Radiation monitoring map for the US
http://www.radiationnetwork.com/RadiationNetwork.htm
West Coast USA Danger IF Japan Nuclear Reactor Meltdownhttp://modernsurvivalblog.com/nuclear/west-coast-usa-danger-if-japan-nuclear-reactor-meltdown/
**If they can’t restore power to the plant (and cool the reactor), then there’s the possibility of some sort of core meltdown**. An alarming statement made by James Acton, a physicist who examined Japan’s Kashiwazaki nuclear plant after a 2007 earthquake, who told CNN that Japanese authorities are in race to cool down the Fukushima reactor.
Following the fifth largest earthquake in recorded world history, a magnitude 8.9 earthquake, has resulted in the closure of all Japan’s nuclear power reactors, one of which, the Fukushima reactor, is overheating and in danger of a meltdown if coolant is not restored soon. It’s like a pressure cooker… when you have something generating heat and you don’t cool it off or release the steam…
Reported from abc NEWS, Scientists said that even though the reactor had stopped producing energy, its fuel continues to generate heat and needs steady levels of coolant to prevent it from overheating and triggering a dangerous cascade of events.
They go on to say, **Up to 100 percent of the volatile radioactive Cesium-137 content of the pools could go up in flames and smoke, to blow downwind over large distances,**
**Given the large quantity of irradiated nuclear fuel in the pool, the radioactivity release could be worse than the Chernobyl nuclear reactor catastrophe of 25 years ago.** said Kevin Kamps, a nuclear waste specialist.
Fukushima I (there are two plant locations) is one of the 25 largest nuclear power stations in the world.
How would a nuclear plant meltdown unfold?
-- Control rods are driven back down into the core upon emergency (if rods don’t make it all the way… trouble)
-- The coolant (water) could cease if backup systems fail (electricity, pumps, generators, batteries)
-- Reactor continues to produce heat
-- Numerous venting valve systems would release pressure above ~1,000 psi into containment vessel
-- Eventually the uranium fuel encasement metal will melt (2,200 deg F)
-- Radioactive contamination then released into the reactor vessel
-- Radiation escapes into an outer, concrete containment building
-- Radiation escapes into the environment.
Not only would such a disaster be horrible for the local region and Japan, but other countries, namely the U.S. would be effected next by airborne radiation particles, the magnitude of which is yet to be determined.
Why would the west coast USA be in danger?
The prevailing jet stream winds are blowing from Japan directly across the Pacific ocean to the west coast of the United States. Any airborne radiation would make its way across with the jet stream, reaching the U.S. in approximately 36 hours, depending on the actual speed of the jet.
Image of the Jet Stream from Japan to the U.SPICTURE
Update,
BBC News Asia-Pacific is now reporting that radiation levels inside the nuclear reactor are 1,000 times of normal, and there are now high levels (unspecified) *outside* of the nuclear reactor plant. They report that people are being evacuated in an approximate 6-mile perimeter.
Map of Nuclear Power Plant Reactors in JapanPICTURE
Fukushima Power Plant, Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) diagramPICTURE/GRAPH
Update,
The Washington Post reports that a second nuclear reactor in the Fukushima power plant is also affected. The plant has a total of six reactors. Reports only a few hours left on battery power for cooling systems.
Update,
Clarification from NHK Wolrd News Japan… a second location, Fukushima II, not far from the Fukushima I nuclear power plant, is also experiencing cooling problems. The government’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said equipment failures have made it impossible to cool 3 of the plant’s 4 reactors. (Translation: ‘impossible’ is not a good word).
Update,
Reuters is now reporting that Tokyo Electric Power Company has lost ability to control pressure at some of the reactors at its Fukushima II (Daini) plant nearby the Daiichi power plant (Fukushima I), both suffering from core cooling problems. If battery power at Fukushima II is depleted before AC power is restored, the plant will stop supplying water to the core and the cooling water level in the reactor core will drop.
Update,
Kyodo news reports that the cooling system has now failed at three nuclear reactors at Fukushima II, and the coolant water temperature has reached boiling level.
Update,
Kyodo news reports, “the operator of the two plants in Fukushima Prefecture is set to release pressure in containers housing their reactors under an unprecedented government order, so as to avoid the plants sustaining damage and losing their critical containment function.” …”the action would involve the release of steam that would likely include radioactive materials”
Update,
From Kyodo news, Japan, URGENT: Concerns of core partially melting at Fukushima nuke plant. The core at Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant’s No. 1 reactor may be partially melting, the nuclear safety agency said Saturday.
Reuters, Japan authorities: TEPCO plant fuel rods may have melted -Jiji, …could develop into a breach of the nuclear reactor vessel and the question then becomes one of how strong the containment structure around the vessel is and whether it has been undermined by the earthquake
Update,
Reuters, An explosion was heard and smoke was seen at the Tokyo Electric Power Company Fukushima No.1 nuclear power plant, Jiji news agency quoted the police as saying on Saturday.
Outer structure of building that houses reactor at Fukushima plant appears to have blown off – NHK by Reuters_TonyTharakan at 3/12/2011 8:12:43 AM12:12 AM
Tepco says explosion may have been hydrogen used to cool Fukushima plant – Kyodo; Tepco says 4 people taken to hospital after reported explosion, no word on condition – Jiji
Update,
From The Associated Press, An explosion at a nuclear power station Saturday destroyed a building housing the reactor…the explosion destroyed the exterior walls of the building where the reactor is placed, but not the actual metal housing enveloping the reactor.
In 1986, the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded and caught fire, sending a cloud of radiation over much of Europe. That reactor – unlike the Fukushima one – was not housed in a sealed container, so there was no way to contain the radiation once the reactor exploded.
Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Explosion VIDEO
Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Explosion VIDEO
credit: abc NEWS
Fukushima Nuclear Reactor image, before – after Explosion
PICTURE
Things to know about Cesium-137, “IF” there is a complete meltdown and release into the environment
(also spelled, Caesium)
Where does cesium-137 come from?Radioactive cesium-137 is produced when uranium and plutonium absorb neutrons and undergo fission. Examples of the uses of this process are nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.
What is the half life?
The half-life of cesium-137 is 30 years. Because of the chemical nature of cesium, it moves easily through the environment. This makes the cleanup of cesium-137 difficult.
How do people come in contact with cesium-137?Walking on contaminated soil could result in external exposure to gamma radiation. People may ingest cesium-137 with food and water, or may inhale it as dust. It is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the body’s soft tissues. Exposure may also be external (that is, exposure to its gamma radiation from outside the body).
How can cesium-137 affect people’s health?Exposure to radiation from cesium-137 results in increased risk of cancer. If exposures are very high, serious burns, and even death, can result. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says everyone is exposed to minute amounts of cesium-137. The average annual dose in the Northern Hemisphere is less than 1 millirem annually. That falls below the 100 millirem exposure limit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission recommends.
(information sourced from the U.S. EPA)
Update,
There have been maps circulating around the blogosphere showing the would-be radiation pattern from Japan across the Pacific Ocean. In fact, one map indicates a long 7-day time frame to reach the west coast U.S…
One must use common sense when considering this possibility. It’s all really quite straight forward. Any particles would flow with the wind. Period. All one needs to do is know the wind pattern from the day of release, namely, the Jet stream. Currently the Jet Stream is moving over Japan and streaming across the ocean towards the U.S. (as it pretty much always does). The average speed of the jet is about 100 – 120 knots, or about 110 – 140 mph. Simple math, 4,500 miles divided by 120 mph equals about 37 hours (plus or minus). A day and a half. End of story.
Note, it’s all about the wind pattern. There are weather sites that illustrate this and update regularly. The first image of this post shows the current jet stream as of post time, which will wiggle waggle throughout time.
Also note, **IF** and whatever amount of radiation is released, will disperse rapidly from the site. It’s not like there will be millions of glowing people on the west coast U.S. 36 hours later, but there would certainly be some amount of exposure given the current jet. Not qualified to surmise how much that would be… Those in the immediate vicinity of Fukushima would obviously be tragically affected.
**IF** Fukushima suffers a catastrophic reactor meltdown, given the present state of red alerts there, it would likely happen fairly soon, within 24 hours I would think. They will either get things cooled down now, or it’s going to melt. Having said that, “IF” Fukushima melts down completely, the following image shows the position of the jet stream on March 14 and 15, which would probably be the approximate time frame for whatever radiation to make it across.
It appears then, that central California (San Francisco) to north to the Oregon border would be in the bulls-eye for the most part. Although none of the west really will escape the wind pattern as forecast from WeatherBank. The darker colors indicate the higher jet-stream wind speeds, which one might surmise to bear the greater majority of particles, or at least the first arrival
Jet Stream Forecast14-Mar-2011
&
15-Mar-2011
PICTURE
Potassium Iodide (Potassium Iodate)
(similar, with the same purpose)There are several suppliers of Potassium Iodide, an over-the-counter drug which itself is a preventative measure that all preppers really should keep in their inventory. Be aware of the FDA Guidelines for Potassium Iodide usage and dosage during a radiation emergency (generally 130 mg per 24 hours for adults). Here is an example of some low dosage Potassium Iodide
tabs, which taken in proper quantity would in turn be an effective Thyroid blocking agent during a radiation emergency (prevent thyroid cancer).
Update, 12-Mar-2011, 2100 UTC
TOKYO (Nikkei), The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said Saturday afternoon the explosion at the Fukushima I nuclear plant could only have been caused by a meltdown of the reactor core. Tokyo Electric Power Co. began to flood the damaged reactor with seawater to cool it down, resorting to measures that could rust the reactor and force the utility to scrap it.
Translation: last ditch effort to cool it down… hopefully it works.
Update, 12-Mar-2011, 2115 UTC
Reuters, A third nuclear reactor is now in trouble and has lost its emergency cooling system. **The emergency cooling system is no longer functioning at the No. 3 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power facility.
Update, 13-Mar-2011, 0200 UTC
There are lots of reports swirling on the internet regarding the condition of the nuclear reactors at two locations (near each other – see map above), many reports conflicting and interchanging facts between Fukushima I and II (Daiichi and Daini) as well as *reactor numbers*, e.g. 1, 2, 3, … interchanging with location numbers. Sloppy reporting I suppose.
In any event, what we do know is basically this…
Evacuation of 210,000 people within 12 miles of the Fukushima I (Daiichi) nuclear power plant.
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant (Daiichi), has 6 nuclear reactors.
Unit 1, loss of cooling, explosion of outer containment shell, radioactive iodine
and cesium detected ‘outside’, admitting ‘partial’ core meltdown – but contained within reactor enclosure, flooding the reactor with seawater as a *last resort* to attempt to avert a full meltdown, internal pressure is reported as high while temperatures are *officially* reported as dropping, unknown regarding ongoing meltdown situation
Unit 3, cooling system has reportedly failed, releasing excess radioactive steam, reportedly considering or attempting seawater flooding to avert a meltdown
Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant (Daini), has 4 nuclear reactors.
Reports point towards 3 reactors in trouble (or were in trouble) there with cooling systems. Details sketchy on Fukushima II.
Update, 13-Mar-2011, 1130 UTC
(TOKYO) JapanToday.com, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano warned that a hydrogen explosion similar to one that blew away part of a building housing of another reactor (No. 1 at Daiichi) at the same facility on Saturday could occur at the reactor (No. 3 at Daiichi).
Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), began injecting fresh water into the No. 3 reactor’s core vessel on Sunday to deal with the problem that the tops of MOX fuel rods were 3 meters above the water inside.
Why did the Fukushima nuclear power plant reactor fail in Japan? Following the magnitude 8.9 earthquake, the ensuing tsunami washed over the area and knocked out the backup power diesel generators. All that was left was battery power, which was not sufficient to keep the nuclear rods cool enough.
What is the local health danger from the nuclear accident?People who are outside the immediate area could inhale radioactive particles. A nuclear reactor accident could release radioactive iodine and radioactive cesium. Breathing in or eating food contaminated with radioactive iodine can cause thyroid cancer. Potassium Iodide (or Iodate) tablets can help prevent this.
Contamination of food and water can result from radioactive dust that settles on water supplies, crops or grass. Cows or other animals eat, and it works up the food chain. Any suspected foods should be washed.
Radioactive cesium with its long half-life, can cause more long-term damage, including cancer.
How far might the radioactivity spread?
This depends of course upon how much radioactivity is released into the environment. Weather conditions, wind and rain, will mostly affect the spread.
Is there any danger to those outside of Japan at this time?
Currently there is no known danger, no. There is no evidence of a reactor core breach of containment vessel.
A Boiling Water Reactor assembly (BWR
PICTURE
A BWR Fuel Assemblies and Control Rod Module
PICTURE
A BWR system
PICTURE
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Researcher: Roundup or Roundup-Ready Crops May Be Causing Animal Miscarriages and Infertility.
Researcher: Roundup or Roundup-Ready Crops May Be Causing Animal Miscarriages and Infertility. http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages
One of the nation’s senior scientists alerted the federal government to a newly discovered organism that may have the potential to cause infertility and spontaneous abortion in farm animals, raising significant concerns about human health. Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, believes the appearance and prevalence of the unnamed organism may be related to the nation’s over reliance on the weed killer known as Roundup and/or to something about the genetically engineered Roundup-Ready crops. In a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the professor called on the federal government to immediately stop deregulation of roundup ready crops, particularly roundup ready alfalfa.
Below is the full text of the letter:
January 2011
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!
This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.
We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.
For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.
A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:
Unique Physical Properties
This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.
Pathogen Location and Concentration
It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.
Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income—sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.
Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.
It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.
I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.
Sincerely,
COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)
One of the nation’s senior scientists alerted the federal government to a newly discovered organism that may have the potential to cause infertility and spontaneous abortion in farm animals, raising significant concerns about human health. Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, believes the appearance and prevalence of the unnamed organism may be related to the nation’s over reliance on the weed killer known as Roundup and/or to something about the genetically engineered Roundup-Ready crops. In a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, the professor called on the federal government to immediately stop deregulation of roundup ready crops, particularly roundup ready alfalfa.
Below is the full text of the letter:
January 2011
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!
This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.
We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.
For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.
A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:
Unique Physical Properties
This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.
Pathogen Location and Concentration
It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.
Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income—sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss’ wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.
Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA’s participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.
It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.
I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.
Sincerely,
COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
The Newest Dangerous Sweetener to Hit Your Food Shelves... By Dr. Mercola
The Newest Dangerous Sweetener to Hit Your Food Shelves... By Dr. Mercolahttp://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/08/neotame-receives-fda-approval-but-is-not-widely-used-yet.aspx
Since 2002 an artificial sweetener called neotame has been approved for use in food and drink products around the world, although so far its use appears to be very limited.
Neotame is a chemical derivative of aspartame, and judging by the chemicals used in its manufacturing, it appears even more toxic than aspartame, although the proponents of neotame claim that increased toxicity is not a concern, because less of it is needed to achieve the desired effect.
Neotame is bad science brought to you by the Monsanto Company.
If Monsano truly had nothing to fear with either of these artificial chemical sweeteners, they would have funded rigorous independent testing for safety. To date they have not, and they won't, because virtually every independent analysis of aspartame not conducted by Monsanto partners has revealed a long list of disturbing side effects, mostly neurological in nature.
Monsanto also has now sold the NutraSweet Company to someone else, but the approval of neotame came under Monsanto's ownership, and was most likely a result of Monsanto's cozy relationship with the FDA. More about that in a minute.
My recommendation for neotame is the same as that for aspartame, which is: it should be avoided if you care about your health.
Why is Neotame Dangerous?
Hopefully by now you are aware of the dangers of aspartame, if you aren't, please review this previous article.
But as if aspartame wasn't bad enough, NutraSweet (a Monsanto subsidiary at the time of neotame's approval) "improved" the aspartame formula, making neotame 7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar (sucrose) and 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.
How did they do this?
In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for neotame, "based on the aspartame formula" with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl, which just happens to be listed on the EPA's most hazardous chemical list.
So not only is neotame potentially more devastating to your health than aspartame, it is also approved for use in a wider array of food products, including baked goods, because it is more stable at higher temperatures.
What is 3-Dimethylbutyl?
Neotame is manufactured by combining aspartame with 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyd, which was added to block enzymes that break the peptide bond between aspartic acid and phenylalanine, thereby reducing the availability of phenylalanine.
This eliminates the need for a warning on labels directed at people who cannot properly metabolize phenylalanine.
However, 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde is categorized as both highly flammable and an irritant, and carries risk statements for handling including irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory system.
In other words, the NutraSweet company assures you that neotame is perfectly safe, while at the same time they manufacture neotame through a chemical reaction between aspartame and a substance that is highly flammable and a skin, eye and respiratory irritant (that must be handled with extreme caution by anyone involved in the manufacturing process).
Does this sound like something you want to put into your body?
Why are These Chemicals Approved for Human Consumption?
Many people actually consider the FDA to be a "subsidiary" of the Monsanto Company. It sounds impossible, but when you look at all the Monsanto executives who have gone through the revolving door between private industry and government oversight, a truly disturbing picture emerges of the foxes guarding the henhouse..
The FDA is packed by pro-business, pro-corporation advocates who often have massive conflicts of interest when it comes to protecting the health of the public.
In fact, the revolving door between private industry and government oversight agencies is so well established these days, it has become business as usual to read about scandal, conflicts of interest and blatant pro-industry bias, even when it flies in the face of science or the law.
A few examples include:
FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, a former dental amalgam company executive, helped subvert a federal judge's order to label mercury fillings as a hazard to children and pregnant women.
The FDA's top medical-device regulator, Daniel Schultz, resigned following internal dissent over decisions that his critics said were too friendly to industry.
Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, was accused of a massive conflict of interest stemming from an ethics complaint filed by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The agency's list of corruptions and collusions is now a mile long. And each piece of new legislation aimed to improve its function seems to do just the opposite—making the FDA even more dependent upon financial support by Big Pharma.
Why Aspartame and Neotame are NOT a Dieters Best Friend
On of the biggest marketing and PR tactics for man-made chemical sweeteners has been the claim that they help in the battle against obesity. Folks, they don't. They never have and they never will.
The research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and neotame tend to lead to weight gain. As I've often said, there's more to weight gain or weight loss than mere calorie intake.
One reason for aspartame and neotame's potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage.
Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.
So although you're not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.
Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer "hear" the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.
What happens then?
You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.
Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.
The Real Reason Artificial Sweetener Use Has Exploded
If you want some answers in scenarios like this it is typically useful to follow the money trail. Aspartame currently has the largest market share of all artificial sweeteners, and the people at NutraSweet would like to keep it that way.
Artificial sweeteners cost a great deal less than real sugar, corn syrup or molasses, so the processed food and beverage industry saves money by using LESS of these man-made chemicals to create MORE sweetness in their products.
Neotame is manufactured from aspartame, and builds on aspartame's ability to provide more sweetness from less raw material, as it is 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.
Unfortunately, one byproduct your body creates by breaking down aspartame is formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to your health even in very small doses. The NutraSweet Company claims the addition of 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde to aspartame makes it more stable at higher temperatures, and reduces the availability of phenylalanine. But nowhere do they discuss the formation of formaldehyde when your body breaks down aspartame, which is the main ingredient of neotame.
In a search of pubmed.gov, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which has over 11 million medical citations, neotame returns zero double-blind scientific studies on toxicity in humans or animals.
If neotame was indeed completely safe to ingest, you would think the NutraSweet Company would have published at least one double-blind safety study in the public domain? They haven't.
You have to ask yourself "why not?"
Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame or Neotame Reaction? Be Heard!
Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse food reactions are ever reported to the FDA? This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.
In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they've approved, they must be notified – by as many people as possible who believe they have experienced a side effect. This mean you can take action against the manufacturers of these chemicals that continue to put your optimal health at risk, if you feel you have had a bad reaction to their product.
I urge you, if you believe you have experienced side effects from aspartame or neotame, let the FDA know about it!
Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.
There's no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or neotame, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects!
And in the meantime, do your health and the health of your family a favor and treat all foods and drinks that contain aspartame or neotame as if they were deleterious to your optimal health. Because, in my opinion, they are.
Since 2002 an artificial sweetener called neotame has been approved for use in food and drink products around the world, although so far its use appears to be very limited.
Neotame is a chemical derivative of aspartame, and judging by the chemicals used in its manufacturing, it appears even more toxic than aspartame, although the proponents of neotame claim that increased toxicity is not a concern, because less of it is needed to achieve the desired effect.
Neotame is bad science brought to you by the Monsanto Company.
If Monsano truly had nothing to fear with either of these artificial chemical sweeteners, they would have funded rigorous independent testing for safety. To date they have not, and they won't, because virtually every independent analysis of aspartame not conducted by Monsanto partners has revealed a long list of disturbing side effects, mostly neurological in nature.
Monsanto also has now sold the NutraSweet Company to someone else, but the approval of neotame came under Monsanto's ownership, and was most likely a result of Monsanto's cozy relationship with the FDA. More about that in a minute.
My recommendation for neotame is the same as that for aspartame, which is: it should be avoided if you care about your health.
Why is Neotame Dangerous?
Hopefully by now you are aware of the dangers of aspartame, if you aren't, please review this previous article.
But as if aspartame wasn't bad enough, NutraSweet (a Monsanto subsidiary at the time of neotame's approval) "improved" the aspartame formula, making neotame 7,000-13,000 times sweeter than sugar (sucrose) and 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.
How did they do this?
In 1998, Monsanto applied for FDA approval for neotame, "based on the aspartame formula" with one critical addition: 3-dimethylbutyl, which just happens to be listed on the EPA's most hazardous chemical list.
So not only is neotame potentially more devastating to your health than aspartame, it is also approved for use in a wider array of food products, including baked goods, because it is more stable at higher temperatures.
What is 3-Dimethylbutyl?
Neotame is manufactured by combining aspartame with 3,3-dimethylbutyraldehyd, which was added to block enzymes that break the peptide bond between aspartic acid and phenylalanine, thereby reducing the availability of phenylalanine.
This eliminates the need for a warning on labels directed at people who cannot properly metabolize phenylalanine.
However, 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde is categorized as both highly flammable and an irritant, and carries risk statements for handling including irritating to skin, eyes and respiratory system.
In other words, the NutraSweet company assures you that neotame is perfectly safe, while at the same time they manufacture neotame through a chemical reaction between aspartame and a substance that is highly flammable and a skin, eye and respiratory irritant (that must be handled with extreme caution by anyone involved in the manufacturing process).
Does this sound like something you want to put into your body?
Why are These Chemicals Approved for Human Consumption?
Many people actually consider the FDA to be a "subsidiary" of the Monsanto Company. It sounds impossible, but when you look at all the Monsanto executives who have gone through the revolving door between private industry and government oversight, a truly disturbing picture emerges of the foxes guarding the henhouse..
The FDA is packed by pro-business, pro-corporation advocates who often have massive conflicts of interest when it comes to protecting the health of the public.
In fact, the revolving door between private industry and government oversight agencies is so well established these days, it has become business as usual to read about scandal, conflicts of interest and blatant pro-industry bias, even when it flies in the face of science or the law.
A few examples include:
FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, a former dental amalgam company executive, helped subvert a federal judge's order to label mercury fillings as a hazard to children and pregnant women.
The FDA's top medical-device regulator, Daniel Schultz, resigned following internal dissent over decisions that his critics said were too friendly to industry.
Janet Woodcock, the director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, was accused of a massive conflict of interest stemming from an ethics complaint filed by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc.
The agency's list of corruptions and collusions is now a mile long. And each piece of new legislation aimed to improve its function seems to do just the opposite—making the FDA even more dependent upon financial support by Big Pharma.
Why Aspartame and Neotame are NOT a Dieters Best Friend
On of the biggest marketing and PR tactics for man-made chemical sweeteners has been the claim that they help in the battle against obesity. Folks, they don't. They never have and they never will.
The research and the epidemiologic data suggest the opposite is true, and that artificial sweeteners such as aspartame and neotame tend to lead to weight gain. As I've often said, there's more to weight gain or weight loss than mere calorie intake.
One reason for aspartame and neotame's potential to cause weight gain is because phenylalanine and aspartic acid – the two amino acids that make up 90 percent of aspartame and are also present in neotame -- are known to rapidly stimulate the release of insulin and leptin; two hormones that are intricately involved with satiety and fat storage.
Insulin and leptin are also the primary hormones that regulate your metabolism.
So although you're not ingesting calories in the form of sugar, aspartame and neotame can still raise your insulin and leptin levels. Elevated insulin and leptin levels, in turn, are two of the driving forces behind obesity, diabetes, and a number of our current chronic disease epidemics.
Over time, if your body is exposed to too much leptin, it will become resistant to it, just as your body can become resistant to insulin, and once that happens, your body can no longer "hear" the hormonal messages instructing your body to stop eating, burn fat, and maintain good sensitivity to sweet tastes in your taste buds.
What happens then?
You remain hungry; you crave sweets, and your body stores more fat.
Leptin-resistance also causes an increase in visceral fat, sending you on a vicious cycle of hunger, fat storage and an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes, metabolic syndrome and more.
The Real Reason Artificial Sweetener Use Has Exploded
If you want some answers in scenarios like this it is typically useful to follow the money trail. Aspartame currently has the largest market share of all artificial sweeteners, and the people at NutraSweet would like to keep it that way.
Artificial sweeteners cost a great deal less than real sugar, corn syrup or molasses, so the processed food and beverage industry saves money by using LESS of these man-made chemicals to create MORE sweetness in their products.
Neotame is manufactured from aspartame, and builds on aspartame's ability to provide more sweetness from less raw material, as it is 30-60 times sweeter than aspartame.
Unfortunately, one byproduct your body creates by breaking down aspartame is formaldehyde, which is extremely toxic to your health even in very small doses. The NutraSweet Company claims the addition of 3,3-Dimethylbutyraldehyde to aspartame makes it more stable at higher temperatures, and reduces the availability of phenylalanine. But nowhere do they discuss the formation of formaldehyde when your body breaks down aspartame, which is the main ingredient of neotame.
In a search of pubmed.gov, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, which has over 11 million medical citations, neotame returns zero double-blind scientific studies on toxicity in humans or animals.
If neotame was indeed completely safe to ingest, you would think the NutraSweet Company would have published at least one double-blind safety study in the public domain? They haven't.
You have to ask yourself "why not?"
Have You Experienced a Bad Aspartame or Neotame Reaction? Be Heard!
Did you know that only a fraction of all adverse food reactions are ever reported to the FDA? This is a problem that only you as the consumer can have an impact upon.
In order to truly alert the FDA to a problem with a product they've approved, they must be notified – by as many people as possible who believe they have experienced a side effect. This mean you can take action against the manufacturers of these chemicals that continue to put your optimal health at risk, if you feel you have had a bad reaction to their product.
I urge you, if you believe you have experienced side effects from aspartame or neotame, let the FDA know about it!
Please go to the FDA Consumer Complaint Coordinator page, find the phone number listed for your state, and report your adverse reaction.
There's no telling just how many reports they might need before considering taking another look at the safety of aspartame or neotame, but the only way to press them is by reporting any and all adverse effects!
And in the meantime, do your health and the health of your family a favor and treat all foods and drinks that contain aspartame or neotame as if they were deleterious to your optimal health. Because, in my opinion, they are.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Popular infant juices loaded with toxic fluoride
Popular infant juices loaded with toxic fluoride
Friday, February 04, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) A study to be presented at the March 17, 2011, annual meeting of the International Association for Dental Research in San Diego reveals that infant fruit juices of all types contain toxic fluoride, and many contain levels that far exceed federal guidelines. Infants and children that drink such juices are also exposed to high levels of fluoride in drinking water, food products, toothpaste, and various other sources, which is triggering dental fluorosis, hormone disruption, thyroid problems, brain degradation, and other illnesses. Consequently, many experts are urging an immediate end to artificial fluoridation.
Researchers tested ninety different samples of infant juice from three manufacturers and found that all contained fluoride levels ranging from 0.11 to 1.81 parts per million (ppm). When combined with exposure from all the other sources, young children are ingesting untold levels of fluoride on a regular basis.
"Water fluoride, along with fluoride-containing pesticide residues, is contaminating the food supply and harming our children," says attorney Paul Beeber, president of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "Clearly, artificial fluoridation must stop completely. Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth. Studies show fluoride ingestion doesn't reduce tooth decay."
In fact, recent studies have shown that fluoride is responsible for causing, tooth decay, as well as brain damage. A recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that fluoride destroys brain tissue and lowers IQ levels in children, even when administered at or below recommended levels (http://www.naturalnews.com/030819_f...).
Another study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association found that fluoride destroys teeth, particularly those of young children and babies that consume it. Yes, the toxic byproduct of the aluminum and phosphate mining industries that has been touted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the greatest dental health achievement in history is actually responsible for destroying them.
The good news is that the recent announcement to lower fluoride levels in water supplies has spurred many cities and municipalities to consider stopping fluoridation altogether. A New York City councilman, for instance, recently put forth legislation to end water fluoridation in the nation's largest city. If successful, the move will send a shock wave throughout the U.S. that could end the practice in many other places as well.
To support efforts to end artificial water fluoridation, visit the Fluoride Action Network at:
http://www.fluorideaction.net
Sources for this story include:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031209_fluoride_juices.html#ixzz1D5mSi8C7
Friday, February 04, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) A study to be presented at the March 17, 2011, annual meeting of the International Association for Dental Research in San Diego reveals that infant fruit juices of all types contain toxic fluoride, and many contain levels that far exceed federal guidelines. Infants and children that drink such juices are also exposed to high levels of fluoride in drinking water, food products, toothpaste, and various other sources, which is triggering dental fluorosis, hormone disruption, thyroid problems, brain degradation, and other illnesses. Consequently, many experts are urging an immediate end to artificial fluoridation.
Researchers tested ninety different samples of infant juice from three manufacturers and found that all contained fluoride levels ranging from 0.11 to 1.81 parts per million (ppm). When combined with exposure from all the other sources, young children are ingesting untold levels of fluoride on a regular basis.
"Water fluoride, along with fluoride-containing pesticide residues, is contaminating the food supply and harming our children," says attorney Paul Beeber, president of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "Clearly, artificial fluoridation must stop completely. Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth. Studies show fluoride ingestion doesn't reduce tooth decay."
In fact, recent studies have shown that fluoride is responsible for causing, tooth decay, as well as brain damage. A recent study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that fluoride destroys brain tissue and lowers IQ levels in children, even when administered at or below recommended levels (http://www.naturalnews.com/030819_f...).
Another study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association found that fluoride destroys teeth, particularly those of young children and babies that consume it. Yes, the toxic byproduct of the aluminum and phosphate mining industries that has been touted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as the greatest dental health achievement in history is actually responsible for destroying them.
The good news is that the recent announcement to lower fluoride levels in water supplies has spurred many cities and municipalities to consider stopping fluoridation altogether. A New York City councilman, for instance, recently put forth legislation to end water fluoridation in the nation's largest city. If successful, the move will send a shock wave throughout the U.S. that could end the practice in many other places as well.
To support efforts to end artificial water fluoridation, visit the Fluoride Action Network at:
http://www.fluorideaction.net
Sources for this story include:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031209_fluoride_juices.html#ixzz1D5mSi8C7
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?
The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011
"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011
In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.
In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.
In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop."
In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."
Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?
According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.
WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.
From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.
Whole Food's Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called "Natural" Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs
The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM's $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called "natural" products (no doubt WFM's lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they're all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.
Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as "natural."
Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.
Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud
Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are "certified organic."
Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed "natural" foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a "natural" supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" ingredients. With the exception of the "grass-fed and grass-finished" meat sector, most "natural" meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.
Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.
The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called "Natural" GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market
There can be no such thing as "coexistence" with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.
With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide Truth-in-Labeling campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.
Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's to voluntarily implement "truth-in-labeling" practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances - similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you're interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/
To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation's largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm
And please stay tuned to Organic Bytes for the latest developments in our campaigns.
Power to the People! Not the Corporations!
Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm
Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011
"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011
In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.
In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.
In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop."
In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."
Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?
According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.
WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.
From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.
Whole Food's Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called "Natural" Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs
The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM's $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called "natural" products (no doubt WFM's lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they're all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.
Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as "natural."
Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.
Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud
Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are "certified organic."
Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed "natural" foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a "natural" supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" ingredients. With the exception of the "grass-fed and grass-finished" meat sector, most "natural" meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.
Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.
The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called "Natural" GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market
There can be no such thing as "coexistence" with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."
The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.
Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.
With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.
The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide Truth-in-Labeling campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.
Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's to voluntarily implement "truth-in-labeling" practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances - similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you're interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/
To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation's largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm
And please stay tuned to Organic Bytes for the latest developments in our campaigns.
Power to the People! Not the Corporations!
Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Effect of daily aspirin on long-term risk of death due to cancer:
Published Online: 07 December 2010
Effect of daily aspirin on long-term risk of death due to cancer: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials
Original TextProf Peter M Rothwell FMedSci a , Prof F Gerald R Fowkes FRCPE b, Prof Jill FF Belch FRCP c, Hisao Ogawa MD d, Prof Charles P Warlow FMedSci e, Prof Tom W Meade FRS f
Summary
Background
Treatment with daily aspirin for 5 years or longer reduces subsequent risk of colorectal cancer. Several lines of evidence suggest that aspirin might also reduce risk of other cancers, particularly of the gastrointestinal tract, but proof in man is lacking. We studied deaths due to cancer during and after randomised trials of daily aspirin versus control done originally for prevention of vascular events.
Methods
We used individual patient data from all randomised trials of daily aspirin versus no aspirin with mean duration of scheduled trial treatment of 4 years or longer to determine the effect of allocation to aspirin on risk of cancer death in relation to scheduled duration of trial treatment for gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cancers. In three large UK trials, long-term post-trial follow-up of individual patients was obtained from death certificates and cancer registries.
Results
In eight eligible trials (25 570 patients, 674 cancer deaths), allocation to aspirin reduced death due to cancer (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·68—0·92, p=0·003). On analysis of individual patient data, which were available from seven trials (23 535 patients, 657 cancer deaths), benefit was apparent only after 5 years' follow-up (all cancers, hazard ratio [HR] 0·66, 0·50—0·87; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·46, 0·27—0·77; both p=0·003). The 20-year risk of cancer death (1634 deaths in 12 659 patients in three trials) remained lower in the aspirin groups than in the control groups (all solid cancers, HR 0·80, 0·72—0·88, p<0·0001; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·65, 0·54—0·78, p<0·0001), and benefit increased (interaction p=0·01) with scheduled duration of trial treatment (≥7·5 years: all solid cancers, 0·69, 0·54—0·88, p=0·003; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·41, 0·26—0·66, p=0·0001). The latent period before an effect on deaths was about 5 years for oesophageal, pancreatic, brain, and lung cancer, but was more delayed for stomach, colorectal, and prostate cancer. For lung and oesophageal cancer, benefit was confined to adenocarcinomas, and the overall effect on 20-year risk of cancer death was greatest for adenocarcinomas (HR 0·66, 0·56—0·77, p<0·0001). Benefit was unrelated to aspirin dose (75 mg upwards), sex, or smoking, but increased with age—the absolute reduction in 20-year risk of cancer death reaching 7·08% (2·42—11·74) at age 65 years and older.
Interpretation
Daily aspirin reduced deaths due to several common cancers during and after the trials. Benefit increased with duration of treatment and was consistent across the different study populations. These findings have implications for guidelines on use of aspirin and for understanding of carcinogenesis and its susceptibility to drug intervention.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)62110-1/fulltext
Effect of daily aspirin on long-term risk of death due to cancer: analysis of individual patient data from randomised trials
Original TextProf Peter M Rothwell FMedSci a , Prof F Gerald R Fowkes FRCPE b, Prof Jill FF Belch FRCP c, Hisao Ogawa MD d, Prof Charles P Warlow FMedSci e, Prof Tom W Meade FRS f
Summary
Background
Treatment with daily aspirin for 5 years or longer reduces subsequent risk of colorectal cancer. Several lines of evidence suggest that aspirin might also reduce risk of other cancers, particularly of the gastrointestinal tract, but proof in man is lacking. We studied deaths due to cancer during and after randomised trials of daily aspirin versus control done originally for prevention of vascular events.
Methods
We used individual patient data from all randomised trials of daily aspirin versus no aspirin with mean duration of scheduled trial treatment of 4 years or longer to determine the effect of allocation to aspirin on risk of cancer death in relation to scheduled duration of trial treatment for gastrointestinal and non-gastrointestinal cancers. In three large UK trials, long-term post-trial follow-up of individual patients was obtained from death certificates and cancer registries.
Results
In eight eligible trials (25 570 patients, 674 cancer deaths), allocation to aspirin reduced death due to cancer (pooled odds ratio [OR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·68—0·92, p=0·003). On analysis of individual patient data, which were available from seven trials (23 535 patients, 657 cancer deaths), benefit was apparent only after 5 years' follow-up (all cancers, hazard ratio [HR] 0·66, 0·50—0·87; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·46, 0·27—0·77; both p=0·003). The 20-year risk of cancer death (1634 deaths in 12 659 patients in three trials) remained lower in the aspirin groups than in the control groups (all solid cancers, HR 0·80, 0·72—0·88, p<0·0001; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·65, 0·54—0·78, p<0·0001), and benefit increased (interaction p=0·01) with scheduled duration of trial treatment (≥7·5 years: all solid cancers, 0·69, 0·54—0·88, p=0·003; gastrointestinal cancers, 0·41, 0·26—0·66, p=0·0001). The latent period before an effect on deaths was about 5 years for oesophageal, pancreatic, brain, and lung cancer, but was more delayed for stomach, colorectal, and prostate cancer. For lung and oesophageal cancer, benefit was confined to adenocarcinomas, and the overall effect on 20-year risk of cancer death was greatest for adenocarcinomas (HR 0·66, 0·56—0·77, p<0·0001). Benefit was unrelated to aspirin dose (75 mg upwards), sex, or smoking, but increased with age—the absolute reduction in 20-year risk of cancer death reaching 7·08% (2·42—11·74) at age 65 years and older.
Interpretation
Daily aspirin reduced deaths due to several common cancers during and after the trials. Benefit increased with duration of treatment and was consistent across the different study populations. These findings have implications for guidelines on use of aspirin and for understanding of carcinogenesis and its susceptibility to drug intervention.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)62110-1/fulltext
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Opinion: The toxic poisoning of America
Opinion: The toxic poisoning of America
By David Zublick.
Are Americans being deliberately poisoned by the U.S. government? As far-fetched as that may sound, evidence indicates that there is an insidious plot underway that threatens the health of every man, woman and child living in America.
In two stories that have floated under the radar for the last couple of years, Congress and health authorities have been working together to pass laws that would sicken the populace and perhaps endanger their very lives.
First, there was the Energy Independence and Security Act, passed by Congress in 2007, a provision of which made it mandatory that the sale of incandescent light bulbs be banned by 2012. These bulbs would be replaced by compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), which are supposed to be more energy-efficient and longer lasting.
In truth, these bulbs contain dangerous amounts of mercury, which, if broken, will pollute the environment, by seeping into groundwater, thereby threatening human health. Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote, “The EPA warns that if we break a CFL, we must take the pieces to a recycling center and not launder ‘clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage’.”
Incandescent bulbs contain no toxic chemicals whatsoever.
The new Congress has introduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, or H.R. 91,which would repeal this subsection of the current legislation, allowing Americans to purchase the light bulbs of their choice.
In introducing this bill, Congress took note of a few facts which have not been widely reported:
* Most CFLs are not manufactured in the United States.
* the amount of mercury in one bulb is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels.These bulbs need to be disposed of very carefully, and in most cases this means the inconvenience of taking them to a recycling center.
* Although we are led to believe that the CFL bulbs have a much longer lifespan than traditional incandescent bulbs, they are not designed to be turned on and off frequently. Doing so reduces their lifespan by as much as 85 percent.
* CFLs can cause skin cancer for people with a sensitivity to light.
In a second, more sinister story, health authorities are now pushing for drugs to be added to the public water supply. These drugs may cause depression and memory loss.
These statins, as they are known, supposedly lower cholesterol and help prevent heart disease and strokes. Health authorities want the drugs added to the water supply, despite the fact that many dangerous side-effects, kept secret by the drug companies have now come to light.
The Cochrane Library, in a newly released study, examined data from 34,000 patients taking these drugs and found that depression, mood swings and short-term memory loss were evident, yet were under-reported or underplayed by the drug companies that funded the research.
Why would health officials and the government want to add toxic drugs which can cause these dangerous side-effects to our water supply?
To control the populace, to keep them docile and easy to manage.
Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, in a speech in March of 1962 at Berkeley University, said "there will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”
If this sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories, remember that recently the government admitted that people are already being mass medicated against their will by sodium fluoride in the water, the health effects of which include lower IQ levels, and increased docility.
It is imperative that Americans wake up to the fact that their government, in a blatant effort to control the masses, will stop at nothing, including the deliberate toxic poisoning of their citizens, to achieve their goals of a society that will acquiesce to the will of the oppressors.
Listen to America Talks weekends at 9 am Eastern time.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302793#ixzz1BsTzSkKh
By David Zublick.
Are Americans being deliberately poisoned by the U.S. government? As far-fetched as that may sound, evidence indicates that there is an insidious plot underway that threatens the health of every man, woman and child living in America.
In two stories that have floated under the radar for the last couple of years, Congress and health authorities have been working together to pass laws that would sicken the populace and perhaps endanger their very lives.
First, there was the Energy Independence and Security Act, passed by Congress in 2007, a provision of which made it mandatory that the sale of incandescent light bulbs be banned by 2012. These bulbs would be replaced by compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), which are supposed to be more energy-efficient and longer lasting.
In truth, these bulbs contain dangerous amounts of mercury, which, if broken, will pollute the environment, by seeping into groundwater, thereby threatening human health. Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum, recently wrote, “The EPA warns that if we break a CFL, we must take the pieces to a recycling center and not launder ‘clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage’.”
Incandescent bulbs contain no toxic chemicals whatsoever.
The new Congress has introduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, or H.R. 91,which would repeal this subsection of the current legislation, allowing Americans to purchase the light bulbs of their choice.
In introducing this bill, Congress took note of a few facts which have not been widely reported:
* Most CFLs are not manufactured in the United States.
* the amount of mercury in one bulb is enough to contaminate up to 6,000 gallons of water beyond safe drinking levels.These bulbs need to be disposed of very carefully, and in most cases this means the inconvenience of taking them to a recycling center.
* Although we are led to believe that the CFL bulbs have a much longer lifespan than traditional incandescent bulbs, they are not designed to be turned on and off frequently. Doing so reduces their lifespan by as much as 85 percent.
* CFLs can cause skin cancer for people with a sensitivity to light.
In a second, more sinister story, health authorities are now pushing for drugs to be added to the public water supply. These drugs may cause depression and memory loss.
These statins, as they are known, supposedly lower cholesterol and help prevent heart disease and strokes. Health authorities want the drugs added to the water supply, despite the fact that many dangerous side-effects, kept secret by the drug companies have now come to light.
The Cochrane Library, in a newly released study, examined data from 34,000 patients taking these drugs and found that depression, mood swings and short-term memory loss were evident, yet were under-reported or underplayed by the drug companies that funded the research.
Why would health officials and the government want to add toxic drugs which can cause these dangerous side-effects to our water supply?
To control the populace, to keep them docile and easy to manage.
Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, in a speech in March of 1962 at Berkeley University, said "there will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”
If this sounds like the stuff of conspiracy theories, remember that recently the government admitted that people are already being mass medicated against their will by sodium fluoride in the water, the health effects of which include lower IQ levels, and increased docility.
It is imperative that Americans wake up to the fact that their government, in a blatant effort to control the masses, will stop at nothing, including the deliberate toxic poisoning of their citizens, to achieve their goals of a society that will acquiesce to the will of the oppressors.
Listen to America Talks weekends at 9 am Eastern time.
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302793#ixzz1BsTzSkKh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)