Friday, May 24, 2013

11 Year Old Home Schooled Boy Exposes Monsanto

Video of Garlic Attacking Chemically Induced Cancer

Hanford Site: West Coast Radiation Crisis

By Yoichi Shimatsu

The radioactive particles billowing out of the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant caught the officers and crew of the USS Ronald Reagan unawares. The gargantuan vessel is equipped with radiation sensors that can identify the spectrum of isotopes from civilian accidents up to all-out nuclear warfare. Although the vessel was cruising at a presumably safe 80 nautical miles from the meltdowns, the shipboard alarms started to buzz wildly.
Carrier Row, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, where
the Fukushima-contaminated USS Ronald Reagan
was refitted over an 18-month period.
Reconnaissance helicopters roared back to the mother ship, which then carved an arc through the chill waters of the Liman Current. The pride of the U.S. Navy was fleeing the coast of Japan like a wounded whale from a shiver of hungry sharks.
The USS Reagan’s support role for Operation Tomodachi sustained far more injuries than any of the 9th Carrier Group’s exercises off the Korean Peninsula. The crews of three helicopter suffered high exposure levels, and sailors operating the ventilation controls have since come down with severe radiation-related symptoms.
A railroad bridge crossing the Columbia River was traversed by
the train that transported radioactive waste from the
USS Ronald Reagan to the Hanford Site.
Fukushima radiation seeped beyond soft tissue into hard steel. Below the flight deck, nuclear isotopes in the air flowed into the air vents and below-deck ducts, while radioactive seawater surged through its turbine pumps and tubes that suck in seawater for the desalination system and to cool the vessel’s twin nuclear-power reactors. The artificially produced freshwater for washing and drinking aboard ship was soon toxic. 
The detection of war-grade plutonium residues sparked rumors of a nuclear strike on Fukushima in undeclared war by an unidentified power. Meanwhile a blanket of censorship was imposed over the condition and whereabouts of the USS Ronald Reagan, which at that moment could have possibly been the first casualty of World War III. Not until months later did confidential leaks emerge from U.S. nonproliferation experts disclosing secret transfers of highly enriched plutonium from Texas blended into mixed-oxide fuel rods for Fukushima Reactors 3 and 4.
Wanapum Hydropower Dam, 30 miles upstream from Hanford,
was mysteriously dusted with radioactive isotopes
Over the two years since the March 2011 meltdowns, the radiation-stricken carrier vanished from the sailing schedule, leaving other naval behemoths to take over its missions in the South China Sea, Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. Then this spring, the vessel reappeared in San Diego as if nothing had happened. 
Casey Jones, Watch Your Speed 
The story behind the USS Ronald Reagan’s long absence from active duty was revealed by a Navy long-timer perched at a bar outside the Bremerton Naval Shipyard in Seattle.
A guard post at Hanford Site keeps out uninvited visitors.
After flushing its pipes while transporting sailors’ cars to Alaska, the carrier was docked for decontamination and refitting along Bremerton’s “Carrier Row”. From early autumn 2011 until mid-March 2013, a period of 18 months, shipyard workers replaced irradiated air ducts, pumps, pipes, gaskets, hoses and electronic controls sensitive to radiation. The work gangs were ordered to prevent release of any contaminated liquid into Puget Sound in compliance with a prior Environmental Agency pollution complaint issued in 2010. 
(My dosimeter readings at Bremerton and at several points in Puget Sound confirmed the absence of radiation leakage from the USS Reagan. Frequent sightings of dead Dungeness crabs with floppy legs, however, suggested mortality caused by chemical toxins, probably surfactants used for cleaning the carrier and possibly heavy-metal compounds, possibly chrome, to deter barnacles from the hull.)
A backhoe and steel ring are hauled to Hanford’s leaking 200 storage tank area.
The vast pile of radioactive scrap and barrels of liquid waste were then loaded onto a freight train that rumbled out of the shipyard to a final resting place. Its destination was and still is undisclosed to the news media, the public and state officials. The terminus of that old rail track, say the shipyard workers, is Hanford Site. 
Mapping the Terrain 
Moral outrage at the disposal of the military’s radioactive hardware in a Department of Energy (DOE) facility supposedly under decommissioning was pushed to the back of my mind by the astonishing natural beauty of the Cascade Range. The four-hour drive from Seattle to Hanford offers a first-hand study in ecology. The lacework of inlets and rocky islands of Puget Sound was carved by glaciers during the Ice Age, when the sea was much lower. Those rivers of ice originated in the Cascades, a sawtooth chain of basalt pillars, remnants of ancient volcanoes. Its ridgeline divides Washington State into two major eco-zones, the temperate rainforest of the Pacific coast and, on the leeward side, arid lands stretching toward the Rockies.
A bulldozer starts to excavate a trench for the military’s nuclear
waste. Earlier burial sites can be seen in the background.
The eastern slope of the watershed creates hundreds of streams that merge into the Columbia River, which quenches apple orchards and the green pastures for Angus cattle, dairy cows and bison. The mighty current is slowed by a series of hydropower dams before hitting its lower reaches at Portland, Oregon. 
Under a high bluff at Wanapum Dam, about 30 miles northwest of Hanford, my dosimeter readings climbed to 0.16 microsieverts. Downstream, the findings were much lower. When the air is bone-dry, how can evaporated wastewater from leaking tanks at Hanford move so far upstream against the prevailing wind? Why are there no traces of its passage up the gorge? I take mental note of this baffling riddle before moving on. 
Nuclear Boneyard
A plutonium processing reactor
Endless flows of water and hydropower are the necessary utilities for the production of nuclear weapons, and the Columbia provides these in abundance to Hanford Site, founded in 1943 under the Manhattan Project. Ringed by rosy red hills peppered with fingers of black basalt and clumps of sage, the first impression of Hanford basin is one of awe at Nature’s raw power rather than fear of a grim manmade Mordor. Technology’s supreme force shrinks against such grandeur; its fabrications scattered like the Mad Hatter’s overturned teacups and sugar cubes alongside the Columbia. 
Yet one of those fly specks down there, inside the facility’s 586 square miles (1,517 sq. km) area, is the world’s first plutonium-production reactor. Hanford 100B provided the implosive force for the Trinity test blast and for Fat Man, the hydrogen bomb that annihilated Nagasaki in August 1945. Nagasaki, so much like Puget Sound, with its cathedral, shipyards, parks, saloons and Victorian era facades . . . vanished like dream in a flash of blinding light.
To the right of the power line is a 100 series reactor.
After passing under its rusty bridges in the hills, here on dry pale ground, I spot the railroad track pointing toward the 200 West Area. On lonesome roads outside and inside the vast facility, long-bed trucks haul yellow bulldozers and back hoes, the grave diggers for dead machines. The earth-movers are fitted with glass-enclosed air-filtered cabins, the thinnest of protective shields for the drivers. 
In rows of trenches inside that dusty tract are the guts of the USS Ronald Reagan along with the nuclear reactors from 117 decommissioned submarines. The reactor cores are left uncovered so that Russian satellites can verify reductions in America’s strategic arsenal. A retired nuclear-plant operator explains how those reactor cores, too heavy and bulky for the train, are instead transported by barge up the Columbia River. At Port Benson, adjoining Hanford Site, the load is rolled aboard a land carrier with 16-wheel axles and hauled at 5 miles per hour to the nuclear graveyard.
The Puget Sound Naval Shipyard at Bremerton is the only facility that dismantles America’s fleet of aging nuclear submarines. The fuel from the scrapped reactors is sent by rail to a federal storage facility near Idaho Falls. Little is known about the movements of naval cargo because several maritime lanes in Puget Sound are protected by armed guards on speed boats, Navy SEAL divers prowling underwater and surveillance dolphins equipped with electronic sensors and GPS tracking devices. Fishermen, clam diggers and recreational sailors know better than to mess with this security force. 
There is no legal mandate to inform Washington State communities of passing reactor-toting barges because the Navy designates the cargo as “low level” waste. Local residents who are curious about these shipments will not find the route map posted at their docks or bridges, so here it is, courtesy of the Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility: 
The route begins at the (Bremerton) Shipyard and goes though Rich Passage, past Restoration Point, and northerly though Puget Sound. The barge will then move west through the Strait of Juan De Fuca, past Cape Flattery, before turning south and going along the Washington Coast. As the barge makes its way to the mouth of the Columbia River it will not enter the area near the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary known as the Area to Be Avoided. 

The barge will then go up the Columbia River following the regular shipping channel that is used for commercial cargo. The ocean tugs turn over the barge to river tugs on the lower Columbia. The river route passes through the navigation locks at the Bonneville, Dalles, John Day, and McCanry dams, until finally reaching the Port of Benton. “
Portlanders are hereby informed that radiation is coming and going, upstream and downstream. It’s been happening since 1986 and will continue indefinitely. 
Hearts Afire
A point of light is flickering from inside one of the older thermal power plants. Next to a No Entry sign, my travel party passes a pair of binoculars for a closer look. It is not sunlight reflected off a window pane. Incredibly, there’s a massive fire blazing inside the nuclear plant. Flames are blowing out of the open door, which is at least two stories tall and wide enough for several trucks. No black smoke is being emitted, nor do the flames diminish in intensity. Alarms are not blaring and there are no firefighting sirens. Therefore, it must be a gas fire, deliberately set. 
The sight of a structure’s innards on fire is dumbfounding. Nothing about this sort of incident has ever been reported in Hanford press releases. What could DOE be up to? Surfacing in my mind’s eye is a flashback of the dosimeter reading at the Wanapum hydropower dam. Hanford is being decommissioned, and the fastest way to clean out a thermal power plant used in the past to incinerate nuclear waste is to torch it. The invisible hot fumes lift the radioactive particles hundreds of meters into the desert sky, and then at nighttime an updraft carries the airborne waste up the Columbia gorge to Wanapum and beyond. Thus, the radioactive residues disappear as if by magic, and the monitors, inspectors and visitors remain none the wiser. 
Atmospheric releases blowing out of Hanford are swirling up and down the Columbia gorge, unbeknownst to ranchers, apple growers, restaurant operators, school teachers and truckers along the riverbanks. Nobody on the outside is being warned of the threat. This is still the Wild West, where an outlaw gang like the DOE can kill everyone and anything that stands in their way. 
Above the Aquifer
For plant workers, the most fearsome piece of equipment inside plutonium-processing and warhead-production facilities is the glove-box. Since the more delicate operations must be done by hand, glove-boxes have a window and fitted with a pair of holes for insertion from fingers to elbow. In both Fukushima and Hanford, the best way to test exposure levels in nuclear workers is to measure castoff gloves. At a roadside spot convenient for quick relief, a black work glove was lying on the gravel. It registered 0.28 microsieverts, meaning whoever urinated is a dead man walking. 
By the 1960s, waste disposal became a major problem at Hanford due to the expanding number of 100 series reactors, along with plutonium processing centers and a power generation plant. Initially, the DOE planned to drill long-term storage caverns into Gable Mountain, a saddle-shaped mound of basalt on the plant’s north side between the Columbia River reactors and the plutonium-enrichment facilities.
The warning sign is posted at a waste disposal site adjoining a fast-flowing drainage ditch.
Geologists, working on the environmental feasibility report, found that Hanford Site sits atop the Pasco Aquifer, the source of well water for towns, ranches and fruit farms inside the big bulge of the Columbia. This discovery prompted the 1978 DOE study of Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a permanent repository of nuclear waste, but the proposed site was later abandoned due to political opposition from nearby Las Vegas interests. 
The termination of Yucca Mountain led to an untenable situation at the 200 East Tank Farm. There, 177 rusted-out single- and double-shelled tanks “are far gone, past their 20-year lifetime,” said the plant operator. Tritium has been leaking onto the ground and in the air. A greater problem is that solid particles of plutonium and other radioactive elements are settling to the bottom of the wastewater tanks. When atoms are in close proximity, the release of neutrons from radioactive decay can result in a chain reaction. 
DOE engineers are anxious about the possibility of an explosive chain reaction at the tank farm similar to the tritium blast that wrecking Fukushima’s Reactor 3. Tritium and deuterium, also known as heavy water, along with hydrogen gas, could blow the tanks apart, sending radioactive steam into the clouds. A much greater threat, said the plant insider, is a downward blast into the Pasco Aquifer, sending ripples of death through hundreds of miles of drinking water for local residents. Leakage from ruptured tanks into the Columbia would doom downstream communities, including Portland and its Silicon Forest industrial parks, anchored by Intel.
Grape vines are planted across the river from Hanford’s nuclear power complex.
To prevent this doomsday scenario, the DOE contracted the Bechtel engineering company to design as unmanned mixing system to prevent the precipitation of plutonium from the wastewater. The controversial design for the vitrification plant uses jet pulses through tubes, called turkey basters, to repeatedly remix the radioactive soup, keeping the radioactive particles in permanent suspension. The design is fraught with weak points that could easily burst under corrosion and high pressure. Cost overruns and construction delays have postponed completion from 2007 to 2022, which is probably much too late to head off a catastrophe. 
DOE, the Pentagon and nuclear industry should admit the obvious: Hanford is broken and cannot be fixed. A radical alternative to storage at Hanford needs to be developed rapidly and a crash program will require vast sums of money and the political will to stop all nuclear operations from coast to coast. Permissiveness toward the nuclear industry is suicidal. A new energy policy must begin with zero tolerance for nuclear.
Grape vines are planted across the river from Hanford’s nuclear power complex.
Turn Out the Lights
The music’s over for the nuclear industry. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima have savaged the myth of cheap and safe power from atom-splitting. Hanford takes this fiasco a step further by implicating the military in nuclear skullduggery. Despite its bloated defense budget, the Pentagon is misappropriating the fiscal resources of the DOE, which must dispose of nuclear-contaminated military hardware. Funds that could otherwise be allocated to replacing the storage tanks at Hanford are being spent on burying submarine reactors. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is facing a radioactive mess of waste, fraud and mismanagement.
A housing development reflects fatal problems in local zoning ordinances.
The ominous situation at the Hanford rust belt is the result of a false sense of national security. Nuclear weapons have been ineffective as an instrument for global stability since their inception. Nuclear deterrence has failed to prevent outbreaks of war and terrorism, and the Cold War would have ended sooner without warheads. Instead of preserving the peace, the nuclear arsenals of the major powers have only spurred on proliferation by minor regional players. 
However fast or slow the pace of future nuclear drawdown, the problem of long-term storage remains a formidable challenge, now that Yucca Mountain is nixed. The search for a safe site for a nuclear-waste repository should have started yesterday. The federal government controls millions of acres in sites that have outlived their usefulness, for example, military zones like Fallon test range or Area 51. The Pentagon should use its own turf to store its waste instead of dumping on the hard-pressed DOE. The cost of the relocating naval reactors should be deducted from the inflated military budget and not from the shrinking pockets of taxpayers.

Ozone Loss Led to Climate Chaos 
If the threat from Fukushima isn’t enough to bear, lethal radioactive releases from Hanford and San Onofre, along with Indian Point and the Napoleonville sinkhole, should motivate Americans to political action against the nuclear lobby and its sycophants. National security and, much more, the very existence of American society and the continent’s natural environment, are coming apart from the effects of high-energy particles in the jet stream, which cause ozone depletion over the Northern Hemisphere. The consequences include the recent tornadoes in Texas and Oklahoma, and an epidemic of winter twisters, derecho storms, flooding and drought.
The ribs of a wild faun indicate dangerous radiation levels in coyotes.
The harmful influence of carbon dioxide on global weather, as exaggerated by supporters of TEPCO and the Tennessee Valley Authority, is a convenient ruse to divert attention and funding from the immediate task of shutting down nuclear power. 
An end to nuclear tyranny is directly linked to the revival of genuine democracy. A sinister and cynical force within America’s political establishment, economic elite and scientific elect is desperately trying to prevent Americans from recovering this nation’s foundational values of civic duty, ethical responsibility and common sense.

Any physicist, engineer, bureaucrat, president or monarch who persists in uttering ultra-absurd nonsense in defense of nuclear power should be hauled away to a padded cell for deprogramming and decommissioning. If anything is going to be buried, it should be that deceiving pack of con artists and scoundrels. 
With so many burned-out reactors and morally warped scoundrels to deal with, let’s hear what Nick Santoro (Joe Pesci) of Casino has to say: “A lot of holes in the desert, and a lot of problems are buried there. You gotta have the hole already dug before you show up with a package in the trunk. Otherwise, you’re talking about a half-hour to 45 minutes of digging. And who knows who’s gonna come along at that time? Pretty soon you gotta dig a few more holes. You could be there all fricking night.” 
Quick Reads of the Technical Details
Cattle manure along the Hanford fence show extreme levels of radiation ingestion.
The Columbia River, once a life-giver for the Pacific Northwest, has become the bringer of death on an unimaginable scale. Testing of radiation levels in its waters is not being done by any government agency. My dosimeter readings at the Hanford and on the mid-reaches of the Columbia cannot be a substitute for a wider monitoring program, but they do point to the rising threat of nuclear contamination. 
Even with scientific Geiger counters, the testing of water remains an elusive task.
Gamma rays are reflected in water, throwing off readings by as much as 20 times lower than the actual level of contamination. Thus, the only way for a layman to make estimates in the field is by measuring biological accumulation in plants and animals. 
Dosimeter readings on the bluffs northwest of Hanford showed low levels, due to the prevailing wind and lack of airborne moisture. 
At a riverine chokepoint on the north bend between Reactors D and H, a wide variation in readings, from 0.08 to 0.28 microsieverts, with the highest in sage, indicated different rates of water absorption by various species of flora.
A reactor of the 100 series is on the horizon behind the sign.
At points downriver, near the southern tip of Hanford, the measurements on different plant species ran consistently in the 0.28 range, equivalent to coastal areas inside the Fukushima exclusion area (9 km from the meltdowns). A ribcage from a faun devoured by coyotes showed remarkably high contamination, suggesting higher levels inside predators. 
The high water from the spring snowmelt prevented access to underwater vegetation. The readings along the outer bank of the Columbia, however, indicate levels dangerous to downstream communities and coastal populations in northern Oregon. 
Author: Yoichi Shimatsu is a Hong Kong-based science writer and environmental health consultant who provides herbal therapy to Fukushima residents.

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

The Reality Of Chemical Terrorism In our Food

Flickr - Nutrition - USDAgov
Marco Torres, Prevent Disease
Waking Times

Is it really that hard for most people to believe that we are being assaulted on a daily basis by chemical terrorism?

Genetically modified foods, artificial flavours, colors, preservatives, emulsifiers, and sweeteners all made with toxic chemicals, all of which are proven toxic to human health. We are being bombarded on a daily basis by an astronomical level of toxicity, all controlled by these chemical terrorists on behalf of the food industry. Worse is we let them.

How many more toxins will we permit in our food supply before we stand united and simply say “we’ve had enough?” How long will it take until we assertively proclaim that we will not allow any more chemicals or toxins in our foods?

Since food and health regulators cannot properly do their job to protect the public, there will come a tipping point when the people will have to do it for them. We discuss toxic chemicals almost every day, but what percentage of the population is interested enough, curious enough or most of all disciplined enough to actually make the dietary changes necessary to rid all the toxins from the foods they eat?

 How many people can avoid all processed foods every single day? I would estimate that percentage to be extremely small. Barriers are typically societal pressure, convenience and income. The reality is that we could all have a safe and healthy food industry if we truly wanted it. There are just not enough of us that want it that badly….yet.

Every year or two we have a new chemical terrorist making its way into the food supply almost like clock work. Once the public becomes savvy to the harmful nature of the new toxin, it is then renamed, rebranded and often modified into a deadlier form than its predecessor. Aspartame and aminosweet, and high fructose corn syrup and corn sugar are two excellent examples.
Let’s take a look at some of the biggest offenders that are in more than 80% of the foods we eat.

Artificial Flavors and Colors
Artificial flavors and colors means it is derived from a chemical made in a laboratory and has no nutritional value. Every single artificial flavor and color in the food industry has some kind of detrimental health effect. These include neurotoxicity, organ, developmental, reproductive toxicity and cancer.

* Examples

- Glutamates
Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
- Maltodextrin
- Autolyzed Yeast Extract
- Disodium Guanylate
- Disodium Inosinate
- Blue 1, Blue 2
- Yellow 5, Yellow 6
- Red 3, Red 40

Genetically Modified Foods
GM Foods causes allergies, organ damage, cancer, immunotoxicty, and damaging transgenes which affect future generations. Many fruits and vegetables for sale in the U.S. are already genetically modified. The most commercialized GM fruit is papaya from Hawaii—about half of Hawaii’s papayas are GM.

* Examples
- Corn flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrup
- Corn Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose
- Modified food starch
- Soy flour, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavone
- Most vegetable oils and vegetable proteins
- Canola oil (also called rapeseed oil)
- Cottonseed oil
- Anything not listed as 100% cane sugar

Toxic Preservatives 
Artificial preservatives are responsible for causing a host of health problems pertaining to respiratory tract, heart, blood and other. Some are very neurotoxic especially when combined with specific nutrients.

* Examples

- Antimicrobials
- Nitrites (i.e. Sodium Nitrite)
- Nitrates (i.e. Sodium Nitrate)
- Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)
- Butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
- Sulfites (i.e. Sodium Sulfite)
- Potassium Sorbate
- Benzoic Acid
- Propyl Gallate
- Sodium Benzoate

Toxic Emulsifiers 
An emulsifier replaces surface proteins and aids in forming the network in specific food recipes. There are no healthy non-organic emulsifiers. They are all toxic causing everything from infertility, digestive disorders and migraines.

* Examples 
- Polysorbate 80
- Mono-diglycerides
- Carrageenan
- Xanthan Gum (non-organic)
- Guar Gum
Soy Lecithin or Soya Lecithin

Toxic Sweeteners
Sweeteners such as Neotame are thousands of times sweeter than sugar. They are all very potent, neurotoxic, immunotoxic and excitotoxic.

* Examples
High Fructose Corn Syrup
Sodium cyclamate
- Acesulfame-K

Toxic Adulterants 
Food fraud and economically motivated food adulteration is highlighted by some very toxic substances which cause cancer, glaucoma, digestive and liver disorders. These are added to foods to increase their color, volume or weight.

* Examples

- Metanil Yellow
- Potassium bromate
- Malachite Green
- Tamarind seeds
- Washing powder
- Argemone seeds

This list is by no means extensive. There are now hundreds of toxic additives in our food supply. Chemical terrorism in our food supply must end and it starts with you.

Please look at the ingredient lists before you purchase any processed foods. If you see any of these, don’t buy the product. Continue to educate yourself on the influx of new toxins introduced every year. Eventually, if we investigate enough the answers come. Rule of thumb, if the ingredient list has one chemical or more…it’s one too many.
About the Author
Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Saturday, May 18, 2013

53 Colorado Sheriffs Sue State Over Gun Control Laws

In a deliberate move to catch gun control activists off guard, an organization representing Colorado sheriffs in a lawsuit over a series of recently passed gun control laws abruptly announced the filing of the suit in federal court today.

“We did that deliberately,” David Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute, which is handling the case, said. “We wanted to catch our opponents who support gun control off guard.”

As recently as Wednesday, the Independence Institute was suggesting the filing was still a few weeks off. Appearing at a rally against another bill, Amy Oliver Cooke, wife of Weld County Sheriff John Cooke, said they were planning to file the suit in the next couple of weeks.
The suit, which was filed in federal district court, lists 54 out of the state’s 64 sheriffs as plaintiffs in the case.

Kopel says what is significant to note is that while not all sheriffs are party to the suit, not a single sheriff has come out in opposition to it.

Cooke had harsh words for critics in the media and others who questioned whether a government official should sue another government official.

“Some in the media … asked me if I think it’s a good idea or if it’s appropriate for [a] government official to sue another government official. My response is unequivocally yes. It is our duty and responsibility as sheriffs to protect the people who elected us and whom we serve.”

At a recent event in Fort Collins by the Independence Institute providing updates on the case, Cooke said he was proud that gun control supporters are nervous over the lawsuit.
“When we announced our opposition to these gun control laws, the Greeley Tribune ran a story titled, ’48 Sheriffs going Rogue on Guns,’” Cooke said. “They should be fearing us. What right does the state have dictating how many rounds of ammunition [a woman] can have to defend herself?”

The lawsuit isn’t just limited to law enforcement officials, but lists a variety of organizations including the Colorado Farm Bureau, which has expressed concerns about rural farmers and ranchers having to deal with predators, Women for Concealed Carry, and the Colorado Outfitters Association.

“We have a diverse number of plaintiffs in this case. We are celebrating diversity,” Kopel said. “The difference is we actually believe in genuine diversity.”
Cooke noted that the lawsuit was not a partisan issue, with Republican and Democratic sheriffs both taking part in the lawsuit.

“This is not about urban versus rural as the governor likes to portray it,” Cooke said. “We have rural and urban plaintiffs in this case. It is about the Constitution. It is about the 2nd and 14th amendments. The suit is about our way of life, our freedoms, our rights, our liberties which transcend political affiliation and place of residence.”

Within minutes following the announcement of the filing of the suit, Republican Atty. Gen. John Suthers, who will be defending the state in the lawsuit, finally issued a statement providing guidance to law enforcement on how they are supposed to enforce the new laws.

Under the existing laws, any magazine that holds greater than 15 rounds, or can be modified to hold greater than 15 rounds, is now illegal to purchase in the state. The problem is nearly all magazines are designed with features that make them readily expandable to hold more than 15 rounds. The law’s wording effectively bans all magazines in Colorado.

Suthers said in the guidelines that magazines “must be judged objectively” and that a magazine holding 15 rounds or fewer cannot be defined as “large capacity” just because it can be modified to hold more.

While those currently possessing magazines greater than 15 rounds, the law prevents the transfer of any of these magazines. The wording states the grandfather clause only applies as long as the holder “maintains continuous possession” of it. Cooke and other sheriffs have pointed out that based on this wording, anyone who gives their magazine to a gunsmith or asks for help on a shooting range with a jammed magazine is now violating the law.

Suthers said “an owner should not be considered to have transferred a large capacity magazine or lost continuous possession of it simply by handing it to a gunsmith, hunting partner, or an acquaintance at a shooting range.”

However, the problem is Suther’s statement is just what it says, guidance, and it does not hold the force of law. Any officer can choose to disregard Suther’s recommendations anytime he chooses in favor of the plain text of the law.

The lawsuit also claims the gun control measures violate the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as individual civil rights.

Dylan Harrell, one of the disabled plaintiffs in the case, said his disability, which confines him to a wheelchair often makes it more difficult for him to defend himself or his family. He also noted that as an outdoorsman, when exiting his vehicle he needs help.

“I often request the assistance for the safe handling of my firearms anytime I am transferring from a wheelchair to an ATV or another vehicle,” Harrell explained. “It is now against the law for me to even seek assistance anytime I am transferring my firearms for my wheelchair to another vehicle. I am filing this lawsuit on the half of all Coloradans with disabilities such as my own.”
The suit noted that disabled citizens often find it difficult to change magazines quickly, which could be a serious threat to their life if their weapon is needed for self-defense.

Colorado’s far left government this year is controlled by Democrats in the governor’s office, in the House and the Senate. They rammed through a number of gun restrictions and limits – at the behest of the White House.

During debate over the gun control measures, the vast majority of citizens testifying before the legislature were opposed to any new gun control laws. However, frequently their testimony was dismissed and treated with disdain by Democratic lawmakers who seemed to have already made up their minds about passing the laws.

State Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, scolded a witness opposing one of the gun restrictions.

Amanda Collins, 27, of Reno, Nev., was telling her story of being assaulted and explained that had she been carrying a concealed weapon, the incident might have ended differently.
“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak scolded. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Hudak continued, speaking over the committee witness, “The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that every one woman who used a handgun in self-defense, 83 here are killed by them.”
Finally able to resume her testimony, Collins said, “Senator, you weren’t there. I know without a doubt [the outcome would have been different with a gun].
“He already had a weapon,” she told the meeting of the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. “He didn’t need mine.”

A similar attitude was displayed by state Rep. Joe Salazar.
He said that a woman who feels threatened by rape on a college campus doesn’t need to be armed because she can use a call box to get help.

Salazar’s statement came in a debate over a proposal to ban citizens possessing a concealed-carry permit from being armed on university campuses.

“It’s why we have call boxes,” said Salazar, “It’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.

“And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

Perhaps the most surprising statement came from U.S. Rep. Diane DeGette, a Denver Democrat who displayed her perspective on gun magazines.

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them; so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot, and there won’t be any more available,” she said.

The Denver Post said DeGette didn’t appear to understand that a firearm magazine can be reloaded with more bullets.

State officials admitted they were doing the bidding of the White House. In February, Vice President Joe Biden flew to the state to strong-arm Democratic lawmakers who were feeling pressure from their constituents to vote against the bills.

“He (Biden) said it would send a strong message to the rest of the country that a Western state had passed gun-control bills,” Tony Exhum, a Democratic lawmaker from Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post.

House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino, an open homosexual who also pursued a “civil unions” agenda this year, admitted the gun-control bills introduced by fellow Democrats had national implications.

“I was shocked that he called. He said he thought the bills could help them on a national level,” Ferrandino said.

Friday, May 17, 2013

Is It Organic Fertilizer or Toxic Sewer Sludge>

Toxic sludge is good for you?

Stop Toxic SludgeSan Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, along with municipal governments across the US, want farmers, school, and backyard gardeners to grow their veggies using toxic sludge, spreading the outrageous lie that municipal wastewater sewage plants can somehow magically transform hazardous materials into "organic fertilizer."

Toxic sludge is poison.

John Mayer and John Stauber of Organic Consumers Association talk about toxic sludge and how San Francisco's "green" mayor has sludge on his hands. 

Listen on Raising Sand Radio.
Listen on the Peter Collins Show. 

Scientific evidence has confirmed that municipal sewage sludge contains hundreds of dangerous pathogens, toxic heavy metals, flame-retardants, endocrine disruptors, carcinogens, pharmaceutical drugs and other hazardous chemicals coming from residential drains, storm water runoff, hospitals, and industrial plants.

Sewage sludge contains everything the sewage treatment plant was able to remove from the sewage - plus every new chemical and pathogen formed in the mad synergy of this chemical soup, including virulent, antibiotic-resistant bacteria created through horizontal gene transfer.

San Francisco public officials have helped the toxic sludge industry score a major victory in the Bay Area, where they've been able to convince hundreds of regional (non-organic) farmers to spread the hazardous material on farm land and pasture, and have actually been able to get city residents to take hundreds of thousands of pounds of toxic sludge and spread it over their backyard and community gardens.

San Francisco is a strategic battleground to stop the sludge industry from poisoning more farms and communities. In 1998 the organic community rose up and banned the use of sewage sludge in organic farming. Now it's time to ban its use on farms, gardens, lawns, and land in general.
Protesting Toxic Sludge in San Francisco

Sewage sludge is a form of hazardous waste and needs to be contained and isolated as such.

California proposition 65 (P65) requires the listing of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Chemicals known to the SFPUC that are in San Francisco sewage sludge that are also found on the California P65 list include:
Mercury - Molybdenum - Cobalt - Antimony Chromium - Dibenzofurans - Naphthalene - 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane (Dbcp) - Di (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (Dehp) - Tcdd Equivalents (Dioxins) Such As Octachlorodibenzo-P-Dioxins (Ocdd)

Stop Sludge!

Click here to download OCA's Sludge Leaflet (PDF)

Organizations that have signed onto the letter asking Mayor Newsom to stop spreading toxic sludge on the city include:
Organic Consumers Association - Consumers Union - Arc Ecology - California Communities Against Toxics - California Food & Justice Coalition - Center for Food Safety - Center for Health, Environment & Justice - Earth Share California - East Bay Green Tours - Food First (Institute for Food and Development Policy) - GAIA (Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives) - Green Cafe Network - Help for Sewage Victims - Lessing/Sears Community Garden - Local Harvest - MOMAS (Mothers of Marin Against the Spray) - North Berkeley Harvest - Our City - People's Grocery - Planting Justice - Raising Sand Radio/Motherspeak - Safe Food and Fertilizer - San Francisco Green Party - Teamsters Union - United Sludge -Free Alliance

Stop toxic Sludge Banner

New Study Shows GMO Causes Leukemia

Last September, the causal link between cancer and genetically modified food was confirmed in a French study, the first independent long-term animal feeding study not commissioned by the biotech corporations themselves. The disturbing details can be found here: New Study Finds GM Corn and Roundup Causes Cancer In Rats

Now, a new study published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases indicates that the biopesticides engineered into GM crops known as Bacillus Thuringensis (Bt) or Cry-toxins, may also contribute to blood abnormalities from anemia to hematological malignancies (blood cancers) such as leukemia.[i]

A group of scientists from the Department of Genetics and Morphology, Institute of Biological Sciences, University of Brasilia, Brasilia/DF, Brazil set out to test the purported human and environmental biosafety of GM crops, looking particularly at the role that the Bt toxin found within virtually all GM food crops plays on non-target or non-insect animal species.

The research was spurred by the Brazilian Collegiate Board of Directors of the National Sanitary Surveillance Agency (ANVISA), who advocated in 2005 for evaluations of toxicity and pathogenicity of microbiological control agents such as Bt toxins, given that little is known about their toxicological potential in non-target organisms, including humans.

While Bacillus Thurigensis spore-crystals have been used since the late 1960's in agriculture as a foliar insecticide, it was only after the advent of recombinant DNA biotechnology that these toxin-producing genes (known as delta endotoxins) were first inserted into the plants themselves and released into commercial production in the mid-90's, making their presence in the US food supply and the bodies of exposed populations ubiquitous.

What the new study revealed is that various binary combinations and doses of Bt toxins are capable of targeting mammalian cells, particularly the erythroid (red blood cell) lineage, resulting in red blood cell changes indicative of significant damage, such as anemia. In addition, the study found that Bt toxins suppressed bone marrow proliferation creating abnormal lymphocyte patterns consistent with some types of leukemia.   

EPA Approves HIGHER Levels Of Monsanto's Roundup Glyphosate

When does one plus one not equal two? When mounting evidence says glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, does more damage to our health and environment than we thought. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) responds by approving higher, not lower, allowable limits of the pesticide residue.

Please sign the letter below. Tell the EPA you want lower, not higher, limits on Monsanto’s glyphosate and Roundup!

This month (May 2013) the EPA announced a final ruling to increase, yet again, the allowed residue limits in food and animal feed of glyphosate, the key active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Under the ruling, the allowed glyphosate level in animal feed will rise to 100 parts per million (ppm) and 40 ppm in oilseed crops.

There is precedence for final rulings to be revisited, even reversed, if enough people voice their opposition. The EPA will take comments on the ruling until July 1, 2013.

The EPA ruling defies sound science and undermines public health. Peer reviewed studies show rats fed diets as low as 2ppm of glyphosate were 70 percent to 80 percent more likely to develop tumors. Infertility, affecting both the sperm and the egg, was documented in animals subjected to glyphosate residue levels as low as .05 ppm. Birth defects in frog and chicken embryos resulted after being subjected to glyphosate residues of just 2.03 ppm.

Yet the EPA claims glyphosate is only “minimally toxic” to humans, and 40 ppm is nothing to worry about?

The EPA’s decision is all the more unjustifiable in light of two recently published, peer reviewed studies revealing glyphosate to be a far greater threat to human health than previously determined.

According to a study published in the journal Entropy in April 2013, glyphosate is related to debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The study says the negative impact on the human body is “insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body… it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”

A 2012 study published in the journal Archives of Toxicology showed Roundup is toxic to human DNA even when diluted to concentrations 450-fold lower than used in agricultural applications. Industry regulators and long-term studies look at glyphosate in isolation, instead of looking at Roundup’s full formulation, which includes secret added ingredients. These “confidential” and unlabeled ingredients, when measured as a whole, affect all living cells, including human cells.

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. According to the EPA, at least 208 million tons of Roundup were sprayed on GE crops, lawns and roadsides in the years 2006 and 2007. In 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used just six years ago.

A 2009 study found that Americans use about 100 million pounds of glyphosate annually on their lawns and gardens. It’s safe to assume all these number are much higher now. Why? Because GE crops are now being invaded by new strains of herbicide-resistant “superweeds” requiring higher and higher doses of poison.

Beyond Pesticides has assembled extensive documentation of past research linking glyphosate to increased cancer risk, neurotoxicity and birth defects, as well as eye, skin, respiratory irritation, lung congestion, increased breathing rate, damage to the pancreas, kidney and testes.

Glyphosate also endangers the environment, destroys soil and plants, and is linked to a host of health hazards. The EPA’s decision to increase the allowed residue limits of glyphosate is out of date, dangerous to the health of people and the environment and scientifically unsupportable.

Please sign the letter below. Tell the EPA you want lower, not higher, limits on Monsanto’s glyphosate and Roundup! I am very concerned about the increase in glyphosate residue limits proposed for food and commodity crops. Mounting evidence points to the need to lower, not raise, the allowable limits of glyphosate residue.

Peer reviewed studies show rats fed diets as low as 2ppm of glyphosate were 70 percent to 80 percent more likely to develop tumors. Infertility, affecting both the sperm and the egg, was documented in animals subjected to glyphosate residue levels as low as .05 ppm. Birth defects in frog and chicken embryos resulted after being subjected to glyphosate residues of just 2.03 ppm.

One recent study, published in the journal Entropy in April 2013, revealed glyphosate to be a far greater threat to human health than previously determined. According to the study, glyphosate is related to debilitating diseases like gastrointestinal disorders, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The study says the negative impact on the human body is “insidious and manifests slowly over time, as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body… it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.”

The EPA’s science on glyphosate is outdated. I urge you to do a complete review of the toxicity of glyphosate and adjust the tolerance levels allowed in the U.S. feed and food supply downward, not upward. Thank you.

Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on States' Rights

Reliable sources in Washington D.C. have informed the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) that Monsanto has begun secretly lobbying its Congressional allies to attach one or more “Monsanto Riders” or amendments to the 2013 Farm Bill that would preempt or prohibit states from requiring labels on genetically engineered (GE) foods.

In response to this blatant violation of states’ rights to legislate, and consumers’ right to know, the OCA and a nationwide alliance have launched a petition to put every member of Congress on notice: If you support any Farm Bill amendment that would nullify states’ rights to label genetically modified organisms (GMOs), we’ll vote – or throw – you out of office.

On Wednesday, May 15, an amendment to the House version of the Farm Bill, inserted under the guise of protecting interstate commerce, passed out of the House Agricultural Committee. If the King Amendment makes it into the final Farm Bill, it would take away states’ rights to pass laws governing the production or manufacture of any agricultural product, including food and animals raised for food, that is involved in interstate commerce. The amendment was proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), largely in response to a California law stating that by 2015, California will allow only eggs to be sold from hens housed in cages specified by California.  But policy analysts emphasize that the amendment, broadly and ambiguously written, could be used to prohibit or preempt any state GMO labeling or food safety law.

Will the King Amendment survive the Senate? No one can be sure, say analysts. However few doubt that Monsanto will give up. We can expect that more amendments and riders will be introduced into the Farm Bill--even if the King Amendment fails—over the next month in an attempt to stop the wave of state GMO labeling laws and initiatives moving forward in states like Washington, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut and others.

Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) have admitted privately that they’ve “lost the battle” to stop GE food labeling at the state level, now that states are aggressively moving forward on labeling laws. On May 14, Maine’s House Ag Committee passed a GMO labeling law. On May 10, the Vermont House passed a labeling bill, 99-42, despite massive lobbying by Monsanto and threats to sue the state. And though Monsanto won a razor-thin victory (51 percent to 49 percent) in a costly, hard fought California GMO labeling ballot initiative last November, biotech and Big Food now realize that Washington State voters will likely pass I-522, an upcoming ballot initiative to label GE foods, on November 5.
If Monsanto can’t stop states from passing laws, then the next step is a national preemptive measure.  And all signs point to just such a power grab.  Earlier this year, Monsanto slipped its extremely unpopular “Monsanto Protection Act,” an act that gives biotech immunity from federal prosecution for planting illegally approved GE crops, into the 2013 Federal Appropriations Bill.  During the June 2012 Farm Bill debate, 73 U.S. Senators voted against the right of states to pass mandatory GE food labeling laws. Emboldened by these votes, and now the House Ag Committee’s vote on the King Amendment, Monsanto has every reason to believe Congress would support a potential nullification of states’ rights to label.

The million-strong OCA and its allies in the organic and natural health movement are warning incumbent Senators and House members, Democrats and Republicans alike, that thousands of health and environmental-minded constituents in their Congressional districts or states will work to recall them or drive them out of office if they fail to heed the will of the people and to respect the time-honored traditions of shared state sovereignty over food labels, food safety laws, and consumers’ right to know.

Trouble in Monsanto Nation.
Over the past 20 years Monsanto and the biotech industry, aided and abetted by indentured politicians and corporate agribusiness, have begun seizing control over the global food and farming system, including the legislative, patent, trade, judicial and regulatory bodies that are supposed to safeguard the public interest.

In the U.S., despite mounting evidence of the damage GE crops inflict on human health and the environment, approximately 170 million acres of GE crops, including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, and squash, are currently under cultivation. These crops, untested and unlabeled, comprise 41 percent of all cultivated cropland, or 17 percent of all cropland and pastureland combined. According to the GMA, at least 70 percent of non-organic grocery store processed foods contain GMOs. And GE grains and mill byproducts now supply the overwhelming majority of animal feed on the factory farms that supply 90 percent to 95 percent of the meat, eggs and dairy products that Americans consume.

Yet despite their marketplace dominance, record profits and enormous political clout in Washington D.C., Monsanto and the biotech industry are in deep trouble. Evidence is mounting that Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide, Roundup, is a deadly poison, destroying important human gut bacteria and likely contributing to the rapid increase of food allergies and serious human diseases including cancer, autism, neurological disorders , Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), dementia, Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Those most susceptible to poisoning by Monsanto’s Roundup are children and the elderly.

Scientists aren’t the only ones raising new questions about Roundup. Farmers are complaining that they’re being forced to spray more and more chemicals on crops increasingly under siege from a growing army of herbicide-resistant weeds.  The situation is so bad that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) just raised the limits of Roundup residue allowed on grains and vegetables to even more dangerous levels. But just in case the EPA someday stops raising the limits, Monsanto, Dow and the biotech industry are working on a new “solution” to the onslaught of herbicide-resistant Superweeds: They’ve applied  for approval of a new and highly controversial generation of super toxic herbicide-resistant GE crops, including “Agent Orange”  (2,4-D and dicamba-resistant) corn, soybeans and cotton.

As a recent widely-circulated article points out,  

  • “The use of 2,4-D is not new; it’s actually one of the most widely used herbicides in the world. What is new is that farmers will now ‘carpet bomb’ staple food crops like soy and corn with this chemical at a previously unprecedented scale—just the way glyphosate has been indiscriminately applied as a result of Roundup Ready crops. In fact, if 2,4-D resistant crops receive approval and eventually come to replace Monsanto's failing Roundup-resistant crops as Dow intends, it is likely that billions of pounds will be needed, on top of the already insane levels of Roundup being used (1.6 billion lbs were used in 2007 in the US alone).”

In addition to these Agent Orange crops, an expanded menu of genetically engineered organisms are awaiting approval. Next on the menu?  GE apples, trees, and salmon.

State Labeling Laws: The ‘skull and crossbones’ that terrify Monsanto
Monsanto’s greatest fear isn’t a federal government charged with protecting the health and safety of its citizens.  Congress and the White House seem only too happy to oblige the biotech industry’s unquenchable thirst for growth, power and dominance. No, it’s the massive, unstoppable (so far) grassroots movement of Millions Against Monsanto that strikes fear in the heart of the Biotech Bully. U.S. citizens are waking up. They’re demanding labels on genetically engineered foods, similar to those already required in the European Union. They’re calling for serious independent safety-testing of GE crops and animals, both those already approved (especially Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant crops) and those awaiting approval.

The anti-GMO movement has finally figured out, after 20 years of fruitlessly lobbying Congress, the FDA and the White House, that the federal government is not going to require labels on GE foods. Instead the movement has shifted the battleground on GMO labeling from Monsanto and Big Food’s turf in Washington D.C. to the more favorable terrain of state ballot initiatives and state legislative action—publicizing the fact that a state GMO labeling law will have the same marketplace impact as a national labeling law.

State laws spell doom for Monsanto. Companies like Kellogg’s, General Mills, Coca-Cola, Pepsi/Frito-Lay, Dean Foods, Unilever, Con-Agra, Safeway, Wal-Mart and Smuckers are not going to label in just one or two states.  Monsanto knows that U.S. food companies will go GMO-free in the entire U.S., rather than admit to consumers that their products contain GMOs.

As Monsanto itself has pointed out, labels on genetically engineered foods are like putting a “skull and crossbones” on food packages. This is why Monsanto and their allies poured $46 million into defeating a California ballot initiative last year that would have required labels on GMO foods. This is why Monsanto has lobbied strenuously in 30 states this year to prevent, or at least delay, state mandatory labeling laws from being passed. This is why Monsanto has threatened to file federal lawsuits against Vermont, Connecticut, Maine and Washington if they dare grant citizens the right to know whether or not their food has been genetically engineered or not.

And this is why Monsanto’s minions are trying to insert amendments or riders into the Farm Bill that will make it nearly impossible, even illegal, for states to pass GMO labeling laws. And there’s nothing to stop them when Congress is filled with pro-biotech cheerleaders who could care less that 90 percent of U.S. consumers want mandatory labels and proper safety testing of genetically engineered crops and foods.

Countering Monsanto’s Final Offensive: Throw the Bums Out!
Only a massive grassroots resistance will deter the U.S. Senate and House from stomping on our rights. Only an unprecedented campaign of public education, petition-gathering and grassroots pressure will be able to convince the ever-more corrupt and indentured politicians in Washington D.C. to back off.

Eighteen state constitutions have century-old provisions for state registered voters to collect petitions and recall state and local officials, forcing them to either resign or stand for reelection. But what very few Americans, and even members of Congress, realize is that 11 states have constitutional provisions to recall U.S. Senators and House of Representative members, as well as state elected officials.

It’s time we exercise the full power of direct democracy, not just state and municipal ballot initiatives. We must continue to support efforts like the current state ballot initiative to label GMOs in Washington state, and county ballot initiatives to ban GMOs, factory farms and other corporate crimes, in the 24 states and hundreds of counties and municipalities where these are allowed.  But we also need to use the power we have to recall and throw out of office our out-of-control Congressional Senators and Representatives as well.

If our elected officials in Congress continue to represent Monsanto and big corporations, rather than their constituents, then let’s throw the bums out! If the Washington political Establishment, both Democrats and Republicans, continue to trample on our inalienable constitutional rights and contemptuously disregard the 225-year principle of a shared balance of power between the federal government, the states and local government, then we have no choice but to recall them or throw them out of office.

Please join the nation’s organic consumers and natural health advocates in this strategic battle, the Food Fight of Our Lives. Please join this campaign to save, not only our right to choose what’s in our food, but our basic right to democratic representation and self-determination as well.  Sign the petition.  Tell your Congressmen and women, especially the 73 incumbents who voted last year to eliminate states rights’ to legislate on GMO labels, and those in the House this week who voted to support the King Amendment that “enough is enough,” “ basta ya.” Power to the People!

US Breaks 12,793 Snow & Cold Records In Less Than 2 Months

“From March 12 to April 22 (6 weeks) there were 9,664 snow and cold records broken,” says reader Ralph Fato.

“From April 22 to May 5th there were 3,129 snow and cold records broken.”
“That’s 12,793 Snow and Cold records broken in less than 2 months.”

Thursday, May 16, 2013

Chong Beats Prostate Cancer With Hemp Oil

Tommy-ChongWaking Times

Last June, the famous comedian, actor and pro-marijuana legalization advocate, Tommy Chong, reported to the world that he had been diagnosed with stage 1 prostate cancer and that he was seeking unconventional treatment using Cannabis Oil. Almost one year later, Tommy is feeling better than ever and is cancer free.

Tommy’s recent announcement, in a blog post, about his successful battle with cancer is a huge boon to those battling this illness and many others, and also for those fighting for the common-sensical liberation of this promising natural medicine:
“After I came out with the news last June that a cancer doctor told me I had prostrate cancer and suggested a high frequency treatment that is not approved in America and could only be done in Mexico at the cost of $25,000, I immediately looked at alternatives. I contacted my nephew in Vancouver, who was about to become a doctor, and he suggested I meet with a Dr. McKinnon in Victoria, BC.

That doctor changed my diet and put me on supplements, and within a year I brought my PSA numbers down drastically and eliminated the cancer threat. I also treated the condition with hemp oil (hash oil). With the diet, the supplements and the hash oil, plus a session with a world-renowned healer, Adam Dreamhealer, I’m cancer-free. That’s right, I kicked cancer’s ass! So the magic plant does cure cancer with the right diet and supplements. I’m due for another blood test, MRI, etc., but I feel the best I’ve felt in years. And now for a celebration joint of the finest Kush…” [CelebStoner]
This case, and Tommy’s choice to seek this alternative, but, viable and natural treatment, highlight how important the battle for legalization is for many people sick with ailments that can be treated effectively without damaging invasive procedures or expensive and debilitating regiments of chemotherapy, radiation and pharmaceuticals. There is much more to legalization than people just wanting to get ‘high’. As Tommy stated in 2012:
“I’ve got prostate cancer, and I’m treating it with hemp oil, with cannabis,” Chong said. “So [legalizing marijuana] means a lot more to me than just being able to smoke a joint without being arrested.”
For someone in Tommy’s position, seeking alternative treatments outside of the Unites States was an open option, yet for many of the over 12 million Americans who are fighting cancer, leaving the US for treatment is simply not an option, even though the costs of one month of conventional cancer treatments can reach an absurd $10,000 or more, for a single month.

Advocate and healer Rick Simpson explains how Cannabis Oil can cure cancer and other serious illnesses in his important documentary, Race for the Cure:

 This case, and Tommy’s choice to seek this alternative, but, viable and natural treatment, highlight how important the battle for legalization is for many people sick with ailments that can be treated effectively without damaging invasive procedures or expensive and debilitating regiments of chemotherapy, radiation and pharmaceuticals. There is much more to legalization than people just wanting to get ‘high’. As Tommy stated in 2012:
“I’ve got prostate cancer, and I’m treating it with hemp oil, with cannabis,” Chong said. “So [legalizing marijuana] means a lot more to me than just being able to smoke a joint without being arrested.”
For someone in Tommy’s position, seeking alternative treatments outside of the Unites States was an open option, yet for many of the over 12 million Americans who are fighting cancer, leaving the US for treatment is simply not an option, even though the costs of one month of conventional cancer treatments can reach an absurd $10,000 or more, for a single month.

In addition to the powerful medicine Cannabis, a proper diet is also critical to beating cancer. Many cancer patients in the US are prescribed dangerous procedures and chemo/radiation, but doctors rarely mention the importance of an alkaline diet, and will often recommend eating regular, processed and inorganic foods while undergoing treatment.

The cat is out of the bag that Cannabis and good food cure cancer, and the race is on to see who can bring access to medical marijuana to the public. Already, pharmaceutical companies are rushing to patent various chemical components of the plant, so it is already clear that the future of modern medicine will have to include this humble plant

Video Basal Cell Carcinoma

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Ecuador's Indigenous People Still Wait To Be Consulted

Monday, 06 May 2013 23:49
A Huaorani man armed with traditional spears and his wife and children welcome a group of tourists to the community of Tigüino, located within Yasuní National Park. Credit: Eduardo Valenzuela/IPSA bill addressing prior consultation with indigenous peoples on legislative measures remains tied up in Ecuador’s National Assembly.

(IPS) - The Constitution of Ecuador adopted in 2008 establishes a broad range of rights for indigenous peoples and nationalities, including the right to prior consultation, which gives them the opportunity to influence decisions that affect their lives.
But this right has yet to be fully translated into legislation, as the bill for a Law on Consultation with Indigenous Communities, Peoples and Nationalities is still being studied by the National Assembly.

Article 57, section 7 of the constitution guarantees “free, prior and informed consultation, within a reasonable period of time, on plans and programmes for exploration, exploitation and sale of non-renewable resources located on their lands which could have environmental or cultural impacts on them.”

The constitution also stipulates the right of indigenous peoples “to share in the profits earned from these projects and to receive compensation for social, cultural and environmental damages caused to them. The consultation that must be conducted by the competent authorities shall be mandatory and timely.”

“If the consent of the consulted community is not obtained, steps provided for by the Constitution and the law shall be taken,” it adds.

Legal grounds for consultation are also established in Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization (ILO), which Ecuador ratified in 1998, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted in 2007.

Nevertheless, recent mining and oil drilling projects have put the government’s commitment to respecting the right to consultation to the test, and spurred indigenous organisations to take action.

On Nov. 28, 2012, hundreds of indigenous representatives converged in Quito to protest the lack of consultation prior to the 11th oil auction round, in which exploration blocks containing an estimated total of 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil would be put up for bids from private companies.

At the time, Domingo Peas, a leader of the Achuar indigenous ethnic group, declared that “the government says it has carried out prior consultation, but this is not true.”

“The consultations carried out among the peoples and nationalities in the areas of influence are invalid, because there was no participation by indigenous peoples and nationalities in determining the way they were conducted, they did not respect their traditional methods of decision-making, and cultural aspects, such as language, were not adequately taken into account,” he stressed.

Overall, said Peas, the consultations “were neither prior, nor free, nor informed, and were conducted in bad faith.”

The president of the influential Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), Humberto Cholango, believes that the authorities have not done enough.

“Prior consultation is still pending, we have still not seen the results we would like to see. We need the law to be approved; that would be a major advance,” he told Tierramérica*.

The draft law, comprising 29 articles, refers to consultation on legislative measures and establishes four stages: preparation; a public call for participation and registration; the actual holding of the consultation; and analysis of the results and conclusion.

In accordance with the law, the government will determine if a proposed bill affects the rights of certain communities, in which case the National Assembly will convene a prior consultation that will be conducted through the National Electoral Council.

Lourdes Tibán, an indigenous National Assembly member from the leftist opposition movement Pachakutik, told Tierramérica that adoption of this law is crucial, because “it will guarantee the participation of indigenous nationalities in decisions on future laws that directly affect them, and will therefore prevent a lack of consensus.”

Once this legislation is in force, other major bills can be addressed, such as the proposed law on water resources, on which debate has been postponed since 2010 precisely due to the resistance posed by indigenous peoples. One of their key concerns is that the proposals made during a prior consultation process will not be included in the final text of the law that was submitted to consultation.

A number of other bills, such as those for laws on culture and land, are also on hold for the same reason.

This is the heart of the conflict.

One year ago, President Rafael Correa stated in one of his regular Saturday broadcasts that non-governmental organisations “want prior consultations to be popular consultations and to be binding; that means that for every step we want to take, we will need to ask the community for permission.”

“This is extremely serious. This is not what the international agreements say. This would not mean acting in the interests of the majorities, but rather in the interest of unanimity. It would be impossible to govern that way,” he declared.

In response to these statements, indigenous organisations sought reinforcement, calling on agencies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the ILO to supervise the implementation of prior consultation.

In fact, indigenous communities in Ecuador have already turned to some of these mechanisms in the past. In 2003, the Quechua community of Sarayaku filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against the state for authorising oil exploration in their territory, without prior consultation.

The community, located in the province of Pastaza, in Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest region, denounced damages to their territory, culture and economy. In June 2012, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the community and against the state.

The government is still studying how to pay the required compensation – a total of 1,398,000 dollars for material and moral damages and legal costs – and how to finish repairing the physical damage caused.