More money needs to be allocated by Governments toward PROMOTION of climate change evidence. Plenty of television programmes have been produced to underline the impact on the planet of global warming, the melting of sea ice, rising sea levels, the knock-on effect of weather patterns from melting ice, destruction of habitat and wildlife such as in the Amazon rainforest and the impact on human life etc.With more funding various top networks could be utilized to broadcast these programmes on a dedicated climate change television and internet channel. Many networks only show programmes which get high ratings, so the creation of climate/environmental television and internet channel must be created to get more support, to generate more investment in alternative energy industry, and to broadcast energy saving initiatives to the public.
Government could easily find more money for a climate-only television channel. For example, the amount of money spent on defense spending could be reduced by a mere 1 or 2 percent to make funds available to get a climate channel going. The World Bank could be used for the creation of a dedicated climate channel in many countries, and to have it broadcasted via the web. A proportion of alcohol and cigarette tax could be allocated for a climate fund, to assist in the initial stage of the creation of a climate change channel. The public needs to be educated more on these issues, and investors will follow the trend of alternative energy creation very quickly if the climate issue is promoted more and more.Russell S.Wyllie of http://www.Youtube.com/RealClimateNews
Thanks,
another paper i wrote on weather mod. this semester.
11 September 2009
Weather Modification
In Jeff Hull’s article “The Modern Rain Dance” in The New York Times, he writes about “cloud seeding” which has been taking place in the United States since around the 1940’s. The idea of weather modification has been around since the late 1800’s. It's a process in which man manipulates the weather. Whether they halt rain, make rain, or make man-made clouds that reflect sun-light back into space, they are changing our weather on purpose. Hull, though, specifically writes about “cloud seeding” which is dropping silver iodide into clouds, creating ice crystals, and making precipitation. This process is currently being used in major drought areas such as California and Wyoming. Hull tells us that in 2003 the National Research Council stated that there is no scientific proof that weather modification is helping us. Hull starts questioning whether this could be harmful at all to us. No questions about the process have been addressed by our legal system. Hull concludes by stating that we should be careful with what we can do.
I am a strong believer in putting a stop to weather modification. I believe it’s not only harmful to the environment, but it could be harmful to the people here on Earth. “Cloud seeding” is only the beginning. “Many communities have experimented with “Cloud Seeding”, the introduction of artificial nuclei into clouds to spur precipitation.”(Hull, page 1) There are much worse experiments and manipulation going on, but the government will not confirm it.
First of all, I believe it’s wrong for the government to keep information from current experiments from its citizens especially if these experiments could potentially be harmful. I would think that there would be some form of harm on us or the environment, and maybe that is the reason the government is not giving us information. Do the particles being sprayed in the atmosphere disintegrate somehow? Could these particles be affecting our water supply? Many Americans don’t even have a clue that these actions are being performed right above them.
Another big concern with weather modification is the environment. Could this be harming plants and animals? Could this be ruining our atmosphere? The only way we will know is when it happens and everything begins to unfold. For now, though, many are not paying much attention because they don’t know! How can the EPA, NASA, and NOAA overlook this issue? Do they not realize how harmful this could be? I ask so many questions because our government does not address this experimentation, nor do they answer questions regarding the issue.
When I earn my Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Science I hope to put a stop to weather modification. I understand drought areas need water, but putting particles in the air is not the way to fix the problem. What if the rain water they receive is contaminated? I believe this is an eye-opening issue that more of us need to look into. Some reporters and columnists, such as Hull, have already taken a look at the issue, but it hasn’t blown up the media because the government wouldn’t allow it. Many other countries are doing the same experimentation, but our country needs to take a look at what is happening above them before it is too late.
Please Mr, President. Help us out with this issue.
A five page research paper I wrote for English class last semester at CalU addresses the chemtrail conspiracy
Heather Ray Ray 1
Research Paper
17 April 2009
Chemtrail Conspiracy-Something IS going on
Conspiracy theories, such as the 9-11 theory, are usually thought of to be bogus, but there are small groups who strongly believe in them. Most believe conspiracy theories are not true mainly because they believe the government is protecting us and the theory usually has no affect on them. There is one theory, though, that affects all of us. The chemtrail conspiracy has been going on since the late 90’s. No one is sure if the purpose is for modifying the weather, population control, or even to fight the West Nile Virus. Although the government does not confirm the chemtrail activity, Americans need to be aware and prepared for its affects.
First of all, chemtrails are streaks of chemicals created in the air by spray systems on airplanes at any altitude. Unlike regular contrails, which last in the sky for 10-20 seconds due to condensation, chemtrails last for hours and eventually ‘haze-out’ and create a canopy of man-made clouds.”According to the U.S. Airforce, contrails are condensation trails and happen when hot engine exaust momentarily condenses ice crystals into pencil-thin vapor trails that quickly vanish like the wave behind a boat, very much like your breath when talking outside on a cold, winter day. Chemtrails, on the other hand, linger for hours and will spread out to form large areas of “cloud” cover.” (Chemtrails 911) After chemtrails are made by unmarked planes, they look like thick, rope-like, contrails. When there are multiple chemtrails in the sky they will usually criss-cross or appear in parallel lines.
Ray 2
One man in Abilene, Texas, strongly believes in this theory. Darrin McBreen, a is the creator of a popular You Tube video “Danger in The Sky—The Chemtrail Phenomenon”(Bethel) McBreen believes chemtrail sightings can be linked to weather experimentation
with side effects such as an increase of elements such as aluminum and barium in drinking water supplies and in the air. He finds it pretty extreme to believe chemtrails are some type of population control, “But the United States has a long history of chemical and biological testing on its own personnel,” he said to Abilene’s reporter-news. (McBreen qtd. in Bethel) When asked about where this mistrust comes from, he responded; “I’m here to tell you that the mistrust comes from our government’s proven track of lying to its own people” (McBreen qtd. in Bethel)
There is a bill that allows experimental weather modification that was quickly passed in 2006, the U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995. “This bill is designed to implement experimental weather modification. The appointed Board of Directors established by this bill does not include any agricultural, water, EPA, or public representatives, and has no provisions for Congressional, State, County, or public oversight of their actions or expenditures.” (Peterson, 16) People need to know how this could impact agricultural crops and water supplies and who it will benefit. “If weather is changed in one state, region, or county it may have severe consequences in another state, region, or county.” (Peterson, 16) Does this sound like it can benefit any of us? “And, who will be responsible to determine the synergistic effects of these programs or pay for unintended disasters created by this experimentation. If these programs change growing seasons and interrupt the pollination process, crop losses could be substantial exacerbating economic losses.” (Peterson,16) Isn’t our economy already bad enough?
Ray 3
Many people seem to believe that there is even a disease that is linked to chemtrails. This disease is called Morgellons. There is no evidence to support it, and nobody really knows how it forms or what it really is even. Doctors say that people who have self-diagnosed themselves with Morgellons has a psychological problem. People who claimed to have it had fibers emerging from under their skin, lesions, and itchiness. When people saw chemtrails in the sky persisting for hours, they felt unwell and figured that it linked to the cause of Morgellons disease. “Both ideas grew on the internet. With a hundred million people on the internet, if only one in a million people agree with you, that’s a hundred people. Like-minded people group together, and discuss their experiences and theories.” (Michael) So, while the Morgellons idea persists, it is not clear that it is from chemtrails or that it actually exists until it is researched further.
Chemtrails is not mentioned by the government, and there is really no way to find information unless you go on the internet. A lot of the chemtrail websites are made by believers, some with truthful information, and some seem to be bogus. “Particulate matter in the sky is called aerosol. If you search the scientific media for information on aerosols you will discover that there are literally sources of organizations (military, academic, commercial, environmental, and governmental) involved in studying, monitoring, tracking, and placing aerosols in the atmosphere.” (Smith, 8) Still, nobody is quite sure of the purpose of this spraying. “There is not just one program running or one purpose to this alleged spraying. I have found that there are many players, many technologies for many purposes, injecting an amazing variety of aerosols into our environment.” (Smith, 8) Many more individuals need to look up and see the clear, morning sky develop into a milky, white opalescence sky in the late afternoon due to these chemtrails. Jerry E. Smith, author of Weather Warfare, makes a good point in the introduction to
Ray 4
his book. He says, “After a week of no commercial fights over the United States in the wake of the horrific events of 11 September 2001, atmospheric scientist were able to take new measurements of an unmodified sky. They found that these “clouds” produces by contrails – chemtrails if you will – did in fact reflect back into space solar energy during daylight hours and trap in heat at night, adding about .5 degrees Fahrenheit to the average temperature of North America.” (Smith, 9)
One man, named Kevin D. Martin, says that chemtrails are not real. “They are not spraying us through Southwest, American, or United Airlines, from which I’ve taken from my telescope to and seen with my own eyes, there trails come from the known airliners.” (Martin) Although he does not believe in the chemtrail theory, he does believe that people could still be getting sick from the trails in the sky. “Precipitation is the leading cause of cleaning our air out. What if the toxins inside plane exhausts precipitates? Rain and snow can absorb these chemicals and bring them to the surface over a large area. What if our very own transportation service in the sky is poisoning the surface as an acid rain effect? “(Martin) While the chemtrail theory could be true, so could the fact that regular commercial flight exhausts are polluting the atmosphere and coming down to the surface with precipitation. The only government information open that has been seen by the public is the plans for the Tropospheric Aerosol Program (TAP). The government confirms, “Much of the science that had been planned for the Tropospheric Aerosol Program will in the future be conducted under the Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Science Program, which, beginning in Fiscal Year 2005, will focus on radiative forcing of climate change by atmospheric aerosols.” (ARM-ASP-Aerosol[…] qtd. by “Chemtrails: Fact of Fiction?) Although it does not exactly state anything
Ray 5
about chemtrails, they are still spraying aerosols into our atmosphere which could affect us all in the long run. The government posted this statement in 2003, but most theorists believe aerosol spraying has been going on since the late 1990’s. “Since approximately 1998, thousands of people started noticing airplanes spraying X’s, parallel lines, and grid patterns across our skies.” (Chemtrails 911) An aircraft mechanic’s story has also been released when he found strange equipment on an aircraft he was working on. When he had asked his general manager about it, he was suspended for a week. He then realized what it could be when he looked on the internet. It all came together. Afterwards, he went to work and found a note in his locker that said, “Curiosity killed the cat. Don’t be looking at Internet sites that are no concern to you.” He was being watched. (Chemtrails: Fact or Fiction?)
If chemtrails have been around so long, why do people still not realize what is going on? When asked about the abnormal sky, most people would respond that they do not see anything different about the sky. Hopefully, one day, the chemtrail theory will be exposed. Whether the conspiracy is true, or not, of the country should know about it.
Works Cited
2006. Santa Cruz, California. Web. 5 April 2009.
Bethel, Brian. “Abilene Man Wants to Warn You About the Dangers of ‘Chemtrails’.”
1 July 2008. Web. 5 April 2009.
“Chemtrails-Fact or Fiction?” 25 September 2005. Web. 5 April 2009.
Martin, Kevin D. “Chemtrail Theory Proven False.” 4 December 2008. Web. 5 April 2009.
Michael. “Morgellons and chemtrails.” 26 May 2007. Web. 16 April 2009.
Peterson, Rosalind. “Weather or Not: 2006 Experimental Weather Modification Bill Fast
Tracking for Passage in Congress.” The Connection Magazine. April 2006. 16-17. Web.
5 April 2009.
Smith, Jerry E. Weather Warfare: The Military’s Plan To Draft Mother Nature. Introduction.
30 December 2006. 7-9. 5 April 2009.
By Padmini Arhant
The blogpost on the “Aftermath of 9/11 including the global economy and international security’ rescheduled for publication. Meanwhile, the news media and press coverage with incendiary remarks and vitriolic comments by certain entities against the specific target as the ‘truthers’ and the ‘blogger in anonymity’ urgently required to be placed in true perspective.
It’s obvious from the news articles that the preachers do not necessarily practice their doctrine on morality, equality, civility and decency to say the least. While demanding decorum from the victim of gender, race, religion and ethnicity biased attacks, these oligarchs brandishing the swords not to slain the truth tellers but indeed the truth itself.
The remaining content @http://www.padminiarhant.com
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
The weapon design and arms control communities agree that it is not the capability to design a nuclear device that determines the pace of a country’s acquisition of a first weapon, but, rather, the availability of nuclear weapons materials that can be turned to weapons purposes. For a nation-state, the material for weapons can come from uranium enrichment plants (highly enriched uranium), or reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (plutonium), or both.
Regardless of its isotopic composition, the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a pure fission nuclear explosive, with a yield equivalent to one to 25 kilotons of chemical high explosives, is quite small, on the order of 1 to 3 kilograms (kg), with the exact amount depending on the level of design expertise and the desired nuclear explosive yield. The minimum amount of highly enriched uranium required is a few times larger—5 to 10kg.
While far from ideal for military applications, the isotopic composition of the plutonium typically produced in civil power reactors does not pose a serious obstacle to fabricating efficient and powerful weapons, as well as crude terrorist devices.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by a shared need for enriched uranium, and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the very beginning and a nuclear weapons free world requires a non-nuclear energy policy. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/briefings.html#nuclearpower
HOPE AND HYPE VS. REALITY IN NUCLEAR REACTOR COST
THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS:http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf
Agricultural commissioners in the five counties report that most of the losses relate to acres not planted or to anticipated yield reductions because of water shortages. About $12 million in losses relate to drought damage to rangeland. The agricultural commissioners agree these loss totals could increase as farmers report final production figures. "
Why the big money bale out to the financial and auto industries and ignoring the pight of the farmers, workers and commuites in California's central valley? We don't need money, just water? And the Presient has to power to give it to use. I really do not understand this. Even those affected who have supported the President are wondering why they have be left high and dry. I realize that the environmental issue are a concern but at what point do you set aside the Endangered Species Act in cases of such an emergancy? He hasn't even spoken about the issue and the Secretary of the Inerior's visit did not provide any relief.
When will the supporters of the President who live in the affected counties start to demand some answers? Do we just support and not ask why we are being ignored? Are we just to afraid to lose political capital? Do we just play along while our neighbors lose everying?
WHAT WILL IT TAKE!
Here is a page showing the Anchorage Declaration from when the Indigenous Global Summit met in Anchorage, Alaska. It may not seem like much but it is a good start. I am printing the opening and it can be read in full at:
http://www.indigenoussummit.com/servlet/content/declaration.html
The Anchorage Declaration 24 April 2009
From 20-24 April, 2009, Indigenous representatives from the Arctic, North America, Asia, Pacific, Latin America, Africa, Caribbean and Russia met in Anchorage, Alaska for the Indigenous Peoples’ Global Summit on Climate Change. We thank the Ahtna and the Dena’ina Athabascan Peoples in whose lands we gathered.
We express our solidarity as Indigenous Peoples living in areas that are the most vulnerable to the impacts and root causes of climate change. We reaffirm the unbreakable and sacred connection between land, air, water, oceans, forests, sea ice, plants, animals and our human communities as the material and spiritual basis for our existence.
Last night on Comedy Central, Jon Stewart's brilliant mockery of genetically engineered wheat puts the only humorous twist on an otherwise serious health risk that now concerns the American Academy of Environmental Medicine: genetically modified foods.
On May 8th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.” Their position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” AAEM called for a moratorium, long-term independent studies, and labeling.
A second US medical association is currently drafting a similar resolution, and more and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods,” says Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist. Ohio allergist John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”
According to AAEM, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.” Some experts go a step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, world renowned biologist Pushpa. M. Bhargava concluded that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.
Pregnant women and babies at great risk
Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. Similarly, the UK Royal Society recommends that GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women and babies. Tragically, not a single human clinical trial has been published. Dr. Schubert says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”
The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.
When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice fed GM soy altered young sperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA. Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller normal.
Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Most of the Indian buffalos that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.
In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.
Food designed to produce poison
GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.
The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.
The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton. In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year . . . related to BT cotton farming.”
GMOs provoke immune reactions
AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.
According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.” Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen, and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy. Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.
Animals dying in large numbers
In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small follow-up feeding study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.
In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.
Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.
In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist, G. E. Seralini.
Worst finding of all—GMOs remain inside of us
The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.
When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.
Denials, attacks, and hijacked regulators
Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.
Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases
A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”
Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”
Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.
This is precisely what happened during an epidemic in the US in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.
If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the largescale introduction of GM crops, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.
To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”
Citizens shouldn’t wait for the results before acting responsibly. It’s time to take the doctors advice: Avoid GM foods. That principally means staying away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, in natural food stores, and in many doctors’ offices.
When even a small percentage of people conscientiously choose healthier non-GMO brands, the food industry will respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Consumers are at the top of the food chain, and we can join the doctors by writing a prescription for change.
International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show their products are safe.
All the proposals and policies I have seen have the same flaw. They rely on major corporations and electric companies to produse the power and ignore the potential of individuals and commercial buildings entirely. Sorry, we can conserve. THAT is not good enough!!!!!! Did you know that there is over three times the surface area available today on residential buildings alone than the 100 mile by 100 mile mega facitility proposed for Nevada? That sight is said to be capable of meeting all our electrical needs. One of the big problems is transmission to areas of demand. That is the same problem with mega wind farms in the Dakotas. The other problem with both is that we are still at the mercy of companies with the ethical track record of Exxon, Enron, and electric utilities like National "Greed" in NY.
Installation of solar and wind technology on any residential and commercial building that wants it could more than meet our electrical requirements. AND it is generated where it is USED. There is no need for the vast majority of our electricity to be transmitted hundreds or thousands of miles. Throw in a smart grid that can bring in electricity to calm and overcast areas from all surrounding areas in ever increasing circumference and even localized shortages can be met with minimal net transmission distances.
Require the grid to by excess generation at wholesale prices and allow them to sell it to electricity intensive facilities at retail prices. This keeps the utilities profitable in the transmission business. If needed they can operate a drastically reduced number of power plants to meet rare power shortages.
Another area that gets a lot of hype, but is short sighted is plug in electric cars. This may be a short term necessity, but should not be looked at as a long term solution. Why should we be limited to the range of a batteries charge? Imagine trying to go cross country on battery power. There is an alternative. Wireless resonant induction is a technology that could be adapted to wirelessly powering vehicles on a continuous basis. This technology may be a decade or so off yet. The idea is that the transmitter coils be incorporated into the pavement at a depth of 3 to 5 cm. The power for these coils is supplied by local wind and photovoltaic generators along the roadside with back up from the smart grid. Photovoltaic in urban areas could be produced by CIGSS technology on the sound barriers with no noticeable change in aesthetics. The receiver/s should be mounted on wheeled, to prevent contact of receiver to pavement, extension arms at 1 to 5 cm above the pavement surface. The receivers and transmitters are sealed in waterproof casings similar to the technology used in modern electric toothbrushes. Currently efficiencies are on the order of 90% within 10 cm. The electricity needed to operate the vehicle is transmitted from the road coils to the receiver coils only when they are in resonance, like 2 bells of the same pitch. For heavier vehicles and loads, like tractor trailers, more receivers can be used to increase the power. Small battery systems can be used for brief interruptions to the wireless system or brief excursions out of the wireless network. The electrical energy is not transmitted unless the receiver is at the correct frequency so danger of electrocution or other negative effects is minimal.
MIT is working on this technology to power the appliances in your livingroom today. That requires transmission overdistances of upto 15 feet. This is done in rooms in which you are living and moving about. All without your sensing the electrical transmission. Another exampeare the wireless charging plates for cell phones and ipods, etc.
I just want to stress in closing the urgency of expanding our discussion of alternative energy to include decentralized generation. It is imperative in my opinion to develop this technology to most effectively meet future needs and as the most exportable technology to the developing world.
Between May 2000 and August 2006, Brazil lost nearly 150,000 square kilometres of forest?an area larger than Greece?and since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometres (232,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed. Deforestation practices around the world are NOT going to stop no matter how bad the figures look. The truth is we need the timber for houses, furniture paper etc. The only thing that's going to slow the deforestation of the Amazon forest is the Y3000 Plan.
Continue reading Deforestation
