Sunday, December 28, 2008

The dirty portfolios of the pesticides industry....And More

16 June 2008
Greenpeace European Unit
The dirty portfolios of the pesticides industry
Product evaluation and ranking of leading agrochemical companies
Many of the pesticides used globally pose high risks to human healthand the environment. Moreover, a great number of them cannot beassessed due to lack of publicly available toxicity data. What isworse, many of them cannot be routinely analysed by state laboratoriesand thus it is not known to what extent they contaminate food and theenvironment.
In this report, the pesticide portfolios of the five top globalpesticide companies - Bayer Crop Science, BASF, Dow Agro-Science,Monsanto and Syngenta - which together represent about three quartersof the global pesticide market, are investigated and compared. Itreveals which of these companies have the "blackest" pesticideportfolios and which companies have the highest detrimental impact onhuman health and the environment. This report is the first ranking ofthe leading pesticides producers based on environmental and healthrisk and hazard criteria.
Download DocumentAuthors: Greenpeace GermanyDate published: 16 June 2008Format: Adobe PDFNumber of pages: 62ISBN:Size: 1013 Kb
http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/reports/dirty-portfolios-of-pesticides-companies
==============================
December 28, 2008
From the Los Angeles TimesOpinionChemicals: Our champions, our killersAn environmental lawyer who fought toxic chemicals all his life has todepend on them in a fight for his life.
By Al Meyerhoff
I have leukemia. Those must be among the most frightening words in theEnglish language. My particular form of the disease, called acutemyeloid leukemia, was diagnosed a few weeks ago. It was a shock butnot a complete surprise. About a year ago, I was found to have a rareblood disorder called myelodysplastic syndrome, which attacks redblood cells, causing anemia. My form of that disorder had only about a5% chance of morphing into AML. It beat the odds.
Leukemia was once a death sentence. No more. Through a combination ofchemotherapy and a stem cell transplant, it now is actually curable.Sometimes.
It's a surreal experience, one day having dinner with friends, thenext in a hospital bed for Thanksgiving, hoping to stay among theliving. But that's where I am writing this, while having some of themost toxic chemicals known to man pumped into my bloodstream.Voluntarily.
There is some irony to this. You see, I am an environmental lawyer,and I have spent much of the last 25 years doing battle with thechemical companies, including seeking to ban (sometimes successfully)various toxic chemicals, some strikingly similar to those I am nowingesting. Timing is everything.
There is no organic chemotherapy. In fact, I think of these chemicalsas my soldiers in a war going on in my blood. A war on cancer, if youwill. The old industry slogan was right: Without chemicals, lifeitself would be impossible.
I also think of myself as a zucchini in my garden, being attacked byfungus. That's because fungus, like leukemia, works at the cellularlevel. It eats away at a plant's cells, eventually killing it.Fungicides, such as the ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (or EBDCs, whichI tried unsuccessfully to get banned as potent carcinogens), attackthe fungus and save the plant. Sometimes. But the fungi fight back andbecome resistant to the chemical. So do cancer cells.
Chemicals. They are everywhere. They have enormous benefits (seeabove). Those benefits come with enormous risks. Those of us who havecomplained about the latter are often referred to by the industry as"chemophobes."
Rachel Carson, when she wrote "Silent Spring," was probably the firstchemophobe, and the industry launched a massive and eventuallyunsuccessful campaign to defame her. They are back, by the way,attacking again some 50 years after her premature death from breastcancer. That's one reason why it is still hard for me to think of themas my champions.
Since World War II, we have experienced a petrochemical revolution inthe United States and around the world. Chemical use has exploded, andwe are exposed to numerous substances every day -- in the drugs wetake, the toothpaste we use, in the places we work, the toys we buyour kids, the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breath.Benzene, one such substance -- a known human carcinogen and airpollutant in Los Angeles -- causes leukemia. It makes you wonder.
Some chemicals, like benzene, have been discovered over time to becarcinogenic, but contrary to popular belief, except forpharmaceuticals and to some degree pesticides, the vast majority ofthe approximately 50,000 commercial and industrial chemicals currentlybeing used are not subject to any pre-market approval or testing forlong-term health effects. No one is checking first to see whether theycause cancer, birth defects or genetic mutations that might lead tocancer in future generations. They are simply out there by thebillions of pounds (last year, 4 billion pounds of pesticides wereadded to our environment, some but not all tested for health andenvironmental effects).
This is what is charitably called the "data gap" -- a paucity ofinformation about the toxicity of these products and the effects ofour exposure to them. Without such knowledge, all efforts toeffectively regulate them are doomed to fail.
These "gaps" are not a secret. They were supposed to be filled morethan 30 years ago when Congress passed a woefully inadequate lawcalled the Toxic Substances Control Act. Guess what? It didn't controlthe toxic substances.
A high priority for the Obama administration should be a fundamentalrewrite of the Toxic Substances Control Act -- perhaps along the linesof the European REACH pact that the U.S. has opposed. The REACH pactmandates testing of the suspected worst actors among chemicals andthen phasing them out -- without the full-blown trials the substancescontrol act now requires in the United States.
All in all, it's hard for me to feel warm and cuddly about thechemical companies that have resisted reform for decades. And yet hereI sit (or lie), counting on them to save me from leukemia.
Al Meyerhoff died Dec. 21, at age 61, of complications from leukemia.He was a prominent Los Angeles environmental and labor lawyer, and aformer director of the public health program of the Natural ResourcesDefense Council. He was also a frequent contributor to The Times' Op-Ed page.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-meyerhoff28-2008dec28,0,1958125.story
==============================
Originally published December 28 2008
Celebrities are Smarter than "Skeptical Scientists" When it Comes toHealth Literacyby Mike Adams, NaturalNews Editor
(NaturalNews) The science "skeptics" are at it again, attacking thecredibility of celebrities who they say demonstrate astonishing levelsof scientific illiteracy. Barack Obama, Oprah, Tom Cruise, Demi Moore,Kate Moss and Julianne Moore have all been labeled scientificallyilliterate by the UK non-profit Sense About Science, which you'lllearn more on below.
What, exactly, did these celebrities say that earned them thedistinction of being labeled scientifically illiterate?
Julianne Moore warned people about using personal care productscontaining toxic chemicals. But according to Sense About Science,apparently, there's no such thing as a dangerous chemical in personalcare products because all the chemicals have been "rigorously tested"and approved (false).
Tom Cruise was blasted yet again for describing modern psychiatry ascommitting "crimes against humanity." Sense About Science, on theother hand, believes it's no crime at all to dose six-month oldinfants with mind-altering psychotropic drugs that are linked toviolent behavior. It's all scientifically supported, didn't you know?
President-elect Barack Obama made some comments during his pre-election campaigns that indicated he wanted to look into possiblelinks between vaccines and autism. But these days, anyone who evenquestions the safety of vaccines is immediately labeled either a quackor scientifically illiterate by the conventional medical community,and Sense About Science is no exception: They believe vaccines are100% safe and that the dramatic rise in autism that has closelytracked the rise in vaccinations is pure coincidence.
Kate Moss and Demi Moore were attacked over the idea that superfooddiets could somehow "detoxify" the body. Sense About Science believesthere's no such thing as a "toxic" body, since all the chemicalspeople eat are safe to begin with. Thus, they claim there is no way todetoxify the blood or the body in the first place, and foods (orjuices) are nutritionally inert, apparently.
How to get a grip on the idiocy of scientific skepticsAt this point, any intelligent person reading this must be scratchingtheir heads, wondering what, exactly, do these Non-Sense About Sciencescientists actually believe? And to understand that, you have to getinto the heads of people I call the Skeptical Scientists (SS).
Skeptical Scientists hold some rather bizarre beliefs. Here are someof the more entertaining highlights:
• They believe that there's no such thing as a dangerous chemical inany food, medicine or personal care product. All chemicals used insuch products are totally harmless and have been rigorously tested forsafety, they (falsely) claim. In other words, all the followingchemicals are 100% safe: Aspartame, MSG, sodium nitrite, Bisphenol-A,chemical solvents, fragrance chemicals, petrochemical derivatives,artificial coloring chemicals, chemical sweeteners andpreservatives... these are all perfectly safe according to the SS! Ohyeah, melamine, mercury and fluoride are all safe, too.
• At the same time, there are some things that are terribly, terriblydangerous to human health. Can you guess what they might be? Vitamins,herbs, nutritional supplements and superfood powders. Anything made bya "health" company is automatically declared dangerous by the SS.
• But what about foods? Couldn't they be useful to human health? Nope:Foods are inert, according to the SS. There is no such thing as anyfood, superfood or food supplement that has any positive effectwhatsoever on the human body. It is biochemically impossible, say theSkeptical Scientists, for a food to be beneficial to human health.Food is good for nothing more than calories, and all calories are thesame (eating refined white sugar is the same as eating a raw apple,for example).
• In fact, the human body doesn't need food as much as it needspharmaceuticals. Humans are born in a state of medication deficiency,the SS claim, and it can only be balanced by dripping fluoride intothe water supply, or drugging children with SSRIs, or putting peopleon statin drugs even when they're perfectly healthy. Pharmaceuticalsare now one of the five basic food groups, didn't you know?
• While vitamins and supplements may kill you, chemotherapy isactually good for you, the SS believe. Yep: Those chemicals that makeyour hair fall out while you're vomiting yesterday's liquid dinner andwasting away are actually nutritious! And don't you dare take anyantioxidants while you're being treated with chemotherapy, becausethose antioxidants might be dangerous!
• According to the Skeptical Scientists, any health-related therapythat doesn't involve poisoning, slicing or drugging a patient isautomatic quackery. Chiropractic care, massage therapy, acupuncture,Rolfing and yoga are all nonsensical hogwashery, they claim. Whatpatients really need is to be poisoned with drugs, irradiated,medicated, fed more hospital food and sent home with fifteen differentprescription drugs that are all perfectly safe when taken incombination, they claim.
• The human body cannot be "detoxified" with superfoods or juicediets, they insist, because there's nothing toxic in the human body tobegin with. All those drugs, medications, food additives andenvironmental chemicals lodged in peoples' hearts and kidneys aren'tactually bad for you, didn't you know? They're harmless according tothe SS, and anybody who says you need to "detoxify" your body isobviously running a scam.
Yes, indeed, the agents of quackery have taken over the SkepticalScience community. They've never met an FDA-approved pharmaceuticalthey didn't like, nor a natural health modality they didn't hate. Theybelieve vaccines are perfectly safe, but feeding a child amultivitamin is dangerous. There are no toxic chemicals in anythingother than vitamins, they say, and the only reason so many childrenare diseased today is because they don't yet have enough drugs inthem!
How to become a Skeptical Scientist in five easy stepsIf all this makes good sense to you, you might find yourselfwondering, "Gee, how can I become a Skeptical Scientist, too?"
Being a Skeptical Scientist is lots of fun, after all: You get to takemoney from drug companies (and they're rich!) while wearing a whitelab coat and running around with an inflated ego, bashing celebritiesfor making statements about health that violate your fabricatedmedical authority.
For those who want to get on board with the Skeptical Scientistmovement, I've developed a simple five-step process to get yourstarted:
Step 1: Get a lobotomy
This is easier to accomplish than you think. As full-frontallobotomies are still being carried out today in the psychiatricindustry (although they aren't called lobotomies anymore), all youhave to do is act like you have a psychiatric disorder, and beforelong, they'll carry you away for "treatment." How can you fake apsychiatric disorder? It's simple: Just publicly declare youropposition to vaccines, and you'll be considered absolutely looney.
Step 2: Go to medical school
It's important that you complete step one by getting a lobotomy beforeproceeding to step two and going to med school. You won't survive inmed school if your entire brain is intact, because you mightaccidentally think for yourself. It's best to enter the school with amental handicap that's just severe enough to prevent you from engagingyour own thinking skills but not so severe that you can't regurgitatethe new propaganda being taught to you. You still have to pass theiracademic tests, after all.
Step 3: Start a non-profit funded by drug companies
This is the fun part: Just start a non-profit and give it someinnocent-sounding name like "Consumers for Free Choice" or "Sciencefor a Better World" and then hit up all the wealthy drug companies formillions of dollars in donations, promising to push their pro-drugagenda onto the public.
Step 4: Start issuing official press releases
Once your non-profit is up and running, start issuing press releasesabout how scientifically illiterate celebrities are, or how dangerousvitamins are, or how many lives could be saved with yet more screeningfor "adults with ADHD." It hardly matters what you say; the mainstreammedia will reprint your press releases as fact, not even bothering tofact-check a single statement you make. You might even get onDrudgeReport, who has now become a pusher of the Big Pharma agenda byspreading lies about "scientific illiteracy."
Step 5: Proclaim your position to be non-debatable
Here's the best part of all this: Once you decide on a position todefend -- such as supporting mandatory vaccinations of all teenagegirls, or supporting the wearing of pink flowery thong underwear byall medical personnel -- simply declare it to be the "inarguabletruth" and refuse to debate anyone on scientific grounds.
Whether the issue is the toxicity of mercury in dental fillings, themass-fluoridation of the public through the water supply, or mandatoryvaccination policies, simply declare yourself to be the champion ofalmighty righteousness, wiser than God himself, and dismiss anyone whodisagrees with you as being scientifically illiterate.
This is easier to pull off if you have more letters after your name,such as Dr. Jack Meov, M.D. PhD. Id. IoT.
This is a brilliant defense against those who might attack yourposition, because by declaring yourself to be the only source ofauthority on the subject of health, you can dismiss any evidence thatthreatens your position as being woefully misinformed. If you evermeet anybody who was actually cured of cancer by natural remedies, forexample, just declare it to be "spontaneous" and continue rantingagainst cancer cure quackery.
In fact, it is at this stage that you no longer need to be right atall. Logic is now irrelevant, as is scientific fact. All truth is nowprotected be declaration, without any need for supporting evidence.Never again will you have to answer to opposing views, critics or thelaws of physical reality. You simply state whatever belief you wishwere really true, and your statement alone grants it scientificstanding.
At this point, you will be invited to write articles for medicaljournals and have them approved by your "peers" who also believe thesame things you do. Don't worry: The medical journals won't publishany competing or dissenting papers, so you'll be among SkepticalScientist friends there, too. You don't even have to reveal yoursecret financial ties to drug companies.
Let's face it: Being a Skeptical Scientist can be a whole lot of fun!Where else do you get to rewrite the rules of physical reality and cona whole planet full of people at the same time?
Some proposed new ideas for the Skeptical ScientistsYou might think the SS have already taken all the really loony ideasto defend, such as supporting gunpoint vaccination policies, orarresting parents who try to protect their children from chemotherapy.Or dripping toxic fluorosilicic acid into public water supplies...
But actually, there are a great many more loony ideas to get behind ifyou're interested in joining the Skeptical Scientist community.
For example, with so many children dying of cancer these days, why notget behind mandatory preventive chemotherapy in children? You couldargue that ALL children should be put on small doses of chemotherapyas a way to prevent cancer and "save lives!" Get laws passed making itmandatory and label all dissenters as "quacks." Have the parentsarrested if they refuse to inject their children with chemotherapy.Heck, why not just call it something cute like, "Kemo for Kids!"
Better yet, you could probably get municipal water treatmentfacilities to drip chemotherapy chemicals into the water supply inorder to make sure everyone gets their "therapy."
Or how about this one: Since antioxidants in food interfere withchemotherapy, you could argue that all foods containing antioxidantsshould be banned. It would be a major medical accomplishment to getrid of green tea, blueberries, broccoli and raw sprouts, therebysaving chemotherapy patients from the devastating effects ofantioxidants.
Funny how their beliefs happen to coincide with profitsThis is the logic of the Skeptical Scientists (SS). There's nothingfrom the world of nature that's good for you, and there's nothing fromthe world of chemicals that's bad for you.
In fact, if you want to simplify it all and accurately predict exactlywhich things the SS will advocate versus which things they'll oppose,it's quite simple: They advocate all those things that bring themprofits and power (vaccines, chemotherapy, mammography, psychiatricmedication, etc.) while opposing all those things that compete withtheir profits or power (sunlight, superfoods, nutritional therapies,compounding pharmacies, etc.).
If shoving a broomstick up your butt could be profitized andmonopolized by these people, they'd declare it to be a valuablemedical therapy and argue that everyone should have it done on aregular basis. (But alas, this therapy has only caught on at Gitmo,which is run by a whole different brand of criminal-mindedauthorities...)
The SS are responsible for untold human sufferingAll jokes aside, let's get to the serious truth in all this: TheseSkeptical Scientists who oppose everything natural and promoteeverything chemical are directly responsible for the suffering anddeath of millions of people a year.
By attacking the credibility of natural therapies while declaringtoxic chemicals to be safe, they gravely misinform consumers who mayultimately be harmed or killed by following the advice of these"experts." When they say that vaccines are perfectly safe, or thatsunlight is dangerous, or that vitamin E will kill you, what they'rereally doing is advocating a culture of death that will result in agreat loss of human life.
Beyond being mere agents of death and suffering, these SkepticalScientists are the very worst kind of quacks, too. Not merely becausethey promote quackery, but because they do so from a position ofdelusional authority! In the minds of most consumers, you see, theylend credibility to the ridiculous: That smothering your baby withtoxic chemicals in personal care products is harmless, or that takingnutritional supplements is dangerous.
These are the same quacks that, a generation ago, insisted thatsmoking cigarettes was good for your health. A few generations beforethat, they sold Bayer Heroin for Children as a cough medicine. Theseare the same dopes who promoted thalidomide for pregnant woman andsaccharin as a "safe" sweetener. The chemical quackery persists, evenif the names of the chemicals change.
Read your history about leaded gasoline or Teflon or aspartame. Thestory is always the same: Corporate-controlled quacks declare thechemicals to be perfectly safe while discrediting safer, more naturalchoices.
And some of today's most notorious quacks are apparently working onbehalf of Nonsense About Science, which goes out of its way to attackcelebrities who are actually offering valuable health advice to thepublic.
GM Foods really are dangerous. Just ask the rats who ate them. Ornot... because they're already dead.
The mercury in dental fillings and vaccines really does cause autismand other neurological disorders.
Toxic chemicals in perfumes, cosmetics and personal care productsreally do cause cancer. (But not according to the companies that sellthem, surprised?)
Nutritional supplements really are good for you, and takingdetoxification herbs, juices and quality vitamins really can eliminatehuge quantities of heavy metals.
In fact, just plain old common sense tells you these SS people arebonkers. Chemical are good for you but nutrition is bad for you?Bizarre.
It makes me wonder how a person even gets to that point.
The SS live in the world of self delusion...I've really tried to see the world from the point of view of theseSkeptical Scientists. But I just can't seem to deactivate parts of mybrain long enough to pull it off. Every time I try to imagine that I'ma pro-vaccine, pro-pharma, pro-GM food, pro-chemical "scientist," Ican't get past the part about the laws of biochemistry and how suchchemicals cause such harm to the body of humans (or practically anybiological organism, for that matter).
I mean, if I were going to apply the same psychotic logic to, let'ssay, the laws of gravity, I suppose I could toss a marble into the airand then IMAGINE it's not falling back down to the closest planetarymass (which just happens to be planet Earth, since that's where I'mstanding), and maybe I could even hold a press conference and insistthat the marble would never come back down, but if I just opened myeyes and actually looked at the marble, I'd eventually have toacknowledge the reality that the laws of gravity do, indeed, workquite well and the marble is falling back towards the Earth (don't getinto the quantum world on me here, folks, I'm talking about a macrolevel of observation from the perspective of a human being).
No matter how hard I try, I just can't subscribe to the level of selfdelusion necessary to convincingly believe that a marble I toss intothe air will never fall back to the Earth. Neither can I believe thatHRT drugs aren't harming aquatic ecosystems, or that pesticides aren'tlinked to neurological disorders, or that the human body is somehowdeficient in psychiatric medications.
Apparently, some scientists are much better at the self delusion thingthan I am, because they can weave verbal illusions on command, at any(paid) speaking engagement or (paid) media appearance or (paid)Continuing Medical Education event. Money, it seems, greatly enhancesthe ability to or arrogant people to delude themselves into thinkingtheir B.S. is true and convincing others of the same.
That's why, at a financial level, I'm happy to announce thatNaturalNews continues to barely scrape by. We're not making any money,and in my five years of writing for NaturalNews, I've never been paida dime to write a single article or review any product. Where we haveaffiliate relationships (with newsletter publishers, for example), Ialways disclose them, unlike the "scientific" community where membershabitually hide their financial ties to the corporations they'reprostituting for.
NaturalNews isn't wealthy. We've got no sponsors. Even the relatedservices we've launched like Health Book Summaries(www.HealthBookSummaries.com) are far from breaking even. A lot ofwhat we do here is purely for the benefit of the public, and we'llnever earn a million dollars telling the truth in a world run by evilcorporations and their medical puppets, but we have one thing goingfor us here at NaturalNews: The laws of nature.
The laws of Nature override the SSYou see, the laws of nature reveal that sunlight is good for you, notbad for you. You need sunlight to survive. Go without sunlight forlong enough and you'll end up with weak bones and a bad case ofdepression.
The laws of nature state that mercury is bad for you. Therefore,injecting mercury into your blood, or filling your mouth with mercuryis automatically bad for you, too. (Because whatever's in your mouthfor that long ends up leaking into your tissues...)
The laws of nature state that an economy running on disease andchemical contamination is unsustainable and will eventually implode.The downfall of the United State of America and its sick care systemis now inevitable. It is a law of nature that you cannot createabundance and health by keeping people sick and misinformed.
The laws of nature state that whatever humans unleash onto the worldaround them will come back to destroy them. Whether it's chemicals inthe water, or emissions in the air or the destruction of delicateecosystems, those actions initiate reactions that humans will findquite undesirable: The topsoil blows away, the oceans die, the weatherpatterns get more radical and crops fail, the viruses escape into thewild, the food supply collapses, the fossil fuels become scarce,fertility plummets... whatever.
The Skeptical Scientists, of course, say none of this is a threat tohuman life. Just keep on poisoning your bodies, poisoning the land,the air, the water and the entire planet. There's no harm in it, theysay, especially when important companies are making a buck. So whyworry?
But the laws of nature hold a higher authority than the laws of Man.And Man's laws become instantly irrelevant when the laws of natureseek balance.
Isaac Newton and the 2060 apocalypseEvery action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's a quote fromIsaac Newton that's taught in every high school physics class. Yetsomehow, by the time these Skeptical Scientists graduate from college,they've forgotten Newton's Third Law. They've also forgotten (or werenever taught) that Isaac Newton himself wrote extensively on theapocalypse, authoring several treatises that predicted the destructionof the world by 2060. Read more about that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newt...
I'm not saying I agree with Newton on the apocalypse, but isn't itinteresting that one of the greatest "scientific minds" in the historyof science created a kind of Bible code that interpreted scripturesinto a prediction of the end of the world?
Not surprisingly, this side of Newton is never taught in the halls ofacademia, nor is it acknowledged by the Skeptical Scientists. Justlike they do with all evidence they cross paths with, theyconveniently delete anything that doesn't support their predeterminedviews. In doing so, they discard the very information they sodesperately need in order to light a fire under a scientificrevolution that would enhance the understanding of the natural worldand embrace new knowledge about health that could enhance the lives ofpeople across the planet.
But as is explained in the book The Structure of ScientificRevolutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_...), science doesnot advance by the merit of new ideas. Rather, science primarilyadvances by the death of those who cling to the outmoded falsehoodsthey've invested their careers in!
In other words -- and this is no exaggeration whatsoever -- scienceusually advances at the pace at which scientists die!
And thus the pathway to scientific advancement becomes quite coherent:The deaths (or at least the retirements) of the authoritative few whocling to the falsehood of "better living through chemistry" is aprerequisite to the advancement of scientific knowledge in modernhuman civilization.
We should feel fortunate, then, that these people follow their ownadvice and take no vitamins. They bathe themselves in the verychemicals they advocate, and they avoid sunlight at all costs. Likecreatures of the night, they slither from one high-paying career toanother, hawking the very toxic chemicals accumulating in their ownblood. And in the end, they will die of their own hands as the verychemicals they promoted to a polluted world command their bodies tocease functioning.
And in that moment of death, when that arrogance fades, and the beingsthey once were transform into the soulless physical matter they alwaysbelieved represented the limits of human experience... when their lastbreath escapes as a meek whisper into the universe, they willexperience a glimpse of enlightenment and realize, for the first time,that they were eternally wrong.
Their lives were spent as puppets of destruction. And without themdefending their long-extinct beliefs, the world will finally be freeto move forward and embrace a revolutionary scientific understandingof reality where health triumphs over disease and health knowledgetriumphs over health illiteracy (which is widespread among thescientific community, by the way).
By the way, in no way am I hinting that anyone should accelerate thedeaths of the Skeptical Scientists, even if that is the pathway tobeneficial scientific revolutions. These things need to be allowed tohappen their own way, in their own time. Besides, these people arekilling themselves and each other at a rapid pace anyway, thanks tothe fact that they follow their own health advice. There's no need tointerfere with the self destruction of an entire profession.
Why modern medicine is 80 years behindLet's face it, though: While physics advanced quite rapidly from theNewtonian view of the world to a quantum view of the world in the 20thcentury, the medical industry stayed stubbornly stuck in thebiochemical / biophysical model of reality. Modern medicine isprobably 80 years behind where it could have been if thepharmaceutical companies and the AMA hadn't hijacked western medicineand destroyed competing health therapies.
So we're overdue for a revolution in medical science.
The last big revolution came in the years following the invention ofthe microscope. Once the scope was invented, germs could suddenly beseen. Skeptical Scientists thought "germs" were a bunch of hogwash upuntil then, by the way. Invisible creatures that cause disease? Getreal. Sounds like quackery... But once the microscope was invented,suddenly the "germ theory" of disease became the very foundation ofmedicine, and it continues to this day with such persistence thatmodern medicine is still looking for things like a "vaccine forcancer" -- an idea that's ludicrous from the start.
I predict the next great revolution in medicine will follow theinvention of a new device that can allow scientists to visualizebioenergy fields. If energy flow could be readily seen and studied, itwould unleash a wave of new scientific research into Chi-Gong,meditation, yoga, high-vibration foods, mind/body medicine,homeopathy, magnetism, prayer, the placebo effect and much more.
That invention may be decades away, however. So don't hold yourbreath. Or if you do, make sure you count to four while you're holdingit, and then slowly exhale while counting to eight.
http://www.naturalnews.com/z025182.html
==============================Warning Industry Propaganda Below==============================
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Montreal Gazette
Right-Wing ChemistryA light holiday quiz about gas
by JOE SCHWARCZ
This quiz is a gas!
What gas can be used to keep packaged meat looking bright red?
Carbon monoxide. The browning of meat occurs when myoglobin, theoxygen storage compound in muscle tissue, reacts with oxygen in theair to form metmyoglobin. This reaction can be prevented by spikingpackaged meat with carbon monoxide, a gas that reacts with myoglobinto form stable, bright red carboxymyoglobin. Such "modified atmospherepackaging" can keep meat looking red for weeks. Opponents of thistechnology claim that the practice deceives consumers into believingthat their meat is fresh even beyond the point where spoilage has setin. The meat industry maintains that modified atmosphere packagingactually prevents bacterial growth by excluding oxygen and that thetechnology saves consumers money.
More than a billion dollars' worth of meat is discarded annuallybecause people will not buy meat that has a tinge of brown, eventhough it is safe to eat. Canada does not allow the use of carbonmonoxide in meat production, but it is permitted in the U.S., althoughopposition is mounting. The movement to ban the practice isspearheaded by a company that produces herbal extracts that retard theeffects of oxidation and is obviously in direct competition with thecarbon monoxide technology.
What gas used in agriculture was marked to be phased out by theMontreal Protocol of 1987?
Methyl bromide. The Montreal Protocol is an international treaty aimedat protecting the ozone layer. Since ozone in the stratosphere filtersout ultraviolet light, its destruction results in increased incidenceof skin cancer and damage to crops. By 1987, a number of chlorine andbromine containing compounds with ozone destructive potential had beenidentified, with methyl bromide ranking high on the list. In fact,methyl bromide can destroy ozone at a rate 50 times faster than thenotorious chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). But the problem with phasing outmethyl bromide is its extreme usefulness as a pesticide. Farmers havelong used it to eradicate fungi, microbes, nematode worms and weeds byfumigating the soil before planting. Methyl bromide has also been usedto protect stored grain from rats and insects and protect wood fromtermite infestation.
No single substance can adequately replace this chemical, but thereare alternatives for most uses. These range from heat treatment andirradiation to such chemicals as phosphine, sulphuryl fluoride andmethyl isothiocyanate, each of which comes with some baggage. For someapplications there are no alternatives and exemptions for "criticaluse" have been granted. Strawberry, pepper and tomato growers, forexample, have been granted exemptions to deal with certain plantdiseases.
What gas derives its name from the Greek word for smell?
Ozone. Swiss chemist Christian Friedrich Schonbein named the gas afterthe Greek word "ozein" for smell back in 1840. Schonbein noted aparticular odour while carrying out an experiment on the electrolysisof water and surmised that some sort of gas had formed when he turnedon the electrical equipment. This same odour can be noted in thevicinity of a photocopying machine and is also the "fresh" smellproduced by a thunderstorm. In these instances oxygen molecules, O2,are broken down into their component oxygen atoms, which then reactwith other oxygen molecules to form ozone, O3.
Ozone is an excellent example of how the same substance can be eitheruseful or problematic. In the upper atmosphere, ozone protects us fromexcessive ultraviolet light, but at ground level, where it forms whensunlight reacts with automobile exhaust, it is a nasty pollutant.Ozone can cause respiratory problems, it can reduce the lifetime ofrubber tires and it plays a role in smog formation. On the other hand,ozone can be used to purify water, eliminating some of the problemsassociated with chlorination. It can also decontaminate operatingrooms after surgeries, get rid of the smell of smoke after fires andbleach wood pulp, reducing the need for chlorine or chlorine dioxide.
Why do farmers set up surveillance cameras around their anhydrousammonia fertilizer tanks?
Anhydrous ammonia is used in the clandestine synthesis ofmethamphetamine, and farmers' supplies make for an attractive targetfor thieves. Ammonia gas can be directly introduced into soil andserves as an excellent source of nitrogen. The gas can be compressedto a liquid and stored in large tanks from which it is transferred tomobile tanks for pumping into the ground. As soon as the pressure isreleased, the liquid ammonia changes into a gas, which immediatelydissolves in water in the soil from where it is readily absorbed byplants.
Liquid ammonia is a very dangerous, corrosive substance, the sales ofwhich are carefully controlled. It isn't easy for criminals topurchase it, hence the thievery from farms. Many a crook, though, haspaid dearly for an attempted theft. Ignorance of the proper handlingof liquid ammonia, or transferring it into tanks not capable ofwithstanding high pressure can result in serious injury and evendeath. There have also been cases of farmers being hurt after thethief failed to close the ammonia tank properly. And there is anotherreason for placing surveillance cameras and warning signs aroundliquid ammonia tanks. Amazingly, if a thief is injured trying to stealsome ammonia, the farmer may be liable if insufficient precautions hadbeen taken.
Before hydrogen was discovered, what was the lightest naturallyoccurring gas?
Hydrogen. The existence of the gas does not hinge on its discovery,which is credited to the English chemist Henry Cavendish. Hydrogen isbelieved to have been produced during the Big Bang and permeated theuniverse, eventually forming numerous compounds, including of course,water on Earth.
Because the gas is so light, the gravitational pull of Earth was notstrong enough to prevent most of the hydrogen in the atmosphere fromescaping into space. But even today our atmosphere contains about fivelitres of hydrogen for every 100 million litres of air.
© The Gazette (Montreal) 2008
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/insight/story.html?id=44978a61-cb14-452c-a15f-115ef2cebf29
============================== Best Blogger Tips
  • Stumble This Post
  • Save Tis Post To Delicious
  • Share On Reddit
  • Fave On Technorati
  • Buzz This Post
  • Tweet This Post
  • Digg This Post
  • Share On Facebook
Blog Gadgets

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

St. John's Daily Spray Advisory

My Past Articles

More enforcement needed for pesticide spray regulations
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 413 words
Karen Griffin - Judie Squires says someone needs to patrol the companies that spray residential areas for pesticides because she's observed nine violations of the Environmental Protection Act in her Paradise neighborhood alone


Spray woes: Province falling down on monitoring pesticides
The Telegram (St. John's) - Final - 10-01-2002 - 253 words
Judie Squires - environment to become poisoned? A temporary ban on all residential pesticides has to be put into place, to protect us, our wildlife and our environment as a whole. Judie Squires Paradise


Government lax on cosmetic pesticide regulation: advocate
The Telegram (St. John's) - 08-28-2004 - 613 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic the province will ban cosmetic use


Woman doesn't expect cosmetic pesticide ban any time soon
The Western Star (Corner Brook) - 08-30-2004 - 712 words
Stokes Sullivan, Deana - Despite increased awareness about adverse health effects from pesticides, Judie Squires, a member of the Pesticide Working Group of Newfoundland and Labrador, isn't optimistic that the province will ban the


Province lagging behind in pesticide control
The Telegram (St. John's) - 09-04-2005 - 496 words
Squires, Judie - it to do is to prohibit the cosmetic use of synthetic pesticides altogether in order to protect our citizens and the environment. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's


The two sides to pesticide use
The Telegram (St. John's) - 07-16-2006 - 781 words
Judie Squires - health of your families. When Canada's most respected health authorities tell us pesticides threaten our health, we should all be listening. Judie Squires writes from Portugal Cove-St. Philip's


Inquiry implicates BTk
The Telegram (St. John's) - 06-24-2006 - 353 words
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - of trees. The live spores can be inhaled by humans and animals exposed to BT. Judie Squires, secretary of the Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, says despite claims that


Delayed pesticide laws 'disappointing'
The Telegram (St. John's) - 06-24-2006 - 833 words
DEANA STOKES SULLIVAN - at the end of this year. These products will only be sold to certified dealers. Judie Squires, secretary of the newly formed Northeast Avalon Group of the Sierra Club, isn't


Above Articles available through Trancontinental Newsnet

Time for provincial lawn pesticide regulation
The Telegram (St. John's) - 03-14-2009 - 419 words
pesticides. Please join me in lobbying our province for a pesticide ban Judie Squires Portugal Cove...

Online Marketing - OnToplist.com