noworldsystem.com


BPA hormone disruptor contaminates Earth’s oceans

BPA hormone disruptor contaminates Earth’s oceans

Natural News
April 13, 2010

Earlier this year, research linked bisphenol A (BPA), a common component of plastics and a powerful hormone disrupter, to heart disease (http://www.naturalnews.com/027974_b…). Now, in the March issue of the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, researchers have reported yet another newly discovered danger posed by BPA. Hugh S. Taylor, M.D., professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at Yale University, and his research team have found for the first time that BPA exposure during pregnancy can cause abnormalities in the uterus of offspring and permanent alterations in DNA.

But at least you can avoid plastics and therefore avoid exposure to the BPA, right? Unfortunately, another group of scientists has just announced that’s getting harder and harder to do. Bottom line: there is now solid evidence that Earth’s oceans have been contaminated on a global scale with BPA.

Katsuhiko Saido, Ph.D., of Nihon University in Chiba, Japan, and his colleagues announced their startling and worrisome findings at the 239th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society held in San Francisco recently. He stated that the massive BPA contamination of oceans resulted from hard plastic trash thrown in the seas as well as from another surprising source — the epoxy plastic paints used to seal the hulls of ships.

“This new finding clearly demonstrates the instability of epoxy, and shows that BPA emissions from epoxy do reach the ocean. Recent studies have shown that mollusks, crustaceans and amphibians could be affected by BPA, even in low concentrations,” Dr. Saido said in a statement to the media.

The scientists noted that light, white-foamed plastic decomposed rapidly at temperatures commonly found in the oceans, releasing the endocrine disruptor BPA. It isn’t just soft plastics that leach BPA, either.

“We were quite surprised to find that polycarbonate plastic biodegrades in the environment,” Dr. Saido explained. “Polycarbonates are very hard plastics, so hard they are used to make screwdriver handles, shatter-proof eyeglass lenses, and other very durable products. This finding challenges the wide public belief that hard plastics remain unchanged in the environment for decades or centuries. Biodegradation, of course, releases BPA to the environment.”

Dr. Saido’s research team analyzed sand and seawater from over 200 sites in 20 countries, including areas in Southeast Asia and North America. Every site tested contained what Dr. Saido labeled as “significant” amounts of BPA, ranging from 0.01 parts per million (ppm) to 50 ppm.

Dr. Saido pointed out that littering currently results in about 150,000 tons of plastic debris washing up on the shores of Japan alone each year. In addition, a huge area of plastic waste known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which is about two times the size of Texas, now contaminates the area between California and Hawaii. “Marine debris plastic in the ocean will certainly constitute a new global ocean contamination for long into the future,” Dr. Saido predicted in the press statement.

In yet more BPA news, Rolf Halden, associate professor in the School of Sustainable Engineering at Arizona State University and assistant director of Environmental Biotechnology at the Biodesign Institute, has just published a sobering research article on the hazards of chemical-loaded plastics. His findings, which are included in the latest issue of the Annual Review of Public Health, provide more evidence that plastics in garbage dumps, landfills and the world’s oceans are an ever-increasing toxic problem.

In fact, Dr. Halden concluded in his paper that plastics and their additives such as BPA aren’t only around us; they are inside virtually every human. The chemicals show up in blood and urine tests because they are ingested with the food we eat, the water we drink and from other environmental exposures.

“We’re doomed to live with yesterday’s plastic pollution and we are exacerbating the situation with each day of unchanged behavior,” Dr. Harden said in a press statement. “We are at a critical juncture and cannot continue under the modus that has been established. If we’re smart, we’ll look for replacement materials, so that we don’t have this mismatch — good for a minute and contaminating for 10,000 years.”

Gender-bending chemicals ‘triggering early puberty in girls and putting them at risk of diabetes and cancer’

New study confirms bisphenol A found in plastic is linked to heart disease

 



FDA: Walnuts Are Drugs and Doritos Are Healthy

FDA Says Walnuts Are Drugs and Doritos Are Heart Healthy

Gaia Health
April 14, 2010

In its latest salvo against our health and freedom, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning to Diamond Foods stating that their claims for the health promoting qualities of walnuts have moved them from a food to a drug. At the same time, it allows Frito-Lay to advertise its health-destroying chips (crisps in the UK) as “heart healthy”.

This is an attack on both your health and your right to free speech. The FDA is not interested in the science. It’s not interested in your health. It’s not interested in the truth. It’s interested only in supporting its corporate masters. To this end, it uses its massive power to shut down the truth and ignore blatant lies when it’s beneficial to big corporate players.

Read Full Article Here

FDA has not yet banned feeding chicken feces to cows

Scientists find walnuts fight prostate cancer

Man fights lymphoma by eating apricot kernels

Migratory birds are teaching humans about the benefits of arrow-wood berries

 



Contaminated Water Destroys Small Town

Contaminated Water Destroys Small Town

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_wXT9V-
aQc

Cities with the Best Water

Toxic Fluoride Clogs Boston Tap Water Supply

Drugs in Drinking Water Killing Our Brains

 



Chinese Fluoride In Mass. Water Raises Concern

Story on Mystery Substance Distracts from Fact Fluoride is a Deadly Killer

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
March 13, 2010

The “investigative” team at WCVB TV in Boston ran a story yesterday about an unknown substance in fluoride imported from China. “Team 5 Investigates found the Amesbury Water Department pulled fluoride from its system amid concerns about its supply from China,” the news station reported. “Department of Public Works Director Rob Desmarais said after he mixes the white powder with water, 40 percent of it will not dissolve.” Desmarais said the residue clogs his machines and makes it difficult to get a consistent level of fluoride in the town’s water.


A screen capture from the WCVB TV report reveals fluoride added to drinking water is a deadly toxin.

In the video report below, WCVB mentions melamine in food products and the heavy metal cadmium in toys imported from China while completely ignoring the larger and more important issue — fluoride is an extremely dangerous toxin that kills.

“Fluoride is added to the water most of us drink because the government believes it’s a safe and inexpensive way to prevent tooth decay.”

Fluoride does not prevent tooth decay. According to numerous studies, water fluoridation actually increases tooth decay. The AMA and others fallaciously claim that fluoride added to over 62% of U.S. water supplies reduces tooth decay. However, no less than six studies from dental journals show it does not and, in fact, may increase the likelihood of dental cavities.

Exposure to fluoride often results in dental fluorosis. Large numbers of U.S. young people — estimated up to 80 percent in some cities — now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure. Dental fluorosis consists of damage to tooth-forming cells, leading to a defect in tooth enamel. It is also an indicator of fluoride damage to bones.

WCVB TV’s own report reveals that fluoride is a deadly chemical. Near the beginning of the video, we are shown an industrial sized bag of fluoride at the Amesbury Water Department. “Sodium Fluoride,” a label on the bag warns, “Danger! Poison-Toxic by Ingestion.” The label states the chemical targets the heart, kidneys, bones, central nervous system, the gastrointestinal system, and teeth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zCfqoj_tC4

Studies reveal fluoride also attacks the immune and respiratory systems. It negatively affects blood circulation and accumulates in the bones. It attacks thyroid function. Fluoride also accelerates aging. Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can’t repair damaged cells, advanced aging occurs. Researchers from Harvard University and the National Institutes of Health knew in the 1960s that fluoride disrupted collagen synthesis and increased aging.

Instead of the in-your-face danger of fluoride presented in the “investigative” news report, the intrepid reporters at WCVB concentrate on the mystery substance from China and connect it to melamine and cadmium. Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

The fluoride added to 90% of drinking water is hydrofluoric acid which is a compound of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. “In this form, fluoride has no nutrient value whatsoever. It is one of the most caustic of industrial chemicals. Fluoride is the active toxin in rat poisons and cockroach powder,” notes Prevent Disease.

Moreover, hydrofluoric acid is used to refine high octane gasoline, to make fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons for freezers and air conditioners, and to manufacture computer screens, fluorescent light bulbs, semiconductors, plastics, herbicides, and remarkably toothpaste.

Fluoride is a big time neurotoxin. Substantial research reveals it results in widespread brain damage and learning disabilities. Extensive research on fluoride and the brain has been prompted by studies from China, India, Iran, and Mexico discovering that elevated levels of fluoride exposure are associated with IQ deficits in children.

“Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him,” the chemist Charles Perkins wrote to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954.

Perkins explained how the Nazis exchanged ideas with the Russians on mass medication of a population through drinking water prior to invading Poland in 1939. “I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years’ research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine — any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically.”

Both Nazi and Soviet concentration camps maintained fluoride administration to inmates to decrease resistance to authority.

However, of vital importance to our eugenics-minded rulers, fluoride has repeatedly been found to interfere with reproduction. “A few human studies suggested that high concentrations of fluoride exposure might be associated with alterations in reproductive hormones, effects on fertility, and developmental outcomes,” the National Research Council reported in 2006. In 1994, the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health published a study demonstrating a correlation between fluoride and reduced fertility and birth rates.

Fluoride is no longer confined to drinking water. According to the Agricultural Research Service, as of 2004 fluoride was present in 400 separate food and beverage items.

None of this was mentioned in the WCVB TV news report. Instead we are told to worry about melamine and cadmium, both certainly dangerous but nowhere approaching the threat level posed by massive fluoride poisoning.

As for the story researchers at WCVB TV, one has to wonder if maybe their cognitive ability to get to the bottom of the real story was seriously affected by a lifetime of fluoride ingestion.

Drugs in Drinking Water Killing Our Brains

Fluoridation Increases Infant Death Rates

Fluoride Linked to Arthritis, Study Shows

 



Stock Up on Incandescent Light Bulbs

Stock Up on Incandescent Light Bulbs: In Fact, Buy a Lifetime Supply of Them

J. Speer-Williams
Infowars.com
March 11, 2010

Our government’s”Green Revolution” is another covert attack on our collective health and environment, largely using their mythical global warming hoax to do so.

A Compact Fluorescent Light bulb.

The new Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) bulbs are a perfect example of this kind of subterfuge. While claiming these new CFL bulbs will reduce carbon emissions,”our” Congress passed legislation stating these new light bulbs must completely replace our everyday incandescent light bulbs by 2014, without telling us of the serious dangers to health and environment, that these mandated bulbs pose.

Most of these new CFLs will make people sick, by emitting radio frequency radiation that contributes to dirty electricity, that can cause migraines, dizziness, nausea, confusion, fatigue, skin irritations, and eye strain.

But far more importantly, CFLs are loaded with deadly mercury, one of the most toxic elements on Earth. In fact, all CFL bulbs contain – at least – four to five milligrams of mercury, about 200 times the amount of mercury in a flu vaccine shot. There is enough mercury in each CFL bulb to contaminate 6,000 gallons of clean water. To break one of these CFL bulbs is to risk ruining the health of one’s entire family, or office staff, with enough released atmospheric mercury to best require the expensive, professional services of a Haz/Mat Removal Team.

Believe not the”clean-up” methods for broken CFL bulbs offered by those in the mainstream media, which tell us to open a window, then leave the area of the broken bulb for 15 minutes; then return with duct tape to pick-up the broken glass.

Then what is one to do? Put the broken glass and duct tape into a glass jar and screw on a tight lid.

What is one to do with the glass jar? Take it to a special toxic dump.

Where are such dumps? Check your local listings.

ll of the above, of course, is sheer nonsense. Want proof? Ask your dentist about the Haz/Mat teams that come into their offices to remove their old collection of dental amalgams, which dentists keep in little lead lined boxes.

All Americans will be well advised to practice a”mercury escape plan” in the case of an accidental breakage of one of these CFL bulbs: Grab your cell phone, babies, dogs, cats, and parakeets (if they aren’t already dead), and get well away from your house. Call a Haz/Mat company to completely clean your house before re-entering it. Such are the serious dangers of mercury.

And our environment? This is where mercury laden CFL bulbs do their most serious damage to everyone of us. This is the same environment that our hordes of”Greenies” are so concerned about dying from global warming. But unknown to our greenie friends, already there are hundreds of millions of disposed CFL bulbs that have contaminated personal garbage cans, fleets of garbage trucks (spreading their toxicity near and far), and garbage disposal sites, that are doing irreparable damage to our ground water, except when such garbage is burnt; then, mercury is released into the very air we all breathe. You see there are precious few toxic dump sites in the world equipped to handle mercury, the most dangerous element in the world, after radio-active materials.

With over 100 million American households, and tens of millions of other lighted facilities, all over our country, and with each of them disposing of even just one CFL bulb a month … can anyone imagine how much mercury will poison our disposal dumps, our ground water, our air, our lungs, and our entire bodies. If one did not know better, mercury is the perfect chemical/weapon for genocidal madmen: Mercury is in dental amalgams, vaccines, corn syrup light bulbs, and who knows what else.

Are our lawmakers simply without a shred of common horse sense, or are they driven by a sinister power, intent on not only destroying our environment, but our very lives.

In any case, something inhuman drove our CFL horror, and is driving the”Green Revolution,” and its off-shoots of global warming, and the entire climate change circus of death.

Bush Signs Lightbulb Ban for Global Warming

Government To Tell You What Light Bulbs You Can Use

 



Cartoon: Verichip/PositiveID Infomercial

Cartoon: Verichip/PositiveID Infomercial

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFzhHeatRA0

 

RFID Chip Implants Cause Cancer in Lab-Rats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSQurQXa6sA

The Real Reason TV Went Digital Is RFID

VeriChip’s Merger With Credit Monitoring Firm Worries Privacy Activists

Amish farmers lose court battle against RFID

 



Georgia: Mandatory Vaccination and Forced Microchipping

Georgia: Mandatory Vaccination and Forced Microchipping

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkXiFe6gUQ8

The Real Reason TV Went Digital Is RFID

Hundreds of Public Workers Injured by Mandatory Vaccines

Cops Hold Down Boy For Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine

Mandatory Flu Vaccines For Children In New Jersey

 



BPA found in plastic linked to heart disease

New study confirms bisphenol A found in plastic is linked to heart disease

Natural News
January 19, 2010

According to the American Heart Association, cardiovascular disease is the number one killer in the U.S. Various forms of the disease take the lives of over 80 million Americans a year. And while we’ve all heard about the risk factors for cardiovascular disease — including smoking, being overweight, high cholesterol and lack of exercise — it appears it’s time to add bisphenol A, better known as BPA, to that list.

This chemical has been used for decades in polycarbonate plastic products including refillable drink containers, plastic eating utensils and baby bottles as well as the epoxy resins that line most food and soft-drink cans. Now a new study just published in the journal PLoS ONE provides the most compelling evidence so far that BPA exposure is dangerous to the cardiovascular system.

Using 2006 data from the US government’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), researchers from the Peninsula Medical School at the University of Exeter in the UK studied urinary BPA concentrations and found a significantly strong link between BPA exposure and heart disease. In 2008, these same scientists discovered that higher urinary BPA concentrations were associated with a long list of medical problems in adults, including liver dysfunction, diabetes and obesity. This research team was also the first to report evidence that BPA was linked to cardiovascular disease — and their new research offers further confirmation of a strong connection between BPA and heart ailments.

Despite the fact the new study found that urinary BPA concentrations were one third lower than those measured from 2003 to 2004, higher concentrations of BPA were still associated with heart disease. “This is only the second analysis of BPA in a large human population sample. It has allowed us to largely confirm our original analysis and exclude the possibility that our original findings were a statistical ‘blip’,” David Melzer, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Peninsula Medical School and the research team leader, said in a statement to the media.

“We now need to investigate what causes these health risk associations in more detail and to clarify whether they are caused by BPA itself or by some other factor linked to BPA exposure. The risks associated with exposure to BPA may be small, but they are relevant to very large numbers of people. This information is important since it provides a great opportunity for intervention to reduce the risks,” added scientist Tamara Galloway, Professor of Ecotoxicology at the University of Exeter and senior author of the paper.

As NaturalNews has previously reported, BPA exposure has been shown in other studies to be associated with neurological problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/025801_B…), diabetes and aggressive behavior in little girls (http://www.naturalnews.com/027382_B…). Unfortunately, the FDA has demonstrated little ability or interest in taking decisive measures to protect consumers from this chemical (http://www.naturalnews.com/024593_t…).Your best strategy to avoid BPA? Eat natural, fresh foods and stay away from cans, bottles and other plastic containing products that are not certified BPA-free.

Despite FDA concern, American Chemistry Council insists Bisphenol A is safe for everyone

Six Risky Chemicals You’re Carrying in Your Body

BPA chemical found in 90% of newborns

 



Early radiation exposure raises breast cancer risk

Cancer News: Early radiation exposure raises breast cancer risk

Food Consumer
January 11, 2010

Exposure to radiotherapy or radiation-based diagnostics like computed tomography (CT scans) in early childhood increases breast cancer risk in adulthood, a new study in the Jan 2010 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The study involved women exposed to thymic irradiation during infancy from 1926 to 1957. Breast cancer was identified in 96 treated in an average dose of 0.71 Gy and 57 untreated women during 159,459 person-year follow-up.

Adams MJ and colleagues from University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry found women who were treated by radiation were 200 percent more likely to develop breast cancer than those who did not receive radiation.

Higher doses of radiation were linked to high risk of breast cancer.

The researchers concluded that “at radiation doses between those received by the breast from chest CT and cancer therapy during early childhood, breast cancer incidence rates remain elevated >50 years after exposure.”

They wrote “This implies that increased breast cancer risk will remain a lifelong concern in females treated during childhood with currently reduced radiotherapy doses and for infants receiving multiple chest CTs.”

John Gofman, Ph.D. M.D. a distinguished nuclear physician, had reported much earlier that 75 percent of women with breast cancer were exposed to either diagnostic imaging, test or radiation therapy.

Ionizing radiations including x-ray used in medical diagnostics, mammogram screenings, air port whole body scanning, and cancer treatment are recognized by the U.S. National Toxicology Program as cancer-causing agents.

Breast cancer is diagnosed in more than 170,000 women each year in the United States and the disease kills about 50,000 annually in the country.

Breast cancer symptoms include a lump or thickening that feels different from the surrounding tissue, bloody discharge from the nipple, change in size and or shape of a breast, formation of dimples on the breast skin, inverted nipple, peeling or flaking of the nipple skin and redness on the breast skin like the skin of an orange, according to mayoclinic.com

Breast cancer treatments include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, and targeted therapy.

CT Scans Will Cause 29,000 Cancers and Kill Nearly 15,000 Americans From Diagnostics Done in 2007

 



BBC Hypes X-Ray Body Scanners

BBC Hypes X-Ray Body Scanners

NoWorldSystem
January 12, 2010

BBC promotes conventional x-ray technology to be used on only ‘suspicious’ travelers at Newcastle Airport.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmyVk_vRerM

These X-ray scanners send a high-energy beam of electromagnetic waves that pass through the subject to digitally create the x-ray image of the persons’ insides. These machines are similar to the Backscatter X-ray scanners (the scanners that look like 2-boxes you step in-between) but rely on low-energy x-ray waves that are only strong enough to pass through clothing producing the ‘blue alien‘ image of the persons figure.

X-rays that penetrate the human body are extremely dangerous and can even be deadly, people who use them significantly increase the risks of internal cancer and tumor growth. Women are especially susceptible to these deep penetrating rays as breast tissue has is very vulnerable to cancer, children and the unborn are the most at-risk.

The Backscatter and millimeter-wave are far less damaging than conventional x-ray, but Backscatter machines still rely on ionizing x-ray and millimeter-wave scanners rely on terahertz waves still be absorbed by the very surface of the skin, destroying, mutating DNA and skin cells which could lead to cancer.

Here is CNN’s Sanjay Gupta failing to mention that terahertz waves from millimeter-wave machines have been tested to “unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication (that can potentially cause cancer)”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bifqf-yQFZE

He also fails to mention that radiation damage is cumulative and with each dose builds upon cellular mutation caused by the last –in other words– these machines can effect previously damaged cells to trigger the spread of cancer.

X-Ray Devices That Scan Your Body on the Streets

Cancer Risks Debated for Type of X-Ray Scan

Whole-body airport scanners are basically safe—or are they?

Future Airport Scanners Will See Through Bodies

Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA

Full-Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk

Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation

 



Six Risky Chemicals You’re Carrying in Your Body

Six Risky Chemicals You’re Carrying in Your Body

Dr. Mercola
January 7, 2010

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released its latest assessment of the chemicals people are carrying around in their bodies.

The biomonitoring study is the most comprehensive in the world, measuring 212 chemicals in the blood and urine of 8,000 Americans.

The CDC highlighted a few chemicals because they are both widespread — found in all or most people tested — and potentially harmful.

Here’s a look at what they are and how you can try to avoid them:

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers

    Better known as “flame retardants”, PBDEs are used widely in all sorts of goods to reduce fire risk. They also accumulate in human fat, and some studies suggest they may harm your liver and kidneys as well as your neurological system. Some states have restricted the use of certain PBDEs, but short of such bans, avoiding them is difficult because the chemicals are integrated into so many products.

Bisphenol A

    BPA, which is found in many plastics, in the lining of cans, and even coating many sales receipts, was found in more than 90 percent of Americans tested. The health concerns about BPA are many and growing. While BPA-free products are available, it can be difficult to find them unless you do research ahead of time.

PFOA

    PFOA and other perfluorinated chemicals are used to create heat-resistant and non-stick coatings on cookware, as well as grease-resistant food packaging and stain-resistant clothing. Studies have linked these chemicals to a range of health problems, including infertility in women, and to developmental and reproductive problems in lab animals. Avoiding products that contain them is a first step towards avoiding them.

Acrylamide

    Formed when carbohydrates are cooked at high temperatures (fried foods), acrylamide and its metabolites are extremely common in Americans. High-level exposure has caused cancer and neurological problems in lab animals and workers, respectively. Avoiding it in food comes down to food choice, storage and preparation.

Mercury

    The main source of mercury — a potent neurotoxin that can lead to permanent brain damage if young children or fetuses are exposed — continues to be contaminated fish. I do not recommend eating most fish for this reason (mercury is also found in amalgam tooth fillings and vaccines).

MTBE

    This gasoline additive has been phased out of use in the U.S. in favor of ethanol, but it still can be detected widely in American’s bodies; it has contaminated many drinking water supplies. Studies have linked it to a variety of potential problems, including neurological and reproductive damage.

 



Future Airport Scanners Will See Through Bodies

Future Airport Scanners Will See Through Bodies


Total Recall: Schwarzenegger film from fantasy to reality

NoWorldSystem
January 7, 2010

In the future, BackScatter and Millimeter-Wave full-body scanners will be obsolete, they will eventually be replaced by radiography scanners that can provide a crisp image of a person’s insides.

There are 3 types of full-body scanners; the millimeter-wave (terahertz non-ionizing radiation), BackScatter (low-level ionizing x-ray) and transmission x-ray (digital radiographic) scanners.

The millimeter-wave scanners are perfect for detecting metal objects but are rather useless when it comes to detecting soft plastics, liquids and chemicals according to Tory MP Ben Wallace who worked on the machines. BackScatter scanners can detect both hard and soft materials but is just as limited in its scope as it can only see through clothing and not under folds of skin. The full-body scanner that has the potential to view all objects beyond folds of skin has to be the radiographic transmission x-ray, these machines are likely to dominate the prison-industrial-complex that is America’s transportation system.


SecurPass Digital Radiography Scanner

Radiography is very common in the medical practice, you might have used these machines if you ever had to deal with fractured bones or had a mammogram. Digital Radiography Scanners (DRS) have been used worldwide in airports, mining and correctional facilities, however this security technology is relatively new in the United States. The FDA has already approved this technology under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) even though they have not yet been used in the U.S. for security reasons.

This technology can detect narcotics, metallic and non-metallic weapons, plastic and liquid explosive devices, chemical and biological materials and components of explosive devices inside and outside the human body. The DRS are marketed under several names such as SecureScan, ConPass and SecurPass.

Radiography and Tomography x-ray machines are very hazardous and potentially deadly as they emit deep penetrating ionizing x-rays, both BackScatter and Millimeter-Wave scanners are child’s play compared to these machines. Researchers find Computed Tomography (CT) scanners will cause 29,000 cancers and kill nearly 15,000 Americans from diagnostic tests done in 2007.

A report in the British medical journal Lancet noted that mammograms (radiography of the breast) were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (a form of breast cancer) increased by 328%, of which 200% was due to the use of mammography itself. A Lawrence Berkeley National Lab study demonstrated that breast tissue is extremely susceptible to radiation-induced cancer, ironically mammograms may initiate the very cancers that they may later identify.

Radiation damage is cumulative, each time radiation passes through our bodies, cells become damaged, when cells are unable to repair 100% of the damage then there becomes the problem of tumors and cancer. As Dr. Gofman’s research put it; There is absolutely no safe dose-level of radiation, when human cells and DNA become damaged and mutated by radiation, then there is very little that can be done.

I imagine that there is going to be a huge push for these machines, as the 2010 forecast is likely to be the year of terrorism according to Gerald Celente. The media and other tools are continuing the push for these invasive and potentially deadly machines after a report of a suicide bomber carrying explosives inside his rectum. Abdullah Asieri adopted the new tactic of “carrying explosives in his anal cavity” for the un-successful attack against Saudi prince Mohammed Bin Nayef in September 2009. Asieri was reportedly blown in half by the blast and left Nayef un-injured.

After this incident and the Flight 253 non-event, there will be even more propositions of scanners that can do virtual cavity searches, there’s already chatter on the mainstream media about the need for internal searches of travelers:

Ann Coulter: “Unless the bomb is inserted under the foreskin, and by the way, I don’t see a clear angle on the anus. That’s a pretty easy hiding place for this.”

Stephen Colbert: “Every time a young Muslim man arrives at the airport, the TSA should respectfully take him aside and give him an involuntary colonoscopy.”

Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney: “If you are an 18 to 28-year-old Muslim man then you should be strip-searched. And if we don’t do that there’s a very high probability we’re going to lose an airline.”

Franco Frattini: “if a terrorist has swallowed a capsule full of explosives and could become a human bomb,” “right to security is essential for all other freedoms.”

Will we be herded on conveyor-belts like luggage where we are x-rayed for the sake of security? Who is the real terrorist, bombarding our bodies with radiation that will likely lead to many early deaths? Unfortunately it is all to easy for the government to use terrorist attacks to crackdown on the American people, lets hope these radiography scanners never see the light of day in any airport in the United States.

Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation

Full-Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk

 



Mass Resistance is Needed Against Full-Body Scanners

Mass Resistance is Needed Against Full-Body Scanners

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRoloQz6UII

 



Full-Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk

Full-Body Scanners Increase Cancer Risk

NoWorldSystem
December 6, 2010

There are two types of scanners we will have to endure at the airport; the millimeter-wave scanner and the ‘backscatter’ X-ray scanner. Both emit ‘high-energy’ radiation and are dangerous.

Body scanners have revolutionized the practice of medicine and has saved many lives, but we must question the government’s mandate to have people endure high-energy radiation in a non-life-threatening situation. We must protest the use of full-body scanners on children and young adults as they are at greater-risk of developing brain tumors and cancer from these machines. Cancer and tumors especially in the young will likely increase as more body scanners are being installed on a nationwide scale. There is just no “safe” dose of radiation, 50% of America’s cancers are radiation-induced.

People with medical implants such as pace-makers should also avoid electromagnetic pulse generating body scanners as they can significantly alter the waveform of the pacemaker pulse.

The millimeter wave scanners emit a wavelength of ten to one millimeter called a millimeter wave, these waves are considered Extremely High Frequency (EHF), the highest radio frequency wave produced. EHF runs a range of frequencies from 30 to 300 gigahertz, they are also abbreviated mmW. These waves are also known as terahertz (THz) radiation. The force generated from terahertz waves is small but the waves can ‘unzip’ or tear apart double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the DNA that could interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication.

Clothing and organic materials are translucent in most millimeter-wave bands. Perfect for detecting metal objects on subjects at airports, but not so great at picking up low-density materials such as plastic, chemicals or liquid which were some of the items used by the underwear bomber.

Full Body X-ray Scanners provide exceptionally clear views of subjects by combining data from multiple images, but increased exposure to X-rays can also cause mutation in DNA, leading to cancer. X-rays are considered ionizing (penetrating) radiation, ionizing radiation in any dose causes genetic mutations, which set all living cells exposed on the path to cancer. Cancers associated with high dose exposure include leukemia, breast, bladder, colon, liver, lung, esophagus, ovarian, multiple myeloma, prostate, nasal cavity/sinuses, pharyngeal, laryngeal, pancreatic and stomach cancers.

Whole body scans of healthy people will create more problems than they solve by exposing healthy people to radiation. The risk for radiation over-exposure may be small for a single subject, but the number subject exposed to airport body scans will increase the risk by the millions. A normal CT scan of the chest is the equivalent of about 100 chest X-rays. Some scanners are equivalent of 440 conventional X-rays. The traditional X-ray machine detects hard and soft materials by the variation in transmission through the target. The backscatter X-ray detects the radiation that reflects back from the target. Several studies have suggested that people have been unnecessarily exposed to radiation from CTs or have received excessive amounts of radiation. A person undergoing a backscatter scan receives approximately 0.005 – 0.009 millirems of radiation. 1 mrem per year is a negligible dose of radiation, and 25 mrem per year from a single source is the upper limit of safe radiation exposure. Widespread overuse of body scanners and variations in radiation caused by different machines could subject many to radiation doses that could ultimately lead to thousands of new cancer cases and deaths.

How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNA

Are planned airport scanners just a scam?

Kids At Higher Risk of Brain Tumors From Cellphones

Police force claim ‘radios’ are making them ill

Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation

2 Billion may suffer from Mobile Cancer by 2020: Study

14 Living Next To Cell Tower End Up Dead

 



17,000 toxic chemicals kept secret from consumers

17,000 toxic chemicals kept secret from consumers

Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post
January 4, 2010

Of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States — from flame retardants in furniture to household cleaners — nearly 20 percent are secret, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, their names and physical properties guarded from consumers and virtually all public officials under a little-known federal provision.

The policy was designed 33 years ago to protect trade secrets in a highly competitive industry. But critics — including the Obama administration — say the secrecy has grown out of control, making it impossible for regulators to control potential dangers or for consumers to know which toxic substances they might be exposed to.

At a time of increasing public demand for more information about chemical exposure, pressure is building on lawmakers to make it more difficult for manufacturers to cloak their products in secrecy. Congress is set to rewrite chemical regulations this year for the first time in a generation.

Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report to the federal government new chemicals they intend to market. But the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could harm their bottom line.

Government officials, scientists and environmental groups say that manufacturers have exploited weaknesses in the law to claim secrecy for an ever-increasing number of chemicals. In the past several years, 95 percent of the notices for new chemicals sent to the government requested some secrecy, according to the Government Accountability Office. About 700 chemicals are introduced annually.

Some companies have successfully argued that the federal government should not only keep the names of their chemicals secret but also hide from public view the identities and addresses of the manufacturers.

“Even acknowledging what chemical is used or what is made at what facility could convey important information to competitors, and they can start to put the pieces together,” said Mike Walls, vice president of the American Chemistry Council.

Although a number of the roughly 17,000 secret chemicals may be harmless, manufacturers have reported in mandatory notices to the government that many pose a “substantial risk” to public health or the environment. In March, for example, more than half of the 65 “substantial risk” reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency involved secret chemicals.

“You have thousands of chemicals that potentially present risks to health and the environment,” said Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization that documented the extent of the secret chemicals through public-records requests from the EPA. “It’s impossible to run an effective regulatory program when so many of these chemicals are secret.”

Of the secret chemicals, 151 are made in quantities of more than 1 million tons a year and 10 are used specifically in children’s products, according to the EPA.

The identities of the chemicals are known to a handful of EPA employees who are legally barred from sharing that information with other federal officials, state health and environmental regulators, foreign governments, emergency responders and the public.

Last year, a Colorado nurse fell seriously ill after treating a worker involved at a chemical spill at a gas-drilling site. The man, who later recovered, appeared at a Durango hospital complaining of dizziness and nausea. His work boots were damp; he reeked of chemicals, the nurse said.

Two days later, the nurse, Cathy Behr, was fighting for her life. Her liver was failing and her lungs were filling with fluid. Behr said her doctors diagnosed chemical poisoning and called the manufacturer, Weatherford International, to find out what she might have been exposed to.

Weatherford provided safety information, including hazards, for the chemical, known as ZetaFlow. But because ZetaFlow has confidential status, the information did not include all of its ingredients.

Mark Stanley, group vice president for Weatherford’s pumping and chemical services, said in a statement that the company made public all the information legally required.

“It is always in our company’s best interest to provide information to the best of our ability,” he said.

Behr said the full ingredient list should be released. “I’d really like to know what went wrong,” said Behr, 57, who recovered but said she still has respiratory problems. “As citizens in a democracy, we ought to know what’s happening around us.”

The White House and environmental groups want Congress to force manufacturers to prove that a substance should be kept confidential. They also want federal officials to be able to share confidential information with state regulators and health officials, who carry out much of the EPA’s work across the country.

Walls, of the American Chemistry Council, says manufacturers agree that federal officials should be able to share information with state regulators. Industry is also willing to discuss shifting the burden of proof for secrecy claims to the chemical makers, he said. The EPA must allow a claim unless it can prove within 90 days that disclosure would not harm business.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is trying to reduce secrecy.

A week after he arrived at the agency in July, Steve Owens, assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, ended confidentiality protection for 530 chemicals. In those cases, manufacturers had claimed secrecy for chemicals they had promoted by name on their Web sites or detailed in trade journals.

“People who were submitting information to the EPA saw that you can claim that virtually anything is confidential and get away with it,” Owens said.

The handful of EPA officials privy to the identity of the chemicals do not have other information that could help them assess the risk, said Lynn Goldman, a former EPA official and a pediatrician and epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“Maybe they don’t know there’s been a water quality problem in New Jersey where the plant is located, or that the workers in the plant have had health problems,” she said. “It just makes sense that the more people who are looking at it, they’re better able to put one and one together and recognize problems.”

Independent researchers, who often provide data to policymakers and regulators, also have been unable to study the secret chemicals.

Duke University chemist Heather Stapleton, who researches flame retardants, tried for months to identify a substance she had found in dust samples taken from homes in Boston.

Then, while attending a scientific conference, she happened to see the structure of a chemical she recognized as her mystery compound.

The substance is a chemical in “Firemaster 550,” a product made by Chemtura Corp. for use in furniture and other products as a substitute for a flame retardant the company had quit making in 2004 because of health concerns.

Stapleton found that Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient similar in structure to a chemical — Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP — that Congress banned last year from children’s products because it has been linked to reproductive problems and other health effects.

Chemtura, which claimed confidentiality for Firemaster 550, supplied the EPA with standard toxicity studies. The EPA has asked for additional data, which it is studying.

“My concern is we’re using chemicals and we have no idea what the long-term effects might be or whether or not they’re harmful,” said Susan Klosterhaus, an environmental scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute who has published a journal article on the substance with Stapleton.

Chemtura officials said in a written statement that even though Firemaster 550 contains an ingredient structurally similar to DEHP does not mean it poses similar health risks.

They said the company strongly supports keeping sensitive business information out of public view. “This is essential for ensuring the long-term competitiveness of U.S. industry,” the officials said in the statement.

 



USDA Approves Injecting Beef with Ammonia

U.S. Government Approves Treating Beef With Ammonia

NoWorldSystem
January 3, 2010

The New York Times forgot to mention that in the past, the USDA and FDA approved of injecting meat with carbon monoxide to keep rotten meat looking fresh, treating meat with viruses and even Oked the use of Mad Cow diseased beef into the food market just as long as it was mixed with 1% healthy beef.

The plan to inject ammonia into meat is just another toxic substance added to our daily intake that the government seems not to mind. The eugenicist elite that control the U.S. government know that stuff like this is bad for us and are purposely increasing the toxins in our environment. These are softkill methods of eugenics to cut the human population down by a ‘reasonable’ number, they use methods like; radiating us at airports, leaving drugs in the city water supply and using human sewage as fertilizer on major U.S. crops.

It should be painfully obvious now that the government doesn’t give a damn about you, the eugenicist elitists want you dead sooner than later because they look at ‘humans’ as a threat to the ‘ruling class’ clique, they consider us monsters that are unworthy of life. This is the real threat against humanity, not some patsy/terrorist crotch bomber. A decade from now we’ll all be wondering why people are dying at age 50 or 60.

New York Times
December 30, 2009

Eight years ago, federal officials were struggling to remove potentially deadly E. coli from hamburgers when an entrepreneurial company from South Dakota came up with a novel idea: injecting beef with ammonia.

The company, Beef Products Inc., had been looking to expand into the hamburger business with a product made from beef that included fatty trimmings the industry once relegated to pet food and cooking oil. The trimmings were particularly susceptible to contamination, but a study commissioned by the company showed that the ammonia process would kill E. coli as well as salmonella.

Officials at the United States Department of Agriculture endorsed the company’s ammonia treatment, and have said it destroys E. coli “to an undetectable level.” They decided it was so effective that in 2007, when the department began routine testing of meat used in hamburger sold to the general public, they exempted Beef Products.

With the U.S.D.A.’s stamp of approval, the company’s processed beef has become a mainstay in America’s hamburgers. McDonald’s, Burger King and other fast-food giants use it as a component in ground beef, as do grocery chains. The federal school lunch program used an estimated 5.5 million pounds of the processed beef last year alone.

But government and industry records obtained by The New York Times show that in testing for the school lunch program, E. coli and salmonella pathogens have been found dozens of times in Beef Products meat, challenging claims by the company and the U.S.D.A. about the effectiveness of the treatment. Since 2005, E. coli has been found 3 times and salmonella 48 times, including back-to-back incidents in August in which two 27,000-pound batches were found to be contaminated. The meat was caught before reaching lunch-rooms trays.

Carl S. Custer, a former U.S.D.A. microbiologist, said he and other scientists were concerned that the department had approved the treated beef for sale without obtaining independent validation of the potential safety risk. Another department microbiologist, Gerald Zirnstein, called the processed beef “pink slime” in a 2002 e-mail message to colleagues and said, “I do not consider the stuff to be ground beef, and I consider allowing it in ground beef to be a form of fraudulent labeling.”

One of the toughest hurdles for Beef Products was the Agricultural Marketing Service, the U.S.D.A. division that buys food for school lunches. Officials cited complaints about the odor, and wrote in a 2002 memorandum that they had “to determine if the addition of ammonia to the product is in the best interest to A.M.S. from a quality standpoint.”

“It is our contention,” the memo added, “that product should be labeled accordingly.”

Represented by Dennis R. Johnson, a top lawyer and lobbyist for the meat industry, Beef Products prevailed on the question of whether ammonia should be listed as an ingredient, arguing that the government had just decided against requiring another company to list a chemical used in treating poultry.

School lunch officials said they ultimately agreed to use the treated meat because it shaved about 3 cents off the cost of making a pound of ground beef.

Health Canada To Add Anti-Cancer Drugs To Junk Food

USDA serves pet food grade meat at public schools

FDA Is Urged to Ban Carbon-Monoxide-Treated Meat

FDA OKs bacteria-eating virus to treat meat

USDA Allows Mad Cow Diseased Beef to Market

 



Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation

Full-Body Scanners to Fry Travelers With Radiation

NoWorldSystem
December 31, 2009

A path has been cleared for the government to publicly roll out dangerous full-body scanners after the failed terrorist attempt on flight 253. Neocons are quaking for the government to implement the human x-ray machines on a nationwide scale, radiating travelers with unhealthy amounts of ionic radiation all for the sake of preventing the next Mutallab from boarding another U.S. airliner.

Airport Travelers To Get Ionizing X-Ray Radiation

According to a recent Zogby poll, traveling Americans approve long lines and gridlock at airport passenger screening points. The majority polled appreciate delays and hassles of flying today’s suspicious skies and feel safer because the federal Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is in charge of airport screening. These happy line campers should be delighted to learn about TSA’s grossly invasive new security plans. The good times have just begun.

TSA Security Laboratory Director Susan Hallowell recently announced the agency’s intent to use back-scatter X-ray machines for passenger surveillance. These hugely expensive, closet-sized zappers can find the plastic bombs hidden in grandma’s underpants, while delivering a smacking dose of ionizing radiation to her breasts and thyroid gland.

Snooper X-rays penetrate a few centimeters into the flesh and reflect off the skin to form a naked body image for TSA security personnel to inspect. These machines are already being field tested at several U.S. airports, including JFK, LAX and Orlando.

The most lucrative growth industry of our times is the “terror” business. Legions of companies lusting for government contracts are churning out police state technology at a frantic pace. In the last 17 months, TSA has received over 30,000 proposals for Big Brother technology and equipment needed to keep 280 million citizen-suspects under careful surveillance from the inside out.

Big winners include companies whose equipment is assisting TSA’s Advanced Technology Checkpoint Project to nudify airline passengers. Digital Security Systems of Miami is promoting its ConPass Security Body Scanner, which can perform virtual cavity searches using deeply penetrating X-radiation. Company engineer Thomas Wiggins says the scanner can detect explosives hidden inside bodies or surgically implanted under flabby folds of skin. Wiggins admits that before 9-11, “The thought of using an X-ray system would have been like ordering our own death sentence.” Now Wiggins claims that the ConPass scanner “could scan a pregnant woman around 200 times without a health risk.”

Virtually all passengers and airline crews who pass through airport screening checkpoints in the U.S. may soon be forced to submit to compulsory, whole-body X-ray exposure. Some fliers could be “fried” several times in one day. Frequent fliers could get hit hundreds of times each year. Pregnant women, infants, the chronically ill and immune suppressed would get the rays. Grateful herds of traveling livestock, prodded by TSA drovers through federally-funded “nuke chutes,” are expected to believe Hollowell’s scientifically unsupported assertion that ionizing radiation delivered via backscatter will be “about the same as sunshine.”

Officials must naturally defend compulsory passenger X-rays as harmless. But they are signing no guarantees because ionizing radiation in the X-ray spectrum damages and mutates both chromosomal DNA and structural proteins in human cells. If this damage is not repaired, it can lead to cancer. New research shows that even very low doses of X-ray can delay or prevent cellular repair of damaged DNA, raising questions about the safety of routine medical X-rays. Unborn babies can become grotesquely disfigured if their mothers are irradiated during pregnancy. Heavily X- rayed persons of childbearing age can sustain chromosomal damage, endangering offspring. Radiation damage is cumulative and each successive dose builds upon the cellular mutation caused by the last. It can take years for radiation damage to manifest pathology.

A leading U.S. expert on the biological effects of X-radiation is Dr. John Gofman, Professor Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Gofman’s exhaustive research leads him to conclude that there is NO SAFE DOSE-LEVEL of ionizing radiation. His studies indicate that radiation from medical diagnostics and treatment is a causal co-factor in 50 percent of America’s cancers and 60 percent of our ischemic (blood flow blockage) heart disease. He stresses that the frequency with which Americans are medically X-rayed “makes for a significant radiological impact.”

This highly credentialed nuclear physicist states: “The fact, that X-ray doses are so seldom measured, reflects the false assumption that doses do not matter…[but] they do matter enormously. And each bit of additional dose matters, because any X-ray photon may be the one which sets in motion the high-speed, high energy electron which causes a carcinogenic or atherogenic [smooth muscle] 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 ischemic heart disease.”

A report in the British medical journal Lancet noted that after breast mammograms were introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma (12 percent of breast cancer) increased by 328 percent, of which 200 percent was due to the use of mammography itself. A Lawrence Berkeley National Lab study has demonstrated that breast tissue is extremely susceptible to radiation-induced cancer, confirming warnings by numerous experts that mammograms can initiate the very cancers they may later identify. Dr. Gofman believes that medical radiation is a co-factor in 75 percent of breast cancer cases. So why would girls and women want their breast tissues irradiated every time they take a commercial flight?

Cancer is number two cause of death in the U.S. behind heart disease. The more marathon walks and cookie eating contests we sponsor to fund the “war” on cancer, the more cancer we get. “America isn’t winning the war on cancer after all,” the Wall Street Journal recently reported. The National Cancer Institute admits that America’s cancer rates in almost every category are rising steadily. Airline pilots and cabin crews suffer a significant incidence of leukemia, skin and breast cancer due to chromosomal damage from ionizing cosmic radiation encountered during years of flying at high altitudes.

Dr. Gofman’s research reveals a dose-response relationship between medical X-rays and fatal heart disease, the number one killer of Americans. He found that X-radiation is a powerful atherogen, causing mutations in smooth muscle cells of coronary arteries. These radiation damaged cells are unable to process lipoproteins correctly, resulting in atherosclerotic plaques and mini tumors in the arteries. Radiation used to treat breast cancer can badly damage the heart.

As Dr. Gofman and other experts argue for improved diagnostic techniques and equipment to reduce medically necessary X-ray exposure, TSA gears up to impose frivolous, nonmusical exposure, even though conventional airline security measures have proven adequate since 9/11. To date, the National Institutes of Health, the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association have been silent about TSA’s sinister plan to deliver unlimited doses of carcinogenic, mutagenic, heart damaging radiation to the flying public. No health studies are planned to gauge short and long-term effects of the radiation TSA will deliver to inspect our innards.

Big Brother’s zap madness is a predictable result of America’s post 9-11 security hysteria. But here’s the irony: Dr. Gofman says X- radiation has the effect of “grenades and small bombs” on human cells. If we permit TSA to continually “bomb” our DNA in the name of security, what have we accomplished?

Besides ionizing beams, the feds are also testing other types of surveillance radiation. A flubbed holographic scanner developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory allows officials to strip search humans with ultra-high frequency radio waves. Millivision of Amherst, Mass., has engineered a millimeter wave scanner using radio frequencies 1,000 times higher than those of an FM broadcast. These waves pass through clothing, packaging and building materials. Ultra-high radio frequencies include radar, a spectrum of radiation known since WWII to cause cancer and neurological disability in humans. Microwave frequencies are documented by recent studies on cell/cordless phone radiation to be carcinogenic and teratogenic (causing abnormal embryonic development).

An example of unexpected health repercussions caused by high frequency radiation used on humans is fetal ultrasound technology. Ultrasound equipment bombards a fetus for up to one hour with megahertz radiation. This radiation, which cycles millions of time per second, can cause mutation and bleeding in the intestinal cells of rodents. Swedish scientists say routine ultrasound scanning of pregnant women may be causing subtle brain damage in unborn babies. Approximately half of all pregnancies in the U.S. result in prenatal or postnatal death, or an otherwise less than healthy baby. Many wonder if routine exposure of America’s fragile unborn to megahertz radiation might be a factor, among others, of this shocking national statistic. Is fetal ultrasound exposure playing some part in the national epidemic of delayed development in infants, plus learning and behavior difficulties suffered by millions of our school children? Exposing the unborn to ionizing X-radiation at airport checkpoints is an even more dangerous game of roulette.

Fedgov’s planned use of health damaging radiation on the traveling public seems especially tragic and abusive to those of us convinced that the War on Terror is a giant con job. Massive evidence indicates that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were intentionally staged to justify increased power over and surveillance of Americans. Key NORAD and other military officials had to be in on the ruse. President Bush ambushed himself when he openly lied about what he knew and when he knew it on the day the Twin Towers went down.. He has been caught lying about so many issues that Homeland Security should issue a red alert every time he is about to move his lips. The Bush administration’s ongoing cover-up of 9/11 is so blatant that even Bush’s own investigatory commission has expressed outrage at his efforts to block its requests for vital information and resources.

Meantime, TSA claims concern that Americans may feel humiliated at being viewed naked by X-ray screeners. But whatever airport nuke-nazis see through our clothing is nothing that the undertaker won’t see after excessive, state-mandated radiation puts us “down” for good. Mandatory airport surveillance radiation delivered to an already grossly ill population would afford our financially strapped government an ingenious “final solution” to numerous political and economic problems. No muss, no fuss, this cull in the Cuckoos’ nest. Each useless eater lines up for his deferred-lethal dose. The weak will die soonest, the strong will eventually become the weak–no questions asked and nothing proven. It’s hard for a Prozac nation to imagine such sinister motives behind the terror industry, but the documented truth is, our amoral leadership has been brazenly murdering Americans for decades. Genocide specialists have been especially fond of unleashing various forms of deadly radiation on the unwitting masses, as documented by the federal Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. Now here we go again!

Consumers could derail TSA’s sinister surveillance projects in a heartbeat. It’s called boycott: We simply refuse to get nuked to naked. If we stop booking flights, the airline industry must grind to a halt. TSA would have little choice but to scrap its plans to endanger the national health with unnecessary radiation.

Americans who are still able to think must launch an effort to save ourselves and warn others. 1. Let’s demand that Congress mandate TSA’s radiation experiments be strictly voluntary. 2. We must demand the right to request that TSA conduct a non-radiation search of our persons. 3. We must demand our right to abstain from security procedures that may harm our children. 4. We must initiate an e-mail campaign to convince TSA and the airlines that forcible assault by radiation makes the cost of an airline ticket impossibly prohibitive.

TSA’s consumer e-mail address is: TSAContactCenter@dhs.gov. It’s toll free comment line is: 1-866-289-9673. [Source]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12xXGo7buWY

Approaching Epidemic: Brain Damage from Mobile Phone Radiation

 



Health Canada To Add Anti-Cancer Drugs To Junk Food

Health Canada To Add Anti-Cancer Drugs To Junk Food

National Post
December 21, 2009

Health Canada is proposing an unorthodox way of combatting a food ingredient suspected in some cancers: It wants to let manufacturers put small amounts of a cancer-fighting drug into potato chips and similar foods to curb production of the harmful chemical.

Ever since acrylamide was discovered seven years ago in such foods as french fries and chips cooked at high temperatures, scientists have struggled for a way to get it out. The chemical is not added deliberately; it is an unintentional byproduct of cooking.

Though the evidence is far from definitive, acrylamide has been connected to cancer in animals and possibly people.

As a partial answer, Health Canada is suggesting removing the requirement for a prescription to administer the enzyme asparaginase, except when it is injected into leukemia patients as a treatment.

That way, food companies could include small amounts of the drug in their products, the department says in a “notice of intent” document published on Saturday. Evidence suggests that asparaginase lessens the production of acrylamide by as much as 90%.

The enzyme is destroyed in cooking so would have no impact on people consuming the food, said Varoujan Yaylayan, associate professor with McGill University’s food-science department.

“It has been used quite effectively on an experimental basis,” he said. “It appears to work.”

The acrylamide issue has preoccupied food manufacturers as they brace for the possibility of regulations that could limit levels of the chemical or ban it outright. California actually sued french fry and chip makers over the question, with several agreeing last year to reduce the volume of acrylamide in their goods.

“It’s been a big, big problem,” Prof. Yaylayan said. “Not so much in the public eye, but behind doors, the companies keep having meetings, having scientific symposia and seminars. I have attended many of them, here, in the U.S., in Europe.”

Manufacturers “fully support” the move suggested by Health Canada, Derek Nighbor of Food and Consumer Products of Canada said in a statement provided by the industry group yesterday.

Health Canada is accepting feedback on the idea for 75 days, and could implement it in six to eight months, the government document said.

Swedish scientists discovered in 2002 that acrylamide, used in making various industrial and consumer products, also occurred in foods ranging from breakfast cereals to bread cooked at over 120-degrees celsius. A by-product of heating certain sugars, levels are particularly elevated in carbohydrate-heavy food heated to high temperatures like chips and fries.

Tests have found that consuming the chemical increases the risk of some cancer in rodents. Evidence of its effect on humans who eat it in food is less clear, though, with some research linking it to cancer but most studies finding that the levels people eat would have no carcinogenic effect, said Lorelei Mucci, a Harvard medical school assistant professor who studies the issue.

In fact, Dr. Mucci questions devoting much energy or money to the substance.

Volumes of the chemical can be reduced by cooking at lower temperatures or soaking the product in water first to extract some sugar, but such techniques can affect the pleasant odour, crispiness or colour of some food.

Asparaginase is injected in leukemia patients, where it breaks down asparagine, an amino acid, killing the cancer cells. When it is applied to potatoes or other food before cooking, it similarly reduces the amount of asparagine, the key ingredient in the inadvertent production of acrylamide.

The “downstream effects” of using asparaginase to counter the chemical in food should be studied carefully, advised Dr. Mucci.

 



VeriChip’s Merger With Credit Monitoring Firm Worries Privacy Activists

VeriChip’s Merger With Credit Monitoring Firm Worries Privacy Activists

Wired
December 10, 2009

Remember VeriChip, the Florida company that once dreamed of injecting its human-implantable RFID microchips in everyone from immigrant guest workers to prison inmates?

We haven’t heard much from the company since a dipping stock price nearly got it delisted from the NASDAQ in March. But it’s still alive, and in November it pulled off a seemingly incongruous acquisition. Now called PositiveID, the new company is a merger between VeriChip and Steel Vault, the people behind NationalCreditReport.com.

With a human-implantable microchip maker now running a credit-scoring and identity-theft-protection website, privacy activists are worried again. “The attraction to investors is the potential for synergies,” says Mark Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. “You have to anticipate over time there will be an attempt to integrate the services.”

“Sci-fi wise, you could have a chip read by a scanner that determines your credit-worthiness,” says Evan Hendricks, editor of Privacy Times. “Or you could have a credit card implant.”

VeriChip and its former owner Applied Digital have been drawing fire since 2004, when the FDA approved the rice-sized injectable RFID for human use. While the company primarily pushed the chip as part of a system to index medical records — a kind of subcutaneous MedAlert bracelet — Richard Sullivan, then-CEO of Applied Digital, had a penchant for wantonly confirming every nightmare of cybernetic social control.

After 9/11, it was Sullivan who announced the VeriChip would be perfect as a universal ID to distinguish safe people from the dangerous ones. He dreamed of GPS-equipped chips being injected into foreigners entering the United States, prisoners, children, the elderly. He thought the VeriChip would be used as a built-in credit or ATM card.

Indeed, in 2004, one of VeriChip’s earliest deployments was at a Barcelona nightclub, where VIP patrons could pay 125 euro to get the chip installed in their arms as a debit card for drinks.

But today, Sullivan’s replacement says the company has no plans to market the VeriChip as a path to instant credit, despite the recent acquisition.

With his white-buttondown shirt open at the chest, PositiveID CEO Scott Silverman spoke about the merger in an interview at the company’s office suite in Delray Beach, Florida. “Using the chip to relate to the credit-reporting services of NationalCreditReport.com, or even using it for financial transactions … has not been a part of our business model for five years or more, since Sullivan’s been gone, and is not part of our business model moving forward,” he says.

Silverman also backed away from some of the Orwellian ideas floated by his cyberpunk predecessor. “I can tell you that … putting [the chips] into children and immigrants for identification purposes, or putting them into people, especially unwillingly, for financial transactions, has [not] been and never will be the intent of this company as long I’m the chairman and CEO,” he says.

Yet in 2004, Silverman told the Broward-Palm Beach New Times that the VeriChip could be used as a credit card in coming years. And in 2006, he went on Fox & Friends to promote the chipping of immigrant guest workers to track them and monitor their tax records.

And ahead of the recent merger, VeriChip gave a presentation to investors hinting there would be some cross-pollination between the two sides of the business. It plans to “cross-sell its NationalCreditReport.com customer base” (.pdf) the Health Link service and vice-versa. So, Americans with implanted VeriChips will be encouraged to divulge their finances to PositiveID, while credit-monitoring customers will be marketed the health-record microchip.

Critics of chipping are moved by a variety of concerns, ranging from the pragmatic to the religious — anti-RFID crusader Katherine Albrecht believes the technology is the Mark of the Beast predicted in the Book of Revelation, but also doubts its efficacy as a medical tag: VeriChip’s instruction manual warns that the chip may not function in ambulances and areas where there are MRI and X-ray scanners.

Security is another issue. RFIDs can generally be scanned from distances much greater than the official specs suggest. Nicole Ozer at the ACLU of Northern California notes that after Wired magazine writer Annalee Newitz experimentally cloned her VeriChip in 2006, the company continued calling it secure.

But human chipping has high-profile fans as well, including former Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson, who left his job as overseer of the FDA in 2005 — a year after VeriChip’s approval — to join the company’s board of directors. Thompson announced he would personally join the 700 to 900 Americans who have the chip installed in their bodies. (He later reportedly reneged.)

Whatever its plans for the future, PositiveID is focused on its original mission for now: implants tied to medical records. On December 1, the new company announced it’s collaborating with Avocare, a Florida health care business, in the hopes of bringing its “health care identification products” to 1 million patients.

 

Credit Card Companies Refuse Mythbusters to Test RFID

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdDsukmgwsk

Secret Bilderberg Agenda To Microchip Americans Leaked

One Mainframe To Rule Them All

RFID Chip Implants Cause Cancer in Lab-Rats

 



EPA Says Co2 is Deadly, But Fuel is Good to Drink!

EPA HYPOCRISY

EPA: CO2 is a deadly gas, but uranium, mercury, arsenic, rocket-fuel and drugs in drinking water is perfectly safe.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
December 8, 2009

While the EPA declares the gas that we exhale to be a deadly poison, as protesters at Copenhagen decry the suffering of polar bears as their population figures increase to record levels, and as delegates in the Danish capital warn of the dastardly peril of cows farting, a New York Times report confirming that U.S. drinking water contains dangerous levels of arsenic, uranium and other radioactive substances barely gets noticed.

Furthermore, the new study shows that the Environmental Protection Agency knew that water systems all over the United States were contaminated with dangerous levels of numerous toxic substances, yet failed to punish the vast majority of water authorities involved.

Since the environmental movement was completely hijacked by globalists hell bent on world government and devastating carbon taxes, real environmental problems have been swept aside as the contrived scam of man-made global warming swallows up all the attention.

Our drinking water is contaminated with toxic waste, our food supply is poisoned by genetically modified garbage, and our consumer products are laced with cancer-causing chemicals, but who cares right? Surely all this pales in comparison to the effort to stop the world warming by a percentage of a degree over the next 100 years?

    More than 20 percent of the nation’s water treatment systems have violated key provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act over the last five years, according to a New York Times analysis of federal data.

    That law requires communities to deliver safe tap water to local residents. But since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in sewage.

But unlike the mammoth threat posed by the life-giving gas carbon dioxide, which the EPA yesterday classified as a health threat to the same humans that exhale it, the Environmental Protection Agency is noticeably less concerned about the fact that our water is filled with contaminants that are “linked to millions of instances of illness within the United States each year.”

Indeed, records show that fewer than 6 percent of the water systems that broke the law were ever punished or fined by the EPA.

“In some instances, drinking water violations were one-time events, and probably posed little risk. But for hundreds of other systems, illegal contamination persisted for years, records show,” according to the article.

The Senate Environment and Public Works committee will question a high-ranking E.P.A. official about why they allowed water companies to continue such contamination without punishment at a hearing today.

According to the study, not only were water systems contaminated with radioactive substances like uranium as well as arsenic, but they were also found to contain cancer-causing solvents and illegal amounts of bacteria.

“The amount of radium detected in drinking water was 2,000 percent higher than the legal limit,” adds the report. Radium is described as “extremely radioactive” and has a half-life of 1602 years. People exposed to radium suffer serious health effects including sores, anemia and bone cancer. The use of radium in paints as late as the 1950’s was eventually halted after many deaths were attributed to exposure to the chemical.

True to form, the NY Times chooses to characterize water which contains deadly radioactive chemicals as “dirty” in its headline!

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show – oh its just a bit of dirt you know! Cancer-causing radioactive toxins and poisonous arsenic – its just a little dirty!

“The problem, say current and former government officials, is that enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been a federal priority,” reports the Times, adding that current and former EPA officials who attempted to make the agency enforce the drinking water law were targeted.

“I proposed drinking water cases, but they got shut down so fast that I’ve pretty much stopped even looking at the violations,” said one longtime E.P.A. enforcement official who, like others, requested anonymity for fear of reprisals. “The top people want big headlines and million-dollar settlements. That’s not drinking-water cases.”

So there you have it – according to the EPA – breathing is a threat to human health – but drinking water laced with arsenic, cancerous carcinogens, and radioactive chemicals is perfectly nutritious!

So pour a fresh glass of toxic tap water, drink up and say cheers to the fact that the government really cares about our health and the real environmental issues – before you drop dead.

Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show

Court strikes down EPA’s plan on mercury

EPA: American lives less valuable

EPA won’t remove rocket fuel from drinking water

41 Million Americans Have 56 Types of Drugs in Tap Water

 



BPA chemical found in 90% of newborns

BPA chemical found in 90% of newborns

Meg Kissinger
Milwaukee/Wisconsin Journal Sentinel
December 4, 2009

A study released Wednesday which found that nine of 10 babies tested were born with bisphenol A in their systems has renewed calls for the chemical to be banned.

In the study commissioned by the Environmental Working Group, scientists found the chemical in nine of 10 randomly selected samples of umbilical cord blood.

Previous studies have found BPA in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. But Wednesday’s study is the first to find it in the cord blood of U.S. newborns.

“It’s alarming,” Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. “What more evidence do we need to act?”

BPA Side Effects Include: Breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, ADHD, miscarriage, sterilization, erectile dysfunction, impotence, increased estrogen, feminized newborn boys, down’s syndrome, transgender newborns, early onset puberty, memory loss, increased aggression.

Read Full Article Here

Consortium rejects FDA’s approval of BPA

A scary study shows the hidden causes of feminizing baby boys

Medications contain chemicals that “feminize” unborn baby boys

Why boys are turning into girls

 



GMO hormones in milk promotes cancer

Genetically engineered hormones used by dairy industry promote cancer

E. Huff
Natural News
November 17, 2009

An industry report claiming that the genetically-engineered hormone Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rBST) is safe has received criticism from the Cancer Prevention Coalition (CPC) for its dubious findings. Funded by producers of rBST, the report was conducted entirely by industry-paid consultants rather than by independent, credible scientists, indicating it is fallacious.

Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the CPC, lambasted the report for failing to recognize the grave, scientifically-proven dangers imposed by rBST. Author of the 2006 book What’s In Your Milk?, Dr. Epstein stated the report was “blatantly false”.

One of the primary effects of rBST on cows is that is causes them to become seriously ill with various diseases including mastitis, an infection of the udder that ultimately contaminates milk with pus. Commonly branded as Posilac, rBST unnaturally increases milk production at the expense of the cow’s health, the repercussions of which are passed on to the consumer.

Monsanto, the original creator of rBST, was forced to reveal the truth that rBST induces roughly 20 toxic effects, all of which end up tainting the milk with disease. When farmers then treat these illnesses with antibiotics, those too end up in the milk that is eventually drunk by unsuspecting consumers.

Got milk hormones?

Research has also revealed that rBST-treated milk is both chemically and nutritionally different than natural milk and that traces of the hormone end up in the milk. Those who drink rBST-tainted milk readily absorb the hormone in their digestive tract which is then assimilated into the blood.

Milk from rBST-treated cows contains unnaturally high levels of natural growth factor (IGF-1) which inhibits the body’s natural defense mechanisms designed to fend off cancer. Well-documented scientific studies have implicated the hormone in precipitating prostate, breast, and colon cancer.

CPC has been working for decades to eliminate rBST from the milk supply. In 1990, the group issued a warning in conjunction with over 40 other organizations about the dangers of rBST. The warning fell upon deaf ears at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which continued to accept the flawed notion that rBST was safe in spite of its proven dangers.

In 2007, CPC sent a petition to the FDA entitled “Seeking Withdrawal of the New Animal Drug application for rBST”, which was endorsed by several farmer and consumer protection groups. Citing Congressional concerns about the hormone that date back to the 1980s, as well as countless studies illustrating the toxicity of rBST, these groups labored to reform the FDA’s flawed position. Unfortunately, the FDA ignored the facts and continues to keep the interests of industry as its priority at the expense of consumer protection.

Dr. Epstein’s recommendation, especially for children who are most susceptible to cancer-causing additives like rBST, is to choose organic milk if they are going to drink milk at all. Organic milk is not allowed to contain rBST or any artificial hormones and is the best alternative to conventional milk that may be tainted with rBST.

Organic, raw milk is the most preferable option as it is a whole, living food rich in beneficial enzymes, probiotics, and other nutrients that get destroyed during pasteurization and homogenization. Many believe raw milk is a perfect food rich in essential vitamins and high in protein.

GMO foods are changing the DNA of humans

 



Healthy children below age of five to get swine flu jab

UK: Healthy children below age of five to get swine flu jab

London Telegraph
November 19, 2009

Healthy children aged under five are to be given the swine flu jab, the Government has confirmed.

Currently people in priority groups – including young children with asthma or diabetes – are being vaccinated.

But the programme will now be rolled out to children with no underlying health issues, aged over six months and under five.

The UK-wide policy was officially confirmed by the Scottish Government today ahead of a similar announcement in England, expected later.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish Health Secretary, said: “I am able to announce today that the next group in the population that will be vaccinated, or offered vaccination, is children aged over six months and under five years.”

Read Full Article Here

 



Chevron Sued For Dumping Toxic Waste in Amazon

Chevron Sued For Dumping Toxic Waste in Amazon


Celebrity support for the cause … actress Daryl Hannah in Ecuador’s oil region in the Amazon two years ago. Photo: AP

Sydney Morning Herald
November 17, 2009

Tens of thousands of Amazonians are suing Chevron, the American oil company, for poisoning their waterways in what is billed as one of the biggest environmental cases in history.

The Ecuadorean claimants said the company illegally dumped toxic waste from its oil production, which filtered into the lakes used by thousands of people for washing and drinking.

The result, they claimed, was one of the worst environmental disasters in history, which led to a public health crisis with rising levels of cancer, birth defects and miscarriages.

Some 30,000 Amazonians are behind a case to be heard by an Ecuadorean judge. Experts said the company might have to pay damages of up to $US27 billion ($29 billion).

The company said there was no proof that any illnesses were caused by its operations. It said the responsibility for cleaning the area lay with the Ecuadorean government and Petroecuador, the state oil company.

The court case is the result of the exploitation of the indigenous population by US trial lawyers and a corrupt government, according to Chevron.

The Amazon campaign has attracted high-profile supporters including actor Daryl Hannah. Chevron’s reputation for corporate social responsibility has already taken a blow.

The issue is the subject of Crude, a critically acclaimed documentary. The rags-to-riches tale of the most senior Ecuadorean lawyer fighting the case has earnt it a place on the front cover of Vanity Fair.

Texaco, which is owned by Chevron, started operating in Sucumbios, Ecuador, in 1964. Over 26 years it made more than $500 million, producing 1.7 billion barrels of oil. As the operator of a consortium with Petroecuador, it drilled hundreds of wells.

Pits were created for each well in which to put the water produced as a byproduct of the oil. Those fighting Chevron claimed that the 68 billion litres of water in the pits were toxic and were allowed to overflow into nearby rivers. They also claimed that Texaco spilt an additional 64 million litres of crude oil.

The contamination allegedly increased cancer rates in the area threefold, and led directly to 1400 deaths.

”Texaco treated Ecuador’s Amazon like a garbage dump,” said Douglas Beltman, a former official at the US Environmental Protection Agency who is a scientific consultant to the indigenous groups.

 



Fluoridation Increases Infant Death Rates

Fluoridation Increases Infant Death Rates

VOXY
November 17, 2009

Fluoridation causes more premature births, one of the top causes of infant death in the USA. It poses the greatest risk to poor non-white mothers and babies. This is the finding State University of New York researchers from data spanning 1993 to 2002.

Research in Chile in the 1970s also showed fluoridation caused an increase in infant death rates. Chile stopped fluoridation as a result.

A baby born at least 3 weeks early is classified as premature – accounting for about 12 percent of US births.

To ensure fluoridation was the culprit, and not some other factor, the researchers recorded fluoridation residence status (under or over 1 ppm) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, neighborhood poverty level, hypertension and diabetes.
73Share

The data came from the NY Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, which collects comprehensive information on patient characteristics and treatment history. The research was conducted within the university’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health.

“For the Ministry of Health to continue promoting fluoridation when there is this kind of evidence that it is real health risk is inexcusable” says Mark Atkin, Fluoride Action Network (NZ)’s co-representative on the Fluoridation-free NZ Coalition, adding “Only a few months ago we had further confirmation that fluoridation increases teenage male bone cancer rates. As has been said before, those who continue to promote fluoridation do so at the risk of future legal action against them.”

Fluoride Linked to Arthritis, Study Shows

U.S. government wants 75% American water fluoridated by 2010

 



GMO foods are changing the DNA of humans

GMO foods are changing the DNA of humans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o4bFi4k0fg

Why boys are turning into girls

Rich ‘may evolve into separate species’

 

 



Doctor Says Flu Injections Are Dangerous, Unnecessary

Doctor Says Flu Injections Are Dangerous, Unnecessary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsVo17-xUlM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCLjDhh-_PA

Florida plan advises hospitals to bar some patients in event of severe flu pandemic

Chandler firefighters refuse H1N1 vaccine

Europeans Reject Swine Flu Vaccine