Neotame, New Neurotoxic Sweetener: FDA Says No Label Needed, Not Even in Organics
A Monsanto-created chemical, Neotame is likely more toxic than Aspartame. The FDA has quietly decided that we don't have the right to know if it's adulterating our food, not even if the food is labeled USDA Organic.
Aspartame can step aside. There's a new sweetener in town and it isn't saddled with the inconvenience of having to be listed on labels, so it can be sneaked into any prepared food, even USDA so-called Organic. So sayeth the FDA. Neotame is a Monsanto-created chemical similar to Aspartame, including its neurotoxic properties.
Monsanto developed Neotame as their Aspartame patent was expiring, and had no trouble in gaining FDA approval in 2002. They added 3-dimethylbutyl, a chemical listed as hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to Aspartame, making it both sweeter and more toxic.
Toxicity
Both Aspartame and Neotame contain substances that are metabolized into formaldehyde, a highly toxic poison, and an excitotoxic amino acid that agitates, thereby damaging, nerves.
At the time Neotame was originally approved by the FDA, Feingold.org, which battles the addition of many dodgy food additives, stated:
We did a search of MedLine to find studies of adverse effects or side effects of Neotame. Only four studies appeared, two of which were not studies, and the other two of which were actually a single study done by NutraSweet company researchers.
Feingold aptly described one of the nonstudies as effectively saying, "If we don't look, we won't know anything bad." The other, by the World Health Organization, is not a look at potential toxicity, but rather is about setting acceptable daily intakes of Neotame, along with other artificial sweeteners. Note: One must wonder how the FDA justifies non-listing of an ingredient for which there's an acceptable daily intake.
Mary Nash Stoddard, founder of the Aspartame Consumer Safety Network, compared the historic arc of tobacco company research with that of Aspartame. It applies equally well to Neotame:
There is a parallel issue with which to compare the Aspartame issue. That of cigarettes and the deadly effects of smoking. The massive Tobacco Industry is able to produce large volumes of scientific studies showing smoking does not cause: lung cancer, heart disease, strokes or death. Today, mainstream science accepts the fact that smoking can be deadly and addictive. So it is with Aspartame, whose approval was based, not on scientific fact, but as an issue of public policy.
Neotame Labeling
From the beginning, Neotane labeling has been limited. It's in the background noise of products produced by Agribusiness.
Up to this time, Neotame hasn't been sold to the public, but that hasn't been necessary. It's been used widely in prepared foods. So, the less awareness the public has, the less likely it is that people will try to avoid it. For the most part, the technique has worked. Now, very quietly, the FDA has decided that the public shouldn't be informed when Neotame is included in any product. Even Organic products, which are supposed to be unadultered with chemicals, are not required to state when Neotame is inside.
India will soon serve as guinea pigs for Neotame. It will soon be launched there as a tabletop sweetener, like Equal and Splendor, by NutraSweet, which owns and sells the product.
Neotame is now being marketed as Sweetos for use in cattle feed. Molasses has been utlized to get cows to eat foods made unpalatable by chemical additives. Neotame is both less costly than molasses and subject to fewer regulations. How do you like that? A natural food is more stringently regulated than a known-poisonous chemical that's put into food.
The reach of Neotame is likely to be extensive. They're planning to replace other artificial sweeteners with it. A major seller of artificial sweeteners, which goes by the misleading name of Ensigns Health Care Pvt Ltd, intends to use it in place of sucralose.
In the EU, Neotame has been approved by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). As is so common in the EU, the product is hidden behind an E-number. So, labels don't have to say that products contain Neotame. They only need to list "E 961". Naturally, with hundreds of E-numbers, how many people can be aware of which ones are truly dangerous?
It looks like the FDA's loosening of labeling rules for Neotame is part of a large-scale effort to make it a near-ubiquitous artificial sweetener, to be found on the tabletop, in all prepared foods—even organics—and even in the meats consumed.
The solution is fairly simple, but not necessarily easy. If you want to avoid foods adulterated with Neotame, among other dangerous additives and overprocessing, then you need to grow your own foods and prepare them yourselves, or purchase only from suppliers whose processing and sourcing is known to you, which generally means locally-produced.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Cell Phones Impact Fetal Health
Cell phones – the incredibly convenient device that make our lives infinitely easier. While these phones have created great steps forward in communication, talking on them comes at a price. The massive increase in cellular phone use in our current society has resulted in a large degree of research examining the potential negative health effects they have on human health. Very recent research has shown that microwave radiation emitted by cellular devices negatively influence fetal brains.
Cell Phones Shown to Negatively Influence Fetal Brains
The experiment took 32 pregnant rats and divided them into 4 different groups, with one of them receiving no exposure to microwave radiation. The other three groups were exposed to different intensities of microwave radiation from cellular phones, with each of them being subjected for different amounts of time. Group 1 was radiated for 10 minutes each time, group 2 was radiated for 30 minutes, group 3 for 60 minutes, and group 4 not at all. Each of the groups receiving radiation were radiated 3 times a day from the first day of pregnancy then for 20 days thereafter. On day 21, the rats’ brains were tested.
The primary purpose of the study was to evaluate intensity of oxidative stress and the level of neurotransmitters in the brains of pregnant rats exposed to cell phones. The study concluded with:
“Through this study, we concluded that receiving a certain period of microwave radiation from cellular phones during pregnancy has certain harm on fetal rat brains.”
This research comes just before Greek scientists demonstrated how frequency electromagnetic fields, namely cell phones, portable phones, WiFi, and wireless computer equipment alter important protein changes in the brains of animals.
Does this you should stop using cell phones? While it may be challenging to completely abandon your cellphone, it is simple to take some precautionary measures so that the convenience comes at a lesser price. Holding the cell phone further away, not placing it near you while not in use, and talking on it less are all solutions to reduce exposure. The World Health Organization has even found cell phone use to be in the same cancer-causing category as lead, engine exhaust, and chloroform.
With cellphone subscriptions outnumbering the people in the U.S., it is important to take your own measures to reduce EMF exposure.
Read more: Cell phones – the incredibly convenient device that make our lives infinitely easier. While these phones have created great steps forward in communication, talking on them comes at a price. The massive increase in cellular phone use in our current society has resulted in a large degree of research examining the potential negative health effects they have on human health. Very recent research has shown that microwave radiation emitted by cellular devices negatively influence fetal brains.
Cell Phones Shown to Negatively Influence Fetal Brains
The experiment took 32 pregnant rats and divided them into 4 different groups, with one of them receiving no exposure to microwave radiation. The other three groups were exposed to different intensities of microwave radiation from cellular phones, with each of them being subjected for different amounts of time. Group 1 was radiated for 10 minutes each time, group 2 was radiated for 30 minutes, group 3 for 60 minutes, and group 4 not at all. Each of the groups receiving radiation were radiated 3 times a day from the first day of pregnancy then for 20 days thereafter. On day 21, the rats’ brains were tested.
The primary purpose of the study was to evaluate intensity of oxidative stress and the level of neurotransmitters in the brains of pregnant rats exposed to cell phones. The study concluded with:
“Through this study, we concluded that receiving a certain period of microwave radiation from cellular phones during pregnancy has certain harm on fetal rat brains.”
This research comes just before Greek scientists demonstrated how frequency electromagnetic fields, namely cell phones, portable phones, WiFi, and wireless computer equipment alter important protein changes in the brains of animals.
Does this you should stop using cell phones? While it may be challenging to completely abandon your cellphone, it is simple to take some precautionary measures so that the convenience comes at a lesser price. Holding the cell phone further away, not placing it near you while not in use, and talking on it less are all solutions to reduce exposure. The World Health Organization has even found cell phone use to be in the same cancer-causing category as lead, engine exhaust, and chloroform.
With cellphone subscriptions outnumbering the people in the U.S., it is important to take your own measures to reduce EMF exposur
Cell Phones Shown to Negatively Influence Fetal Brains
The experiment took 32 pregnant rats and divided them into 4 different groups, with one of them receiving no exposure to microwave radiation. The other three groups were exposed to different intensities of microwave radiation from cellular phones, with each of them being subjected for different amounts of time. Group 1 was radiated for 10 minutes each time, group 2 was radiated for 30 minutes, group 3 for 60 minutes, and group 4 not at all. Each of the groups receiving radiation were radiated 3 times a day from the first day of pregnancy then for 20 days thereafter. On day 21, the rats’ brains were tested.
The primary purpose of the study was to evaluate intensity of oxidative stress and the level of neurotransmitters in the brains of pregnant rats exposed to cell phones. The study concluded with:
“Through this study, we concluded that receiving a certain period of microwave radiation from cellular phones during pregnancy has certain harm on fetal rat brains.”
This research comes just before Greek scientists demonstrated how frequency electromagnetic fields, namely cell phones, portable phones, WiFi, and wireless computer equipment alter important protein changes in the brains of animals.
Does this you should stop using cell phones? While it may be challenging to completely abandon your cellphone, it is simple to take some precautionary measures so that the convenience comes at a lesser price. Holding the cell phone further away, not placing it near you while not in use, and talking on it less are all solutions to reduce exposure. The World Health Organization has even found cell phone use to be in the same cancer-causing category as lead, engine exhaust, and chloroform.
With cellphone subscriptions outnumbering the people in the U.S., it is important to take your own measures to reduce EMF exposure.
Read more: Cell phones – the incredibly convenient device that make our lives infinitely easier. While these phones have created great steps forward in communication, talking on them comes at a price. The massive increase in cellular phone use in our current society has resulted in a large degree of research examining the potential negative health effects they have on human health. Very recent research has shown that microwave radiation emitted by cellular devices negatively influence fetal brains.
Cell Phones Shown to Negatively Influence Fetal Brains
The experiment took 32 pregnant rats and divided them into 4 different groups, with one of them receiving no exposure to microwave radiation. The other three groups were exposed to different intensities of microwave radiation from cellular phones, with each of them being subjected for different amounts of time. Group 1 was radiated for 10 minutes each time, group 2 was radiated for 30 minutes, group 3 for 60 minutes, and group 4 not at all. Each of the groups receiving radiation were radiated 3 times a day from the first day of pregnancy then for 20 days thereafter. On day 21, the rats’ brains were tested.
The primary purpose of the study was to evaluate intensity of oxidative stress and the level of neurotransmitters in the brains of pregnant rats exposed to cell phones. The study concluded with:
“Through this study, we concluded that receiving a certain period of microwave radiation from cellular phones during pregnancy has certain harm on fetal rat brains.”
This research comes just before Greek scientists demonstrated how frequency electromagnetic fields, namely cell phones, portable phones, WiFi, and wireless computer equipment alter important protein changes in the brains of animals.
Does this you should stop using cell phones? While it may be challenging to completely abandon your cellphone, it is simple to take some precautionary measures so that the convenience comes at a lesser price. Holding the cell phone further away, not placing it near you while not in use, and talking on it less are all solutions to reduce exposure. The World Health Organization has even found cell phone use to be in the same cancer-causing category as lead, engine exhaust, and chloroform.
With cellphone subscriptions outnumbering the people in the U.S., it is important to take your own measures to reduce EMF exposur
France Defeats Monsanto Keeps 2008 GMO Ban In Place
rance has held firm in its opposition to Monsanto's genetically modified MON 810 maize - and the agri-chemical multinational has admitted defeat.
Monsanto had been putting legal pressure on the French government to lift its 2008 cultivation ban on MON 810, firstly with a successful appeal to the European Court of Justice, then with a follow-up case heard in France's own highest court, the Council of State.
But despite both these institutions ruling that the ban was "insufficiently justified in law", the French Government, backed by President Sarkozy, has insisted that it will still not allow cultivation of the biotech maize.
Now Monsanto has announced that it would not be selling seeds for MON810 in France this year.
France's stand - and Monsanto's capitulation - has been warmly welcomed by anti-GM lobbyists GM Freeze, whose campaign director Pete Riley said: "The decision by Monsanto not to market MON810 seeds in France in 2012 is yet another sign that Monsanto has failed to convince the public or policy makers that there is any benefit to growing to growing GM crops.
"This needs to be acknowledged by industry and politicians and there should be a big shift to agricultural research and development which addresses the future sustainability of farming in Europe. EU policy needs to forget about the bottom line of biotech corporations and focus on developing agro-ecological farming which provides for the needs of farmers, consumers, the environment and future generations."
Five other EU countries - Germany, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary - have current bans on MON810 cultivation in place, and the issue has recently been complicated by another European Court of Justice ruling requiring honey contaminated with GM pollen to be fully authorised as a novel product and labeled as such before it can be sold.
Monsanto had been putting legal pressure on the French government to lift its 2008 cultivation ban on MON 810, firstly with a successful appeal to the European Court of Justice, then with a follow-up case heard in France's own highest court, the Council of State.
But despite both these institutions ruling that the ban was "insufficiently justified in law", the French Government, backed by President Sarkozy, has insisted that it will still not allow cultivation of the biotech maize.
Now Monsanto has announced that it would not be selling seeds for MON810 in France this year.
France's stand - and Monsanto's capitulation - has been warmly welcomed by anti-GM lobbyists GM Freeze, whose campaign director Pete Riley said: "The decision by Monsanto not to market MON810 seeds in France in 2012 is yet another sign that Monsanto has failed to convince the public or policy makers that there is any benefit to growing to growing GM crops.
"This needs to be acknowledged by industry and politicians and there should be a big shift to agricultural research and development which addresses the future sustainability of farming in Europe. EU policy needs to forget about the bottom line of biotech corporations and focus on developing agro-ecological farming which provides for the needs of farmers, consumers, the environment and future generations."
Five other EU countries - Germany, Greece, Austria, Luxembourg and Hungary - have current bans on MON810 cultivation in place, and the issue has recently been complicated by another European Court of Justice ruling requiring honey contaminated with GM pollen to be fully authorised as a novel product and labeled as such before it can be sold.
Monsanto Forced Out Of Costa Rica
"Monsanto the company responsible for more than 90% of industrial releases of transgenic organisms in the world has decided to withdraw its request to release genetically modified corn (maiz) in Costa Rica and to pull out of the country. Environmentalists in Costa Rica are still working to strengthen the campaign for an GMO-free country.
Members of the National Commission on Biosafety say that Monsanto s withdrawal is a success for social groups that have been leading a campaign against the expansion of transgenic crops in Costa Rica. Staff of the Biotechnology Department of the State Plant Health Service believe the government can no longer stand up for companies, when faced with the persistent claims and demands of the public that opposes this kind of biotechnology. They say it would be good if the companies responded to the many invitations for an open debate made by numerous social groups.
Isaac Rojas, President of the Costa Rica Federation for Environment Conservation, welcomed the self-criticism of the National Commission on Biosafety. He said the public sector (State) cannot and should not continue to legitimize and defend biotec companies nor transgenic products. It is time that the corporate sector show its face and enter into a process of public debate.
Fabián Pacheco, a spokesman for the Social Ecology Association, said It was to be expected that Monsanto would choose to go to other countries where conditions are less critical and more permissive. and added This kind of evasive attitude shows that the companies do not have technical arguments to prove that GMOs are safe and that the precautionary principle is not being violated.
The Biodiversity Network CR calls on all parts of the ecological movement and peoples organisations of other countries in the region to be alert. Monsanto is leaving Costa Rica, but it will go to other countries where it can sell its transgenic crops without much noise, to avoid polemics and open debate and adverse effects on its economic interests. Beware!
Members of the National Commission on Biosafety say that Monsanto s withdrawal is a success for social groups that have been leading a campaign against the expansion of transgenic crops in Costa Rica. Staff of the Biotechnology Department of the State Plant Health Service believe the government can no longer stand up for companies, when faced with the persistent claims and demands of the public that opposes this kind of biotechnology. They say it would be good if the companies responded to the many invitations for an open debate made by numerous social groups.
Isaac Rojas, President of the Costa Rica Federation for Environment Conservation, welcomed the self-criticism of the National Commission on Biosafety. He said the public sector (State) cannot and should not continue to legitimize and defend biotec companies nor transgenic products. It is time that the corporate sector show its face and enter into a process of public debate.
Fabián Pacheco, a spokesman for the Social Ecology Association, said It was to be expected that Monsanto would choose to go to other countries where conditions are less critical and more permissive. and added This kind of evasive attitude shows that the companies do not have technical arguments to prove that GMOs are safe and that the precautionary principle is not being violated.
The Biodiversity Network CR calls on all parts of the ecological movement and peoples organisations of other countries in the region to be alert. Monsanto is leaving Costa Rica, but it will go to other countries where it can sell its transgenic crops without much noise, to avoid polemics and open debate and adverse effects on its economic interests. Beware!
30,000 Drones Will Keep Americans Safe?
It's the most benign thing in the world. In fact, it's a concept whose time has come and it will only help protect us and keep us safe. Naturally, there's nothing to worry about because there won't be any abuse of the technology. After all, spy drones are already being used around the U.S.; what's the problem with adding tens of thousands more?
In case you didn't know it - and you probably didn't - Congress, with little fanfare, passed an FAA reauthorization bill last week President Obama is expected to sign into law that will make it much easier for the government to put scores of unmanned spy drones into American skies.
Not only that the legislation authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015. If the law takes full effect, it is believed as many as 30,000 drones could be hovering over the U.S. by 2020.
The drones, which are widely used in Afghanistan to spot and target suspected insurgents and Taliban operatives in that country as well as neighboring Pakistan, have been used by American government agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, for a few years, in an observation/surveillance capacity. DoH has also used drones in disaster relief operations, and advocates say they can be successfully employed to fight fires and locate missing hikers.
Say Good-bye to Privacy
Privacy advocates, however, are sounding the alarm good and loud.
"There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities," Steven Aftergood, head of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Washington Times.
Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group, added that her organization is particularly "concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies."
Her agency is suing the FAA to determine just how many certificates the agency has already issued to police, government agencies and a smattering of private research institutions to allow them to fly drones in U.S. airspace. The agency says it handed out 313 certificates in 2011; by year's end, 295 were still active "but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are," said the Times.
"We need a list so we can ask [each agency], 'What are your policies on drone use? How do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?'" Lynch said.
"Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates," Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the paper.
Surveillance Society
The use of drones to keep an eye on American citizens is just the next step in what has become the move towards a so-called "surveillance society" that is growing rampant in the U.S.
Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, says while the widening use of video cameras in American society may have helped nab some criminals, they often provide a false sense of security.
"It's the illusion of security ... public authorities like to give the impression they are doing something about crime and terrorism," he told Wired.com.
Furthermore, are we comfortable with being constantly under surveillance?
"Do we want a society where an innocent individual can't walk down the street without being considered a potential criminal?" asks the ACLU, on its Web site.
In case you didn't know it - and you probably didn't - Congress, with little fanfare, passed an FAA reauthorization bill last week President Obama is expected to sign into law that will make it much easier for the government to put scores of unmanned spy drones into American skies.
Not only that the legislation authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to develop regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones by 2015. If the law takes full effect, it is believed as many as 30,000 drones could be hovering over the U.S. by 2020.
The drones, which are widely used in Afghanistan to spot and target suspected insurgents and Taliban operatives in that country as well as neighboring Pakistan, have been used by American government agencies like U.S. Customs and Border Protection, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, for a few years, in an observation/surveillance capacity. DoH has also used drones in disaster relief operations, and advocates say they can be successfully employed to fight fires and locate missing hikers.
Say Good-bye to Privacy
Privacy advocates, however, are sounding the alarm good and loud.
"There are serious policy questions on the horizon about privacy and surveillance, by both government agencies and commercial entities," Steven Aftergood, head of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Washington Times.
Jennifer Lynch, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a watchdog group, added that her organization is particularly "concerned about the implications for surveillance by government agencies."
Her agency is suing the FAA to determine just how many certificates the agency has already issued to police, government agencies and a smattering of private research institutions to allow them to fly drones in U.S. airspace. The agency says it handed out 313 certificates in 2011; by year's end, 295 were still active "but the FAA refuses to disclose which agencies have the certificates and what their purposes are," said the Times.
"We need a list so we can ask [each agency], 'What are your policies on drone use? How do you protect privacy? How do you ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment?'" Lynch said.
"Currently, the only barrier to the routine use of drones for persistent surveillance are the procedural requirements imposed by the FAA for the issuance of certificates," Amie Stepanovich, national security counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the paper.
Surveillance Society
The use of drones to keep an eye on American citizens is just the next step in what has become the move towards a so-called "surveillance society" that is growing rampant in the U.S.
Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, says while the widening use of video cameras in American society may have helped nab some criminals, they often provide a false sense of security.
"It's the illusion of security ... public authorities like to give the impression they are doing something about crime and terrorism," he told Wired.com.
Furthermore, are we comfortable with being constantly under surveillance?
"Do we want a society where an innocent individual can't walk down the street without being considered a potential criminal?" asks the ACLU, on its Web site.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Studies Confirm No Himalayan Ice Lost Last 10 Years
We’re talking about the greatest chain of ice-capped peaks in the world – from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan – and satellite measurements show that they have lost NO ice in the past 10 years.
“The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall,” says this article in the Guardian.
Not significantly different from zero
Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”
And yet, in 2009 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mistakenly stated that all of the Himalayan glaciers would disappear in just 26 years, by 2035.
(See also world-misled-over-melting-himalayan-glaciers/ )
Why the discrepancy?
“Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world’s 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground,” the article explains.
But “extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up.”
In other words, we’ve been basing our dire global warming predictions – and taxing ourselves to death, and regulating ourselves to death – on “only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers.”
Amazingly, even in the face of these new revelations, the lead scientist for the report insists that the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.
“People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before,” admonishes Professor John Wahr of the University of Colorado.
I don’t think I trust Professor Wahr.
“The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall,” says this article in the Guardian.
Not significantly different from zero
Bristol University glaciologist Prof Jonathan Bamber, who was not part of the research team, said: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.”
And yet, in 2009 the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) mistakenly stated that all of the Himalayan glaciers would disappear in just 26 years, by 2035.
(See also world-misled-over-melting-himalayan-glaciers/ )
Why the discrepancy?
“Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world’s 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground,” the article explains.
But “extrapolation is really tough as only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers are monitored and there are thousands there very high up.”
In other words, we’ve been basing our dire global warming predictions – and taxing ourselves to death, and regulating ourselves to death – on “only a handful of lower-altitude glaciers.”
Amazingly, even in the face of these new revelations, the lead scientist for the report insists that the loss of ice caps and glaciers around the world remains a serious concern.
“People should be just as worried about the melting of the world’s ice as they were before,” admonishes Professor John Wahr of the University of Colorado.
I don’t think I trust Professor Wahr.
Tn NDAA Nullification Bill To Arrest Feds On Kidnapping Charges
State and local resistance to the detention provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act continues to grow, rapidly emerging as a nationwide movement.
The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.
This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.
The act takes aim at indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called language in the NDAA vague and overbroad, pointing out that Americans should never simply trust in the good intentions and moral clarity of the president or federal judges to protect their rights.
“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said. “I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”
The Tennessee bill also “makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution,” and includes provisions for kidnapping charges if a federal agent were to detain a U.S. citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.
Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) sponsor the House version of the bill. Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) sponsors the Senate bill.
The Volunteer state joins Washington and Virginia considering legislation to nullify detention provisions in the NDAA. And local governments have also stepped up, including El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado. While some argue the NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens, Maharrey said that notion should not stop state and local governments from following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand.
“If what supporters say is true and the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans, what is the harm in this legislation? Why would anybody oppose it? It does nothing but serve notice that state and local officials will not sit back and allow the federal government to exercise unconstitutional powers – powers supporters claim don’t exist anyway. It simply affirms a fence that supposedly already exists.
The only rational I can find for opposing this bill is if they really do want the option of detaining Americans without due process to remain open,” he said. “You can only oppose this legislation if you accept the idea that the federal government has the authority to do whatever it wants with absolutely no check on its actions – Constitution be damned. If you ask me, that’s a lot scarier than whatever terrorist threat they claim to be protecting me from.”
TAC executive Michael Boldin said he expects other states to soon follow the lead of Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
“We have pretty strong indications that Rhode Island, Utah, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma and other states will be introducing similar legislation soon. This is just a start – and activists all over the country need to contact state legislators right now to voice their support.”
The Tennessee legislature will consider HB1629 and SB2669 in the 2012 session. The legislation would effectively nullify the detention provisions in the NDAA and would also require federal agents making an arrest in the Volunteer State for any reason to first obtain written permission from the county sheriff.
This bill declares that any federal law purporting to require local or state law enforcement agencies to act at the direction of the federal government or the United States military is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state. This bill further declares that any federal law purporting to give federal agents or employees, including any members of the United States military, the authority of any state or local law enforcement agency of this state, without the express permission of this state, is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution, is not recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and is declared to be invalid in this state.
The act takes aim at indefinite detention provisions in the NDAA. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey called language in the NDAA vague and overbroad, pointing out that Americans should never simply trust in the good intentions and moral clarity of the president or federal judges to protect their rights.
“It falls on the states to step in and protect their citizens,” he said. “I can’t imagine a more clear-cut application of state and local interposition as a check on federal power. What could be a more palpable, deliberate and dangerous unconstitutional act than the federal government indefinitely detaining an American citizen without due process?”
The Tennessee bill also “makes it a Class E felony for any official, agent, or employee of the United States government to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal law, order, rule or regulation that is beyond the authority granted to the federal government pursuant to the United States Constitution,” and includes provisions for kidnapping charges if a federal agent were to detain a U.S. citizen in Tennessee under the NDAA.
Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) and Rep. Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville) sponsor the House version of the bill. Sen. Stacey Campfield (R-Knoxville) sponsors the Senate bill.
The Volunteer state joins Washington and Virginia considering legislation to nullify detention provisions in the NDAA. And local governments have also stepped up, including El Paso and Fremont Counties in Colorado. While some argue the NDAA doesn’t apply to American citizens, Maharrey said that notion should not stop state and local governments from following James Madison’s admonition to interpose and draw a line in the sand.
“If what supporters say is true and the NDAA does not authorize indefinite detention of Americans, what is the harm in this legislation? Why would anybody oppose it? It does nothing but serve notice that state and local officials will not sit back and allow the federal government to exercise unconstitutional powers – powers supporters claim don’t exist anyway. It simply affirms a fence that supposedly already exists.
The only rational I can find for opposing this bill is if they really do want the option of detaining Americans without due process to remain open,” he said. “You can only oppose this legislation if you accept the idea that the federal government has the authority to do whatever it wants with absolutely no check on its actions – Constitution be damned. If you ask me, that’s a lot scarier than whatever terrorist threat they claim to be protecting me from.”
TAC executive Michael Boldin said he expects other states to soon follow the lead of Tennessee, Virginia and Washington.
“We have pretty strong indications that Rhode Island, Utah, Maine, New Jersey, Oklahoma and other states will be introducing similar legislation soon. This is just a start – and activists all over the country need to contact state legislators right now to voice their support.”
Agenda 21 Imposes Will On 9 Million Bay Area Citizens
Did you know that if you oppose Agenda 21 stack & pack housing, the loss of private property rights, and if you think that forcing the population into sequestered high density population centers and limiting your right to travel freely….you must be Tea Party’er. Apparently, this is a bad, bad thing according to some.
Even if you attend and oppose this UN agenda implementation, and are not affiliated with the Tea Party, you must be a rabble rouser of some kind. It couldn’t possibly be that you understand what is actually happening and object.
The biggest problem the public faces in these rigged meetings, is that the meetings are ADD meetings. Already Done Deals.
Each of these meetings is filled with Agenda 21 supporters who shill for the meeting leaders. You aren’t supposed to know that the “public” sector of these meetings is chock full of these shills in an effort to try and make it appear that the public overwhelmingly supports the efforts to establish ONE BAY AREA…a new United Nations region.
In what has to be the largest series of public meetings in various towns and counties in California, residents are again Delphi’d as they are divided into groups headed by facilitators of Delphi control techniques and herded into “stations”. “Stations” is the new buzzword for breaking the public group into smaller more manageable groups sequestered in individual rooms. This makes the job of the facilitator in steering the group towards predetermined “solutions” while at the same time convincing the group that it was their idea, far easier.
Transportation is one of the pivotal points in establishing stack & pack housing under UN Agenda 21 and limiting freedom to travel is key. About 51:51 minutes into this fiasco, we are treated to the visual aids in the transportation station. Please note in the first video the subliminal graphics at this juncture. The graphic shows two hands: one holding a gas pump and the other a map of the world. Did you get the message?
It gets even more nauseating as these rigged meetings progress.
Every effort is made to intimidate the public including having attendees stalked by police.. Time limits on speaking to make sure no one gets to say too much in opposition. Forcing those who wish to speak to sign up…….they want these people identified.
The transportation commission has unilaterally made the decision to move ahead with ONE BAY AREA affecting 9 million people.
Lots more videos on above link
Even if you attend and oppose this UN agenda implementation, and are not affiliated with the Tea Party, you must be a rabble rouser of some kind. It couldn’t possibly be that you understand what is actually happening and object.
The biggest problem the public faces in these rigged meetings, is that the meetings are ADD meetings. Already Done Deals.
Each of these meetings is filled with Agenda 21 supporters who shill for the meeting leaders. You aren’t supposed to know that the “public” sector of these meetings is chock full of these shills in an effort to try and make it appear that the public overwhelmingly supports the efforts to establish ONE BAY AREA…a new United Nations region.
In what has to be the largest series of public meetings in various towns and counties in California, residents are again Delphi’d as they are divided into groups headed by facilitators of Delphi control techniques and herded into “stations”. “Stations” is the new buzzword for breaking the public group into smaller more manageable groups sequestered in individual rooms. This makes the job of the facilitator in steering the group towards predetermined “solutions” while at the same time convincing the group that it was their idea, far easier.
Transportation is one of the pivotal points in establishing stack & pack housing under UN Agenda 21 and limiting freedom to travel is key. About 51:51 minutes into this fiasco, we are treated to the visual aids in the transportation station. Please note in the first video the subliminal graphics at this juncture. The graphic shows two hands: one holding a gas pump and the other a map of the world. Did you get the message?
It gets even more nauseating as these rigged meetings progress.
Every effort is made to intimidate the public including having attendees stalked by police.. Time limits on speaking to make sure no one gets to say too much in opposition. Forcing those who wish to speak to sign up…….they want these people identified.
The transportation commission has unilaterally made the decision to move ahead with ONE BAY AREA affecting 9 million people.
Lots more videos on above link
Industrial, Subsidized Ag Gearing Up For Huge Sowing
The U.S. farmers plan to sow the largest area since 1984, with seeds of Corn, Soybeans and Wheat. The farmers of U.S. will seed the most area in a production this year, led by the biggest corn crop since World War II in 1984.
It seems like the U.S. farmers are taking advantage of the highest agricultural prices in at least four decades. Well, it’s nothing but a mild and dry winter that has raised expectations for a quick planting.
The seeds of Corn, Soybeans and Wheat will be sowed across 226.9 million acres, like mentioned earlier, the most since 1984. A survey of a manufacturing magazine showed that farmers were gearing up to plant 94.2 million acres, which could produce a record crop of 13.8 billion stacks based on a inclination yield of 161.4 bushels per acre. It would surpass the previous record of 13.1 billion in 2009.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that crop prices strengthened the economies of Midwest growing states, some of which reached the highest averages ever in 2011, and sent net farm income up 28 percent to $100.9 billion, pushing the value of farmland to a record $2,350 an acre. Global food costs, as per the daily news updates, are down 11 percent from a peak a year ago as grain output rises from China to Canada, United Nations data show.
The ‘bigger harvest’ forecast
U.S. has been the world’s largest exporter of Corn, Soybeans and Wheat. This year’s bigger harvest in the U.S. will help balance for shortages in the current crop year. Famine damage in Brazil and Argentina will most likely encourage the USDA to cut its global and U.S. grain-supply forecasts for the current season, as reported in a business magazine.
The Corn grown by the U.S. farmers, used to feed the livestock and make ethanol, is up by 2.6 percent from last year and the most since 1944. Soybean fields may grow 0.4 percent to 75.309 million acres, the fifth-most ever.
Trading commission of the USDA
The USDA affirmed its forecast for moderating food costs last month. Prices will increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent in 2012, below last year’s 3.7 percent gain. Return to normal weather in 2012 would mean more production from last year’s lost acres. The government also has reduced the amount of land it pays farmers to leave fallow by 4.7 percent, adding 1.47 million acres that weren’t available in 2011, USDA data show. Rising incomes allowed farmers to buy more land and the extra seed, crop chemicals and equipment needed.
The ‘bigger harvest’ would boost employment needs
Unemployment in Midwest states was 7.9 percent in December, tied with the Northeast as the healthiest job region. North Dakota, Nebraska and South Dakota were the only states with unemployment under 5 percent. The national rate fell to 8.3 percent in January from 8.5 percent in December.
Corn will lead the planting surge because it is the most profitable row crop. U.S. mandates for alternative fuels have led to an increased use of the grain to make ethanol, and rising worldwide incomes are boosting meat consumption, increasing requirements for livestock feed. Global production of beef, veal, pork, chicken and turkey will reach almost a quarter of a billion metric tons this year, 62 percent more than two decades ago, the USDA estimates.
Wagler, who plans to sow 85 percent of his family’s land said, “Farmers have the capital to plant a big corn crop this year. We can make more money raising corn than soybeans.”
Industries that would benefit from the ‘bigger harvest’
Don Roose, the president of U.S. Commodities Inc. in West Des Moines, Iowa, who has been advising farmers and grain elevators since 1979 said, “Grain farming has been one of few profitable industries for the past three years, and there will be a tendency for farmers around the world to maximize acreage. We have the potential to grow record world crops this year that can swamp demand.”
NOTE: Corn, Soybean are heavily subsidized and 93$ +/- GMO crops used in junk food. GMO wheat trials are underway. This is NOT good news
It seems like the U.S. farmers are taking advantage of the highest agricultural prices in at least four decades. Well, it’s nothing but a mild and dry winter that has raised expectations for a quick planting.
The seeds of Corn, Soybeans and Wheat will be sowed across 226.9 million acres, like mentioned earlier, the most since 1984. A survey of a manufacturing magazine showed that farmers were gearing up to plant 94.2 million acres, which could produce a record crop of 13.8 billion stacks based on a inclination yield of 161.4 bushels per acre. It would surpass the previous record of 13.1 billion in 2009.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that crop prices strengthened the economies of Midwest growing states, some of which reached the highest averages ever in 2011, and sent net farm income up 28 percent to $100.9 billion, pushing the value of farmland to a record $2,350 an acre. Global food costs, as per the daily news updates, are down 11 percent from a peak a year ago as grain output rises from China to Canada, United Nations data show.
The ‘bigger harvest’ forecast
U.S. has been the world’s largest exporter of Corn, Soybeans and Wheat. This year’s bigger harvest in the U.S. will help balance for shortages in the current crop year. Famine damage in Brazil and Argentina will most likely encourage the USDA to cut its global and U.S. grain-supply forecasts for the current season, as reported in a business magazine.
The Corn grown by the U.S. farmers, used to feed the livestock and make ethanol, is up by 2.6 percent from last year and the most since 1944. Soybean fields may grow 0.4 percent to 75.309 million acres, the fifth-most ever.
Trading commission of the USDA
The USDA affirmed its forecast for moderating food costs last month. Prices will increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent in 2012, below last year’s 3.7 percent gain. Return to normal weather in 2012 would mean more production from last year’s lost acres. The government also has reduced the amount of land it pays farmers to leave fallow by 4.7 percent, adding 1.47 million acres that weren’t available in 2011, USDA data show. Rising incomes allowed farmers to buy more land and the extra seed, crop chemicals and equipment needed.
The ‘bigger harvest’ would boost employment needs
Unemployment in Midwest states was 7.9 percent in December, tied with the Northeast as the healthiest job region. North Dakota, Nebraska and South Dakota were the only states with unemployment under 5 percent. The national rate fell to 8.3 percent in January from 8.5 percent in December.
Corn will lead the planting surge because it is the most profitable row crop. U.S. mandates for alternative fuels have led to an increased use of the grain to make ethanol, and rising worldwide incomes are boosting meat consumption, increasing requirements for livestock feed. Global production of beef, veal, pork, chicken and turkey will reach almost a quarter of a billion metric tons this year, 62 percent more than two decades ago, the USDA estimates.
Wagler, who plans to sow 85 percent of his family’s land said, “Farmers have the capital to plant a big corn crop this year. We can make more money raising corn than soybeans.”
Industries that would benefit from the ‘bigger harvest’
Don Roose, the president of U.S. Commodities Inc. in West Des Moines, Iowa, who has been advising farmers and grain elevators since 1979 said, “Grain farming has been one of few profitable industries for the past three years, and there will be a tendency for farmers around the world to maximize acreage. We have the potential to grow record world crops this year that can swamp demand.”
NOTE: Corn, Soybean are heavily subsidized and 93$ +/- GMO crops used in junk food. GMO wheat trials are underway. This is NOT good news
FBI Says Americans Are A Threat To Americans
Following the pattern of other provocative statements about potential domestic terrorist threats from the Obama Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has issued a statement exposing the threat of "hundreds of thousands" of "sovereign citizens" who can turn violent "at the drop of a hat" during encounters with the police.
Citing three specific cases in three years and a trend of an increase in arrests of believers in individual sovereignty from 10 to 18 cases per year, mostly for non-violent crimes, the FBI declared law enforcement to be "inundated" with threats.
This may be the most exaggerated and offensive example of specious fearmongering to come out of an administration which has been promoting irrational fear of generally harmless groups of citizens for three years. The FBI is taking aim at a huge body of citizens who are increasingly angry about government abuse of power and irresponsibility and attempting to turn them into a movement of dangerous potential terrorists.
These dangerous "extremists" hold such horrific views as "outrage at tax collection," defying environmental regulations and believing that "the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard." The FBI is identifying them as "sovereign citizens" and is defining them as a members of a movement, though they provide no evidence of organized or coordinated activity beyond just being angry with the government, a characteristic shared by about half the nation's population.
I would say that the concerns over this threat were excessive, but that's giving the FBI too much credit. Ridiculous is a more appropriate description. Statistically a three year increase from 10 to 18 cases of mostly non violent crimes associated with anti-government activists isn't a crimewave. It's not even large enough to qualify as a validly quantifiable trend. Given the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed yearly it's far below the margin of error for crime statistics.
The FBI claims that they are "being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters." This supposed demand for a response to a nonexistent threat probably would not be there at all had the FBI not been promoting the idea that average citizens are potential domestic terrorists for years. The FBI is creating bogeymen to justify their own actions and to distract from the government's increasingly callous disregard for the rights of citizens.
Citing three specific cases in three years and a trend of an increase in arrests of believers in individual sovereignty from 10 to 18 cases per year, mostly for non-violent crimes, the FBI declared law enforcement to be "inundated" with threats.
This may be the most exaggerated and offensive example of specious fearmongering to come out of an administration which has been promoting irrational fear of generally harmless groups of citizens for three years. The FBI is taking aim at a huge body of citizens who are increasingly angry about government abuse of power and irresponsibility and attempting to turn them into a movement of dangerous potential terrorists.
These dangerous "extremists" hold such horrific views as "outrage at tax collection," defying environmental regulations and believing that "the United States went bankrupt by going off the gold standard." The FBI is identifying them as "sovereign citizens" and is defining them as a members of a movement, though they provide no evidence of organized or coordinated activity beyond just being angry with the government, a characteristic shared by about half the nation's population.
I would say that the concerns over this threat were excessive, but that's giving the FBI too much credit. Ridiculous is a more appropriate description. Statistically a three year increase from 10 to 18 cases of mostly non violent crimes associated with anti-government activists isn't a crimewave. It's not even large enough to qualify as a validly quantifiable trend. Given the hundreds of thousands of crimes committed yearly it's far below the margin of error for crime statistics.
The FBI claims that they are "being inundated right now with requests for training from state and local law enforcement on sovereign-related matters." This supposed demand for a response to a nonexistent threat probably would not be there at all had the FBI not been promoting the idea that average citizens are potential domestic terrorists for years. The FBI is creating bogeymen to justify their own actions and to distract from the government's increasingly callous disregard for the rights of citizens.
Political Prisoners In North America
'The legal systems of Canada and the U.S. make no separate recognition of "political prisoners." This encourages police malfeasance and a bending of the legal system to cope with political protest in the same manner as crimes of self-interest. Confused by the difference, society prefers to sort its members into "good" and "bad".
As totalitarian controls by government increase, more people will probably assert their humanity and the numbers of political prisoners will grow, but in the process criminalize entire groups of people who have strong convictions, integrity, loyalty to community, and care deeply about what happens to their country, society, humanity.'
As totalitarian controls by government increase, more people will probably assert their humanity and the numbers of political prisoners will grow, but in the process criminalize entire groups of people who have strong convictions, integrity, loyalty to community, and care deeply about what happens to their country, society, humanity.'
7th Grader Suspended For Speaking Native Language
'Racism can be experienced at any age. Just ask seventh grader Miranda Washinawatok (left) who was recently suspended from her basketball team for a game. The reason? She spoke her native language of Menominee to another student.
Miranda attends Sacred Heart Catholic Academy in Shawano, Wisconsin, which is situated about six miles from the south border of the Menominee Indian Tribe Reservations. With a student body that is over 60% American Indian one could reason that this would be a school that would both welcome and encourage its diversity.
Instead it’s shown quite the opposite, with such bigotry being displayed to a bilingual seventh grader who was simply teaching another student how to say “hello” and “I love you” in a language other than English.'
Miranda attends Sacred Heart Catholic Academy in Shawano, Wisconsin, which is situated about six miles from the south border of the Menominee Indian Tribe Reservations. With a student body that is over 60% American Indian one could reason that this would be a school that would both welcome and encourage its diversity.
Instead it’s shown quite the opposite, with such bigotry being displayed to a bilingual seventh grader who was simply teaching another student how to say “hello” and “I love you” in a language other than English.'
FBI Says Cash Paying Coffee Drinkers Could Be Terrorists
Purchasing a cup of coffee using cash instead of a credit or debit card, using Google Maps to view photos of sporting event stadiums and large cities, and installing software to protect your internet privacy on your mobile phone -- these and many other mundane activities are now considered to be potential terrorist activities by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). And the agency is now distributing a new series of flyers as part of its new "Communities Against Terrorism" (CAT) program that urges shop owners and others to report such "suspicious" activity to authorities.'
As I said, if you breath, then that has now become a suspicious activity.
As I said, if you breath, then that has now become a suspicious activity.
Is Yesterday's Conspiracy Theorist Is Today's Terrorist?
'Glenn Greenwald points out that U.S. government officials are twisting reality again, but this time in a very bizarre and blatant manner, in his latest article, "Top official: drone critics are Al Qaeda enablers." Greenwald writes:
"The New York Times‘ Scott Shane reported this morning on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism study I wrote about yesterday, detailing that the U.S. drone program, as the NYT put it, “repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals.” Shane’s article contains this paragraph:
A senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”'
"The New York Times‘ Scott Shane reported this morning on the Bureau of Investigative Journalism study I wrote about yesterday, detailing that the U.S. drone program, as the NYT put it, “repeatedly targeted rescuers who responded to the scene of a strike, as well as mourners at subsequent funerals.” Shane’s article contains this paragraph:
A senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, questioned the report’s findings, saying “targeting decisions are the product of intensive intelligence collection and observation.” The official added: “One must wonder why an effort that has so carefully gone after terrorists who plot to kill civilians has been subjected to so much misinformation. Let’s be under no illusions — there are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”'
Catholics Are To Obey?
'The nation’s considerable Catholic population is stunned at the dramatic over-reach exhibited by the Obama administration in its declaration that Catholics are to ignore religious conviction and First Amendment rights in favor of governmental authority.'
Drastic Global Cooling Video
Hey you – Meteorologists on TV – You’d better toe the global warming line on global warming … Or else.
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi talks about the triple crown of cooling.
The change in the Pacific Ocean cycles,
the change in the solar cycles,
and the wild card – the volcanic cycles.
“The global warming issue is being used to handcuff the economy,” says Bastardi.
“We are going into a period of global cooling, and it could be drastic cooling.”
Meteorologist Joe Bastardi talks about the triple crown of cooling.
The change in the Pacific Ocean cycles,
the change in the solar cycles,
and the wild card – the volcanic cycles.
“The global warming issue is being used to handcuff the economy,” says Bastardi.
“We are going into a period of global cooling, and it could be drastic cooling.”
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Industrial Wind Turbines Damage Environment
They have long been championed as a way to combat global warming by creating clean energy.
But wind farms can actually alter the climate according to a new study by a group of American scientists.
The team from the University of Illinois found that daytime temperatures around wind farms can fall by as much as 4C, while at night temperatures can increase.
The study found that currently the effect is restricted to areas near to the turbines, but the increase in larger farms could create weather changes on a regional scale.
The study was led by Somnath Roy, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at the university, with the San Gorgonio wind farm in California the focal point of his research.
He found that the day ground temperature behind turbines was up to 4C lower than in front.
He suggested that the turbines' blades scoop warm from the ground and push the cooler air downwards. This is then reversed at night.
Research: Somnath Roy of the University of Illinois conducted the study into climate around wind farms
Research: Somnath Roy of the University of Illinois conducted the study into climate around wind farms
Roy, whose findings were published in the Sunday Times, added that he believes the turbines causing turbulence and reducing winds speed are the cause.
He also added that the churning of air from low to high can create vortices that could extend the phenomenon for large distances downwind.
Roy's research is supported by a study undertaken by the Iowa State University, who looked at how a 100-turbine farm would affect conditions on farmland.
They found that temperatures on the ground were warmer at night, which in turn allowed plants to breathe more.
While scientists in the United States have conducted research into the effects of wind farms on climate, such research in the UK is at an early stage.
NOT clean, NOT green, NOT cheap!
But wind farms can actually alter the climate according to a new study by a group of American scientists.
The team from the University of Illinois found that daytime temperatures around wind farms can fall by as much as 4C, while at night temperatures can increase.
The study found that currently the effect is restricted to areas near to the turbines, but the increase in larger farms could create weather changes on a regional scale.
The study was led by Somnath Roy, assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at the university, with the San Gorgonio wind farm in California the focal point of his research.
He found that the day ground temperature behind turbines was up to 4C lower than in front.
He suggested that the turbines' blades scoop warm from the ground and push the cooler air downwards. This is then reversed at night.
Research: Somnath Roy of the University of Illinois conducted the study into climate around wind farms
Research: Somnath Roy of the University of Illinois conducted the study into climate around wind farms
Roy, whose findings were published in the Sunday Times, added that he believes the turbines causing turbulence and reducing winds speed are the cause.
He also added that the churning of air from low to high can create vortices that could extend the phenomenon for large distances downwind.
Roy's research is supported by a study undertaken by the Iowa State University, who looked at how a 100-turbine farm would affect conditions on farmland.
They found that temperatures on the ground were warmer at night, which in turn allowed plants to breathe more.
While scientists in the United States have conducted research into the effects of wind farms on climate, such research in the UK is at an early stage.
NOT clean, NOT green, NOT cheap!
1st Responders Cancer Rates Triple
Of the 12,000 who attended the scene of the atrocity at the World Trade Center 10 years ago, 297 have been diagnosed with cancer, almost triple the incidence before the attack.
A report said that 56 who have been diagnosed had since died.
Residents of lower Manhattan have long claimed that the dust and ash clouds triggered by the long-burning fires at the site of the twin towers were toxic.
Figures released by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) appear to bear out the theory, with cancer rates among NYPD officers who attended the disaster running at 16 a year compared to six before the attacks. The average age they were forced to leave the force due to their ill-health was 44.
Lung cancer was the most common form of the disease among officers, although there were more rare varieties including cancers of the bile duct, tongue and nasal passages.
The figures are likely to fuel campaigners who want to include cancers on the list of ailments which qualify Ground Zero workers for compensation.
Under the Zadroga Act, named for Detective James Zadroga who died of a respiratory disease after taking part in the recovery operation, sick 9/11 workers are entitled to health screening and financial benefits.
New York's City Hall has always refused to release cancer rates among the NYPD, saying that the information was private.
The office of Mayor Bloomberg turned down a request for the data from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, which is carrying out a study into whether material released at Ground Zero was cancerous.
Frank Tramontao, research director at the PBA, said: "It is our sincere opinion that the City of New York has done nothing to facilitate any cancer study and has been actively working to prevent a comprehensive examination of the issue."
Retired NYPD Officer Edwin Rivera, 55, is one of those who blames his cancer on breathing in dust at Ground Zero.
He told the New York Post: "We sat in the pile and ate, drank water, rested - there was nowhere to go that wasn't contaminated. I have cancer that I should never have gotten."
A report said that 56 who have been diagnosed had since died.
Residents of lower Manhattan have long claimed that the dust and ash clouds triggered by the long-burning fires at the site of the twin towers were toxic.
Figures released by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association (PBA) appear to bear out the theory, with cancer rates among NYPD officers who attended the disaster running at 16 a year compared to six before the attacks. The average age they were forced to leave the force due to their ill-health was 44.
Lung cancer was the most common form of the disease among officers, although there were more rare varieties including cancers of the bile duct, tongue and nasal passages.
The figures are likely to fuel campaigners who want to include cancers on the list of ailments which qualify Ground Zero workers for compensation.
Under the Zadroga Act, named for Detective James Zadroga who died of a respiratory disease after taking part in the recovery operation, sick 9/11 workers are entitled to health screening and financial benefits.
New York's City Hall has always refused to release cancer rates among the NYPD, saying that the information was private.
The office of Mayor Bloomberg turned down a request for the data from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, which is carrying out a study into whether material released at Ground Zero was cancerous.
Frank Tramontao, research director at the PBA, said: "It is our sincere opinion that the City of New York has done nothing to facilitate any cancer study and has been actively working to prevent a comprehensive examination of the issue."
Retired NYPD Officer Edwin Rivera, 55, is one of those who blames his cancer on breathing in dust at Ground Zero.
He told the New York Post: "We sat in the pile and ate, drank water, rested - there was nowhere to go that wasn't contaminated. I have cancer that I should never have gotten."
Gates Backs GeoEngineering
Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climateA small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.
Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.
Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.
Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.
"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.
"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."
Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.
As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.
According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.
According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.
The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.
Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering and, according to a financial statement he gave the Royal Society, also works for Intellectual Ventures. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.
Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.
"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.
"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."
"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."
"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.
"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.".
Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."
Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climateA small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.
The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a "plan B" for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.
Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth's climate.
Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.
Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.
"We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property," said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.
"The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. "The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre."
Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.
As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.
Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.
According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.
Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.
According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.
The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.
Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering and, according to a financial statement he gave the Royal Society, also works for Intellectual Ventures. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.
Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.
"There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate," said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.
"What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop."
"The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering," said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.
The scientists involved reject this notion. "Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were," said Keith. "It's changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate."
"Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting," said Caldeira. "Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.
"Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.".
Rasch added: "I don't feel there is any conflict of interest. I don't lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I."
Hanford Soil HOT, Few Minutes Exposure Means Death
Hanford officials have settled on a plan to clean up what may be the most highly radioactive spill at the nuclear reservation.
It depends on calling back into service the 47-year-old, oversized hot cell where the spill occurred to protect workers from the radioactive cesium and strontium that leaked through the hot cell to the soil below.
Radioactivity in the contaminated soil, which is about 1,000 feet from the Columbia River, has been measured at 8,900 rad per hour [89 sieverts per hour]. Direct exposure for a few minutes would be fatal, according to Washington Closure. [...]
In the 1980s, cesium and strontium spilled inside the hot cell, according to a 1993 report that referenced the spill. Germany needed a heat source to use for tests of a repository for radioactive waste, which emits heat, and the cesium and strontium were being fabricated into the sources.
“This was concentrated material,” said Mark French, the Department of Energy’s project director for Hanford cleanup along the Columbia River. [...]
It migrated down in a open square shape, with the worst contamination down to five or six feet deep, McBride said. There is not evidence that it has reached the ground water which is about 54 feet below the ground there and about 42 feet below the bottom of the hot cell [...]
It depends on calling back into service the 47-year-old, oversized hot cell where the spill occurred to protect workers from the radioactive cesium and strontium that leaked through the hot cell to the soil below.
Radioactivity in the contaminated soil, which is about 1,000 feet from the Columbia River, has been measured at 8,900 rad per hour [89 sieverts per hour]. Direct exposure for a few minutes would be fatal, according to Washington Closure. [...]
In the 1980s, cesium and strontium spilled inside the hot cell, according to a 1993 report that referenced the spill. Germany needed a heat source to use for tests of a repository for radioactive waste, which emits heat, and the cesium and strontium were being fabricated into the sources.
“This was concentrated material,” said Mark French, the Department of Energy’s project director for Hanford cleanup along the Columbia River. [...]
It migrated down in a open square shape, with the worst contamination down to five or six feet deep, McBride said. There is not evidence that it has reached the ground water which is about 54 feet below the ground there and about 42 feet below the bottom of the hot cell [...]
Russia Will Defend Iran & Syria
Russia believes that Syria and Iran are in its national interest and is apparently ready to use military force to defend them:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)