Osama was in Pakistan and Other “Secrets”

Published on May 3, 2011

Cleantech’s Quiet Vindication

Osama was in Pakistan and Other “Secrets”

By Nick Hodge
Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

Still belittled by the bullies of Internet forums and politicians with other, shall we say, allegiances, renewable energy has yet to be fully appreciated in the United States.

I needed only look at the first page of the comments we get on this website to find the epitome of this sentiment:

Solar power generators will never return the energy that goes into manufacturing and constructing them. It is a con. — EAC Reader

The comment was in response to Google’s (NASDAQ: GOOG) $168 million investment in BrightSource Energy’s 392 MW solar installation in the Mojave Desert. It’s the same project in which NRG Energy (NYSE: NRG) invested $300 million last year.

So, thanks for your comment, EAC Reader…

But given Google’s $174 billion market cap, 400% share price appreciation since IPO, utter dominance of the search and online ad market, and NRG’s status as a stalwart utility with 13,820 MW under management in three countries…

I’m going to go ahead and say they did a robust evaluation of energy returned on energy invested (EROI), as well as a thorough calculation of capital and tax expenses and returns.

Comments like those — and the camp of people who ascribe to them — are the energy industry’s equivalent of the “birther” movement.

On a national level, these Trump-esque comments are keeping us from an honest discussion of real energy issues.

I suspect they’re keeping more than a few naïve investors from making smart investment decisions as well.

Open Secrets

Every now and then, something is so obvious that it’s anticlimactic when confirmed.

Mobile devices are tracking us. Shocker.

Osama was in Pakistan. Who knew?

Similarly, the rise of cleantech is an open secret.

Just as we publicly play nice with Pakistan while executing covert military actions inside its borders, dominant energy industries have publicly disputed cleantech’s viability and necessity while simultaneously trying to get a piece of its future profits.

As with most open secrets, the evidence is ample. One need only look at Exxon’s association with anti-climate change and renewable research through donations and partnerships with groups like the Cato Institute and the Institute for Energy Research at the same it’s investing heavily in biofuels research.

The mission of those mentioned groups is clear: To further the business agenda of fossil fuels.

And the business agenda is also clear: Leach every last dollar from a fossil fuel industry in terminal decline, while publicly decrying cleantech’s viability so they have enough time to invest in that, too.

The most expensive sunglasses in the world shouldn’t shade you from this hypocrisy.

Future So Bright

I mentioned over the weekend and Jeff elaborated yesterday on Total’s (NYSE: TOT) $1.38 billion investment to acquire 60% of SunPower’s (NASDAQ: SPWRA) shares.

This was largest investment in a solar company by an independent oil company to date. What’s more, Total paid a 44% premium for its shares of SunPower — $23.25 per share versus the prior day’s closing price of $16.22.

The significance of this event should not go unnoticed. It means:

Major oil companies are ready to invest in renewable in a big way;
They’re willing to pay a premium to get into the market.

Unless you’re like that EAC reader above — whose ideological and political preferences have clouded his judgment so much, he believes the world’s biggest companies are investing in a fruitless technology — you should be interested in getting into this market as well.

I’ll turn once again to two of my favorite charts. And I challenge anyone to find an industry with a more prosperous outlook:

Global Installed Solar Capacity 2000-2020

That’s 393% forecast growth for solar installations.

Global Installed Wind Capacity 2000-2020

And 217% forecast growth for wind installations…

This at a time when the global consensus seems to be oil reserves are a finite and declining resource.

Rest assured, the incumbent energy establishment does itself no favors by talking up the credentials of renewable energy. It knows renewable energy is the way of the future, but it also knows maximum profits can only be had by using fossil fuels as long as possible.

Sooner or later, they’re going to have to make a play for the future. Total tipped off the game last week.

It was no secret Osama was in Pakistan. It was no secret Apple and Google were tracking users.

It’s no secret that oil companies will invest billions in clean energy companies…

And they’ll deny they’re investing in companies like this even as they do it.

Call it like you see it,

Nick Hodge

Nick Hodge
Editor, Energy and Capital

Unsafe at Any Dose

Published on May 3, 2011

Unsafe at Any Dose

By HELEN CALDICOTT

Published: April 30, 2011, Sydney, Australia

Read the original article here

SIX weeks ago, when I first heard about the reactor damage at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, I knew the prognosis: If any of the containment vessels or fuel pools exploded, it would mean millions of new cases of cancer in the Northern Hemisphere.

Many advocates of nuclear power would deny this. During the 25th anniversary last week of the Chernobyl disaster, some commentators asserted that few people died in the aftermath, and that there have been relatively few genetic abnormalities in survivors’ offspring. It’s an easy leap from there to arguments about the safety of nuclear energy compared to alternatives like coal, and optimistic predictions about the health of the people living near Fukushima.

But this is dangerously ill informed and short-sighted; if anyone knows better, it’s doctors like me. There’s great debate about the number of fatalities following Chernobyl; the International Atomic Energy Agency has predicted that there will be only about 4,000 deaths from cancer, but a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences says that almost one million people have already perished from cancer and other diseases. The high doses of radiation caused so many miscarriages that we will never know the number of genetically damaged fetuses that did not come to term. (And both Belarus and Ukraine have group homes full of deformed children.)

Nuclear accidents never cease. We’re decades if not generations away from seeing the full effects of the radioactive emissions from Chernobyl.

As we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it takes years to get cancer. Leukemia takes only 5 to 10 years to emerge, but solid cancers take 15 to 60. Furthermore, most radiation-induced mutations are recessive; it can take many generations for two recessive genes to combine to form a child with a particular disease, like my specialty, cystic fibrosis. We can’t possibly imagine how many cancers and other diseases will be caused in the far future by the radioactive isotopes emitted by Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Doctors understand these dangers. We work hard to try to save the life of a child dying of leukemia. We work hard to try to save the life of a woman dying of metastatic breast cancer. And yet the medical dictum says that for incurable diseases, the only recourse is prevention. There’s no group better prepared than doctors to stand up to the physicists of the nuclear industry.

Still, physicists talk convincingly about “permissible doses” of radiation. They consistently ignore internal emitters — radioactive elements from nuclear power plants or weapons tests that are ingested or inhaled into the body, giving very high doses to small volumes of cells. They focus instead on generally less harmful external radiation from sources outside the body, whether from isotopes emitted from nuclear power plants, medical X-rays, cosmic radiation or background radiation that is naturally present in our environment.

However, doctors know that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation, and that radiation is cumulative. The mutations caused in cells by this radiation are generally deleterious. We all carry several hundred genes for disease: cystic fibrosis, diabetes, phenylketonuria, muscular dystrophy. There are now more than 2,600 genetic diseases on record, any one of which may be caused by a radiation-induced mutation, and many of which we’re bound to see more of, because we are artificially increasing background levels of radiation.

For many years now, physicists employed by the nuclear industry have been outperforming doctors, at least in politics and the news media. Since the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, physicists have had easy access to Congress. They had harnessed the energy inside the center of the sun, and later physicists, whether lobbying for nuclear weapons or nuclear energy, had the same power. They walk into Congress and Congress virtually prostrates itself. Their technological advancements are there for all to see; the harm will become apparent only decades later.

Doctors, by contrast, have fewer dates with Congress, and much less access on nuclear issues. We don’t typically go around discussing the latent period of carcinogenesis and the amazing advances made in understanding radiobiology. But as a result, we do an inadequate job of explaining the long-term dangers of radiation to policymakers and the public.

When patients come to us with cancer, we deem it rude to inquire if they lived downwind of Three Mile Island in the 1980s or might have eaten Hershey’s chocolate made with milk from cows that grazed in irradiated pastures nearby. We tend to treat the disaster after the fact, instead of fighting to stop it from happening in the first place. Doctors need to confront the nuclear industry.

Nuclear power is neither clean, nor sustainable, nor an alternative to fossil fuels — in fact, it adds substantially to global warming. Solar, wind and geothermal energy, along with conservation, can meet our energy needs.

At the beginning, we had no sense that radiation induced cancer. Marie Curie and her daughter didn’t know that the radioactive materials they handled would kill them. But it didn’t take long for the early nuclear physicists in the Manhattan Project to recognize the toxicity of radioactive elements. I knew many of them quite well. They had hoped that peaceful nuclear energy would absolve their guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it has only extended it.

Physicists had the knowledge to begin the nuclear age. Physicians have the knowledge, credibility and legitimacy to end it.

Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is the author of “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.”

Thoughtful Chicken Raising

Published on April 29, 2011

Thoughtful Chicken Raising, by Sharon, April 22nd, 2011, Posted on The Chatelaine’s Keys

Read the original article here

Poultry is the new black, right? Well, maybe not, but when you think about greater self-sufficiency and backyard farming and such, the first thing a lot of people imagine is getting some chickens.

Now on one hand, I think that’s a good idea. There are many compelling reasons to keep chickens. First of all, industrial chicken and egg production is one of the filthiest, most inhumane, most grotesque industries of all time. You probably already know that the chickens are essentially tortured during their short lives, living in filth, crammed in tiny cages, etc… I won’t bother reiterating what we all already know, but if you buy eggs or chicken at the supermarket, you are, with your dollars, saying, “I’m ok with torturing animals and polluting the planet just so I can have meat and eggs.” Organics, industrial kosher and “free range” (which really doesn’t mean what you think it does) are marginally better, but much more like industrial production than not.

So what is a person who likes to eat eggs and the occasional bowl of chicken soup to do? If you raise four laying hens in your backyard, you will average 2 eggs per day – enough for a household of four to have an egg each every other day. 8 hens, which would fit comfortably in your average suburban backyard, will keep you in all the eggs you want much of the year. Eggs are a superb source of protein, and quite delicious. They enhance most baked goods.

In addition, you will get chicken manure (in industrial concentrated production, chicken manure is a problem – in your yard, it is a blessing on your garden), and when the hens get older, and stop laying so well, if you are brave about this sort of thing, you can make chicken and dumplings out of them. Or you can keep the hen as a pet. They are friendly things, make pleasant noises (you don’t need a rooster to get eggs, and in fact most people in close proximity to neighbors shouldn’t keep a rooster) , and good natured. Children can pet them, and there isn’t a child or adult in the world who doesn’t get excited when they find an egg. All my children have grown up with chickens, but the excitement has never waned.

Chickens will eat your food scraps, including meats and things you can’t put on the compost pile, and return you beautiful eggs. They will eat bugs, including japanese beetles, slugs and ticks that pester us. All they require is an area of grass to scratch on, the most basic housing (4 hens can live comfortably in a doghouse, but for gathering eggs and straw removal you might want something else).

Now some areas do not permit chickens, but surprisingly many do, and if they don’t, this is something to take up with your town board or whoever is in charge. Get your neighbors to help – promise them as many delicious, orange yolked, lovely eggs as they want if they will help you. Show them how cute the baby chicks are, and how sweet natured a Buff Orpington hen is when a five year old picks her up and carries her around. 6 hens make far less noise, mess and trouble than one Golden Retriever for neighbors, and are infinitely more useful. Their manure is less dangerous than a dog’s poop, they carry fewer human-dangerous diseases. Any society that permits household dogs can rationally accept household chickens, so do not let nonsense about salmonella and bird flu deter you or your city. That does not mean it will always be easy, but it is well worth a try.

But – and I want everyone to pause at that but – it is worth thinking about how we’re going to feed these chickens. Because a lot of people get chickens and think their work on the path to sustainability is done. But if your chickens are eating a lot of grains, it would probably be more productive for you to simply eat the grains. And if those grains come from long distances, and are not organic, you’ve done something, but not enough. If you are feeding your chickens GM corn and Roundup-ready soybeans, then you will both get out of them what you put in, and are again, with your dollars, tacitly saying “these practices are ok.”

So how do we feed chickens so that they produce eggs and meat for us, but don’t require us to violate basic principles about raising things sustainably? Well, chickens are always going to need some grain, but they can get quite a lot of their food foraging in your yard for bugs, eating grass, and from your household scraps. Most American households could easily feed half a dozen chickens more than 80% of their diets from their own scraps, scraps obtained from their neighborhood (talk to neighbors, your local coffee shop, the market, etc…) lawn and bugs.

Lots of people raising poultry and feeding them mostly grains raises a major problem – among other difficulties, besides the fact that your eggs may or may not be any lower in environmental impact than the other eggs, when grain is fed to livestock in the industrial world, it raises grain prices in the Global south, where much of the grain is fed directly to humans. Competitions between the livestock and pets of industrial people and the world’s poor are always a losing battle for the world’s poor – they can’t compete. So finding ways to keep your chickens on homegrown feed or food scraps, as is done in much of the world, is essential.

Now back to the lawn. Presumably, you didn’t want the bugs, mostly anyway. The lawn might bother you a bit – after all, if you live in a suburban neighborhood, you may have one of those lawns that looks like it was painted on, and the thought of chickens pooping on your lawn may be traumatic. But if you build a chicken tractor (that is, a small pen that can be moved easily), and put the chickens in a small spot on your lawn each day, you’ll fertilize that spot, won’t have excessive quantities of manure, and get your grass trimmed too. Or, you can build them a yard where they can poop their heart’s content, and you can bring them your weeds, lawn clippings, as well as the scraps from your garden, and keep them blissfully happy. Generally speaking you’ll want breeds of hen that are good foragers – we’ve had great luck with Buff Orpingtons, Dark Cornish and Aracaunas.

For the other 20% of their diet you’ll need grains and a source of fairly intense protein, and maybe a source of calcium. If they have open ground, you won’t need to worry about grit too much. Now we shouldn’t be trying to duplicate commercial diets – the idea is not to maximize meat or egg production, but to get the most out of the animals without either shortening their lives or making your own life stressful.

Locally produced staple grains can feed chickens – you can grow them in your garden if you have enough room. Dry corn, for example, is not hard to grow, and it wouldn’t take much space to grow a year’s supply for a small number of hens. Wheat, oats or millet need not be threshed or anything. Just grow them (they grow like grass, because they are grasses), cut them down, and toss a bundle in with the hens now and then – the straw will make bedding for them and they’ll scratch out all the grain. Even potatoes can be used, and potatoes are the easiest staple starch to grow in cold, rocky areas like the Northeast. Potatoes must be cooked, but you could easily boil a big pot of potatoes every few days and toss the rest to them gradually. Or you can buy grains from a local small producer.

As for protein, if you have enough land, you could use extra milk from goats or cows (chickens will also happily drink milk you let sour in the fridge.) If you can find enough scraps to support them and the chickens, you could raise either earth or meal worms in your house, and use them as a supplementary source of protein. Or, of course, there’s soybeans, if you can buy them locally. Your own meat scraps will provide some. If you have spare eggs, you can even cook them and feed them back to the hens (you don’t want to teach them to eat raw eggs, trust me). In any case, any shells you don’t need should be cooked, crushed and fed back to the chickens for calcium supplementation. With that, you’ll need only a little oyster shell or other source of calcium.

At most, you should be bringing in a small percentage of the hens’ total diet, if you are working towards sustainability – because those sacks of feed will probably not be available forever. Might as well make good eggs now!

Sharon

Radiation fallout from Japan affects food safety across North America

Published on April 23, 2011

CURRENT RADIATION FALLOUT SITUATION IN NORTH AMERICA, Posted on Vesica Institute

See the original article here

RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT HAS NOW BEEN CONFIRMED ACROSS THE ENTIRE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE OF THE EARTH – http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/305490

FUKUSHIMA PLANT RELEASED OVER 7.5 MILLION TIMES THE LEGAL LIMIT OF RADIOACTIVE IODINE INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN – http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-nuclear-20110406,0,2697428.story

FRENCH NUCLEAR RESEARCH GROUP CRIIRAD ISSUES WARNING AGAINST CONSUMING SPECIFIC FOODS FOR ENTIRE COUNTRY OF FRANCE – All French citizens were warned against consuming rainwater, leafy greens, and all milk derived products (including from goats and sheep as well as cows) due to radioactive fallout contamination in Europe. The U.S. and Canadian governments still claim that all of the above foods are safe in North America, even for infants and pregnant women; unfortunately the reality is that the level of radioactive fallout present here is 8 to 10 times greater that of France and the rest of Europe. – http://www.euractiv.com/en/health/radiation-risks-fukushima-longer-negligible-news-503947

URANIUM FALLOUT DETECTED IN HAWAII, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AND SEATTLE – http://enenews.com/uranium-234-detected-hawaii-southern-california-seattle

UC BERKELEY CONFIRMS RADIOACTIVE CESIUM FALLOUT PRESENT IN LEAFY GREENS TESTED IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA – http://enenews.com/latest-ucb-test-results-first-time-radioactive-cesium-found-arugala-kale-spinach-around-san-francisco

RAINWATER IN THE US TESTING FOR HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF TIMES THE FEDERAL RADIATION LIMIT FOR DRINKING WATER – http://enenews.com/radioactive-iodine-131-in-rainwater-sample-near-san-francisco-is-18100-above-federal-drinking-water-standard – http://enenews.com/radioactive-iodine-131-in-pennsylvania-rainwater-sample-3300-above-federal-drinking-water-standard – http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/RainWaterSampling

DRINKING WATER FROM THE TAP NOW SHOWING HIGH RADIATION LEVELS – http://enenews.com/east-coast-citys-tap-water-highest-radiation-philadelphia-only-8-pcil-belowepas-maximum-contaminant-level

PACIFIC OCEAN FISH TESTING RADIOACTIVE

MILK SAMPLES IN CALIFORNIA, WASHINGTON STATE, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, VERMONT AND HAWAII SHOW RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT CONTAMINATION

RAINWATER IN FLORIDA HIGH IN RADIOACTIVE CESIUM AND IODINE
http://enenews.com/epa-florida-rain-has-third-most-cs-134-and-fifth-most-i-131-of-any-samples-taken-in-us

FALLOUT MAPS FOR NORTH AMERICA
These maps, made available by the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU), show which areas of North America have received or will soon receive the highest dumps of radioactive fallout from Fukushima. The maps show during which time periods to expect incoming fallout in specific areas. It is a tragedy and a scandal that the U.S. and Canadian governments do not provide such information to its citizens. The link below will take you to a page where you can click on which radioactive fallout element to track over which area of the world. Be aware that the amount of fallout already on the ground in North America will continue to affect us for a long time to come, even if concentrations shown on this mapping (which shows current streams of new fallout from Fukushima) become less intense in the future.
http://transport.nilu.no/products/fukushima

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON RADIATION RISK (ECRR) FORECASTS OVER 400,000 CANCERS WILL EVENTUALLY DEVELOP FROM FUKUSHIMA FALLOUT – http://www.llrc.org

SCIENTIST MICHIO KAKU NOTES THAT FUKUSHIMA DISASTER MAY BE WORSE THAN CHERNOBYL – http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=604AB3FA803FF3647DF6E34EC5E8C8A0

EPA IS PLANNING TO INCREASE OFFICIAL “SAFE” RADIATION LEVEL GUIDELINES BY FACTORS OF THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS IN THE NEAR FUTURE – This is a clear sign of how bad things are: to continue the illusion that the fallout crisis is not dangerous, the EPA is planning to increase dramatically the official guidelines for “safe levels” of radiation – even though their current guidelines are already unrealistically high and inaccurate for risks from radioactive contamination of air, food and water. – http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=1325

MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS IGNORING REPORTS OF RADIOACTIVE CESIUM FALLOUT TO FOCUS ON RADIOACTIVE IODINE – Since Radioactive Iodine has a short half-life of 8 days, whereas Cesium has a half life in some cases of 30 years, this is another tactic to obscure the long-term danger in North America. – http://www.naturalnews.com/031992_radioactive_cesium.html

RECOMMENDED SOURCES FOR INFORMATION UPDATES

Energy News Website (perhaps the most frequently updated information source in English on the internet for the Radiation crisis in North America):
http://enenews.com/

The non-profit Nuclear Information and Resource Service is an excellent and highly recommended source with regular updates:
http://www.nirs.org/fukushima/crisis.htm

The non-profit Low-Level Radiation Campaign website has a wealth of helpful information, including good rebuttals to false media reports such as those stating that the Chernobyl accident was “not as bad as people think”:
http://www.llrc.org/

NaturalNews website is another frequently updated source of information on the fallout crisis:
http://www.naturalnews.com/

SPECIFIC FOODS AND GEOGRAPHIC AREAS OF CONCERN

Below is a summary of key areas and food products of highest concern.

We strongly recommend that you do energetic testing of foods from these areas before consuming them to see if they strengthen or weaken you, using

Vibrational Radiesthesia, or
Kinesiology, or
Pulse Diagnosis.

AREAS WHOSE FOOD PRODUCTS MAY NOW CARRY RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

The Entirety of the Northern Hemisphere around the world is affected by fallout, as well as the Pacific Ocean.

Most Serious: Japan, Pacific Ocean, and Pacific Rim States

Most Contaminated food areas of North America (based on fallout wind spread patterns charted by European scientific research agencies) in order of likely intensity of contamination, starting with the most contaminated:

Entire Pacific Coast (note that much of the produce in North America comes from this region, especially California)
Northern U.S. States close to Canada, and Canadian areas close to the U.S. (including Toronto etc.)
Eastern States
Central States of the U.S., and Far Northern areas of Canada

SAFEST AREAS OF ORIGIN FOR FOOD PRODUCTS

The majority of contamination is in the northern hemisphere and the Pacific Ocean region. Most of the Southern Hemisphere has little to no fallout (the exception is the Southern Hemisphere in the Pacific; Australia for example is finding radioactive fish in the ocean, so although they may not get much atmospheric fallout they are affected by the massive contamination of the Pacific Ocean.)

Also note that radioactive contamination is being found on non-food products being imported from Japan.

Safest Areas of Origin for food products:
Central America (avoid items from the Pacific Coast area of Mexico)
South America
Africa

Europe is also far less contaminated that North America, although it is also experiencing significant fallout; so it is a better source for products than North America, however not as good as Southern Hemisphere sources. (However some South American produce may contain high levels of pesticides not allowed to be used in the U.S. or Canada.)

ITEMS OF SPECIAL CONCERN FROM AFFECTED AREAS

Most affected:

All Ocean-Derived Products from the Pacific Ocean: the Fukushima accident dumped millions of times the normal background levels of radiation into the Pacific, where it is affecting the entire ocean (most toxic near Japan and bordering areas, but now reaching to the US West Coast: debris from the Tsunami in Japan is also expected to start washing up on the West Coast in the near future.) There are already reports of Pacific Fish showing radioactive contamination.
This indicates a need to be cautious regarding:
All Pacific Ocean Fish
Sea Salt or Ocean Minerals derived from the Pacific
All Pacific Seaweed and Sea Vegetables (order Atlantic Ocean seaweed at www.theseaweedman.com )

Milk and all Dairy Products (butter, cheese etc.) from all animals: Cows, Goats, and Sheep (Dairy products have the most intense immediate absorption of radiation from fallout). Radioactive contamination of milk has been found throughout the United States, especially on the West Coast.

Any plant with a large surface area exposed to the air while growing: The most intense radiation absorption in plants is through rain falling directly on the leaves of the plant, where it is directly absorbed. Rainwater absorbed through the earth into the plant is already of much lower radiation intensity due to the filtering affect of the soil.
All broad leaf plants and plants with large surface areas grown in the open air (rather than in greenhouses) are the most contaminated, for instance Salad Greens, Spinach, Cabbage etc. Contaminated crops in California (carrying radioactive iodine and cesium) have already been confirmed by UC Berkeley.
[Carrots and other root vegetables are less contaminated due to growing underground.]

Water from Rainwater or Open Lake type catchments: instead drink bottled water, or water from underground wells or other underground sources (radiation is greatly reduced when the particles have to travel through the ground.)

PREGNANT (OR BREASTFEEDING) WOMEN AND YOUNG CHILDREN SHOULD ESPECIALLY BE CAREFUL REGARDING THESE ITEMS COMING FROM FALLOUT AFFECTED AREAS

INFORMATION ON RADIATION PROTECTIVE FOODS AND MATERIALS

A good overview of radiation protective food and antidotes are available in a free downloadable PDF here:
http://meditationexpert.com/RadiationDetox//index.htm

Information on Dr. Hazel Parcells’ important Radiation Detox methods can be found in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Live-Better-Longer-Parcells-Longevity/dp/0595163610/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302841161&sr=8-1

Excellent article by Dr. Mark Sircus on Radiation Treatments (check out his blog too for good updates):
http://blog.imva.info/medicine/treatments-nuclear-contamination

Greenmedinfo.com has an incredibly rich database of scientific articles on foods and supplements which protect against radiation here:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/disease/radiation-disaster-associated-toxicity

Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods.

Published on April 15, 2011

Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods., by Dr. Mercola

read the original article here

Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure. It was discovered by accident in 1965 when James Schlatter, a chemist of G.D. Searle Company, was testing an anti-ulcer drug.

Aspartame was approved for dry goods in 1981 and for carbonated beverages in 1983. It was originally approved for dry goods on July 26, 1974, but objections filed by neuroscience researcher Dr John W. Olney and Consumer attorney James Turner in August 1974 as well as investigations of G.D. Searle’s research practices caused the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put approval of aspartame on hold (December 5, 1974). In 1985, Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle and made Searle Pharmaceuticals and The NutraSweet Company separate subsidiaries.

Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA. Many of these reactions are very serious including seizures and death. A few of the 90 different documented symptoms listed in the report as being caused by aspartame include: Headaches/migraines, dizziness, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.

According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, the following chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting of aspartame: Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, parkinson’s disease, alzheimer’s, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

Aspartame is made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol. The book “Prescription for Nutritional Healing,” by James and Phyllis Balch, lists aspartame under the category of “chemical poison.” As you shall see, that is exactly what it is.

What Is Aspartame Made Of?

Aspartic Acid (40 percent of Aspartame)

Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.

How Aspartate (and Glutamate) Cause Damage

Aspartate and glutamate act as neurotransmitters in the brain by facilitating the transmission of information from neuron to neuron. Too much aspartate or glutamate in the brain kills certain neurons by allowing the influx of too much calcium into the cells. This influx triggers excessive amounts of free radicals, which kill the cells. The neural cell damage that can be caused by excessive aspartate and glutamate is why they are referred to as “excitotoxins.” They “excite” or stimulate the neural cells to death.

Aspartic acid is an amino acid. Taken in its free form (unbound to proteins) it significantly raises the blood plasma level of aspartate and glutamate. The excess aspartate and glutamate in the blood plasma shortly after ingesting aspartame or products with free glutamic acid (glutamate precursor) leads to a high level of those neurotransmitters in certain areas of the brain.

The blood brain barrier (BBB), which normally protects the brain from excess glutamate and aspartate as well as toxins, 1) is not fully developed during childhood, 2) does not fully protect all areas of the brain, 3) is damaged by numerous chronic and acute conditions, and 4) allows seepage of excess glutamate and aspartate into the brain even when intact.

The excess glutamate and aspartate slowly begin to destroy neurons. The large majority (75 percent or more) of neural cells in a particular area of the brain are killed before any clinical symptoms of a chronic illness are noticed. A few of the many chronic illnesses that have been shown to be contributed to by long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage include:

Multiple sclerosis (MS)
ALS
Memory loss
Hormonal problems
Hearing loss
Epilepsy
Alzheimer’s disease

Parkinson’s disease
Hypoglycemia
AIDS
Dementia
Brain lesions
Neuroendocrine disorders

The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and persons with certain chronic health problems from excitotoxins are great. Even the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), which usually understates problems and mimics the FDA party-line, recently stated in a review that:

“It is prudent to avoid the use of dietary supplements of L-glutamic acid by pregnant women, infants, and children. The existence of evidence of potential endocrine responses, i.e., elevated cortisol and prolactin, and differential responses between males and females, would also suggest a neuroendocrine link and that supplemental L-glutamic acid should be avoided by women of childbearing age and individuals with affective disorders.”

Aspartic acid from aspartame has the same deleterious effects on the body as glutamic acid.

The exact mechanism of acute reactions to excess free glutamate and aspartate is currently being debated. As reported to the FDA, those reactions include:

aspartame effect

Headaches/migraines
Nausea
Abdominal pains
Fatigue (blocks sufficient glucose entry into brain)
Sleep problems
Vision problems
Anxiety attacks
Depression
Asthma/chest tigShtness.

One common complaint of persons suffering from the effect of aspartame is memory loss. Ironically, in 1987, G.D. Searle, the manufacturer of aspartame, undertook a search for a drug to combat memory loss caused by excitatory amino acid damage. Blaylock is one of many scientists and physicians who are concerned about excitatory amino acid damage caused by ingestion of aspartame and MSG.

A few of the many experts who have spoken out against the damage being caused by aspartate and glutamate include Adrienne Samuels, Ph.D., an experimental psychologist specializing in research design. Another is Olney, a professor in the department of psychiatry, School of Medicine, Washington University, a neuroscientist and researcher, and one of the world’s foremost authorities on excitotoxins. (He informed Searle in 1971 that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of mice.)

Phenylalanine (50 percent of aspartame)

Phenylalanine is an amino acid normally found in the brain. Persons with the genetic disorder phenylketonuria (PKU) cannot metabolize phenylalanine. This leads to dangerously high levels of phenylalanine in the brain (sometimes lethal). It has been shown that ingesting aspartame, especially along with carbohydrates, can lead to excess levels of phenylalanine in the brain even in persons who do not have PKU.

This is not just a theory, as many people who have eaten large amounts of aspartame over a long period of time and do not have PKU have been shown to have excessive levels of phenylalanine in the blood. Excessive levels of phenylalanine in the brain can cause the levels of seratonin in the brain to decrease, leading to emotional disorders such as depression. It was shown in human testing that phenylalanine levels of the blood were increased significantly in human subjects who chronically used aspartame.

Even a single use of aspartame raised the blood phenylalanine levels. In his testimony before the U.S. Congress, Dr. Louis J. Elsas showed that high blood phenylalanine can be concentrated in parts of the brain and is especially dangerous for infants and fetuses. He also showed that phenylalanine is metabolised much more effeciently by rodents than by humans.

One account of a case of extremely high phenylalanine levels caused by aspartame was recently published the “Wednesday Journal” in an article titled “An Aspartame Nightmare.” John Cook began drinking six to eight diet drinks every day. His symptoms started out as memory loss and frequent headaches. He began to crave more aspartame-sweetened drinks. His condition deteriorated so much that he experienced wide mood swings and violent rages. Even though he did not suffer from PKU, a blood test revealed a phenylalanine level of 80 mg/dl. He also showed abnormal brain function and brain damage. After he kicked his aspartame habit, his symptoms improved dramatically.

As Blaylock points out in his book, early studies measuring phenylalanine buildup in the brain were flawed. Investigators who measured specific brain regions and not the average throughout the brain notice significant rises in phenylalanine levels. Specifically the hypothalamus, medulla oblongata, and corpus striatum areas of the brain had the largest increases in phenylalanine. Blaylock goes on to point out that excessive buildup of phenylalanine in the brain can cause schizophrenia or make one more susceptible to seizures.

Therefore, long-term, excessive use of aspartame may provid a boost to sales of seratonin reuptake inhibitors such as Prozac and drugs to control schizophrenia and seizures.

Methanol (aka wood alcohol/poison) (10 percent of aspartame)

Methanol/wood alcohol is a deadly poison. Some people may remember methanol as the poison that has caused some “skid row” alcoholics to end up blind or dead. Methanol is gradually released in the small intestine when the methyl group of aspartame encounter the enzyme chymotrypsin.

The absorption of methanol into the body is sped up considerably when free methanol is ingested. Free methanol is created from aspartame when it is heated to above 86 Fahrenheit (30 Centigrade). This would occur when aspartame-containing product is improperly stored or when it is heated (e.g., as part of a “food” product such as Jello).

Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in the body. Formaldehyde is a deadly neurotoxin. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol “is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic.” They recommend a limit of consumption of 7.8 mg/day. A one-liter (approx. 1 quart) aspartame-sweetened beverage contains about 56 mg of methanol. Heavy users of aspartame-containing products consume as much as 250 mg of methanol daily or 32 times the EPA limit.

Symptoms from methanol poisoning include headaches, ear buzzing, dizziness, nausea, gastrointestinal disturbances, weakness, vertigo, chills, memory lapses, numbness and shooting pains in the extremities, behavioral disturbances, and neuritis. The most well known problems from methanol poisoning are vision problems including misty vision, progressive contraction of visual fields, blurring of vision, obscuration of vision, retinal damage, and blindness. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, causes retinal damage, interferes with DNA replication and causes birth defects.

Due to the lack of a couple of key enzymes, humans are many times more sensitive to the toxic effects of methanol than animals. Therefore, tests of aspartame or methanol on animals do not accurately reflect the danger for humans. As pointed out by Dr. Woodrow C. Monte, director of the food science and nutrition laboratory at Arizona State University, “There are no human or mammalian studies to evaluate the possible mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic effects of chronic administration of methyl alcohol.”

He was so concerned about the unresolved safety issues that he filed suit with the FDA requesting a hearing to address these issues. He asked the FDA to “slow down on this soft drink issue long enough to answer some of the important questions. It’s not fair that you are leaving the full burden of proof on the few of us who are concerned and have such limited resources. You must remember that you are the American public’s last defense. Once you allow usage (of aspartame) there is literally nothing I or my colleagues can do to reverse the course. Aspartame will then join saccharin, the sulfiting agents, and God knows how many other questionable compounds enjoined to insult the human constitution with governmental approval.” Shortly thereafter, the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hull Hayes, Jr., approved the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages, he then left for a position with G.D. Searle’s public relations firm.

It has been pointed out that some fruit juices and alcoholic beverages contain small amounts of methanol. It is important to remember, however, that methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. The troops of Desert Storm were “treated” to large amounts of aspartame-sweetened beverages, which had been heated to over 86 degrees F in the Saudi Arabian sun. Many of them returned home with numerous disorders similar to what has been seen in persons who have been chemically poisoned by formaldehyde. The free methanol in the beverages may have been a contributing factor in these illnesses. Other breakdown products of aspartame such as DKP (discussed below) may also have been a factor.

In a 1993 act that can only be described as “unconscionable,” the FDA approved aspartame as an ingredient in numerous food items that would always be heated to above 86 degree F (30 degree C).

Diketopiperazine (DKP)

DKP is a byproduct of aspartame metabolism. DKP has been implicated in the occurrence of brain tumors. Olney noticed that DKP, when nitrosated in the gut, produced a compound that was similar to N-nitrosourea, a powerful brain tumor causing chemical. Some authors have said that DKP is produced after aspartame ingestion. I am not sure if that is correct. It is definitely true that DKP is formed in liquid aspartame-containing products during prolonged storage.

G.D. Searle conducted animal experiments on the safety of DKP. The FDA found numerous experimental errors occurred, including “clerical errors, mixed-up animals, animals not getting drugs they were supposed to get, pathological specimens lost because of improper handling,” and many other errors. These sloppy laboratory procedures may explain why both the test and control animals had sixteen times more brain tumors than would be expected in experiments of this length.

In an ironic twist, shortly after these experimental errors were discovered, the FDA used guidelines recommended by G.D. Searle to develop the industry-wide FDA standards for good laboratory practices.

DKP has also been implicated as a cause of uterine polyps and changes in blood cholesterol by FDA Toxicologist Dr. Jacqueline Verrett in her testimony before the U.S. Senate.

Manuka honey ‘could help fight superbugs’

Published on April 14, 2011

Manuka honey ‘could help fight superbugs’

By Michelle Roberts Health reporter, BBC News

Read the original article here

A combination of topical honey applied to the skin plus antibiotics may beat superbugs

Manuka honey could be used to combat some of the most hard-to-treat infections that are resistant to powerful antibiotics, scientists say.

Lab experiments show it can clear bacteria found in festering wounds and contaminated hospital surfaces.

It works by breaking down the defences bacteria use against antibiotics, making it useful in treating superbug infections such as MRSA.

The results were presented at a Society for General Microbiology meeting.

Professor Rose Cooper from the University of Wales Institute Cardiff found a variety of honey from bees foraging on manuka trees in New Zealand proved effective.

Fighting resistance

A specially filtered version of this honey, with impurities removed, is already used in modern licensed wound-care products around the world.

Indeed, people have known for centuries about honey’s antiseptic powers.

The researchers wanted to gain a better understanding of this honey’s bacteria-fighting properties and to see if it might help tackle some of the most stubborn infections encountered in our hospitals.

Professor Cooper’s work with two common types of bacteria – streptococci and pseudomonads – revealed that manuka honey can deter the attachment of bacteria to tissue, which is an essential step in the initiation of acute infections.

Stopping attachment also blocks the formation of biofilms, which can protect bacteria from antibiotics and allow them to cause persistent infections.

Medical grade honey

The latest lab work showed that the honey can make MRSA more sensitive to antibiotics such as oxacillin – effectively reversing antibiotic resistance.

Professor Cooper said: “This indicates that existing antibiotics may be more effective against drug-resistant infections if used in combination with manuka honey.

“What we need to do now is look at more combinations with antibiotics and do some clinical work in patients.

“It could be applied topically to wounds and used in combination with antibiotics to treat resistant infections.”

But she warned people not to try the same at home with honey bought from the supermarket. “Not only is it messy, it wouldn’t be advisable. We have been using medical grade honey, not the stuff you buy in shops.”

Radioactivity in the ocean: Diluted, but far from harmless

Published on April 12, 2011

Published Apr 7 2011 by Yale Environment 360, Archived Apr 12 2011

Radioactivity in the ocean: Diluted, but far from harmless

by Elizabeth Grossman

With contaminated water from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear complex continuing to pour into the Pacific, scientists are concerned about how that radioactivity might affect marine life. Although the ocean’s capacity to dilute radiation is huge, signs are that nuclear isotopes are already moving up the local food chain.

Over the past half-century, the world has seen its share of incidents in which radioactive material has been dumped or discharged into the oceans. A British nuclear fuels plant has repeatedly released radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, a French nuclear reprocessing plant has discharged similar waste into the English Channel, and for decades the Soviets dumped large quantities of radioactive material into the Arctic Ocean, Kara Sea, and Barents Sea. That radioactive material included reactors from at least 16 Soviet nuclear-powered submarines and icebreakers, and large amounts of liquid and solid nuclear waste from USSR military bases and weapons plants.

Still, the world has never quite seen an event like the one unfolding now off the coast of eastern Japan, in which thousands of tons of radioactively contaminated water from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant are pouring directly into the ocean. And though the vastness of the ocean has the capacity to dilute nuclear contamination, signs of spreading radioactive material are being found off Japan, including the discovery of elevated concentrations of radioactive cesium and iodine in small fish several dozen miles south of Fukushima, and high levels of radioactivity in seawater 25 miles offshore.

International Atomic Energy Agency. Seawater concentrations of cesium-137, March 23 to March 30.

How this continuing contamination will affect marine life, or humans, is still unclear. But scientists agree that the governments of Japan, the United States, and other nations on the Pacific Rim need to ramp up studies of how far this contamination might spread and in what concentrations.

“Given that the Fukushima nuclear power plant is on the ocean, and with leaks and runoff directly to the ocean, the impacts on the ocean will exceed those of Chernobyl, which was hundreds of miles from any sea,” said Ken Buesseler, senior scientist in marine chemistry at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts. “My biggest concern is the lack of information. We still don’t know the whole range of radioactive compounds that have been released into the ocean, nor do we know their distribution. We have a few data points from the Japanese — all close to the coast — but to understand the full impact, including for fisheries, we need broader surveys and scientific study of the area.”

Buessler and other experts say this much is clear: Both short-lived radioactive elements, such as iodine-131, and longer-lived elements — such as cesium-137, with a half-life of 30 years — can be absorbed by phytoplankton, zooplankton, kelp, and other marine life and then be transmitted up the food chain, to fish, marine mammals, and humans. Other radioactive elements — including plutonium, which has been detected outside the Fukushima plant — also pose a threat to marine life. A key question is how concentrated will the radioactive contamination be. Japanese officials hope that a temporary fishing ban off the northeastern Japanese coast will be enough to avert any danger to human health until the flow of radioactive water into the sea can be stopped.

But that spigot is still running. Since the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, and the resulting damage to the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, huge quantities of water have been poured on four stricken reactors to keep them cool. Thousands of tons of radioactively contaminated water have then been released from the Fukushima complex into the ocean. And even though the Japanese this week stopped a leak of highly radioactive material from the badly damaged Reactor No. 2, the water used to cool the reactor cores continues to flow into the sea. In addition, atmospheric fallout from the damaged reactors is contaminating the ocean as prevailing winds carry radioactivity out over the Pacific.

The Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) has reported that seawater containing radioactive iodine-131 at 5 million times the legal limit has been detected near the plant. According to the Japanese news service, NHK, a recent sample also contained 1.1 million times the legal level of radioactive cesium-137.

Studies from previous releases of nuclear material in the Irish, Kara and Barents Seas, as well as in the Pacific Ocean, show that such radioactive material does travel with ocean currents, is deposited in marine sediment, and does climb the marine food web. In the Irish Sea — where the British Nuclear Fuels plant at Sellafield in the northwestern United Kingdom released radioactive material over many decades, beginning in the 1950s — studies have found radioactive cesium and plutonium concentrating significantly in seals and porpoises that ate contaminated fish. Other studies have shown that radioactive material from Sellafield and from the nuclear reprocessing plant at Cap de la Hague in France have been transported to the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. A study published in 2003 found that a substantial part of the world’s radioactive contamination is in the marine environment.

Antony Dickson/AFP/Getty Images. A sign inside a Hong Kong supermarket assures shoppers that the sushi for sale is not of Japanese origin.But what impact this radioactive contamination has on marine life and humans is still unclear. Even the mass dumping of nuclear material by the Soviets in the Arctic has not been definitively shown to have caused widespread harm to marine life. That may be because containment vessels around some of the dumped reactors are preventing the escape of radiation. A lack of comprehensive studies by the Russians in the areas where nuclear waste was dumped also has hampered understanding. Two events in the early 1990s — a die-off of seals in the Barents Sea and White Sea from blood cancer, and the deaths of millions of starfish, shellfish, seals and porpoises in the White Sea — have been variously attributed by Russian scientists to pollution or nuclear contamination.

How the radioactive materials released from the Fukushima plants will behave in the ocean will depend on their chemical properties and reactivity, explained Ted Poston, a ecotoxicologist with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a U.S. government facility in Richland, Washington. If the radionuclides are in soluble form, they will behave differently than if they are absorbed into particles, said Poston. Soluble iodine, for example, will disperse rather rapidly. But if a radionuclide reacts with other molecules or gets deposited on existing particulates — bits of minerals, for example — they can be suspended in the water or, if larger, may drop to the sea floor.

“If particulates in the water column are very small they will move with the current,” he explained. “If bigger or denser, they can settle in sediment.”

If iodine-131, for example, is taken up by seaweed or plankton, it can be transferred to fish, which are in turn eaten by larger fish, as has been seen in the Irish Sea. Fish can also take in radionuclides in the water through their gills, and radionuclides can be ingested by mollusks. But Edward Lazo, deputy division head for radiation protection at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, said, “This is not a fully developed science and there are lots of uncertainties.”

Radioactive iodine is taken up by the thyroid in humans and marine mammals — or in the case of fish, thyroid tissue — and is also readily absorbed by seaweed and kelp. Cesium acts like potassium and is taken up by muscle. Cesium would tend to stay in solution and can eventually end up in marine sediment where, because of its long half life, it will persist for years. Because marine organisms use potassium they can also take up cesium. “Cesium behaves like potassium, so would end up in all marine life,” said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Maryland. “It certainly will have an effect.”

Tom Hei, professor of environmental sciences and vice-chairman of radiation oncology at Columbia University, explained that the mechanisms that determine how an animal takes in radiation are the same for fish as they are for humans. Once in the body — whether inhaled or absorbed through gills or other organs — radiation can make its way into the bloodstream, lungs, and bony structures, potentially causing death, cancer, or genetic damage. Larger animals tend to more sensitive to radiation than smaller ones. Yet small fish, mollusks and crustaceans, as well as plankton and phytoplankton, can absorb radiation, said Poston. How the radiation accumulates depends on the degree of exposure — dose and duration — and the half-life of the element, said Hei.

Depending on its chemical form and by what organisms it is taken up, radiation can also concentrate when it moves through the food chain. A 1999 study found that seals and porpoises in the Irish Sea concentrated radioactive cesium by a factor of 300 relative to its concentration in seawater, and a factor of 3 to 4 compared to the fish they ate.

So far, the Japanese government and TEPCO have provided only limited data on marine contamination from the Fukushima plant. Given the emergency situation, independent monitoring along the coast is difficult, said Jan Beránek, director of Greenpeace International’s nuclear energy project. On April 5, the Japanese government set its first standards for allowable levels of radioactive material in seafood. A number of countries have banned seafood imports from Japan. The U.S. has barred food imports from the prefectures closest to Fukushima and the Food and Drug Administration says it is closely monitoring imported food products, including seafood, for radiation contamination.

“This is not an imminent health concern, but we haven’t seen the end of it,” said Theo Theofanous, professor of chemical and mechanical engineering at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says it is not conducting any monitoring of the marine environment for radiation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is monitoring airborne radiation, but its spokespeople were unable to say whether the EPA was monitoring the marine environment as well.

Experts such as Buesseler of Woods Hole, as well as activists like Beránek, said an international effort should quickly be launched to sample and measure radionuclides in the ocean, seafloor, and marine life, with close attention paid to which direction ocean currents can be expected to transport water potentially contaminated by Fukushima.

Original article available here

Video: How the food industry is deceiving you with Peter Jennings

Published on April 8, 2011

Video: How the food industry is deceiving you

Read the original article here

“In 2004, the late, great Peter Jennings pulled no punches with his insightful and hard-hitting five-part series How the Food Industry is Deceiving You. In it, Jennings took a critical look at how the rapid rise of obesity in America is directly connected to the unholy alliance between the food industry and our government. As just one of the many examples of underhanded dealings, Jennings points to agricultural subsidy programs and shows how the lion’s share of subsidy dollars go to produce sugars and fats. The exposé also highlights how, despite the insanely large amounts of money spent on marketing unhealthy foods (in 2002, the food industry spent $34 billion on marketing– $12 billion of which was aimed at children), the food industry still insists that the choice is yours, and that obesity is most likely tied to people’s unwillingness to exercise (Michael F. Jacobson stops in to disprove that myth).

The series ends with a very somber Jennings looking right into the camera, comparing the food industry today with the tobacco industry 30 years ago. He claimed that by publicizing the dangers of smoking, the government successfully reduced national smoking rates. The message hits hard—at the time of filming, Jennings was dying of smoking-induced lung cancer (he passed away in 2005). He then called for the government to step up and educate the public about healthy eating.

Today, nearly seven years after Jennings’ plea, there is still much to be done to divorce the partnership between Big Ag and Big Gov. The good news is that other journalists have followed in Jennings’ footsteps. In 2010, Katie Couric sat down with industrial food critics former FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler and Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser in her report Americans and Food, which took a compelling look at antibiotic abuse in industrial meat production, genetically modified organisms, high fructose corn syrup, growth hormones in dairy cows and more.” – Jennifer Bunnin

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

The Best Medicinal Herbs To Grow

Published on April 8, 20111 Comment

eHow – The Best Medicinal Herbs To Grow

By J. Lang Wood, eHow Contributor

Read the original article here

The environmental movement has spawned an interest in growing plants that have been used traditionally for their medicinal properties. Many of these plants are easy to grow in most regions, while others do well when grown indoors. The plants can be prepared as infusions, tinctures, syrups, or as oils for medicinal use. Those interested in growing and using plants for medicinal purposes should carefully research how these substances should be used and in what amounts. Like all medicines, improper use can be dangerous.

Aloe Vera – Aloe Vera is a plant that grows commonly in the southwestern United States. The leaves produce a mucous-like substance that possesses cooling and healing properties. It can be used against sunburn, kitchen burns, and other skin irritations. In a juice form, aloe vera is used against ulcerative colitis, constipation, and other digestive disease
Sage – Sage is a cooking herb as well as a medicinal plant. It was often used to help indigestion, flatulence, depression, and menopausal symptoms.
Peppermint – Besides its delicious smell, peppermint has been in use since ancient times for its medicinal properties. It is used to help upset stomach, spastic colon, and irritable bowel syndrome, as well as to reduce fevers.
Tea Tree – Tea tree oil is used in many over-the-counter medicines and beauty products. It can be used to help acne, athlete’s foot, burns, cold sores, insect bites, and vaginal infections. Tea Tree can also be used against chronic fatigue syndrome.
Ginseng – Ginseng is a plant highly regarded for its medicinal properties. It is used to relax the nervous system, stimulate hormone production, treat insomnia, lower blood sugar and cholesterol, and improve general stamina.
Feverfew – Feverfew is a very old medicinal plant that has been used for hundreds of years to treat colds, fevers, and arthritis, as well as for bruises, swollen feet, and to help with migraine headaches.
Fenugreek – The seeds of fenugreek are nutritious and are taken to treat inflammation of the stomach and intestines. It can also be used for the treatment of late onset diabetes, to lower cholesterol levels, to prevent cancer of the liver, and for labor pains.
Evening Primrose – The roots can be eaten and the shoots can be added into a salad. A tea is often made from the roots to treat obesity and bowel pain. Leaves and bark, which are made into evening primrose oil, treat rheumatoid arthritis, eczema, acne, and premenstrual disorders.
Chamomile – Besides being known as a soothing tea, chamomile can be used for a number of ailments, including a cold, diarrhea, earache, toothache, digestive disorders, eczema, and common wounds.
Echinacea – This lovely flowering plant is known as one of the most important medicinal herbs in any medicinal garden. It can be used to treat wounds, burns, insect bites, and even snakebites. It is also used to strengthen the immune system in fighting allergies.

Precautions When Using Medicinal Plants – Pregnant or nursing women should not use medicinal plants unless under the supervision of their doctors. Always let your physician know what medicinal plants you have been using. If there are any changes in heart rhythm, vision, mental processes, dizziness, itching, rashes, or abnormal bleeding, discontinue use of medicinal plants and consult with your physician.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Related Articles:

Physicians for Social Responsibility Deeply Concerned About Reports of Increased Radioactivity in Food Supply

Published on April 5, 2011

March 23, 2011

Washington, DC – March 23, 2011 – Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) expressed concern over recent reports that radioactivity from the ongoing Fukushima accident is present in the Japanese food supply. While all food contains radionuclides, whether from natural sources, nuclear testing or otherwise, the increased levels found in Japanese spinach and milk pose health risks to the population. PSR also expressed alarm over the level of misinformation circulating in press reports about the degree to which radiation exposure can be considered “safe.”

According to the National Academy of Sciences, there are no safe doses of radiation. Decades of research show clearly that any dose of radiation increases an individual’s risk for the development of cancer.

“There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”

“Consuming food containing radionuclides is particularly dangerous. If an individual ingests or inhales a radioactive particle, it continues to irradiate the body as long as it remains radioactive and stays in the body,”said Alan H. Lockwood, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “The Japanese government should ban the sale of foods that contain radioactivity levels above pre-disaster levels and continue to monitor food and water broadly in the area. In addition, the FDA and EPA must enforce existing regulations and guidelines that address radionuclide content in our food supply here at home.”

As the crisis in Japan goes on, there are an increasing number of sources reporting that 100 milliSieverts (mSv) is the lowest dose at which a person is at risk for cancer. Established research disproves this claim. A dose of 100 mSv creates a one in 100 risk of getting cancer, buta dose of 10 mSv still gives a one in 1,000 chance of getting cancer, and a dose of 1 mSv gives a one in 10,000 risk.

Even if the risk of getting cancer for one individual from a given level of food contamination is low, if thousands or millions of people are exposed, then some of those people will get cancer.

Recent reports indicate the Japanese disaster has released more iodine-131 than cesium-137. Iodine-131 accumulates in the thyroid, especially of children, with a half-life of over 8 days compared to cesium-137, which has a half-life of just over 30 years. Regardless of the shorter half-life, doses of iodine-131 are extremely dangerous, especially to pregnant women and children, and can lead to incidents of cancer, hypothyroidism, mental retardation and thyroid deficiency, among other conditions.

“Children are much more susceptible to the effects of radiation, and stand a much greater chance of developing cancer than adults,” said Dr. Andrew Kanter, president-elect of PSR’s Board. “So it is particularly dangerous when they consume radioactive food or water.”

All food contains some radioactivity as a result of natural sources, but also from prior above-ground nuclear testing, the Chernobyl accident, and releases from nuclear reactors and from weapons facilities. The factors that will affect the radioactivityin food after the Fukushima accident are complicated. These include the radionuclides that the nuclear reactor emits, weather patterns that control the wind direction and where the radionuclides are deposited, characteristics of the soil (e.g., clays bind nuclides, sand does not) and the nature of the food(leafy plants like spinach are more likely to be contaminated than other plants like rice that have husks, etc.).However, radiation can be concentrated many times in the food chain and any consumption adds to the cumulative risk of cancer and other diseases.

“Reports indicate that the total radioactive releases from the Fukushima reactor have been relatively small so far. If this is the case, then the health effects to the overall population will be correspondingly small,” said Ira Helfand, MD, a member of the Board of Physicians for Social Responsibility. “But it is not true to say that it is “safe” to release this much radiation; some people will get cancer and die as a result.”

Resources

Health risks of the releases of radioactivity from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactors: Are they a concern for residents of the United States?

More on Radiation Dangers:

“Safe” Radiation is a Lethal TMI Lie

Victims of Radiation