noworldsystem.com


Drugs in Drinking Water Killing Our Brains

Drugs in Drinking Water Killing Our Brains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGWWarqyp8I

 

Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care Products Found in New York City Water Supply

Natural News
December 31, 2009

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has issued support for a proposed law that would require the Department of Environmental Protection in New York City to test the city’s drinking water supply for personal care product and pharmaceutical residue. Citing numerous studies that have found measurable levels of such contaminants in water supplies around the nation, EWG is encouraging support for measures that would investigate and report contaminant levels to the public.

Reports have found that the nation’s water supplies contain various antibiotics, phytoestrogens and estrogenic steroids, and pharmaceutical and genotoxic drugs. New York City’s water supply is no exception. Since these contaminants have the potential to inflict widespread reproductive harm, neuro-degeneration, endocrine disruption, and cell destruction in humans, EWG is urging that New York City monitor contaminant levels and issue annual water quality reports that outline the results. Since most of these contaminants are currently unregulated, they are typically not disclosed in existing water quality reports.

Wastewater treatment facilities are capable of removing most contaminants from water, however a small percentage of fragments make their way back into the water supply. When combined with thousands of other fragments, the aggregate mass of contaminant particles can pose serious health risks. The extent to which such contamination causes harm has yet to be fully understood and observed.

As it currently stands, pharmaceutical drugs are not regulated in tap water. Drinking water is usually not tested for them and, when it is, the results are usually withheld from the public. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have failed to set any guidelines for pharmaceutical content in water. Thus any level of pharmaceuticals in water is considered to be legal.

Perhaps the most important call from EWG is for improvements in wastewater treatment facility technology. Current methods work for certain microorganisms and compounds but fail to adequately filter pharmaceutical drugs and other synthetic compounds from water. Ultraviolet treatment, activated carbon treatment, and ozonation are some of EWG’s suggestions for updating filter technology.

The goal of EWG is to promote water pollution reduction strategies that include raising public awareness about the issue, gathering and disseminating regular water quality data, and working to implement mitigation strategies both in the short and long terms.

Installing a home reverse osmosis system is a great way to ensure that one’s family is receiving clean water. Reverse osmosis is highly effective at purifying water, removing virtually every known particle and contaminant. It also removes chlorine, fluoride, and other toxic substances added to many municipal water supplies that would otherwise pass through most other water filtration systems.

STOP DRINKING CITY WATER: Get an EcoloBlue Atmospheric Water Generator!

 



Earth Being Sprayed With Aluminum?

Earth Being Sprayed With Aluminum?

Michael J. Murphy
Infowars.com
April 6, 2010

Could a Ban of Transparent Reporting at the Asilomar Conference be an Attempt to Cover-Up World-Wide Contamination From Stratospheric Aerosol Geo-Engineering Programs?

Geo-engineers gathered once again near Monterey California at the Asilomar International Conference on Climate Intervention Technologies meeting to develop norms and guidelines for what they say will be “controlled experimentation” on geo-engineering the planet. While many claim that stratospheric aerosol geo-engineering (SAG), aka chemtrail programs are in full-scale deployment, organizers of this meeting showed a lack of transparency by either denying or holding reporters to a high set of rules which limited what information was brought to the attention of the public. While we might never know how much information from the conference was suppressed in articles and reports, we do know some of the information that was not included. The issue of current SAG deployment and the use of aluminum in these programs seemed to be missing from reports and articles that came out of the conference.

Mauro Oliveira, webmaster of GeoEngineeringWatch said that aluminum became a concern to many after the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting when independent journalists sent shockwaves around the world after breaking the story of scientists discussing the plausibility of spraying 10 to 20 mega-tons of aluminum into the sky in SAG campaigns. Francis Mangels, a retired USDA/USFS Biologist commented on the use of aluminum by saying, “although aluminum is an abundant element, it does not exist naturally in the environment in free form. Dispersing massive amounts of ultra-fine aluminum particulates as proposed by geo-engineers into the stratosphere would have unquantifiable human health and environmental impacts”. When scientists were asked about the risks associated with the use of aluminum sprayed as an aerosol in SAG programs, they admitted that they have only begun to research aluminum and have published nothing. They also admitted that something terrible could be found in the future that they don’t know about. Also, when asked about deployment of current programs, scientists denied that any SAG programs have been deployed. This contradicted the findings of many who claim that SAG programs are well under-way and that high amounts of aluminum and other harmful substances from these programs are being found resulting in the devastation of eco-systems and the health of people around the world.

Like the AAAS meeting, the Asilomar geo-engineering conference hosted some of the world’s leading geo-engineers, environmental groups and scientists who gathered to discuss various issues relating to SAG. Unlike the AAAS meeting, reporters were either denied attendance or set to a high standard of rules which included a ban on daily reporting, quoting, and recording anything from the meeting without the consent of presenters. Stewart Howe was one of the reporters denied access into the conference. Howe helped break the story about aluminum when he was sent to the AAAS meeting in San Diego to report for Infowars. He feels that he was denied access because of this and his reporting of evidence that suggests SAG programs are in full-scale deployment. Howe said, “due to the devastating effects of aluminum and world-wide claims of current deployment, transparent reporting of this could devastate the entire SAG agenda compromising billions of dollars in contracts.” He went on to say that it was apparent that this meeting had no intentions of being transparent.

Whereas many reporters were denied access to this event, some “privileged” journalists did have the opportunity to attend. Although some of the articles about the conference appeared to be critical of geo-engineering, they largely ignored the use of aluminum and other serious issues that could have impacted or changed the damaging components of the SAG agenda. Due to their agreement to the strict, non-transparent guidelines of the conference, the reporting journalists not only helped keep some of the meeting secret, they also helped hide the fact that geo-engineers are “planning” to use aluminum in SAG programs. Some articles were also falsely written stating that geo-engineers are planning on using sulfur in the various SAG campaigns. This contradicts articles written by some reporters who attended the AAAS meeting and quoted scientists as stating that they initially considered using sulfur for the program; however, aluminum is more effective and will be the ingredient considered for use. To date, scientists have not corrected the journalists who falsely reported the use of less damaging sulfur instead of harmful aluminum as being an ingredient for SAG programs.

Let’s look at this issue a little more closely. People from around the world are witnessing white trails behind airplanes and believe them to be a product of SAG programs that scientists deny exist. People are also reporting test results of high amounts of aluminum, barium and strontium in their snow, rain and soil where the alleged spraying is occurring. These are the exact substances that scientists are “considering” implementing into the various SAG programs discussed at the AAAS meeting. Shockwaves were sent around the globe after the AAAS meeting because of reports that led many to believe that the destruction of eco-systems and the massive amounts of aluminum found in the snow, rain and soil are in fact from SAG programs that have already been deployed. As a result of these reports, many around the world are asking questions about the current deployment and the dangers of using aluminum in these programs. And finally, journalists are restricted from reporting certain facts from this conference that could be damaging to the SAG agenda.

Could transparent reporting of certain facts threaten the current and future deployment of SAG programs around the world? Could denying independent reporters the freedom to openly report on this meeting be an attempt to cover-up allegations that SAG programs are in full-scale deployment and are also destroying eco-systems around the world with the use of aluminum? Is it possible that the reporters who were allowed into this meeting were invited for the purpose of protecting the corporate and political interests of those involved with SAG programs? What would the political and monetary implications be for those who have vested interests in SAG if the larger public was made aware of the multiple environmental and health effects of spraying mega-tons of aluminum into our environment? Whatever the reason for this lack of transparency and denial of information, we the public need to hold both reporters and scientists to a higher degree of professionalism, transparency and ethical consideration when it comes to these and other issues of public interests. The future of our health and environment is dependent upon it. More information and videos on the subject of geo-engineering/chemtrails can be found on my blog at http://truthmediaproductions.blogspot.com/ . I can also be reached at whtagft@hotmail.com.

 



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.

 



Government Swine Flu Ad Portrays Vaccine Skeptics As Crazy

Government Swine Flu Ad Portrays Vaccine Skeptics As Crazy

 



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.

 



More Miscarriage Reports From H1N1 Vaccine

Is The H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Causing Miscarriages? 9 New Stories Of Pain And Loss From Pregnant Women Who Lost Their Babies After Receiving The H1N1 Vaccine

Organic Health Adviser
January 6, 2010

Is the H1N1 swine flu vaccine causing miscarriages? Is the vaccine safe for pregnant women to take? Those are questions that thousands upon thousands of pregnant women have wrestled with over the past couple of months as they have decided what to do about the swine flu. The WHO and U.S health authorities insisted that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine was perfectly safe for pregnant women and pushed them to the front of the line. So thousands of women did run out and get themselves injected with the vaccine. Now reports are pouring in from all over the United States of women who have lost their babies very quickly after receiving the H1N1 vaccine. Many of these women are overcome with pain and a feeling of loss and are looking for answers. They end up on sites like this one because the mainstream media won’t touch this story with a ten foot pole (lest they offend the pharmaceutical giants and their millions of dollars in ad money). Fortunately there are alternatives to the mainstream media now. The following are stories from 9 of our readers who have lost their babies very soon after getting the H1N1 swine flu vaccine. We challenge anyone who still believes in the safety of this vaccine to read all of the following stories and then to explain to the rest of us why we should not be concerned.

The truth is that the H1N1 swine flu vaccine is NOT safe for pregnant women. The following are unedited personal testimonies left as comments by readers of this site…..

#1) Kelly:

If you haven’t had a miscarriage, you shouldn’t comment about someone that has. This is my second miscarriage. I know my first miscarriage had absolutely nothing to do with the H1N1 shot (because it was in 2003), however, this time I believe there definitely could be a connection. I had 3 healthy babies after my first miscarriage. When I went to have my H1N1 shot (which was HIGHLY recommended by the Health Office workers since I WAS pregnant and I higher risk of H1N1), I was around 5 weeks pregnant. When I went in for my next ob appointment, I had an ultrasound that showed I was only 5 week and 2 days, although by that point I was almost 9 weeks pregnant. I never had any symptoms. The baby just died. Instead of reading about how pregnant women shouldn’t get the shot, the ONLY thing I read about pregnant women and the H1N1 shot is that they were top priority for the shot and should have it done as soon as possible. My doctor thought I may have just miscalculated and waited another few weeks to test levels (once a week) until we knew for sure what was going on. Three weeks later (should have been 12 weeks pregnant), I was told that the ultrasound was still showing 5 weeks and 2 days and that the baby was no longer living. I had to have a D&C. Not only was the physical pain traumatizing but the emotional pain was beyond bearable. Something needs to be done. PLEASE, take all of this into consideration before deciding if you are going to get the shot. I wish I wouldn’t have… There seems to be WAY too many stories for this to be a coincidence. If this is what our country is coming to, God, please help us all!

#2) Amy:

I got the H1N1 vacc. when I was 4 and a half weeks pregnanat. I started bleeding 2 weeks later and went to the doctor and was tol my pregnancy looked perfect for a 4 and a half week pregnanacy! Sounds like to me that everything was perfect until I got the vacc. We were completely devistated and I wish I knew the risks before I got it, but the docs will tell you miscarriages happen everyday, but that is not good enough for me.

#3) Canada Also:

We were in our 6 month of pregnancy, and we also got the vaccine, We also lost our baby, within 10 days of taking the vaccine. We also asked our Dr what could of caused this, they gave us many reasons, then we brought up H1N1 Vaccine, and before we could get the INE out in vaccine, they dismissed it as possible cause. I asked how could it be everthing else, and this is not even considered and dismissed immediately, I think if they did a study and found out that it does cause miscarriages, they entire health system would be under scrutiny and law suits.

It was our second child of which we do not have history of miscarriages or any medical or health issues. Upon delivery the baby looked pefect and no ambilical chord around its neck.

#4) e.Kirylo:

Last month on Nov.16th I had my son premature at 22 weeks along in my pregnancy he lived 5 hrs and then died of heart failure. About a week prior I recieved the H1N1 Flu vaccine. I began cramping in my lower abdomin and bleeding heavily on thursday night and after 75 hrs of labor trying to keep my son inside me as long as posible I delivered him on monday morning. After reading many of these storys I am convinced that I would still be pregnant if I would have denied the vaccine!

#5) Lucy:

I should be 11 weeks and two days pregnant today. I had an appointment with my OB/GYN today and was told (from info of ultrasound) that my baby stopped growing on the exact day I had my H1N1 vaccine! This is a very sad day for my family and I. This would have been our first baby. I have submitted a report of my “adverse event” on the following site: https://vaers.hhs.gov/esub/index

To all those that have had problems with the vaccine I would suggest to report your event as well so the government can track this.

After researching the H1N1 vaccine (which I WISH I would have done before I took the vaccine), I cannot believe that all these officials and medical professional would think for a minute that injecting a drug that may contain mercury, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80 (associated with infertility), triton X100 (a strong detergent), phenoxyethanol (antifreeze) and many other toxic ingredients would be SAFE!

It seems as if there is a hidden agenda out there. Just think of the billions of dollars these pharmaceutical companies are making! Could THAT be the agenda??? I wonder…. HOW can the Pharmaceutical companies get away with giving vaccines that can cause death?! To anyone else that would be a crime!

I think we ALL need to join together and try to change the law so that we can protect this from happening to others. We should all push for legislature that will protect ourselves AND our unborn from this crime.

#6) Amanda:

I have a healthy 1yr old boy no complication or history of miscarriages. I got the H1N1 vaccine to protect me and the baby at 7weeks pregnant. I lost the baby a week and a half after

#7) Carolyn:

I was 4 1/2 weeks pregnant when I got the H1N1 shot. I started spotting 2 days later, then a 2 weeks later lost my baby. I have 2 kids, with no history of miscarriage. If I could take back getting it I would because I think it caused my miscarriage. My doctor does not believe it does.

#8) Mandy:

I was 5 weeks pregnant when my doctor suggested I get the H1N1 vaccine. I received the shot on a Thursday and was very sore and achy on Friday. I miscarried my baby on Sunday, just 3 days after receiving the shot. This was my first pregnancy and I thought I was doing the best thing for myself and my baby by getting the shot. I was encouraged to get the shot by my doctor and was not told that I should wait until I was further along. Also, I was not warned of any side affects accept for a sore arm where I got the shot. I was given the Novartis shot.

#9) Paula:

i was 14 wweks pregnant almost and took the H1N1 shot because my dr. said to and a few minutes afterwards i had severe headaches and shortness of breath,i called everywhere but no one would tell me nothing, then a couple of days after that i started spotting blood and had to be taken to the emergency room for a threatened misscarriage,then 4 days later i went to the OBGYN for an ultrasound my baby was fine until a couple of days later when i went back for an ultrasound and my baby had died it was a missed miscarriage ihad to wait 2 days for them to do a dnc. I had my baby and placenta sent to the lab for testing ,the results came back my baby was healthy,my choromasones were fine everything was fine,even the sex ,she was a little baby girl!my baby girl! and i think we have all been misinformed by our doctors, and i think the H1N1 shot killed my baby! and i will fight to get the answers because i want justice for my baby!

 



U.S. wants farmers to use coal waste on fields

U.S. wants farmers to use coal waste on fields

Washington Post
December 23, 2009

The federal government is encouraging farmers to spread a chalky waste from coal-fired power plants on their fields to loosen and fertilize soil even as it considers regulating coal wastes for the first time.

The material is produced by power plant “scrubbers” that remove acid-rain-causing sulfur dioxide from plant emissions. A synthetic form of the mineral gypsum, it also contains mercury, arsenic, lead and other heavy metals.

The Environmental Protection Agency says those toxic metals occur in only tiny amounts that pose no threat to crops, surface water or people. But some environmentalists say too little is known about how the material affects crops, and ultimately human health, for the government to suggest that farmers use it.

“This is a leap into the unknown,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “This stuff has materials in it that we’re trying to prevent entering the environment from coal-fired power plants, and then to turn around and smear it across ag lands raises some real questions.”

With wastes piling up around the coal-fired plants that produce half the nation’s power, the EPA and U.S. Department of Agriculture began promoting what they call the wastes’ “beneficial uses” during the Bush administration.

Part of that push is to expand the use of synthetic gypsum — a whitish, calcium-rich material known as flue gas desulfurization gypsum, or FGD gypsum. The Obama administration has continued promoting FGD gypsum’s use in farming.

The administration is also drafting a regulatory rule for coal waste, in response to a spill from a coal ash pond near Knoxville, Tenn., one year ago Tuesday. Ash and water flooded 300 acres, damaging homes and killing fish. The cleanup is expected to cost about $1 billion.

The EPA is expected to announce its proposals for regulation early next year, setting the first federal standards for storage and disposal of coal wastes.

EPA officials declined to talk about the agency’s promotion of FGD gypsum before then and would not say whether the draft rule would cover it.

Field studies have shown that mercury, the main heavy metal of concern because it can harm nervous-system development, does not accumulate in crops or run off fields in surface water at “significant” levels, the EPA said.

“EPA believes that the use of FGD gypsum in agriculture is safe in appropriate soil and hydrogeologic conditions,” the statement said.

Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, which advocates for more effective enforcement of environmental laws, said he is not overly worried about FGD gypsum’s use on fields because research shows it contains only tiny amounts of heavy metals. But he said federal limits on the amounts of heavy metals in FGD gypsum sold to farmers would help allay concerns.

“That would give them assurance that they’ve got clean FGD gypsum,” he said.

Since the EPA-USDA partnership began in 2001, farmers’ use of the material has more than tripled, from about 78,000 tons spread on fields in 2002 to nearly 279,000 tons last year, according to the American Coal Ash Association, a utility industry group.

About half of the 17.7 million tons of FGD gypsum produced in the United States last year was used to make drywall, said Thomas Adams, the association’s executive director. But he said it is important to find new uses for it and other coal wastes because the United States will probably rely on coal-fired power plants for decades to come.

“If we can find safe ways to recycle those materials, we’re a lot better off doing that than we are creating a whole bunch of new landfills,” Adams said.