New Study Links GMO To Leukemia; Bt is toxic

AlternativeFreePress.com

A new study published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases entitled Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice. indicates that genetically modified crops with Bacillus Thuringensis (Bt), may contribute to blood abnormalities such as leukemia. Many GM crops contain Bt.

The Brazilian study sought to establish the purported human and environmental safety of GM crops, in particular they looked at the impact that the Bt toxin has on species which it is not intended to target.

The study concludes:

Results showed that the Bt spore-crystals genetically modified to express individually Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2A can cause some hematological risks to vertebrates,increasing their toxic effects with long-term exposure. Taking into account the increased risk of human and animal exposures to significant levels of these toxins, especially through diet, our results suggest that further studies are required to clarify the mechanism involved in the hematotoxicity found in mice, and to establish the toxicological risks to non-target organisms, especially mammals, before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals.

This study makes a strong case that GMOs have not proven to be safe, as these scientists believe “further studies are required … before concluding that these microbiological control agents are safe for mammals.”

Interesting findings include:

– Bt toxins are capable of targeting mammalian cells, particularly red blood cells, this results in significant damage.
– Bt toxins suppress bone marrow proliferation resulting in abnormal lymphocyte patterns which can be consistent with leukemia.
– Bt toxin can cause blood changes indicating damage to bone marrow.
– Genetically Modified Bt spore-crystals induce hematotoxicity, cause in vitro hemolysis in cell lines of rat, mouse, sheep, horse, and human erythrocytes & the plasma membrane of susceptible cells may be the primary target for the toxins.
– Bt toxins can produce adverse effects when suspended in distilled water, this contradicts past claims of not requiring alkalinization via insect physiology to become activated.
– Bt toxin can cause blood changes indicating damage to bone marrow.
– Even just 27 mg/kg Cry1Ab can induce hypochromic anemia in mice.
– Bt toxins accumulate in fatty tissue and persist in the environment as their toxic impact increases after 72 hours of exposure.

Source: Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
New Study Links GMO To Leukemia; Bt is toxic by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Study says alcohol can lead to psychosis, but not cannabis

AlternativeFreePress.com

The University of Calgary has published a study entitled “Impact of substance use on conversion to psychosis in youth at clinical high risk of psychosis” in the journal Schizophrenia Research. The 4 year study looks at substance use of alcohol, cannabis, and tobacco in an attempt to determine each substance’s association with the development of psychosis.

Researchers determined that cannabis did not increase the likelihood of psychosis. On the other hand, the study suggests that alcohol use could increase the likelihood of psychosis.

The Abstract reads: “Results revealed that low use of alcohol, but neither cannabis use nor tobacco use at baseline, contributed to the prediction of psychosis in the CHR sample.”

Source: Schizophrenia Research

Written by Alternative Free Press
Creative Commons License
Study says alcohol can lead to psychosis, but not cannabis by AlternativeFreePress.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

NSA can easily bug your switched-off iPhone: Here’s how you can stop them

RT: June 4, 2014

Edward Snowden’s recent revelation that the NSA can bug cell phones even when they are turned off left some experts split on whether it is true or not. But a group of hackers claim that at least there is a way to protect your phone from spies’ ears.

Snowden, who exposed the American government’s secret mass surveillance program, has been making headlines in the media for almost a year with shocking details about the scale of snooping by the National Security Agency (NSA).

In last week’s interview with NBC, the former CIA employee yet again added to the spreading privacy panic when he said the NSA can actually eavesdrop on cellphones even when they are turned off.

“Can anyone turn it on remotely if it’s off?” Williams asked Snowden referring to the smartphone he used for travel to Russia for the interview. “Can they turn on apps? Did anyone know or care that I Googled the final score of the Rangers-Canadiens game last night because I was traveling here?”

“I would say yes to all of those,” Snowden replied. “They can absolutely turn them on with the power turned off to the device,” he added.

It is not news that American (and possibly not only American) special services have been able to use mobile phones as a spying tool for at least a decade.

Back in 2006, media reported that the FBI applied a technique known as a “roving bug” which allowed them to remotely activate a cell phone’s microphone and listen to nearby conversations.

Pinpointing a person’s location to within just a few meters has not been a problem either thanks to a tracking device built into mobile phones. This option, a party-spoiler for criminals, has also been helpful in finding people who have gone missing or got into trouble. The general belief has been that removing a battery would make tracking impossible.

In July last year, Washington Post wrote that “By September 2004, a new NSA technique enabled the agency to find cellphones even when they were turned off.”

The agency used it to help American forces in Iraq. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) called the method “The Find,” and “it gave them thousands of new targets, including members of a burgeoning al-Qaeda-sponsored insurgency in Iraq,” the paper wrote.

t is very likely that the scale of the use of such techniques has grown much bigger and more sophisticated due to SciTech developments. And with millions of people getting addicted to their smartphones – which they carry with them literally everywhere – it is much easier to spy on them.

But, according to a piece published in Wired magazine, there is a way to make sure that no one is listening to you. The article, citing security researchers, says that if an attacker had a chance to install malware before the phone is turned off, the software could make it only look like the phone is shutting down. Instead, it “enters a low-power mode that leaves its baseband chip—which controls communication with the carrier—on”.

Such “playing dead” state would allow the phone to receive commands, including one to activate its microphone, says Eric McDonald, a hardware engineer in Los Angeles told the news outlet. It also gives practical advice on how to deal with the situation. Whether it works or not – is another question.

If you’ve got totally paranoid about your iPhone, you can try to put it into device firmware upgrade (DFU) mode, Eric McDonald, a hardware engineer, told Wired. In this mode, all elements of the phone are shut down except for the USB port which waits for iTunes to install new firmware.

To enter the mode, use any power outlet or computer USB port to plug in the iPhone. Then hold the power button for three seconds, after start holding the home button, too. After 10 seconds, release the power button, but not the home button. Wait for another 10-15 seconds.

(read the full article at RT)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Monarch butterflies threatened by GM crops, study says

Evelyn Boychuk
The Globe & Mail: June 4, 2014

A sweeping Canadian-led study of environmental influences on monarch butterflies has thrown into sharp focus what appears to be the most crucial factor affecting the migrating insect’s survival: loss of milkweed in the U.S. Midwest due to a change in farming practices.

Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed plants every spring and summer as successive generations migrate northward from Mexico as far as Canada. At the end of the breeding season a single “super generation” heads back south, travelling thousands of kilometres so that the cycle can begin anew.

In recent years the overwintering population in Mexico has been on a sharp downward trend, with lowest numbers ever recorded last December.

The new study, published today in the Journal of Animal Ecology, draws on 30 years of earlier work including information about milkweed prevalence, logging in Mexico, climate change effects and monarch migration timing. Researchers used the wealth of data to assemble a computer model that allowed them to simulate the butterflies` yearly cycle.

“The model replicates, in our opinion, what’s happening on an annual basis,” said Tyler Flockhart, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Guelph and lead author of the study.

“We provide the first direct evidence that the population decline is being driven by milkweed loss.”

In the model, milkweed loss is estimated separately for different regions of Eastern North America, allowing researchers to “determine not only what is causing the decline of the monarch, but also where,” said Ryan Norris, a professor of biology at Guelph.

The evidence points to the U.S. corn belt, where increased cultivation of genetically modified corn and soybean crops comes with a devastating side effect for milkweed.

When GM crops are planted, fields are sprayed with herbicides to wipe out any wild plants that don`t share the crops’ genetically engineered protection. In the past, herbicides would typically be applied early in the growing season, when milkweed seeds are still underground. With GM crops, the spraying happens later, and any milkweed growing adjacent to the crops is hit hard.

(Read the full article at Globe & Mail)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

The Canadian Government Is Introducing New Legislation to Exile and Banish Its Citizens

Justin Ling
Vice: June 4, 2014

It’s medieval times, thanks to the Harper Government’s new citizenship bill—and not the fun one where guys in costumes beat each other up, either. This one involves exile.

Bill C-24 promises to shred the passports of Canadians who the Minister of Immigration deems terrorists—and deport them to countries they may have never seen before.

“It’s so wrong it isn’t funny,” says immigration lawyer Barbara Jackman. “Exile and banishment—those went out in the Middle Ages.”

The bill, known by its euphemistic title of the “Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act,” gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the right to strip any Canadians’ citizenship for a host of reasons, so long as they have a connection to a foreign country.

Canada’s legal community says the bill is flatly unconstitutional. NGOs have widely called for the bill to be pulled, or substantially amended—to remove just about every controversial part of the legislation. However, a House of Commons committee passed the bill last night without amendment. It will likely become law before Parliament breaks for the summer.

This bill is so broad, critics say, it could allow the government to strip the citizenship of someone as ostensibly innocuous as an environmental activist, or an individual as internationally feared as an Al-Qaeda operative. Any undesirable that falls under the broad categories laid out in the bill—whether they were born in Moose Jaw or Karachi. If the Minister of Immigration decides that the citizen is un-Canadian, they’re outta here.

It’s so loosely worded that honorary citizens like Nelson Mandela might get caught in the net. That’s because the bill would make those charged with international crimes, like Mandela himself, in a state of precarious citizenship. Immigration Minister Chris Alexander, however, says this bill wasn’t intended to go after the Nelson Mandela’s of the world:

“A conviction in a country that is totalitarian or doesn’t have the rule of law is not a democracy, a conviction that was political in nature, would not be grounds for refusing citizenship in Canada. We would have the ability to make that determination,” he said in the House of Commons.

While the government maintains that they would never deport someone based on trumped up charges by an autocratic or corrupt regime, they admit that there are no safeguards in place to stop future governments from doing so.

Here’s the catch: to get the Napoleon-goes-to-Saint-Helena treatment, you need only be convicted of one of a list of crimes: Treason, high treason, espionage, or terrorism. The minister can also revoke your citizenship if they believe you served in an army, or an armed group, that “engaged in an armed conflict with Canada,” whatever that means.

For most of the offences, like espionage and treason, you need to be sentenced to life in prison in order to qualify for getting the boot. For terrorism, however, you only need to be convicted of something resembling a terrorism charge and be sentenced to five years—anywhere in the world. You know, like Gandhi.

The government says the foreign definition of ‘terrorism’ has to match up with the charges found in the Canadian criminal code—that’s something the federal court has already established. But the streamlined system won’t leave much room for a judge’s watchful eyes. While being shown the door, a prospective ex-Canadian can apply for a judicial review, but if a judge doesn’t intervene right away, they’ll be whisked onto a plane in no time at all.

Those who qualify for this special status of tenuous citizenship need to either have citizenship in another country, or have access to foreign citizenship. While the bill promises that it will leave nobody stateless, it’s unclear how Canada can force someone to obtain citizenship in a foreign country before deporting them.

The process is relatively quaint: to strip a Canadian’s citizenship under the new rules, the Minister must send a letter, informing them that their citizenship is under review, and offer them a chance to submit a reply. If they don’t, the Minister can terminate their citizenship. If they do reply, the Minister can consider it, then terminate their citizenship.

A hearing is not required and the soon-to-be-ex-Canadian will never go before a judge.

“The fact that they’re going to a letter-writing process to take away something as fundamental as citizenship when you can get a hearing in court on a traffic ticket shows that they are very dismissive of citizenship rights,”says Jackman.

Canada is not pulling this out of thin air. The law mirrors a 2002 bill adopted by the English Parliament. For the last 12 years, secretive courts can quickly deport any citizen of the United Kingdom for an array of issues—sometimes on suspicion alone. It has happened 27 times since the bill passed.

That includes Mohamed Sakr, the London-born twenty-something who had his citizenship revoked while out of the country for reasons that remain unclear—what is known is that the English counter-terrorism unit was monitoring him for several trips to the Middle East. Trips that his parents maintain were innocent in nature.

He was killed by an American drone strike while in Somalia, in February 2012. Another man met the same end after being exiled by 24 Downing Street.

(read the full article at Vice)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

I’m a Farm Wife. And I Hate GMOs.

Sweet Sustainability: May 31, 2014

I’m a farm wife – of a grain farmer. A GMO grain farmer. There’s been a lot of heated debates about GMOs lately, as there should be, and it seems like I hear the same things repeated over and over in our agricultural community. If you’re against GMOs, you’re against farmers. If you’re against GMOs, you must be some yuppie woman from the city who drops her children off at their charter school, hits up her organic market, and goes back to her 7th floor flat to practice her internet activism against GMOs. If you are that mom, no offense, and the movement can certainly use you, provided that you really do your research and don’t quote things from NaturalNews without first making sure they are entirely unbiased and true. 🙂

You’d be hard pressed to find someone who loves agriculture more than I do. I grew up in a farming family; my family raised produce, garden plants, meat animals and horses. Granddaddy also tanned hides to sell, traded ginseng, and had a ham store that really was internationally-renowned. I still remember the smell of the curing days in the fall – spicy peppers and sweet brown sugar. Yum. It’s making me hungry. But I digress. I loved agriculture so much that I majored in it in undergrad at Virginia Tech. B.S. in Animal and Poultry Sciences. I even went on to get my M.S. in Agriculture and Extension Education. After college, I was lucky enough to meet a grain farmer who was crazy handsome and sweet and funny and all of those things that scream husband material. And he somehow found me cute and fun enough to marry. My idea of a great morning is a hot cup of locally-roasted coffee accompanying me out into the garden until my boys wake up and coming back in the house sweaty, accomplished, and with really dirty jean knees. Here I stand actually, 5 months pregnant, sweaty, with dirty jean knees, writing this post as I make dinner while the boys are out checking soils at the different farm fields. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

As I mentioned above, I married a grain farmer. When I met him, my only thought was “well that’s neat”, because my family had never been involved in cereal grain production. We’re near the East Coast and grains aren’t as huge here as they are in say, the Midwest. Now that I know what they are, I remember seeing sprayers in fields and thinking “Wow, it must cost a lot of money to irrigate fields with all that water!” I kind of wish I still thought it was water. My family had never used any chemicals other than lime in our fields, so chemical agriculture was a whole new ballgame to me. I literally had no clue. Fast forward seven years, and here I am writing this post. Why now? Well, a few reasons. The debate heating up obviously makes it a good time. But I also feel like there are some of us who haven’t had a voice in that debate, or at least been outspoken enough. And by “we”, I mean farmers who don’t actually *like* GMOs. Now my qualifications as a farmer may be iffy – I don’t actually help my husband in the field, and I’m not employed by his farm. I’m a mere spectator to that part. My “farming” is in my chickens down the hill, my berry patches, and my garden. That said, I’m pretty well familiar with all of the facets of his operation. He and I don’t agree 100% on the topic, but nor do we disagree. Yes, he does grow GMO corn and soy. He also grows non-GMO corn, which he started last year. Why does he grow GMOs if he’s not necessarily a fan of them? The answer lies in you, and me, and all of us, as consumers. Farming is his job. It’s what brings home money for our family. And if we didn’t have an income, I wouldn’t be able to communicate with you right now. He grows what the consumer demands – which is one reason he started growing non-GMO corn. Because we’re NOT in the “grain belt”, grain elevators here are hard to find that take non-GMO grains separately. In short, there’s no market for non-GMO unless we find a small supplier that’s willing to take a chance on it (which is what happened this year and last, thankfully). If we grow non-GMO and nobody buys it, that doesn’t help you, or us.

So to the meat of it – why would I hate GMOs? Well, I’m going to outline several reasons. Sure, part of what you hear from me will be what you’ve heard from other GMO activists. Safety concerns, concerns about evil corporations, etc. I do not disagree with those points that many activists make. And let me say here that many times, when I’ve heard folks insult “anti-GMO activists” and I chime in, I get the “Well yeah but you’re not one of the crazy activists, so you don’t count in [whatever insult I just made]” Aren’t I? I readily admit I am one of the most outspoken people you will find on the topic. I don’t hesitate to write legislators, sign petitions, or call Monsanto on their BS on their Facebook page. I AM one of those crazy activists. And that’s fine with me. You don’t change the world by behaving. But my reasons for hating GMOs go way beyond many of the normal things you usually hear from The Activists. I truly feel that these companies and these seeds are threatening to utterly DESTROY our industry.

#1. Proof of Safety? Doubtful. On either side of the debate, you’ve heard this one: “GMOs have a long, proven track record of safety. Plenty of peer-reviewed studies have all proven that they are completely safe.” Ehhhhh not so much. Once you really start looking into these “studies”, you realize that ALL – let me repeat that – ALL of them are industry-sponsored. What does that mean? Well, to put it in basics, Monsanto has conducted a study to say that Monsanto’s products are completely safe. See the problem here? Those safety studies determine the future of their products and their company. If you were Monsanto, would you not ensure that if you’re going to conduct a study, it comes out in your favor? There have been NO independent studies done on GMOs that have been approved, because the seeds are patented and the GMO manufacturers will not release the patents for independent testing. Furthermore, the FDA/USDA/ANY other regulatory agency does NOT test, nor sponsor testing of GMOs. The only requirements for these federal agencies to say these products are safe are 30-day trials, conducted by the companies themselves. Look at the incidence of degenerative diseases in our society. 100 years ago, we worried about communicable diseases – diseases passed from one person to the other. Today, we worry much more about diseases that have nothing to do with “catching” anything from the folks around us. Lots of people are chalking it up to genetics but as a species evolves, does it not improve genetically? Do I think GMOs are the cause of cancers, Alzheimer’s, and other degenerative diseases? No, probably not on their own. Do I think what we are putting on and in our bodies is the cause? AB-SO-FREAKING-LUTELY. Perhaps our genes make us more predisposed to developing these conditions, but the CAUSE is not our genes; it is our food, and the chemicals that we surround ourselves with. Being anti-GMO is NOT being anti-science, or anti-technology. It is being anti-industry-bullshit. I’m of the opinion that until we really get some good, long-term information about how we digest the changed genetic structures of these GMOs and how they can affect our bodies, they should not be in virtually every food we eat.

#2. Chemicals. This part of GMO grain production actually bothers me more than the genetic splicing and insertion itself. We KNOW the chemicals applied to GMO grain crops are harmful. And though the companies who manufacture these chemicals (ironically, the same companies who manufacture our GMO food seeds (?!?!)) would like to tell us that they don’t stick around long enough to affect our bodies when we eat GMO foods, this is patently false, as proven by LOTS of recent studies – most notably those showing the levels of glyphosate (Roundup) showing up in American breastmilk (Google it – it’s real, it’s reliable, and the government is reviewing Roundup safety as a result). And yes, I absolutely realize that chemical application is not limited to GMO grain production. Non-GMO grains, as well as organic (sorry, folks, it’s true) grains may also get treated with dangerous chemicals. However, many GMO grains have been specifically developed to withstand an incredible amount of pesticide application. Trust me, while you may find non-GMO and organic products that possibly haven’t been sprayed, you can bet your bottom dollar that GMO products are LOADED with pesticides. Another part of GMO production and its relationship with chemicals has to deal with no-till agriculture – meaning that when a crop is planted, the soil is not tilled. There are several benefits to no-till that involve topsoil conservation and maintaining the health of our waterways. It’s also quicker and cheaper. No-till is a great thing, save for one thing – chemical application. In traditional agriculture, tilling kills the weeds growing on top of a field that is to be planted. In no-till, another means of killing those weeds must be employed; and to date, the only viable option is chemical application. No-till and GMO production don’t always have to go hand in hand, but in reality, they often do. After the initial spray, growing plants can then be sprayed again and again with Roundup to ensure no weeds grow while the crop is young and getting established.

#3. GMOs are eroding our creativity and connection with agriculture. Find an old time farmer and he will probably tell you about cover crops, companion planting, and all of his tricks to keeping weeds and bugs out of his crop fields. As we embrace GMO technology without a second thought, we are killing our creativity and our knowledge in the process. Who needs to talk to an old timer now? We have sprays for that. I realize that some folks view this as a win – “Our problems are solved!” – but what happens when the chemical solution to the problem is no longer a viable one and we no longer know any other way? A great example of this is Roundup resistance. Many weeds are now becoming resistant to Roundup and are either requiring even more enormous amounts of Roundup application, or a different poison altogether (which is why Dow is currently in the approval process of 2,4-D resistant gene technology – in case you aren’t aware, 2, 4-D is one of the components of Agent Orange).

#4. Betting the farm – literally – on new technology that’s in the process of being rejected. THIS one is the most important and the most concerning point to me. The agricultural community has been so quick to embrace this seed technology – 88% of all field corn is GMO and 94% of all soybeans are GMO – without thought for what may happen if the technology fails to be accepted. Acceptance by American consumers is definitely important – and we know that is failing. 95% of Americans want GMOs labeled. Many are even calling for a ban. Several states have pending legislation that would limit GMO production. Even MORE important and MORE concerning is global rejection of GMOs. Peru has already banned them altogether. 60-something other countries around the world have some kind of restriction on their import. The U.S. and Canada are the last holdouts for trying to avoid labeling GMOs (presumably because the companies who produce them have infiltrated our government to the highest levels – Hillary Clinton, Michael Taylor of the FDA, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and the list goes on foreverrrrr). The world is rejecting GMOs. If we can’t export our products, we are done for. Yet, agricultural producers are still screaming to defend these products. I can only surmise that a) fear of no longer knowing how to produce without them, and b) being unwilling to find a way to add value to their products are what’s driving that defense. MOST concerning, however, is that if GMOs fail – if GMOs are rejected – if GMOs are proven to NOT be a good technology – we have already begun the process of contaminating all of our seed for these crops. Even the certification for non-GMO is “containing X% or less of GMO material” – because the contamination is so rampant that purity is almost non-existent at this point. If GMO fails, every crop that we have started GMO production for – corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and even GRASS (YES, GRASS) – will fail. That’s an awfully big risk for us to be embracing. Farming has always come with risks. Calculated risks. GMO is a bad bet at this point.

(read the full article at Sweet Sustainability)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

Big Dairy Is Putting Microscopic Pieces of Metal in Your Food

Tom Philpott
Mother Jones: May 28, 2014

The rapid emergence of nanotechnology suggests that size does, indeed, matter. It turns out that if you break common substances like silver and nickel into really, really tiny particles—measured in nanometers, which are billionths of a meter—they behave in radically different ways. For example, regular silver, the stuff of fancy tableware, doesn’t have any obvious place in sock production. But nano-size silver particles apparently do. According to boosters, when embedded in the fabric of socks, microscopic silver particles are “strongly antibacterial to a wide range of pathogens, absorb sweat, and by killing bacteria help eliminate unpleasant foot odor.” (By most definitions, a particle qualifies as “nano” when it’s 100 nanometers wide or less. By contrast, a human hair clocks in at about 80,000 nanometers in diameter.)

According to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN)—a joint venture of Virginia Tech and the Wilson Center—there are more than 1,600 nanotechnology-based consumer products on the market today. If SmartSilver Anti-Odor Nanotechnology Underwear sounds like a rather intimate application for this novel technology, consider that the PEN database lists 96 food items currently on US grocery shelves that contain unlabeled nano ingredients. Examples include Dannon Greek Plain Yogurt, Silk Original Soy Milk, Rice Dream Rice Drink, Hershey’s Bliss Dark Chocolate, and Kraft’s iconic American Cheese Singles, all of which now contain nano-size titanium dioxide. As recently as 2008, only eight US food products were known to contain nanoparticles, according to a recent analysis from Friends of the Earth—a more than tenfold increase in just six years.

All of which raises the question of safety. Radically miniaturized particles are attractive to the food and textile industries for their novel properties. Nano-size titanium dioxide, for example, is used as a color enhancer—it makes white foods like yogurt and soy milk whiter, and brightens dark products like chocolate. But what unintended effects might it have?

That’s where the nano story gets murky. Remarkably, the US Food and Drug Administration, which oversees the safety of the food supply, both 1) acknowledges that nanoparticles pose risks that are substantially different from those of their regular-sized counterparts, and 2) has done nothing to slow down their rapid move into the food supply.

Back in 2012, the FDA released a draft, pending public comment, of a proposed new framework for bringing nano materials into food. The document reveals plenty of reason for concern. For example: “so-called nano-engineered food substances can have significantly altered bioavailability and may, therefore, raise new safety issues that have not been seen in their traditionally manufactured counterparts.” The report went on to note that “particle size, surface area, aggregation/agglomeration, or shape may impact absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) and potentially the safety of the nano-engineered food substance.”

What FDA is saying here is obvious: If nanoparticles didn’t behave differently, the industry wouldn’t be using them in the first place.

So what’s the remedy? Rather than require rigorous safety studies before companies can lace food with nanoparticles, the FDA’s policy draft proposes “nonbinding recommendations” for such research. Even that rather porous safety net doesn’t yet exist—the agency still hasn’t implemented the draft proposal it released more than two years ago.

(read the full article at Mother Jones)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

You just sprayed lead, BPA and phthalates on your vegetable garden

Watering gardens with lead, BPA and phthalates

Blair Sanderson
CBC News: June 2, 2014

Garden hoses are a hot commodity these days as gardeners get their vegetables and flowers in the ground, but should we drink from them?

Kevin Hurst is assistant manager of a Lee Valley Tools in Halifax, Nova Scotia, he said most people don’t read the fine print when they pick out a hose.

“On the back here, [there’s] a warning, ‘this product contains one or more chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects'”.

“I certainly wouldn’t let my kid, or any kid that I knew drink from a hose, it’s a completely unnecessary risk,” said Gideon Foreman, the Toronto, Ontario based executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.

“One of the concerns certainly around the garden hose is they are not meant to go into a child’s mouth,” he explained. “They’re not meant to be drunk from … they’re not regulated, and there is some danger that the chemicals in the hose, just like other plastics, can leach.”

A non-profit research group in the U.S. called The Ecology Center decided to study which chemicals might be leaching into water being ingested by kids and sprayed on fruit and vegetable gardens.

Last year it tested 21 brands and models of hoses. Lead researcher Jeff Gearhart said they found a range of chemicals, including lead, leaching from those hoses.

“The level of phthalate plasticizers that leached into the water [were] four times higher than drinking water standards, and bisphenol A, which is another chemical we’re worried about, was 20 times higher than drinking water standards that are commonly used to measure water safety.”

The research found that hoses made with PVC and vinyl tended to leach more phthalates and BPA, while those with copper fittings were the worst for lead content.

Health Canada has also weighed in on this. The agency recommends people not drink from hoses, because in addition to the risk of leaching chemicals, dirt, bacteria and small insects can also present a health risk. In an email, a Health Canada spokesperson also suggested that people flush the hose thoroughly with cold water to remove material that may have accumulated in the standing water.

(read the full article at CBC)


Alternative Free Press -fair use-

British Columbia’s LNG Corporate Welfare Scheme Exposed

The Straight Goods

What is going on with LNG for export development in British Columbia, it really is an important question?

For several years at least we have been hearing about our financial saviour in waiting, the LNG industry, in the last year this fledging industry’s rosy forecast have been front in center in expensive ad campaigns, the promise of a need for millions of workers, the promises of $trillions of dollars in revenue, numbers so large, numbers so lucrative that soon our roads will not only get the potholes fixed but be repaved with gold, wealth beyond our dreams, who needs “chump-change” tar sand coinage when British Columbia can start our own mint fuelled by natural gas..

Why the delay, why the holdup, for years LNG producers have been talking a good game and they really have spread LNG promotional sauce liberally over the last 18 months, so why is nothing happening, why indeed..

Companies pitting countries against each other, the race to the bottom, who will giveth the most, who will look the other way while corporate corruption skews the books, plays the field and creates another corporate welfare industry..

Alberta, a $6 billion dollar deficit this year, their 5th deficit in a row, all the development, foreign investment, big corporate takeovers with massive premiums paid on share prices, the most oil and gas production in their history and the deficits to Government are growing exponentially each year…Why, how can this be, by accident, by market forces, or by sinister corporate design, the race to the bottom, subsidies, kickbacks, financial fraud and offshore tax havens, you can`t name just one of those items because those corporate activities are all in play, all of the time, including deliberate corporate fraud…

Let’s look at Australia, $100s of billions of dollars have been and are being invested in LNG export terminals and related facilities, every LNG project from every company doing business in Australia, every single project is and has gone over-budget by 30%..40%..50% even by 100% in some cases…A Chevron LNG plant build, Chevron’s Gorgon LNG plant has ballooned from a $30 billion dollar build cost to now an estimated $60 billion dollars plus. And Chevron isn’t alone, every company building similar facilities have seen similar cost over-runs. Coincidence, bad luck, how about deliberate guile and deception, how about corruption, ingrained systemic corporate corruption..

What if I told you the Australian Government pays 30% of all LNG capital costs, meaning company X building an LNG export terminal in Australia, they budget $30 billion dollars for the build, $10 billion dollars of that money comes back to the company as tax breaks and or subsidies, and just imagine if the corporate petroleum industry and their many partners colluded to bring build costs up, and up, and up, projects all running 40%..50%..60%..100% over budget, with winks and nods and corporate guile company X doesn`t receive $10 billion dollars back from the $30 billion dollar build but receives back from Government(public tax dollars) a sum of $34 billion dollars on an inflated $100 billion dollar build..In a sense, systemic corporate corruption has found a legal loophole to have the general public in Australia pay for the entirety of the LNG plant builds…!

With a wink, with a nod, supplier A doubles his prices, producer Q triples his cost, all bills flow to the general corporate contractor where this excess gravy is skimmed right back to the general corporate builder….In other words it`s a ponzi scheme, exactly what is going on in the Alberta tar sands, the more oil production being done the financially poorer the province gets, British Columbia LNG exporters want in on the action,….
_______
From Perry Williams and Jennifer Hewett….

“Australia’s biggest ever resources development, Chevron’s Gorgon liquefied natural gas project, faces a $20 billion cost blowout to more than $60 billion because of the high dollar, union demands, high-cost local manufacturing and productivity issues……

The Gorgon cost blowout means the budgets of new LNG projects in Australia and Papua New Guinea have increased by more than $35 billion since May last year.

On Monday, ExxonMobil, Oil Search and Santos raised their estimated cost of PNG LNG by $US3.3 billion to $US19 billion and cited the higher than expected Australian dollar, delays in accessing land, bad weather and logistical difficulties.

PNG LNG is just the latest in a string of cost rises among Australasia’s unprecedented line-up of LNG construction ventures.

Woodside Petroleum’s $15 billion Pluto venture ended more than a quarter over budget, while BG Group and Santos have both had to lift the cost estimates for their coal seam gas-based LNG projects in Queensland.”

http://www.afr.com/p/national/huge_lng_cost_blowout_kaLHigEKnRVunB0go7TRkJ

http://www.arcticgas.gov/2012/cost-overruns-could-hurt-competitiveness-australia-lng

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/bgdot/9244190/BG-Group-shares-hit-by-5.4bn-cost-overruns-on-Australian-LNG-project.html

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/62e4f5e8-3f84-11e2-b0ce-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2KdUKKDdT

http://www.smh.com.au/business/too-much-too-soon-has-left-lng-industry-overstretched-20120803-23kit.html

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=36651&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

http://www.forexlive.com/blog/2012/11/19/shell-having-second-thoughts-on-australian-lng-investments/

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/11/drunken-insights-lead-the-lng-debacle/

If you peruse those above links the picture becomes very clear, LNG is a welfare industry on steroids, the Australian Government will probably never get back their investment of public tax dollars

You see what is going on, imagine $300 billion is being spent on LNG facilities in Australia(It`s true), guess what, the Australian public has to surrender back to the corporation…$100 billion dollars…And if that $300 billion dollar upfront cost was really only $100 billion in value. With winks, nods and monies flowing from Company X’s left hand to the Company X’s right hand…Then in reality the tax payer is paying for everything, in other words, corporate welfare on steroids…

The exact same scenario is playing itself out in Alberta, the petroleum producers are crying about paying discounts to the refiners, paying a per-barrel discount of up to..$30 dollars per barrel, yet these oil extractors also own the refineries, in other words, Alberta Tar oil, (which is more expensive to refine because tar oil has to go through what is called an up-grader first, then on to a regular refinery) is being peddled cheap to the refiners, this allows the tar oil extractors to claim big losses in the oil patch, it allows companies to pay almost no royalties, just look at Alberta’s massive yearly deficits that have all accrued under a Stephen Harper oil obsessed Federal Government, coincidence?. Not a chance..

These so-called steep Alberta oil extract discounts are not being passed on to consumers, prices at the pump are at record highs, what we are witnessing is big corporate oil companies have figured out ways to avoid paying any taxes, one hand of a company that pays royalties to Governments loses money to avoid paying anything, the right hand of the company that refines, gets the discounts, make huge margins of money, money not subject to capital gains or royalties, it`s all a shell game designed by big oil to avoid paying any taxes, hence Alberta running its 5th straight massive multi-$billion dollar deficit, this deficit $6 billion dollars…

This linked story by Robyn Allen explains the Alberta discount oil shell game in detail

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/01/29/Canadian-Oil-Producers/)

So LNG exporters are proposing spending $150 billion dollars on LNG facilities in BC, and if like Australia the projects all balloon way over budget, let`s say they claim spending $300 billion dollars after all is said and done…..

Well, blow my socks off, I was wondering why there was delay after delay for actually starting the builds of any of the proposed LNG facilities in British Columbia, I`m not wondering anymore, the one issue front and center, securing long-term contracts from Asian buyers at lucrative prices has been a non-starter, no one will sign the papers, that reason is obvious, the price is low, there`s a world glut including China itself which has a 300 year domestic supply of natural gas, LNG exporters are just like our IPP run of river companies who did nothing, built nothing, acted only on their own behalf, laid out no money to build 1 kilowatt of power without 30 and 40 year guaranteed contracts, contracts that Gordon the thief Campbell was more than willing to sign IPP`s did not take one single risk, we, that taxpayers, the BC Hydro ratepayers were ripped off…

So anyway, here I was musing to myself as to why BC LNG exporters, why the proposed LNG exporters who by the way have already been granted export licenses haven’t pulled the go-ahead and build lever, finding countries to sign long-term energy buying contracts has been problematic at best, in other words, there are no takers…The other issue is a cheap supply of electrical power, no, make that other issue LNG exporters wanting a free supply electrical energy, LNG exporters require massive amounts of electricity to freeze natural gas, LNG producers do NOT want to use their own product to generate electricity, they want Site-C dam built and they want IPP expensive power, with a caveat, they want you the taxpayer guaranteeing the payment to IPPs for 40 years, they want this expensive niche power for virtually free, only one problem, there is no free power, these IPPs are guaranteed $140 kilowatt or more, guaranteed for 40 years, and as we are dumping excess power now, no buyers, LNG exporters are using that exact argument to justify free power, that and the we must be competitive with other countries argument..

I knew those above two issues were major stumbling blocks for the emerging corporate welfare industry, but today it was confirmed by a representative CAPP(Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) that these are issues, and more, Jeff Morrison confirmed that LNG producers, proposed builders of LNG export facilities in British Columbia, LNG pipelines, LNG terminals will not build anything unless……

Unless the BC Government and the Federal Government agree to allow 30% capital cost allowances, meaning they want a 30% subsidy on the money spent building facilities, the CAPP representative claims that unless BC and Canada MATCH the capital building allowances of Australia they won’t be able to compete…!

Blow my socks off, read again what is going on with cost over-runs in Australia, picture this, LNG facility builders(on paper) claim to spend $300 billion dollars, you taxpayers are on the hook for $100 billion dollars, meaning we the public, the Government won’t see one single $dollar of real money until we surpass $100 billion in LNG royalties paid, only after that, after the $100 billion mark in royalty revenue would we see any money at all, and I doubt we will ever see that amount of royalties paid..

And if LNG exporters, like the Tar sand diggers, claim discounts to their right arm refining buddies, if world LNG prices are so low that royalties aren`t paid at all, then we will find ourselves like Alberta, more and more environmental damage, more and more tar sand extraction and more multi-$billion dollar deficits..

[…] A representative from CAPP, Jeff Morrison speaking on behalf of BC’s LNG industry said […] LNG facility producers like Apache, Chevron, Shell, EnCana gas, all of them want and need to have the LNG industry re-classified as a manufacturing industry and be able to have the ability to write off all provincial taxes plus a 30%(To match Australia) capital expense subsidy..

And yet Christy Clark’s jobs advertising blitz, her advertising the hell out of a LNG future paved with gold, claiming $trillions of dollars for BC, millions of needed workers, the talk of lucrative Asian pricing, just build it and gold will rain from the sky, and as I and others suspected, behind the scenes, tax breaks, subsidies, capital write-offs, bribery, subtle threats, pitting country against country is going on…If this industry is so lucrative why won’t they build it on their own dime, why do they need re-classification, why the need of huge subsidies..

This is indeed a boondoggle in the works, Cheniere energy in the USA has signed long-term energy buying contracts with Asia, at about 1/3 of the proposed selling price Christy Clark and Pat Bell talk about. At $6 dollars per unit these expensive proposed British Columbia LNG freezers will never make money or even pay for themselves, let alone supply BC Governments substantial revenues..

Cue up February 11th..10:00 am, fast forward to just past the 10:30 am news..

http://www.cknw.com/news/audiovault/index.aspx

Listen to CAPP representative Jeff Morrison on cknw cry for Government handouts and subsidies, listen to Jeff Morrison using the (we must be competitive with what the Australia Government offers card) And if the next country or Province offers even more corporate tax incentives (Right movie industry?)

LNG producers can’t get long-term energy buying contracts, 2 export licenses have been already been granted, 1 of them for almost 2 years now, what are they waiting for, still nothing built, nothing started, back-room discussions are going on right now, talks about reclassifying the LNG industry to Manufacturer status which will in turn bring a 30% plus capital cost subsidy, the companies also want their own HST, the ability to write off all provincial taxes. The hold-up is about making Canadian taxpayers pay for big oil’s profits through subsidies, tax-breaks and guile. For a promise of some employment our Governments are on the verge of allowing corporate raiders to dig deep into your pockets ..

Big Corporate Oil n Gas Companies are asking British Columbians and Canadians to trust them. Look to Australia and Qatar and see this ponzi scheme being played out, or look one province over to Alberta and see them going backwards, their largest ever deficit this year, their 5th in succession, see big oil companies playing the Wildrose Province for a sucker, as their yearly provincial deficits grow and grow despite massive tar sand development..

Source: The Straight Goods

Up to 80,000 Palestinians in East Jerusalem left without tap water for three months

RT: May 31, 2014

Tens of thousands of Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem have spent three months without running water, despite petitions and calls from human rights bodies after an Israeli water utility company stopped supplies in March.

Hagihon, Jerusalem’s water utility company, stopped regular supplies of running water to several neighborhoods in occupied East Jerusalem, such as Shu’fat Refugee Camp, Ras Khamis, Ras Sh’hadeh and Dahiyat a-Salam, said a statement from the website of B’Tselem, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.

The camps are located inside Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and isolated from the rest of the city by the Separation Barrier.

According to B’Tselem, some households in these camps “have been completely cut off from the water supply” while others “receive water intermittently.”

“As for the rest, the water pressure in the pipes is so low that the water does not reach the faucets,” says the statement.

As a result, between 60,000 and 80,000 Palestinians, the majority of whom are permanent Israeli residents, have been left without a regular water supply, adds the organization.

According to B’Tselem, the fact that people have to live without a proper water supply is but “another outcome of the severe and ongoing neglect of the residents in the Jerusalem neighborhoods separated by the Separation Barrier from the rest of East Jerusalem.”

“The construction of the barrier and the isolation of these neighborhoods have led to a state of neglect even more severe than that endured by East Jerusalem neighborhoods for decades,” says the group.

Meanwhile, the local residents continue looking for running water in the camps. Families have no choice but to buy bottled water and limit their consumption – drinking, showering and laundry – to minimum.

(read the full article at RT)

—-
Alternative Free Press -fair use-

v0.1