So yes, it's extremely complex (basically, there's a combination of both positive and negative feedback loops), which is why the G.I.E.C. (IPCC ;-) is proposing not just one model, but a total of forty (!) different models, taking into account the complexity of the phenomena (atmospheric, oceanic etc.)and the way we act and will act in the future. One thing is certain, however: no one can now decently deny anymore the anthropogenic origin of global warming, and the question is no longer whether this is the case, but whether it will be 3, 4, or even 6 or 7°celsius at the end of the century. The effects are already measurable today, and even though we're still 'only' 1.3°C higher on average than before the industrial revolution (1850). I leave it to you to imagine what a rise of 3 or 4 degrees would already represent... I can tell you if you ask and that is just nightmarish. The data are factual. We are currently emitting, brace yourself, 1000 tonnes of CO2 per second (!) into the atmosphere. This is just insane. Its rate, expressed in ppm (parts per million), has risen from 280 in 1850 to some 422 ppm today and at the latest estimates. (To give you an idea, since 'ppm' doesn't say much to the mind, this corresponds to over 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 injected into the atmosphere since 1850!) Knowing that it's almost eternal. Why? Firstly, because greenhouse gases are extraordinarily STABLE, especially given their tri-atomic structure. CO2 is eliminated only very very slowly, and only at the earth's surface, by just 2 phenomena: photosynthesis (in contact with the earth forests which retreat dramatically as you know and the vegetation) and the equilibrium of partial pressures at the air/ocean interface. In other words, the surplus of CO2 passes into the ocean (hence its acidification) to 'balance out' with that in the air. Given the curves of CO2 decline over time, it would now take more than 10,000 years (!) to return (almost and still not quite) to pre-1850 levels and, that's just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem, this only if we stopped all emissions completely, including our breathing, tomorrow morning! .... Put differently, the temp. elevation is from now on ineluctable and irreversible and it will last and worsen whatever we're gonna do from now on. Of course it doesn't mean we must not act and try to find ways, be it only to delay it a bit. I'll spare you the list of the many other industrial gases, and there's also methane, itself a still more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (20 times more), which is likely to be emitted in huge quantities as a result of global warming and the melting of permafrost in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. There are in addition, and that's a point Aurélien highllights and insists on a lot, at least two other huge concerns at least as crucial as global warming, if not even more: Pollution and above all, the more than worrying retreat of wild Life on earth that I personally with him assimilate not to the 6th massive extinction (that it is indeed), but a deliberate extermination homo 'sapiens' is responsible for. Un grand merci Anna! Je te souhaites de passer un excellent weekend. Je t'apprécie énormément et t'aime beaucoup. :-) Bien sûr tu peux me répondre et poursuivre la discussion si tu le souhaites, j'en serai ravi et flatté :-) Bisous bisous my lovely 😘🌹❤ P.s: As for gender theory, wokism and all that rubbish Anna... Here is my view on it: It's just mind-boggling to see what's being put into kids' heads. Along with a lot of other nonsense like inclusive writing in France, gender theory is yet another aberration that should be banned from primary education. In a way, it denies de facto biology; according to it, we would be born as a kind of undifferentiated body without being a priori either male or female, like a kind of material, undifferentiated wax on which the 'seal' of gender will be affixed and only through education, through the existence of social norms, cultural constructs and traditions, will we become male or female... It is basically Simone de Beauvoir's famous phrase: 'You're not born a woman, you become one'. Ok, Except that, in my opinion, that's absolutely not enough, Simone, because there is precisely this biological body and reality that the theory denies! And whether we like it or not, a body, among other things of course, 'is testosterone or oestrogen' as the case may be. No-one will dispute that the baby is a boy or a girl, and if the couple weren't told when their little one was born, they'll realise it pretty quickly. Once again, let's observe and try to decipher Nature, which is the best teacher of all. In nature, and this is factual and quite undeniable, there are males and females with their own characteristics, dimorphisms, differences in behaviour etc. In Homo habilis, Erectus and later Sapiens, it's a fact that an evolutionary process is taking place which means that the 'male', because of his more suitable attributes and aptitudes, is the hunter or even, and this is undoubtedly regrettable but it's the way it is, the warrior... Don't get me wrong, the lady has qualities that are no less commendable and in my opinion even more noble, I insist! What's more, a man's sexuality and a woman's are 2 very different things! But it would take too long to develop here. Of course, I'm not denying that problems relating to gender identity/transidentity and sexuality are likely to arise from time to time. It exists and this is not a question of denying it. It's not a question of glossing over them, but we're in the age of this ridiculous wokism that aims to impose on us what is basically a relatively marginal and confidential thing as a kind of norm that should be praised and praised to the skies. Can't we just consider them and respect them; and why put these ideas into the heads of children? Will it not be time to consider them, to treat them, to support them when these disorders, which for the people in question are bound to be problematic in our 'normalised societies', appear most often in early adolescence or among young adults? In my opinion, it's really the people who come up with these theories and school programmes who should be getting treatment! Clearly.
Anna, your are an exceptional teacher, a wonderful podcastress; but why so little feedback, so few hearts granted to your fans and lovers?!... Of course I am no one to give you any advice but it seems to me that you shoud never become (and somehow like the dr you incarnated wonderfully in that sketch at the end of the pocast) jaded of your success and of being an inspirer... For you are a muse for many of us, a star in your own way, and the star who takes the time to give even a little attention, a little gratitude, a little sign of love to her fans no matter how insignificant but who took the effort of picking up their 'quill', is a star from whom the public is less likely to drift away, and who remains in the hearts of her public ... 🌹❤😘
I try my best to respond when I can. But I recently suffered a miscarriage and needed some time to recover, that has impacted my business and income, which I am trying to deal with now. Even with the best will in the world, I can’t be all things to all people and be kind to myself. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made. :(
@@EnglishLikeANative My godness, Anna, I couldn't have imagined this for a moment. I'm really sorry, especially since I seem to remember one of your older videos that had saddened me a lot and in which you had already gone through this experience, which I can only imagine was eminently distressing. So I want to send you, even if it's a very small thing, all my empathy, support and comfort in this ordeal you've just been through. Thank you for your kind reply. I was thinking of elaborating on the reason for my message, but this news has left me a little cold. It also inspires me to ask other questions, which perhaps belong to a more private correspondence I'd be glad to have with you that I can't submit to you here. Get some rest Anna, take an hour to yourself, an hour's rest now and then. Enjoy, take the love of your close ones, your friends and fans and take care of yourself. You are precious. Bisous bisous, 😘🌹❤
@@EnglishLikeANative If I may dare that question: Why to desire more children Anna? Isn't two perfect? ... If you want my opinion, but it's a completely personal one, and I'm not passing judgement on anyone else, having, making a child in today's world is something I can't conceive of. You may find it excessive, but for me, it's bordering on a criminal act, because the world we're about to live in is going to become just Cauchamardesque and untold in the nightmare (!), you can believe me and not only already for us who are still 'young enough', but above all for the generations of today and those to come, and this no later than as soon as the middle of this century! And still way more certainly at the end of it ...That is for sure. Three crucial and vital points of no return have already been crossed; said differently, they are from now on irreversible.
@@fabrice9252 have you heard of Jordan Peterson? You may enjoy listening to some of his thoughts and perspectives. I didn’t intend to have a third, though I have always wanted three children. The pregnancy and subsequent loss all came as a surprise. There will not be anymore.
@@EnglishLikeANative Thank you so much Anna! Yes, forgive me, I had indeed omitted the thesis of an accident always possible indeed. For Jordan Pederson Yes, I know him a little. It's funny you should mention him, because I came across some of his lectures and interviews a few months ago, I think. A very interesting character in terms of his background and his theses. I found his analysis of belief systems, belonging (to social groups) and meaning very relevant. It also seems to me that he refuted what here in France we call 'La théorie du genre' (gender theory) and I have to say that there again I agree with him entirely on this point, as well as on 'wokism' as far as I'm concerned, and I could explain why but I'd need a few hundred characters no doubt ... I differ more on his positions on ecological and environmental issues. Of course, he's right to point out that climate systems are very complex, and that's true. But I disagree when he claims that this undermines the idea that we can draw conclusions and forecasts about the future of the earth's climate. It seems to me that here, he's stepping out of his field of expertise, which is more focused on religion, psychology, literature and philosophy, on which he's had some pretty brilliant outings. On science-related issues, and to quote a few brilliant French-speaking sources, I much prefer the expertise of Jean Marc Jancovici (an engineer specializing in energy and climate issues) and above all the excellentissim Aurélien Barrau, astrophysicist PHD and Doctor of Philosophy, whose incredible relevance, insight doubled with an extraordinary eloquence I can't recommend to you enough! In my opinion, he's the one the whole world should be listening to today, even if he probably has a few English-speaking alter egos. So yes, it's extremely complex (basically, there's a combination of both positive and negative feedback loops), which is why the G.I.E.C. (IPCC ;-) is proposing not just one model, but a total of forty (!) different models, taking into account the complexity of the phenomena (atmospheric, oceanic etc.)and the way we act and will act in the future. One thing is certain, however: no one can now decently deny anymore the anthropogenic origin of global warming, and the question is no longer whether this is the case, but whether it will be 3, 4, or even 6 or 7°celsius at the end of the century. The effects are already measurable today, and even though we're still 'only' 1.3°C higher on average than before the industrial revolution (1850). I leave it to you to imagine what a rise of 3 or 4 degrees would already represent... I can tell you if you ask and that is just nightmarish. The data are factual. We are currently emitting, brace yourself, 1000 tonnes of CO2 per second (!) into the atmosphere. This is just insane. Its rate, expressed in ppm (parts per million), has risen from 280 in 1850 to some 422 ppm today and at the latest estimates. (To give you an idea, since 'ppm' doesn't say much to the mind, this corresponds to over 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 injected into the atmosphere since 1850!) Knowing that it's almost eternal. Why? Firstly, because greenhouse gases are extraordinarily stable, especially given their tri-atomic structure. CO2 is eliminated only very very slowly, and only at the earth's surface, by just 2 phenomena: photosynthesis (in contact with the earth forests which retreat dramatically as you know and the vegetation) and the equilibrium of partial pressures at the air/ocean interface. In other words, the surplus of CO2 passes into the ocean (hence its acidification) to 'balance out' with that in the air. Given the curves of CO2 decline over time, it would now take more than 10,000 years (!) to return (almost and still not quite) to pre-1850 levels and, that's just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem, this only if we stopped all emissions completely, including our breathing, tomorrow morning! .... Put differently, the temp. elevation is from now on ineluctable and irreversible and it will last whatever we're gonna do. Of course it doesn't mean we must not act and try to find ways, be it only to delay it a bit. I'll spare you the list of the many other industrial gases, and there's also methane, itself a still more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, which is likely to be emitted in huge quantities as a result of global warming and the melting of permafrost in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. There are in addition, and that's a point Aurélien highllights and insists on a lot, at least two other huge concerns at least as crucial as global warming, if not even more: Pollution and above all, the more than worrying retreat of wild Life on earth that I personally with him assimilate not to the 6th massive extinction (that it is indeed), but a deliberate extermination homo 'sapiens' is responsible for. Un grand merci Anna! Je te souhaites de passer un excellent weekend. Je t'apprécie énormément et t'aime beaucoup. :-) Bien sûr tu peux me répondre et poursuivre la discussion si tu le souhaites, j'en serai ravi et flatté :-) Bisous bisous 😘🌹❤
@@olgaborisova755 hi there, thanks for reminding, but i've done nothing wrong when i used my country name. I beg a pardon, but you write as if I've done something illegal ))
@@aidarkazua I just tried to correct your English politely. Typically, the article the is not used before the names of countries and territories. The Kazakhstan is not correct. But it's entirely up to you 😊
Thanks Anna...🙏 A lot useful... Many of the problems in the heart. They come from bad eating habits and lack of physical activity. This creates an imbalance in the 4th Chakra: Cardiac or Anãhata. To find out how to heal yourself and have your balance, research it.
To reassure you Anna regarding 'infaRction you are not alone, and quite funnily enough, in French too many people tend to forget the 'r' in 'infaRctus' and say 'infactus du myocarde'. I probably myself made the mistake the first times I heard and said that term ;-) It is a bit of the same issue many people have with 'arCtic' or 'antarCtic' where they say 'artic' and 'antartic' instead. 😉 Same in French, 'artique' and 'antartique' instead of the correct 'arCtique' and 'antarCtique. A question maybe regarding 'stroke'. According to your explanation, I interpret it as what we would designate here as an A.V.C. (accident vasculaire cérébral = 'Cerebrovascular accident/event') affecting the brain. Do you also call it this? I mean a.v.c or c.v.a perhaps ... Merci !
Reserve your spot in my free Pronunciation Masterclass running at various times.
englishlikeanative.co.uk/english-pronunciation-masterclass-registration/
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm0
Damn, there is no better english teacher than you are.
Ahhh thank you 🙏
Thank you Very To much teacher Anna👍💯🙏🙏🙏
Welcome back, our wonderful teacher. I hope you are well and in good health💐☺️
Thank you, Anna, for this wonderful lesson. 👍Learning to pronounce medical terms relating to the 🫀heart. You deserve at least a ❤hearty “Thank You”.🙏
:) thank you 🙏
Hi Anna thank you Anna for you wonderful videos
Nice English lesson with a good humor at the end. I'm doctor and find that these vocabs are very useful to warn people about health issue.
I 'm so grateful for this video. I'm a doc .
Glad it was helpful!
Great video, Anna! Thank you for that.
Excellent lesson!!!❤
Thank you
Hello, mam, I am from Bangladesh love your English speaking.
Thank you! 😃
Thank you very much for your pronuntiation lessons, very important for people like me who aren't in a English-speaking place, so can't listen these sounds often, and have to immaginate them, not always right
This lesson is very useful for me.
Glad to hear that
thank you Anna for great video.
You are welcome 😊
Thanks a lot!
You're welcome!
Awesome as usual.
Thank you 🙏
Thank you for imparting very valuable vocabulary in my learning English.
Anna can be a good actress 👍👍👍
Real upto mark lesson for native like pronunciation
Great podcast. Thank you very much
Obviously Anna, speakers of latin languages such as French, Italian, Spanish will be better off and won't find these words too tricky (except maybe for the pronunciation they'll have to get right) as medical terms in English as well as scientific terms more generally have usually either a Greek or Latin or French origin. To be convinced of this, and if that is of interest to you, here are their equivalents in French; I give you the IPA too ;-):
You can consider the (ə) I put in parenthesis as ~silent.
Cardiovascular system: système cardiovasculaire / sistɛm(ə) kaʁdjɔvaskylɛʁ(ə)
Blood vessels: vaisseaux sanguins / vɛso sɑ̃gɛ̃
Cardiologist: cardiologue / kaʁdjɔlɔg(ə)
Vascular surgeon: chirurgien vasculaire / ʃiʁyɾʒjɛ̃ vaskylɛʁ(ə)
Hypertension: hypertension / ipɛʁtɑ̃sjõ
High blood pressure: pression sanguine élevée / pʁɛsjõ sɑ̃gin(ə) eləve
Hypotension: hypotension / ipɔtɑ̃sjõ
Low /weak blood pressure: pression sanguine basse/faible / pʁɛsjõ sɑ̃gin(ə) bas/fɛbl
Cholesterol: cholestérol / kɔlɛsteʁɔl
Atherosclerosis: athérosclérose / ateʁɔskleɾoz
Angina (stenocardia): Angine de poitrine (sténocardie) / ɑ̃ʒin(ə) də pwatʁin(ə) (stenɔkaʁdi)
Cardiac arrhythmia: arythmie cardiaque / aʁitmi kaʁdjak(ə)
Myocardial infarction: infarctus du myocarde / ɛ̃faʁktys dy mjɔkaʁd
Congestive heart failure: insuffisance cardiaque congestive / ɛ̃syfizɑ̃s kaʁdjak kõʒɛstiv
Coronary artery disease: maladie coronarienne / maladi kɔʁɔnaɾjɛn(ə)
coronaropathie / kɔʁɔnaʁɔpati
Stroke: A.V.C. (accident vasculaire cérébral) / a.ve.ce (aksidɑ̃ vaskylɛʁ seʁebʁal)
Palpitations: Palpitations / palpitasjɔ̃
Thank you for taking the trouble to provide the correct phonetic symbols along with the French equivalents.🙏
@@RamasamyArumugam1927
You are most welcome. Glad you enjoyed it Ramasamy! 🙏😊
:-)
great video ❤❤❤
Thx
Very useful lesson for hypochondriacs 😂 loved it, I use your podcasts for shadowing, the speed is perfect for me. Thank you very much indeed 😊 loved especially the Doc character.😂
Hello from Philippines 😊
Hello 😊
Hey, there! Superb podcast, Anna. Thank you so much, indeed.😊❤🇧🇷
Hi miss
I would like to add up two expressions in your list_by your consent though, which are, #1 cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Would you please differentiat between hypochondria and valetudinarian. Thanks
wow 👌
Gorgeous Anna ❤
Hi, Anna. It is the first time I watch your video; indeed, I really love it after watching, becasue (1) you are using modern Received Pronunciation (RP) and (2) the pace you are speaking in English is fairly moderate for the purpose, which I would think, of letting ESL (English as Second Language) learners to be able to listen to and understand what you are saying and talking about. To me, it is particularly nice, because I am based in Hong Kong; many people here are speaking in English with RP, rather than Cockney and Estuary English. I think it is a main reason that HK was a colony before; many counterparts who came to here before were from south part of England, and more importantly, BBC English (another description of RP or standard English) is so well-known over the world.
One issue I am much interested in is that there are those subtitles shown next to you in the video. What and how is the purpose of it?
Reading and listening at the same time (multiple input) is more effective than simply listening. This is why I put captions on screen for you. :)
Happy birthday 🎉🎊
Thank you 😊
From India 🇮🇳
I’m a native but I don’t speak like you Anna 😂 practice, practice, practice!
Thank you so much my dear Anna!
Yes, forgive me, I had indeed omitted the thesis of an accident always possible indeed.
For Jordan Peterson Yes, I know him a little. It's funny you should mention him, because I came across some of his lectures and interviews a few months ago, I think. A very interesting character in terms of his background and his theses. I found his analysis of belief systems, belonging (to social groups) and meaning very relevant.
It also seems to me that he refuted what here in France we call 'La théorie du genre' (gender theory) and I have to say that there again I agree with him entirely on this point, as well as on 'wokism' as far as I'm concerned, and I could explain why but I'd need a few hundred characters no doubt ... other ideas of his appeal me less however but I can't develop here.
I differ more in particular on his positions on ecological and environmental issues. Of course, he's right to point out that climate systems are very complex, and that's true. But I disagree when he claims that this undermines the idea that we can draw conclusions and forecasts about the future of the earth's climate. It seems to me that here, he's stepping out of his field of expertise, which is more focused on religion/mythology, psychology/neurosciences, literature and philosophy, on which he's had some pretty brilliant outings. On science-related issues, and to quote a few brilliant French-speaking sources I know best, I much prefer the expertise of Jean Marc Jancovici (an engineer, brilliant, specializing in energy and climate issues) and above all the excellentissim Aurélien Barrau, astrophysicist PHD and Doctor of Philosophy, whose incredible relevance, insight doubled with an extraordinary eloquence I can't recommend to you enough! In my opinion, he's the one the whole world should be listening to today, even if he possibly has a few English-speaking alter egos.
So yes, it's extremely complex (basically, there's a combination of both positive and negative feedback loops), which is why the G.I.E.C. (IPCC ;-) is proposing not just one model, but a total of forty (!) different models, taking into account the complexity of the phenomena (atmospheric, oceanic etc.)and the way we act and will act in the future. One thing is certain, however: no one can now decently deny anymore the anthropogenic origin of global warming, and the question is no longer whether this is the case, but whether it will be 3, 4, or even 6 or 7°celsius at the end of the century. The effects are already measurable today, and even though we're still 'only' 1.3°C higher on average than before the industrial revolution (1850).
I leave it to you to imagine what a rise of 3 or 4 degrees would already represent... I can tell you if you ask and that is just nightmarish.
The data are factual. We are currently emitting, brace yourself, 1000 tonnes of CO2 per second (!) into the atmosphere. This is just insane. Its rate, expressed in ppm (parts per million), has risen from 280 in 1850 to some 422 ppm today and at the latest estimates. (To give you an idea, since 'ppm' doesn't say much to the mind, this corresponds to over 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 injected into the atmosphere since 1850!)
Knowing that it's almost eternal. Why? Firstly, because greenhouse gases are extraordinarily STABLE, especially given their tri-atomic structure. CO2 is eliminated only very very slowly, and only at the earth's surface, by just 2 phenomena: photosynthesis (in contact with the earth forests which retreat dramatically as you know and the vegetation) and the equilibrium of partial pressures at the air/ocean interface. In other words, the surplus of CO2 passes into the ocean (hence its acidification) to 'balance out' with that in the air. Given the curves of CO2 decline over time, it would now take more than 10,000 years (!) to return (almost and still not quite) to pre-1850 levels and, that's just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem, this only if we stopped all emissions completely, including our breathing, tomorrow morning! .... Put differently, the temp. elevation is from now on ineluctable and irreversible and it will last and worsen whatever we're gonna do from now on. Of course it doesn't mean we must not act and try to find ways, be it only to delay it a bit.
I'll spare you the list of the many other industrial gases, and there's also methane, itself a still more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (20 times more), which is likely to be emitted in huge quantities as a result of global warming and the melting of permafrost in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions.
There are in addition, and that's a point Aurélien highllights and insists on a lot, at least two other huge concerns at least as crucial as global warming, if not even more: Pollution and above all, the more than worrying retreat of wild Life on earth that I personally with him assimilate not to the 6th massive extinction (that it is indeed), but a deliberate extermination homo 'sapiens' is responsible for.
Un grand merci Anna! Je te souhaites de passer un excellent weekend.
Je t'apprécie énormément et t'aime beaucoup. :-)
Bien sûr tu peux me répondre et poursuivre la discussion si tu le souhaites, j'en serai ravi et flatté :-)
Bisous bisous my lovely 😘🌹❤
P.s:
As for gender theory, wokism and all that rubbish Anna... Here is my view on it:
It's just mind-boggling to see what's being put into kids' heads. Along with a lot of other nonsense like inclusive writing in France, gender theory is yet another aberration that should be banned from primary education. In a way, it denies de facto biology; according to it, we would be born as a kind of undifferentiated body without being a priori either male or female, like a kind of material, undifferentiated wax on which the 'seal' of gender will be affixed and only through education, through the existence of social norms, cultural constructs and traditions, will we become male or female...
It is basically Simone de Beauvoir's famous phrase: 'You're not born a woman, you become one'. Ok, Except that, in my opinion, that's absolutely not enough, Simone, because there is precisely this biological body and reality that the theory denies! And whether we like it or not, a body, among other things of course, 'is testosterone or oestrogen' as the case may be. No-one will dispute that the baby is a boy or a girl, and if the couple weren't told when their little one was born, they'll realise it pretty quickly. Once again, let's observe and try to decipher Nature, which is the best teacher of all.
In nature, and this is factual and quite undeniable, there are males and females with their own characteristics, dimorphisms, differences in behaviour etc. In Homo habilis, Erectus and later Sapiens, it's a fact that an evolutionary process is taking place which means that the 'male', because of his more suitable attributes and aptitudes, is the hunter or even, and this is undoubtedly regrettable but it's the way it is, the warrior... Don't get me wrong, the lady has qualities that are no less commendable and in my opinion even more noble, I insist! What's more, a man's sexuality and a woman's are 2 very different things! But it would take too long to develop here.
Of course, I'm not denying that problems relating to gender identity/transidentity and sexuality are likely to arise from time to time. It exists and this is not a question of denying it. It's not a question of glossing over them, but we're in the age of this ridiculous wokism that aims to impose on us what is basically a relatively marginal and confidential thing as a kind of norm that should be praised and praised to the skies. Can't we just consider them and respect them; and why put these ideas into the heads of children? Will it not be time to consider them, to treat them, to support them when these disorders, which for the people in question are bound to be problematic in our 'normalised societies', appear most often in early adolescence or among young adults?
In my opinion, it's really the people who come up with these theories and school programmes who should be getting treatment!
Clearly.
Anna, your are an exceptional teacher, a wonderful podcastress; but why so little feedback, so few hearts granted to your fans and lovers?!... Of course I am no one to give you any advice but it seems to me that you shoud never become (and somehow like the dr you incarnated wonderfully in that sketch at the end of the pocast) jaded of your success and of being an inspirer...
For you are a muse for many of us, a star in your own way, and the star who takes the time to give even a little attention, a little gratitude, a little sign of love to her fans no matter how insignificant but who took the effort of picking up their 'quill', is a star from whom the public is less likely to drift away, and who remains in the hearts of her public ...
🌹❤😘
I try my best to respond when I can. But I recently suffered a miscarriage and needed some time to recover, that has impacted my business and income, which I am trying to deal with now.
Even with the best will in the world, I can’t be all things to all people and be kind to myself. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made. :(
@@EnglishLikeANative My godness, Anna, I couldn't have imagined this for a moment. I'm really sorry, especially since I seem to remember one of your older videos that had saddened me a lot and in which you had already gone through this experience, which I can only imagine was eminently distressing. So I want to send you, even if it's a very small thing, all my empathy, support and comfort in this ordeal you've just been through. Thank you for your kind reply. I was thinking of elaborating on the reason for my message, but this news has left me a little cold. It also inspires me to ask other questions, which perhaps belong to a more private correspondence I'd be glad to have with you that I can't submit to you here.
Get some rest Anna, take an hour to yourself, an hour's rest now and then. Enjoy, take the love of your close ones, your friends and fans and take care of yourself. You are precious.
Bisous bisous, 😘🌹❤
@@EnglishLikeANative
If I may dare that question: Why to desire more children Anna? Isn't two perfect? ...
If you want my opinion, but it's a completely personal one, and I'm not passing judgement on anyone else, having, making a child in today's world is something I can't conceive of. You may find it excessive, but for me, it's bordering on a criminal act, because the world we're about to live in is going to become just Cauchamardesque and untold in the nightmare (!), you can believe me and not only already for us who are still 'young enough', but above all for the generations of today and those to come, and this no later than as soon as the middle of this century! And still way more certainly at the end of it ...That is for sure.
Three crucial and vital points of no return have already been crossed; said differently, they are from now on irreversible.
@@fabrice9252 have you heard of Jordan Peterson? You may enjoy listening to some of his thoughts and perspectives.
I didn’t intend to have a third, though I have always wanted three children. The pregnancy and subsequent loss all came as a surprise. There will not be anymore.
@@EnglishLikeANative
Thank you so much Anna!
Yes, forgive me, I had indeed omitted the thesis of an accident always possible indeed.
For Jordan Pederson Yes, I know him a little. It's funny you should mention him, because I came across some of his lectures and interviews a few months ago, I think. A very interesting character in terms of his background and his theses. I found his analysis of belief systems, belonging (to social groups) and meaning very relevant.
It also seems to me that he refuted what here in France we call 'La théorie du genre' (gender theory) and I have to say that there again I agree with him entirely on this point, as well as on 'wokism' as far as I'm concerned, and I could explain why but I'd need a few hundred characters no doubt ...
I differ more on his positions on ecological and environmental issues. Of course, he's right to point out that climate systems are very complex, and that's true. But I disagree when he claims that this undermines the idea that we can draw conclusions and forecasts about the future of the earth's climate. It seems to me that here, he's stepping out of his field of expertise, which is more focused on religion, psychology, literature and philosophy, on which he's had some pretty brilliant outings. On science-related issues, and to quote a few brilliant French-speaking sources, I much prefer the expertise of Jean Marc Jancovici (an engineer specializing in energy and climate issues) and above all the excellentissim Aurélien Barrau, astrophysicist PHD and Doctor of Philosophy, whose incredible relevance, insight doubled with an extraordinary eloquence I can't recommend to you enough! In my opinion, he's the one the whole world should be listening to today, even if he probably has a few English-speaking alter egos.
So yes, it's extremely complex (basically, there's a combination of both positive and negative feedback loops), which is why the G.I.E.C. (IPCC ;-) is proposing not just one model, but a total of forty (!) different models, taking into account the complexity of the phenomena (atmospheric, oceanic etc.)and the way we act and will act in the future. One thing is certain, however: no one can now decently deny anymore the anthropogenic origin of global warming, and the question is no longer whether this is the case, but whether it will be 3, 4, or even 6 or 7°celsius at the end of the century. The effects are already measurable today, and even though we're still 'only' 1.3°C higher on average than before the industrial revolution (1850).
I leave it to you to imagine what a rise of 3 or 4 degrees would already represent... I can tell you if you ask and that is just nightmarish.
The data are factual. We are currently emitting, brace yourself, 1000 tonnes of CO2 per second (!) into the atmosphere. This is just insane. Its rate, expressed in ppm (parts per million), has risen from 280 in 1850 to some 422 ppm today and at the latest estimates. (To give you an idea, since 'ppm' doesn't say much to the mind, this corresponds to over 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 injected into the atmosphere since 1850!)
Knowing that it's almost eternal. Why? Firstly, because greenhouse gases are extraordinarily stable, especially given their tri-atomic structure. CO2 is eliminated only very very slowly, and only at the earth's surface, by just 2 phenomena: photosynthesis (in contact with the earth forests which retreat dramatically as you know and the vegetation) and the equilibrium of partial pressures at the air/ocean interface. In other words, the surplus of CO2 passes into the ocean (hence its acidification) to 'balance out' with that in the air. Given the curves of CO2 decline over time, it would now take more than 10,000 years (!) to return (almost and still not quite) to pre-1850 levels and, that's just to give you an idea of the scale of the problem, this only if we stopped all emissions completely, including our breathing, tomorrow morning! .... Put differently, the temp. elevation is from now on ineluctable and irreversible and it will last whatever we're gonna do. Of course it doesn't mean we must not act and try to find ways, be it only to delay it a bit.
I'll spare you the list of the many other industrial gases, and there's also methane, itself a still more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, which is likely to be emitted in huge quantities as a result of global warming and the melting of permafrost in Arctic and sub-Arctic regions.
There are in addition, and that's a point Aurélien highllights and insists on a lot, at least two other huge concerns at least as crucial as global warming, if not even more: Pollution and above all, the more than worrying retreat of wild Life on earth that I personally with him assimilate not to the 6th massive extinction (that it is indeed), but a deliberate extermination homo 'sapiens' is responsible for.
Un grand merci Anna! Je te souhaites de passer un excellent weekend.
Je t'apprécie énormément et t'aime beaucoup. :-)
Bien sûr tu peux me répondre et poursuivre la discussion si tu le souhaites, j'en serai ravi et flatté :-)
Bisous bisous 😘🌹❤
thank you) it was funny among other things😄
Love the video! Very educational!
One thing I noticed though,
I want to read but I can't focus on the text because of the audio/sound bars…
That’s interesting, you are the first person to say that.
Hello from the Kazakhstan 🇰🇿
Sorry, just would like to remind you politely no article is used with a country name. Only if it has few words or is plural.
@@olgaborisova755 hi there, thanks for reminding, but i've done nothing wrong when i used my country name. I beg a pardon, but you write as if I've done something illegal ))
@@aidarkazua I just tried to correct your English politely.
Typically, the article the is not used before the names of countries and territories.
The Kazakhstan is not correct.
But it's entirely up to you 😊
are you mambet, mate? 😊
@@useringgoogling1910 wow, ork is typing 🥱
👍👍👍👍👍👍
In RP "contribute" is pronounced "kəntrɪbjuːt".
There are two ways to pronounce contribute - /kənˈtrɪb.juːt/ /ˈkɒn.trɪ.bjuːt/
It's all Greek to me!😊 Most are of greek origin.....
🎉
Well, they are almost all words of Latin origin. It helps to be Italian for once. 😊
I think almost all over the world medicine vocab is strongly influenced by Latin 😂❤
🩷🩷
Hello from iran🧡
Thanks Anna for new style video I easy learning❤
Dear Anna, thank you so much for the lesson! Good luck!
Hello from Thailand. I do be the way your teaching. ❤❤
Thank you so much. Have a good Night 👍
That doctor was so accurate. :D
Thanks Anna...🙏 A lot useful... Many of the problems in the heart. They come from bad eating habits and lack of physical activity. This creates an imbalance in the 4th Chakra: Cardiac or Anãhata. To find out how to heal yourself and have your balance, research it.
To reassure you Anna regarding 'infaRction you are not alone, and quite funnily enough, in French too many people tend to forget the 'r' in 'infaRctus' and say 'infactus du myocarde'. I probably myself made the mistake the first times I heard and said that term ;-)
It is a bit of the same issue many people have with 'arCtic' or 'antarCtic' where they say 'artic' and 'antartic' instead. 😉
Same in French, 'artique' and 'antartique' instead of the correct 'arCtique' and 'antarCtique.
A question maybe regarding 'stroke'. According to your explanation, I interpret it as what we would designate here as an A.V.C. (accident vasculaire cérébral = 'Cerebrovascular accident/event') affecting the brain. Do you also call it this? I mean a.v.c or c.v.a perhaps ...
Merci !
The dialogue was great Anna. You're great!!!!
Thank you so much for your wonderful lessons. ❤️
Thanks a lot, dear Anna! Great dialogue 😍