S.510 passes: The Senate effectively declares itself an agent of foreign principals
November 30, 2010 by ppjg
Marti Oakley (c)copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved
......."Section 404 of the bill, forces the subjugation of the citizens of the States to unlawful trade agreements, international organization demands, and will reduce operating standards across the board for bio-piracy corporations in order to maximize their profits and to end as much competition in those markets as possible. These unlawful agreements and the mandates from such odious organizations as the World trade Organization, Codex Alimentarius committees, and other foreign principals have unlawfully usurped US laws and sovereignty, forfeiting our right to self determination and governance.
The bill, which expands a notoriously dysfunctional and incompetent agency, the FDA, is also intended to abrogate the rights of the citizens. The multiple constitutional violations in the bill went by unnoticed by members of the Senate; probably because the majority of them never even read the bill and had no idea what was in it. These violations of rights also seemed to by pass the mental faculties of several high profile front groups and individuals."
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Today, the FNB has failed millions...
3:00 PM PST November 30, 2010
After 13 year of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), today recommended that a three-pound premature infant take virtually the same amount of vitamin D as a 300 pound pregnant woman. While that 400 IU/day dose is close to adequate for infants, 600 IU/day in pregnant women will do nothing to help the three childhood epidemics most closely associated with gestational and early childhood vitamin D deficiencies: asthma, auto-immune disorders, and, as recently reported in the largest pediatric journal in the world, autism. Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina has shown pregnant and lactating women need at least 5,000 IU/day, not 600.
The FNB also reported that vitamin D toxicity might occur at an intake of 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms/day), although they could produce no reproducible evidence that 10,000 IU/day has ever caused toxicity in humans and only one poorly conducted study indicating 20,000 IU/day may cause mild elevations in serum calcium, but not clinical toxicity.
Viewed with different measure, this FNB report recommends that an infant should take 10 micrograms/day (400 IU) and a pregnant woman 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single, 30 minute dose of summer sunshine gives adults more than 10,000 IU (250 micrograms), the FNB is apparently also warning that natural vitamin D input - as occurred from the sun before the widespread use of sunscreen - is dangerous. That is, the FNB is implying that God does not know what she is doing.
Disturbingly, this FNB committee focused on bone health, just like they did 14 years ago. They ignored the thousands of studies from the last ten years that showed higher doses of vitamin D helps: heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health. Tens of millions of pregnant women and their breast-feeding infants are severely vitamin D deficient, resulting in a great increase in the medieval disease, rickets. The FNB report seems to reason that if so many pregnant women have low vitamin D blood levels then it must be OK because such low levels are so common. However, such circular logic simply represents the cave man existence (never exposed to the light of the sun) of most modern-day pregnant women.
Hence, if you want to optimize your vitamin D levels - not just optimize the bone effect - supplementing is crucial. But it is almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin D levels when supplementing at only 600 IU/day (15 micrograms). Pregnant women taking 400 IU/day have the same blood levels as pregnant women not taking vitamin D; that is, 400 IU is a meaninglessly small dose for pregnant women. Even taking 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D will only increase the vitamin D levels of most pregnant women by about 10 points, depending mainly on their weight. Professor Bruce Hollis has shown that 2,000 IU/day does not raise vitamin D to healthy or natural levels in either pregnant or lactating women. Therefore supplementing with higher amounts - like 5000 IU/day - is crucial for those women who want their fetus to enjoy optimal vitamin D levels, and the future health benefits that go along with it.
For example, taking only two of the hundreds of recently published studies: Professor Urashima and colleagues in Japan, gave 1,200 IU/day of vitamin D3 for six months to Japanese 10-year-olds in a randomized controlled trial. They found vitamin D dramatically reduced the incidence of influenza A as well as the episodes of asthma attacks in the treated kids while the placebo group was not so fortunate. If Dr. Urashima had followed the newest FNB recommendations, it is unlikely that 400 IU/day treatment arm would have done much of anything and some of the treated young teenagers may have come to serious harm without the vitamin D. Likewise, a randomized controlled prevention trial of adults by Professor Joan Lappe and colleagues at Creighton University, which showed dramatic improvements in the health of internal organs, used more than twice the FNB's new adult recommendations.
Finally, the FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin D experts and – after reading these 14 different reports – the FNB decided to suppress their reports. Many of these 14 consultants are either famous vitamin D researchers, like Professor Robert Heaney at Creighton or, as in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So, the FNB will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report? Why not?
Today, the Vitamin D Council directed our attorney to file a federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM's FNB for the release of these 14 reports.
Most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter (not to mention myself), have been taking 5,000 IU/day for up to eight years. Not only have they reported no significant side-effects, indeed, they have reported greatly improved health in multiple organ systems. My advice, especially for pregnant women: continue taking 5,000 IU/day until your 25(OH)D is between 50-80 ng/mL (the vitamin D blood levels obtained by humans who live and work in the sun and the mid-point of the current reference ranges at all American laboratories). Gestational vitamin D deficiency is not only associated with rickets, but a significantly increased risk of neonatal pneumonia, a doubled risk for preeclampsia, a tripled risk for gestational diabetes, and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section.
Today, the FNB has failed millions of pregnant women whose as yet unborn babies will pay the price. Let us hope the FNB will comply with the spirit of "transparency" by quickly responding to our Freedom of Information requests.
John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
1241 Johnson Avenue, #134
3:00 PM PST November 30, 2010
After 13 year of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), today recommended that a three-pound premature infant take virtually the same amount of vitamin D as a 300 pound pregnant woman. While that 400 IU/day dose is close to adequate for infants, 600 IU/day in pregnant women will do nothing to help the three childhood epidemics most closely associated with gestational and early childhood vitamin D deficiencies: asthma, auto-immune disorders, and, as recently reported in the largest pediatric journal in the world, autism. Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina has shown pregnant and lactating women need at least 5,000 IU/day, not 600.
The FNB also reported that vitamin D toxicity might occur at an intake of 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms/day), although they could produce no reproducible evidence that 10,000 IU/day has ever caused toxicity in humans and only one poorly conducted study indicating 20,000 IU/day may cause mild elevations in serum calcium, but not clinical toxicity.
Viewed with different measure, this FNB report recommends that an infant should take 10 micrograms/day (400 IU) and a pregnant woman 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single, 30 minute dose of summer sunshine gives adults more than 10,000 IU (250 micrograms), the FNB is apparently also warning that natural vitamin D input - as occurred from the sun before the widespread use of sunscreen - is dangerous. That is, the FNB is implying that God does not know what she is doing.
Disturbingly, this FNB committee focused on bone health, just like they did 14 years ago. They ignored the thousands of studies from the last ten years that showed higher doses of vitamin D helps: heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health. Tens of millions of pregnant women and their breast-feeding infants are severely vitamin D deficient, resulting in a great increase in the medieval disease, rickets. The FNB report seems to reason that if so many pregnant women have low vitamin D blood levels then it must be OK because such low levels are so common. However, such circular logic simply represents the cave man existence (never exposed to the light of the sun) of most modern-day pregnant women.
Hence, if you want to optimize your vitamin D levels - not just optimize the bone effect - supplementing is crucial. But it is almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin D levels when supplementing at only 600 IU/day (15 micrograms). Pregnant women taking 400 IU/day have the same blood levels as pregnant women not taking vitamin D; that is, 400 IU is a meaninglessly small dose for pregnant women. Even taking 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D will only increase the vitamin D levels of most pregnant women by about 10 points, depending mainly on their weight. Professor Bruce Hollis has shown that 2,000 IU/day does not raise vitamin D to healthy or natural levels in either pregnant or lactating women. Therefore supplementing with higher amounts - like 5000 IU/day - is crucial for those women who want their fetus to enjoy optimal vitamin D levels, and the future health benefits that go along with it.
For example, taking only two of the hundreds of recently published studies: Professor Urashima and colleagues in Japan, gave 1,200 IU/day of vitamin D3 for six months to Japanese 10-year-olds in a randomized controlled trial. They found vitamin D dramatically reduced the incidence of influenza A as well as the episodes of asthma attacks in the treated kids while the placebo group was not so fortunate. If Dr. Urashima had followed the newest FNB recommendations, it is unlikely that 400 IU/day treatment arm would have done much of anything and some of the treated young teenagers may have come to serious harm without the vitamin D. Likewise, a randomized controlled prevention trial of adults by Professor Joan Lappe and colleagues at Creighton University, which showed dramatic improvements in the health of internal organs, used more than twice the FNB's new adult recommendations.
Finally, the FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin D experts and – after reading these 14 different reports – the FNB decided to suppress their reports. Many of these 14 consultants are either famous vitamin D researchers, like Professor Robert Heaney at Creighton or, as in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So, the FNB will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report? Why not?
Today, the Vitamin D Council directed our attorney to file a federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM's FNB for the release of these 14 reports.
Most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter (not to mention myself), have been taking 5,000 IU/day for up to eight years. Not only have they reported no significant side-effects, indeed, they have reported greatly improved health in multiple organ systems. My advice, especially for pregnant women: continue taking 5,000 IU/day until your 25(OH)D is between 50-80 ng/mL (the vitamin D blood levels obtained by humans who live and work in the sun and the mid-point of the current reference ranges at all American laboratories). Gestational vitamin D deficiency is not only associated with rickets, but a significantly increased risk of neonatal pneumonia, a doubled risk for preeclampsia, a tripled risk for gestational diabetes, and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section.
Today, the FNB has failed millions of pregnant women whose as yet unborn babies will pay the price. Let us hope the FNB will comply with the spirit of "transparency" by quickly responding to our Freedom of Information requests.
John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
1241 Johnson Avenue, #134
So How Do I Keep Fleas Away from My Pet?
So How Do I Keep Fleas Away from My Pet?
Fleas, ticks and other parasites look for unhealthy animals first. One of the most important things you can do to make your dog or cat unattractive to bugs is to bring her to a state of optimal health.
A high quality, species-appropriate diet is the foundation upon which your pet’s good health and long life must be built.
In addition, you now have a safe, natural alternative to chemical pest preventives – Natural Flea and Tick Defense. I’m extremely excited to finally be able to make this wonderful product available to readers here at Mercola Healthy Pets. It’s been a long time coming, but I think you’ll agree it was worth the wait. For more information, view my recent video to learn just how special and effective this product is for dogs and cats.
A few other things you might also consider:
•Cedar oil is a long-recognized flea eradicator, and products exist that are specially formulated for cats and dogs.
•Natural, food-grade diatomaceous earth helps to remove fleas and ticks from your pet’s body. Never apply the powder to the face where contact with pets’ eyes could happen.
•Fresh garlic can be given to dogs and cats to prevent internal as well as external parasites. Work with your holistic vet to determine a safe amount for your pet’s body weight.
Guidance for Anyone Still Using Chemical Pest Repellents on Pets
If for some reason you find yourself in a situation where you simply can’t avoid using a chemical pest preventive, please do your beloved dog or cat a huge favor and follow these tips to reduce the toxic risks to your pet …
1.Be very careful to follow dosing directions on the label, and if your pet is at the low end of a dosage range, step down to the next lowest dosage. Be extremely cautious with small dogs, especially if you own one of the breeds reported to be at high risk for adverse reactions. And do not under any circumstances apply dog product to your cat.
2.Don’t depend exclusively on chemical treatments. Rotate natural preventives with chemical ones. An every other month rotation works well for many pet owners. In many parts of the country owners find they can successfully control ticks with two doses a year: one in the spring and one in the late summer.
3.Monitor your pet for adverse reactions after you apply a chemical product – especially when using one for the first time.
4.Since your pet’s liver will be tasked with processing the chemicals that make it into the bloodstream, it can be very beneficial to give your dog or cat a supplement to help detoxify her liver. I recommend milk thistle, which is a detox agent and also helps to actually regenerate liver cells.
5.Another product I recommend is chlorella, a super green food that is a very powerful detox agent. Your holistic vet can advise you about how much milk thistle and chlorella to give your pet, when, and for how long.
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2010/11/30/harmful-chemicals-in-flea-collars-and-sprays.aspx?aid=CD945
Fleas, ticks and other parasites look for unhealthy animals first. One of the most important things you can do to make your dog or cat unattractive to bugs is to bring her to a state of optimal health.
A high quality, species-appropriate diet is the foundation upon which your pet’s good health and long life must be built.
In addition, you now have a safe, natural alternative to chemical pest preventives – Natural Flea and Tick Defense. I’m extremely excited to finally be able to make this wonderful product available to readers here at Mercola Healthy Pets. It’s been a long time coming, but I think you’ll agree it was worth the wait. For more information, view my recent video to learn just how special and effective this product is for dogs and cats.
A few other things you might also consider:
•Cedar oil is a long-recognized flea eradicator, and products exist that are specially formulated for cats and dogs.
•Natural, food-grade diatomaceous earth helps to remove fleas and ticks from your pet’s body. Never apply the powder to the face where contact with pets’ eyes could happen.
•Fresh garlic can be given to dogs and cats to prevent internal as well as external parasites. Work with your holistic vet to determine a safe amount for your pet’s body weight.
Guidance for Anyone Still Using Chemical Pest Repellents on Pets
If for some reason you find yourself in a situation where you simply can’t avoid using a chemical pest preventive, please do your beloved dog or cat a huge favor and follow these tips to reduce the toxic risks to your pet …
1.Be very careful to follow dosing directions on the label, and if your pet is at the low end of a dosage range, step down to the next lowest dosage. Be extremely cautious with small dogs, especially if you own one of the breeds reported to be at high risk for adverse reactions. And do not under any circumstances apply dog product to your cat.
2.Don’t depend exclusively on chemical treatments. Rotate natural preventives with chemical ones. An every other month rotation works well for many pet owners. In many parts of the country owners find they can successfully control ticks with two doses a year: one in the spring and one in the late summer.
3.Monitor your pet for adverse reactions after you apply a chemical product – especially when using one for the first time.
4.Since your pet’s liver will be tasked with processing the chemicals that make it into the bloodstream, it can be very beneficial to give your dog or cat a supplement to help detoxify her liver. I recommend milk thistle, which is a detox agent and also helps to actually regenerate liver cells.
5.Another product I recommend is chlorella, a super green food that is a very powerful detox agent. Your holistic vet can advise you about how much milk thistle and chlorella to give your pet, when, and for how long.
http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites/healthypets/archive/2010/11/30/harmful-chemicals-in-flea-collars-and-sprays.aspx?aid=CD945
Fish farms are killing off wild salmon.
Fish farms are killing off wild salmon. Norwegian policies are making farmed seafood unsustainable and unhealthy. Open cage salmon farms, used to raise what is perhaps the most popular type of farmed fish, pose numerous problems for the environment and public health.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Many environmental experts have warned about the unsustainability of fish farms for close to a decade now, but nothing has been done to improve the system. As usual, government agencies and environmental organizations around the world turned a blind eye to what was predicted to become an absolute disaster, and now the ramifications can be seen across the globe.
Fish Farms – One of the Most Unsustainable Food Production Strategies Ever Implemented
Farmed fish is now so common, if you bought fish in the supermarket recently or ordered one in a restaurant, chances are it was farm raised. (About the only places you can find wild-caught fish these days are specialty fine-dining seafood restaurants.)
These oceanic feedlots, consisting of acres of net-covered pens tethered offshore were once considered a wonderful solution to over-fishing, but the reality is far from it.
As mentioned in the video above, it can take up to 5 kilos of wild fish and Antarctic krill to produce just one kilo of farmed salmon!
Rather than solving the problem of over-fishing, fish farms are literally competing with human consumption for what little wild fish thereare left...
Open cage salmon farms are also decimating natural salmon stocks, and destroy the livelihoods of fisheries across the world.
Fish Farms Breed Disease that Decimate Wild Fish around the World
Conditions at fish farms are like conditions at factory farms everywhere: overcrowded, sickly, infected animals are fed whatever it takes to grow them as large as possible in as short a time as possible. But these techniques create disease, and the techniques employed cause otherwise near-non-existent disease to spread past the pens into the wild.
The "answer" is to add antibiotics to the fish feed – the identical "safety" measure employed by cattle- and poultry farms, for example. As a result of the excessive use of antibiotics, resistant strains of disease have emerged that now infect both wild and domesticated fish.
Sea lice, a type of crustacean that is easily incubated by captive fish on farms, have also become a significant problem.
To deal with it, chemicals that have not been tested for safety on other species are now being routinely used in salmon farms – even though no one actually knows what these untested chemicals will do to other crustaceans, such as shrimp, crab and lobster. After all, these pens are in open water and there's no way to control the spread of these chemicals.
The inevitable result of these modern fish farming practices is an evil circle of disease, antibiotic use, followed by the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains.
According to the video above, diseases created by salmon farms have now destroyed the Chilean fishing industry, and affect wild salmon in Canada, as well as sea trout in Ireland and Scotland.
The wild salmon fisheries in the US have also gone bust.
Two years ago, US federal authorities declared that the West Coast ocean salmon had reached a tipping point, and that the fisheries in California, Washington and Oregon had failed due to a sudden collapse of salmon. As a result, both commercial and recreational fishing for salmon was banned for the first time in 160 years.
Farmed Fish Also Pose Additional Human Health Hazards
In addition to being an unsustainable practice and an economic disaster, farm raised fish can also spell disaster for your health.
It's important to understand that ALL farm-raised fish – not just salmon -- are fed a concoction of vitamins, antibiotics, and depending on the fish, synthetic pigments, to make up for the lack of natural flesh coloration due to the altered diet. Without it, the flesh of caged salmon, for example, would be an unappetizing, pale gray.
The fish are also fed pesticides, along with compounds such as toxic copper sulfate, which is frequently used to keep nets free of algae.
Not only do you ingest these drugs and chemicals when you eat the fish, but these toxins also build up in sea-floor sediments. In this way, industrial fish farming raises many of the same environmental concerns about chemicals and pollutants that are associated with feedlot cattle and factory chicken farms.
In addition, fish waste and uneaten feed further litter the sea floor beneath these farms, generating bacteria that consume oxygen vital to shellfish and other bottom-dwelling sea creatures.
Studies have also consistently found levels of PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin, as well as mercury, to be higher in farm-raised fish than wild fish.
This fact alone would be cause to reconsider consuming farmed fish!
Wild caught fish have already reached such toxic levels, it's impossible to recommend eating them with a clear conscience anymore. For example, according to a recent U.S. Geological Survey study, mercury contamination was detected in EVERY fish sampled in nearly 300 streams across the United States!
More than a quarter of these fish contained mercury at levels exceeding the EPA criterion for the protection of human health. Another study on fish from US lakes and reservoirs found that more than half contained excessive levels of mercury -- so much so they were deemed unsafe for children and pregnant women to eat.
So, when you consider the fact that factory farmed fish typically are even MORE toxic than wild caught fish and also contain an assortment of antibiotics and pesticides, avoiding them becomes a no-brainer – at least if you're concerned about your health.
Could Moving Fish Farms Onto Land Solve the Problem?
Some, such as Orri Vigfusson, chairman of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, believe that the answer to the current problems is to relocate the fish farms from the open ocean onto land, where it can be better controlled.
But even though that might help protect the oceans to some degree, it still not solve the problem of exacerbating over-fishing to create fish feed. It also wouldn't solve the problem of the excessive use of antibiotics and other chemicals, which are an integral part of any factory farm setup, whether it's in the ocean or on land.
Besides that, where would the toxic waste get hauled off to? The environmental devastation would still be significant.
What are Your Options?
Sadly, contamination of our oceans and waterways is so great that I don't advise eating ANY fish, whether farm-raised or wild-caught, unless you can verify its purity.
What options do you have, then, to get the health benefits of the omega-3 fats in fish, without exposing yourself to pollutants and excessive amounts of antibiotics, and contributing to the decline of the fish population and destruction of the environment?
These days I recommend you get your omega-3 fat from an alternative source like krill oil. Not only are krill (small, shrimp-like creatures) a superior source of omega-3, but they are one of the most easily renewable food resources available, making them an excellent nutritional source from an environmental perspective.
Though I know many of you enjoy fish for the flavor and the health benefits, if you can't confirm that it's from a clean, sustainable source, I believe the risks from eating it -- both to your health and the environment -- vastly outweigh the benefits. The only source of wild salmon I can personally recommend is from Vital Choice.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Many environmental experts have warned about the unsustainability of fish farms for close to a decade now, but nothing has been done to improve the system. As usual, government agencies and environmental organizations around the world turned a blind eye to what was predicted to become an absolute disaster, and now the ramifications can be seen across the globe.
Fish Farms – One of the Most Unsustainable Food Production Strategies Ever Implemented
Farmed fish is now so common, if you bought fish in the supermarket recently or ordered one in a restaurant, chances are it was farm raised. (About the only places you can find wild-caught fish these days are specialty fine-dining seafood restaurants.)
These oceanic feedlots, consisting of acres of net-covered pens tethered offshore were once considered a wonderful solution to over-fishing, but the reality is far from it.
As mentioned in the video above, it can take up to 5 kilos of wild fish and Antarctic krill to produce just one kilo of farmed salmon!
Rather than solving the problem of over-fishing, fish farms are literally competing with human consumption for what little wild fish thereare left...
Open cage salmon farms are also decimating natural salmon stocks, and destroy the livelihoods of fisheries across the world.
Fish Farms Breed Disease that Decimate Wild Fish around the World
Conditions at fish farms are like conditions at factory farms everywhere: overcrowded, sickly, infected animals are fed whatever it takes to grow them as large as possible in as short a time as possible. But these techniques create disease, and the techniques employed cause otherwise near-non-existent disease to spread past the pens into the wild.
The "answer" is to add antibiotics to the fish feed – the identical "safety" measure employed by cattle- and poultry farms, for example. As a result of the excessive use of antibiotics, resistant strains of disease have emerged that now infect both wild and domesticated fish.
Sea lice, a type of crustacean that is easily incubated by captive fish on farms, have also become a significant problem.
To deal with it, chemicals that have not been tested for safety on other species are now being routinely used in salmon farms – even though no one actually knows what these untested chemicals will do to other crustaceans, such as shrimp, crab and lobster. After all, these pens are in open water and there's no way to control the spread of these chemicals.
The inevitable result of these modern fish farming practices is an evil circle of disease, antibiotic use, followed by the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains.
According to the video above, diseases created by salmon farms have now destroyed the Chilean fishing industry, and affect wild salmon in Canada, as well as sea trout in Ireland and Scotland.
The wild salmon fisheries in the US have also gone bust.
Two years ago, US federal authorities declared that the West Coast ocean salmon had reached a tipping point, and that the fisheries in California, Washington and Oregon had failed due to a sudden collapse of salmon. As a result, both commercial and recreational fishing for salmon was banned for the first time in 160 years.
Farmed Fish Also Pose Additional Human Health Hazards
In addition to being an unsustainable practice and an economic disaster, farm raised fish can also spell disaster for your health.
It's important to understand that ALL farm-raised fish – not just salmon -- are fed a concoction of vitamins, antibiotics, and depending on the fish, synthetic pigments, to make up for the lack of natural flesh coloration due to the altered diet. Without it, the flesh of caged salmon, for example, would be an unappetizing, pale gray.
The fish are also fed pesticides, along with compounds such as toxic copper sulfate, which is frequently used to keep nets free of algae.
Not only do you ingest these drugs and chemicals when you eat the fish, but these toxins also build up in sea-floor sediments. In this way, industrial fish farming raises many of the same environmental concerns about chemicals and pollutants that are associated with feedlot cattle and factory chicken farms.
In addition, fish waste and uneaten feed further litter the sea floor beneath these farms, generating bacteria that consume oxygen vital to shellfish and other bottom-dwelling sea creatures.
Studies have also consistently found levels of PCBs, dioxins, toxaphene and dieldrin, as well as mercury, to be higher in farm-raised fish than wild fish.
This fact alone would be cause to reconsider consuming farmed fish!
Wild caught fish have already reached such toxic levels, it's impossible to recommend eating them with a clear conscience anymore. For example, according to a recent U.S. Geological Survey study, mercury contamination was detected in EVERY fish sampled in nearly 300 streams across the United States!
More than a quarter of these fish contained mercury at levels exceeding the EPA criterion for the protection of human health. Another study on fish from US lakes and reservoirs found that more than half contained excessive levels of mercury -- so much so they were deemed unsafe for children and pregnant women to eat.
So, when you consider the fact that factory farmed fish typically are even MORE toxic than wild caught fish and also contain an assortment of antibiotics and pesticides, avoiding them becomes a no-brainer – at least if you're concerned about your health.
Could Moving Fish Farms Onto Land Solve the Problem?
Some, such as Orri Vigfusson, chairman of the North Atlantic Salmon Fund, believe that the answer to the current problems is to relocate the fish farms from the open ocean onto land, where it can be better controlled.
But even though that might help protect the oceans to some degree, it still not solve the problem of exacerbating over-fishing to create fish feed. It also wouldn't solve the problem of the excessive use of antibiotics and other chemicals, which are an integral part of any factory farm setup, whether it's in the ocean or on land.
Besides that, where would the toxic waste get hauled off to? The environmental devastation would still be significant.
What are Your Options?
Sadly, contamination of our oceans and waterways is so great that I don't advise eating ANY fish, whether farm-raised or wild-caught, unless you can verify its purity.
What options do you have, then, to get the health benefits of the omega-3 fats in fish, without exposing yourself to pollutants and excessive amounts of antibiotics, and contributing to the decline of the fish population and destruction of the environment?
These days I recommend you get your omega-3 fat from an alternative source like krill oil. Not only are krill (small, shrimp-like creatures) a superior source of omega-3, but they are one of the most easily renewable food resources available, making them an excellent nutritional source from an environmental perspective.
Though I know many of you enjoy fish for the flavor and the health benefits, if you can't confirm that it's from a clean, sustainable source, I believe the risks from eating it -- both to your health and the environment -- vastly outweigh the benefits. The only source of wild salmon I can personally recommend is from Vital Choice.
← The Medical Problems of Airport Screening: It’s Not Just the RadiationSurvey of American Medical Privacy Concerns →Government’s Grope and Grab Has Got To Stop!
Posted on November 29, 2010 by admin
By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.
Intrusive gropes of traveler’s private parts by TSA’s government employees is just the latest overreach of this administration to “grope and grab” every aspect of our lives.
Here are some examples:
1.Grope our bodies, literally or by x-ray, treating everyone as an equal threat to safety, and grab harmless items.
2.Grope our medical privacy in the electronic records the government wants for every medical visit.
3.Grab our right to choose our medical treatment with our physician, rather than the government panels now being created.
4.Grope our financial records in the new “reform” act.
5.Grab our money for higher health insurance premiums to cover new Obamacare mandates.
6.Grope and grab our paycheck with more reporting and higher taxes.
7.Grab our liberty to choose how we pay for medical care.
8.Grope and grab our food choices with a food bill being rammed through in the lame duck Congress: as with “healthcare reform it has to be passed into law before we can see what’s in it.
9.Grope and grab our CO2 emissions–from traveling, from heating and cooling our homes, even from eating high-fat foods—in a vast new EPA power grab.
10.Grab our energy sources with drilling bans onshore and offshore.
11.Grope and grab our 401k and IRA plans in a proposed mandate to buy Treasury bills.
12.Grope and grab 30% of all personal and business international wire transfers of money beginning 1-1-2013, buried in the “Jobs” bill.
13.Grab added 3.8% tax on the gain over $250,000 on sale of our homes
14.Grab our kids’ toys, mandating removal from Happy Meals, starting in San Francisco.
The TSA indiscriminate body scans and intrusive gropes are a good example of what Benjamin Franklin warned against when he said in 1755 that “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” His statement is often misquoted to omit the key adjectives essential liberty and a little temporary safety, which then changes the meaning significantly. He recognized that we always have to make tradeoffs.
In the name of airline safety, millions of Americans are being deprived of their fundamental, essential 4th Amendment liberty and have not really gained any greater safety than we had with the walk-through magnet and targeted pat-downs. Body cavities can still be used by suicide bombers to carry explosives. And cargo is incredibly still not being adequately screened for explosives. So it is only the illusion of “enhanced security” that is being offered in exchange for gross violations of our bodies and our liberty—and without the basic safety precautions required in medical x-ray facilities, or the infection control precautions demanded of medical personnel. This grope-and-grab policy, like the others, is about control and subjugation of the public, not security. What price are we willing to pay in dignity and privacy for the illusion of more safety?
The government pretends it is all “for our own good.” Anybody could be a potential terrorist, and we as consumers and patients are too stupid to know how to manage our own lives. Dr. Donald Berwick, recess appointed head of Medicare and Medicaid even said it directly in July 2008 as he celebrated the 60th anniversary of Britain’s National Health Service: “I cannot believe that the individual health consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as healthcare. That is for leaders to do.”
Based on 30 years of medical practice, I disagree vehemently. Patients and physicians acting as partners make far better medical decisions than any government bureaucrat I have ever encountered.
We are being incrementally stripped of our liberties at an alarming rate, like the proverbial frog in a pot of gradually warming water. Once we have lost all, it is too late to jump out of the boiling water, back to our essential liberty our Founders fought to achieve.
The fundamental question is this: Do you want the government groping and grabbing all these aspects of your life, or do you feel YOU should make the choices that are best for you? It really isn’t a dispute over whether changes need to occur – it is whether the changes should be planned centrally by Washington to control and direct your life, or whether YOU are empowered to make the changes that are best for you, the individual.
I think it is high time we demand that our new Congressional representatives start off the New Year with a bold halt to the federal government “grope and grab.” That’s a New Year’s Resolution for change we can live with.
©Elizabeth Lee Vliet, MD 11-30-2010
Dr. Vliet speaks as an independent physician, not as an official spokesperson for any organization. Dr. Vliet has no financial ties to any health care system, pharmaceutical company, or health insurance plan. Her allegiance and advocacy is to and for patients.
http://www.aapsonline.org/ AAPS – The Voice for YOU, Not The Government!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. is a women’s health specialist and the Founder of HER Place: Health Enhancement Renewal for Women, Inc. with medical practices in Tucson AZ and Dallas TX.
Dr. Vliet is President of International Health Strategies, Ltd., a global healthcare and education service company whose mission is twofold: liberty in the choice of treatment options and preservation of the Hippocratic tradition of focus on the individual patient.
Dr. Vliet is the 2007 recipient of the Voice of Women award from the Arizona Foundation for Women in recognition of her pioneering advocacy for the overlooked hormone connections in women’s health. She is a Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and member of The International Menopause Society, The International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology, American Society of Reproductive Medicine, The Heritage Foundation, and The Freedom Alliance.
Dr. Vliet received her M.D. degree and internship in Internal Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, then completed specialty training at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She received B.S. and M.Ed. degrees from The College of William and Mary in Virginia.
Dr. Vliet’s books include: It’s My Ovaries, Stupid!; Screaming To Be Heard: Hormonal Connections Women Suspect– And Doctors STILL Ignore; Women, Weight and Hormones; The Savvy Woman’s Guide to PCOS, The Savvy Woman’s Guide to Testosterone.
Dr. Vliet has appeared on FOX NEWS, Cavuto, Stuart Varney Show, Fox and Friends and syndicated radio shows across the country addressing these critical issues. She has been an invited speaker for numerous healthcare Town Hall presentations, and guest speaker on how healthcare regulation changes will not only physical but also financial health.
Dr. Vliet’s medical and educational website is www.HerPlace.com.
Posted on November 29, 2010 by admin
By Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.
Intrusive gropes of traveler’s private parts by TSA’s government employees is just the latest overreach of this administration to “grope and grab” every aspect of our lives.
Here are some examples:
1.Grope our bodies, literally or by x-ray, treating everyone as an equal threat to safety, and grab harmless items.
2.Grope our medical privacy in the electronic records the government wants for every medical visit.
3.Grab our right to choose our medical treatment with our physician, rather than the government panels now being created.
4.Grope our financial records in the new “reform” act.
5.Grab our money for higher health insurance premiums to cover new Obamacare mandates.
6.Grope and grab our paycheck with more reporting and higher taxes.
7.Grab our liberty to choose how we pay for medical care.
8.Grope and grab our food choices with a food bill being rammed through in the lame duck Congress: as with “healthcare reform it has to be passed into law before we can see what’s in it.
9.Grope and grab our CO2 emissions–from traveling, from heating and cooling our homes, even from eating high-fat foods—in a vast new EPA power grab.
10.Grab our energy sources with drilling bans onshore and offshore.
11.Grope and grab our 401k and IRA plans in a proposed mandate to buy Treasury bills.
12.Grope and grab 30% of all personal and business international wire transfers of money beginning 1-1-2013, buried in the “Jobs” bill.
13.Grab added 3.8% tax on the gain over $250,000 on sale of our homes
14.Grab our kids’ toys, mandating removal from Happy Meals, starting in San Francisco.
The TSA indiscriminate body scans and intrusive gropes are a good example of what Benjamin Franklin warned against when he said in 1755 that “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” His statement is often misquoted to omit the key adjectives essential liberty and a little temporary safety, which then changes the meaning significantly. He recognized that we always have to make tradeoffs.
In the name of airline safety, millions of Americans are being deprived of their fundamental, essential 4th Amendment liberty and have not really gained any greater safety than we had with the walk-through magnet and targeted pat-downs. Body cavities can still be used by suicide bombers to carry explosives. And cargo is incredibly still not being adequately screened for explosives. So it is only the illusion of “enhanced security” that is being offered in exchange for gross violations of our bodies and our liberty—and without the basic safety precautions required in medical x-ray facilities, or the infection control precautions demanded of medical personnel. This grope-and-grab policy, like the others, is about control and subjugation of the public, not security. What price are we willing to pay in dignity and privacy for the illusion of more safety?
The government pretends it is all “for our own good.” Anybody could be a potential terrorist, and we as consumers and patients are too stupid to know how to manage our own lives. Dr. Donald Berwick, recess appointed head of Medicare and Medicaid even said it directly in July 2008 as he celebrated the 60th anniversary of Britain’s National Health Service: “I cannot believe that the individual health consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as healthcare. That is for leaders to do.”
Based on 30 years of medical practice, I disagree vehemently. Patients and physicians acting as partners make far better medical decisions than any government bureaucrat I have ever encountered.
We are being incrementally stripped of our liberties at an alarming rate, like the proverbial frog in a pot of gradually warming water. Once we have lost all, it is too late to jump out of the boiling water, back to our essential liberty our Founders fought to achieve.
The fundamental question is this: Do you want the government groping and grabbing all these aspects of your life, or do you feel YOU should make the choices that are best for you? It really isn’t a dispute over whether changes need to occur – it is whether the changes should be planned centrally by Washington to control and direct your life, or whether YOU are empowered to make the changes that are best for you, the individual.
I think it is high time we demand that our new Congressional representatives start off the New Year with a bold halt to the federal government “grope and grab.” That’s a New Year’s Resolution for change we can live with.
©Elizabeth Lee Vliet, MD 11-30-2010
Dr. Vliet speaks as an independent physician, not as an official spokesperson for any organization. Dr. Vliet has no financial ties to any health care system, pharmaceutical company, or health insurance plan. Her allegiance and advocacy is to and for patients.
http://www.aapsonline.org/ AAPS – The Voice for YOU, Not The Government!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. is a women’s health specialist and the Founder of HER Place: Health Enhancement Renewal for Women, Inc. with medical practices in Tucson AZ and Dallas TX.
Dr. Vliet is President of International Health Strategies, Ltd., a global healthcare and education service company whose mission is twofold: liberty in the choice of treatment options and preservation of the Hippocratic tradition of focus on the individual patient.
Dr. Vliet is the 2007 recipient of the Voice of Women award from the Arizona Foundation for Women in recognition of her pioneering advocacy for the overlooked hormone connections in women’s health. She is a Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, and member of The International Menopause Society, The International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology, American Society of Reproductive Medicine, The Heritage Foundation, and The Freedom Alliance.
Dr. Vliet received her M.D. degree and internship in Internal Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, then completed specialty training at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. She received B.S. and M.Ed. degrees from The College of William and Mary in Virginia.
Dr. Vliet’s books include: It’s My Ovaries, Stupid!; Screaming To Be Heard: Hormonal Connections Women Suspect– And Doctors STILL Ignore; Women, Weight and Hormones; The Savvy Woman’s Guide to PCOS, The Savvy Woman’s Guide to Testosterone.
Dr. Vliet has appeared on FOX NEWS, Cavuto, Stuart Varney Show, Fox and Friends and syndicated radio shows across the country addressing these critical issues. She has been an invited speaker for numerous healthcare Town Hall presentations, and guest speaker on how healthcare regulation changes will not only physical but also financial health.
Dr. Vliet’s medical and educational website is www.HerPlace.com.
Richard Spencer
Richard Spencer is one of the Daily Telegraph's Middle East correspondents. He was China correspondent for six years before moving to Dubai, where he lives with his wife and children, last year. Is Wikileaks a front for the CIA or Mossad?
By Richard Spencer World Last updated: November 29th, 2010
45 Comments Comment on this article
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told Gen David Petraeus: 'We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours' (Photo: AP)
Wikileaks, according to every news agency, newspaper and television station across the world, is a huge embarrassment, a disaster for the United States.
You will therefore be surprised to learn that Wikileaks is in fact a US-front organisation, or at the very least a Mossad operation. It is intent on undermining peace in the Middle East, and discrediting the region’s leaders and Iran in particular.
That, at least, was the view of an Iranian analyst interviewed just now on al-Jazeera. The Wikileaks disclosures should be seen, he said, in light of the battle for power between the Republican and Democratic “factions” in the US regime.
All bizarre and nonsensical conspiracy theory of course.
Except.
Well, I don’t buy the conspiracy theory. But one thing’s for sure – the leaks reflect far worse on Middle Eastern regimes, including but not only Iran, than on the United States.
Leaving aside the “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” stuff, what for example will President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen say to his people now he has been clearly revealed to have got the US to lie on his behalf (not that it wasn’t common knowledge)?
As I have just said in an online commentary, the disclosures, based as they are on diplomatic cables, set out extremely clearly the thinking underlying US government policy – including rationales that cannot usually be given publicly for fear of offending allies or revealing secrets. Their partiality might be questioned – but their coherence can’t.
Ultimately, they put the onus on Middle Eastern countries to explain themselves. The cables are America’s own explanations. Neither Iran nor many of its Arab friends and enemies like being held to account overmuch.
Now they have been. No wonder Iran thinks it’s a plot; I wonder if other countries agree. I wouldn’t be surprised.
Richard Spencer is one of the Daily Telegraph's Middle East correspondents. He was China correspondent for six years before moving to Dubai, where he lives with his wife and children, last year. Is Wikileaks a front for the CIA or Mossad?
By Richard Spencer World Last updated: November 29th, 2010
45 Comments Comment on this article
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told Gen David Petraeus: 'We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours' (Photo: AP)
Wikileaks, according to every news agency, newspaper and television station across the world, is a huge embarrassment, a disaster for the United States.
You will therefore be surprised to learn that Wikileaks is in fact a US-front organisation, or at the very least a Mossad operation. It is intent on undermining peace in the Middle East, and discrediting the region’s leaders and Iran in particular.
That, at least, was the view of an Iranian analyst interviewed just now on al-Jazeera. The Wikileaks disclosures should be seen, he said, in light of the battle for power between the Republican and Democratic “factions” in the US regime.
All bizarre and nonsensical conspiracy theory of course.
Except.
Well, I don’t buy the conspiracy theory. But one thing’s for sure – the leaks reflect far worse on Middle Eastern regimes, including but not only Iran, than on the United States.
Leaving aside the “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” stuff, what for example will President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen say to his people now he has been clearly revealed to have got the US to lie on his behalf (not that it wasn’t common knowledge)?
As I have just said in an online commentary, the disclosures, based as they are on diplomatic cables, set out extremely clearly the thinking underlying US government policy – including rationales that cannot usually be given publicly for fear of offending allies or revealing secrets. Their partiality might be questioned – but their coherence can’t.
Ultimately, they put the onus on Middle Eastern countries to explain themselves. The cables are America’s own explanations. Neither Iran nor many of its Arab friends and enemies like being held to account overmuch.
Now they have been. No wonder Iran thinks it’s a plot; I wonder if other countries agree. I wouldn’t be surprised.
Climate Alarmists Push Forced Relocation At Cancun Summit
Climate Alarmists Push Forced Relocation At Cancun Summit
Green movement channels Nazis as authoritarian march to global government bares its teeth
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Not content with merely pushing world war-style rationing and the complete de-industrialization of the planet, global warming alarmists meeting in Cancun Mexico this week will propose the forced relocation of entire populations in the name of offsetting man made climate change.
The shocking proposal appears on page 6 of the executive summary of the Special Climate Change Program.
As a means of mitigating climate change, encouraging sustainability and reducing CO2 emissions, the document calls for, “the implementation of relocation programs for human settlements and infrastructure in high risk areas.”
Relocation of populations has historically been achieved by force at the hands of an authoritarian ruling elite, to the “substantial harm” of the target settlement, with loss of private property and harrowing social dislocation, and in some cases genocide, being three primary outcomes. The most odious example in recent history was of course the forced transfer of Jews from wartime Germany by the Nazis.
Political scientist Norman Finkelstein notes that forced relocations are often justified by the ruling authorities as a necessary solution to a drastic crisis, which is precisely the rhetoric used in the Cancun document.
The proposal by climate alarmists to forcibly relocate communities against their will is yet another revealing indication that the green movement has dispensed with all pretense of liberal legitimacy and has openly bared its teeth as an authoritarian and despotic undertaking.
Yesterday we reported on how ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society published a series of papers to accompany the conference which stated that wartime-style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Stock up for the Holidays with eFoods Direct and get FREE Shipping!
Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph reported.
Of course, the move has nothing to do with halting global warming, which even the Royal Society itself admits is slowing despite accelerating carbon emissions, and everything to do with lowering living standards in the west as part of the globalist drive to completely dismantle the middle class and thereby remove the primary obstacle to instituting an autocratic global government.
A prominent member of the Royal Society is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritarian elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Leading climate skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton, who is in attendance at Cancun over the next ten days, appeared on the Alex Jones Show yesterday, to warn that globalists are attempting to play down the significance of the summit in an effort to impose world government treaties by stealth.
Monckton stated that the alarmists were proposing “lunatic measures” like forced resettlement of populations and concentration camps, as well as food rationing in the west, all concepts familiar to socialists and communist enforcers. He said that the ideas were deliberately extreme in order to make what actually comes out of the conference look reasonable and rational so that “we almost breathe a sigh of relief when the world government takes over.”
Watch the interview below.
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show. Watson has been interviewed by many publications and radio shows, including Vanity Fair and Coast to Coast AM, America’s most listened to late night talk show.
Google and You Tube Ban Alex Jones
Google & You Tube Ban Alex Jones
Infowars.com
Nov 30, 2010
Both Google and its subsidiary company You Tube have banned Alex Jones and his websites, as attempts to curtail free speech widen.
Within the past 2-3 weeks, Jones and his team have confirmed that after years of being listed under Google News, one of the largest platforms for news dissemination, that PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.com have been blocked from its search results, effectively censoring their content from wide web coverage. Only smaller sites that re-post the content have appeared in Google searches since early November.
In a separate matter, TheAlexJonesChannel on YouTube has learned that it will be either frozen or blocked from uploading new content for several weeks following a “Community Guidelines” violation decision. According to YouTube’s support team, users from its site flagged a video on the channel that contained controversial video of the Apache helicopter “collateral murder” that occurred in Iraq in 2007 and was released by Wikileaks. When TheAlexJonesChannel attempted to challenge the removal of this video via YouTube’s counter-notification form, it was subsequently told that the account would be disabled and new content blocked (apparently due to the challenge, as no other strikes exist on the account).
The graphic content in the video– which documents real events the Pentagon never wanted released– has been posted by hundreds of other channels on YouTube, including major media outlets like CBS News and Russia Today without being flagged or removed, yet TheAlexJonesChannel has been told that its posting of a smaller portion of this incident is offensive or otherwise against its community guidelines. This appears to be double standard as even the age-verification barrier set-up for some of the postings was not offered for TheAlexJonesChannel version; it was simple deleted by user demand and YouTube mandate.
It is evident that the system revels in any chance to dampen the loud voice that Alex Jones, Infowars.com/PrisonPlanet.com and its supporters have raised on the Internet, effectively challenging the status quo and mainstream media spin on major news and events. With the easy passage of the web censorship bill, it is further clear that what is happening now to Infowars.com and Alex Jones will soon happen to anyone without a politically-correct message, particularly when that message is capable of resonating throughout large parts of the globe.
It is up to supporters and lovers of freedom to challenge censorship and oppression on the web, because only resistance can slow the attempts to curtail free speech and expression online. As Frederick Douglass said, “Find out just what the people will submit to and you’ve found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” This will be prove to be more true than ever in the age of the Internet.
Infowars.com
Nov 30, 2010
Both Google and its subsidiary company You Tube have banned Alex Jones and his websites, as attempts to curtail free speech widen.
Within the past 2-3 weeks, Jones and his team have confirmed that after years of being listed under Google News, one of the largest platforms for news dissemination, that PrisonPlanet.com and Infowars.com have been blocked from its search results, effectively censoring their content from wide web coverage. Only smaller sites that re-post the content have appeared in Google searches since early November.
In a separate matter, TheAlexJonesChannel on YouTube has learned that it will be either frozen or blocked from uploading new content for several weeks following a “Community Guidelines” violation decision. According to YouTube’s support team, users from its site flagged a video on the channel that contained controversial video of the Apache helicopter “collateral murder” that occurred in Iraq in 2007 and was released by Wikileaks. When TheAlexJonesChannel attempted to challenge the removal of this video via YouTube’s counter-notification form, it was subsequently told that the account would be disabled and new content blocked (apparently due to the challenge, as no other strikes exist on the account).
The graphic content in the video– which documents real events the Pentagon never wanted released– has been posted by hundreds of other channels on YouTube, including major media outlets like CBS News and Russia Today without being flagged or removed, yet TheAlexJonesChannel has been told that its posting of a smaller portion of this incident is offensive or otherwise against its community guidelines. This appears to be double standard as even the age-verification barrier set-up for some of the postings was not offered for TheAlexJonesChannel version; it was simple deleted by user demand and YouTube mandate.
It is evident that the system revels in any chance to dampen the loud voice that Alex Jones, Infowars.com/PrisonPlanet.com and its supporters have raised on the Internet, effectively challenging the status quo and mainstream media spin on major news and events. With the easy passage of the web censorship bill, it is further clear that what is happening now to Infowars.com and Alex Jones will soon happen to anyone without a politically-correct message, particularly when that message is capable of resonating throughout large parts of the globe.
It is up to supporters and lovers of freedom to challenge censorship and oppression on the web, because only resistance can slow the attempts to curtail free speech and expression online. As Frederick Douglass said, “Find out just what the people will submit to and you’ve found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” This will be prove to be more true than ever in the age of the Internet.
Monday, November 29, 2010
“LAME-DUCK” HARRY REID FLYING HIGH WITH FOOD SAFETY BILL
“LAME-DUCK” HARRY REID FLYING HIGH WITH FOOD SAFETY BILL
By Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
November 30, 2010
© 2010 NewsWithViews.com
Crucial Senate Vote Today on FDA Food “Safety” Bill
By Sarah Foster
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
November 30, 2010
© 2010 NewsWithViews.com
Crucial Senate Vote Today on FDA Food “Safety” Bill
Christopher Columbus 'was son of Polish king'
Christopher Columbus 'was son of Polish king'
The explorer, Christopher Columbus, was the son of a Polish king living in exile in Madeira and hid his royal roots to protect his father, a new book claims.
Christopher Columbus arriving at one of the Caribbean islands on his voyage of discovery Photo: GETTYBy Fiona Govan in Madrid 4:40PM GMT 28 Nov 2010
A Portuguese historian believes he has solved the 500 year-old mystery of the adventurer's true identity after a thorough investigation of medieval documents and chronicles.
The origins of the man who discovered the Americas has long been a subject of speculation.
Contemporary accounts named his birth place as the Italian port of Genoa to a family of wool weavers but over the centuries it has been claimed that he was a native of Greece, Spain, France, Portugal and even Scotland.
Related Articles
Columbus was Spanish not Italian, says study 14 Oct 2009
Cruise holidays: deals of the day28 Nov 2010
Top five: Jose Mourinho's controversial moments28 Nov 2010
Cruise holidays: deals of the day - October 13, 201028 Nov 2010
Commonwealth Games 2010: home nation stars to watch in Delhi28 Nov 2010
India: Down the Ganges, with a man who really knows the way28 Nov 2010
Others claimed his origins were hidden because he was Jewish or secretly working as a double agent for the Portuguese royal family.
But the latest theory suggests that the great navigator, who died in 1506 after four voyages to the New World, was in fact of royal blood: the son of King Vladislav III who was supposedly slain in the Battle of Varna in 1444.
In his third book on the subject Manuel Rosa, who has spent 20 years researching the life of Columbus, suggests that Vladislav III survived the battle with the Ottomans, fled to live in exile on the island of Madeira where he was known as "Henry the German" and married a Portuguese noblewoman.
Mr Rosa believes a conspiracy was agreed to hide Columbus' true origins and to protect the identity of his father. "The courts of Europe knew who he was and kept his secret for their own reasons," the researcher at Duke University, North Carolina said.
"Our whole understanding of Christopher Columbus has for 500 years been based on misinformation. We couldn't solve the mystery because we were looking for the wrong man, following lies that were spread intentionally to hide his true identity," Mr Rosa told The Daily Telegraph.
His high birth would explain how Columbus was able to himself marry the daughter of a Portuguese noble 15 years before he set out to prove the world was round.
"The marriage was approved by the King of Portugal something that could never have happened if we believe the myth that Columbus washed up in a shipwreck in Portugal," Mr Rosa explains in his book "Colon: La Historia Nunca Contada" – Columbus: The Untold Story", published in Spain last month.
"His knowledge of geography, astronomy, algebra, cartography and even the fact that he used a secret cipher to communicate with his brothers all point to the best education. He was clearly a scholar and not self taught as the myth goes."
Mr Rosa claims to have proved that a last will dated 1498 in which Columbus wrote "being I born in Genoa" was forged 80 years after his death by Italians with the name Columbo who wanted to lay claim to his inheritance.
Other evidence supporting Mr Rosa's theory includes the similarity of Columbus's coat of arms with that of the Polish king and a painting of the explorer housed in the Alcazar in Seville in which a crown is hidden on his sleeve.
And the fact that he was "reddish-haired, fair skinned and blue eyed – all features commonly found in Poland."
The next step is to try and prove Columbus's royal heritage by extracting DNA from the tombs of Polish kings to compare with that of the explorer's son who is buried in Seville Cathedral.
"I have made a request to the Cathedral in Krakov to examine remains from the tomb of Vladislav II, who could turn out to be the grandfather of Columbus. It would prove the truth of my theory," said Mr Rosa.
A project launched five years ago to discover Columbus' true origins using DNA comparisons between his family and possible descendants was not conclusive.
A team of scientists took samples from his tomb in Seville and from bones belonging to his brother and son and compared them with the genetic make-up of 477 people living across Europe with surnames believed to be modern-day variants of Columbus.
The explorer, Christopher Columbus, was the son of a Polish king living in exile in Madeira and hid his royal roots to protect his father, a new book claims.
Christopher Columbus arriving at one of the Caribbean islands on his voyage of discovery Photo: GETTYBy Fiona Govan in Madrid 4:40PM GMT 28 Nov 2010
A Portuguese historian believes he has solved the 500 year-old mystery of the adventurer's true identity after a thorough investigation of medieval documents and chronicles.
The origins of the man who discovered the Americas has long been a subject of speculation.
Contemporary accounts named his birth place as the Italian port of Genoa to a family of wool weavers but over the centuries it has been claimed that he was a native of Greece, Spain, France, Portugal and even Scotland.
Related Articles
Columbus was Spanish not Italian, says study 14 Oct 2009
Cruise holidays: deals of the day28 Nov 2010
Top five: Jose Mourinho's controversial moments28 Nov 2010
Cruise holidays: deals of the day - October 13, 201028 Nov 2010
Commonwealth Games 2010: home nation stars to watch in Delhi28 Nov 2010
India: Down the Ganges, with a man who really knows the way28 Nov 2010
Others claimed his origins were hidden because he was Jewish or secretly working as a double agent for the Portuguese royal family.
But the latest theory suggests that the great navigator, who died in 1506 after four voyages to the New World, was in fact of royal blood: the son of King Vladislav III who was supposedly slain in the Battle of Varna in 1444.
In his third book on the subject Manuel Rosa, who has spent 20 years researching the life of Columbus, suggests that Vladislav III survived the battle with the Ottomans, fled to live in exile on the island of Madeira where he was known as "Henry the German" and married a Portuguese noblewoman.
Mr Rosa believes a conspiracy was agreed to hide Columbus' true origins and to protect the identity of his father. "The courts of Europe knew who he was and kept his secret for their own reasons," the researcher at Duke University, North Carolina said.
"Our whole understanding of Christopher Columbus has for 500 years been based on misinformation. We couldn't solve the mystery because we were looking for the wrong man, following lies that were spread intentionally to hide his true identity," Mr Rosa told The Daily Telegraph.
His high birth would explain how Columbus was able to himself marry the daughter of a Portuguese noble 15 years before he set out to prove the world was round.
"The marriage was approved by the King of Portugal something that could never have happened if we believe the myth that Columbus washed up in a shipwreck in Portugal," Mr Rosa explains in his book "Colon: La Historia Nunca Contada" – Columbus: The Untold Story", published in Spain last month.
"His knowledge of geography, astronomy, algebra, cartography and even the fact that he used a secret cipher to communicate with his brothers all point to the best education. He was clearly a scholar and not self taught as the myth goes."
Mr Rosa claims to have proved that a last will dated 1498 in which Columbus wrote "being I born in Genoa" was forged 80 years after his death by Italians with the name Columbo who wanted to lay claim to his inheritance.
Other evidence supporting Mr Rosa's theory includes the similarity of Columbus's coat of arms with that of the Polish king and a painting of the explorer housed in the Alcazar in Seville in which a crown is hidden on his sleeve.
And the fact that he was "reddish-haired, fair skinned and blue eyed – all features commonly found in Poland."
The next step is to try and prove Columbus's royal heritage by extracting DNA from the tombs of Polish kings to compare with that of the explorer's son who is buried in Seville Cathedral.
"I have made a request to the Cathedral in Krakov to examine remains from the tomb of Vladislav II, who could turn out to be the grandfather of Columbus. It would prove the truth of my theory," said Mr Rosa.
A project launched five years ago to discover Columbus' true origins using DNA comparisons between his family and possible descendants was not conclusive.
A team of scientists took samples from his tomb in Seville and from bones belonging to his brother and son and compared them with the genetic make-up of 477 people living across Europe with surnames believed to be modern-day variants of Columbus.
Ultra Elitist Environmental Group: Halt Economic Growth, Institute Rationing
Ultra Elitist Environmental Group: Halt Economic Growth, Institute Rationing
As fresh UN climate talks begin, de-industrializationists set out their agenda
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, Nov 29th, 2010
Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has published a series of papers to coincide with the latest round of UN climate talks, in which influential scientists suggest that politicians should force the population of the developed world to adhere to a system of rationing in order to stave off rising global temperatures.
The papers suggest that 1930s and 40s style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions. Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph Reports.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” one Royal Society affiliated professor states.
Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, added that in his view, economic growth in the developed world should be completely halted within the next two decades if the planet is to avoid mass upheaval in the form of rising sea levels, floods, droughts and mass migration.
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”
Ironically, Anderson’s point here reveals a fundamental flaw in the theory of anthropogenic warming, namely that CO2 emissions have increased, yet temperature rise is slowing. By all accounts, the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped just over a decade ago.
Even the Royal Society itself was forced to admit this fact in a recently published guide, titled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’ which was altered following multiple complaints from 43 of the Royal Society’s own members that “knowledgeable people” were seeing through brazenly alarmist climate change rhetoric.
The Met office concurs that global warming has been slowing for some time, and the admission was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.
It is hardly surprising to see the Royal Society still pushing a de-industrialization agenda, however, given it’s history and cadre of members and patrons.
The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW.
It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement “The debate on climate change is over.”
When he was head of the Society, May told government advisors: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
It has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to Whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.
The society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society’s research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of the Society. It is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.
One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.
Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt, also a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society “Objective” Global Population Study.
Also on the Royal Society’s working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Again, how is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their studies will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.
Given the standing of the Royal Society and its ability to influence policy making on an international scale, it is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
As fresh UN climate talks begin, de-industrializationists set out their agenda
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, Nov 29th, 2010
Ultra elitist environmental group The Royal Society has published a series of papers to coincide with the latest round of UN climate talks, in which influential scientists suggest that politicians should force the population of the developed world to adhere to a system of rationing in order to stave off rising global temperatures.
The papers suggest that 1930s and 40s style crisis rationing should be implemented by Western governments in order to reduce carbon emissions. Such a move would see “limits on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.” the London Telegraph Reports.
“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” one Royal Society affiliated professor states.
Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, added that in his view, economic growth in the developed world should be completely halted within the next two decades if the planet is to avoid mass upheaval in the form of rising sea levels, floods, droughts and mass migration.
“I am not saying we have to go back to living in caves,” he said. “Our emissions were a lot less ten years ago and we got by ok then.”
Ironically, Anderson’s point here reveals a fundamental flaw in the theory of anthropogenic warming, namely that CO2 emissions have increased, yet temperature rise is slowing. By all accounts, the warming trend observed predominantly throughout the 1980s and 90s stopped just over a decade ago.
Even the Royal Society itself was forced to admit this fact in a recently published guide, titled ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’ which was altered following multiple complaints from 43 of the Royal Society’s own members that “knowledgeable people” were seeing through brazenly alarmist climate change rhetoric.
The Met office concurs that global warming has been slowing for some time, and the admission was also recently noted by Professor Phil Jones, the figure at the head of the Climategate scandal.
It is hardly surprising to see the Royal Society still pushing a de-industrialization agenda, however, given it’s history and cadre of members and patrons.
The Royal Society, a 350 year old establishment outfit, has traditionally been the most vocal proponent for the hypothesis of AGW.
It was the former president of The Royal Society, Lord May, who made the infamous statement “The debate on climate change is over.”
When he was head of the Society, May told government advisors: “On one hand, you have the entire scientific community and on the other you have a handful of people, half of them crackpots.”
The Royal Society has thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
It has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
Not surprising then that The Royal Society was also intimately tied to efforts to Whitewash the Climategate emails scandal.
The society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into it. A recently published lengthy UK Government report drew heavily upon the Society’s research and concluded that a global body such as the UN should be appointed to exclusively regulate world wide geoengineering of the planet in order to stave off man made global warming.
This information becomes even more disturbing when you consider the mindset of those who make up the membership of the Society. It is riddled with renowned eco-fascists, open eugenicists and depopulation fanatics.
One notable member is James Lovelock, an eco-fascist who advocates ending democracy and instituting an authoritative elite to oversee global climate management and a radical stemming of the human population in order to combat climate change. He is also a patron of the Optimum Population Trust, a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population, which it refers to as “primates” or “animals”, to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
Lovelock is also an ardent advocate of geoengineering. In 2007 Lovelock proposed laying vast swathes of pipes under the world’s oceans in order to pump water from the bottom of the seas – rich in nutrients, but mostly dead – to the top. The idea being that the action would encourage algae to breed, absorb more carbon and release more dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere, a chemical known to seed sunlight reflecting clouds. Such methods are also covered in the Commons report.
Another member is Jonathon Porritt, former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt, also a member of the Optimum Population Trust, a connection that caused raised eyebrows when it was announced that Porritt was to be a part of a forthcoming Royal Society “Objective” Global Population Study.
Also on the Royal Society’s working group for their global population study is another of their patrons, and another OPT member, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough. Attenborough has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Again, how is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?
Another member of that working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he received the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their studies will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.
Given the standing of the Royal Society and its ability to influence policy making on an international scale, it is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
——————————————————————
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor at Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and regular contributor to Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.
The FDA is craving the power to shut down small food businesses on a whim, and their allies in the Senate are pushing TODAY to make that happen.
Take action now by contacting your senators! Tell them to vote AGAINST S. 510, the War on Food bill, on every vote – including cloture.
Say no to faceless, international elites dictating what you and your family can and can't eat.
Tell your representative that the FDA needs to be held accountable for its failures, not rewarded for them.
Remind them that Big Ag is aiming to destroy competing food producers like the independent family farm, where the free market works every day to provide the public with safe, affordable food.
Take action now by contacting your senators! Tell them to vote AGAINST S. 510, the War on Food bill, on every vote – including cloture.
Say no to faceless, international elites dictating what you and your family can and can't eat.
Tell your representative that the FDA needs to be held accountable for its failures, not rewarded for them.
Remind them that Big Ag is aiming to destroy competing food producers like the independent family farm, where the free market works every day to provide the public with safe, affordable food.
Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don't Call the Cops
Suffer These Crimes in Oakland? Don't Call the Cops
Dozens of layoffs effective at midnight, barring last minute deal
By LORI PREUITT and KRIS SANCHEZ
Updated 12:17 PM PST, Tue, Jul 13, 2010
Print Share Buzz up!383retweetTOP1K1diggdigg
Oakland's police chief is making some dire claims about what his force will and will not respond to if layoffs go as planned.
Chief Anthony Batts listed exactly 44 situations that his officers will no longer respond to and they include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism. He says if you live and Oakland and one of the above happens to you, you need to let police know on-line.
Some 80 officers were to be let go at midnight last night if a last-minute deal was not reached. That's about ten percent of the work force.
"I came her e to build an organization, not downsize one," said Batts, who was given the top job in October.
Famous Celebrity Mug Shots: David Cassidy Charged
LOOK
Famous Celebrity Mug Shots: David Cassidy Charged
Mug Shots: Athletes Who Have Run Afoul of The Law
LOOK
Mug Shots: Athletes Who Have Run Afoul of The Law
Weird News Photos
LOOK
Weird News Photos
That deadline has been extended to 5 p.m. Tuesday.
Here's a partial list:
•burglary
•theft
•embezzlement
•grand theft
•grand theft:dog
•identity theft
•false information to peace officer
•required to register as sex or arson offender
•dump waste or offensive matter
•discard appliance with lock
•loud music
•possess forged notes
•pass fictitious check
•obtain money by false voucher
•fraudulent use of access cards
•stolen license plate
•embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
•extortion
•attempted extortion
•false personification of other
•injure telephone/ power line
•interfere with power line
•unauthorized cable tv connection
•vandalism
•administer/expose poison to another's
Negotiations are going on at Oakland City Hall in the mayor's office.
Batts said the 80 officers slated to be laid off - mostly new officers - are "pretty sad and pretty depressed," and those feelings are shared by the Police Department as a whole.
The Oakland City Council voted June 25 to eliminate the positions to help close the city's $32.5 million funding gap. According to the city of Oakland, each of the 776 police officers currently employed at OPD costs around $188,000 per year. Most of the officers who will be affected by the layoffs were on the streets of Oakland when Johannes Mehserle's involuntary manslaughter conviction caused riots last Thursday.
The sticking point in negotiations appears to be job security. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions, which would save the city about $7.8 million toward a multi-million dollar deficit. The police union agreed, as long as the city could promise no layoffs for three years. No dice, says city council president Jane Brunner.
"We wish we could offer them a three-year no layoff protection we just can't financially. It would be irresponsible of us," Brunner said. The city agreed to a one-year moratorium on layoffs, but it is not enough for the union.
The problem is money. In the last five years, the police budget -- along with the fire department budget -- have amount to 75 percent of the general fund. After years of largely sparing those departments the budget ax, now it appears there are few other places to cut.
These are the last hours of negotiation and Brunner is hopeful that the city and police will find some sort middle ground.
"It's been very good conversation and not a whole lot of grandstanding." Brunner said. "There's actually real conversations. Each side understands the problem," she said.
First Published: Jul 12, 2010 1:27 PM PST
Dozens of layoffs effective at midnight, barring last minute deal
By LORI PREUITT and KRIS SANCHEZ
Updated 12:17 PM PST, Tue, Jul 13, 2010
Print Share Buzz up!383retweetTOP1K1diggdigg
Oakland's police chief is making some dire claims about what his force will and will not respond to if layoffs go as planned.
Chief Anthony Batts listed exactly 44 situations that his officers will no longer respond to and they include grand theft, burglary, car wrecks, identity theft and vandalism. He says if you live and Oakland and one of the above happens to you, you need to let police know on-line.
Some 80 officers were to be let go at midnight last night if a last-minute deal was not reached. That's about ten percent of the work force.
"I came her e to build an organization, not downsize one," said Batts, who was given the top job in October.
Famous Celebrity Mug Shots: David Cassidy Charged
LOOK
Famous Celebrity Mug Shots: David Cassidy Charged
Mug Shots: Athletes Who Have Run Afoul of The Law
LOOK
Mug Shots: Athletes Who Have Run Afoul of The Law
Weird News Photos
LOOK
Weird News Photos
That deadline has been extended to 5 p.m. Tuesday.
Here's a partial list:
•burglary
•theft
•embezzlement
•grand theft
•grand theft:dog
•identity theft
•false information to peace officer
•required to register as sex or arson offender
•dump waste or offensive matter
•discard appliance with lock
•loud music
•possess forged notes
•pass fictitious check
•obtain money by false voucher
•fraudulent use of access cards
•stolen license plate
•embezzlement by an employee (over $ 400)
•extortion
•attempted extortion
•false personification of other
•injure telephone/ power line
•interfere with power line
•unauthorized cable tv connection
•vandalism
•administer/expose poison to another's
Negotiations are going on at Oakland City Hall in the mayor's office.
Batts said the 80 officers slated to be laid off - mostly new officers - are "pretty sad and pretty depressed," and those feelings are shared by the Police Department as a whole.
The Oakland City Council voted June 25 to eliminate the positions to help close the city's $32.5 million funding gap. According to the city of Oakland, each of the 776 police officers currently employed at OPD costs around $188,000 per year. Most of the officers who will be affected by the layoffs were on the streets of Oakland when Johannes Mehserle's involuntary manslaughter conviction caused riots last Thursday.
The sticking point in negotiations appears to be job security. The city council asked OPD officers to pay nine percent of their salary toward their pensions, which would save the city about $7.8 million toward a multi-million dollar deficit. The police union agreed, as long as the city could promise no layoffs for three years. No dice, says city council president Jane Brunner.
"We wish we could offer them a three-year no layoff protection we just can't financially. It would be irresponsible of us," Brunner said. The city agreed to a one-year moratorium on layoffs, but it is not enough for the union.
The problem is money. In the last five years, the police budget -- along with the fire department budget -- have amount to 75 percent of the general fund. After years of largely sparing those departments the budget ax, now it appears there are few other places to cut.
These are the last hours of negotiation and Brunner is hopeful that the city and police will find some sort middle ground.
"It's been very good conversation and not a whole lot of grandstanding." Brunner said. "There's actually real conversations. Each side understands the problem," she said.
First Published: Jul 12, 2010 1:27 PM PST
The Best and Worst Vegetables to Eat Posted By Dr. Mercola
The Best and Worst Vegetables to Eat Posted By Dr. Mercola
November 29 2010
89,820 views Share814
Email to a friend : 825
By Dr. Mercola
There's little doubt that one of the best ways to improve your health is to make sure you're eating plenty of fresh, minimally processed high quality vegetables, ideally locally-grown and organic, with a majority of them consumed raw. One simple way to boost your vegetable intake is to juice them.
Juicing organic vegetables is highly recommended to patients in our clinic who are working to restore or improve their health. I am firmly convinced that juicing is one of the key factors to giving you a radiant, energetic life, and truly optimal health.
I simply do not know of any other single nutritional intervention that has a more profound influence on health than eating and/or juicing fresh, organic vegetables.
You can review my comprehensive approach to how to juice on my vegetable juicing page.
Are All Vegetables the Same?
If you were to get all of your vegetables from conventionally farmed sources, this would be better for your health than eating no fresh vegetables at all. However, conventionally farmed vegetables are not your best choice. Organic vegetables are a much better option.
Why?
USDA Organic farmers (and many small, local organic farms working without certification), must use different standards when growing vegetables. These standards include never using:
•Pesticides
•Synthetic Fertilizers
•Sewage sludge
•Genetically modified organisms
•Ionizing radiation
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 60 percent of herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides, and 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic, and most are damaging to your nervous system as well. In fact, these powerful and dangerous chemicals have been linked to numerous health problems such as:
•Neurotoxicity
•Disruption of your endocrine system
•Carcinogenicity
•Immune system suppression
•Male infertility and reduced reproductive function
•Miscarriages
•Parkinson's disease
This information alone should give you pause when considering whether to buy local, organic vegetables or not. But I encourage you to do further research about organic versus conventional farming conditions. I believe that after researching the facts and statistics, you'll come to the conclusion that organic vegetables are far more nutritious than conventionally farmed vegetables.
Conventional Fruit and Vegetable Pesticide Loads
Certainly helpful to your decision about which vegetables should be purchased organic and which conventional veggies may be safe, is the measured pesticide loads found on conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables.
Of the 43 different fruit and vegetable categories tested by the Environmental Working Group and included in their Shoppers' Guide to Pesticides in Produce, these 12 fruits and vegetables had the highest pesticide load, making them the most important to buy or grow organic:
•Peaches
•Apples
•Sweet bell peppers
•Celery
•Nectarines
•Strawberries
•Cherries
•Lettuce
•Grapes (imported)
•Pears
•Spinach
•Potatoes
In contrast, these foods were found to have the lowest residual pesticide load, making them the safest bet among conventionally grown vegetables:
•Broccoli
•Eggplant
•Cabbage
•Banana
•Kiwi
•Asparagus
•Sweet peas (frozen)
•Mango
•Pineapple
•Sweet corn (frozen)
•Avocado
•Onion
So if you need to work within a certain budget, use this information to help guide you to the best choices when it comes to lowering your overall pesticide exposure.
The Importance of Fresh Vegetables
Buying your vegetables from a local organic source is the ideal way to ensure that your vegetables are both fresh and high-quality. I strongly advise you to avoid wilted vegetables of any kind, because when vegetables wilt they loose much of their nutritional value. In fact, wilted organic vegetables may actually be less healthy than fresh conventionally farmed vegetables!
Another reason to buy your organic vegetables from a local source is that fresher vegetables also contain the highest amounts of biophotons.
What are Biophotons?
Biophotons are the smallest physical units of light, which are stored in, and used by all biological organisms – including your body.
Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp was the first to suggest that this light inside all biological organisms must originate, at least in part, from the foods you eat. When you eat plant foods, the light waves (photons) are thought assimilate into the cells in your body.
The purpose of these biophotons is much more important than many have realized, because they are the transmitters of important nutritional bio-information used in many complex vital processes in your body.
Every living organism emits biophotons, or low-level luminescence (light with a wavelength between 200 and 800 nanometers). It is thought that the higher the level of light energy a cell emits, the greater the vitality and potential for the transfer of light energy to your body.
In other words, the more light that a food is able to store, the more nutritious it is when you consume it. Fresh, organic vegetables are naturally rich in this biophoton light energy.
Illness Can Occur When Biophoton Emissions are Out of Sync
Research by Dr. Popp also showed that the light emissions of healthy people follow a set of biological rhythms by day and night and also by week and month.
However, in his studies, the light emissions from cancer patients had no such rhythms and appeared scrambled, which suggests that their cells were no longer communicating properly.
Likewise, according to Dr. Popp's research, multiple sclerosis patients were taking in too much light, leading to what he considered confusion on a cellular level.
Even stress can influence your biophoton emissions, causing them to increase when stress increases.
It's also known that cancer-causing chemicals alter your body's biophoton emissions, interrupting proper cellular communication, while certain natural substances can help to restore proper cellular communication. For instance, Dr. Popp found that mistletoe appeared to restore biophoton emissions of tumor cells to a normal level!
Interestingly, even conventional medicine confirmed that mistletoe extract does appear to have a beneficial effect on cancer, with one study published in Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine showing that mean survival rates nearly doubled among breast cancer patients who received mistletoe extract.
An Important Tip for Gathering Valuable Light Energy
As regular readers know, I've long recommended eating a diet of mostly RAW food to stay optimally healthy. This is because living raw foods contain the most biophoton light energy that your body needs.
The greater your store of light energy from healthy raw foods (this should not be confused with your vitamin D status, which is produced by the sun on your skin), the greater the power of your overall electromagnetic field, and consequently the more energy is available for healing and maintenance of optimal health.
I firmly believe it's only a matter of time before the importance of light energy in your health and well-being becomes more widely recognized and applied in the field of medicine. Until then, remember that your body is not only made up of tissue, blood vessels and organs. It's also composed of light.
Reasons to Juice
As I mentioned at the beginning, one of the best ways to get ample amounts of raw vegetables into your diet is through juicing. Many people see juicing as inconvenient, but with the proper juicer it really is not very time consuming at all.
The fact is, many people initially think that juicing will be a real chore, but most are pleasantly surprised to find it's much easier than they thought.
There are three main reasons why you will want to consider incorporating organic vegetable juicing into your optimal health program:
•Juicing helps you absorb more nutrients from the vegetables.
•Juicing allows you to efficiently consume more vegetables.
•Juicing can add a wider variety of vegetables into your diet.
However, you should only start by juicing vegetables that you enjoy eating non-juiced. The juice should taste pleasant -- not make you feel nauseous.
It is very important to listen to your body when juicing. Your stomach should feel good all morning long. If it is churning or growling or generally making its presence known, you probably juiced something you should not be eating. Personally, I've noticed that I can't juice large amounts of cabbage, but if I spread it out, I do fine.
Please review my comprehensive vegetable juicing instructions for more information.
What are the Best Vegetables for Good Health?
Whether you're munching them raw or juicing, some vegetables contain more health building nutrients than others. This list details some of the best and worst vegetables for your health.
Highly Recommended Vegetables
Asparagus Escarole
Avocado (actually a fruit) Fennel
Beet greens Green and red cabbage
Bok Choy Kale
Broccoli Kohlrabi
Brussel sprouts Lettuce: romaine, red leaf, green leaf
Cauliflower Mustard greens
Celery Onions
Chicory Parsley
Chinese cabbage Peppers: red, green, yellow and hot
Chives Tomatoes
Collard greens Turnips
Cucumbers Spinach
Dandelion greens Zucchini
Endive
Use sparingly due to high carbohydrate levels
Beets Jicima
Carrots Winter Squashes
Eggplant
Vegetables to Avoid
Potatoes
Tips to Make Your Juice Taste Better
If you would like to make your juice taste a bit more palatable, especially in the beginning, you can add these elements:
•Coconut: This is one of my favorites! You can purchase the whole coconut or use unsweetened shredded coconut. It adds a delightful flavor and is an excellent source of fat to balance your meal. Coconut has medium chain triglycerides, which have many health benefits.
•Cranberries: Researchers have discovered that cranberries have five times the antioxidant content of broccoli, which means they may help protect against cancer, stroke and heart disease. Limit the cranberries to about 4 ounces per pint of juice.
•Lemons and Limes: You can also add half a lemon or lime (leaving much of the white rind on)..
•Fresh ginger: This is an excellent addition if you can tolerate it. It gives your juice a little "kick"! And, as an added boon, researchers have found that ginger can have dramatic effects on cardiovascular health, including preventing atherosclerosis, lowering cholesterol levels, and preventing the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL).
Nutritional Typing and Juicing Vegetables
According to Nutritional Typing principles, if you are a carb type, vegetable juicing is STRONGLY recommended. With patients in our clinic, we strongly encourage it if they expect to regain their health.
If you are a mixed type, it is certainly useful to juice. However, protein types need to follow some specific guidelines to make it work for them, which I'll review below.
I used to charge a fee for my nutritional typing program; however I'm now able to offer this exceptional tool for FREE, so I urge you to take advantage of this opportunity. You can find the free online typing test here. This program can help guide your food choices even further. We use to charge $29 for this test but I wanted to make it available for everyone, so please take advantage of this free test to help you learn what foods will improve your health.
Protein Types and Juicing Vegetables
If you are a protein type, juicing needs to be done cautiously. The only vegetables that should be juiced are your prime protein type vegetables, which are celery, spinach, asparagus, string beans and cauliflower (including the base).
Also, to make drinking vegetable juice compatible with protein type metabolism (which needs high amounts of fat), it is important to blend a source of raw fat into the juice. Raw cream, raw butter, raw eggs, avocado, coconut butter, or freshly ground flax seed are the sources of raw fat I most recommend.
In addition to adding a source of raw fat to your juice, you may also find that adding some, or even all, of the vegetable pulp into your juice helps to make drinking the juiced vegetables more satisfying.
Final Thoughts about Vegetables
The truth is, scientists really don't know all that much about nutrients, and taking isolated nutrients through supplements is not always a good idea, since it's been shown that using supplements can actually lead to negative health consequences.
A much better way to get the vital nutrients your body needs is through eating whole, fresh organic vegetables. I recommend at least one third of your total diet be eaten raw, and a great way to do this is through incorporating juicing into your eating plan. Personally, I aim for consuming about 80 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs, dairy and meat.
Be sure to also take into account your Nutritional Type, because some people definitely function better with more vegetables in their diets than others. Again, to take my free online nutritional typing test, see this link.
But I want to emphasize that eating any vegetable is better than eating no vegetables at all, so don't get down on yourself if you're able to juice organic fresh vegetables only a few times a week. Even if you have to start slowly, I think you'll soon begin to notice positive changes to your health when you increase your intake of fresh vegetables.
Even better, review my nutrition plan, which can help you take a comprehensive look at your overall health as it relates to food, and may even help you to change the way you think about eating.
November 29 2010
89,820 views Share814
Email to a friend : 825
By Dr. Mercola
There's little doubt that one of the best ways to improve your health is to make sure you're eating plenty of fresh, minimally processed high quality vegetables, ideally locally-grown and organic, with a majority of them consumed raw. One simple way to boost your vegetable intake is to juice them.
Juicing organic vegetables is highly recommended to patients in our clinic who are working to restore or improve their health. I am firmly convinced that juicing is one of the key factors to giving you a radiant, energetic life, and truly optimal health.
I simply do not know of any other single nutritional intervention that has a more profound influence on health than eating and/or juicing fresh, organic vegetables.
You can review my comprehensive approach to how to juice on my vegetable juicing page.
Are All Vegetables the Same?
If you were to get all of your vegetables from conventionally farmed sources, this would be better for your health than eating no fresh vegetables at all. However, conventionally farmed vegetables are not your best choice. Organic vegetables are a much better option.
Why?
USDA Organic farmers (and many small, local organic farms working without certification), must use different standards when growing vegetables. These standards include never using:
•Pesticides
•Synthetic Fertilizers
•Sewage sludge
•Genetically modified organisms
•Ionizing radiation
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers 60 percent of herbicides, 90 percent of fungicides, and 30 percent of insecticides to be carcinogenic, and most are damaging to your nervous system as well. In fact, these powerful and dangerous chemicals have been linked to numerous health problems such as:
•Neurotoxicity
•Disruption of your endocrine system
•Carcinogenicity
•Immune system suppression
•Male infertility and reduced reproductive function
•Miscarriages
•Parkinson's disease
This information alone should give you pause when considering whether to buy local, organic vegetables or not. But I encourage you to do further research about organic versus conventional farming conditions. I believe that after researching the facts and statistics, you'll come to the conclusion that organic vegetables are far more nutritious than conventionally farmed vegetables.
Conventional Fruit and Vegetable Pesticide Loads
Certainly helpful to your decision about which vegetables should be purchased organic and which conventional veggies may be safe, is the measured pesticide loads found on conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables.
Of the 43 different fruit and vegetable categories tested by the Environmental Working Group and included in their Shoppers' Guide to Pesticides in Produce, these 12 fruits and vegetables had the highest pesticide load, making them the most important to buy or grow organic:
•Peaches
•Apples
•Sweet bell peppers
•Celery
•Nectarines
•Strawberries
•Cherries
•Lettuce
•Grapes (imported)
•Pears
•Spinach
•Potatoes
In contrast, these foods were found to have the lowest residual pesticide load, making them the safest bet among conventionally grown vegetables:
•Broccoli
•Eggplant
•Cabbage
•Banana
•Kiwi
•Asparagus
•Sweet peas (frozen)
•Mango
•Pineapple
•Sweet corn (frozen)
•Avocado
•Onion
So if you need to work within a certain budget, use this information to help guide you to the best choices when it comes to lowering your overall pesticide exposure.
The Importance of Fresh Vegetables
Buying your vegetables from a local organic source is the ideal way to ensure that your vegetables are both fresh and high-quality. I strongly advise you to avoid wilted vegetables of any kind, because when vegetables wilt they loose much of their nutritional value. In fact, wilted organic vegetables may actually be less healthy than fresh conventionally farmed vegetables!
Another reason to buy your organic vegetables from a local source is that fresher vegetables also contain the highest amounts of biophotons.
What are Biophotons?
Biophotons are the smallest physical units of light, which are stored in, and used by all biological organisms – including your body.
Dr. Fritz-Albert Popp was the first to suggest that this light inside all biological organisms must originate, at least in part, from the foods you eat. When you eat plant foods, the light waves (photons) are thought assimilate into the cells in your body.
The purpose of these biophotons is much more important than many have realized, because they are the transmitters of important nutritional bio-information used in many complex vital processes in your body.
Every living organism emits biophotons, or low-level luminescence (light with a wavelength between 200 and 800 nanometers). It is thought that the higher the level of light energy a cell emits, the greater the vitality and potential for the transfer of light energy to your body.
In other words, the more light that a food is able to store, the more nutritious it is when you consume it. Fresh, organic vegetables are naturally rich in this biophoton light energy.
Illness Can Occur When Biophoton Emissions are Out of Sync
Research by Dr. Popp also showed that the light emissions of healthy people follow a set of biological rhythms by day and night and also by week and month.
However, in his studies, the light emissions from cancer patients had no such rhythms and appeared scrambled, which suggests that their cells were no longer communicating properly.
Likewise, according to Dr. Popp's research, multiple sclerosis patients were taking in too much light, leading to what he considered confusion on a cellular level.
Even stress can influence your biophoton emissions, causing them to increase when stress increases.
It's also known that cancer-causing chemicals alter your body's biophoton emissions, interrupting proper cellular communication, while certain natural substances can help to restore proper cellular communication. For instance, Dr. Popp found that mistletoe appeared to restore biophoton emissions of tumor cells to a normal level!
Interestingly, even conventional medicine confirmed that mistletoe extract does appear to have a beneficial effect on cancer, with one study published in Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine showing that mean survival rates nearly doubled among breast cancer patients who received mistletoe extract.
An Important Tip for Gathering Valuable Light Energy
As regular readers know, I've long recommended eating a diet of mostly RAW food to stay optimally healthy. This is because living raw foods contain the most biophoton light energy that your body needs.
The greater your store of light energy from healthy raw foods (this should not be confused with your vitamin D status, which is produced by the sun on your skin), the greater the power of your overall electromagnetic field, and consequently the more energy is available for healing and maintenance of optimal health.
I firmly believe it's only a matter of time before the importance of light energy in your health and well-being becomes more widely recognized and applied in the field of medicine. Until then, remember that your body is not only made up of tissue, blood vessels and organs. It's also composed of light.
Reasons to Juice
As I mentioned at the beginning, one of the best ways to get ample amounts of raw vegetables into your diet is through juicing. Many people see juicing as inconvenient, but with the proper juicer it really is not very time consuming at all.
The fact is, many people initially think that juicing will be a real chore, but most are pleasantly surprised to find it's much easier than they thought.
There are three main reasons why you will want to consider incorporating organic vegetable juicing into your optimal health program:
•Juicing helps you absorb more nutrients from the vegetables.
•Juicing allows you to efficiently consume more vegetables.
•Juicing can add a wider variety of vegetables into your diet.
However, you should only start by juicing vegetables that you enjoy eating non-juiced. The juice should taste pleasant -- not make you feel nauseous.
It is very important to listen to your body when juicing. Your stomach should feel good all morning long. If it is churning or growling or generally making its presence known, you probably juiced something you should not be eating. Personally, I've noticed that I can't juice large amounts of cabbage, but if I spread it out, I do fine.
Please review my comprehensive vegetable juicing instructions for more information.
What are the Best Vegetables for Good Health?
Whether you're munching them raw or juicing, some vegetables contain more health building nutrients than others. This list details some of the best and worst vegetables for your health.
Highly Recommended Vegetables
Asparagus Escarole
Avocado (actually a fruit) Fennel
Beet greens Green and red cabbage
Bok Choy Kale
Broccoli Kohlrabi
Brussel sprouts Lettuce: romaine, red leaf, green leaf
Cauliflower Mustard greens
Celery Onions
Chicory Parsley
Chinese cabbage Peppers: red, green, yellow and hot
Chives Tomatoes
Collard greens Turnips
Cucumbers Spinach
Dandelion greens Zucchini
Endive
Use sparingly due to high carbohydrate levels
Beets Jicima
Carrots Winter Squashes
Eggplant
Vegetables to Avoid
Potatoes
Tips to Make Your Juice Taste Better
If you would like to make your juice taste a bit more palatable, especially in the beginning, you can add these elements:
•Coconut: This is one of my favorites! You can purchase the whole coconut or use unsweetened shredded coconut. It adds a delightful flavor and is an excellent source of fat to balance your meal. Coconut has medium chain triglycerides, which have many health benefits.
•Cranberries: Researchers have discovered that cranberries have five times the antioxidant content of broccoli, which means they may help protect against cancer, stroke and heart disease. Limit the cranberries to about 4 ounces per pint of juice.
•Lemons and Limes: You can also add half a lemon or lime (leaving much of the white rind on)..
•Fresh ginger: This is an excellent addition if you can tolerate it. It gives your juice a little "kick"! And, as an added boon, researchers have found that ginger can have dramatic effects on cardiovascular health, including preventing atherosclerosis, lowering cholesterol levels, and preventing the oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL).
Nutritional Typing and Juicing Vegetables
According to Nutritional Typing principles, if you are a carb type, vegetable juicing is STRONGLY recommended. With patients in our clinic, we strongly encourage it if they expect to regain their health.
If you are a mixed type, it is certainly useful to juice. However, protein types need to follow some specific guidelines to make it work for them, which I'll review below.
I used to charge a fee for my nutritional typing program; however I'm now able to offer this exceptional tool for FREE, so I urge you to take advantage of this opportunity. You can find the free online typing test here. This program can help guide your food choices even further. We use to charge $29 for this test but I wanted to make it available for everyone, so please take advantage of this free test to help you learn what foods will improve your health.
Protein Types and Juicing Vegetables
If you are a protein type, juicing needs to be done cautiously. The only vegetables that should be juiced are your prime protein type vegetables, which are celery, spinach, asparagus, string beans and cauliflower (including the base).
Also, to make drinking vegetable juice compatible with protein type metabolism (which needs high amounts of fat), it is important to blend a source of raw fat into the juice. Raw cream, raw butter, raw eggs, avocado, coconut butter, or freshly ground flax seed are the sources of raw fat I most recommend.
In addition to adding a source of raw fat to your juice, you may also find that adding some, or even all, of the vegetable pulp into your juice helps to make drinking the juiced vegetables more satisfying.
Final Thoughts about Vegetables
The truth is, scientists really don't know all that much about nutrients, and taking isolated nutrients through supplements is not always a good idea, since it's been shown that using supplements can actually lead to negative health consequences.
A much better way to get the vital nutrients your body needs is through eating whole, fresh organic vegetables. I recommend at least one third of your total diet be eaten raw, and a great way to do this is through incorporating juicing into your eating plan. Personally, I aim for consuming about 80 percent of my food raw, including raw eggs, dairy and meat.
Be sure to also take into account your Nutritional Type, because some people definitely function better with more vegetables in their diets than others. Again, to take my free online nutritional typing test, see this link.
But I want to emphasize that eating any vegetable is better than eating no vegetables at all, so don't get down on yourself if you're able to juice organic fresh vegetables only a few times a week. Even if you have to start slowly, I think you'll soon begin to notice positive changes to your health when you increase your intake of fresh vegetables.
Even better, review my nutrition plan, which can help you take a comprehensive look at your overall health as it relates to food, and may even help you to change the way you think about eating.
Highly Recommended Vegetables
Highly Recommended Vegetables
Asparagus Escarole
Avocado (actually a fruit) Fennel
Beet greens Green and red cabbage
Bok Choy Kale
Broccoli Kohlrabi
Brussel sprouts Lettuce: romaine, red leaf, green leaf
Cauliflower Mustard greens
Celery Onions
Chicory Parsley
Chinese cabbage Peppers: red, green, yellow and hot
Chives Tomatoes
Collard greens Turnips
Cucumbers Spinach
Dandelion greens Zucchini
Endive
Use sparingly due to high carbohydrate levels
Beets Jicima
Carrots Winter Squashes
Eggplant
Vegetables to Avoid
Potatoes
Asparagus Escarole
Avocado (actually a fruit) Fennel
Beet greens Green and red cabbage
Bok Choy Kale
Broccoli Kohlrabi
Brussel sprouts Lettuce: romaine, red leaf, green leaf
Cauliflower Mustard greens
Celery Onions
Chicory Parsley
Chinese cabbage Peppers: red, green, yellow and hot
Chives Tomatoes
Collard greens Turnips
Cucumbers Spinach
Dandelion greens Zucchini
Endive
Use sparingly due to high carbohydrate levels
Beets Jicima
Carrots Winter Squashes
Eggplant
Vegetables to Avoid
Potatoes
Time For Economic Restoration Now Climate Change Deception Exposed
Maurice Strong engineered the attack on capitalism and industrialism, its engine of growth, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Time For Economic Restoration Now Climate Change Deception Exposed
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 29, 2010
Time For Economic Restoration Now Climate Change Deception Exposed
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Body Scanners Even More Dangerous Than Feds Admit
Body Scanners Even More
Dangerous Than Feds Admit
By Dr. Russell Blaylock
11-29-10
Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor ofThe Blaylock Wellness Report.
The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and Im here to help you.
So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen - Lets just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.
Dangerous Than Feds Admit
By Dr. Russell Blaylock
11-29-10
Dr. Russell Blaylock is a nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, health practitioner, author, lecturer, and editor of
The growing outrage over the Transportation Security Administrations new policy of backscatter scanning of airline passengers and enhanced pat-downs brings to mind these wise words from President Ronald Reagan: The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: Im from the government and Im here to help you.
So, what is all the concern really about - will these radiation scanners increase your risk of cancer or other diseases? A group of scientists and professors from the University of California at San Francisco voiced their concern to Obama's science and technology adviser John Holdren in a well-stated letter back in April.
The group included experts in radiation biology, biophysics, and imaging, who expressed serious concerns about the dangerously high dose of radiation to the skin.
Radiation increases cancer risk by damaging the DNA and various components within the cells. Much of the damage is caused by high concentrations of free radicals generated by the radiation. Most scientists think that the most damaging radiation types are those that have high penetration, such as gamma-rays, but in fact, some of the most damaging radiation barely penetrates the skin.
One of the main concerns is that most of the energy from the airport scanners is concentrated on the surface of the skin and a few millimeters into the skin. Some very radiation-sensitive tissues are close to the skin - such as the testes, eyes, and circulating blood cells in the skin.
This is why defenders using such analogies as the dose being 1,000-times less than a chest X-ray and far less than what passengers are exposed to in-flight are deceptive. Radiation damage depends on the volume of tissue exposed. Chest X-rays and gamma-radiation from outer space is diffused over the entire body so that the dose to the skin is extremely small. Of note, outer space radiation does increase cancer rates in passengers, pilots, and flight attendants.
We also know that certain groups of people are at a much higher risk than others. These include babies, small children, pregnant women, the elderly, people with impaired immunity (those with HIV infection, cancer patients, people with immune deficiency diseases, and people with abnormal DNA repair mechanism, just to name a few).
As we grow older, our DNA accumulates a considerable amount of unrepaired damage, and under such circumstances even low doses of radiation can trigger the development of skin cancers, including the deadly melanoma. I would also be concerned about exposing the eyes, since this could increase ones risk of developing cataracts.
About 5 percent of the population have undiagnosed abnormal DNA repair mechanism. When exposed to radiation, this can put them at a cancer risk hundreds of times greater than normal people.
It also has been determined that when skin is next to certain metals, such as gold, the radiation dose is magnified 100-fold higher. What if you have a mole next to your gold jewelry? Will the radiation convert it to a melanoma? Deficiencies in certain vitamins can dramatically increase your sensitivity to radiation carcinogenesis, as can certain prescription medications.
As for the assurances we have been given by such organization as the American College of Radiology, we must keep in mind that they assured us that the CT scans were safe and that the radiation was equal to one chest X-ray. Forty years later we learn that the dose is extremely high, it is thought to have caused cancer in a significant number of people, and the dose is actually equal to 1,000 chest X-rays.
Based on these assurances, tens of thousands of children have been exposed to radiation doses from CT scanners, which will ruin the children's lives. I have two friends who were high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency scientists, and they assure me that in government safety agencies, politics most often override the scientists real concerns about such issues.
This government shares House Speaker Nancy Pelosis view when she urged passage of the Obamacare bill sight unseen - Lets just pass the bill, and we will find out what is in it later.
When the real effects of these scanners on health become known, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and the rest of the gang who insist the scanners are safe will be long gone.
UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You
October 28, 2009
UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You
By Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild
Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program known as Agenda 21. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.
A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development. The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: "smart growth." The United Nations Millennium Papers - Issue 2 (page 5) says this of Agenda 21 and smart growth:
Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth [emphasis added].
Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn't care less whether it's called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan called Pathways was drafted by the County Planning Department. The plan, if enacted, proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights:
•Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks
•Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers
•Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums
•Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities
•Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods
Carroll County, Maryland is one of 1,168 cities, towns, and counties worldwide that are members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) - Local Governments for Sustainability, which is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. The ICLEI mission statement closely resembles that of Agenda 21. In fact, the ICLEI has Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council and coordinates local government representation in the UN processes related to Agenda 21.
Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, "Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government's goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left."
Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a "smart code" zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums.
Finally, a healthy dose of federal- or state-sponsored housing initiatives is embraced to ensure communities are properly balanced. The net effect of these plans is to create highly urbanized population centers throughout otherwise-rural counties, while simultaneously limiting the availability of land for suburban and estate subdivisions, as these are considered an unsustainable waste of land by Agenda 21 disciples.
Clearly, smart growth plans will impact Americans' future choices in where and how they live. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and state agencies may attempt to deny grant funds to states and cities that do not adopt smart growth plans.
Most Americans will remain unaware of the implications of smart growth and Agenda 21 until after it is promulgated in their own backyards. Ironically, these plans are more insidious than the Eminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London. Under Eminent Domain rulings, property owners usually receive compensation for their losses.
Conversely, smart growth municipal plans, required by statute, enable municipalities to change zoning laws and engage in other regulatory actions that devalue property, restrict off-conveyances, and otherwise erode property values without payment of any compensation to the property owner.
Smart growth has another interesting unintended consequence: it can disrupt conventional alliances and lead to strange political bedfellows. Rural urbanization plans may raise the ire of environmental groups while simultaneously stirring the wrath of both conservative and liberal residents that want to maintain the rural fabric of their communities. Conversely, developers, sensing opportunity, may side with government smart growth bureaucrats in support of these plans.
Regardless of political orientation, two indisputable facts remain. Agenda 21 is a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty, and it is coming to a neighborhood near you.
UN Agenda 21 - Coming to a Neighborhood near You
By Scott Strzelczyk and Richard Rothschild
Most Americans are unaware that one of the greatest threats to their freedom may be a United Nations program known as Agenda 21. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Sustainable Development created Agenda 21 as a sustainability agenda which is arguably an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism brushed with anti-American, anti-capitalist overtones.
A detailed history on sustainable development, definitions, and critical actions can be found here. Section III of the Agenda 21 Plan addresses local community sustainable development. The Preamble and Chapter 28 discuss how Agenda 21 should be implemented at a local level. The United Nations purposely recommends avoiding the term Agenda 21 and suggests a cleverly named alternative: "smart growth." The United Nations Millennium Papers - Issue 2 (page 5) says this of Agenda 21 and smart growth:
Participating in a UN-advocated planning process would very likely bring out many of the conspiracy-fixated groups and individuals in our society such as the National Rifle Association, citizen militias and some members of Congress. This segment of our society who fear 'one-world government' and a UN invasion of the United States through which our individual freedom would be stripped away would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined 'the conspiracy' by undertaking LA21. So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth [emphasis added].
Undoubtedly, residents of any town, county, or city in the United States that treasure their freedom, liberty, and property rights couldn't care less whether it's called Agenda 21 or smart growth. A recent example of this can be found in Carroll County, Maryland, where a smart growth plan called Pathways was drafted by the County Planning Department. The plan, if enacted, proposed a breathtaking reshuffling of land rights:
•Rezoning of thousands of acres of beautiful, low-density agricultural farmland and protected residential conservation land into office parks
•Down-zoning of agriculture land to prevent future subdivision by farmers
•Up-zoning of low-density residential land around small towns into higher density zoning to permit construction of hundreds or possibly thousands of inclusive housing units, including apartments and condominiums
•Inclusive housing with placement of multi-family construction on in-fill lots within existing residential single family communities
•Endorsement of government-sponsored housing initiatives (subsidies) to ensure healthier, balanced neighborhoods
Carroll County, Maryland is one of 1,168 cities, towns, and counties worldwide that are members of the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) - Local Governments for Sustainability, which is an international association of local governments as well as national and regional local government organizations that have made a commitment to sustainable development. The ICLEI mission statement closely resembles that of Agenda 21. In fact, the ICLEI has Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council and coordinates local government representation in the UN processes related to Agenda 21.
Community leaders working together in Carroll County recently defended their county against overreaching smart growth initiatives. Richard Rothschild, a candidate for Commissioner, emphatically remarks, "Smart growth is not science; it is political dogma combined with an insidious dose of social engineering. Smart growth is a wedding wherein zoning code is married with government-sponsored housing initiatives to accomplish government's goal of social re-engineering. It urbanizes rural towns with high-density development, and gerrymanders population centers through the use of housing initiatives that enable people with weak patterns of personal financial responsibility to acquire homes in higher-income areas. This has the effect of shifting the voting patterns of rural municipalities from Right to Left."
Smart growth plans usurp property rights and constitutional rights. Local officials, at the behest of State Government, revise zoning laws to fit into a "smart code" zoning template. A massive reshuffling of property rights ensues. Farmers may lose subdivision rights; conservation land adjacent to population centers may be rezoned into commercial employment centers; and low-density land in small towns is re-designated as growth area and rezoned to accommodate diverse housing including high-density apartments and condominiums.
Finally, a healthy dose of federal- or state-sponsored housing initiatives is embraced to ensure communities are properly balanced. The net effect of these plans is to create highly urbanized population centers throughout otherwise-rural counties, while simultaneously limiting the availability of land for suburban and estate subdivisions, as these are considered an unsustainable waste of land by Agenda 21 disciples.
Clearly, smart growth plans will impact Americans' future choices in where and how they live. Furthermore, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal and state agencies may attempt to deny grant funds to states and cities that do not adopt smart growth plans.
Most Americans will remain unaware of the implications of smart growth and Agenda 21 until after it is promulgated in their own backyards. Ironically, these plans are more insidious than the Eminent Domain ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v City of New London. Under Eminent Domain rulings, property owners usually receive compensation for their losses.
Conversely, smart growth municipal plans, required by statute, enable municipalities to change zoning laws and engage in other regulatory actions that devalue property, restrict off-conveyances, and otherwise erode property values without payment of any compensation to the property owner.
Smart growth has another interesting unintended consequence: it can disrupt conventional alliances and lead to strange political bedfellows. Rural urbanization plans may raise the ire of environmental groups while simultaneously stirring the wrath of both conservative and liberal residents that want to maintain the rural fabric of their communities. Conversely, developers, sensing opportunity, may side with government smart growth bureaucrats in support of these plans.
Regardless of political orientation, two indisputable facts remain. Agenda 21 is a direct assault on private property rights and American sovereignty, and it is coming to a neighborhood near you.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
3 Lame Duck Bills destroy USA : the final KICK
3 Lame Duck Bills destroy USA : the final KICK
S.787
Will give the federal government jurisdiction over all water, everywhere, as well as jurisdiction over all activity that affects water wherever it may be. This would give to the federal government effective control over every square inch of land in the United States.
S.510
“The FDA has plenty of authority to protect the anonymous food supply already. But they don’t. Instead, they put small entities out of business through Hazard Analasis & Critical Control Points (HACCP), also to be expanded in this bill, and heavier regulations that are not helpful to smaller economies of scale. The FDA inspects less than 1% of imported produce, has performed inspections on less than 25% of processing failties that they are authorized to inspect (in a five year period) and they ALREADY have authority over live food animals on the farm. The USDA authority is over animal disease.”
S.3772
The “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation; send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits
S.787
Will give the federal government jurisdiction over all water, everywhere, as well as jurisdiction over all activity that affects water wherever it may be. This would give to the federal government effective control over every square inch of land in the United States.
S.510
“The FDA has plenty of authority to protect the anonymous food supply already. But they don’t. Instead, they put small entities out of business through Hazard Analasis & Critical Control Points (HACCP), also to be expanded in this bill, and heavier regulations that are not helpful to smaller economies of scale. The FDA inspects less than 1% of imported produce, has performed inspections on less than 25% of processing failties that they are authorized to inspect (in a five year period) and they ALREADY have authority over live food animals on the farm. The USDA authority is over animal disease.”
S.3772
The “Paycheck Fairness Act” would stifle job creation; send existing American jobs overseas, and burden employers with expensive paperwork and frivolous lawsuits
EDUCATE BEFORE YOU RADIATE
EDUCATE BEFORE YOU RADIATE
Opting Out: The Facts About
Airport X-ray Scanners
Can These Scanners Cause Cancer?
"Some studies reported significant genetic damage…" Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
Although the forces generated from these scanners are small, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as DNA replication.
Translation: It can destroy your DNA!
“…any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and heart disease.”
- Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, UC, Berkeley.
Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of heart disease.
Children - are more at risk because of their rapidly growing tissues. They are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA..
The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma. -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University's Centre For Radiological Research
“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant… If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck… There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It's unprecedented in the radiation world.” -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University's Centre For Radiological Research
"...statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these Xrays…
No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial.
We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner…"
-Dr Michael Love, Biophysics and Chemistry, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe… We don't have enough information to make a decision on whether there's going to be a biological effect or not.” -Douglas Boreham- professor in medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario
“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn't” -Peter Rez- Arizona State University
"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation." National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)
So what can you do to avoid the ionizing radiation? Opt out. Then security will just use the wand detector.
At the very least, listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDDslRO5J8o">5 minutes of common sense on the matter.
Want to give them every advantage? Don't Xray your kids!!
Opting Out: The Facts About
Airport X-ray Scanners
Can These Scanners Cause Cancer?
"Some studies reported significant genetic damage…" Boian Alexandrov- Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico
Although the forces generated from these scanners are small, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as DNA replication.
Translation: It can destroy your DNA!
“…any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic mutation. Such mutations rarely disappear. The higher their accumulated number in a population, the higher will be the population’s mortality rates from radiation-induced cancer and heart disease.”
- Dr. John Gofman- Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, UC, Berkeley.
Gofman’s studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of heart disease.
Children - are more at risk because of their rapidly growing tissues. They are less able to repair X-ray damage to their DNA..
The most likely risk from the airport scanners is a common type of skin cancer called basal cell carcinoma. -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University's Centre For Radiological Research
“If all 800 million people who use airports every year were screened with X-rays then the very small individual risk multiplied by the large number of screened people might imply a potential public health or societal risk. The population risk has the potential to be significant… If there are increases in cancers as a result of irradiation of children, they would most likely appear some decades in the future. It would be prudent not to scan the head and neck… There really is no other technology around where we're planning to X-ray such an enormous number of individuals. It's unprecedented in the radiation world.” -Dr. David Brenner- head of Columbia University's Centre For Radiological Research
"...statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these Xrays…
No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial.
We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner…"
-Dr Michael Love, Biophysics and Chemistry, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe… We don't have enough information to make a decision on whether there's going to be a biological effect or not.” -Douglas Boreham- professor in medical physics and applied radiation sciences at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario
“The thing that worries me the most, is not what happens if the machine works as advertised, but what happens if it doesn't” -Peter Rez- Arizona State University
"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation." National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)
So what can you do to avoid the ionizing radiation? Opt out. Then security will just use the wand detector.
At the very least, listen to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDDslRO5J8o">5 minutes of common sense on the matter.
Want to give them every advantage? Don't Xray your kids!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)