The Gaia Reports

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.

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.

Drilling for natural gas and oil at Pittsburgh International Airport

2013-02-10T09:36:00.000-08:00

Associated Press

PITTSBURGH — The Allegheny County Airport Authority approved a deal Friday with Consol Energy that could be worth $500 million for rights to drill for natural gas and oil at Pittsburgh International Airport.

Under the deal, Consol will pay a signing bonus of $50 million and then pay 18 percent royalties on future production. Officials expect the royalties to total $450 million over the next 20 years, though that figure isn't guaranteed.

Officials think the first wells will be drilled in late 2014 or early 2015, after lengthy reviews from both the state Department of Environmental Protection and the Federal Aviation Administration.

Airport authority treasurer Dennis Davin said the FAA has detailed rules on setbacks and how the drilling can be done.

"First and foremost, we're running an airport. The airport can't have any disruption of service from the drilling," Davin said.

Consol, which is based in Pittsburgh, is planning six to seven well pads on airport property and 45 to 50 wells. The closest drilling will be several thousand feet from runways.

The airport, located about 10 miles outside the city, intends to use the money from drilling to lower costs to airlines in hopes of attracting more flights, and for capital improvements. It served 20.8 million passengers at its peak in 1997 but saw that plummet after US Airways dropped it as a hub. Last year it served 8 million passengers.

At a public hearing on Thursday, county executive Rich Fitzgerald said Consol is also projected to invest $500 million in infrastructure such as roads and utilities. Fitzgerald said that work will generate local jobs, too.

But experts said the current low wholesale price of natural gas hurt the county's ability to strike a better deal.

In 2006 the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport received a $181 million bonus for rights on about 18,000 acres of land, plus a royalty of 25 percent on all future production.

Jerry Simmons, the executive director of the National Association of Royalty Owners in Tulsa, Okla., said he found it "a little surprising" that Pittsburgh officials couldn't negotiate a higher royalty rate. He noted that since the Pittsburgh airport controls 9,000 acres they're in a stronger position to negotiate, compared to small landowners.

But Simmons said he also tells people that "when you get to the point when you think you got a good deal, take it," since royalty rates vary from about 12.5 percent up to 25 percent. Davin, the authority treasurer, said officials believed the 18 percent rate to be "very good."

Simmons said he doesn't know of any other major airports in the northeast that have signed significant deals, and much of the gas-rich Marcellus Shale is far from major population centers. But many municipalities in Pennsylvania have leased smaller parcels or have debated doing so, and the state has also signed drilling leases for public forests and game lands.

Marcellus Protest, a local group that's critical of the drilling industry, complained about a lack of hearings in nearby communities and that no environmental impact study was done in advance.

The Marcellus lies below parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland and New York.

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 door with 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...

Monsanto Profits Hit A New High - While Mexican & South American Farmers Protest Against The Invasion of GMOs

2013-01-28T04:24:00.002-08:00

by Theodora Filis

Biotech giant Monsanto reported strong results for its first fiscal quarter this year with profits of $339 million; this is up from $126 million last year. The company attributes the strong results to the "continued expansion" of its corn business in Latin American countries, its "early momentum" in US seed and trait sales and performance of the company's agricultural productivity division.

This news led the company's stock to rise. Media reports say earlier this week Monsanto's shares were "surging" during pre-market trading after the company reported its healthy earnings and revenues. Reportedly, the company's increase "exceeded" previous estimates figured by analysts, reported Business Insider.

On Wednesday, January 23rd, Leaders of the National Union of Autonomous Regional Peasant Organizations (UNORCA) from more than 20 states began a sit-in and collective hunger strike against the planting of Genetically Modified (GMO) corn in Mexico.

Mexico, the birthplace of corn, contains a broad biodiversity of corn varieties. If allowed to proceed, this will be the first commercial planting of a GMO crop at its center of origin anywhere in the world. The impacts of this decision are critical for the cultural and food sovereignty of Mexico’s small farmers, but also for the health of Mexico’s urban population.

Three bio-tech giants have applied for permits to grow 6 million acres of GMO corn in the Northern Mexican states of Sinaloa and Tamilaupas. On September 7, 2012, Monsanto requested permission from the National Service of Food and Agriculture Inspection Office (SENASICA) to plant three GMO corn varieties (MON89034-3, MON88017-3 and MON-00603-6) in 1,729,737 acres in 10 municipalities of Sinaloa state. They hope to begin planting in the next two months to harvest the first commercial crop of GMO corn in Mexico this summer.

And, according to the Wall Street Journal, Monsanto has "traditionally reported a quiet first quarter", with the growth in the South America, the company now has stronger sales year round.

Debates about the pros and cons of GMOs are taking place across the region.

GMOs are becoming increasingly prominent in South America, yet they continue to face strong resistance. One third of the 134 million hectares of GMOs planted globally in 2009, were in South America. Brazil and Argentina are the main producers, with 21.4 and 21.3 million hectares respectively. Of the 25 countries in the world that are planting genetically modified crops, seven are in South America. Between 2008 and 2009, world production of GM crops increased eight percent, while in Brazil it rose 35 percent.

GMOs are associated with a loss of biodiversity, as well as increasing social exclusion and economic dependency, especially of small farmers and native communities. Some experiences indicate that GM crops are sold to farmers as the only option.

The crops have three main characteristics:

1. they do not produce new seeds, thus the seeds must be bought anew every crop season;

2. they survive herbicides, which are usually provided by the same producers of the crop seeds;

3. property rights are held by the seed providers.

Some of the consequences of this commercial seeds are; soil degradation, because single crop farming, resistance to herbicides, and extinction of insects are linked to plants’ reproduction; GM species have the potential mix and reproduce with non-GM species, without knowing the impact of these combinations; and economic and social dependence of farmers on GM-crops, herbicides, and high-cost machinery.

There are no international regulations to control the use and spread of GMOs. International organizations have proposed protocols to implement international food codes (FAO and WHO) and to adopt bio-security regulations at national borders (Protocol of Cartagena), to avoid the risk that GMOs affect other products or reproduce genetic material.

However, none of these protocols have been widely accepted. Some countries have proposed regulations on tagging and commercialization of GM products, but without taking into account the impacts that commercialization and use can have.

"This is not just an issue for peasant farmers. The coming GMO maize invasion would impact all people as consumers, and would aggravate the terrible food dependency that our country suffers from. We respectfully ask you to join our struggle with a one day solidarity fast, and joining our sit-in if you can, or from the place where you live and work, by speaking out publicly to express your support for our actions, sending a message to us and/or to the news media. We are enormously grateful for your support." - UNORCA

Considered an "Act of Terrorism" - It Is Our Duty To Resist Unfair Laws

2013-01-27T06:06:00.001-08:00

by Theodora Filis

The most effective way to keep American citizens silent and under control is through fear. The "spiral of silence theory" describes the process by which one opinion becomes dominant as those who perceive their opinion to be in the minority do not speak up because they fear isolation from society, or in this case, being prosecuted as a terrorist.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is hoping to accomplish just that by making it an "act of terrorism” for anyone to investigate animal cruelty, food safety or environmental violations on corporate-controlled farms producing the bulk of US meat, eggs and dairy products.

The Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act, designed to protect Big Ag and Big Energy, was written by lawyers for the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force, which is funded by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). That in itself should send red flags through the earth's atmosphere...

An article written by Will Potter for Green Is The New Red states, "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, according to a new document uncovered through the Freedom of Information Act.

This new information comes as the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional because its vague wording has had a chilling effect on political activism. This document adds to the evidence demonstrating that the AETA goes far beyond property destruction, as its supporters claim.

The 2003 FBI file details the work of several animal rights activists who used undercover investigation to document repeated animal welfare violations. The FBI special agent who authored the report said they "illegally entered buildings owned by [redacted] Farm and videotaped conditions of animals."

(Read Will Potter's full article here: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/fbi-undercover-investigators-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act/5440/)

Rosa Parks became a leading figure in the Black Civil Rights Movement in America, but she was not an intellectual, a radical or a preacher. She was a woman who worked as a seamstress. She said she acted as a private citizen that was 'tired of giving in'.

The main issue with civil disobedience is that it is breaking the law. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and many other intellectuals put into action the theory that it is people's duty to resist unfair laws.

Because something is a law it does not make it just. Brave people who take action against unjust laws and unjust situations, are the real guardians of democracy.

Sometimes the only way the will of the people will be heard by a government is through protest. Most recently this has been the case in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. For too long the people complained, but their protests fell on deaf ears. Many were imprisoned and tortured for their comments. Eventually, enough was enough and mass protests ensued.

What is the true meaning of the word democracy? 'demos' meaning People and 'cracy' meaning Rule.

Wireless Radiation Poses Health Risks - Doctors Demand Precaution!

2013-01-26T15:07:00.001-08:00

by Theodora Filis

According to the United Nations Telecom Agency, the world now has nearly as many cell phone subscriptions as inhabitants, and says there were about 6 billion subscriptions by the end of 2011 – roughly one for 86 of every 100 people. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) said, China alone accounted for 1 billion subscriptions, and India was expected to hit the 1-billion mark in 2012.

Many people living near masts claim to be experiencing increasing health problems; especially sleep disruption, headaches, tiredness, behavior changes in children, epilepsy, nosebleeds, and skin complaints.

"Studies of protests against mobile phone masts typically concentrate on the potential health risks associated with mobile phones and their masts. Beck’s Risk Society has been particularly influential in informing this debate. This focus on health, however, has merely served to limit the discussion to those concerns legitimated by science conveniently ignoring other disputed issues. In contrast, this article contends that it is necessary to use a wider notion of risk to understand fully how the current political emphasis on active citizenship may have contributed to the protests. It examines how "neoliberal governmentality" and the move to empower people are in contention with one another. The study draws upon case material from a small village protest group in United Kingdom and argues that much of the tension arises from the encouragement of the public on one hand to become active citizens but on the other to be passive consumers." -Abstract by, School of Geography, University of Leeds, United Kingdom

Documentary that examines 60 years of scientific reseach -- Resonance - Beings of Frequency

Human populations are increasingly exposed to microwave/radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless communication technology, including mobile phones and their base stations. Exposure to low level electromagnetic fields has been associated with a reduction in the production of the hormone melatonin. A powerful antioxidant and part of the human immune system, melatonin is thought to inhibit cancer growth and slow down the ageing process. It is produced by the pineal gland (located in the brain) at night, explaining why it is so important to avoid exposure to EMF’s while sleeping. At night the body cleans repairs and detoxifies itself. If it is exposed to electromagnetic stress at this time, in fact any stress, then our bodies produce water clustering which inhibits the cell’s natural detoxifying and repairing actions and intra and extra cellular activity (e.g. electrolyte exchange).

The only way to know for certain how a particular place, such as a house, apartment, school or workplace, is affected by environmental microwave radiation is to measure the exposure.

At the moment, there is no way for the general public to object to the erection of a mobile phone mast (also referred to as mobile phone base stations) on the grounds of health concerns. With the current uncertainty, local planning authorities should have the executive power to grant or deny planning applications, and both the potential harm to health and the public concern over health issues should be considered to be material planning considerations.

According to Powerwatch, "Many people do not know how many masts there are near them. There is a UK government website which has a reasonably accurate map of the masts currently integrated into the national network. Details are only put up when the mast is up and running. Ofcom, which maintains the site, depends on the phone operators to give them accurate information about the base station. They update the site every 3 months (or so). We have found inaccuracies with respect to the existence, siting and information included on the database - and we have not looked at many places. Do not accept the information as definitive or accurate."

There is a long-running, ongoing, dispute between the UK Information Commissioner, Ofcom and T-Mobile about whether the full Sitefinder database should be downloadable.

More than 1000 physicians signed the “Freiburg Appeal” in 2002. It was translated into several languages. As many as 36,000 people from all over the world support its warning about the dangers of wireless communication.

International Doctors 2012 Appeal: www.doctors-appeal.info

Consequences of Global Warming

2012-10-14T20:39:00.002-07:00

Global Warming 101

by Theodora Filis

Global warming is happening now and its effects are being felt in the US and around the world. Among the expected consequences of global warming is an increase in the heaviest rain and snow storms, fueled by increased evaporation and the ability of a warmer atmosphere to hold more moisture.

Recent studies show extreme rainstorms and snowstorms have became more frequent and produced more total precipitation across much of the contiguous US over the past 60 years.

An increase in extreme downpours has costly ramifications for the US, with the potential to cause more flooding that jeopardizes property and lives. With scientists predicting even greater increases in extreme precipitation in the years ahead, the United States and the world must take action to reduce pollution that contributes to global warming.

Scientists report that some polar bears are drowning because they have to swim longer distances to reach ice floes. So, unless we take effective action now, the polar bear will likely become extinct in Alaska by 2050.

Consequences of global warming are upon us. This has been the warmest decade since 1880. In 2010, global surface temperatures tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Scientists say that the earth could warm by an additional 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit during the 21st century if we fail to reduce emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as coal and oil. This rise in average temperature will have far-reaching effects on the earth's climate patterns and on all living things. Many of these changes have already begun.

According to the National Resources Defense Council, at the current rate of retreat, all of the glaciers in Glacier National Park will be gone by 2070.

Melting Glaciers, Early Ice Thaw

Rising global temperatures will speed the melting of glaciers and ice caps and cause early ice thaw on rivers and lakes.

Warning signs today:

After existing for many millennial, the northern section of the Larsen B ice shelf in Antarctica -- a section larger than the state of Rhode Island -- collapsed between January and March 2002, disintegrating at a rate that astonished scientists. Since 1995, the ice shelf's area has shrunk by 40 percent.

According to NASA, the polar ice cap is now melting at the alarming rate of nine percent per decade. Arctic ice thickness has decreased 40 percent since the 1960s.

Arctic sea ice extent set an all-time record low in September 2007, with almost half a million square miles less ice than the previous record set in September 2005, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Over the past 3 decades, more than a million square miles of perennial sea ice -- an area the size of Norway, Denmark and Sweden combined -- has disappeared.

Multiple climate models indicate that sea ice will increasingly retreat as the earth warms. Scientists at the U.S. Center for Atmospheric Research predict that if the current rate of global warming continues, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer by 2040.

Sea-Level Rise

Current rates of sea-level rise are expected to increase as a result both of thermal expansion of the oceans and melting of most mountain glaciers and partial melting of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice caps. Consequences include loss of coastal wetlands and barrier islands, and a greater risk of flooding in coastal communities. Low-lying areas, such as the coastal region along the Gulf of Mexico and estuaries like the Chesapeake Bay, are especially vulnerable.

Warning signs today:

Global sea level has already risen by 4 to 8 inches in the past century, and the pace of sea level rise appears to be accelerating. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea levels could rise 10 to 23 inches by 2100, but in recent years sea levels have been rising faster than the upper end of the range predicted.

In the 1990s, the Greenland ice mass remained stable, but the ice sheet has increasingly declined in recent years. This melting currently contributes an estimated one-hundredth of an inch per year to global sea level rise.

Greenland holds 10 percent of the total global ice mass. If it melts, sea levels could increase by up to 21 feet.

Through cutting-edge CGI, National Geographic explores the potential effects of sea level rise on our civilization over the next few centuries.

Weather disasters kill or injure hundreds of Americans each year and cause billions of dollars in economic damage. The risks posed by some types of weather-related disasters will likely increase in a warming world

In the Path of the Storm finds that roughly four out of five Americans live in counties that have experienced weather-related disasters since 2006 and calls for action to reduce the threat of extreme weather fueled by global warming.

Monsanto's Chief Lobbyist Now Senior Adviser To Commissioner Of The FDA

2012-08-28T19:39:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Michael Taylor, the same man that was in charge of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) policy when genetically modified organisms (GMOs) were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety, was appointed Senior Adviser to the Commissioner of the FDA. President Obama appointed the former Monsanto Vice President and lobbyist earlier this month.

Taylor was Monsanto's attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA and later became Monsanto's Vice President and chief lobbyist.

The GMO nightmare began when Dan Quayle led the FDA/GMO connection. Under George Bush Senior's Administration from 1989 to 1993, Dan Quayle single-underhandedly catapulted GMO's into existence through the FDA's anti-consumer right-to-know policy, which stated that GMO foods did not have to be labeled or safety tested.

Yes, you read that correctly – there is no safety tests required on GMOs. Monsanto's Agent Orange pesticide and genetically mutated Frankenfood seeds – produced in a chemical laboratory – don't need to be tested before they're planted and served to unsuspecting consumers.

Institute for Responsible Technology http://www.responsibletechnology.org/ writes: Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Since then, findings include:

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants
Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies
More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller
Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly
By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies
Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity
Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen
Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer.
Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us. This could mean:

If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Although no studies have evaluated if antibiotic or Bt-toxin genes transfer, that is one of the key problems. The safety assessments are too superficial to even identify most of the potential dangers from GMOs.

Recent health studies provide growing evidence of harm from GMOs:

GM Corn Damages Liver and Kidneys
Meat Raised on GM Feed is Different
Roundup Could Cause Birth Defects
Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility

Taylor is part of a revolving door at the FDA, where Monsanto Execs just come and go as they please. First, he was assistant to the FDA commissioner. Then, he left to work for a law firm in the 1980's to help gain FDA approval of Monsanto's artificial growth hormone (rGBH), which is directly linked to cancer. Then he became deputy commissioner of the FDA in 1991, and was later re-appointed to the FDA in 2009 by Obama.

Taylor is yet another vehicle pushing Monsanto's patented seeds and plans for global domination of farming. Everyone makes lots of money using Monsanto's RoundUp to grow our food, do you think they're going to let us stop them?

Chem-Trails, GMOs and Extreme Weather Events

2012-08-20T19:49:00.002-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Clearly something is up. On News Years Eve, 2011, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission reported that over 1,000 Black birds fell from the sky at around 11:30pm. Wildlife officials said the dead birds were a result of stress from New Years Eve fireworks. The birds fell over a one mile area just outside the city of Beebe, Arkansas, and most of the birds were dead when officers arrived. Did you hear about it? In the same year, 200 cows were found dead in a Wisconsin field:

“Wisconsin is cow country, so where was the big-headline-media scare? The veterinarian said he suspected the cause to be IBR/BVD virus. Authorities say there was no threat to humans or other animals. I don’t know if I can agree given all the other mass animal deaths recently.

I guess this is another one of those look-away-folks, nothing-to-see-here-folks, move-along-now-folks explanations. DHS [Department of Homeland Security] is usually changing warning color charts and waving the fear-factor flag on news like this. Their silence is deafening! One suspected case of cow-something like this usually gets major air-time and every letter of the gov alphabet is on alert. 200 large animals dropped dead w/o warning it seems… they were found in a field.

If one cow was sick they would separate it from the rest. So if it’s a virus, it appears to be fast moving… more reason to make the headlines. The same theory for the other mass animal deaths could apply here too.” Anonymous

Officials have given us no logical explanation for why there have been so many game and fish deaths over the past several years.

Something that has received attention is that an estimated 40 percent of bees have died in the US and Europe. Bees, as we all know, are vital to our life. Bees pollinate a large variety of food that humans and livestock eat. If we lose the bees, we then become the hostages of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs that Monsanto and the biotech industry make lots of money on.

Chem-trails are sprayed over every NATO nation.

“WHY in the Word are They Spraying?”

Weather control has a long history, and if various observers and researchers are correct in their interpretation of documents and data, we have been seeing it in use for at least three decades.

The Weather Modification Association (WMA) was organized in 1950 to cultivate a “better understanding of weather modification techniques”. Weather modification can be both planned, as is the case in cloud seeding (cloud modification), or inadvertent when pollution affects visibility. Planned (deliberate) weather modification is also commonly known as cloud seeding, cloud modification, and atmospheric water management.

In 2009, the Chinese air force claimed that the biggest weather modification operation in the country's history cleared the skies over Tiananmen Square just in time for the National Day parade.

Although the American military has actually published a detailed document "Owning the Weather by 2025", many people will simply say "I don't believe it" when confronted with this. This may be because it has not been reported in the mass media. There are those who will attempt to argue away the frightening contents of this policy document by focusing on the disclaimer that it “represents only possible future scenarios and should not be taken to be factual.”

In his article, The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: "Owning the Weather" for Military Use, professor and independent analyst Michel Chossudovsky cites other official documents to arrive at his conclusions that weaponized weather control is already in use. Chossudovsky also explores how public opinion is being misled.

Evidence from the environment and from independent researchers and analysts suggest that this type of weather control is already being exercised as – in effect – a weapon of mass destruction. Public disclosure occurred at an April 1997 counter-terrorism conference. Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated:

"Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves. So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations and it's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our [counterterrorism] efforts."

HAARP, High-Altitude Active Auroral Research Program, is a research station, gathering data about the atmosphere and “radio propagation conditions”, presumably for the benefit of scientists in general, as well as for civilian and military communications. However, there seems to be much more going on behind this public face. Weather-control patents have been issued for several decades.

Frustration builds up in the absence of trustworthy information. When people can see something happening and know that we are not being told the truth about what it is, or why it is being done. All agree that something is going on, and it does not appear to be beneficial to humanity.

Where do we go from here? Unless we learn, en masse, to use our innate human abilities and balance our environment, there will be no place to hide from the GMOs, storms and droughts to come.

“If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are souls of those who live under tyranny” Thomas Jefferson

Monsanto Encourages UK Manufacturers To Label GMOs

2012-08-18T20:50:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis, Environmental Journalist

Monsanto is now cautioning UK consumers that, “Before you buy a potato, or any other food, you may want to know whether it's the product of food biotechnology.” Monsanto's UK website proudly claims, “Monsanto fully supports UK food manufacturers and retailers in their introduction of these [GMO] labels. We believe you should be aware of all the facts before making a purchase.” (http://www.monsanto.co.uk/highlights/ads/ad4.html)

Here's a question... Why push GMO labeling in the UK, then spend millions of dollars in the US fighting to keep foods manufactured with GMOs a secret?

Here's one reason. Since GM corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton (the oil part) are processed into sweeteners, fats, and other additives already in the US food chain, labeling GMO foods in the US would require nearly 80 percent of all non-organic processed foods sold in supermarkets. If the California initiative passes, it will likely force food processors to label food nationwide – and lables, mean consumers will demand more GMO-free foods – causing farmers to demand non-GMO seeds, impacting sales growth for the “Big 6”.

(The "Big 6" are: Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow Chemical Company, and Syngenta. So named because they dominate the agricultural input market -- they own the world’s seed, pesticide and biotechnology industries.)

Want another? Genetically engineered (GE) crops improve profitability for the pesticide industry. This is why Monsanto and the Big 6 are dumping millions of dollars to stop California's labeling initiative.

According to Maria Rodale, “Ninety-nine percent of GE crops on the market are engineered to either contain a pesticide or survive being doused with herbicides. This has led to surging herbicide use; contamination of our air, soil, and water; millions of acres of farmland infested with RoundUp-resistant "super-weeds" and "superbugs"; and a desperate recourse to older and more toxic pesticides driven by the pesticide companies themselves, and thus, a continuing cycle of pesticide-related illnesses.”

“This means that every time we buy GE foods, we are also buying into a pesticide- dependent farming system that is poisoning our farm workers, our family farmers, rural and urban communities alike, our bees, and our environment as a whole.”

Across the pond, The British Agriculture Biotechnology Council (ABC) published a report this summer titled "Going for Growth," and according to _connect, the ABC “calls for GM to be put at the heart of agricultural development in the UK.” Here's the catch – ABC is not a government authority; it’s a GM industry lobby group that represents the interests of the Big 6. Nevertheless, the ABC is meeting with key UK government officials to present their case, and reportedly “the industry’s push for GM is already being welcomed.”

By the way, $10 million was recently granted to British scientists at the John Innes Center, by the Gates Foundation. Where’s the money going? Pretend to be surprised – since Gates owns over 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock – you guessed it, into genetically modified cereal crops – corn, wheat, rice, et al.

Californians will vote for or against Prop 37, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, on November 6. The outcome of that vote will likely determine whether the US will one day join the nearly 50 other countries that allow their citizens to choose between genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered food.

Comment/Helpful Suggestion:

"I guess that the UK end of the equation is a lot more obvious if you are European (as I am) or have lived here a lot (as you have), and maybe it's too much to expect your American readers to see a chain of logic that must be rather less clear to them. It might be a good idea to add a couple of sentences to your latest blog to help them along. So it reads something like: "Here's a question... Why push GMO labeling in the UK, then spend millions of dollars in the US fighting to keep foods manufactured with GMOs a secret? The answer to the first part is that in the UK (as in all of the European Union) the GM industry has lost the battle against labeling. So Monsanto's only choice is between making grouchy noises in the background – which will just reinforce the public's awareness that it is against transparency – or claim that it embraces labeling, and hope that this will reduce consumers' suspicion that it has something to hide. In the US, however, the labeling battle is still on Monsanto Encourages UK Manufacturers To Label GMOs." Martyn Lester

Monsanto Pays Millions $$ To Keep US Public In The Dark

2012-08-16T14:37:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis, Environmental Journalist

Despite claims that their very expensive, patented, genetically modified (GM) seeds are the best thing since sliced bread, chemical seed giant Monsanto is fighting awfully hard to defeat California's Proposition 37 on November 6 – and paying millions of US dollars to do so.

The biotech industry and Big Ag have already dumped $25 million into the pot - $4.2 million from Monsanto alone. Other major contributions against Proposition 37 were given by:

E. I. Dupont de Nemours – $1,273,600

Dow Agrosciences – $1,184,800

PepsiCo – $1,126,079

"The giant pesticide and food companies are afraid of the mothers and grandmothers who want the right to know what's in our food," said Stacy Malkan, media director of California Right to Know.

"These companies will try to buy the election, but it won't work. California moms and dads will prevail over Monsanto and Dupont." As of today, the "Big 6" pesticide companies (Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta and DuPont) have contributed $13.5 million to defeat Proposition 37.

You would think Monsanto would be too busy trying to explain to farmers why their Bt sweet corn crops are being eaten by the root-worm, after being told the genetically modified seeds would be immune to them. After all, it says it on the label! Happy to report, their drought resistant corn isn't doing much better. Sigh...

A letter from California State Senator, Mark Leno (D), to his colleagues, expresses the opinion of those in support of labeling GMO foods:

Dear Colleagues & Candidates,

I’m writing today to ask that you join me in saying Yes on 37. Please join the CA Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation, the California Nurses Association, UFW, Sierra Club, CALPIRG, Consumer Federation of America, dozens of farmers and doctors, and hundreds of other organizations and businesses in officially endorsing Yes on 37. Yes on 37 is California’s Right to Know ballot measure that would label genetically engineered foods. You can endorse Prop 37 right now at http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements or simply by replying to this e-mail.

Yes on 37 is based on a pretty simple notion: we have the right to know what’s in the food we and our families eat. Food products should have simple labels that tell us if they have been genetically engineered, especially since we don’t know these foods to be safe. This “right to know” is a fundamental right and a bedrock American value. It is time for California to join 49 countries that already label genetically engineered foods.

Yes on 37 is part of a massive, rapidly-growing national grassroots movement. Here in California, we’ve secured the endorsements of several elected officials, including U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, Congresswomen Maxine Waters & Judy Chu, Chair of CA Dems Women’s Caucus Christine Pelosi, State Assemblymembers Allen, Huber, Monning, Huffman, and Ammiano, and many more.

Please learn more and join us today: http://www.carighttoknow.org/.

Thank you!

Despite massive public opposition, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced plans in 2011 to streamline its genetically engineered petition process, and this year those controversial changes were implemented, speeding up the approval process for new genetically engineered seeds and crops. This new process will cut in half the time it takes for new GE seeds and crops to enter the market.

And, if that wasn't bad enough, earlier this summer the USDA posted twelve new GE crops for public comment with a September 11, 2012 deadline, and nine are under the new fast-tracked process.

That's twelve to review and issue comments on in two months! The worst of these new GMOs are Dow’s 2-4,D soybeans (2), Monsanto’s new dicamba tolerant soybean and a new GMO apple.

According to a recent USDA press release, the new fast-track process is part of efforts by the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, to “transform USDA into a high-performing organization that focuses on its customers.”

Customers like Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, BASF, Syngenta, and the other biotech companies anxiously awaiting their piece of the “Frankenfood” pie.

Warning! Aspartame Hazardous To Your Health

2012-08-05T17:15:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Today we all have hopes that there exists sugar-free substitutes that allow us to keep eating what we want without gaining weight. But, what if those guilt-free delights caused brain tumors, seizures, joint problems and even death?

In 1985 Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle, the chemical company that held the patent to aspartame, the active ingredient in NutraSweet. Monsanto knew of aspartame's past, including a 1980 FDA Board of Inquiry, comprised of three independent scientists, which confirmed that it "might induce brain tumors."

The FDA banned aspartame based on the findings, only to have Donald Rumsfeld (13th Secretary of Defense from 1975-1977) the Chairman of G.D. Searle (1976) vow to "call in his markers," to get it approved.

On January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration, Searle re-applied to the FDA for approval to use aspartame in food sweetener, and Reagan's new FDA commissioner, Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry's decision.

One common complaint of persons suffering from the effect of aspartame is memory loss.

It soon became clear that the panel would uphold the ban by a 3-2 decision, but Hull then installed a sixth member on the commission, and the vote became deadlocked. He then personally broke the tie in aspartame's favor. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller, the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle.

Aspartame is the technical name for the brand names NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, and Equal-Measure, made up of three chemicals: aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol.

Aspartame accounts for over 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives including seizures and death. Just like fluoridated water, aspartame is literally a poison and is present in almost all our processed foods.

The deadly artificial sweetener NutraSweet is produced by feeding fossil fuel oil to ecoli that are genetically modified to defecate aspartame as feces.

According to researchers and physicians studying the adverse effects of aspartame, chronic illnesses can be triggered or worsened by ingesting aspartame: Brain tumors, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, chronic fatigue syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, mental retardation, lymphoma, birth defects, fibromyalgia, and diabetes.

A Poisoned World

The risk to infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly and persons with certain chronic health problems from excito-toxins are great.

Ninety-two other dangerous side effects come from a commonly used artificial sweetener with a very sordid history of poor research, cover-ups and the usual 'money means more than people' mentality by US manufacturers.

That still hasn’t stopped this toxic poison from being allowed to invade the thousands of different foods and beverages we buy and eat and serve our families every day.

US Government Wants 2012 Farm Bill To Allow All Genetically Engineered Crops To Be Approved

2012-08-01T12:33:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

The House Agriculture Committee has passed its version of the 2012 Farm Bill that includes dangerous provisions for genetically engineered crops (GE).

According to Food & Water Watch, several "riders" were included in the House Farm Bill at the last minute that would allow for the rubber-stamp approval of genetically engineered crops if the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) doesn't finish its approval of the crops within a year. “These weaken the requirements of the USDA's environmental analysis, allowing the agency to do even less of an assessment of the potential harm posed by the crop, and they endanger the entire organic market, by sanctioning the contamination of non-genetically engineered crops”.

One of the biggest concerns is a provision in the 2013 Agriculture Appropriation bill—Section 733 (also known as the Monsanto Rider) which would allow the planting of GM crops even if they were illegally approved.

In spite of lawsuits filed against the USDA, by food and environmental groups, Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets received final USDA approval. Issues surrounding the crop since 2005 centered around failure to conduct proper safety tests. The crop was banned from the market, but certain farmers were given approval to grow the GMO beets in hopes of averting an alleged sugar shortage – allowing the planting of the still illegal crop.

GMOs The US Government Doesn't Want You To Know About

According to Reuters, new provisions could push controversial crops to market without thorough safety testing. “A controversial new type of corn developed by Dow Agrosciences, altered to allow more liberal spraying of the widely used 2,4-D broad leaf herbicide, could sidestep regulatory hurdles currently in place and gain swift approval under the new law.”

Overwhelming consensus among the Food & Drug FDA’s own scientists was that GMO foods were quite different and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They suggested long-term studies, but were ignored.

In Europe, any product containing over 0.9% GMO must be labeled, and EU consumers generally won’t eat foods that test above this level. In contrast, most US and Canadian consumers don’t even know what GMOs are, and have no idea they are contained in the majority of processed foods.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association of America estimates that GMOs are in 75-80% of processed food, mainly due to corn and soy that get used in so many ingredients.

Many consumers in the US believe the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) approves GMO foods through in-depth, long-term studies. In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements. Unlike the Europeans, US citizens are uninformed and misinformed on when it comes to GMOs.

The US media has been too quiet about the enormous health risks of GMOs. Americans know so little about this subject that only about 1 in 4 are aware that they have ever eaten foods containing GMOs in their lives.

Companies, like Kellogs, careful to avoid GMO ingredients for the concerned European markets, are happy to feed GMOs to unknowing consumers in the US.

Close Ties With Monsanto Makes Selling GMOs Very Easy

2012-07-29T14:23:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis, Environmental Journalist

A recent report claims that, Walmart, a US multinational retail corporation that runs large discount department stores and warehouse stores, is set to sell a new form of genetically-engineered (GE) sweet corn as early as this summer.

Monsanto’s Bt sweet corn contains three GE traits that have never before been consumed directly by humans, and have not been subjected to thorough safety testing. There will be no labeling telling consumers that the corn is a GMO (genetically modified organism), or that Monsanto’s GMO corn has been tied to numerous health issues, including organ disruption.

Petitions urging Walmart to drop or label the Bt corn as GE are being circulated in the hope that Walmart will refuse to sell the Bt sweet corn, and that other food retailers will follow.

Half of all US farms growing corn for Monsanto are using genetically modified corn, and most of it is intended for human consumption, and will be sold to consumers as whole ears on the cob found in the produce section.

Seeds of Freedom - offers a thought-provoking glimpse into the state of the global food supply, as crop seeds are being increasingly monopolized by trans-national biotech corporations.

A recent study by the Soil Association estimated that gene-altered maize, soya and rapeseed may have cost the US economy $12 billion since 1999 in farm subsidies, lower crop prices, loss of major export orders and product recalls.

With few to no regulations being set, and even fewer safety tests being performed by the very companies profiting from the sale of GMOs, there really is no way of knowing what risks GMOs have to us, outside of what we have already discovered. Bt toxin being used in GMO corn, for example, was recently detected in the blood of pregnant women and their babies.

Occupy Monsanto reports, “Genetically modified foods have been shown to cause harm to humans, animals, and the environmental, and despite growing opposition, more and more foods continue to be genetically altered. It’s important to note that steering clear from these foods completely may be difficult, and you should merely try finding other sources than your big chain grocer. If produce is certified USDA-organic, it’s non-GMO (or supposed to be!) Also, seek out local farmers and booths at farmer’s markets where you can be ensured the crops aren’t GMO. Even better, if you are so inclined: Start organic gardening and grow them yourself.”

Organic and Natural Product Companies Associated with Monsanto

Arrowhead Mills

Bearitos

Breadshop

Celestial Seasonings

Earth's Best Baby Food

Garden of Eatin

Health Valley

Imagine Foods

Terra Chips

Westbrae

Millina's

Mountain Sun

Shari Ann's

Walnut Acres Owned By: Hain Food Group Principle Stockholders:

Bank of America

Entergy Nuclear

ExxonMobil,

H.J. Heinz

Lockheed Martin

Merck

Monsanto

Pfizer

Philip Morris

Walmart

Waste Mangement Inc. Significantly Owned By: Citigroup

Brand Names Associated with Monsanto

Cascadian Farms

Muir Glen Owned By: Small Planet Foods Principle Stockholders:

General Mills Significantly Owned By:

Alcoa

Chevron

Disney

Dupont

ExxonMobil

General Electric

McDonalds

Monsanto

Nike

Pepsico

Pfizer

Philip Morris

Starbucks

Target

Texas Instruments

Top 10 Worst GMO Foods for Your GMO Foods List

1.Corn

2.Soy

3.Sugar

4.Aspartame

5.Papayas

6.Canola

7.Cotton

8.Dairy - dairy products contain growth hormones, with as many as one-fifth of all dairy cows in the US are pumped with these hormones. In fact, Monsanto’s health-hazardous rBGH has been banned in 27 countries, but is still in most US cows. If you must drink milk, buy organic!

9 & 10 Zucchini and Yellow Squash

One very disturbing fact to ponder:

In order for the FDA to determine if Monsanto's growth hormones were safe or not, Monsanto was required to submit a scientific report on that topic. Margaret Miller, one of Monsanto's researchers put the report together. Shortly before the report submission, Miller left Monsanto and was hired by the FDA. Her first job for the FDA was to determine whether or not to approve the report she wrote for Monsanto. In short, Monsanto approved its own report. Assisting Miller was another former Monsanto researcher, Susan Sechen. Deciding whether or not rBGH-derived milk should be labeled fell under the jurisdiction of another FDA official, Michael Taylor, who previously worked as a lawyer for Monsanto.

Monsanto has done everything in its power to ensure US government regulatory agencies are there to serve their needs, and not the US consumer.

US Industry Leaders Reject Mandatory Labeling Of GMOs and Asbestos

2012-07-24T08:48:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

US citizens were appalled when the Japanese government attempted to conceal vital information from the rest of the world in order to save face and maintain the status quo. Last week, ABC World News reported, “A subcontractor urged workers at Japan's stricken Fukushima nuclear power plant to put lead around radiation detection devices in order to stay under a safety threshold for exposure.”

Does the US have the right to be shocked or angered by TEPCO's cover up, or by the Japanese government knowingly, and seemingly without regard, concealing the horrible fate of many Fukushima plant workers?

Not if you consider the disregard for human life that has been going on for decades by industry leaders and our own government.

o Although the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) took action against the use of asbestos in many consumer products, asbestos is still not banned and is still widely used today in consumer and industrial products in the US.

o An article published in the New York Times, in May of this year, completely bypasses the issue of honest labeling and how it is vital in any free republic, but instead focuses on the fact that “farmers and scientists” are opposed to labeling because consumers will refuse to purchase foods labeled “Contains GMOs”.

The argument that mandatory labeling will decrease consumer interest only serves as an example as to why all consumer products and materials must be labeled.

Because of the many people dying today as a result of exposure to asbestos, and an increasing number of people reporting severe allergic reactions to GMOs, it is vital that a policy of full transparency be put in place so that all consumers can make informed purchasing decisions.

The 2012 Mineral Commodity Summary for Asbestos from the US Geological Survey (USGS) reported:

o Asbestos consumption in the US was estimated to be 1,100 tons, based on asbestos imports through July 2011.

o Roofing products were estimated to account for about 60% of US consumption;

o The chloralkali industry about 35%;

o and unknown applications, 5% – usually classified as 'other'.

Current uses of asbestos products include brake pads, automobile clutches, roofing materials, vinyl tile, cement piping, corrugated sheeting, home insulation and some potting soils. Even today, almost none of the products containing asbestos are labeled as such, making it difficult for consumers to choose products that are asbestos-free.

"The extent of current asbestos product labeling is limited. Except for products which are sold unwrapped, such as mill board; and asbestos-cement sheet, all products are labeled with the name of the manufacturer or distributor. Only asbestos paper and furnace cement are labeled as containing asbestos. Non-asbestos substitutes for all asbestos products are widely available to the public for household uses." CPSC

Mandatory Labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the US has been an ongoing struggle between consumers and the biotech industry. Monsanto and Co., one of the largest producers and suppliers of GMOs in the US and worldwide, actually threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont because they wanted to regulate food labels so consumers can be aware of the products made from GMO crops. Despite overwhelming support from the people and their elected representatives, GMO labeling bill H722, failed to become law during this legislative session.

“With Vermont legislators now standing in the way of what could mean even more money for Monsanto, the company says they will sue the state if H-722 is approved. Now in fear of a lawsuit in the future, lawmakers in Vermont have put a hold on any future voting regarding the bill. If history is any indication, Monsanto is more than likely to have their way and win yet another battle.” reported Tanya Sitton

California, the 8th largest economy in the world, is hoping to be the first state with mandatory GMO labeling laws through the 2012 California Ballot Initiative process. Labeling laws in CA will effect packaging and ingredient decisions nation-wide. If passed, Monsanto will not only be forced to label their products as GMOs, but it will also make them unable to label their products as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown” or “all natural,” if, in fact, they are not.

Who Are You, And Why Are You Living On My Street? A Report On America's Homeless Children

2012-07-06T12:54:00.002-07:00

By Theodora Filis

It is estimated that as many as 50,000 youth sleep on the streets in the United States, and evidence suggests that the problem is real and growing.

More families entered the homeless shelter system in September of 2011 than in any other month since data has been collected – 25 years ago. An estimated 600,000 Americans are currently homeless, including nearly 70,000 veterans, according to the recently released The State of Homelessness in America from the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

US rates are alarmingly high: 21 homeless per 10,000 people across the country.

Compared with low-income housed children, homeless children experience more health problems, developmental delays, increased anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and lower educational achievement. Young people who are too old for foster care and too young to apply for social services face devastating short- and long-term consequences from being forced to survive on the streets.

“There's not enough space for all these lost kids in shelters, which are relatively safe. On the street, they panhandle, steal and prostitute themselves in order to survive. Rape, sexual exploitation, physical assault, addiction, mental illness and physical illness like HIV/AIDS can be hard to avoid. Some commit suicide. Like their adult counterparts, however, youth receiving shelter services fare better than those on the streets. Teens who find beds and make connections in shelters are more likely to complete high school, escape victimization and make homelessness a fading memory.” Change.org

A study by the US Department of Health and Human Services found that 46% of homeless youth escaped a home where they suffered physical abuse, while 17% left because of sexual abuse. Children who have been in foster care have a greater risk of becoming homeless at an earlier age than other youth, and are more likely to remain homeless for a longer period of time. Young people are at far greater risk of becoming homeless if their parents engage in substance abuse or have mental health problems, if there is child abuse or neglect in the home, if the family has been homeless previously, or if they identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

Poverty, racism and homophobia, reports Change.org, are “the trifecta of our failure to these youth – are often silent, but pervasive. Black and Native American youth and youth from low-income and working class families are overrepresented among teens on the street. “LGBTQ youth are overrepresented at extreme rates, with 20 to 40g percent of homeless youth identifying as LGBTQ versus two to three percent in the general population.”

According to the National Alliance To End Homelessness, “A large contributor to youth homelessness is discharge from state institutions. Without a home, family support, or other resources, homeless youth are often locked up because they are without supervision and arrested for “status” offenses, such as running away or breaking curfew. In addition, as youth age out of the foster care system or are released from juvenile detention, they may lack support systems and opportunities for work and housing. In fact, 25 percent of former foster youth nationwide reported that they had been homeless at least one night within two-and-a-half to four years after exiting foster care.”

On any given night, between 300,000 to 400,000 youths sleep on the streets:

The US Federal Government must increase the budget for the Chaffee Foster Care Independence Program.
Early intervention services for family preservation and housing options are key to ending youth homelessness.
Funding should also be increased for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act in order to increase services like outreach and emergency shelter.

We must work together to end youth homelessness now – our future depends on it!

Much of the World Requires Labeling & Banning of GMOs, Why Not The United States?

2012-07-04T11:56:00.002-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Recently, a committee made up of members of the US House of Representatives passed a bill allowing genetically modified crops (GMOs) to continue to be used on American farmland. These patented seeds are owned by biotech giants like Monsanto and Dupont, who claim their seeds help provide US consumers with an “abundant and reliable food supply” while remaining competitive in the world market.

According to Bloomberg Business, the one-paragraph provision to the 90-page bill, which is headed to the full House for consideration, will "circumvent legal obstacles that have slowed commercialization of engineered crops, sometimes for years, benefiting Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company. Planting would be permitted until USDA completes any analysis required by a judge."

Most of the World Already Requires Labeling of GMOs. What Do They Know That US Consumers Don't?

Monsanto is well known for their company's heated stance against small scale farmers, threatening them with hundreds of lawsuits for using GMO seeds patented by Monsanto that have been carried onto their farms by wind and other elements of nature.

Earlier this year, Monsanto threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont because lawmakers there were considering a bill that would force manufacturers to label products that are created either partially or in full from a GMO.

Fortunately, Vermont is not alone in their fight to have GMO products labeled. Many other states, including California, are fighting to have GMOs labeled like they are in Europe and other nations.

Over 75% of Californians said they would vote for Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods.

The California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act is simple: The initiative would simply require food sold in retail outlets to be labeled if it contains genetically engineered ingredients. Contrary to what Monsanto and the Biotech industry would like you to believe, the California Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act will have no cost impact on consumers or food producers.

If this initiative passes, it will be a huge step towards the transparency US consumers have been demanding for years. Once people know what is in their food, they can then make the informed choice to avoid the potential health risks of GMOs until more research on their long-term effects can be done.

50 countries with over 40% of the world’s population already label genetically engineered foods, including the entire EU. Even China labels genetically engineered foods.

Despite consumer's demands to label and halt the use of GMOs, the Seed Library of Los Angeles (SLOLA), brought news recently that Monsanto is beginning a program to start selling seeds to consumers. The first crop of seeds to be sold for home use will be corn. The problem with this, says SLOLA's chairman David King, is that corn's pollen can spread up to 20 miles, meaning that if one person plants Monsanto's modified seeds, other organic farmers' produce can and will be impacted.

Most European governments have adopted the “precautionary principle” in dealing with GMOs, arguing that GM crops should be proven safe to both human health and the environment before farmers plant their fields with them.

93% of US consumers favor labeling GMO foods. Only 35% of US Senators voted in favor of allowing States to require GMO labeling.

Fukushima's Bluefin Tuna Reaches California's Shores and Raises Fears

2012-05-30T09:58:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Bluefin tuna only spawn in the western Pacific, and often head east towards California following food sources. These days, they bring with them “low levels” of radiation.

Along the California coast concerns that this is the result of the tsunami-damaged Fukushima nuclear power plant has many people worried. Scientists believe these were young tuna that left Japanese waters approximately a month after the power plant disaster, last year.

A study published in the journal Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences said, small amounts of cesium-137 and cesium-134 were found in fifteen tuna caught in the vicinity of San Diego last August. Researchers claim that although the tuna measured five times the amount of cesium-137 than normal, the radiation is not enough to harm people if eaten – and “far less” than general Japanese safety levels.

Lead author, Daniel Madigan, of Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station, noted that the amount of radioactive material detected was far less than the Japanese safety limit.

"I wouldn't tell anyone what's safe to eat or what's not safe to eat," Madigan said in a telephone interview. "It's become clear that some people feel that any amount of radioactivity, in their minds, is bad and they'd like to avoid it. But compared to what's there naturally... and what's established as safety limits, it's not a large amount at all” said Madigan.

Monsanto's Involvement With Agent Orange - 40 Years After the Vietnam Conflict

2012-05-29T16:35:00.001-07:00

By Theodora Filis

The US celebrated Memorial Day on Monday, May 28. Originally called Decoration Day, it is a day of remembrance for those who have died in their nation's service.

"If we open a quarrel between the past and the present, we shall find that we have lost the future." Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

What about the men and women who survived? The Vietnam Veterans who share in the pain and suffering caused by the shameful neglect and harassment by the same people whose lives they fought to protect? One of the most disturbing and damaging legacies of the Vietnam war is Agent Orange. Nearly 40 years later, questions remain.

The US military used Agent Orange from 1961 to 1971 to defoliate dense vegetation in the Vietnamese jungles to reduce the chances of an ambush. Seven major chemical companies were contracted under the Defense Production Act to obtain Agent Orange and other herbicides for use by US and allied troops in Vietnam.

Agent Orange was by far the most widely used of the so-called "Rainbow Herbicides" employed in the Herbicidal Warfare program of the Vietnam War. Dow Chemical and Monsanto were the two largest producers of Agent Orange for the US military. According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 deaths and disabilities, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.

Today Monsanto's website boasts: “Monsanto is a relatively new company. While we share the name and history of a company that was founded in 1901, the Monsanto of today is focused on agriculture and supporting farmers around the world in their mission to produce more while conserving more. We’re an agricultural company.”

In the past two decades, Monsanto’s “agricultural” GMO monopoly has grown so powerful that they control the genetics of nearly 90% of five major commodity crops including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and sugar beets. Monsanto is now primarily a seed and agricultural products company.

Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Superfund sites – attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

Monsanto's legacy includes, not only the production of Agent Orange, but DDT, PCBs, and Dioxin. Now massive aerial spraying of Roundup in Colombia is being used by the US and the Colombian government as a counter-insurgency tactic, contaminating food crops and poisoning villagers.

Imported Cattle and US Modeled Factory Farms Resuscitate China's Dairy Industry

2012-05-28T13:40:00.002-07:00

By Theodora Filis

In 2008, a food and safety scandal involving milk and infant formula, and other food materials and components adulterated with melamine, crippled China's dairy industry. An estimated 300,000 victims -- six infants dying from kidney stones and other kidney damage, and 860 babies hospitalized. The chemical appeared to have been added to milk to cause it to appear to have a higher protein content. In a separate incident four years before, watered-down milk had resulted in 13 infant deaths from malnutrition.

This incident raised concerns over food safety, and political corruption in mainland China, damaging the reputation of China's food exports, with at least 11 countries stopping all imports of mainland Chinese dairy products.

Today, China has allocated a trillion dollars to expand agricultural production, and aims to be 80% self sufficient in food and agriculture over the next decade. For this purpose, China is subsidizing modern US intensive factory farms, and underwriting the cost of importing cattle from around the world to increase their dairy production.

Deng Jiu Qiang, founder and chairman of Modern Dairy, said one of his company's 15 farms, is financed by the US private equity firm KKR, along with other investors, modeled on American factory farms that Deng saw on a US tour a few years ago.

The world's largest milk exporter, New Zealand’s Fonterra, receives Chinese Government subsidies, to boost their dairy farms in China. Fonterra has opened two large dairies totaling 12,000 cows and is building two more dairies, as it plays a part in China's push to meet milk consumption.

According to Alex Frangos, reporter for the Wall Street Journal, “The animals' long nightmare starts on a harrowing journey overseas in ships, where they are confined tightly and cause multiple health issues that may result in death. Those buried at sea might be the luckiest cattle, because once the animals get through the 45-day quarantine, they will continue their confinement in “football-field-size sheds” that resemble electronics factories more than farms and are milked three times a day on “bovine merry-go-rounds.”

Wenonah Hauter, reported, Chinese farmers will need to rely on genetically modified feed – substantially increasing the cost to small farmer's. “Factory farm models have been a failure for public health, the environment and animal welfare in the US, just like it will be for China.”

Given a lack of domestic supply and growing demand from the dairy farming industry, China has an increasing demand for imported US alfalfa products. “This is an extra expense for US dairy farmers who are already squeezed, thanks to low dairy prices and industry consolidation that favors the biggest producers.” said Hauter.

New age music, including a version of “Time to Say Goodbye,” made famous by Andrea Bocelli, plays from loudspeakers while the cows are being milked. Chris Sun, KKR’S representative, says it is meant to calm the cows, though there is no scientific proof that it works.

Company Conspires To Cover-Up Dangerous Asbestos Poisoning in Montana And Gets Away With It

2012-03-31T11:26:00.007-07:00

By Theodora Filis

As the 8th Annual International Asbestos Awareness Conference (Asbestos: An International Public Health Crisis) comes to an end today, an email from Libby, Montana, pops-up in my mailbox. It's from a gentlemen who has just been diagnosed with Pleural Thickening – a common side effect of exposure to asbestos, and an early warning sign for mesothelioma and asbestosis – seeking answers to questions he has no idea he should be asking.

Libby Montana Documentary Trailer

In February of 2004, W.R. Grace & Co. along with seven current or former executives were indicted in a federal court in Missoula, Montana, for breaking environmental laws and conspiring to cover up what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has described as the biggest environmental disaster to human health it has ever faced.

According to the EPA: “W.R. Grace and its executives, as far back as the 1970’s, attempted to hide the fact that toxic asbestos was present in vermiculite products at the company’s Libby, Montana plant. The grand jury charged the defendants with conspiring to conceal information about the hazardous nature of the company’s asbestos contaminated vermiculite products, obstructing the government’s clean-up efforts, and wire fraud. To date, according to the indictment, approximately 1,200 residents [out of a population of about 3,000] of Libby have been identified as suffering from some kind of asbestos-related abnormality.”

A federal jury in Montana acquitted W.R. Grace and three of its former executives of knowingly exposing mine workers and residents of Libby, Montana, to asbestos poisoning and then covering up their actions.

W.R. Grace purchased the Zonolite mine, a branded trademark product produced from vermiculite, in 1963. The mine contained tremolite asbestos, winchite, and richterite (both fibrous amphiboles formed underground). Pure vermiculite does not contain asbestos and is non-toxic. Impure vermiculite may contain: asbestos, minor diopside, and remnants of biotit or phlogopite.

Investigations by the US Federal Government, found air samples from Libby, Montana, had high levels of fibrous tremolite asbestos, which is suspected of causing asbestos related diseases among former Zonolite employees and their families. In 1999, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, published a series of articles documenting extensive deaths and illness from the asbestos contaminated vermiculite at the Grace mine in Libby, Montana.

Reports claims that asbestos from the now-closed vermiculite mine on a mountain near Libby has killed 192 people and left at least 375 with fatal diseases. Thousands more who live or grew up in Libby are expected to die from asbestos-related diseases in the coming decades. The asbestos fibers contaminated not only workers at the mine, but also their families when they brought home the asbestos fibers on their clothing and in their hair. Even local ball fields and an athletic track were contaminated from fallout and fill.

Former President Bush, appointed Granta Y. Nakayama, head of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), the enforcement division of the EPA. At the time of his appointment, Nakayama was serving as a "Partner for Environmental Law and Product Safety" at Kirkland & Ellis, a law firm in Washington, DC, that was representing W.R. Grace in its troubles with the federal government. The Senate confirmed Nakayama on July 29, 2005. Nakayama's law firm helped Grace file for bankruptcy and restructure so it could continue doing business.

The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act – the FAIR Act – sponsored by Patrick Leahy, the highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, and Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter. Many people in Libby, Montana believe this bill is nothing more than a way of pretending to help the victims of years of abuse by mining companies while actually making sure that those companies don't get sued too badly for all their wrongdoing.

The Fair Act established a $140 billion privately financed trust fund that would compensate asbestos claimants who agree to give up their right to sue. The bill also caps liability for companies that made or sold products containing asbestos. Companies routinely declare bankruptcy to avoid paying huge settlements due to lawsuits. To avoid paying out on asbestos claims hundreds of US companies have filed for bankruptcy.

A report on Nightline said: “The evidence is strong that the executives at Grace knew about the dangers of their product as far back as the 1960s, even before they bought the vermiculite mine in Libby. They suppressed evidence not only about their product but about the health of their employees. For more than thirty years they knowingly sent out a dangerous product that would be used in somewhere between 15 and 30 million homes across America.”

Several legal experts have raised questions about the evidence that was withheld from the jury because the judge deemed it overly prejudicial. David Uhlmann, University of Michigan law professor and former environmental crimes prosecutor at the Justice Department, told Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Andrew Schneider that, “Many questions now linger about what would have happened if the trial had been conducted in a manner that was fair to everyone involved.”

More than 250,000 asbestos-related suits have been filed against W. R. Grace. The company has closed its mine in Libby and has declared bankruptcy, restructured itself, and continues to make about $1.4 billion in sales per year.

What Would You Do If Your Government Knowingly and Willfully Put Your Life At Risk From Asbestos Exposure?

2012-03-25T07:07:00.002-07:00

By Theodora Filis

Every year, over 10,000 people die from complications related to asbestos exposure in the US alone. Despite everything known about the danger of asbestos, halting its use has been a difficult process in Canada and the United States.

In the 1990s, many countries adopted bans on the use and importation of asbestos to protect their citizens – except the US and Canada – strong economic and political forces still conspire against the movement to ban asbestos.

When France announced in 1996 that it would ban the use of asbestos, Canada (a major exporter of chrysotile asbestos) felt threatened. The Canadian government took its concerns to the World Trade Organization (WTO) to argue that the ban was an “unreasonable restriction of international trade.”

However, dispute the resolution panel, the WTO rejected Canada’s argument, finding that France and other countries involved in the ban had valid public health concerns. Today, asbestos has been banned in more than 55 countries around the world, including all 25 countries in the European Union.

Why no ban in the US and Canada?

In 1989 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Asbestos Ban and Phase Out Rule – later overturned in 1991 in the case of Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA.

Asbestos exposure has been known to cause malignant and non-malignant diseases such as lung cancer, asbestosis, and mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is a rare type of cancer that affects the lining of the lungs, heart, abdomen and other organs. The average age at diagnosis is 62 years of age, occurs about four times more frequently in men than in women, and is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos.

The life expectancy for mesothelioma patients is generally reported as less than one year following diagnosis, however, a patient's prognosis can be positively affected by numerous factors including how early the cancer is diagnosed and how aggressively it is treated.

The three widely accepted ways to treat mesothelioma are: surgery, chemotherapy and radiation. Studies show that a combination of these treatments can ease pain, help eliminate symptoms and slow the progress of mesothelioma cancer. Treatment options that are available depend heavily on what stage the mesothelioma is in when diagnosed.

This month, The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization(ADAO) – an independent organization founded by Linda Reinstein and Doug Larkin, will hold its 8th Annual International Asbestos Awareness Conference – Asbestos: An International Public Health Crisis, from March 30 – April 1, 2012, in Los Angeles, CA.

ADAO is an independent global organization dedicated to preventing asbestos-related diseases through education, advocacy and community. ADAO’s mission includes supporting global advocacy and advancing asbestos awareness, prevention, early detection, treatment, and resources for asbestos-related disease. For more information visit www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org.

This year's conference will bring together renowned experts and asbestos victims in a united forum to enhance asbestos awareness, education, treatment, and collaboration.

Asbestos is a mineral fiber that has been used commonly in a variety of building construction materials for insulation and as a fire-retardant. Because of its fiber strength and heat resistant properties, asbestos has been used for a wide range of manufactured goods, mostly in building materials (roofing shingles, ceiling and floor tiles, paper products, and asbestos cement products), friction products (automobile clutch, brake, and transmission parts), heat-resistant fabrics, packaging, gaskets, and coatings.

When asbestos-containing materials are damaged or disturbed by repair, remodeling or demolition activities, microscopic fibers become airborne and can be inhaled into the lungs, where they can cause significant health problems.

Most Common Sources of Asbestos Exposure:
Workplace exposure to people that work in industries that mine, make or use asbestos products and those living near these industries, including: the construction industry (particularly building demolition and renovation activities), the manufacture of asbestos products (such as textiles, friction products, insulation, and other building materials), and during automotive brake and clutch repair work. Deteriorating, damaged, or disturbed asbestos-containing products such as insulation, fireproofing, acoustical materials, and floor tiles.

There are other countries where asbestos use is legal and, in some cases, on the rise. The Canadian government, having failed to win over the WTO, realized that it would have to work directly with developing countries to support a market for its asbestos.

In some countries, especially the developing nations of Asia, asbestos use, and exposure, is increasing.

One Year After Fukushima Japanese Fear Their Government May Have Backed Off

2012-03-21T10:27:00.000-07:00

By Theodora Filis

The March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami, left thousands dead and caused extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure in northeastern Japan.

"Many individuals and companies from around the world sent donations after the [March 11, 2011 tsunami] disaster. The people who know Japan are worried about the situation as though it is happening to their own country. While the media continues to focus their attention on the nuclear disaster in Fukushima, we hope to report on what is happening to the other areas devastated by the tsunami."

Shinko Tana, the International Rescue Committee's (IRC) Japan adviser, in the Dec 21, 2011 edition of Japan's Fukkou Kamaishi Shimbun newspaper.

The Japanese government and people have made tremendous strides working to pull down the old, and build new houses and roads, cleaning vast territories of rubble, smashed cars and even planes and boats – an estimated 23 million tonnes of debris. Japan approved almost US$50 billion in spending aimed at reconstruction – the biggest building budget since the atomic disasters of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The overall cost of damage is estimated at more than $300 billion.

A year on from the Fukushima nuclear disaster, radiation fears continue to affect residents and food supplies along Japan’s north-east coast. Up to 8.5 tons of radioactive water have leaked from Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant.

Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) claims that most of the leaked water is not radioactive, and has come from a dam. Though the company admitted that some of the water could be radioactive, it stressed that none of it has leaked to the sea.

Officials have tested close to 3,000 fish samples over the past year. Results of a contamination test from new born fish is due out next week. Radiation fears continue to affect those living in Fukushima city -- just 50 kilometres from the nuclear plant.

Radiation still restricts life in Japan’s northeast | euronews, world

Workers at the plant say conditions are slowly improving, but many are still struggling to come to terms with what the disaster will mean in the future. People live in fear, so far, workers at the plant have experienced little, if any effects from the massive doses of radiation to which they have been exposed.

It is only a matter of time before their health will be severely impacted, and within 3-5 years they will begin to see some signs of radiation poisoning.

Residents in the evacuation zone have been forced to leave and told they will never be able to return. There have been a large number of suicides, especially among farmers who depend on the land for their livelihood – land that will never again, in their lifetimes, be cleared for growing agriculture.

Last month Japan's ministry of health, reported the population of 128 million will fall by 30 per cent in the next half-century. The declining and ageing population puts pressure on the government to cope with increasing social-welfare costs, the aftermath of the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear fallout, and pay off Japan’s public debt – at over US$10 trillion – the worst in the industrialised world.

The Japanese fear their government may have backed off from the more important changes needed to guide the country through what its former prime minister, Naoto Kan, called Japan’s worst crisis since the second World War.

Good Morning California! How Long Have Gas Companies Been Fracking Around In Your Backyard?

2012-03-05T07:17:00.001-08:00

By Theodora Filis

What most Californians don’t realize is that fracking has been taking place throughout their state for over sixty years. US towns and communities have been in the midst of an unprecedented gas drilling boom, using a process called hydraulic fracturing or "fracking." With each new drill comes frightening reports of poisoned drinking water, polluted air, mysterious animal deaths, industrial disasters and explosions.

Fracking involves injecting thousands of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals into the earth at extremely high pressure and speeds to fracture underground shale deposits thus releasing natural gas and oil. Homeowners living near fracked wells have been complaining that their drinking water has been contaminated with methane, a key component in natural gas.

California does not track the number of fracked wells, nor their location. The state's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) said that it "does not believe that fracking is widely used" in the state. More recently, DOGGR reported, that the practice is "used for a brief period to stimulate production of oil and gas wells," but added in its report, that "the division doesn't believe the practice is nearly as widespread as it is in the Eastern US for shale gas production."

Today, Californians are waking up to the unfortunate reality that hundreds of locations around their state, including nearby Monterey County, have been fracked. In an article, published by Mother Jones last week, said that according to a report released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), fracking is much more common in California than the regulators would like you to believe.

According to Mother Jones, a team of EWG investigators has unearthed dozens of industry documents and academic papers indicating that the practice has been going on in at least six California counties for 60 years or more. And evidence suggests that it's still going strong: "We asked Halliburton, 'What percentage of wells are you fracking in Kern County, for example?,'" says Bill Allayud, EWG's California Director of Governmental Affairs. "And they said 50 to 60 percent of oil wells." A 2008 paper by the Halliburton subsidiary Pinnacle Technologies detailed the widespread current use of fracking in California.

Even after sixty years, the state of California is only now learning about fracking and how attractive their land is to gas companies. Officials, in Monterey County, have given the OK for a Denver based oil company, Venoco, to drill exploratory wells in the Hames Valley, using fracking technology. Hames Valley, home to oil drilling, will now see a boom in gas drilling.

DOGGR reported, it does not know where and how often fracking occurs in California because budget constraints have prevented them from developing regulations to address the practice. While the agency requires drilling permits and enforces groundwater protections, once those permits are acquired, drillers are allowed to employ techniques such as fracking to get the oil out of the ground without additional reporting.

California legislators have introduced a bill that would include some of the most stringent fracking laws in the country – if passed. The bill did passed off the Assembly floor, last week, and is now being sent to the state Senate committee for approval.