The Gaia Reports

Europe’s Horrific Mistreatment of Migrants, the Victims of America’s Wars

2015-08-21T09:48:00.001-07:00

Europe’s Horrific Mistreatment of Migrants, the Victims of America’s Wars

HORROR " Pacific Ocean Now Dead From Fukushima Radiation "

2015-07-11T15:19:00.001-07:00

The Gaia Reports Need Your Donations to "Keep the Lights On".

2015-05-29T08:05:00.004-07:00

The Gaia Reports need your generous donations to "keep the lights on". My readers, from across the globe, know that throughout the years The Gaia Reports has been supporting, with their investigations, the efforts of animal rights groups, special environmental interest groups, foundations working to combat and eradicate asbestos exposure and Mesothelioma, Monsanto's GMO seed agenda, and the list grows everyday with new and urgent requests for my help.

Independent, free news, does not mean that my time, experience and reporting comes without financial obligations -- it simply means that I am allowing my readers access to reports that are uncensored and without influence or regard for special interests.

Your generous donations will allow The Gaia Reports to continue its work as an independent and uncensored news source.

Help out! Give to Uncensored Environmental Investigations http://igg.me/at/sXB1LLiZLrU.

Low Income Mothers Forced To Use Infant Formulas Containing Cancer Causing Ingredients

2015-04-12T16:01:00.002-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Today, low income mothers receiving government subsidies are being forced to use genetically

modified (GM) baby formula, and those mothers who choose organic baby formula for their developing children, are denied it. Why are the poor being forced to feed their children carcinogenic, developmentally-altering, genetically modified food, and nothing else?

Milk or soy protein is the basis of most infant formulas. Enfamil EnfaCare, Gerber Good Start, and Similac, all contain GM soy, corn, and traces of pesticides and herbicides. Ingredients in infant products often contain soy, or milk from cows injected with Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). rBGH is a synthetic (man-made) hormone that is marketed to dairy farmers to increase milk production in cows. It has been used in the US since it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993, but its use is not permitted in the European Union, Canada, and other countries. Many brands also add GM derived cor syrup, or syrup solids, or soy lecithin.

According to the American Cancer Society, "Cows treated with rBGH tend to develop more udder infections (mastitis). These cows are given more antibiotics than cows not given rBGH. Of greater concern is the fact that milk from rBGH-treated cows has higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone that normally helps some types of cells to grow. Several studies have found that IGF-1 levels at the high end of the normal range may influence the development of certain tumors. Some early studies found a relationship between blood levels of IGF-1 and the development of prostate, breast, colorectal and other cancers."

Even “organic” formula is allowed to contain ingredients classified as harmful, such as sodium selenite and pesticides such as cupric sulfate.

Why the toxic form of sodium selenate is allowed to be used at all is a mystery, but there is a good reason companies and manufacturers use it – it is cheap and inexpensive. While being proudly marketed on vitamin labels, sodium selenate has been shown to cause reproductive and developmental problems in both animals and humans.

Used to kill fungus, aquatic plants, roots of plants, and parasitic infections in aquarium fish, it hardly sounds fit for human consumption, and these are infants we are talking about.Why is Cupric Sulfate in infant formula? Cupric Sulfate is classified as harmful, irritant and dangerous for the environment. It’s used as a herbicide, fungicide and pesticide. It’s also known as Copper sulfate, and it’s produced industrially by treating copper metal with hot concentrated sulfuric acid. Cupric sulfate is not even hidden, it’s displayed on product labels without any type of warning or information about it. It’s there for us to see, we just never question it, look it up.
Breastfeeding is always the best option. If you cannot breastfeed, research other alternatives such as raw organic goat milk + carrots, and many other natural ways to give your baby liquid nutrition.

Is Bottled Water Better Than Tap Water? No, But The Water Industry Wants You To Believe It Is

2015-03-22T16:46:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Bottled water is fresh from the mountains and induces health. Not! Pictures of mountains or nature on bottled water labels are not only misleading, it is also contradictory to the industry as a whole. There is no relationship between the image on your water bottle and the source of the water. The bottled water industry is loosely regulated, and water sources are not clearly or consistently revealed on product labels. Don’t be taken in by the pretty pictures. Bottled water isn't special. It’s just water.

Environmental groups are calling for US consumers to cut back on bottled water and to turn to their kitchen faucets to get fresh drinking water. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports, incidents of chemical or microbial contamination in tap water are actually relatively rare. In a recent review of US public drinking water infrastructure, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health concluded, "Reasonably reliable water is currently available to nearly all 270 million U.S. residents."

Twenty-five percent of the bottled water sold in the US comes from municipal water supplies. Municipal water supplies undergo daily testing to ensure quality and lack of contamination. Bottled water is tested too, but only once a week. So, if there’s a problem with the water, inspectors will find it and correct it more quickly at home. Testing standards are stricter for city water supplies than they are for water bottlers. Moreover, bottled water is packaged in plastic bottles that are made from petroleum and other harmful chemicals. In the US, a bottle of water can cost $3 or more. The equivalent amount of tap water costs less than a cent. And remember, odds are good that the bottled water and the tap water come from the same source.

The greenhouse gasses and natural resources used in producing, transporting and refrigerating the plastic bottles is damaging the environment, not to mention the waste created when we throw the bottle away. In America approximately 80% of these bottles end up in landfill – that adds up to about 30,000 bottles per day.

The bottled water industry brings in sales of $35 billion worldwide. US consumers make up more than $11.8 billion, according to the consulting and research firm Beverage Marketing Corporation. Bottled water is the fastest-growing segment of the beverage industry, and the product is expected to pass both coffee and milk to become the second-most-consumed beverage (behind soft drinks). According to the NRDC, "More than half of all Americans drink bottled water; about a third of the public consumes it regularly." While most people would argue that bottled water is healthier than convenient alternatives like sugared sodas or artificially flavored drinks, are the third of bottled water consumers who claim they are motivated by promises of purity (according to a 2000 survey) getting what they pay for?

In many developed countries around the world, tap water is widely considered to better for you than the bottled variety and subject to more stringent safety checks. Why then do we insist on purchasing something which is up to 300 times more expensive than what comes out of our clean taps?

Corporate Accountability International, a research firm, conducted bottled water taste tests across the US for the past several years. The tests have revealed that blindfolded tasters generally can’t tell the difference between bottled water and tap water. If they report a preference, they generally prefer tap water. In a separate test, researchers offered New York City residents bottled water and tap water from the local supply – 75% preferred tap water.
While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the quality of public water supplies, the agency has no authority over bottled water. Bottled water that crosses state lines is considered a food product and is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which does mandate that it be bottled in sanitary conditions using food-grade equipment.

According to the influential International Bottled Water Association (IBWA), "By law, the FDA Standard of Quality for bottled water must be as stringent as the EPA's standards for public drinking water."

The FDA has no official procedure for rejecting bottled water sources once they become contaminated. Agovernment audit revealed that 25 percent of water bottlers had no record of source approval. Further, in contrast to the EPA, which employs hundreds of staffers to protect the nation's tap water systems, the FDA doesn't have even one full-time regulator in charge of bottled water.

Factory-Farming Puts Human Health At Great Risk

2014-12-17T19:02:00.001-08:00

By Theodora Filis

Public health concerns beyond food borne illness are created when over-crowded animals

are susceptible to infection and disease. Industrial livestock facilities treat animals with low-levels of antibiotics to prevent illness and promote weight gain. This creates a breeding ground for antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The sub-therapeutic dosages used on millions of factory-farmed livestock can reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics for human patients. The feed used for livestock can also introduce public health threats. Broiler chickens often receive arsenic-based feed additives to promote pinker flesh and faster growth, and beef cattle continue to be fed with animal byproducts, which increases the risk of mad cow disease.

According to the FDA, approximately 80% of all antibiotics used in the US are fed to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes.

Routine administration of antibiotics has the harmful effect of promoting the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Although the low dosage of antibiotics kills many bacteria, the stronger bacteria that survive can reproduce and pass their resistance to future generations. Since bacteria are able to reproduce in as little as 20 minutes, routine administration of antibiotics can induce the rapid development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can spread directly to humans and animals. When manure is spread onto fields or stored in manure lagoons, these bacteria can also contaminate waterways and groundwater. In fact, scientists have detected antibiotic-resistant bacteria in groundwater as far as 250 meters away from manure lagoons.

Rise of the Super-bug

The rise of factory farming is as a result of public policy choices driven by big agribusinesses, especially meat packers and processors that dominate the critical steps taken between farm and consumer. The silos and gentle meadows portrayed in advertisements are a sham. With tens of thousands of animals comes millions of tons of manure and adds to the increased polluting of waterways, groundwater, air and soil. Wetlands have been destroyed; beautiful rivers and tributaries turned into algae choked cesspools devoid of life, pastures ruined by excess nitrates, phosphates and toxic residues from antibiotics, hormones and even dangerous heavy metals. Oceans are so filled with industrial effluents and animal factory waste that it is no longer safe to eat any ocean creature, all are contaminated by excess levels of mercury, cadmium and other trace metals.

Most of the pork, beef, poultry, dairy and eggs produced in the US come from large-scale, confined livestock operations.

Large-scale farms do not produce healthy or safe food, and in no way maintain our environment. The growth of factory farms, in recent decades, is decimating the small and medium scale livestock farms that provide good food for us, and good economies for rural communities. Industrial livestock operations create public health hazards with over-crowded facilities making it easy for disease to spread. When thousands of beef cattle are packed into feedlots full of manure, bacteria can get on their hides and then into the slaughterhouses. Contamination on even one steer can contaminate thousands of pounds of meat inside a slaughterhouse. In 2010, the crowded, unsanitary conditions at two Iowa egg companies caused a recall of more than half a billion potentially Salmonella-tainted eggs.

As antibiotic-resistant bacteria spread, medicines used to treat human diseases can become less effective, which poses a significant threat to public health. The Institute of Medicine estimates that antibiotic-resistant bacteria cause US health care costs to increase by four to five billion dollars each year.

Factory farms threaten human health by incubating infectious diseases that can spread to the human population. Diseases can be transferred directly from animals to humans, or from an animal serving as a “mixing vessel” for a new strain of a disease. In cases of direct transmission, a worker who comes in contact with a diseased animal or its manure can contract the disease and pass it on to family and the surrounding community.

In other cases, an animal infected with one disease can contract a second disease from another animal, causing the diseases to mix and form a new type of illness.

Scientists suggest that a virus passed from hogs to humans may have caused the 1918 “Spanish Influenza” pandemic which eventually killed 40 million people worldwide. The Centers for Disease Control has expressed concern that another similar epidemic will occur in the future.

Coca-Cola Capitalizes On Weak Milk Market by Charging Twice The Price For #GMO Milk-Based Drink

2014-12-17T16:50:00.000-08:00

By Theodora Filis

Coca-Cola recently partnered with a dairy farm called Fairlife to launch a new brand of milk. “Who knew milk could be so spectacular?” grins Fairlife CEO in a marketing video. Lactose free, with 50% more protein and calcium and half the sugar of regular milk, it seems Coca Cola hopes to re-brand itself as a caring, family-friendly firm with ties to small dairy farmers. Coca-Cola's North American chief, Sandy Douglas, said to a crowd at Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer Conference last October that "It's basically the 'premiumisation' of milk... We'll charge twice as much for it as the milk we're used to buying in a jug."

The company's marketing campaigns use words like `natural´, `health and `wellness´ to have us believe this drink is good for us. But don´t believe the hype – quick internet search exposes them to be pro-GMO campaigners masquerading as pro-natural family farmers, but this is clearly nothing more than a propaganda campaign to cover up their pro-GMO agenda. One reporter summed up the launch as “an hour long pseudo-discussion about how we can only feed the world with GMO’s”.

Stephen Colbert Make Fun of 'Extra Expensive Science Milk'

Aside from skepticism about a sugary, unhealthy soft drink company launching a "healthy" milk-based drink, Coca-Cola is also being criticized for their ads which feature a series of photos depicting skinny, blonde and brunette women wearing nothing more than a splash of milk.

Captioned, "Drink What She's Wearing" and "Better Milk Looks Good On You,"The Guardian describes the campaign as a step backwards in terms of objectifying women through advertising.

"As if the images themselves weren't insulting enough, these captions enhance the sexist undertones of a message supposedly intended to focus on health and nutrition," wrote The Independent's Ylva Johannesson in a critique titled, "Do we really need pinup girls to sell us drinks?"

Many dairy products are made from GMO materials. When livestock consumes GMO corn or other staples, this directly affects the constituents of the milk they produce – the same milk that is used to make a multitude of dairy products.

Coca-Cola's claim that Fairlife is derived from sustainable, healthy practices is laughable, as Coca-Cola has blatantly showed NO regard for such practices in the past.

Fukushima’s Radioactive Contamination Three Years On

2014-10-25T05:21:00.001-07:00

European Commission Fails To Take Steps Toward Human Right to Water

2014-05-15T06:57:00.003-07:00

European Commission fails to take real steps towards the recognition of the Human Right to Water

The European Water Movement regrets that the European Commission decided not to take real actions, ignoring 1,9 million citizens

Brussels - The European Commission (EC) made public today the communication on the European Citizen’s Initiative on the Right to Water [1]. The communication fails to respond to 1,9 citizens asking for a legislative provision excluding water and sanitation from “internal market rules” and liberalization. The EC’s reaction is lacking in real legislative proposals, and it boils down to a compilation of already ongoing actions plus the announcement of a public consultation on the drinking water directive whose outcomes will not be binding.

While the Communication acknowledges the importance of the Human Right to Water and Sanitation and it confirms water as a public good, the EC fails to propose legislation that recognizes this right. The Commission also commits to promote universal access to water and sanitation in its development policies, including the promotion of public-public partnerships.

Water and sanitation services were excluded from the concession directive thanks to public pressure, but the Commission has not committed in its Communication to explicitly exclude these services from the trade negotiations (such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - TTIP).

The answer of the European Commission to the first European Citizen’s Initiative (ECI) to achieve the required support will not reassure European citizens who question the democratic legitimacy of the European institutions. The European Water Movement considers that overall the Communication does not address the actual demands to guarantee the Human Right to Water and Sanitation, and implies a bad precedent for the future of the ECI mechanism.

Water privatization remains a very concrete menace in the EU. In countries like Greece and Portugal, the Troika is pushing for water privatization [2], and more and more citizens are being deprived of water access in municipalities where water supply is managed by private companies [3]. In line with the signatures collected for the Initiative, citizens are fighting against water privatization across the EU, with many examples of massive mobilizations in Italy with the 2011 binding referendum [4], the local consultations in Madrid and Berlin, more recent mobilizations in El Puerto de Santa María (Spain) [5] and upcoming local public consultations in Thesaloniki (Greece) [6] or Alcazar de San Juan (Spain) [7]

Water should be a commons, not a commodity. The European Citizen’s Initiative [8] expected the European Commission to propose legislation implementing the Human Right to Water and Sanitation as recognized by the United Nations, and to promote the provision of water and sanitation as essential public services for all. The European Water Movement will continue to support local struggles in places such as Thesaloniki or Alcazar de San Juan to ensure that water is declared a common good. And it will remind candidates in the elections for the European Parliament of the importance of recognizing that water is a human right, to concretely act towards its implementation and to avoid liberalization and commodification of water and sanitation services

For more information:

David Sanchez, dsanchez(at)fweurope.org, +32 485842604

Caterina Amicucci, camicucci(at)recommon.org +39 3498520789

The European Water Movement is an open, inclusive and pluralistic network of movements, social organizations, local committees and unions whose goal is to reinforce the recognition of water as a commons and as a fundamental universal right, an essential element for all living beings. We are part of the global water justice movement. We are united to fight against privatisation and commodification of this vital good, and to construct a public and communal management of water, founded on the democratic participation of citizens and of workers.

www.europeanwater.org

[1] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-277_en.htm

[2] http://www.tni.org/article/ec-stop-imposing-privatisation-water

[3] For example, more than 200 families were deprived from water supply in Jerez (Spain) after the water management was assumed by Aqualia http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2014/01/24/andalucia/1390591317_911564.html

[4] More information www.acquabenecomune.org

[5] More information: http://apemsanosevende.blogspot.com.es/

[6] More information: http://aguasnosevende.blogspot.be/ Background information in Englishbit.ly/1eRQC6A French bit.ly/1l3D5jO and Italian bit.ly/1cZFR6G

[7] More information: http://sostetonero.blogspot.be/

[8] Website of the European Citizen’s Initiative on the Right to Waterhttp://www.right2water.eu/

GMOs Threaten Non-GMO Farming in Europe

2014-05-15T06:46:00.003-07:00

Alliance Calls for Halt to GM Crops in Spain: GM contamination threatens non-GM farming in Europe

Immediate Release From Food & Water Europe

You don't want GMOs in Europe? Neither do we!

Brussels and Madrid – While European decision makers argue over approving new genetically modified (GM) crops, a Spanish alliance of farmers and environmentalists lead by Food & Water Europe demanded radical change in the European Union’s GM cultivation policy. The alliance says the results of a survey of organic farmers in the U.S. shows widespread GM contamination, proving that GM “coexistence” has failed and that the resulting costs and extra work are carried by non-GM farmers. [1] This is a clear warning for Spain, the only EU country growing GM crops on a large scale and where there are likely to be more GM crops soon if approvals in the pipeline for new GM maize varieties come through.

“The situation in the U.S. should be a clear warning for Spain and the rest of the EU not to make the same mistakes,” said David Sánchez, campaign officer at Food & Water Europe. “So-called ‘coexistence’ as promoted by the GM industry is simply impossible, as farmers in both the U.S. and Spain already know.”

The survey, published first in the U.S. by Food & Water Watch and the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing [2] and released today in Europe, documents the added burden organic and non-GM farmers face, including the increased costs of trying to prevent contamination, extra labour, longer hours and financial insecurity due to economic losses when contamination occurs. The survey shows:

Economic costs of preventive measures to avoid GMOs can reach more than €6,119 (US$8500) per year, including buffer zones, delaying planting and testing among others.
One out of three responding farmers have dealt with GMO contamination in their farm. They reported a median cost of €3,240 (US$4500). Of those contaminated farmers, over half have had crops rejected by their buyers.
Other consequences include abandoning crops with GM varieties approved or strained relations between neighbours.

“Farmers in Spain are already facing the same insecurity and lack of legal protection as U.S. colleagues, even though there is only one GM crop approved in the EU. Preventive measures and their costs should not be carried by the farmers that chose not to grow GMOs,” said Andoni García, member of the board of the Spanish Coordination of Farmers (COAG).

The Spanish organic cattle industry is also seriously affected by GM contamination. Forced to import maize from other countries that do not grow GM crops, farmers need to pay extra costs to guarantee GM-free feed.[3]

Considering the situation in the U.S., the COAG, Ecologistas en Acción, Friends of the Earth Spain and Food & Water Europe demand European authorities, including the Spanish Government, reverse current GMO crop policy.

“Organic farming is a growing sector that creates employment and puts new energies in rural areas. Protecting its development means we urgently need to stop growing GM crops in Spain. We cannot be the back door for GM crops into Europe any longer,” adds Blanca G. Ruibal, food and farming campaigner at Friends of the Earth Spain.

For more information:

David Sánchez, Campaign Officer, Food & Water Europe +32 485842604
Andoni García Arriola, member of the board of COAG, +34 636 451 569
Blanca G. Ruibal, Food Campaigner, Friends of the Earth Spain, +34 691471389
Gabriela Vázquez, speakperson, Ecologistas en Acción, +34 635 170495

Notes

[1] The report “Organic Farmers Pay the Price for GMO Contamination “ (“Los agricultores ecológicos pagan el precio de la contaminación por transgénicos”) can be downloaded in Spanish and English.

[2] Food & Water Europe is the European program of Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer organization based in the United States that works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control. http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/europe/

Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing is a cooperative incorporated in the State of Minnesota as a marketing-agency-in-common to support organic producer and their group marketing efforts through cooperatives and farmer association. Current efforts include organic grain, livestock and dairy. Member associations/cooperatives have organic producer members in 18 states from Montana to Texas to Tennessee to Ohio and Michigan and all states in between. www.ofarm.coop

[3] Questionnaire about the socio-economic implications of the placing on the market of GMOs for cultivation. A diagnosis by Spanish organizations: COAG, Ecologistas en Acción, Friends of the Earth Spain, Greenpeace and CECU

www.eurovia.org/IMG/doc/COAG_Socio-Economic_Report_EN-2.doc

In The Midst Of A Global Water Crisis -- The EU Threatens Water Privatization

2014-03-21T20:14:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Water privatization is a very hot subject, and is causing many problems in the European Union (EU). In countries like Greece and Portugal, the Troika is pushing for water privatization, with more and more citizens being deprived of water access in municipalities where water supply is managed by private companies. Citizens are fighting against water privatization across the EU, with many examples of massive mobilizations in Italy with the 2011 binding referendum, the local consultations in Madrid and Berlin, more recent mobilizations in El Puerto de Santa Maria, Spain and upcoming local public consultations in Thessaloniki, Greece.

Everyone agrees that we are in the midst of a global freshwater crisis. Around the world, rivers, lakes, and aquifers are dwindling faster than we can possibly replenish them. Increased global population and industrial and household chemicals are also causing a decrease in freshwater.

Goldman Sachs estimates that global water consumption is doubling every 20 years, and the United Nations expects demand to overcome supply by more than 30 percent come 2040. Although water is essential to life, it makes it no less expensive to obtain, purify, and deliver, and does nothing to change the fact that as supplies dwindle and demand grows, that expense will only increase.

Maude Barlow - The Global Water Crisis

The World Bank has argued that higher prices are a good thing. Right now, no public utility anywhere prices water based on how scarce it is or how much it costs to deliver, and that, privatization proponents argue, is the root cause of such rampant overuse. If water costs more, they say, we will conserve it better.

As the crisis worsens, companies like True Alaska that own the rights to vast stores of water (and have the capacity to move it in bulk) won’t necessarily weigh the needs of wealthy water-guzzling companies like Coca-Cola or Nestlé against those of water-starved communities in Phoenix or Ghana; privately owned water utilities will charge what the market can bear, and spend as little as they can get away with on maintenance and environmental protection.

There is no substitute for water, and as everyone is painfully aware, corporations don’t care about the environment – and they don’t care about human rights – they care about profit.

In the developed world it’s easy to take water for granted. Turn on any tap, and it comes rushing out, clean and plentiful, even in the arid Southwest, where the Colorado River Basin is struggling through its 11th year of drought; in most cities a month’s supply still costs less than cable or a cell-phone plan.

Water privatization, until recently, was an almost exclusively Third World issue. In the late 1990's the World Bank infamously required scores of impoverished countries—most notably Bolivia—to privatize their water supplies as a condition of desperately needed economic assistance. The hope was that markets would eliminate corruption and big multinationals would invest the resources needed to bring more water to more people. By 2000, Bolivian citizens had taken to the streets in a string of violent protests. Bechtel—the multinational corporation that had leased their pipes and plants—had more than doubled water rates, leaving tens of thousands of Bolivians who couldn’t pay without any water whatsoever. The company said price hikes were needed to repair and expand the dilapidated infrastructure. Critics insisted they served only to maintain unrealistic profit margins. Either way, the rioters sent the companies packing; by 2001, the public utility had resumed control.

On 28 July 2010, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the human right to water and sanitation and acknowledged that clean drinking water and sanitation are essential to the realization of all human rights. The Resolution calls upon States and international organizations to provide financial resources, help capacity-building and technology transfer to help countries – in particular developing countries – to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all.

In November 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated that "The human right to water is indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights" – it also defined the right to water as “the right of everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable and physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses”.

Water MUST be accessible to all people – regardless of their social and economic status. The European Citizen’s Initiative expected the European Commission to propose legislation implementing the Human Right to Water and Sanitation as recognized by the United Nations, and to promote the provision of water and sanitation as essential public services for all.

The European Water Movement continues to support local struggles in places such as Thesaloniki or Alcazar de San Juan to ensure that water is declared a common good -- reminding candidates in the elections for the European Parliament -- of the importance of recognizing that water is a human right, to concretely act towards its implementation and to avoid liberalization and profit of water and sanitation services.

Plastic Pollutes Every Waterway, Sea and Ocean In The World

2014-03-18T17:23:00.001-07:00

By Theodora Filis

When we damage our water systems, we're not only putting marine life at risk, we're also putting human life and resources in peril.

Our planet currently has six plastic islands made of trapped garbage. The damage to sea life by these plastic death traps can only be imagined, but scientists are now investigating the long-term impacts of toxic pollutants absorbed, transported, and consumed by fish and other marine life, including the potential effects on human health.

Plastic that now pollutes our oceans and waterways is having
a severe impact on our environment and our economy.
Seabirds, whales, sea turtles and other marine life are eating
marine plastic pollution and dying from choking, intestinal
blockage and starvation.

Scientists previously thought that only actual plastic floating in the ocean could harm marine animals. But, new research proves there are additional unseen dangers being created by the plastic we discard daily. Initially it was thought that large plastic rubbish heaps were caused by shipping fleets that crisscross our oceans everyday. Although an estimated 639,000 plastic containers thrown overboard everyday do contribute to ocean death traps, this only represents 20% of the overall plastic pollution that flows into our seas, with the other 80% originating from land sources.

New research is being done on the overall effects our continued disposal of plastics is having on our marine life. We know marine life is being affected to some extent, we know there are already many species on the brink of extinction, yet we continue to use and dispose of millions of tons of plastic into our precious oceans. Plastic floating islands are not killing our marine life – humans are.

A recent study headed by Katsuhiko Saido, a chemist with the College of Pharmacy at Nihon University in Japan, has shown that some of these plastics could actually be decomposing in the sea, releasing potentially toxic chemicals into the habitat of all our marine life. Scientists previously believed that plastics only broke down at very high temperatures and over hundreds of years. Saido's team, however, collected water samples from oceans across the globe and found that these samples contained derivatives of polystyrene, a common plastic used in disposable cutlery, Styrofoam and DVD cases among other things.

To prove that there was a link between these toxic compounds and plastic, Saido's team were able to simulate plastic decomposition at 30ºC, leaving bis-phenol A (BPA) and PS oligomers in the water, the same compounds discovered in the ocean samples – compounds that are not naturally found in ocean water.

Finding BPA specifically in the water is a major concern as previous studies have shown that exposure to this compound can have an effect on an animal's hormone system. If an animal eats plastic, the plastic will not break down in the animal's system, but when the substance has been released into the animal’s natural environment the substance may be absorbed by the animal. What effect this could have on animal's reproduction systems or ability to fight disease is anyone's guess.

Consider The Environmental Impact of Offshore Drilling in the Mediterranean

2014-03-18T17:10:00.003-07:00

By Theodora Filis

The doubling of the world's population over the past five decades is putting great strain on deep-sea ecosystems, which cover more than half of Earth. According to researchers gathered at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, these ecosystems are now threatened by the same kind of mass industrialization common on land during the 20th century.

The Earth's oceans are all connected to one another. Until the year 2000, there were four recognized oceans: the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, and Arctic. In the Spring of 2000, the International Hydro-graphic Organization delimited a new ocean, the Southern Ocean (it surrounds Antarctica and extends to 60 degrees latitude). There are also many seas (smaller branches of an ocean); seas are often partly enclosed by land. The largest seas are the South China Sea, the Caribbean Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea.

Our nation’s oceans, waves and beaches are vital recreational, economic and ecological treasures that will be polluted by an increase in offshore oil and gas drilling.

Sea Shepherd Deepwater Ground Zero ***Exclusive Footage****

The Gulf oil spill (also known as the BP oil spill, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, or Gulf of Mexico oil spill) took place on April 20, 2010. The rig exploded, but at first seemed to emit no oil. A leak eventually was found – 1,000 barrels of oil flooded into the Gulf's water every day. This oil spill was the worst man-made environmental disaster in all of United States history. Water was ruined and undrinkable, marine animals washed ashore dead, and everything was coated in a thick film of oil. A year later it was said that "fish and seabirds were marinating in black sludge."

Today there are some 2,000 platforms drilling on deep sea ocean floors, bringing with it the potential for environmental disaster of the sort we saw with the Deepawater Horizon.
The discovery in late 2010 of natural gas off Israel’s Mediterranean shores triggered neighboring countries to look more closely at their own waters. The results revealed that the entire eastern Mediterranean is swimming in huge untapped oil and gas reserves. That discovery is having enormous political, geopolitical as well as economic consequences. It well may have potential military consequences too.

Preliminary exploration has confirmed similar reserves of gas and oil in the waters off Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and potentially, Syria.

Greece imports almost all of its oil and natural gas, spending about 5 percent a year of its GDP on the purchases. It pays about 1 billion euros ($1.4 billion) a year alone on oil to produce electricity for dozens of islands that are not connected to the national power grid.

Not surprisingly, amid its disastrous financial crisis the Greek government began serious exploration for oil and gas. Since then the country has been in a curious kind of a dance with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and EU governments, over who will control and ultimately benefit from the huge resource discoveries there.

In December 2010, Greece’s Energy Ministry formed a special group of experts to research the prospects for oil and gas in Greek waters. Greece’s Energean Oil & Gas began increased investment into drilling in the offshore waters after a successful smaller oil discovery in 2009. Major geological surveys were made. Preliminary estimates total offshore oil in Greek waters exceeds 22 billion barrels in the Ionian Sea off western Greece and approximately 4 billion barrels in the northern Aegean Sea.
The southern Aegean Sea and Cretan Sea are yet to be explored, so the numbers could be significantly higher. An earlier Greek National Council for Energy Policy report stated that “Greece is one of the least explored countries in Europe regarding hydrocarbon (oil and gas-w.e.) potentials.”
Despite what many Greeks believe to be a financially rewarding endeavor, offshore drilling will have damaging effects on their environment, and ultimately their strong tourism industry.

Oceans provide us with vital sources of protein, energy, minerals and other products. Creates over half our oxygen, drives weather systems and natural flows of energy and nutrients around the world, transports water masses many times greater than all the rivers on land combined and keeps the Earth habitable.

Let's try to remember that the next time we want to exploit, pollute, and abuse our oceans and seas.

Patty Ameno's “Mad, Junkyard Dog Mentality” Is Barking Up The Right Tree and Getting Results

2014-01-23T14:22:00.002-08:00

By Theodora Filis

Patty Ameno has been a steadfast and solitary solider, for over 25 years, in the battle to set to rights the horrific, self fulfilling acts of the Nuclear Industry. Ameno is well known for her environmental activism and for spearheading a 14-year lawsuit with Attorney Fred Baron, for wrongful death, personal injury and property damage from the operations of two former nuclear fuel plants in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania. The owners of the plants, Babcock & Wilcox and the Atlantic Richfield Co. settled with over 300 plaintiffs for more than $80 million in 2009. Ameno has received honors and recognition from the State of Pennsylvania, US Senate, and The Group Against Smog and Pollution (GASP).

Most recently, Patty was the focus of an article written by John Emshwiller, Wall Street Journal, titled: Waste Land: One Town's Atomic Legacy: A $500 Million Cleanup:

Patty Ameno's One-Woman Nuclear Crusade

“She has been praised as a community protector and criticized as a troublemaker unnecessarily stoking local fears and potentially hurting the local economy. "She continues to stir things up," says David Heffernan Sr., president of the Apollo borough council, adding it could deter companies from investing in the area. Ms. Ameno argues she had no choice: "You have to have a mad, junkyard-dog mentality in order to deal with this." Read entire WSJ report here: http://on.wsj.com/1h5HSyF

Most commercial nuclear power plants release gaseous and liquid radiological effluents into the environment as a byproduct of the Chemical Volume Control System, which is monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The total amount of radioactivity released by a power plant depends on the plant, the regulatory requirements, and the plant's performance.
Ameno grew up across the street from the Apollo plant located in Western Pennsylvania's Parks Township, in the Apollo area. Her father, the late John Ameno, owned and operated a deli frequented by the Apollo plant workers. It was there he witnessed, first hand, the problems both workers and residents experienced as a result of the plant. It was John Ameno's hope that his daughter, Patty, find out exactly what was going on inside the plant, in order to help his patrons.

1993 Babcock & Wilcox Co Parks Twp PA Patty Ameno

Babcock & Wilcox, the Atlantic Richfield Co, and their predecessor, the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corp. (NUMEC) operated two plants in Apollo for nearly 40 years, producing nuclear fuel to power submarines, nuclear reactors and other nuclear products. Ameno fought for, and won, special status from the federal government to compensate former employees who became ill as a result of working in those plants. Former NUMEC workers have received more than $28 million from the government, to date.

The two plants are currently owned by BMX Technologies, and consists of ten trenches containing waste and soil contaminated with radiological waste materials. The volume of potentially contaminated waste material in the trenches is estimated at 24,300 cubic yards. Uranium, thorium, americium and plutonium contaminated waste has been identified. Uranium and thorium contaminated wastes consisting of process wastes, equipment, scrap and trash from the nearby Apollo nuclear fuel fabrication facility were disposed of in the SLDA trenches between 1961 and 1970.

The uranium in the trenches is present at various levels of enrichment from highly depleted to highly enriched. Americium and plutonium, whose presence is attributed to storage of equipment used in the adjoining Parks Facility, have been detected in surface soils adjacent to a single trench. NUMEC previously conducted disposal of radioactive waste materials in accordance with Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor to the current NRC) regulations. BWX Technologies is licensed by the NRC to properly maintain the site to ensure the protection of workers and the public.

Western Pennsylvania's Parks Township, in the Apollo area, is home to a growing number of citizens reporting serious illnesses and even death, believed to have been caused by exposure to radiation contamination from the two former nuclear enriching facilities, Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Group and The Atlantic Richfield Company. The health effects that have been linked to radiation exposure vary, but can almost all be severe and even life-threatening. Radiation exposure increases the likelihood of developing numerous cancers, including but not limited to cancer of the following: Adrenal glands; Appendix; Bladder; Bone; Brain; Breast; Cervix; Colon; Esophagus; Kidney; Leukemia; Lung; Ovaries; Pancreas; Prostate; Rectum; Thyroid and parathyroid; Skin; Stomach; Testes; Uterus; and other rare organ and tissue cancers.

Documents generated from plant operations in the 1960s-1990s show that both regularly emitted radiation at levels significantly exceeding federal regulatory limits. At one point, a radiation emission was documented to have been greater than 200,000 times the federal limit, the approximate equivalent to receiving 20,000 x-rays in a single dose according to occupational and public health specialist, Dr. Jim Melius. Additionally, these facilities allegedly buried hundreds of barrels containing radioactive plutonium and other nuclear-contaminated items. These containers were left outside for decades, allowing their contents, radioactive waste, to pollute the surrounding groundwater and soil.

Patty Ameno continues to fight for her community's health and safety. In January 2010, Ameno spearheaded a second federal civil action suit with MotleyRice attorney's for the people of her community.

Solidarity in Protecting Mother Earth

2013-12-14T14:19:00.001-08:00

Animal Activists and Journalists Who "Violate" the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act Will Be Labeled "Terrorists"

2013-11-17T13:37:00.001-08:00

By Theodora Filis

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) of 2006, was passed by Congress late at night, with inadequate notice, and with only a fraction of Congresspersons present to vote on it. Pushed through Congress by wealthy biomedical & agri-business industry groups such as the Animal Enterprise Protection Coalition (AEPC), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF).

“Under AETA it is no longer just the radical underground activists that are targeted for harming the corporate agenda, but also the law–abiding, above–ground activists. AETA is so broad and vague that ordinary citizens may not know that they are acting outside the vast boundaries of this new law. Under AETA, it doesn't take much to be labeled an “animal enterprise terrorist. ” Techniques that have been used for years in various social movements are now acts of terrorism if they cause profit loss, including increased security costs, to an animal exploitation business. Those who peacefully protest or engage in undercover investigations can be deemed a terrorist precisely because these actions are purposefully enacted to cause economic loss to a business so that it can no longer engage in the exploitation of animals.” -- Civil Liberties Defense Center

Proving, Congress would prefer to lock away all animal and environmental rights activists rather than bring attention to the horrible treatment of animals, the environment, and our health... or to consider legislation in response to our concerns.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are animal feeding facilities that confine animals for more than 45 days in an area that does not produce vegetation during the growing season. Animals are crammed by the thousands or tens of thousands, unable to breathe fresh air, see the light of day, walk outside, peck at a plants or insects, scratch the earth, or eat a blade of grass.

Notorious breeding grounds for disease, overuse antibiotics, and pollute the environment – CAFO's have the right to treat animals cruelly – as long as the animal is intended for the sale of food – these actions are considered common practice. Farmer's are protected by “common farming exemptions” (CFEs) that vary from state to state but all serve the same purpose – to legalize the horrors of battery cages, veal crates, and gestation crates, and allow cruel practices such as castration without anesthetic, beak searing, and the deliberate withholding of lifesaving veterinary care.

According to a document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force has kept files on activists who expose animal welfare abuses on factory farms and recommended prosecuting them as terrorists.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. According to the FBI report, “The animal activists caused “economic loss” to businesses, and they also openly rescued several animals from the abusive conditions.” This was not done covertly in the style of underground groups like the Animal Liberation Front — it was an act of non-violent civil disobedience and, as the FBI agent notes, “the activists distributed press releases and conducted media interviews taking responsibility for their actions."

Based on these acts (trespassing in order to photograph and videotape abuses on factory farms) the agent concludes there “is a reasonable indication” that the activists “have violated the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 18 USC Section 43 (a).”

ABC News reported, Florida Bill SB 1246 would make it a first degree felony to photograph a farm without first obtaining written permission from the owner. Farmers say the bill is needed “to protect the property rights of farmers and the ‘intellectual property’ involving farm operations.”

Adding to an already troubling situation, a proposed amendment to the $1 trillion federal farm bill, passed in the House earlier this year – The Protect Interstate Commerce Act – introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), would amend the farm bill by limiting states’ power to supervise their own farming standards. Under the legislation, states would be banned from enacting farm product regulations stricter than what other states mandate.

Looking into the future, I imagine there will be many different industries scrambling to have similar laws passed to protect them from the watchful eye of reporters and activists.

Why are we not allowed to know where our food comes from? To include GMOs on our food labels? The right to food safety, and a healthy lifestyle, that includes organic and local farming? And why should those who strive to protect the humane treatment of animals be arrested for doing so?

Of course, we all know the answers to those questions – the old mighty dollar. I say, as I always do, the best way to send a clear message to Congress and to those who produce our food – stop buying these products until they change their policies and practices.

Are Chemtrails Responsible for Cardiac Deaths and Upper Respiratory Illnesses?

2013-10-05T13:07:00.001-07:00

By Theodora Filis

The existence of an unusual type of aerial activity, generally termed Chemtrails, has been reported for many years now. While it is scientifically accepted that normal contrails may persist for hours and spread, Chemtrails are widely debated, said to differ in their configuration from contrails, and disperse toxic metals and chemicals into our air.

Chemtrail residue has been analyzed in several locations throughout the world, and aluminum particulates are in every analysis. As the particulate clouds from these chemtrails settle, they become part of what we breathe into our lungs – the most efficient gateway for heavy metal toxicity.

HAARP Chemtrails Weather Change

Today we are all exposed to more than 100,000 chemicals regularly. Most chemicals have never been tested for human safety, and almost nothing has been done to reduce human exposure to these hazardous chemicals. In fact, over the past decade, the Bush administration dismantled many environmental laws that were in existence for 30 years.

Since the 1940's the US military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations in what they call “vulnerability tests”. (The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and documentation from the government is available.)

Health hazards of heavy metals include auto-immune diseases and many neurological disorders. More than ever, heavy metals are being linked to many forms of cancer. Aerosol spraying of heavy metals from high flying aircraft that most consider benign contrails are now known to be chemtrails loaded with aluminum and barium.

Today, reports of cardiac deaths and upper respiratory illnesses (asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, and often multiple chronic illnesses) are on the rise. The significant increase in heart disease and various upper respiratory illnesses has been linked to a vast increase in “particulate matter” in our air.

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)

Common Commercial Carcinogens are:

Aluminium: a carcinogenic element of commercial antiperspirants and under arm deodorants – can also be inhaled.

Cadmium: a straightforward link to lung and other cancers.

Mercury: the heavy metal most dangerous for human health, has been "officially" recognized as "possibly carcinogenic". However, various lab animal studies and epidemiological human surveys indicate that it should be considered carcinogenic.

Beryllium, Nickel, Radium, Arsenic, and Chromium: heavy metals officially recognized as carcinogenic. Arsenic is often found in well waters. The other toxins threaten individuals within specific industries using those metals. None of these heavy metals are as prevalent or pose the carcinogenic threats to the general population as much as cadmium, aluminum, and mercury.

The EPA considers mercury to be the most toxic heavy metal, worse than lead, and a disposal waste hazard. Yet up to forty million tons of mercury are used annually to prepare amalgams (an alloy of mercury with another metal used especially in making tooth cements ) worldwide. Other sources of mercury poisoning are vaccines, coal burning energy plants, incinerators, and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Chewing or drinking HFCS with mercury amalgams while getting flu shots puts you in “triple jeopardy”.

Naomi Klein writes in her book The Shock Doctrine – “We have so many major crises, one after another, that it is hard just to keep up with one’s daily routine – let alone have time to read and consider the toxicological health ramifications of massive amounts of thousands of heavy metals and chemicals that have poisoned our entire food chain and, thus, our own supposed “health.” We are at the very top of this wrecked food chain.”

Elevated stress levels created by the world's financial crisis, rising unemployment, and people being forced to foreclose on their homes, supersedes news of a degraded, collapsing environment and serious health problems.

Is corporate-controlled news affecting our very survival?

US Bans Products from Japan Due to Radionuclide Contamination & Distrust in Japan's Handling of the Situation.

2013-09-29T21:29:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Alert:New studies show radioactive materials being carried across the Pacific from Fukushima.

— The West Coast needs to monitor pockets of high contamination — Certain areas may be affected in a significant way.

Saturday, September 28, 2013, The Dong-A-Ilbo, Korea's top newspaper, reported: “Concerns over Japan’s radioactive contamination and its seafood is spreading to most countries in the Pacific basin. The United States has recently banned agricultural and fishery imports from 14 prefectures in Japan, up from eight. South Korea puts a similar ban on fishery imports from eight prefectures, while China and Taiwan does so for 10 and five prefectures, respectively. [... The IAEA's] upcoming probe needs to shed light on the cause and situation of soil and sea water contamination. [...] It would be much better if experts from South Korea, the United States and China participate in the investigation...”

Due to the public health concerns associated with radiation and nuclear contamination, FDA has increased surveillance of regulated products from Japan. The FDA will continue monitoring the public health risks due to radionuclide contamination, and when appropriate will remove the Import Alert and resume routine coverage of entries.

Fukushima - radioactive contamination/dispersion in the pacific sea

Although 30 months have passed since the Fukushima incident, the Japanese government continues to fuel anxiety and distrust. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe told a meeting of International Olympic Committee members on Sept. 8, 2013 that, “contaminated water leaking from the Fukushima nuclear plant were "under control" within 0.3 kilometers of the area.

However, in an interview last week with Korean media, Kenya Mizuguchi, emeritus professor of maritime science and technology at Tokyo University, rebutted Abe`s remarks, arguing that large amount of contaminated water was being leaked into the sea.

Tokyo Electric Power Co.`s announcement, last week, that it detected 400,000 becquerels per liter of radioactive materials in a well near the reactors of the Fukushima No. 1 and 2 Nuclear Power Plants also puts Abe to shame.

In a recent survey by Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun, 95 percent of the respondents said the water contamination was "serious."

FDA is processing all food products from Japan in four categories:

Category 1 consists of products that the Government of Japan has restricted for sale or export. Authorities will prevent these products from entering the U.S.

These products cannot gain entry by providing sample results. As of July 11, 2011, these include:
- Tea leaves from Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma, Kanagawa, and Chiba prefectures, and dace, ayu, and cherry salmon (yamame) from Fukushima.
- Spinach, lettuce, celery, cress, endive, escarole, chard, collards, and other head-type leafy vegetables from the Fukushima Prefecture.
- Turnips and other non-head type leafy vegetables, as well as broccoli, cauliflower, flower head brassicas (i.e. broccoli and cauliflower), mushrooms bamboo shoots, and Ostrich fern from the Fukushima Prefecture.
- Sand lance from Fukushima Prefecture
- Milk from the Fukushima and Ibaraki Prefectures.
- Spinach and kakina from the Fukushima and Ibaraki Prefectures.
Category 2 consists of products from the Fukushima, Ibaraki, and Tochigi Prefectures that the Government of Japan has not currently banned for sale or export. These specific products include dairy products and fresh produce. Under Import Alert 99-33, authorities may detain these products when they arrive in the U.S. Authorities will release these products from detention if the importer can show the products are compliant.
Category 3 consists of food and feed products not covered by FDA’s Import Alert that come from these three Japanese prefectures:
- Fukushima
- Ibaraki
- Tochigi

FDA will examine these products, sampling and testing as needed, to determine if they are safe to enter the U.S.

Category 4 consists of all other FDA-regulated food products from Japan that are not listed in the Import Alert and do not belong to one of the other categories. Authorities will review these products using standard procedures, and as part of this may monitor and sample products as resources permit.

Fukushima needs the world's help!

FDA-regulated products imported from Japan include human and animal foods, medical devices and radiation emitting products, cosmetics, animal and human drugs and biologics, dietary supplements, and animal feeds. Foods imported from Japan make up less than 4 percent of foods imported from all sources. (Food products from Canada and Mexico each make up about 29 percent of all imported foods.) Almost 60 percent of all products imported from Japan are foods. The most common food products imported include seafood, snack foods and processed fruits and vegetables.

What about fish that swim from the reactor site into U.S. fishing waters?
According to the FDA: Japan to U.S. waters would take several days under the best of circumstances. Vessels fishing in waters far off U.S. shores must also travel several days to return to port. It is unlikely that a fish exposed to significant levels of radionuclides near the reactor could travel to U.S. waters and be caught and harvested. If this improbable trip did occur, the level of short-lived radionuclides such as I-131 would drop significantly through natural radioactive decay during the time needed to make the journey. At this time, Japanese tests have detected longer-lived radionuclides such as Cs-137 in only a few samples and at levels below FDA DILs. FDA’s testing of fish imported from Japan has not detected the presence of Cs-137.

Fish that have traveled to the US will be tested by the FDA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Together FDA and NOAA will also inspect facilities that process and sell seafood from those areas.

Does FDA recommend that consumers purchase potassium iodide as a protective step?
No. There is no public health event requiring anyone in the U.S. to take KI because of the ongoing situation in Japan.

How can consumers identify products that may be violative?

Consumers should be wary of the following:

o claims that a product not approved by FDA can prevent or treat the harmful effects of radiation exposure related to a nuclear incident (i.e., meltdown of a nuclear power plant);

o suggestions that a potassium iodide product will treat conditions other than those for which it is approved, i.e.,

KI floods the thyroid with non-radioactive iodine and prevents the uptake of the radioactive molecules, which are subsequently excreted in the urine;

o promotions using words such as “scientific breakthrough,” “new products,” “miraculous cure,” “secret ingredient,” and “ancient remedy”;

o testimonials by consumers or doctors claiming amazing results;

o limited availability and advance payment requirements;

o promises of no-risk, money-back guarantees;

o promises of an “easy” fix; and,

o claims that the product is “natural” or has fewer side effects than approved drugs.

O claims that kelp, seaweed, and other food products contain enough iodine to protect against radioactive iodine. These products contain very little iodine when compared to the approved drug products. There are no foods or dietary supplements approved by FDA for protection against radioactive iodine

Don't be fooled by professional-looking Web sites. Avoid Web sites that fail to list the company's name, physical address, phone number, or other contact information. For more tips for online buying, visit Buying Medicines and Medical Products Online. To determine if a particular drug is FDA approved, check The Orange Book17 or Drugs@FDA.

Consumers and health care professionals are encouraged to report adverse side effects or medication errors from the use of both approved and unapproved radiation exposure products to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program at www.fda.gov/MedWatch or by calling 800-332-1088.

US Department of Health and Services website: http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm247403.htm

Safely Disposing of Radioactive Waste -- Fact or Myth?

2013-09-11T16:31:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Earlier this year, February 2013, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington – One of America's First Nuclear Plants, and one of the two Manhattan Project nuclear plants that provided fissile material for the bombs dropped on Japan, reported a major leak of highly toxic sludge from a single-wall storage tank.

Categorized as the “perfect radioactive storm” Washington Governor, Jay Insles said, “I am alarmed about this on many levels. This raises concerns, not only about the existing leak... but also concerning the integrity of the other single-shell tanks of this age” -- adding, “I fear the past is coming back to haunt us.”

According to a 2010 survey of energy accidents, there have been at least 56 accidents at nuclear reactors in the United States – defined as incidents that either resulted in the loss of human life or more than $50,000 of property damage. Nuclear power plants operate in most states in the US and produce about 20 percent of the nation’s power. Nearly 3 million Americans live within 10 miles of an operating nuclear power plant.

The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power – 100 nuclear power reactors in 31 states – operated by 30 different power companies accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity.

Since World War II, Hanford Nuclear Reservation facilities have leached roughly one million gallons of radioactive waste into the surrounding soil and groundwater beside the Columbia River, with specialists estimating that the newly discovered leak may be adding an additional 150-300 gallons a year, though no one knows when it began.

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation currently houses 149 single-wall nuclear waste storage tanks, along with 28 newer tanks with double walls. They contain residue from decades of refining plutonium for nuclear weapons, roughly 56 million gallons of highly radioactive waste in aged and corroded underground storage tanks.

Most US nuclear power comes from reactors built between 1967 and 1990.

Nuclear Waste Disposal Documentary

Most frightening of all – 104 nuclear power reactors now in operation in the US have a safety problem that cannot be fixed and should be replaced with newer technology – shutting them all down at once is not practical – some suggest phasing them out rather than trying to extend their lives, would be most practical.

So... can the US safely dispose of decades of nuclear waste?

The basic method of Nuclear Waste Disposal is to bury it in the ground and hope it doesn't leak out. More specifically, to identify stable Geological Foundations which can host the material for 10,000 years.

The potential danger from an accident – Like Three Mile Island and Fukushima Diiachi, or nuclear waste leaking out of the ground, Like Hanford Nuclear Reservation – is exposure to radiation, radioactive materials, and ingestion of radioactive materials.

Radioactive materials are composed of atoms that are unstable. An unstable atom gives off its excess energy until it becomes stable. The energy emitted is radiation. Each of us is exposed to radiation daily from natural sources, including the Sun and the Earth. Small traces of radiation are present in food and water. Radiation also is released from man-made sources such as X-ray machines, television sets, and microwave ovens. Radiation has a cumulative effect. The longer a person is exposed to radiation, the greater the effect.

The main objective in managing and disposing of radioactive waste is to protect people and the environment. This means isolating or diluting the waste so that the rate or concentration of any radionuclides returned to the biosphere is harmless. – World Nuclear Association

George Monbiot, February 12, 2012, Nuclear waste – can it be disposed of safely?

“There is well documented geological evidence of what has come to be known as the Oklo nuclear reactor. Located in the West African state of Gabon, there exists a deposit of uranium ore which was once so highly concentrated that spontaneous fission reactions started to occur inside it. Over periods of what may have been thousands of years, the uranium deposit began to act just like a modern day reactor – maintaining a self-sustaining fission reaction, which released energy and what were essentially nuclear wastes.

The Oklo reactor is estimated to have been active over a billion years ago. What is remarkable is that the nuclear waste products from this nuclear reaction moved only a few centimeters from where they were first created – this is even with water flowing in and around the ‘core’ of the reactor. The main reason for the successful containment of this waste was the existence of multiple barriers around the reactor, slowing the permeation of the radioactive elements away from the core.

With knowledge of geological formations such as Oklo and many other natural analogues, combined with advanced, corrosion resistant materials developed in recent decades, there is really no reason why safe nuclear waste repositories cannot be built in all countries that have nuclear waste.”

Read the entire article here: http://fissionenvironmentalists.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/nuclear-waste-can-it-be-disposed-of-safely/

According to a report from the US National Academy of Sciences, it will take 3 million years for radioactive waste stored in the United States, as of 1983, to decay to background levels. So, right now, our only solution – and not a very good one – is to store the waste in a place so that the environment won't be contaminated.

The problem with storing nuclear waste is both political as well as technological. In terms of politics, no one wants it stored near them. So there's much dispute as to where radioactive waste should be stored. In addition, storing so much waste is a major technological challenge.

According to a report issued by the British Parliament, "In considering arrangements for dealing safely with such wastes, man is faced with time scales that transcend his experience."

Talking Environmental Issues On WBAI 99.5 FM

2013-09-06T14:29:00.003-07:00

Talking Environmental Issues

WBAI 99.5 FM

Thursday Morning @ 7:30 AM / September 12, 2013

Tune in to:

Mornings with Michael @ 7:30 AM

Please Help Support This Great Station!!

Kept Under Wraps – Russian Oil Spills Are The Worst In The World

2013-08-25T13:20:00.002-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Rosneft, the Russian oil company worth an estimated $60 billion, is headquartered in a palace across the Moscow River from the Kremlin. Poised to become the face of Russia's oil country, Rosneft, is situated on a sprawling, inhospitable zone that experts say represents the world's worst ecological oil catastrophe.

Environmentalists estimate at least 1 percent of Russia's annual oil production, or 5 million tons, is spilled every year. That is equivalent to one Deepwater Horizon-scale leak about every two months. Crumbling infrastructure and a harsh climate combine to spell disaster in the world's largest oil producer, responsible for 13 percent of global output.

Russian state-funded research shows 10-15 percent of Russian oil leakage enters rivers; and a 2010 report commissioned by the Natural Resources Ministry shows nearly 500,000 tons slips into northern Russian rivers every year and flow into the Arctic.

The oil seeping through rusty pipelines and old wells, contaminates soil, kills all plants that grow on it and destroys habitats for mammals and birds. Half a million tons every year get into rivers that flow into the Arctic Ocean, the government says, upsetting the delicate environmental balance in those waters.

It's part of a legacy of environmental tragedy that has plagued Russia and the countries of its former Soviet empire for decades, from the nuclear horrors of Chernobyl in Ukraine to lethal chemical waste in the Russian city of Dzerzhinsk, and paper mill pollution seeping into Siberia's Lake Baikal – which holds one-fifth of the world's supply of fresh water.

Oil spills in Russia are less dramatic than disasters in the Gulf of Mexico or the North Sea, more the result of a drip-drip of leaked crude than a sudden explosion. But, they are more numerous than in any other oil-producing nation including insurgency-hit Nigeria, and combined, they spill far more than anywhere else in the world, scientists say.

"Oil and oil products get spilled literally every day," said Dr. Grigory Barenboim, senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of Water Problems.

Greenpeace estimates that at least 5 million tons leak every year in a country producing about 500 million tons a year. Dr. Irina Ivshina, of the government-financed Institute of the Environment and Genetics of Microorganisms, supports the 5 million ton estimate, as does the World Wildlife Fund.

Billions of dollars being spent developing Russia’s Arctic shelf for offshore drilling is a massive environmental worry. The risks of drilling in the Arctic are extremely high, and there are thousands of miles of leaky pipelines to build across some of the world’s most pristine environments. If you thought Deepwater Horizon was bad, cleaning up a spill in the Arctic is unimaginably more difficult.

A report by The Russian Economic Development Ministry estimated spills at up to 20 million tons per year – that estimate is considered conservative. That estimate appears to be based partly on the fact that most small leaks in Russia go unreported. Under Russian law, leaks of less than 8 tons are classified only as "incidents" and carry no penalties.

An enormous offshore Arctic oil boom is coming, and it’s being led by a government-owned agency in one of the most corrupt countries on Earth.

On The Heels of a Worldwide Protest Against Monsanto, the US Senate Votes NO to Labeling GMOs

2013-05-25T10:37:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

On the heels of a worldwide protest against biotech giant, Monsanto Company, the US Senate has just voted overwhelmingly, 71 to 27, against an amendment in the US Farm Bill that would have required labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

A ballot initiative that would have required GMO labeling in the state of California was defeated after Monsanto and other companies benefiting from GMOs spent nearly $50 million on ads opposing it.

GMOs are widely used in processed foods, but shoppers hoping to avoid them now stand no change of doing so. The biotech industry and its supporters resist labeling, likening informational labels to warning stickers on cigarettes and liquor, saying such labels could “alarm” shoppers.

Link to US Senate Roll Call: To permit States to require that any food, beverage, or other edible product offered for sale have a label on indicating that the food, beverage, or other edible product contains a genetically engineered ingredient.http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135

Monsanto and GM foods have suffered a series of bad publicity after a study published (September 2012) in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT) Journal, reporting GM corn and Roundup brand products cause organ damage and increased rates of tumors and premature death in rats.

So it was no surprise, that in early 2013, Richard E. Goodman, a former Monsanto researcher with close ties to the biotech industry, joined the senior editorial staff of FCT, and given the specially created position of Associate Editor for Biotechnology.

Claire Robinson, Research Director at the science policy platform, Earth Open Source, said, “Goodman’s fast-tracked appointment straight onto FCT’s upper editorial board raises the question of whether Monsanto is now effectively deciding which papers on GM foods and crops should be published and which should not.”

This is just the latest in a long series of episodes in which people with interests in the agricultural biotech industry have attempted to control or prevent the publication of inconvenient research.

March against Monsanto is a March for Life and Freedom - 25th May 2013http://youtu.be/dfUMHhrQamwA

Thousands throughout the world are to March Against Monsanto in a bid to protect food sovereignty and raise awareness of global environmental and ethical concerns.

The London part of the worldwide protest, the “March against Monsanto” on the 25th of May, is planned for 2:00pm in Parliament Square for a peaceful protest against Monsanto Company -- a leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed and of the herbicide glyphosate, which it markets under the Roundup brand.

Hundreds of people are expected to attend the London event, in which, “tens of thousands” are to attend in an estimated 250 cities from 35 countries across the world.

The global movement "March Against Monsanto" was founded by Tami Monroe Canal who created the popular Facebook page, as she was inspired to start the movement to protect her two daughters. “I feel Monsanto threatens their generation’s health, fertility and longevity. I couldn't sit by idly, waiting for someone else to do something.”
The unknown health implications are just one part of the reason why GMOs are so vehemently opposed. There are also ethical, ecosystem and environmental considerations.

"We also need to debate how chemical industrial agriculture is connected to the ecological crisis… chemical industrial farming uses 10 units of energy to produce just one unit of food [and] responsible for 75% use of water, 75% disappearance of species diversity, 75% of land and soil degradation and 40% of all greenhouse-gas emissions, which are destabilizing the environment (figures: Global Exchange Rights of Nature Campaign)." March Against Monsanto in their May 19, 2013 press release.

Ending this article on a somewhat brighter note, Monsanto Company has been found guilty of chemical poisoning of a farmer in France. The French court in Lyon ruled that Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller formula, which contains the active ingredient alachlor, caused Paul Francois (French farmer) to develop lifelong neurological damage that manifests as persistent memory loss, headaches, and stuttering during speech.

Reports indicate that the 47-year-old farmer sued Monsanto back in 2004 after inhaling the Lasso product while cleaning his sprayer tank equipment. Not long after, Francois began experiencing lasting symptoms that prevented him from working, which he says were directly linked to exposure to the chemical. Since Lasso’s packaging did not bear adequate warnings about the dangers of exposure, Francois alleged at the time that Monsanto was essentially negligent in providing adequate protection for its customers.

To the surprise of many, the French court agreed with the claims and evidence presented before it, declaring earlier this year that “Monsanto is responsible for Paul Francois’ suffering after he inhaled the Lasso product … and must entirely compensate him.” The court is said to be seeking expert opinion on how to gauge Francois’ losses in order to determine precisely how much Monsanto will be required to compensate him in the case.

Read more at http://www.realfarmacy.com/monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-landmark-case1/#YVMurZZt5de08z8t.99

Are Bill Gates & His Team Of Elitists Perpetuating World Hunger?

2013-02-17T17:07:00.000-08:00

By Theodora Filis

Bill Gates is now the world's third richest man with a fortune of $58 billion -- exceeding the annual budget of Russia -- just to put things in perspective. Carlos Slim Helu, of Mexico, is the second richest man with a personal wealth of $60 billion, according to Forbes magazine. Both men have now teamed up and donated $25 million to build a cluster of biotechnology labs at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CUNNYT) in Mexico -- promoting the increased production of GMO seeds to sell to farmers who don't want them, so they can feed the world's "starving" population that would rather starve than eat their GMOs.

Why would the world's third richest man, and the world's second richest man want to invest so heavily in GMO research and production? One obvious reason – they see lots of money in it? Actually... it has everything to do with control. Control the food supply, control the world.

That could explain why Gates purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock in 2010, and why he teams up with the world's wealthiest and most influential people, and why he shoves Monsanto’s US agenda and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) down the world's throats, insisting they are the only option to prevent starvation in poor nations.

The same poor nations where thousands of farmers routinely commit suicide after being completely bankrupt by Monsanto’s overpriced and ineffective GM seeds – oftentimes drinking the very same chemical concoctions provided by Monsanto as a method of suicide. And if that weren't bad enough, Monsanto has been exposed by The Daily Mail, as running ‘slave-like’ working conditions, forcing poor workers to operate the corn fields for 14 hours per day while withholding pay.

Bill Gates Address the UN on Depopulation Score Card

CIMMYT is a non-profit research and training center headquartered in Mexico. Director Thomas Lumpkin insists, "Nothing is being pushed, nothing is being forced, and CIMMYT will not profit."

Mexican environmentalists and groups like Greenpeace disagree, and are fighting the planting of GMO corn in 2.4 million hectares (six million acres) of Mexican farmland.

"Mexico, known as the 'cradle of corn', is home to 70 native varieties of corn, almost all of which could be wiped out by the implementation of GMO seeds. “We are talking about damaging more that 7,000 years of indigenous and peasant work that created maize – one of the world's three most widely eaten crops,” said Veronica Villa of environmental group ETC's Mexico office.

The Union of Concerned Scientists examined the true yield of GMO crops, only to find that the GM crops do not produce increased yields over the long run — despite their excessive cost and extreme danger to health and environment. The lack of scientific support behind the GMO crops was so startling to the Union that they documented all the details in a report entitled ”Failure to Yield.”

Back in 2006, Bill Gates, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto Corporation, Syngenta Foundation, the Government of Norway, and his group of elitists invested millions of dollars in a “Doomsday Seed Vault” built to gather and preserve the world's crop diversity – on the other hand they continue to pour millions of dollars into GMOs.

Are Gates and his friends preparing for the end of the world's crop diversity or causing it?

GMOs DO NOT Offer Increased Yield - Only Increased Headaches

2013-02-10T11:12:00.004-08:00

By Theodora Filis

Because genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields.

Today, developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In nearly 50 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs.

In the US the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale. Increasingly, Americans are taking matters into their own hands and choosing to opt out of the GMO experiment.

Polls consistently show that a significant majority of North Americans would like to be able to tell if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs (a 2008 CBS News Poll found that 87% of consumers wanted GMOs labeled). And, according to a recent CBS/New York Times poll, 53% of consumers said they would not buy food that has been genetically modified.

In the US, GMOs are in as much as 80% of conventional processed food.

Many people don’t know what a GMO is, let alone which crops and processed ingredients are high-risk. As such, labeling only products that contain high-risk ingredients could give an unfair competitive advantage to products that contain ingredients containing corn, soy, etc.

Dr. Vandana Shiva on a GMO Free World

Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies.

The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.

Turing the tables on Monsanto, Lauren McCauley, staff writer at Common Dreams writes, "75 year old Indiana soybean farmer, Vernon Hugh Bowman, is taking agriculture giant Monsanto to the supreme court over one of the most “systemic crisis” in modern farming: who controls the rights to the seeds planted in the ground."

Last week, the International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside (ICPPC) and a group of British and Polish supporters rallied in front of the Polish Embassy in central London, against the sale of Polish farmland to foreign multinationals.

Supporters conveyed the messages 'No to GMO' ' Local Food not Global Food' and 'Stop Land Grabs.'

The on going saga of Bt cotton in India continues to be one of the most interesting and important. Bt cotton yields have recently dropped to a 5-year low in India, which Monsanto is blames on the farmers.

Virtually all commercial GMOs are engineered to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. Despite biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.

A growing body of evidence connects GMOs with health problems, environmental damage and violation of farmers’ and consumers’ rights.

Unfortunately, even though polls consistently show that a significant majority of Americans want to know if the food they’re purchasing contains GMOs, the powerful biotech lobby has succeeded in keeping this information from the public.

GMOs pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown --- including the US.

Cancer Fears Cause Russia To Cancel GMOs, But US Insists On Pushing Monsanto's Global Adgenda

2013-02-03T12:36:00.001-08:00

by Theodora Filis

A bill to introduce compulsory registration of all products containing genetically modified-components is in the final stages of adoption by the Russian parliament.

Following an explosive French study suggesting a link between Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered (GMO) corn and cancer, Russian authorities have suspended all imports and use of the US biotech GMO product until further safety testing can be performed.

Officials worldwide are also investigating the matter.

Researchers in France released the results of their two-year study, published in The Food & Chemical Toxicology Journal. According to the scientists, both the genetically engineered corn and the herbicide Roundup were linked to early death, massive organ failure, tumor growth, and other serious health problems.

US analysts and Monsanto have downplayed the significance of the Russian government’s decision, claiming that it would not have a large effect on the firm’s business. Among the reasons cited: the government already prohibits farmers from planting GMOs and Russia imports very little corn from the United States anyway. Russia’s consumer-protection agency, known as Rospotrebnadzor, said it had ordered the country’s Institute of Nutrition to investigate the recent French university study.

The regulatory agency has also reportedly asked the European Union for its views as the European Food Safety Authority vowed to review the research."Until we receive the full information in this case, the import and sale of genetically modified NK603 corn is being temporarily suspended," the Russian agency said in a statement posted on its website.

"If we begin to register GMO - then it won’t be long before we start to grow it on an extensive basis. And, are GMO’s safe? This question can be compared to "Is there life on Mars?" We can, of course, adopt this law and start growing GMO’s all over the country, but after that there will be no going back," Elena Sharoykina, Director of the National Association for Genetic Security claim.

2 yr French Study Suggests Link Between GMO Corn and Cancer

Even before Russia’s temporary ban was announced, Monsanto was already under attack in California and Europe. Critics have accused Monsanto and the biotech industry as a whole of attempting to quash any scientific data that casts doubts on the safety and efficacy of genetic engineering, saying the whole sector relies instead on lobbying and US Government support as the cornerstone of its business plan.

Despite the growing pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, Monsanto is still doing very well as a company. Its share price is up by 30% year-to-date, and more than a few analysts have advertised the stock as a bargain. Supporters also believe that genetic engineering might one day help to feed the world by making crops more resistant to droughts or pests.

Documents released by WikiLeaks also confirmed that the company has a relentless ally in the US government, which even tried to threaten other nations into approving GMOs. Top Monsanto officials also have what critics refer to as a revolving doorwith the federal government — allowing executives to move back and forth between regulatory agencies and the private sector at will.

However, even considering the power of the US government, fear and opposition to GMOs is building even in the United States, where most of the corn planted today is genetically engineered. According to analysts, the entire corn industry could collapse if the trend continues. Activists are currently trying to orchestrate a boycott of companies opposed to labeling as a precursor to bringing down the whole biotech industry.

"Why is this GMO labeling fight so important? Once GMOs are labeled in California, it will bring a cascade effect in other states as well, since most national companies won't create two labeling schemes, one for California and one for the rest of the country," said the Alliance for Natural Health, one of the groups leading the boycott effort.

Once products containing GMOs are labeled, people will stop buying them — and this economic pressure will be enough to force GMOs off the market...