Archive for health

Nanoparticles in our Food?

Author

Daisy Luther

If we didn’t have enough to worry about in the grocery aisles, with GMOs, toxic additives, and pesticide-soaked foods, we can now add a new concern: nanoparticles.

What exactly is a nanoparticle? You Sow, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, explains:

via Nanoparticles in our Food?.

Advertisements

Healing Modalities under attack <<Facebook

Attacks on your civil liberties will likely eventually affect your right to choose what foods you want to buy, the supplements you want to take, and the healing modalities you want to pursue to stay healthy.

Read More Here:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_27072.cfm

via Facebook.

Applaud Poland’s Decision to Ban Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Corn – ForceChange

Environment, Petitions — By on April 28, 2012 11:45 am

Target: Poland’s Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki
Goal: Support Poland’s proposed ban on Monsanto’s genetically modified corn

At the beginning of the month, Poland’s Minister of Agriculture, Marek Sawicki, announced the country’s decision to implement a complete ban on Monsanto’s genetically modified strain of maize, MON810. Mr. Sawicki’s announcement sets an important international precedent against Monsanto’s harmful genetically modified products. Since the decree outlining the ban is still in the works, it is imperative that the international community encourage Poland’s decision to prioritize environmental and public health over profit.

One of the primary reasons that Poland has decided to ban Monsanto’s strain of genetically modified corn, MON810, is because the pollen released from the crop may have a devastating effect on already dwindling bee populations. Additionally, the strain (along with other genetically modified crops) has been linked to a variety of health ailments and is considered toxic to many vital insects. To illustrate the fact, Polish beekeepers protested the use of genetically modified crops and pesticides last March by dumping thousands of dead bees, butterflies and moths on the steps of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Several other countries from the European Union, including France, Germany, Austria, Hungary and Greece, have banned the cultivation of MON810 on their territories due to concerns that it causes environmental damage. Even so, the European Commission has not reached a unified decision regarding whether or not to allow genetically modified crops. In fact, just one month before Mr. Sawicki announced Poland’s plans to ban MON810, the Danish presidency issued a proposal to allow the cultivation of genetically modified crops on the European continent. Thankfully, seven countries blocked the proposal, but a majority vote is still needed to either ban or allow genetically modified crops in the entire European Union.

Sign the petition below to show your support for Poland’s decision to ban Monsanto’s harmful strain of genetically modified corn. By doing so, perhaps other European countries will begin to put the wellbeing of farmers and the health of our ecosystem first.

PETITION LETTER

Dear Minister of Agriculture of Poland, Mr. Marek Sawicki,

I am writing to applaud your recent decision to implement a complete ban on Monsanto Company’s genetically modified strain of maize, MON810. Your announcement sets an important international precedent against Monsanto’s genetically modified products, which have been proven to be harmful for the health of vital insects, such as bees, that keep the fragile balance of our planet’s ecosystem.

I am encouraged by the opposition that Poland and many other European Union countries have expressed towards Monsanto’s genetically modified products. Yet I am disappointed that the European Commission has yet to establish whether or not to suspend authorization for growing genetically modified crops on the continent. It is my profound hope that your decision to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified corn will lead to other nations taking similar action, as the loss of bees and other important pollinators is extremely dangerous for the ecosystem and the future of our food.

Thank you for prioritizing environmental and public health over private profit.

Sincerely,

[Your Name Here]

via Applaud Poland’s Decision to Ban Monsanto’s Genetically Modified Corn – ForceChange.

Institute for Responsible Technology – Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality

Institute for Responsible Technology – Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality.

Brainwashing Techniques You Encounter Every Day (and How to Avoid Them) ››lifehacker.com

While it’s pretty unlikely that you’re a target of deliberate brainwashing, it is likely that you’re subject to some of the common techniques associated with the less-than-ethical practice. Here are a few common methods you encounter on a regular basis and what you can do to avoid them.

First things first, what is brainwashing exactly? Wikipedia offers a concise definition:

Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion, mind abuse, thought control, or thought reform) refers to a process in which a group or individual “systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated”.

  • Basically, it’s a form of extreme manipulation. We often associate the practice with cults and don’t consider its presence in everyday life, yet the techniques used in brainwashing are frequently leveraged by advertisers, news networks, politicians, and others. Alex Long, writing for hacking blog Null Byte, provides an outline of some of the most common brainwashing techniques. Here are the most notable:
  • The manipulator offers you a number of choices, but the choices all lead to the same conclusion.
  • The same idea or phrase is frequently repeated to make sure it sticks in your brain.
  • Intense intelligence-dampening is performed by providing you with constant short snippets of information on various subjects. This trains you to have a short memory, makes the amount of information feel overwhelming, and the answers provided by the manipulator to be highly desired due to how overwhelmed you feel.
  • Emotional manipulation is used to put you in a heightened state, as this makes it harder for you to employ logic. Inducing fear and anger are among the most popular manipulated emotions.

When reading this list, you’re likely able to think of a few examples of these techniques. News channels and political parties often repeat a consistent message when they want to get their point across. Short snippets of information is also a common tactic on news networks. Advertisers love to offer choices that all lead to their product, and emotional manipulation is common in people you’ll encounter as well as in most forms of media—even seemingly (and sometimes actually) harmless mediums like film. These techniques are everywhere. They aren’t turning you into a zombie, but they are informing many of your choices. The good news is that you can avoid them if you’re proactive.

How to Avoid Brainwashing Techniques

Brainwashing Techniques You Encounter Every Day (and How to Avoid Them)Avoiding brainwashing techniques often involves avoiding the brainwashers themselves, but this is next to impossible. Taking advertising as an example, you can’t avoid them all and attempting to do so can be rather expensive if you still want to watch television and movies. Your best bet is to cut out what you can and, when you can’t, seek balance. Finding balance is often easiest by simply providing yourself with the information you need. All you need to do is the following:

  1. Identify the manipulative message you’ve received.
  2. Find an opposing message, whether it’s manipulative or not. Also attempt to find the most neutral and unbiased account of that same message.
  3. Compare your different sources and decide how you feel.

Brainwashing, whether mild or extreme, is possible in a large part due to isolation. If you only hear the brainwashed message on a regular basis, and rarely (or never) expose yourself to alternatives, you’re going to be far more likely to accept what you hear without thinking. If you want to avoid the brainwashing techniques discussed in this post, your best bet is to surround yourself with a spectrum of information rather than simply settling for the message that makes you feel comfortable. After all, that’s often what the message is aiming to do.

Read the rest of this entry »

Pentagon wants $3 billion for the War in Iraq that we thought was over <<rt.com

Published: 14 February, 2012, 00:25

The American public has been told that the Iraq War is a thing of the past. Even still, the US Department of Defense is asking the federal government for almost $3 billion for “activities” in a country that they shouldn’t be in.

The last US troops were supposedly withdrawn from Iraq just before 2012 began, but after years of a war that abruptly ended this past December, the Pentagon still wants billions to continue doing…something in Iraq. According to the latest budget request, the DoD think around $2.9 billion should cover the cost of “Post-Operation NEW DAWN (OND)/Iraq Activities.”

In a report published Monday by Wired.com, they acknowledge that the funding that the Pentagon wants now is almost as bizarre as the war itself. For nearly $3 billion, the DoD says that will be able to afford “Finalizing transition” from Iraq. Only two months earlier, however, President Obama celebrated the end of the Iraqi mission. At the time, some critics called the ending of the war as more of a catapult for Obama re-election campaign than anything else. Now with the revelation that the US Defense Department still wants billions for a war America is told it isn’t fighting, the alleged ending of Operation New Dawn seems just as questionable as its mysterious beginning.

After “ending” the war last year, the US government handed Iraqi operations over to the State Department. Three billion dollars — the amount that the DoD wants for a war they aren’t waging — makes up around one-ninth of the State Department’s entire annual budget. In 2012, the Pentagon had asked for $11 billion to fight the War in Iraq — which was, at the time, an actual war.

But as the death toll stands at over 4,000 US casualties after nearly eight years overseas, it is clear by the latest cash request that the US, as many had expected but had not hoped, is not ready to just walk away just yet.

On the bright side, it might be easier to foot the cost of this make-believe war than you would think. Suspiciously, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction announced in January that upwards of $2 billion that the US was holding onto for Iraq had mysteriously disappeared.

via http://rt.com/usa/news/billion-war-iraq-us-215/

Sarkozy will Akw-Laufzeiten auf mehr als 40 Jahre verlängern <<finanzen.net

PARIS (dpa-AFX) – Der französische Präsident Nicolas Sarkozy will die Laufzeiten der 58 Atomreaktoren im Lande über die vorgesehenen 40 Jahre hinaus verlängern. “Die Entscheidung ist gefallen”, sagte Industrieminister Eric Besson am Sonntag. Allerdings muss die Atomaufsicht zustimmen.

Frankreich bezieht drei Viertel seines Stroms aus Akw und Sarkozy ist ein harter Verfechter der Kernkraft. Sein Herausforderer bei der Präsidentenwahl im Mai, der Sozialist François Hollande, will den Anteil der Kernkraft dagegen bis 2025 auf 50 Prozent drücken.
In den kommenden zehn Jahren erreichen 22 Reaktoren ihre geplante Lebensdauer von 40 Jahren. Um sie zu ersetzen, wären elf Meiler des neuen Typs Europäischer Druckwasserreaktor (EPR) nötig, von dem allerdings noch keiner funktioniert: Die ersten EPR werden gerade in Finnland und Frankreich gebaut. Der staatliche Energiekonzern Electricite de France (EdF) will die Laufzeiten auf 60 Jahre verlängern. Dies würde pro Reaktor 680 bis 860 Millionen Euro kosten, ein Bruchteil der Milliardenkosten eines EPR. Dabei spielt auch eine Rolle, dass der Bau des EPR sich nicht nur als unerwartet teuer, sondern auch als unkalkulierbar langwierig und schwierig erwiesen hat./cbf/DP/nmu

via http://www.finanzen.net/nachricht/aktien/Sarkozy-will-Akw-Laufzeiten-auf-mehr-als-40-Jahre-verlaengern-1644530

Neotame the next aspartame? FDA doesn’t require labeling of latest chemical sweetener from Monsanto <<naturalnews.com

Thursday, February 09, 2012 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

(NaturalNews) It could be lurking in the foods you eat every single day, including U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) certified organic foods, and you would never even know it. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that one of Monsanto’s latest creations, a synthetic sweetener chemical known as neotame, does not have to be labeled in food products, including even in organic food products.

A modified version of aspartame with even more added toxicity, neotame received quiet and unassuming FDA approval back in 2002, even though no safety studies have ever been conducted on the chemical (http://www.neotame.com/pdf/neotame_fda_US.pdf). In fact, an investigation conducted by Feingold.org found only four studies relating to neotame in the MEDLINE database.

Two of these “studies” were not studies at all, and the other two were actually one duplicate study conducted by NutraSweet, the company that produces and sells neotame.

So just like with aspartame, the FDA has once again approved for use a dangerous sweetener chemical that metabolizes into formaldehyde when consumed. Except this time, the chemical contains added 3-dimethylbutyl, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has listed as one of the most hazardous known chemicals, and it does not have to be labeled on any of the products to which it is added.

“Neotame has similar structure to aspartame — except that, from it’s structure, appears to be even more toxic than aspartame,” writes HolisticMed.com on its page about neotame. “Like aspartame, some of the concerns include gradual neurotoxic and immunotoxic damage from the combination of the formaldehyde metabolite (which is toxic at extremely low doses) and the excitotoxic amino acid” (http://www.holisticmed.com/neotame/toxin.html).

The FDA, the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), and the World Health Organization (WHO) all consider neotame to be safe for use, despite the fact that WHO actually published a paper seeking to establish acceptable daily intake levels for neotame. If neotame is so safe that it does not even have to be labeled, according to the FDA, then why do acceptable daily intake levels have to be established? And what is the point of establishing them in the first place?

This dog and pony show of special interest regulatory corruption is a travesty that will have global negative health consequences. Like most other toxins added to foods, neotame will most likely cause chronic damage over a long period of time, which means mainstream health authorities will get away with never having to admit that neotame is a dangerous toxin.

Sources for this article include:

http://articlesofhealth.blogspot.com

http://www.gaia-health.com

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/034915_neotame_Monsanto_sweeteners.html#ixzz1m5PJlF1T
%d bloggers like this: