Dismantle Civilisation

by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor.

Let’s not beat around the bush on this issue: The swine flu vaccines now being prepared for mass injection into infants, children, teens and adults have never been tested and won’t be tested before the injections begin.
In Europe, where flu vaccines are typically tested on hundreds (or thousands) of people before being unleashed on the masses, the European Medicines Agency is allowing companies to skip the testing process entirely.

And yet, amazingly, people are lining up to take the vaccine, absent any safety testing whatsoever. When the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. announced a swine flu vaccine trial beginning in early August, it was inundated with phone calls and emails from people desperate to play the role of human guinea pigs. The power of fear to herd sheeple into vaccine injections is simply amazing…

Back in Europe, of course, everybody gets to be a guinea pig since no testing will be done on the vaccine at all. Even worse, the European vaccines will be using adjuvants — chemicals used to multiply the potency of the active ingredients in vaccines.

Notably, there is absolutely no safety data on the use of adjuvants in infants and expectant mothers — the two groups being most aggressively targeted by the swine flu vaccine pushers. The leads us to the disturbing conclusion that the swine flu vaccine could be a modern medical disaster. It’s untested and un-tried. Its ingredients are potentially quite dangerous, and the adjuvants being used in the European vaccines are suspected of causing neurological disorders.

Paralyzed by vaccines

I probably don’t need to remind you that in 1976, a failed swine flu vaccine caused irreparable damage to the nervous systems of hundreds of people, paralyzing many. Medical doctors gave the problem a name, of course, to make it sound like they knew what they were talking about: Guillain-Barre syndrome. (Notably, they never called it “Toxic Vaccine Syndrome” because that would be too informative.)

But the fact remains that doctors never knew how the vaccines caused these severe problems, and if the same event played out today, all the doctors and vaccine pushers would undoubtedly deny any link between the vaccines and paralysis altogether. (That’s what’s happening today with the debate over vaccines and autism: Complete denial.)

In fact, there are a whole lot of things you’ll never be told by health authorities about the upcoming swine flu vaccine. For your amusement, I’ve written down the ten most obvious ones and published them below.

Ten things you’re not supposed to know about the swine flu vaccine
(At least, not by anyone in authority…)

#1 – The vaccine production was “rushed” and the vaccine has never been tested on humans. Do you like to play guinea pig for Big Pharma? If so, line up for your swine flu vaccine this fall…

#2 – Swine flu vaccines contain dangerous adjuvants that cause an inflammatory response in the body. This is why they are suspected of causing autism and other neurological disorders.

#3 – The swine flu vaccine could actually increase your risk of death from swine flu by altering (or suppressing) your immune system response. There is zero evidence that even seasonal flu shots offer any meaningful protection for people who take the jabs. Vaccines are the snake oil of modern medicine.

#4 – Doctors still don’t know why the 1976 swine flu vaccines paralyzed so many people. And that means they really have no clue whether the upcoming vaccine might cause the same devastating side effects. (And they’re not testing it, either…)

#5 – Even if the swine flu vaccine kills you, the drug companies aren’t responsible. The U.S. government has granted drug companies complete immunity against vaccine product liability. Thanks to that blanket immunity, drug companies have no incentive to make safe vaccines, because they only get paid based on quantity, not safety (zero liability).

#6 – No swine flu vaccine works as well as vitamin D to protect you from influenza. That’s an inconvenient scientific fact that the U.S. government, the FDA and Big Pharma hope the people never realize.

#7 – Even if the swine flu vaccine actually works, mathematically speaking if everyone else around you gets the vaccine, you don’t need one! (Because it can’t spread through the population you hang with.) So even if you believe in the vaccine, all you need to do is encourage your friends to go get vaccinated…

#8 – Drug companies are making billions of dollars from the production of swine flu vaccines. That money comes out of your pocket — even if you don’t get the jab — because it’s all paid by the taxpayers.

#9 – When people start dying in larger numbers from the swine flu, rest assured that many of them will be the very people who got the swine flu vaccine. Doctors will explain this away with their typical Big Pharma logic: “The number saved is far greater than the number lost.” Of course, the number “saved” is entirely fictional… imaginary… and exists only in their own warped heads.

#10 – The swine flu vaccine centers that will crop up all over the world in the coming months aren’t completely useless: They will provide an easy way to identify large groups of really stupid people. (Too bad there isn’t some sort of blue dye that we could tag ‘em with for future reference…)

The lottery, they say, is a tax on people who can’t do math. Similarly, flu vaccines are a tax on people who don’t understand health.

1 Comment »

http://www.survival-international.org/films/mine

To be a Dongria Kondh is to live in the Niyamgiri Hills in Orissa state, India – they do not live anywhere else. Yet Vedanta Resources is determined to mine their sacred mountain’s rich seam of bauxite (aluminium ore).

The Dongria and other local Kondh people are resisting Vedanta and are determined to save Niyamgiri from becoming an industrial wasteland.

Other Kondh groups are already suffering due to a bauxite refinery, built and operated by Vedanta, at the base of the Niyamgiri Hills.

The Niyamgiri Hills are home to the more than 8,000 Dongria Kondh, whose lifestyle and religion have helped nurture the area’s dense forests and unusually rich wildlife.

The Dongria farm the hill slopes, grow crops in among the forest, and gather wild fruit, flowers and leaves for sale.

They call themselves Jharnia, meaning ‘protector of streams’, because they protect their sacred mountain and the life-giving rivers that rise within its thick forests.

Vedanta’s open pit mine would destroy the forests, disrupt the rivers and spell the end for the Dongria Kondh as a distinct people.

Act now to help the Dongria Kondh

Your support is vital if the Dongria Kondh are to survive. There are many ways you can help.

* Write to the Prime Minister of India asking his government to safeguard the Dongria Kondh’s rights.
* Donate to the Dongria Kondh campaign (and other Survival campaigns).
* Write to your MP or MEP (UK) or Senators and members of Congress (US).
* Write to your local Indian high commission or embassy.
* If you want to get more involved, contact Survival…

3 Comments »

If the hype is true, then within ten years there will be viable, new life-forms existing that were entirely created by humans: we have no way of predicting what will happen after that. Genetic modification is merely the start of an experiment that has one clear Endgame — the ability to create new life-forms at will, to serve whatever purpose the creators (or rather, the creators’ employers) deem necessary in the name of “progress”. Keith Farnish summarises the situation like this:

Some futuristic pipe dream, you may think. Think again: synthetic biology is real and it is being created at a university, government or corporate research laboratory near you. At this level of work biology, technology and chemistry fuse to provide the means to create the building blocks of life from scratch or make modifications to living things that would have been impossible 20 years ago. A glance at one web site, used by many researchers as a hub for information, reveals a host of tools, methods, protocols and systems that would be far more at home in a computer programmer’s library; and essentially, that’s what it is – a library of tools for reprogramming life. Fancy a new strain of E. Coli, yeasts with artificial chromosomes or perhaps a faster growing mouse cell? You can find instructions for creating these right now, on the Internet. Downloading such “recipes” from the web is perfectly legal, yet were the same web site to host information assisting conventional “terrorist” activities like taking out an electrical grid infrastructure, it would almost certainly be shut down.

It seems that it is not enough for industrial society to change the planet in the course of pursuing the dream of infinite growth and the total ownership of all humanity and all other life on Earth; there is always more in this insatiable appetite for domination, even if it means playing God and lining up innumerable Pandoras Boxes with the lids barely shut, and access granted to anyone who wants to play with nature. Yet we see glee in the pages of the scientific journals, as we keep “progressing” towards some new goal:

Around the world, several labs are drawing close to the threshold of a second genesis, an achievement that some would call one of the most profound scientific breakthroughs of all time. David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has been saying that scientists would create synthetic life in “five or 10 years” for three decades, but finally he might actually be right. “The momentum is building,” he says. “We’re knocking at the door.”

A synthetic, made-to-order living system might even serve as a self-maintaining, self-improving, adaptable assembly line for producing everything from pharmaceuticals to petrochemicals.

And there you have the key argument for all this tinkering and reprogramming: it is to benefit the economic system, increase profits, develop more “solutions” that we become dependent upon and, as always, ignore the negative consequences, blinded by the desire for “progress”.

But what of progress itself? Ronald Wright has this to say:

Change is not in our interest. Our only rational policy is not to risk provoking it.

The scientists in the pay of the industrial machine attempt to trump rationality with the lie that all progress is for the better, that without progress then we fail as a species. They say: “Producing synthetic life would be an achievement comparable to finding alien life on other planets.” We say: “Bullshit. It would be comparable to destroying any life we find on other planets: such is our inculcated fear of accepting things as they are.”

The dream of synthetic life is not fulfilled yet, and some may hope that it is never fulfilled such that it threatens the biosphere still further – don’t hope! If you just hope this doesn’t happen then you are as culpable as someone who is ignorant of these dangerous experiments — more so, because you knew, yet chose not to do anything about it. Consider yourself informed: now go and stop the experiments, in any way you can, before they have a chance to break out of the laboratory.

3 Comments »

More great insights from Sharon Astyk. Ponzi schemes are illegal, but what is our economic system, or how we are treating the ecology, other than a giant Ponzi scheme, where today is being paid for by tomorrow. Crazy.

This point I’ve written about a number of times – but somehow I’d never quite fully grasped the corollary point, which I found myself articulating on the fly – that the Ponzi economy depends on an endless supply of laborers, laborers who wouldn’t quit because they can’t. And that means that the cost of living – of basic needs like housing, food and transportation have to be kept high – because otherwise people might notice that serving corporate masters isn’t the best or only way to live their lives. Those 850 square feet, and the costs associated with them, and the problems of housing the ordinary stuff we “require” for daily life in 250 square feet means that the cost of housing for ordinary people is dramatically high – so high that we must devote most our time to the corporate economy, so high we then have no time to do work in the informal economy, so high that we can never, ever think about whether there are any better choices out there.

We’re going to try and rescue the economy with another Ponzi scheme – with borrowing against our children’s future wealth to protect financial institutions and invest in some good things and some bad ones. This, of course, is the oldest ponzi scheme of all, and you can make the argument that some human societies have been playing this game for a very long time. We’ve been doing it with natural resources and are continuing to do so, and we’re also expanding the share of our children’s wealth we’re willing to borrow against. After all, what have future generations ever done for us? They might as well serve some purpose – to pay off our debt.

And of course we’ve got the best possible reason for this – we’re in a crisis. There’s always a good reason for taking just a little more of what belongs to the future – to bring people out of poverty, to resolve this or that crisis. Of course, the crisis was caused by borrowing against our children’s inheritence of natural resources, but more of the same is now necessary. A good Ponzi scheme always needs new investors – and if none are going to volunteer, well, let’s volunteer them. We’ll use the to prop up the stock market and today’s version of the Roman chariot business.

Our ecology and our economy all fundamentally are built on a Ponzi scheme in which we can never make enough to keep up – we are always losing ground, always having to steal from further down the line of our posterity. At the same time, we justify their forcible participation in this speculation by saying that we are protecting them – we have to protect them from a Depression, so it is worth risking their future. But, of course, if you actually care about your children and grandchildren, you don’t ask them to make sacrifices you aren’t prepared to make. Fundamentally, we’re covering our own asses, and asking our kids to do it for us.

And that’s, well, evil, to put it bluntly.

Sharon also, in a seperate post has gone over her predictions made in 2007 for 2008, and just how close to the mark she came. Her predictions for 2009 include ‘the collapse’ proper, and we are inclined to agree, that we ain’t seen nothing yet. In the UK we have seen Woolworths go into bankruptcy, and the pound lose over a third of its value compared to the euro in the past 12 months, but 2009 may very well make the problems of 2008 seem like a walk in the park! The time available to use the system to prepare for a different world, a less energy world, is coming to an end.

Ok, what about the coming year? While I think 2008 was when most people first realized something was wrong, I’m going to go out on a limb here (ok, not a huge limb, but a limb) and say that 2009 will be the year we say that things “collapsed.” I don’t think we’re going to make it through the year without radical structural changes in the nature of life in most of the world. I’m calling it, a la Yeats’s “Second Coming” the “The Year ‘Its Hour Come Round at Last’”

What do I mean by collapse? We throw that word around, but it is easy to misunderstand. I mean that the US is likely to undergo a financial collapse a la the Great Depression – widespread unemployment, lots of people facing hunger, cold and the inability to get health care, a disruption of what we tend to assume are birthright services, and a sense that the system doesn’t work anymore. I don’t claim that we are headed by Thursday to cannibalism, however – what I think will be true is that we will often do surprisingly well in the state of collapse, as hard as it is.

In previous years, I was fairly lighthearted about my predictions – this year, I don’t find it possible to be. I really hope I’m wrong about this. And I hope you will make decisions based on your own judgement, not mine. These are predictions, the results of my analysis and my intuitions, and sometimes I’m good at that. But I do not claim that every word that comes out of my mouth or off my keyboard is the truth, and you should not take it as such. You are getting this free on the internet – consider what you paid for it, and value it accordingly.

1. Some measure of normalcy will hold out until late spring or early summer, mostly based on hopes for the Obama Presidency. But by late summer 2009, the aggregate loss of jobs, credit and wealth will cause an economic crisis that makes our current situation look pretty mild. With predictions of up to a million jobs lost each month, there will simply come a point at which the economy as we understand it now cannot function – we will see the modern equivalents of breadlines and stockbrokers selling apples on the streets.

2. Many plans for infrastructure investments currently being proposed will never be completed, and many may never be started, because the US may be unable to borrow the money to fund them. The price of globalization will be high in terms of reduced availability of funds and resources – despite all the people who think that we’ll keep building things during a collapse, we won’t. We will have some variation on a Green New Deal in the US and some nations will continue to work on renewable infrastructure, but a lot of us are going to be getting along with the fraying infrastructure, designed for a people able to afford a lot of cheap energy, that we have now. The most successful projects will be small, localized programs that distribute resources as widely as possible.

I pray that we will have the brains to ignore most other things and set up some kind of health care system, one that softens the blows here. If not, we’re really fucked – the one thing most of us can’t afford is medical care as it works now in a non-functioning economy. Unfortunately, my bet is that we don’t do something about this, but I hope to God I’m wrong.

3. 2009 will be the year that most of the most passionate climate activists (and I don’t exclude myself) have to admit that there is simply not a snowball’s chance in hell (and hell is getting toastier quickly) that we are going to prevent a 2C+ warming of the planet. We are simply too little, too late. That does not mean we will give up on everything – the difference between unchecked emissions and checked ones is still the difference between life and death for millions – but hideously, regretfully and painfully, the combination of our growing understanding of where the climate is and the economic situation will force us to begin working from the reality that the world we leave our children is simply going to be more damaged, and our legacy smaller and less worthy of us than we’d ever hoped.

4. 2008 will probably be the world’s global oil peak, but we won’t know this for a while. When we do realize it, it will be anticlimactic, because we’ll be mired in the consequences of our economic, energy and climate crisis. Lack of investment in the coming years will mean that in the end, more oil stays in the ground, which is good for the climate, but tough for our ambitions for a renewable energy economy. Over the long term, however, peak oil is very much going to come back and bite us all in the collective ass.

5. Decreased access to goods, services and food will be a reality this year. Some of this will be due to stores going out of business – we may all have to travel further to meet needs. Some will be due to suppliers going under, following the wave of merchant bankruptcies. Some may be due to disruptions in shipping and transport of supplies. Some will be due to increased demand for some items that have, up until now, been niche items, produced in small numbers for the small number of sustainability freaks, but that now seem to have widespread application. And some may be due to deflation – farmers may not be able to harvest crops because they can’t get enough for them to pay for the harvest, and the connections between those who have goods and those who need goods may be thoroughly disrupted. Meanwhile, millions more Americans will be choosing between new shoes and seeing the doctor.

6. Most Americans will see radical cut backs in local services and safety nets. Funding will simply dry up for many state and local programs. Unemployment will be overwhelmed, and the federal government will have to withdraw some of its commitments simply to keep people from starving in the streets. Meanwhile, expect to see the plows stop plowing, the garbage cease to be collected, and classrooms to have 40+ kindergarteners to a class – and potentially a three or four day school week.

7. Nations will overwhelmingly fail to pony up promised commitments to the world’s poor, and worldwide, the people who did the least harm to the environment will die increasingly rapidly of starvation. This will not be inevitable, but people in the rich world will claim it is.

8. We will finally attempt to deal with foreclosures, but the falling value of housing will make it a losing proposition. Every time we bring the housing values down to meet the reality, the reality will shift under our feet. Many of those who are helped will end up foreclosed upon anyway (as is already the case) and others will simply see no point in paying their mortgage when, by defaulting, they could qualify for lowered payments (as is already the case). Ultimately, the issue will probably self resolve in either some kind of redistribution plan that puts people in foreclosed houses with minimal mortgaging, with foreclosures dragging down enough banks that people find it feasible to simply stop paying mortgages that are now unenforceable, or with civil unrest that leads people simply to take back housing for the populace. I don’t have a bet on which one, and I don’t think it will be resolved in 2009.

9. By the end of the year, whether or not we will collapse or have collapsed will continue to be hotly debated by everyone who can still afford their internet service. No one will agree on what the definition of collapse actually is, plenty of people will simply be living their old lives, only with a bit less, while others will be having truly apocalyptic and deeply tragic losses. Some will see the victims as lazy, stupid, alien and worthless, no matter how many there are. Others will look around them and ask “how did I not see that this was inevitable?” Many people will be forced to see that the poor are not a monolith of laziness and selfishness when they become poor. We will know that we are in our situation only in retrospect, only in hindsight – our children will have a better name for the experience than we will, caught up in our varied personal senses of what is happening Meanwhile, each time things get harder most of us will believe they are at the bottom, that things are now “normal” and adapt, until it becomes hard to remember what our old expectations were.

10. Despite how awful this is, the reality is that not everything will fall apart. In the US, we will find life hard and stressful, but we will also go forward. People will suck a lot up and retrench. It will turn out that ordinary people were always better than commentators at figuring out what to do – that’s why they stopped shopping even while people were begging them to keep buying. So they’ll move in with their siblings and grow gardens and walk away from their overpriced houses, or fight to keep them. Some of them will suffer badly for it, but a surprising number of people will simply be ok in situations that until now, they would have imagined were impossible to survive. We will endure, sometimes even find ways of loving our new lives. There will be acts of remarkable courage and heroism, and acts of the most profound evil and selfishness. There will be enormous losses – but we will also discover that most of us are more than we think we are – can tolerate more and have more courage and compassion than we believe of ourselves.

We are inclined to agree with Sharon’s predictions – and europe will be pretty similar to what she says about the US. The UK, since it has followed US suburbanisation and car culture closer, and has worse land distribution statistics, than any other european nation, is going to find things harder than its mainland counterparts. Much of southern europe still has a very active smallscale agricultural society, although these semi-subsistence farmers are aging, at the moment it does still exist and could be harnessed to feed or educate other parts of society. In the UK this does not exist, and farmers have not been valued, while many many skills have been regulated into scarcity.

2009 may well see famine in the west, as farmers and other parts of the food/shopping infrastructure struggle to get the credit that they rely on, and other parts of society collapse due to insufficient cheap energy or finance. Little is being done to alleviate these problems to our food system, so we can expect food shortages and food prices beyond the financial means of many people, probably before the summer 2009.

1 Comment »

A film about gas flaring in Nigeria.

Shell explains how they tackle gas flaring in a recent article titled “The elusive goal to stop flares”. Shell has been saying that the problem with stopping flaring in Nigeria is that the Nigerian government has failed to fund the huge investments required to collect the gas. Now it seems that won’t happen. Instead they hope that the investments will be subsidised by the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto protocol, which, according to Shell “…provides
additional incentives to cut flaring by providing credits for
carbon-reduction that can be sold on the emissions trading market”. Will we have to pay the worlds second most profitable company to stop violating the law?

Do you want to see the gas flares? Most of them are clearly visible in Google Earth. The NGDC/STP provides kmz files showing the locations of the flares they have identified country by country. Open the Nigeria layer, zoom in on the flares and switch off the overlay and you get an idea of the scale of flaring in the Niger Delta.

You can watch the movie, and order the dvd from their website:
www.poisonfire.org

No Comments »

Says an article on New Scientist.

The future may not smell too rosy – it may lie in sewage. As cities and industries suck up ever more of the world’s scarce water resources, agriculture is destined to rely increasingly on recycling the contents of urban sewers, according to a new international study of “wastewater agriculture”.

The good news – for farmers at least – is that the irrigation water from sewers comes with free fertiliser in the form of the nitrates and phosphates bound up in human faeces. The bad news is that this coprological cornucopia is filling vegetables sold in city markets with heavy metals, pathogenic bacteria and worms.

An estimated one fifth of the world’s food is growing in urban areas, with perishables like vegetables to the fore. But a 50-city study by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) – a World Bank-backed research agency based in Sri Lanka – finds that often the only source of the essential irrigation water to grow many of those crops is city sewage.

More madness. Putting our waste into water in the first place is madness, but then to allow industry to flush toxins into the sewers and then allow farmers to use it for irrigation… bah humbug!

Now, if someone could convince the world to compost their waste, and then use it on farmland. That would make sense and we wouldn’t be wasting drinking water to flush away excrement. It would be seen as the resource that it actually is. Historically cities used to collect night soil, to transport outside to fields, but this isnt as efficient as composting near to the point of production, and using it to green the city and grow food within the city.

No Comments »

Paranoid? We don’t think so. Conspiracy? Well, no, its just a system that engineers us all to think the same, put money before truly good things like health, community, fun, joy and love, and rewards the people who subscribe to this worldview the most with positions of power, privilege and wealth.

As Mike Adams, on Natural News says:

The social engineering recipe

Pulling this off, of course, requires a bit of social engineering by the USDA in order to force the public into demanding something be done. If you’re the USDA, you can’t just suddenly announce a national food sterilization plan; you have to prime the pump with a bit of dirty work. Here’s the simple plan for accomplishing that, if you’re the USDA:

1) Conduct poor inspections of fresh produce on purpose, in order to cause a large increase in food-borne illness outbreaks. (We’ve seen this increase happen over the last 12 – 24 months.) This can be easily accomplished by reducing the budget of food inspection offices, or removing inspectors from the payroll altogether (which has already happened).

2) Wait for the outbreaks to happen. When consumers get sick, run national press releases announcing how dangerous the food supply is.

3) Watch the consumer reaction as people and lawmakers demand “something be done!”

4) Fudge a study with the American Chemical Society to show that washing doesn’t work and that irradiation is the only solution. Time the release of this news to coincide with the public outcry that “something be done!”

5) Once the public is demanding a solution to food-borne illnesses, roll out a national produce irradiation requirement that sterilizes all the food.

Mission accomplished! This, of course, leads to point #6:

6) Watch the population become increasingly sick and diseased (thanks to the lack of phytonutrients that used to be found in the fresh produce), and cash in on your Big Pharma shares as the population is herded into hospitals for lucrative treatments with monopoly-priced pharmaceuticals.

Its not as though supermarket food is actually healthy, without irradiation! Take a look at those labels on the processed foods. They almost all contain the same industrial ingredients, and fresh food in the supermarket has been picked unripe, sprayed to stay ‘fresh’, even dyed to appear better, in some cases. About as far removed from a decent healthy fresh meal as is possible – or maybe not. Plans are afoot to nuke it all – presumably this would increase shelf life too.

What “they” really want: A dead food supply
Let’s be blunt about this: The corporations running this country (which also run the U.S. government) want the U.S. food supply to be dead. They don’t want foods to be used as medicines, and they sure don’t want the natural medicines found in foods competing with their own patented pharmaceutical medicines (that just happen to earn them a whole lot more money than any food ever did).

Don’t you find it curious that this attack on the food supply is coming out now, right after all this incredible news about the healing power of foods has been hitting the science journals? Every week, it seems, we find out about another amazing health property in a food. Black raspberries reverse oral cancer. Pomegranates halt prostate cancer. Green tea halts breast cancer. The list goes on. Just on this website alone, we’ve probably published 1,000 stories over the last two years on the disease-fighting properties of foods.

The thing to realize here is that many of the healing properties of these foods are destroyed through pasteurization or irradiation. If you’re a government that wants to “take away the People’s medicine,” the fastest way to accomplish that is to mandate the sterilization of the food supply. Kill the foods and you take away the People’s medicine, and that forces the population to use pharmaceuticals instead.

The FDA, for its part, has for many decades conducted its natural medicine censorship campaign, whose only purpose is to deny the People access to accurate information about the healing properties of natural medicines found in foods and herbs. But apparently that wasn’t enough: The Internet came along and people found a way to educate themselves. So since the FDA couldn’t keep the truth about natural medicine bottled up and censored, the government has now apparently decided to just sterilize all the foods, thereby destroying the natural medicine and transforming Mother Nature’s gifts into dead calories.

The USDA’s decisions here are not based on public safety, folks. They’re based on corporate greed. Just look at how they handled the raw almond controversy in these related articles: http://www.naturalnews.com/almonds.html

The USDA as operated today is a front group for wealthy corporations. It is not interested in helping the People. It’s interested in protecting the profits of corporations… even if that means destroying the food supply and turning the population into “dead eaters” who die from other diseases caused by the lack of phytonutrient protection.

Growing vegetables is so easy, and then you actually know what you are eating, aren’t giving money to huge destructive corporations, are getting exercise, and may even have surpluses to trade with your neighbours and friends.

I believe we must keep our food supply fresh and alive. (Sounds kinda obvious, huh?) And if there’s a little extra bacteria on the spinach, it’s nothing that a healthy body can’t handle anyway. Take some probiotics and avoid antibiotics, and you’ll be just fine. E. Coli is really only a threat to the health of individuals who have had their immune systems (or intestinal flora) destroyed by pharmaceuticals in the first place. There’s nothing wrong with some living organisms in your milk, on your almonds or on your spinach. Wash your food, get plenty of sunlight and avoid using antibiotics.

The human body is NOT a sterile environment. To try to make our food supply sterile is insane, and anyone who supports the irradiation of the food supply is, in my opinion, supporting a policy of genocide against the American people. To destroy the vitality of the food supply is a criminal act of such immense evil that it stands alongside the worst crimes ever committed against humanity.

You see, it’s not enough for them to poison our water (fluoride), poison our children (vaccines) and lie to us about the sun (skin cancer scare stories). Now they want to destroy our foods… and thereby take away any natural medicine options that might actually keep people healthy and free. Remember: A diseased population is an enslaved population.

Now go eat your Big Mac, drink your Pepsi and don’t ask too many questions.

And do as you’re told! yeah, right…. and a population that doesnt control its own food supply is in serious danger from those slave masters.

No Comments »

A Mother Jones article, by Josh Harkinson, gives a simple explanation of the different methods of oil production. As conventional oil gets harder to find and extract, the oil addicts have even worse methods that could be used to acquire oil products – but to do so would be madness in the face of climate change. How do we convince people that having a planet that can sustain human life is more important than being able to drive to work or buy plastic ‘stuff’ that we don’t really need!

conventional oil
How it’s produced: Drilling in the ground
Where it’s found: Middle East, Russia, United States, elsewhere
Average production cost per barrel: $9
Greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions from production: 5 grams of carbon equivalent per megajoule
Potential output: 2,162 billion barrels
Dirty secret: 77% is controlled by state-run companies, so Big Oil is turning to unconventional sources to survive.

enhanced oil recovery
How it’s produced: CO2 is injected into old oil wells to squeeze out the last 30 to 60%.
Where it’s found: United States, Middle East
Average production cost per barrel: $16
ghg emissions from production: 67% more than conventional oil
Potential output: 1,011 billion barrels
Dirty secret: Could have an environmental upside if oil companies figure out how to sequester CO2 in old wells—and guarantee it won’t leak out again.

tar sands and heavy oil
How it’s produced: Ore is extracted and processed into synthetic crude.
Where it’s found: Canada, Venezuela
Average production cost per barrel: $23
ghg emissions from production: 151% more than conventional oil
Potential output: 1,535 billion barrels
Dirty secret: Each barrel of oil produced leaves behind two of toxic waste. Refining tar sands oil produces as much as 80% more CO2 than conventional refining.

gas-to-liquid synfuel
How it’s produced: Natural gas is mixed with oxygen, purified, and processed into transportation fuels.
Where it’s found: Russia, Iran, Qatar
Average production cost per barrel: $26
ghg emissions from production: 66% more than conventional oil
Potential output: 3,597 billion barrels
Dirty secret: South Africa perfected the technology in response to apartheid-era trade embargoes.

liquefied coal
How it’s produced: Coal is heated and pressurized to create a gas, which is converted to fuel using the gas-to-liquid technique.
Where it’s found: The largest coal reserves are in the United States, Russia, China, India, and South Africa.
Average production cost per barrel: $35
ghg emissions from production: 393% more than conventional oil
Potential output: 8,892 billion barrels
Dirty secret: Mercury is a byproduct. Last year, Senator Barack Obama cosponsored a bill that would have provided the industry with federal loans for as much as $20 million. Enviros accused him of pandering to Illinois coal interests.

oil shale
How it’s produced: Oil-containing rock is mined, crushed, cooked, and injected with hydrogen.
Where it’s found: Colorado, Utah, Wyoming
Average production cost per barrel: $57
ghg emissions from production: 530% more than conventional oil
Potential output: 1,451 billion barrels
Dirty secret: In 2007, former secretary of the interior Gale Norton joined Shell’s oil shale team.

We cannot afford to keep burning oil, or releasing the carbon and pollution into the planets atmosphere. The climate has already been destabilised by human activities, and its already going to get a lot worse. We need to stop now, before the whole planet is turned into a lifeless desert.

No Comments »

Ecologist article by Peter Bunyard, deconstructs the myth of nuclear power as an energy source that necessarily results in low greenhouse gas emissions. Haven’t we been here before?

And, if we are going to be serious about substituting nuclear power for fossil fuel powered electricity generation in the world, so as to make a difference, we would need an urgent, production line programme to build at least 5,000 gigawatt-sized reactors by 2020. Every two days we would have to start on the construction of a new reactor, with the programme costing at least, £20 million-million, or some thousand times the cost of the proposed nuclear construction programme over the next two decades in the UK. Moreover, after one generation of say 30 to 40 years, the whole cycle would have to start all over again.

Even if we could find enough suitable sites to put up all the reactors and enough water to cool them, the massive costs involved must surely put nuclear power well out of reach of all but a handful of nations. And where would nuclear power be without using fossil fuels for uranium mining, for processing the ore, for preparing reactor fuel, for constructing the reactor, the cooling ponds and the reprocessing plant, the electricity connection, let alone for the casks used in transporting spent fuel, whether by rail, sea or road? In effect, fossil fuels have subsidized nuclear power and will continue to do so. In that respect, the cost of nuclear power generation cannot be divorced from the costs of fossil fuel use, and as those costs rise, so too will the costs of nuclear power. Indeed, a carbon tax on fossil fuels would lead automatically to higher construction and maintenance costs for nuclear power.

Nuclear power requires fossil fuels. The lie that we can reduce carbon emmissions by switching to nuclear is simply that – a bare faced lie.

Nor is that the end of the story. The average household in an industrialised country such as the UK consumes two-thirds of the energy in the home for heating and just one-third for electrical appliances. Even in France with its subsidised nuclear power, consumers prefer to use natural gas-fired boilers and cookers for hot water, space-heating and cooking rather than resort to expensive electricity.

And were we to be persuaded to use electricity for everything in the house, including heating, we would push up demands on the electricity supply industry to the point where considerably more generating capacity would have to be built. To maintain the supply so that householders can get what they want at the flick of a switch, requires capacity to be built which may get used only at peak times. Meanwhile, to ensure an instantaneous response to demand, power stations need to be ticking over, as ‘spinning reserve’. France, for instance, has a total installed capacity of over 110,000 megawatts (electricity) of which 63,000 MW is from nuclear plants. A significant proportion of that capacity is now used inefficiently to meet peak loads. In fact, the daily peak load for electricity in winter reaches 70,000 MW, which is more than three times the load that may be encountered in summer.

Using electricity to generate heating is an insane idea however that electricity is made.

Today’s reactors, totalling some 350 GW(e) provide three per cent of the total energy used in the world, for which they consume some 60,000 tonnes of natural uranium each year. At that rate, economically recoverable reserves of uranium – some 10 million tonnes – would last less than 100 years. A worldwide nuclear programme of some 1000 nuclear reactors would consume the uranium within 50 years, and if all the world’s electricity, currently some 60 exajoules or 17,000 terawatt-hours (million million watt-hours), was generated by nuclear reactors such economic reserves of uranium would last just four years.

Peak uranium is not far behind peak oil and peak gas. We have to use less, and lower our consuption levels so that all can get a fair share. Not build hundreds of nuclear plants in an attempt to continue this crazy system of work, buy, consume, die. We have an opportunity here to reduce our levels of ‘business’, to reform how land is distributed and how food is grown. But no, the UK governments wants to try keeping this machine, that we are all enslaved by and addicted to, trundling on until every last drop of water and soil is poisoned, every last species is domesticated or extinct, every last human suffers from the stress and sickness and poisoning that is inherent in this sytem. Are they criminally insane or simply ignorant and stupid?

But, we are going nuclear and the UK government is taking us back into a world of old-fashioned concepts that by now should have had their day. A nuclear power programme will cost us dear, if not the Earth.

No Comments »

How U.S. farming policy leads to ‘dead zones,’ huge marine areas where nothing can grow, by Kent Garber.

Each spring, the cycle of death begins anew. Nitrogen and phosphorus, leached from fertilizer, pass from farmland into streams, from streams into rivers—the Mississippi, the Potomac, the Susquehanna—and then, finally, into some of the country’s great bodies of water: the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay. There the chemicals collect each summer, spawning the growth of algae, which deplete the water of oxygen and lead to ghostly aquatic wastelands. Marine life, if mobile enough, will swim away; the rest will suffocate and die.

Scientists have monitored the growth of these so-called dead zones since the late 1970s. They have tried to promote policies to reduce their size, without much success. Last summer, the dead zone along the Gulf of Mexico coast spanned nearly 8,000 square miles— its third-largest occurrence on record and roughly the size of Massachusetts.

Farmers are effectively killing the ocean, by spraying poisons on the land. And the problem is getting worse thanks to biofuels.

Spurred by recent ethanol mandates and, to a lesser extent, high commodity prices, U.S. farmers are planting record-size crops. From 2006 to 2007, corn acres rose by about 15 million, mostly in the Mississippi River basin. Mid-Atlantic farmers are expected to plant 500,000 more acres of corn, soybeans, and wheat this year than they did in 2006, a 7 percent jump.

To grow more crops, particularly corn, farmers usually have to use more fertilizer. Fertilizer runoff is the primary contributor to dead zone formation, the source of three quarters of the nitrogen and more than half of the phosphorous in the water. In a recent study, researchers at the University of British Columbia and the University of Wisconsin found that the U.S. government’s goal to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022, with a maximum of 15 billion from corn, would most likely increase the nitrogen flow to the Gulf by 10 to 20 percent.

1 Comment »