So, How Do We Stop The Spraying?

Like!

22

Saturday, December 1st, 2012. Filed under: Activism Geoengineering

GeoEngineeringWatch
All that know about the horrific crime that is “stratospheric aerosol geoengineering” (SAG), more commonly known as “chemtrails”, want an answer to this question. Though there is not an easy answer, there is a way. Raise public awareness until it reaches critical mass.

This sounds so very generic, but in fact it is the only path forward. If all pulled together, the globally decimating aerosol spraying programs could be exposed. There is no other way and I will explain why.
The Concerted, Coordinated Government Agency Cover-Up
Regarding the issue of geoengineering, the doors to all government representatives, and all government agencies, have been locked and shackled shut. Those behind the spraying operations have made vast preparations to protect these programs over the course of decades. They have left no stone unturned, no door unlocked, as I stated. Governmental agencies like “Water Quality” and “Air Quality” have been structured in a manor to mask the mountain of toxic fallout from the weather/climate modification programs.
In California for example, State Water Quality stopped testing for aluminum in 02?. CARB (California Air Resources Board) also does not even look for such contaminants. This author personally attended a high level CARB closed door meeting in Sacramento California which was arranged by a congressional representative. There were 5 high level CARB officials in attendance. I was told to my face that they are mandated to test for “combustion particulates only”. The rest of the air samples apparently go out the window. Certainly it would be hard to find what you are told not to look for.
The testing of regional air quality agencies is never going to show the fallout from the aerosol spraying as the geoengineering particles are far too small to be picked up by all but the most sophisticated and expensive and specialized air testing equipment. Politicians, Federal agencies, and government representatives are also a dead end brick wall. Most simply produce the public propaganda sheet from NASA which states “Chemtrails are a hoax” “Chemtrails”? Did I even mention this term to these people? No, I supplied data only on SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) and SRM (solar radiation management). Does NASA’s disinformation sheet mention anything about geoengineering being a hoax? No chance. Their disinformation sheet does not even mention the “geoengineering” term.
They’ve Sold Us Down a Toxic River
For virtually all “bought and paid for” government officials, the NASA “chemtrails hoax” sheet is an easy out. This includes supposedly environmentally minded Congress woman Barbara Boxer. I have been in her office also, to absolutely no avail. Complete dead end.
I have spoken in front of the entire CARB board, supplying them with hard science data and videos. Nothing. I have done the same in front of the California Energy Commission (who admitted on the record the State of California was losing 20% or more of its rainfall from “particulates of unknown origin”) . No response whatsoever from them, such “dead ends” should be expected for a number of reasons.
Any and all government scientists have no first amendment rights. None seem to have the courage to risk their jobs in spite of the fact that the ongoing atmospheric geoengineering is putting all life on Earth in the balance..
Agencies answer to State officials whose existence is now dependent on backdoor funding from the Federal Reserve to the tune of tens of billions. In the case of California, about 30 billion a year from the FED appears to be the only thing keeping the party going. Spineless State officials are not about to risk their positions by allowing state agencies to raise a red flag on the horrific contamination from the spraying. If they did sound the alarm, the fiat money from the Federal Government, which keeps the state afloat, would certainly be shut down.

We Must Expose the Spraying
The bottom line is this: its up to all of us and each of us to expose the spraying. For any that engage in objective hard research on the subject of geoengineering, and its already known consequences, it is inevitable to conclude that our lives quite literally depend on stopping these programs. The atmospheric spraying is poisoning every breath we take, shredding the ozone, decimating the earth’s hydrological cycle causing drought and deluge, sterilizing soils and waters with toxic metals and chemicals, blocking natural sunlight and causing massive fungal proliferation and contamination. There’s more, but the point should be clear.
How do we do this? By making it our mission, each and every one of us, to put credible and compelling data into the hands of people, groups, and organizations, that would care, if they only knew. Such a list of target recipients is almost endless. Alzheimer’s groups, autism, ADD, environmental, farm, organic foods, ranchers, forestry, journalists, etc etc. We need to be thorough. Information can be given in a number of ways. From one’s own home computer, appropriate people and groups can be located. Credible e-mails can be sent with a few solid articles on the subject attached. Postal addresses can be found to mail DVD’s on the subject of geoengineering such as Michael Murphy’s “Why In The World Are They Spraying”. Since Murphy has generously not copywrited this informative DVD, in order to help with the mission, one can make as many copies as needed. All that is necessary for such an effort is to purchase at least one original from “whyintheworldaretheyspraying.com” Such a purchase also helps keep Murphy’s important filming efforts going. If you send a DVD, add a credible and thought out flyer with it. Some examples can be found at geoengineeringwatch.org/ads.
Awareness Reaching Critical Mass
If critical mass of awareness can be reached, then people in the military, that are not currently aware of what they are participating in, would likely begin to refuse to participate. They would be aware of the dangers posed to themselves and their families from this lethal spraying. They would understand that by participating in these programs, they are literally killing themselves and their families slowly and surely along with the rest of us.
Every day the spraying continues, the nails are being pounded into our collective coffins. This is not alarmism or exaggeration, it is fact. There is again an ever growing mountain of data to back up this conclusion for any that bother to do honest investigation. One can search “negative effects of geoengineering” on any search engine. Numerous articles on the subject can also be found on “geoengineeringwatch.org” or other geoengineering sites.
People Will Listen
If you connect with people in a manor they can relate to, they will listen. I recently connected with the head of the Northern California Cattleman’s Association. What was he most interested in knowing? How geoengineering programs are negatively affecting him and his fellow ranchers. Reducing rainfall, stunting the growth of native grasses and feed crops do to the toxic contamination, and the shredding of the ozone layer. (which also harms feed crops) These aspects of the global spraying are very clearly causing very negative impacts to him, so he wanted to know more. If you learn enough about this issue to inform people how they personally are being affected, given what you specifically know about their interests, they will listen.
Stopping the spraying is up to all of us. Don’t run around randomly ranting to people about this dire issue, this can do far more harm than good. Give them credible data to examine with sources for more information. Ask them to help spread the word after they have investigated themselves. If one person tells two on the first day, and those two tell two more each on the second day, and so on, at the end of thirty days, over 5 million would know.
Don’t sit on your backside, help those of us that are working on this issue 24/7. Our collective fate is in the balance. Its it’s up to all of us and it’s now or never.
Dane Wigington

NBC: Animals quietly falling sick and dying near oil & gas drilling — Cows tails dropping off (PHOTO)

State: “Potential danger to human life” due to gas pressures in area of giant sinkhole — Emergency directive issued on weekend — Texas Brine fined $100,000 »

NBC: Animals quietly falling sick and dying near oil & gas drilling — Cows tails dropping off (PHOTO)

Published: December 1st, 2012 at 8:57 pm ET By ENENews Email Article one comment

Title: Livestock falling ill in fracking regions
Source: NBC News (Full report here)
Author: Elizabeth Royte, Food & Environment Reporting Network
Date: Nov. 30, 2012
h/t Anonymous tip
In the midst of the domestic energy boom, livestock on farms near oil- and gas-drilling operations nationwide have been quietly falling sick and dying

[...] Earlier this year, Michelle Bamberger, an Ithaca veterinarian, and Robert Oswald, a professor of molecular medicine at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine, published the first (and, so far, only) peer-reviewed report to suggest a link between fracking and illness in food animals. The authors compiled case studies of twenty-four farmers in six shale-gas states whose livestock experienced neurological, reproductive and acute gastrointestinal problems. Exposed either accidentally or incidentally to fracking chemicals in the water or air, scores of animals have died. The death toll is insignificant when measured against the nation’s livestock population (some 97 million beef cattle go to market each year), but environmental advocates believe these animals constitute an early warning. [...]
In Louisiana, seventeen cows died after an hour’s exposure to spilled fracking fluid. (Most likely cause of death: respiratory failure.) In north central Pennsylvania, 140 cattle were exposed to fracking wastewater when an impoundment was breached. Approximately seventy cows died; the remainder produced eleven calves, of which only three survived. In western Pennsylvania, an overflowing waste pit sent fracking chemicals into a pond and a pasture where pregnant cows grazed: half their calves were born dead. [...]

Photo: Jacki Schilke

[...] Ever since a heater-treater unit, which separates oil, gas and brine, blew out on a drill pad a half-mile upwind of [Jacki Schilke's North Dakota ranch], her own creek has been clogged with scummy growth, and it regularly burps up methane. “No one can tell me what’s going on,” she says. But since the blowout, her creek has failed to freeze, despite temperatures of forty below. (Testing found sulfate levels of 4,000 parts per million: the EPA’s health goal for sulfate is 250 parts per million.)
Schilke’s troubles began in the summer of 2010, when a crew working at this site continued to force drilling fluid down a well that had sprung a leak. Soon, Schilke’s cattle were limping, with swollen legs and infections. Cows quit producing milk for their calves; they lost from sixty to eighty pounds in a week; and their tails mysteriously dropped off. [...]

Feud at The Fed: "Horrific Consequences" for Unlimited Easing

Feud at The Fed: "Horrific Consequences" for Unlimited Easing

SABOTAGE SUSPECTED AT SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

SABOTAGE SUSPECTED AT SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR POWER PLANThttp://eastcountymagazine.org/node/11837

• More November 2012 Articles
• News
• Citizens Oversight
• Fukushima
• nuclear
• San Onofre
• San Onofre meltdown
• San Onofre sabotage
• Southern California Edison

Printer-friendly version Despite disturbing finding, Edison seeks to restart trouble-prone nuclear facility
Hearing Nov. 30 in Laguna Hills as nine cities voice concerns over safety issues
By Miriam Raftery
November 30, 2012 (San Diego)—Southern California Edison has notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of possible sabotage at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating facility, after finding coolant poured in the oil reservoir of an emergency backup generator at Unit 3, Energy News reports.
The FBI is taking over the investigation and criminal charges are possible, according to a plant employee who spoke under condition of anonymity, fearing reprisals, Huffington Post reported yesterday. The NRC has confirmed that Edison reported potential sabotage,Energy News reported.
"The FBI is aware of the alleged security incident that occurred at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating (SONGS) Station. The FBI is presently reviewing the facts and circumstances concerning this incident," Special agent Darrell Foxworth with the FBI told ECM. "At this time there is no indication that this incident is terrorism related."
Previous news stories have speculated that a disgruntled employee could be the culprit due to recent layoff announcements.
Failure of emergency generators at Fukushima were key factors in that plant’s meltdown last year. A meltdown at San Onofre would force evacuation of San Diego, portions of East County and also parts of Orange and Riverside counties and could potentially leave the region contaminated for generations.
If the coolant had not been found at San Onofre and the generators activated, Edison indicated that a control that prevents the generator from running too fast would have failed, John Reynoso, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector at San Onofre, said, Energy News reported on November 9 when the discovery was initially made.
Fortunately, both Unit 3 and Unit 2 have been off-line since January 31^st after radioactive leaks were found in steam generator tubes. (Unit 1 was previously decommissioned.)
The employee said most workers are “baffled” about the alleged tampering, adding that “No one I know could imagine doing such a thing…You’re only endangering yourself and your coworkers and the surrounding public.”
Edison owns the plant jointly with SDG&E and the City of Riverside. Edison has issued a statement indicated that a comprehensive investigation included “rigorous tests” and that security has been enhanced following the disturbing discovery.
Despite the serious safety breach, Edison tweeted today that it has submitted plans to restart Unit 2 “but will not restart Unit 2 until the NRC says that it is safe to do so.”
But a growing number of activists, environmental groups and cities near the plant voice concerns that the facility may never be safe. They have lobbied for permanent closure of the ailing nuclear facility.
Over the past four years, San Onofre has had more safety concerns raised by workers than any other nuclear facility in America, NRC data indicates. Employees have complained of retaliation form management and fear of reprisals for reporting problems.
Ray Lutz, founder of Citizens Oversight Groups in El Cajon, has been an outspoken advocate for shutting down San Onofre. Tonight, he expressed astonishment at Edison’s announcement.
“Think about what it is that Edison is actually proposing,” he wrote in an e-mail sent to media. “1-Start a defective nuclear reactor, run it at 70% and see what happens. 2- Do this while the FBI investigates one case of sabotage (are there others?). 3-Disregard a union leader’s claim that the workforce thinks a restarts is not safe. `Safety first should be more than a slogan when it comes to nuclear power.’”
Equally troubling in the wake of an apparent sabotage attempt, Edison this week announced that it has established “virtual tours” for the public to view interiors of the San Onofre nuclear facility online.
Lutz revealed that he has been informed that Pete Dietrich, Chief Nuclear Operator, told employees that Edison anticipates restarting Unit 2 on February 2. “The workforce is being scheduled as if it is a done deal,” he revealed. Yet a six-page letter sent to Dietrich by a utility workers’ labor union indicates workers fear it is unsafe to restart the facility. “Dietrich told the union leader that the matter will be handed off to Edison’s attorney,” Lutz noted. “How is a lawyer supposed to answer questions about nuclear power?”
A report by Fairewinds Associations, commissioned by Friends of the Earth, raised more troubling concerns. The report concluded that San Onofre’s steam generators are “significantly worse” than those at all other nuclear facilities in the United States.
The NRC is slated to hold a public meeting on whether to restart the trouble-prone facility on Friday, November 30 from 6-9 p.m. at the Hills Hotel, 25205 La Paz Road in Laguna Hills. Opponents plan to stage a press conference and a march from Dana Harbor led by Buddhist monks calling for permanent decommissioning of the nuclear facility.
In yet another bizarre twist, today Gene Stone with Residents Organizing for a Safe Environment went to survey the site for the monks, only to discover that Edison had placed an old steam generator beside the road for shipment to Utah for disposal, Gary Headrick with San Clemente Green repots. “Although it is supposed to be ` low level radiation’ the Geiger counter he had with him spiked as he drove past (see video of meter going off).) As a result the monks opted to move the location of their march due to radiation fears.
The Coalition to Decommission San Onofre is demanding a full, transparent adjudicated hearing and license amendment process, with sworn testimony including experts independent of the nuclear power industry.
Now numerous cities have joined that call, including Del Mar, Encinitas, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Mission Viejas, Santa Monica and Solana Beadch. Two other cities, San Clemente and Vista, had joined calls by Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein for the NRC to modify its policies in light of the Fukushima meltdowns to protect residents and businesses in local communities.

»

• Login or register to post comments
• 

Dr. Oz viciously attacks organic foods and farmers markets, pushes feedlot beef, urges clueless consumers to eat more pesticides and GMO (opinion) Saturday, December 01, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)

1,907 6 (NaturalNews) Dr. Oz has finally done it: He has sold out to Big Ag by declaring organic foods to be "elitist," "snooty" and no better than conventional foods. The man who once urged Americans to eat organic has sold his soul to the criminally-run food giants in a mind-blowing editorial piece recently published in TIME Magazine. Look for Dr. Oz to promote GMOs next, as cozying up to Monsanto probably won't be too far behind. The man is already on the record pushing vaccines, talking about how good they are for "public health" while failing to mention that vaccines admittedly contain mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and MSG. He's also the same guy who was behind the "RealAge" internet scheme that recruited people into a promotional network where they were barraged by drug-pushing ads from Big Pharma. Dr. Oz also owned a huge number of option shares in a vaccine technology company. In his TIME Magazine editorial piece, Dr. Oz declares organic foods to be "elitist" and appropriate only for "the 1%." This clever bit of propaganda is designed to try to align conventional foods (i.e. pesticide ridden GMO foods) with the "99%" by making them sound more populist. As if, the "People's food" is pesticides and GMOs, you see. Does the man have no shame? Is there any corporate poison he won't promote to his viewers? Oz declares organic food is "not democratic" "Organic food is great, it's just not very democratic," Dr. Oz declares, as if choosing organic is somehow an affront to America. "You don't need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily," he says. In other words, keep sucking down more GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and chemicals, and you'll be a good little American food slave. Buying organic is anti-American, you're being told. Dr. Oz's message, of course, has become indistinguishable from that of Monsanto. It's all the same deception: You don't need clean, non-GMO food to be healthy. Keep eating all the conventional crap that poisons you with synthetic chemicals, and you'll be just fine! How about some GMO Corn Flakes for breakfast, even! Dr. Oz also attacks farmers markets, because he apparently thinks buying local food is a silly waste of time. "Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer's-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case," he somehow says with a straight face. Oh really? There's no difference between fresh, locally-grown food versus frozen, corporate-produced food trucked in from a thousand miles away? The ignorance of this guy is just flat-out stunning. Does he know nothing about where food comes from and how it is produced? Dr. Oz: Eat more feedlot beef! In an even more grotesque sellout to factory foods, Dr. Oz pushes feedlot beef, saying, "Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety." This is just a flat-out lie, of course. There's a huge difference nutritionally between free-range beef and feedlot beef. Feedlot beef, for starters, is raised on genetically modified corn containing BT toxin, while free-range beef has been consistently found to be higher in omega-3 fatty acids. And that doesn't even cover the ethical and environmental differences. In promoting feedlot beef, Dr. Oz positions himself squarely against the environment while also pushing animal cruelty. Dr Oz has chosen a side, and it's the side of corporate biotech chemical agriculture Above all, with this piece Dr. Oz has now clearly chosen a side in the realm of food. Betraying his own viewers and readers, he has chosen to jump in bed with Big Ag, Monsanto, chemical pesticide producers, processed food companies and feedlot cattle factories. As is now self-evident, Dr. Oz has aligned himself AGAINST everything the organic movement stands for: Honest food, local food, free-range meat, avoidance of GMOs, avoidance of synthetic chemicals and so on. His TIME Magazine piece is an insult to all the good people in America who simply want honest food produced without cruelty or chemicals. Dr. Oz calls those people "snooty" and "elitists." And what does that make him? Oh, now he's the leader of the "populist poison foods movement" that tries to convince the American masses to eat more GMO, more pesticides, more store-bought foods and more feedlot beef, chicken and pork. The food industry must love this guy! (Watch for new sponsorship contracts to fill his pockets with cash right around the corner...) Dr. Oz makes himself irrelevant to the discussion on food By joining forces with Monsanto, Bayer and Big Ag, Dr. Oz has now taken a position squarely against organic foods, against farmer's markets, against free-range animals and against non-GMO. It begs the question: Why pay any attention to Dr. Oz at all anymore? He's just parroting the same corporate lies and deceptions we can just as easily get from the New York Times, or the USDA, or Monsanto itself. By attacking organics, Dr. Oz has just made himself irrelevant to thinking people everywhere. He's got nothing to say anymore, and more importantly Dr. Oz no longer has any credibility whatsoever. He's just committed professional suicide. I can't wait to hear what Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association has to say about Dr. Oz's comments. Because Oz has sold out to the GMO-producing, chemical-producing, animal cruelty feedlot sectors of the corrupt food industry, watch for the mainstream media to keep propping up Dr. Oz and attempt to make him a puppet of "authority" on all things related to food and health. Heck, why not make the guy Surgeon General and enact a law population control law that mandates the consumption of feedlot Soylent Green? Dr. Oz's purported audience is a sham, by the way. Natural News has a far larger audience than Dr. Oz, especially when you count the cumulative IQ points of our respective followers. While the low-IQ zombified consumers may still think Dr. Oz has something resembling credibility, all the in-the-know organic food consumers and activists are fully aware of who is on their side and who isn't. Dr. Oz clearly isn't. His audience exists only as a fabrication of persistent corporate promotion. Without the corporate backing, Dr. Oz is a nobody. Spread the word, folks: Dr. Oz is a sellout. Share this story and warn your friends. Story photo by David Berkowitz Official response from the Cornucopia Institute Here's the response from Cornucopia on the TIME Magazine "sellout" piece by Dr. Oz. The original TIME cover story was published on 12/3/2012 and is entitled "What to Eat Now" by Dr. Mehmet Oz. It's available at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2129811,00.html The full story is available to Time subscribers only. Excerpts from the article, with Cornucopia's responses: Dr. Oz: "Nutritionally speaking, there is little difference between the farmer's-market bounty and the humble brick from the freezer case." Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz compares conventional and organic foods throughout the article by focusing exclusively on the differences between a handful of nutrients. This is exactly what the agrochemical and conventional farming industries, and their front group, the Alliance for Food and Farming, would like the American public to focus on. Just two months ago, Dr. Oz told the viewers of his syndicated television show to buy organic vegetables to avoid pesticide residues. Now, in his copywritten Time story, the word "pesticide" or "agricultural chemical" is never mentioned. Dr. Oz: "Dispelling these myths -- that boutique foods are good, supermarket foods are suspect and you have to spend a lot to eat well -- is critical to improving our nation's health. Organic food is great, it's just not very democratic." Cornucopia response: What can be more democratic than consumers voting with their food dollars to support organic farmers who protect our environment and our health by eschewing harmful and polluting agrochemicals? Even if there were no direct benefit to our families (plenty of published scientific research indicates there is), when we choose organic food we are protecting farmers and farmworkers from exposure to toxic chemicals. Many farmers, farmworkers and their children have elevated levels of certain cancers and chronic diseases. Dr. Oz: "The rise of foodie culture over the past decade has venerated all things small-batch, local-farm and organic -- all with premium price tags. But let's be clear: you don't need to eat like the 1% to eat healthily." Cornucopia response: Organic foods are not for the "1%." Organic foods are for everybody, and are accessible and affordable to most families who prioritize their expenses. Many organic consumers forgo other "luxuries," whether it be iPhones, vacations, new cars -- all of which are advertised in the same Time magazine where Dr. Oz's article appears -- in order to be able to afford organic foods to protect their family's health. These decisions should be applauded, not turned into a character flaw. Dr. Oz: "After several years of research and experience, I have come to an encouraging conclusion: the American food supply is abundant, nutritionally sound, affordable and, with a few simple considerations, comparable to the most elite organic diets. Save the cash; the 99% diet can be good for you." Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz's research apparently missed the countless studies showing that organic foods are nutritionally superior, lower in pesticide residues, lower in antibiotic-resistant pathogen contamination, etc. In addition to being published in peer-reviewed journals, testing by independent sources such as Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) and government agencies such as the USDA corroborate these findings. Dr. Oz: "I consider it a public-health service to the consumer who has to feed a family of five or the person who wants to make all the right choices and instead is alienated and dejected because the marketing of healthy foods too often blurs into elitism, with all the expense and culinary affectation that implies." Cornucopia response: The added expense of buying organic foods is an investment in health. In the interest of public health, Dr. Oz should have mentioned the pesticides, hormones, antibiotics, synthetic preservatives, artificial dyes and sweeteners, and other harmful inputs used in conventional farming and food production. Comparing nutrients is just one aspect of a cost-benefit analysis. Dr. Oz owes his loyal fans, who respect his judgment, a more thoughtful and nuanced analysis. Dr. Oz: "There's no question that free-range chickens and grass-fed, pasture-dwelling cows lead happier -- if not appreciably longer -- lives than animals raised on factory farms. They are also kept free of hormones and antibiotics and are less likely to carry communicable bacteria like E. coli, which are common on crowded feedlots. If these things are important to you and you have the money to spend, then by all means opt for pricier organic meats." Cornucopia response: Yes, Dr. Oz, avoiding hormones and antibiotics is important to us, and it should be to you, too. However, just because a package says "free range" or "grass-fed" does not mean it is certified organic, and therefore is not certified to be produced without some of the most dangerous and objectionable drugs. Concerned consumers should go out of their way to seek out the organic seal. Dr. Oz: "But for the most part, it's O.K. to skip the meat boutiques and the high-end butchers. Nutritionally, there is not much difference between, say, grass-fed beef and the feedlot variety." Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz's statement is not backed by scientific data, which consistently shows lower levels of cholesterol and saturated fat and higher levels of beneficial omega-3 fats and vitamins in grass-fed beef compared with feedlot beef. Dr. Oz: "Let's also take a moment to celebrate the tuna-salad sandwich, which is to lunch what the '57 Chevy is to cars--basic and brilliant." Cornucopia response: It is unconscionable that Dr. Oz touts the nutritional benefits of canned tuna, without mentioning the FDA and EPA warnings concerning methylmercury contamination. The FDA and EPA recommend that women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers and young children limit their consumption of canned light tuna to no more than 12 ounces per week, and their consumption of canned albacore tuna to no more than 6 ounces per week. Dr. Oz: "Preserves and jams without added sugar can be great sources of dietary fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C and potassium." Cornucopia response: Preserves and jams without added sugar often contain added artificial sweeteners, such as aspartame, which has been linked in studies to cancer and neurological damage. Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners are banned in organic products. Dr. Oz: "We know more about the connection between food and health than ever before -- down to the molecular level, actually. This has provided us the curious luxury of being fussy, even snooty, about what we eat, considering some foods, well, below our station. That's silly. Food isn't about cachet. It's about nourishment, pleasure and the profound well-being that comes from the way meals draw us together." Cornucopia response: Dr. Oz spends the entire article attempting to convince the American public that there are few, if any, differences between conventional and organic foods. Yet in his closing paragraphs he tacitly acknowledges that we "know more about ... food and health than ever before – down to the molecular level." This contradicts his earlier statements that there are no differences. Most people who buy organic foods do so not because they are "snooty," as Dr. Oz suggests, but because they seek to protect themselves and their families from the widely recognized harmful effects of pesticides and other agrichemicals. Source: http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/11/organic-food-justice-for-the-99/ Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more... Join over four million monthly readers. Email privacy 100% protected. Unsubscribe at any time.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038157_Dr_Oz_organic_food_sellout.html#ixzz2DpeG85pB

Get Those Wireless Baby Monitors OUT of the Nursery!

by Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist on November 30, 2012

2719

27

2920

46

If a cell phone company applied for a permit to install a cell phone tower next to a school in your community, do you think there would be a large public outcry?
Most likely there would be very vocal outrage from the surrounding neighborhoods and the story would be featured prominently in the local news as many concerned and informed parents are increasingly taking precautions to minimize their children’s exposure to any sort of microwave technology.
The fact is that the long term effects of microwave radiation on children’s developing brains is completely unknown.

What is known is that a child’s brain is not fully developed until about age 20 and until that time, the skull is thinner to permit its continued growth and development. Hence, a child’s brain is extremely sensitive to the effects of any type of EMF radiation.
Wireless Baby Monitors: The Elephant in the Nursery
While most parents would agree that installing a cell phone tower next to a school would be dangerous and definitely not a good idea, many of these same parents are unaware of the very similar danger posed by a baby monitor, a device ironically designed for child safety!
When my first child was born, like all the other mothers I knew, I had a baby monitor on my baby shower list. At that time, baby monitors were corded and plugged into a wall outlet, so I was very careful to keep the monitor outside of the baby’s crib and on a bureau across the room out of concern for strangulation risk from the cord.
In recent years, however, corded monitors have all but disappeared in favor of the new wireless models which pose the very severe risk of continuous microwave radiation in your child’s room.
According to PowerWatch, a wireless baby monitor at less than 1 meter away from the baby’s crib was roughly equivalent to the microwave radiation experienced from a cell phone tower only 150 meters away.
With monitors now wireless and the risk of strangulation from the cords no longer an issue, many parents are putting the monitors right in the crib so a distance of 1 meter or less is not so far fetched. Even a wireless monitor across the room would still pose a danger, albeit a reduced one.
How to Monitor Your Baby Without Wireless Technology
The best way to keep tabs on your baby is to have the child’s nursery next to the master bedroom and use your ears. It’s how Grandma did it after all!
If you absolutely must have a baby monitor for when your child is napping during the day and you are elsewhere in the house doing chores, then use one of the old style corded monitors that you can probably find at a garage sale for next to nothing.
While all wireless baby monitors are a problem, the high frequency digital models are the absolute worst. Analog monitors are a better choice than digital and if you can find one that is non-pulsing and low frequency in the 35-50 mHz range then that would be the only wireless option that should be considered. Typically, these analog monitors only have a few channels. Even analog monitors, however, should be kept at least 3 feet from the child’s bed and if possible, used sparingly.
According to PowerWatch, parents that switch out wireless monitors for an old style plug-in monitors or none at all report the child crying less, having less irritability and sleeping better. Taking care to get the microwave radiation out of your baby’s room to protect her developing brain may have the distinct advantage of a better night’s sleep – for everyone in the house!

Sarah, The Healthy Home Economist
Source: Digital Cordless Baby Monitors (PowerWatch)

Anthony Sutton: Skull and Bone At War With the US Since 1833

Antony Sutton: Skull and Bones At War With The U.S. Since 1833