Chemtrails: The Consequences of Toxic Metals and Chemical Aerosols on Human Health.


For decades, we have known that heavy metals and chemicals can cause grave physical harm. Going back to Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” we have known and been amply warned of the serious consequences of using or being exposed to these poisons in our daily activities. Thousands of these are well-documented carcinogens.

Building on Carson’s ground-breaking research, we also know that certain kinds of chemicals can and do disrupt human [and other animals’] entire immune system. Going back 30 years, researchers were investigating what became known as endocrine [hormone] disrupting chemicals and how they were affecting frogs [who sometimes had five legs or hermaphroditic characteristics], other aquatic animals, and mammals. These animals were the proverbial canaries in the coal mine. In another pioneering book, “Our Stolen Future,” authors Dr. Theo Colburn, Dianne Dumanoski, and John Peterson Myers clearly demonstrate that 1 + 1 hormone-disrupting chemicals did not equal 2.

Rather, in a nightmare of mathematical proportions, these poisons acted synergistically; and 1+1 could equal up to 1,600 times the original dose. We are also exposed to more than 100,000 chemicals regularly. Most of them have never been tested for human safety. So, almost nothing has been done to reduce human exposure to a myriad of hazardous chemicals. In fact, over the past decade, the Bush administration dismantled many environmental laws in existence for 30 years, to let corporations off the proverbial hook. [Just look at what’s unfolding in the Gulf with the BP oil spill.]

Although this information, on the dangers of hormone disruption, is now more widely available on Internet sites, it still is not well known by the average person who gets news mostly from mainstream media.(1) Most of these highly toxic chemicals are invisible; and, therefore, are easily off our collective radar. With the high stress level created by the deliberately orchestrated financial crisis –where millions have lost their jobs and homes– a degraded/collapsing environment or serious health problems are not priorities –especially, if very little is reported in mainstream news. This disaster scenario is part of the larger picture of what Naomi Klein writes about in her book “The Shock Doctrine.” We have so many major crises, one after another, that it is hard just to keep up with one’s daily routine –let alone have time to read and consider the toxicological health ramifications of massive amounts of thousands of heavy metals and chemicals that have poisoned our entire food chain and, thus, our own supposed “health.” We are at the very top of this wrecked food chain.

Now, however, there is another far more insidious layer of toxicity that is not being addressed at all in any mainstream, corporate-controlled news, and it is affecting our very survival. It is, however, being addressed more and more by independent researchers who have supporting evidence to back up their Internet reports.

For more than a decade, first the United States and then Canada’s citizens have been subjected to a 24/7/365 day aerosol assault over our heads made of a toxic brew of poisonous heavy metals, chemicals, and other dangerous ingredients. None of this was reported by any mainstream media. The US Department of Defense [DOD] and military have been systematically blanketing all our skies with what are known as Chemtrails (also known as Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering).(2) These differ vastly from the usual plane contrails that evaporate rather quickly in the sky.  Chemtrails do not dissipate. Rather, planes (fitted with special nozzles) release aerosols “lines” in the sky that do not evaporate. Multiple planes are deployed, flying parallel (or often “checkerboard” patterns) overhead; and soon the sky is blanketed with many grayish-white lines [miles and miles long, although this is changing]. At first, these lines are thin; but soon they expand and, in a short time, merge together. Our once-blue sky has vanished and has been replaced by a grayish-white toxic haze that blots out and greatly diminishes our usual sunshine.

Military and commercial planes are involved in more than 60 secret operations. Last year, when I flew across the country, I saw a United Airlines jet (flying below us at about 37,000 feet) spraying a black aerosol that went for miles and miles across the sky. This clandestine program now includes aerosol-spraying planes in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand [all NATO countries]. Hundreds (if not thousands) of people have called and written their public officials to get answers. Replies from US and Canadian officials are not forthcoming; or, if they do reply, queries are dismissed. This remains an ongoing, deliberate cover-up. No one is held accountable, while we continued to be poisoned daily. This is not the first time, however, that citizens are being used as experimental laboratory test subjects. The US government and its military have a very long and sordid history of using us, without informed consent, in this illegal manner. As Carole Pellatt notes:

The U.S. military has been spraying chemical and biological weapons in open air testing over civilian populations since the 1940’s. They are called “vulnerability tests”. This is not a controversial statement. The military has admitted to this practice on many occasions and there’s plenty of documentation from the government to corroborate it. There is also documentation of intentional, experimental releases of radiation on civilian populations. Unfortunately, this information tends to surface long after it could have saved lives, or eased the suffering of victims.(3)

Over the past decade, independent testing of Chemtrails around the country has shown a dangerous, extremely poisonous brew that includes: barium, nano aluminum-coated fiberglass [known as CHAFF], radioactive thorium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, desiccated blood, mold spores, yellow fungal mycotoxins, ethylene dibromide, and polymer fibers. Barium can be compared to the toxicity of arsenic.(4) Barium is known to adversely affect the heart. Aluminum has a history of damaging brain function. Independent researchers and labs continue to show off-the-scale levels of these poisons. A few “anonymous” officials have acknowledged this on-going aerosol spraying.(5)

Numerous tests have been done to verify that these poisons are off the scale in their toxicity. They are documented in our water, in our soil, and in our air. For more than 10 years, researcher Clifford Carnicom has been valiantly and systematically reporting on the various detrimental aspects of these aerosols –and what they are doing to our entire environment, as well as our blood.(6) Various “sky watch” groups also have been carefully documenting and diligently reporting about these daily assaults.(7)

With all these poisons surrounding our every breath, it is not surprising to see a dramatic increase in illnesses. There are numerous reports of the increase in cardiac deaths and upper respiratory illnesses (asthma, chronic bronchitis, lung cancer, and often multiple chronic illnesses). Chemtrails toxicity has already dramatically affected our deteriorating “collective health.” The significant increase in heart disease and various upper respiratory illnesses has been linked to a vast increase in “particulate matter” in our air. This can be seen by some revealing statistics:

1. Coronary heart disease is now the leading cause of death in the US. According to the CDC, in 2006, 631,636 died of heart disease. This means 1 out of every 5 Americans are affected.(8)

In Canada, every seven minutes someone dies of heart disease.(9)

2. Asthma and upper respiratory illnesses. Between 100-150 million people suffer from asthma worldwide. In the US, 16.4 million adults have asthma and 7 million children have it. Chronic bronchitis and emphysema: 9.8 million Americans were diagnosed with chronic bronchitis this past year; for emphysema the figure is 3.8 million.(10) Total: 37 million Americans afflicted.

In Canada, 2.4 million have been diagnosed with asthma.

3. Particulate matter in air pollution. Particulate matter [PM] consists of tiny particles 10 microns or less. [1 micron is about 1/70 the thickness of a single human hair.] These particles can lodge in the deepest part of your lungs; and over a period of time, they can damage lung function. This kind of pollution, that we breathe daily, can and does cause various upper respiratory illnesses, coronary heart disease, and premature aging and death. Particulate matter can also exacerbate any existing illness.(11) Unanswered questions: Does hazardous particulate matter act in synergistic ways in human bodies (as do endocrine disrupting chemicals)? How does PM affect millions who already have multiple chronic illnesses?

Brain Injury

Even with the increases in preventable illnesses, the issue that has not been linked or addressed –with what Clifford Carnicom rightly calls “aerosol crimes”– is the deterioration of cognitive function. Our immune system is already under siege daily; and this has resulted in millions (possibly billions) of people with not just one illness, but often multiple ones. The skin, the largest organ in our body, is a permeable membrane. This means that invisible toxins in our air, including Chemtrails and other highly dangerous chemicals, go right into our skin. Poisoned rainwater (or snow touching our skin) does the same thing. When the air we breathe is filled with a dangerous assortment of toxins, with each breath we take, these poisons assault our entire immune system. These poisons also affect our brain and, thus, our cognitive function.

Aluminum is a major component in these aerosols. Although it is our planet’s most abundant metal, our body has no biological need for it. Pesticide Action Network North America [PANNA] lists it as “toxic to humans, including carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, and acute toxicity.”(12) Yet, aluminum is commonly used [this is a very short list] in vaccines, deodorants and anti-perspirants, over-the-counter medications, soft drink and beer cans [aluminum leeches from the cans], baking powder, cake mixes, processed cheeses, and other food products and additives. Over years, aluminum accumulates in the brain, tissues, and to a lesser amount the bones. It causes brain degeneration, dysfunction and damage –due to the blockage and reduced blood flow and oxygen of brain arteries. The brain shrinks, as brain cells die. This causes dementia. Symptoms include: emotional outbursts, paranoia, forgetfulness and memory loss, speech incoherence, irritability, diminished alertness, changes in personality, and poor/bad judgment. All these are on the rise, as more than 4-million Americans are afflicted. Brain deterioration and dementia take decades to cause serious and visible harm. Eventually, however, dementia is fatal. “Alzheimer’s” is now being used incorrectly as a catch-all term for all kinds of dementia. Just a few days ago, the front page of the New York Times had a headline: “More with Dementia Wander from Home.”(13) People afflicted with, what the Times terms “Alzheimer’s” were interviewed. One person mentioned he “has a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s.” This is patently wrong. Alzheimer’s dementia can only be accurately diagnosed after death when a post-mortem can be done. However, heavy metals poisoning can be diagnosed through lab testing; but this is rarely done for basic check-ups.

What is not addressed in this increase in dementia is the more than 10 years of breathing Chemtrails with nano aluminum-coated fiberglass. Billions of tons have been sprayed on us.

With all these sources of aluminum added to the air we breathe with each breath, the cumulative toxicity is very high. Even in daily events, it is obvious –to anyone who is paying attention– that many people are behaving oddly. While it may be considered “anecdotal” reporting, there are millions of people whose behavior is strange. There have been numerous times in just the past year when I have asked someone a question and received an answer that is totally unrelated. There have been more and more uncontrolled outbursts in public areas: someone “snaps” for no apparent reason. Violence levels are up. Look at all the shootings on school campuses. There are more unexplained auto accidents that never should have happened. In just one day a few weeks ago, I witnessed three traffic accidents that need not have happened. The news is full of these stories.

Add to this already highly toxic body burden is the US military’s use of aluminum in its aerosols. It is used because of its electrical conductivity, durability, and light weight. The US Air Force reported in 1997 that it released “2 million, 6-7 ounce bundles of CHAFF.” These are laid by military aircraft form 15-50 miles in length.(14) Another unanswered question: Why is the USAF not releasing up-to-date figures?

A 2002 report notes that: “over the last 25 years, the US Navy [has released from planes] several hundred thousand pounds of aluminized chaff during flight operations over a training area on the Chesapeake Bay.”(15) If the Navy used hundreds of thousands of pounds in just this small area of the US, what could be extrapolated for the release of possibly billions of tons of nano aluminum by all the military divisions throughout the US and Canada more recently than 2002? CHAFF is being stored that has lead in it. Has that been released, without our knowledge, and added to these aerosols? What enormous, yet invisible, harm has that created for all of us?

Dr. Hildegarde Staninger reported last year that “exposure to aerial emissions of nano composite materials resulted in cholinesterase inhibition.”(16) The human body has three kinds of cholinesterase: for the brain, for plasma (manufactured by the liver), and red blood cells. Some pesticides and nerve gases (such as VX, an organophosphate) inhibit cholinesterase. The chronic inhibition of this enzyme (that normally circulates in red blood cells), caused by the spraying of these Chemtrails aerosols [for weather modification, but also used for mosquito and other insect eradication], causes chronic poisoning. This exposure causes severe neurological disorders, including paralysis in humans.

In a ground-breaking 2003 online essay, Dr. Kaye Kilburn, asks: “Why is Chemical Brain Injury Ignored?”(17) His article lists 13 concealed factors that affect our willingness to believe that dangerous chemicals do affect the brain. They include: 1. “It’s all in your head” [meaning real symptoms are ignored by allopathic medicine].

2. Resistance to vulnerability [individuals, and society collectively, cannot believe the brain is at risk].

3. The acceptance of mind-altering prescription drugs [such as Paxil] that can and do affect the brain [millions are on anti-depressants –what long-term damage does that also do to cognitive thinking?].

4. Chemical brain injury is considered not to be “an imminent threat.”

5. Competition from other serious threats [causing indifference or denial];

6. Delay in acknowledging health risks.

7. Economic interests [delaying tactics by big corporations are well known –delay continues profits and ignores taking responsibility –We are all expendable for corporate profits].

8. The field of neurology has been slow to consider causes [how many independent researchers are left who do not have any ties to the pharmaceutical/chemical companies?].

In  all these valuable reasons for not addressing this human crisis, the one that Dr. Kilburn has not addressed directly is the chronic assault of breathing/absorbing these now billions of tons of hazardous aerosolized chemicals and heavy metals over more than a decade without our informed consent. When one does not look for or address primary causes, then other issues can be blamed. This, on top of a government’s silence or refusal to respond and the corporate media’s complicity, make for an extremely dangerous combination that puts us all at grave and daily risk. As brain function is diminished, and other things are blamed for it, any population is easier “to control.”

Dr. Kiburn’s research clearly shows that chemicals do affect and seriously harm the brain [and, thereby, cognitive function]. Chemicals –especially a daily onslaught of toxic chemicals over many years– can damage our ability to think clearly. Even if we find this hard to believe, the evidence is there. Dr. Kilburn has expanded this essay into the first book to research this: “Chemical Brain Injury” (published in 1998). Dr. Kilburn notes:

The brain’s preservation represents the only possibility of survival for mankind. To find in many parts of the country and in many individual patients that its function is eroded seriously by chemicals, chemicals that have been introduced into the environment basically in the last 50 years, is bad news indeed.(18)

It seems almost unbelievable that millions/billions of people could look up at the sky and not notice the dramatic changes that have occurred from what it was, for instance, in the mid-1990s. Then our sky was a gorgeous, deep blue. Clouds were a beautiful assortment of shapes. The sun was glorious. But people under 30, may not have a real sense of recollection about looking up every day and seeing this panoramic magnificence. Most of them are too busy texting or chatting on their cell phones. There are other issues to consider, as well: People are in their own comfort zones; and denial is a very powerful human emotion. In the hustle and bustle (now quite out of hand, for reflective time), how many people look up at the sky? It also takes huge courage, a very deep, internal willingness to examine politically motivated corporate controlled media spin, and search for the real answers. Humans like their regular routines. To re-examine what we think we know, based on new evidence, takes a willingness to think outside the proverbial box; to want to find out the truth –not the pervasive Orwellian doublespeak that pervades our society. If everything in our daily routine belies what is truly going on, it requires fortitude to explore the unknown –to question the litany.

Another courageous person is Dr. R. Michael Castle who continues to address the Chemtrails toxicity issue. He is a noted polymer chemist who has been interviewed frequently and has written articles about the extreme hazards of Chemtrails. Dr. Castle has also written a ground-breaking document, the Universal Atmospheric Preservation Act [UAPA]. This document has been in Congress since 2008; but is tied up in committee. The only way to have this vital piece of legislation passed is to have real congressional representatives actually representing us (instead of the corporate lobbyists). See:

http://anticcorruptionsociety.files.wordpress.com/22010/04/the-unified-atmospheric-preservation-act.pdf

Given these issues, since our collapsing society has so many different levels of deceit –the financial debacle, the lies and deceit of government and the Federal Reserve blaming people for the housing/mortgage nightmare, the emerging police state, the disasters that envelope our fragile environment– it becomes increasingly difficult just to maintain a daily routine and survive the economic depression and its daily fallout. Mainstream media does its supporting role and deceives us. Millions, like the proverbial lemmings, hasten to join the group demise. There are countless historical instances of this collective insanity. We Homo sapiens [sic, wise men?] have never learned the lessons of 5,000 years of history. This is because each new generation of corrupt political leaders (often tied historically to previous ones) never has the real interest of their constituents as a basic part of their political practice. Further, there is no Precautionary Principle in place.(19) It’s not the way the political game of deception works. Precaution is not part of an equation that is broken from the beginning. Humans are gullible and want to believe the Orwellian deceptions.

To add to this already heavy burden, to ask uninformed, although supposedly “well educated” [What does that actually mean, given that much of our higher education has omitted much of what Prof. Peter Dale Scott calls “deep political events” that never get into our history books?] people to reconsider what they think they know about what is really going on –this takes enormous internal strength. It requires profound courage. The basis of this “courage” actually means creating new synaptical pathways in the brain. Without them, we feel scared, nervous…because those new synapses have not yet been created. It takes repeated effort, and, thus, an emerging sense of ease, to create these new synapses.

If, however, millions of people are already on prescription pharmaceuticals to “calm them down” [long term, what is this doing to their ability to think clearly?] and, in addition, are breathing poisoned air rife with mind-distorting chemicals, then how clearly (if at all) is anyone able to think? How can anyone feel well and safe, if the very air we breathe is deliberately poisoned and is affecting our ability to think cogently? It is already evident that no one in any official capacity is willing to tell the truth. It is like Diogenes, the ancient Greek, searching for a truthful individual. No one seems to have the desire, or courage, or authority to stop this massive poisoning, because it is the secret plan of the elite insiders to deliberate destroy everything we once knew.

Our BASIC human rights, constitutional and international laws are mere paper. These rights and laws have all been torn asunder by those in charge. It has been done by stealth. We must organize peacefully. PEACEFULLY is the operative word. If these many-pronged aerosol attacks by military and commercial planes can spray these horrific toxins on us, year after year with impunity –against all laws– then it is absolutely imperative that we organize peacefully. As Peter Dale Scott notes in Jason Bermas’ new DVD “Invisible Empire”: we must use the Internet and our peaceful intellectual powers to come together and shut this nightmare down. It is possible to do this.

Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri is author of the highly acclaimed book, “The Uterine Crisis.”

Source:http://www.globalresearch.ca

 

 Release of Arctic Methane “May Be Apocalyptic,” Study Warns


On a lake, plumes of gas, most likely methane from the breakdown of carbon in sediments below the lake, keep the water from freezing in spots, outside Fairbanks, Alaska, October 21, 2011. As the Arctic warms, the threat of abrupt methane releases is rising, too.  (Photo: Josh Haner / The New York Times)

On a lake, plumes of gas, most likely methane from the breakdown of carbon in sediments below the lake, keep the water from freezing in spots, outside Fairbanks, Alaska, October 21, 2011. As the Arctic warms, the threat of abrupt methane releases is rising, too. 

A scientific study published in the prestigious journal Palaeoworld in December issued a dire — and possibly prophetic — warning, though it garnered little attention in the media.

“Global warming triggered by the massive release of carbon dioxide may be catastrophic,” reads the study’s abstract. “But the release of methane from hydrate may be apocalyptic.”

The study, titled “Methane Hydrate: Killer Cause of Earth’s Greatest Mass Extinction,” highlights the fact that the most significant variable in the Permian Mass Extinction event, which occurred 250 million years ago and annihilated 90 percent of all the species on the planet, was methane hydrate.

In the wake of that mass extinction event, less than 5 percent of the animal species in the seas lived, and less than one-third of the large land animal species made it. Nearly all the trees died.

Methane hydrate, according to the US Office of Fossil Energy, “is a cage-like lattice of ice inside of which are trapped molecules of methane, the chief constituent of natural gas.”

While there is not a scientific consensus around the cause of the Permian Mass Extinction, it is widely believed that massive volcanism along the Siberian Traps in Russia led to tremendous amounts of CO2 being added to the atmosphere. This then created enough warming to cause the sudden release of methane from the Arctic sea floor, which kicked off a runaway greenhouse effect that led to sea-level increase, de-oxygenation, major oceanic circulation shifts and increased acidification of the oceans, as well as worldwide aridity on land.

The scenario that humans have created by way of the industrial growth society is already mimicking these eventualities, which are certain to worsen.

“The end Permian holds an important lesson for humanity regarding the issue it faces today with greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and climate change,” the abstract of the recent study concludes.

As the global CO2 concentration continues to climb each year, the threat of even more abrupt methane additions continues to escalate along with it.

The Methane Time Bomb

The methane hydrate situation has, for years now, been referred to as the Arctic Methane Time Bomb, and as been studied intensely.

A 2010 scientific analysis led by the UK’s Met Office, published in the journal Review of Geophysics, states clearly that the time scale for the release of methane in the Arctic would be “much shorter for hydrates below shallow waters, such as in the Arctic Ocean,” adding that “significant increases in methane emissions are likely, and catastrophic emissions cannot be ruled out.… The risk of rapid increase in [methane] emissions is real.”

A 2011 study of the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), conducted by more than 20 Arctic experts and published in the Proceedings of the Russian Academy of Sciences, concluded that the shelf was already a powerful supplier of methane to the atmosphere. The conclusion of this study stated that the methane concentration in the atmosphere was at levels capable of causing “a considerable and even catastrophic warming on the Earth.”

Scientists have been warning us for a number of years about the dire consequences of methane hydrates in the Arctic, and how the methane being released poses a potentially disastrous threat to the planet. There has even been a study showing that methane released in the Arctic could trigger “catastrophic climate change” that would cost the global economy $60 trillion.

Of course, that level of planetary heating would likely extinguish most life on the planet, so whatever the economic costs might be would be irrelevant.

“Highly Possible at Any Time”

The ESAS is the largest ice shelf in the world, encompassing more than 2 million square kilometers, or 8 percent of the world’s total area of continental shelf.

In 2015, Truthout spoke with Natalia Shakhova, a research associate professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks’ International Arctic Research Center, about the ESAS’s methane emissions.

“These emissions are prone to be non-gradual (massive, abrupt) for a variety of reasons,” she told Truthout. “The main reason is that the nature of major processes associated with methane releases from subsea permafrost is non-gradual.”

Shakhova warned that a 50-gigaton — that is, 50-billion-ton — “burp” of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the ESAS is “highly possible at any time.”

This, Shakhova said, means that methane releases from decaying frozen hydrates could result in emission rates that “could change in order of magnitude in a matter of minutes,” and that there would be nothing “smooth, gradual or controlled” about it. She described it as a “kind of a release [that] is like the unsealing of an over-pressurized pipeline.”

In other words, we could be looking at non-linear releases of methane in amounts that are difficult to fathom.

A study published in the prestigious journal Nature in July 2013 confirmed what Shakhova had been warning us about for years: A 50-gigaton “burp” of methane from thawing Arctic permafrost beneath the East Siberian sea is highly possible.

Such a “burp” would be the equivalent of at least 1,000 gigatons of carbon dioxide. (For perspective, humans have released approximately 1,475 gigatons in total carbon dioxide since the year 1850.)

The UK’s Met Office considers the 50-gigaton release “plausible,” and in a paper on the subject added, “That may cause ∼12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden, with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.”

Source:http://www.truth-out.org

It’s Official: Sky Will Be Sprayed in Geoengineering “Experiment,” Blocking Sun for Climate Change ·


It’s official: the US government’s partners in academia are going to openly spray us. It’s a move toward a future where they openly spray the skies to supposedly fight climate change.

Harvard scientist David Keith and his partner are going to spray the sky with aluminum oxide and other chemicals to “experiment” with geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) as they call it, to block out the sun.

They want to block out the sun to supposedly combat climate change, but the well documented history of weather modification for military purposes suggests there are other motives.

According to MIT’s Technology Review:

“A pair of Harvard climate scientists are preparing small-scale atmospheric experiments that could offer insights into the feasibility and risks of deliberately altering the climate to ease global warming.

They would be among the earliest official geoengineering-related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.

 Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the “StratoCruiser” would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.”

According to the Guardian:

“US scientists are set to send aerosol injections 20km up into the earth’s stratosphere in the world’s biggest solar geoengineering programme to date, to study the potential of a future tech-fix for global warming.

The $20m (£16m) Harvard University project will launch within weeks and aims to establish whether the technology can safely simulate the atmospheric cooling effects of a volcanic eruption, if a last ditch bid to halt climate change is one day needed.”

This comes after a United Nations “geoengineering governance initiative” was launched, and the Carnegie Council announced the launch of a “Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative.” This comes after CIA director John Brennan proposed they spray the skies and do “solar radiation management” (SRM) to fight climate change in 2016.

Some powerful forces are pushing very hard for the ability to spray the skies with aluminum, to modify the weather and set a precedent where they can spray anything on us.

This precedent where we can’t identify what is sprayed on us could usher in a new era of chemical or biowarfare against citizens.

As victims of the US’ long history with experimenting on citizens can attest to, this is a serious possibility. Just research the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiments, the spraying of San Fransisco inOperation Sea Spray, ect.

The forces pushing for spraying are not a mystery, and they’ve been at work on geoengineering for decades.

They are found at military industrial complex affiliated institutions such as MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Harvard, MITRE Corporation, Raytheon, and others. If you want to know what “the system” is, it’s MIT. They are an academic limb of the military industrial complex.

Half a century of progress toward modifying the weather for military purposes (and to create a global warming false alarm to justify it) coming out of MIT and similiar entities was well documented in Peter A. Kirby’s book “Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project.” Or, you could read his even more recent article on the topic. Or, you could listen to an interview with Peter Kirby about all of this.

However, the truth is geoengineering is obviously already happening in the US and around the world: just look up at the sky. Those giant high altitude “chemtrails” that turn into haze in the sky and persist all day are active geoengineering efforts before they disclose it and take it to an even further level.

So what these people are really trying to do, is normalize geoengineering in the public’s perception.

David Keith is a pawn putting on a show of “experiments” for geoengineering, experiments that seem fairly redundant if you know how far the technology of geoengineering has been developed. Then they can say “we tested it and it’s safe,” and they will spray us much worse than they already are.

Speaking from experience being in every major region of the US and one region of Australia in 2016 and 2017, I can tell you California, particularly central and northern California has it possibly the worst right now.

In California, they spray heavy, and the dry air seems to let the material fall down on people so badly you can smell it, and in some areas (like Sacramento, California) the material they spray can make you instantly sick.

They sprayed Sacramento with a plastic smelling, sharp, irritating aerosol in late 2016. They seemed to use two distinct kinds of spray: the first from about January 2016- August 2016 smelled starchy, powdery, kind of ashy and metallic like aluminum. The smell fills the air and the house if windows are left open.

It’s unmistakable that the spraying is what you smell: the smell always comes right after they spray, and you can watch it fall down.

Then in August, the smell changed distinctly to a sharp, plastic, static electric type of smell and it was much worse.

The worse plasticky spray pierces through closed windows unlike the other kind, and is carried by the rain, as if they spray into rain clouds.

The rain used to wash away the smell of chemtrails in my experience, but it actually carries the new plastic smelling spray straight through the walls of your house when it rains. It makes you wonder about what we will be subject to in the future, experiencing that, trying to shut the chemtrails out of the house.

We just can’t let this go further. They are already spraying, and they want little opposition to spraying much harder. Who knows what other interests they have in spraying: it seems they want to set a precedent. The US would probably like to direct rain systems, give some areas drought (Iran) and give some areas water.

Some power players would probably like us to all be poisoned with aluminum. Nanoparticles of aluminum, what they have been known to spray, can make people docile and confused like someone with Alzheimer’s. Aluminum is detrimental to our health, comparable to mercury.

So we have to push back as hard as we can, no matter how exhausted we are, the people who see what’s happening and have the gall to stand up.

In conclusion, this is from an article about the Carnegie Council’s recent steps toward geoengineering:

“If we don’t protest their proposal to spray the skies now, in 20 years we’ll be living in an aluminum poisoned nightmare where questioning the health of geoengineering the weather, hazing out the sun to combat climate change, will be as taboo as being critical of vaccines.

 We cannot allow geoengineering to become normalized in the public consciousness.

Major United States University Proposes First-Ever “Bee Vaccines” In Order to Save Declining Population.


The plight of the bees has gotten more attention in the past few years, as people are finally getting the memo that saving our pollinator species is of the utmost importance.

Already, the monarch butterfly has been “decimated” by agricultural chemicals according to scientist and TV host Bill Nye, in large part because of the widespread over use of synthetic pesticides and neonicotinoid seed coatings.

Now, one major U.S. university is proposing a radical solution for saving the bees and restoring their health: the first-ever bee vaccinations.

Vaccinate the Bees to Protect Them From Disease?

According to a sponsored report by Arizona State University that recently ran on USAToday.com, the first-ever bee vaccinations are being researched by Gro Amdam, an ASU School of Life Sciences professor, with help of researchers from Finland and Norway.

The report notes that 87 of the top 115 food crops require pollination, and includes numbers of the staggering “worker” honeybee decline. Since 1940, the numbers have dropped from 6 million to 2.5 million hives today.

 bee vaccines created asu

If successfully developed, the vaccines would utilize a “key carrier of environmental bacteria” that is digested by queen bees when they eat royal jelly, called Vitellogenin. The substance is referred to in the report as a way of “naturally vaccinating” the next generation of bees by acting as a shuttle for bacterial pieces.

“As humans, we protect ourselves against devastating bacterial infections via vaccination … These vaccines … provide long-term protection because our bodies develop a physiological memory of the bacterial material in the vaccines. In contrast, everybody thought insects could not be vaccinated because insects do not have physiology that allows the immune system to have memories,” Amdam said.

The team is also experimenting with oral vaccines that contain the substance.

 “We develop vaccines with bacterial pieces that are given to queens and study the physiology that allows the vaccines to be effective,” she said. A grant has been received to continue the research until 2021, and the team is also looking into the benefits of potentially launching a large-scale bee vaccine program.

While the possibility of vaccinating bees may seem like an outlandish one to many in light of the common sense initiatives (including banning neonicotinoids or GMOs and limiting pesticide use like Europe has done), it is worth noting that the report also mentions herbicides, fungicides, and other toxic chemicals as part of the reason for the bee decline and colony collapse disorder.

The hope among many in the pro-organic and non-GMO movement is that by limiting these and other toxic agricultural practices, and switching to organic and other more holistic and natural methods of farming, the bee population can rebound without the use of labor intensive, expensive, and unproven pie-in-the-sky potential “solutions” like bee vaccination.

 

This weekend, turn out your lights for Earth Hour 2017 – Climate Action Programme


A global blackout will take place this Saturday 25 March for Earth Hour 2017, which will see some of the world’s best known landmarks disappear from city skylines.

World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) Earth Hour – now in its tenth year – is the world’s largest demonstration of support for action on climate change.

Earth Hour was founded by WWF in Sydney in 2007, and is designed to increase awareness about energy consumption and environmental issues including rising temperatures and destruction of habitats on a global scale.

In 2016, millions around the world across 178 countries came together to show support for action to protect our planet.

350 major landmarks throughout the world, including the Eiffel Tower, the Empire State Building and Buckingham Palace turned off their lights in support last year.

In the UK, almost 10.5 million took part in the global blackout.

Paris was named the Global Earth Hour Capital for 2016 for is long-term vision in climate action as well as its commitment to sustainability within business, civil society and other global cities, to which it has become a role model thanks in part to holding COP21 in 2015.

The WWF Earth Hour seeks to encourage people to actively pursue a more sustainable lifestyle to reduce their carbon footprint and energy consumption.

By turning off your lights for one hour at 8:30pm (GMT) on Saturday 25 March 2017, you will be taking part in demonstrating the need for commitment to the future of our climate.

Source:http://www.climateactionprogramme.org

A Natural Solution to Water Security


New report analyzes 4,000 cities to demonstrate the health, climate and biodiversity benefits of source water protection.

When you turn on the tap in Quito, Ecuador, the water that emerges does so after a long journey. It starts high in the Andes, in springs and streams that merge into rivers, and flows downhill.

There, the water filters through cloud forests and grasslands, picking up more spring water and snowmelt from glaciers, continuing its downstream journey until it eventually reaches Quito’s municipal water system.

The quality of the water entering Quito, and many other cities around the world, is directly dependent on the landscapes through which the water flows. Good land management can promote water filtration, produce more reliable downstream flows, and reduce the amount of sediments and nutrients that can make their way into the rivers, springs and aquifers that feed urban water supplies. The city of Quito and upstream landholders have invested in taking care of their water sources for many years.

 Unfortunately, many of our lands around the world are not always managed well, which leads to impaired downstream water quality and flows. Deforestation, poor agricultural practices and other land uses have led to moderate to high degradation in 40 percent of the world’s urban source watersheds. Water quality and quantity challenges have typically been met with the addition of more gray infrastructure—including aqueducts, reservoirs and treatment plants—to move and treat water for human and industrial purposes.

But the path to water security doesn’t have to be lined exclusively in concrete. Improving the health of the lands around our water sources—a strategy called source water protection—can improve water quality, restore reliable water flows and bring added benefits to local ecosystems and communities.

As cities around the world use nature-based solutions to improve water quality, they are learning that those solutions provide so much more. Photo © Kevin Arnold
As cities around the world use nature-based solutions to improve water quality, they are learning that those solutions provide so much more.
In Bloomington, Illinois, agricultural runoff caused nitrate levels in the water supply to surpass federal standards. But a combination of wetland restoration and improved farming practices has shown to effectively remove inflowing nitrates at a cost-competitive rate. Photo © Cristina Rutter/The Nature Conservancy
In Bloomington, Illinois, agricultural runoff caused nitrate levels in the water supply to surpass federal standards. But a combination of wetland restoration and improved farming practices has shown to effectively remove inflowing nitrates at a cost-competitive rate.
Monterrey, Mexico has experienced flooding and drought during recent years. The city is investing in reforestation and many other activities designed to improve the lands within the watershed. Through this work, the watershed’s capacity to absorb available water could increase by 20 percent. Photo © Alejandro Lopez-Serrano/TNC
Monterrey, Mexico has experienced flooding and drought during recent years. The city is investing in reforestation and many other activities designed to improve the lands within the watershed. Through this work, the watershed’s capacity to absorb available water could increase by 20 percent.
Drought and sedimentation of reservoirs is causing water stress in São Paulo, Brazil. To decrease erosion in the watershed, about 13,000 hectares of land were identified for reforestation. Reforestation can help the city meet carbon storage goals—each hectare can store around 102 metric tonnes of carbon. Photo © Scott Warren
Drought and sedimentation of reservoirs is causing water stress in São Paulo, Brazil. To decrease erosion in the watershed, about 13,000 hectares of land were identified for reforestation. Reforestation can help the city meet carbon storage goals—each hectare can store around 102 metric tonnes of carbon.
Cattle feces contaminated the drinking water source in Pucará, Bolivia. A water fund now rewards ranchers and farmers who protect lands and streams in the watershed with payments, beehives or irrigation system materials. The program improves water quality and local lives. Photo © Nigel Asquith/Natura Bolivia
Cattle feces contaminated the drinking water source in Pucará, Bolivia. A water fund now rewards ranchers and farmers who protect lands and streams in the watershed with payments, beehives or irrigation system materials. The program improves water quality and local lives.
Runoff from bamboo farms polluted Longwu Reservoir, which provides water to 3,000 people in China. A water fund now pays farmers to transition to organic bamboo farming methods. Nutrient pollution has been reduced, and it is hoped that the water fund can be financially supported by the business venture. Photo © Haijiang Zhang/TNC
Runoff from bamboo farms polluted Longwu Reservoir, which provides water to 3,000 people in China. A water fund now pays farmers to transition to organic bamboo farming methods. Nutrient pollution has been reduced, and it is hoped that the water fund can be financially supported by the business venture.
Farming, quarrying and road construction in Nairobi, Kenya’s watershed led to increased sediment in the Tana River. A water fund improves agricultural practices that reduce sedimentation and could deliver a 2-to-1 return on investment. These actions also create pollinator habitat and carbon storage. Photo © Nick Hall
Farming, quarrying and road construction in Nairobi, Kenya’s watershed led to increased sediment in the Tana River. A water fund improves agricultural practices that reduce sedimentation and could deliver a 2-to-1 return on investment. These actions also create pollinator habitat and carbon storage. Photo © Nick Hall

10 Gt/yr

Source water protection could reduce CO2 emissions by 10 gigatonnes annually.


There are many effective source water protection activities, including forest protection, reforestation and improvement of agricultural practices on lands near water sources.

To implement these strategies, The Nature Conservancy is working with cities and water users around the world to create water funds, which enable water users to collectively invest in source water protection activities for the purpose of securing better water quality and improving the health and well-being of local communities. The Conservancy and its partners already have 29 water funds in operation and another 30 in development. The first of these was created more than 15 years ago—in Quito.

“Communities downstream are going to benefit if their water comes when they want it and how they want it,” said Andrea Erickson, managing director for water security at The Nature Conservancy. “Source water protection can provide that connection between downstream users and upstream individuals—the farmers, ranchers and other community members that are a critical part of the solution.”

At a time when there is growing demand for limited water supplies—and when climate change is making availability of water even more uncertain—source water protection is a powerful strategy to not only secure clean water but also mitigate and adapt to climate change, protect biodiversity, and support human health and well-being across watersheds.

Healthy Lands, Healthy Waters

 


What Are the Benefits of Source Water Protection?

Source water protection is first and foremost a strategy for securing clean, reliable natural water sources. The benefits of this approach are documented in “Beyond the Source: the environmental, economic and community benefits of source water protection,” a new report developed by The Nature Conservancy in partnership with the Natural Capital Project, Forest Trends, the Inter-American Development Bank and the Latin American Water Funds Partnership.

This global analysis demonstrates that four out of five of the more than 4,000 cities studied could meaningfully reduce sediment and nutrient pollution in the water they use through three source water protection activities—reforestation of pastureland, forest protection and the planting of cover crops.

In many cases, source water protection can pay for itself through water treatment savings. The Conservancy found that one in six of the cities studied could see a positive return on investment in source water protection through reduced annual treatment costs alone. But even cities that don’t break even on utility costs may realize great value through the other benefits that source water protection offers for people living in and around upstream watersheds and for the natural ecosystems that these watersheds support.

 MITIGATES CARBON EMISSIONS

Restoring and protecting forests, which filter water and help to control runoff, are two of the most effective strategies for ensuring clean water for downstream users. But these practices also have the added benefit of capturing and avoiding the release of carbon into the atmosphere, helping to mitigate climate change. With 64 percent of the total carbon in tropical above-ground biomass located in source watersheds, preserving these ecosystems is a vital part of a comprehensive mitigation strategy.

“Since I have about six hectares of reforestation, when the forest is grown I’ll trap about 600 tons of carbon." - Carlos Alberto Marques. Photo © Devan King/The Nature Conservancy
“Since I have about six hectares of reforestation, when the forest is grown I’ll trap about 600 tons of carbon.”

This is happening in the Guandu watershed in Brazil, which supplies drinking water for 8 million people in Rio de Janeiro. Deforestation in the watershed, driven by farming and ranching, had contributed to a steep decline in water quality. The Guandu Water Producer Project, launched in November 2008, collects fees from downstream users, which are used to compensate farmers and ranchers for reforesting their lands and leaving existing riparian forests standing. The result is both cleaner water in Rio and less carbon released into the atmosphere.

“Since I have about six hectares of reforestation, when the forest is grown I’ll trap about 600 tons of carbon,” says Carlos Alberto Marques, a retired farmer participating in the project. “And I am very small. Now, imagine if all the large landowners in this country did a little bit of what I’m doing here with my partners.”

 ENHANCES CLIMATE RESILIENCE

In addition to mitigating climate change, many source water protection measures can also help communities adapt to climate change impacts today and in the future. Changes in the hydrological cycle driven by climate change have resulted in increased incidences of both drought and flooding. Models predict increased soil erosion in 83 percent of source watersheds by mid-century and increased fire frequency in 24 percent.

It’s a scenario already evident in northern New Mexico, which is experiencing hotter, drier and longer fire seasons. These conditions are particularly dangerous in forests that are overgrown from fire suppression, where a wildfire can all but eviscerate the landscape.

“When these overgrown forests burn, they burn way too hot and destroy the headwater forests that are so critical for downstream users,” says Laura McCarthy, senior policy advisor for forest and fire restoration at The Nature Conservancy.

“When these overgrown forests burn, they burn way too hot and destroy the headwater forests that are so critical for downstream users." - Laura McCarthy. Photo © Alan W. Eckert Photography
“When these overgrown forests burn, they burn way too hot and destroy the headwater forests that are so critical for downstream users.” – Laura McCarthy.

When rains do come, water can more easily rush over the scorched land, which can result in flash floods that inundate the Rio Grande River with sediment, debris and ash—affecting water quality downstream.

In response to this heightened threat, a coalition of land owners, government agencies, nonprofits and private companies have come together to invest in stream restoration, flood control, tree thinning and other wildfire management techniques.

These measures are proving much less expensive than treating water after it’s been polluted, and the fire control measures are reducing risk for nearby communities.

IMPROVES HUMAN HEALTH AND WELL-BEING

A clean water supply is a crucial part of any healthy community, but source water protection also contributes to human well-being in other ways. Some source water protection activities can reduce the transmission of water-borne diseases. They can also protect natural habitat for bees and other pollinating insects, which are crucial for the production of fruit and vegetable crops that deliver essential micronutrients to millions of people around the world.

“They educated us on how the trees aided preservation of water. Avocado trees have been good for the soil, and also to feed ourselves, to sell and to support my family.” - Maria Esmeralda Marcillo. Photo © TNC
“They educated us on how the trees aided preservation of water. Avocado trees have been good for the soil, and also to feed ourselves, to sell and to support my family.” – Maria Esmeralda Marcillo.

More than 28 million farming households around the world could see potential improvements in crop production and increased longevity of their farms if source water protection activities were implemented throughout watersheds.

In Colombia’s Cauca Valley, small landowners are learning to use agroforestry and silvopasture practices, which involve growing crops and grazing livestock in areas interspersed with trees and other vegetation.

The strategy reduces sediment runoff, preserves natural habitat and improves long-term soil health, while also bolstering food security and incomes through increased agricultural output for many families.

Maria Esmeralda Marcillo, a farmer in the Cauca valley, describes her experience: “They educated us on how the trees aided preservation of water. Avocado trees have been good for the soil, and also to feed ourselves, to sell and to support my family.”

SUPPORTS BIODIVERSITY

Source water protection has important benefits for nature, too. More than three-fourths of urban source watersheds are within regions of high species diversity combined with high concentrations of species unique to those regions. But deforestation and other changes in land use are major threats to these ecosystems. In fact, according to WWF, tracked animal species populations in freshwater systems have declined by a staggering 81 percent over the last 40 years. Source water protection can play an important role in protecting habitat for both terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species.

“Through reforestation, native trees are being planted, which are sources of food for these animals, and they are returning.” - Carlos Marques. Photo © Devan King/The Nature Conservancy
“Through reforestation, native trees are being planted, which are sources of food for these animals, and they are returning.” – Carlos Marques.

The same reforestation projects and changes in farming practices that are improving water quality and storing carbon in Brazil’s Guandu watershed, for example, are also contributing to the conservation of native plant and animal species populations. Both rare and representative species have been found in surveys of areas where habitats are being restored and protected.

Marques describes what he’s seen in the Guandu watershed: “Through reforestation, native trees are being planted, which are sources of food for these animals, and they are returning.”


Water Funds: A Mechanism for Realizing Source Water Protection

A key question, of course, is how to fund source water protection. The Conservancy estimates that an increase in annual global spending on ecosystem service programs between US$42 billion and US$48 billion would be required to achieve a 10 percent reduction in sediment and nutrient pollution in source watersheds worldwide. This level of spending could improve water security for at least 1.4 billion people. However, the question of who should bear that cost remains.

This is where the water fund enters the equation. Water funds provide a mechanism for downstream users to directly or indirectly compensate upstream users for activities that deliver water benefits to the payer.

Public and private water users, including businesses, utilities and local governments, invest collectively in conservation of the watersheds from which they source their water.

In fact, for half of the cities that the Conservancy studied, such a mechanism could fund source water protection activities at a cost of just US$2 or less per person per year.

Nairobi, Kenya, offers a good example. The conversion of forests and wetlands to agricultural uses in the Upper Tana River watershed, which supplies Nairobi’s water, has led to heavy sedimentation in the river—reducing the capacity of reservoirs, impacting the delivery of water to Nairobi water users and limiting hydropower generation during low-flow periods.

Nairobi Water Fund: A First for Africa

A number of water users and conservation groups, including the Nairobi City Water and Sewerage Company, The Nature Conservancy and the Kenya Electricity Generating Company, came together to establish the Upper Tana-Nairobi Water Fund, which is currently working with over 15,000 farmers in the watershed, providing funding and training to help farmers improve their land management practices. By planting cover crops and digging trenches that trap soil runoff, farmers are able to improve their crop yields while also reducing sedimentation in the Tana and other rivers.

“We always realized green infrastructure would be a part and parcel of our operation,” says Philip Gichukki, managing director of the Nairobi City Water and Sewer Company. “When the idea of the water fund came about, we were excited because we found it was possible for us to engage with everybody involved in water catchment conservation, and it was possible to pool together the resources of people whose businesses relied on water along with those of us who manage the water.”

An image of an aracari (Pteroglossus) from Brazil. Photo © Shutterstock/Cuson
An image of an aracari (Pteroglossus) from Brazil.

Could see reduced risk of extinction through watershed reforestation.

Bringing Communities and Partners Together for Shared Benefit

Successful source water protection strategies require the cooperation of parties both upstream and downstream, including landowners, governments, corporations, NGOs and many others with seemingly disparate interests. But these strategies are effective precisely because they can generate benefits for all these stakeholders.

“The most important component for a successful water fund is understanding the value of the engagement it provides for people,” Erickson says. “Everyone will come to the table when they understand that they really have something to gain.”

Brooklyn Bridge Park looking towards Manhattan. Photo © Kevin Arnold
Brooklyn Bridge Park looking towards Manhattan.

McCarthy agrees. Source water protection is effective, she says, because “people are ready for big scale solutions that unite everyone in working on a problem together.”

Source water protection shows that even economic development and nature preservation can be achieved together. The Rio Grande Water Fund in New Mexico, which has 53 signatory organizations, has created 70 new jobs in its first year of operation and project managers estimate that 300 to 600 seasonal forest worker jobs will be created annually in the future.

Reforestation work in Brazil’s Guandu watershed has created more than 300 new formal jobs and another 350 informal jobs. Many of the jobs in Guandu are being filled by people who were previously working in illegal logging—a win for the community and for nature.

Achieving these win-win situations is crucial for the next generation, says Debora Dos Santos Leite, principal at the Rio das Pedras Municipal School in Brazil. “Nature is everything to people. It is life. It is the future of the generation that we have here, the very little ones. Everyone is grateful for the work we are doing because, in addition to bringing benefits to the families and to the community, the greatest benefit is to the children.”

Source:global.nature.org

‘Earth is a planet in upheaval’: World Meteorological Organization issues dire climate warning


“Truly uncharted territory”

2016’s record-warming continues in 2017 with Jan-Feb 2017 the second hottest on record after 2016. 

Humanity is “now in truly uncharted territory,” thanks to CO2-driven climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) warnedTuesday.

The WMO’s annual “State of the Global Climate in 2016” paints a dire picture for humanity: record CO2 levels, record warming, record drop in both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, and record high sea levels. Severe droughts “brought food insecurity to millions in southern and eastern Africa and Central America.”

NOAA reported this month that the record-smashing warming of 2016 continued into 2017. In this country, “there were 11,743 daily warm temperature records broken or tied” in February alone. Globally, it was the second hottest February and January-February on record after 2016.

“Earth is a planet in upheaval due to human-caused changes in the atmosphere,” as University of Arizona glaciologist Jeffrey Kargel explainedto the UK Guardian. “In general, drastically changing conditions do not help civilization, which thrives on stability.”

Climatologist Sir Robert Watson slammed the “Trump administration and senior Republicans in Congress [who] continue to bury their heads in the sand.” The former head of the UN’s climate science panel said our children and grandchildren will some day marvel at such deniers “and ask how they could have sacrificed the planet for the sake of cheap fossil fuel energy, when the cost of inaction exceeds the cost of a transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Source:thinkprogress.org

Earth Hour India 2017


Earth Hour India 2017

http://earthhour.wwfindia.org/

 

Nestle Continues Stealing World’s Water During Drought


Nestlé is draining California aquifers, from Sacramento alone taking 80 million gallons annually. Nestlé then sells the people’s water back to them at great profit under many dozen brand names.

The city of Sacramento is in the fourth year of a record drought – yet the Nestlé Corporation continues to bottle city water to sell back to the public at a big profit, local activists charge.

The Nestlé Water Bottling Plant in Sacramento is the target of a major press conference on Tuesday, March 17, by a water coalition that claims the company is draining up to 80 million gallons of water a year from Sacramento aquifers during the drought.

The coalition, the crunchnestle alliance, says that City Hall has made this use of the water supply possible through a “corporate welfare giveaway,” according to a press advisory.

A coalition of environmentalists, Native Americans and other concerned people announced the press conference will take place at March 17 at 5 p.m. at new Sacramento City Hall, 915 I Street, Sacramento.

The coalition will release details of a protest on Friday, March 20, at the South Sacramento Nestlé plant designed to “shut down” the facility. The coalition is calling on Nestlé to pay rates commensurate with their enormous profit, or voluntarily close down.

“The coalition is protesting Nestlé’s virtually unlimited use of water – up to 80 million gallons a year drawn from local aquifers – while Sacramentans (like other Californians) who use a mere 7 to 10 percent of total water used in the State of California, have had severe restrictions and limitations forced upon them,” according to the coalition.

“Nestlé pays only 65 cents for each 470 gallons it pumps out of the ground – the same rate as an average residential water user. But the company can turn the area’s water around, and sell it back to Sacramento at mammoth profits,” the coalition said.

Activists say that Sacramento officials have refused attempts to obtain details of Nestlé’s water used. Coalition members have addressed the Sacramento City Council and requested that Nestle’ either pay a commercial rate under a two tier level, or pay a tax on their profit.

Warming Drought

In October, the coalition released a “White Paper” highlighting predatory water profiteering actions taken by Nestle’ Water Bottling Company in various cities, counties, states and countries. Most of those great “deals” yielded mega profits for Nestle’ at the expense of citizens and taxpayers. Additionally, the environmental impact on many of those areas yielded disastrous results.

Coalition spokesperson Andy Conn said, “This corporate welfare giveaway is an outrage and warrants a major investigation. For more than five months we have requested data on Nestlé water use. City Hall has not complied with our request, or given any indication that it will. Sacramentans deserve to know how their money is being spent and what they’re getting for it. In this case, they’re getting ripped off.”

For more information about the crunchnestle alliance, contact Andy Conn (530) 906-8077 camphgr55 (at) gmail.com or Bob Saunders (916) 370-8251

Nestlé is currently the leading supplier of the world’s bottled water, including such brands as Perrier and San Pellegrino, and has been criticized by activists for human rights violations throughout the world. For example, Food and Water Watch and other organizations blasted Nestlé’s “Human Rights Impact Assessment” in December 2013 as a “public relations stunt.”

“In November 2013, Colombian trade unionist Oscar Lopez Trivino became the fifteenth Nestlé worker to be assassinated by a paramilitary organization while many of his fellow workers were in the midst of a hunger strike protesting the corporation’s refusal to hear their grievances,” according to the groups.

The press conference and protest will take place just days after Jay Famiglietti, the senior water scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech and a professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine, revealed in an op-ed in the LA Times on March 12 that California has only one year of water supply left in its reservoirs.

“As difficult as it may be to face, the simple fact is that California is running out of water — and the problem started before our current drought. NASA data reveal that total water storage in California has been in steady decline since at least 2002, when satellite-based monitoring began, although groundwater depletion has been going on since the early 20th century.

Right now the state has only about one year of water supply left in its reservoirs, and our strategic backup supply, groundwater, is rapidly disappearing. California has no contingency plan for a persistent drought like this one (let alone a 20-plus-year mega-drought), except, apparently, staying in emergency mode and praying for rain.”

Meanwhile, Governor Jerry Brown continues to fast-track his Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels to ship Sacramento River water to corporate agribusiness, Southern California water agencies, and oil companies conducting fracking operations. The $67 billion plan won’t create one single drop of new water, but it will take vast tracts of Delta farm land out of production under the guise of “habitat restoration” in order to irrigate drainage-impaired soil owned by corporate mega-growers on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.

The tunnel plan will also hasten the extinction of Sacramento River Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt, green sturgeon and other fish species, as well as imperil the salmon and steelhead populations on the Klamath and Trinity rivers. The peripheral tunnels will be good for agribusiness, water privateers, oil companies and the 1 percent, but will be bad for the fish, wildlife, people and environment of California and the public trust.

The Delta smelt may already be extinct in the wild!

In fact, the endangered Delta smelt, once the most abundant fish in the entire Bay Delta Estuary, may already be extinct, according to UC Davis fish biologist and author Peter Moyle, as quoted on Capital Public Radio.

“Prepare for the extinction of the Delta Smelt in the wild,” Moyle told a group of scientists with the Delta Stewardship Council. 

According to Capital Public Radio:

“He says the latest state trawl survey found very few fish in areas of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where smelt normally gather.

‘That trawl survey came up with just six smelt, four females and two males,’ says Moyle. “Normally because they can target smelt, they would have gotten several hundred.’

Moyle says the population of Delta smelt has been declining for the last 30 years but the drought may have pushed the species to the point of no return. If the smelt is officially declared extinct, which could take several years, the declaration could change how water is managed in California.

‘All these biological opinions on Delta smelt that have restricted some of the pumping will have to be changed,’ says Moyle.

But Moyle says pumping water from the Delta to Central and Southern California could still be restricted at certain times because of all the other threatened fish populations.”

The Delta smelt, an indicator species that demonstrates the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, reached a new record low population level in 2014, according to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s fall midwater trawl survey that was released in January.

Department staff found a total of only eight smelt at a total of 100 sites sampled each month from September through December

The smelt is considered an indicator species because the 2.0 to 2.8 inch long fish is endemic to the estuary and spends all of its life in the Delta.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has conducted the Fall Midwater Trawl Survey (FMWT) to index the fall abundance of pelagic (open water) fish, including Delta smelt, striped bass, longfin smelt, threadfin shad and American shad, nearly annually since 1967. The index of each species is a number that indicates a relative population abundance.

Watch Nestle’s CEO declare water “food that should be privatized, and not a human right”:

Source:http://collectivelyconscious.net

 

United Nations Calls for Worldwide Treaty to Phase Out Pesticides and Transition to Sustainable Farming


Story at-a-glance
  • Research has linked long-term pesticide exposure to infertility, birth defects, endocrine disruption and obesity, reduced IQ, neurological diseases, cancer and many other health and environmental problems
  • Two United Nations experts are now calling for a comprehensive global treaty to regulate and phase out toxic pesticides in farming, and to move food production across the world toward more sustainable agricultural practices
  • Another recently released report, “Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture,” by the European Parliament, details the many benefits of organics

In a 2013 survey, 71 percent of Americans expressed a concern over the number of chemicals and pesticides in their food supply.1 And no wonder — research has linked long-term pesticide exposure to infertility,2 birth defects,3,4 endocrine disruption5 and obesity, reduced IQ,6 neurological diseases7 and cancer.8

It is only a common-sense conclusion that reducing your pesticide exposure would result in improved health.

The amount of pesticides used both commercially and in residential areas has grown immensely since 1945. More than 1 billion pounds are used each year in the U.S. alone. Worldwide, an estimated 7.7 billion pounds of pesticides are applied to crops each year, and that number is steadily increasing.9

According to a 2012 analysis,10 each 1 percent increase in crop yield is associated with a 1.8 percent increase in pesticide use. Logic tells us this is an unsustainable trajectory when you consider the health and environmental ramifications associated with pesticide use and exposure.

As just one example, studies done by the Chinese government show that 20 percent of arable land in China is now unusable due to pesticide contamination!11 Every now and then, though, a ray of hope descends.

Earlier this month, two United Nations (UN) experts called for a comprehensive global treaty to not only regulate but actually phase out toxic pesticides in farming, and to move food production across the world toward more sustainable agricultural practices.

This is a significant change in stance that can — and hopefully will — have far-reaching consequences.

UN Calls for Global Treaty to Promote Sustainable Farming Without Toxic Pesticides

The two experts, Hilal Elver, the UN’s special rapporteur on the right to food and Baskut Tuncak, the special rapporteur on toxics, shared research with the Human Rights Council in Geneva showing pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year.

Chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility. As reported by Sustainable Pulse:12

“The experts particularly emphasized the obligation of States to protect the rights of children from hazardous pesticides … The experts warn that certain pesticides can persist in the environment for decades and pose a threat to the entire ecological system on which food production depends …

The experts say the use of neonicotinoid pesticides is particularly worrying because they are accused of being responsible for a systematic collapse in the number of bees around the world. Such a collapse, they say, threatens the very basis of agriculture as 71 percent of crop species are bee-pollinated.

While acknowledging that certain international treaties currently offer protection from the use of a few pesticides, they stressed that a global treaty to regulate the vast majority of them throughout their life cycle does not yet exist, leaving a critical gap in the human rights protection framework.”

The special rapporteurs challenged the pesticide industry’s “systematic denial of harms” and “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics,” noting the industry is spending massive amounts of money to influence policymakers and contest scientific evidence showing their products do in fact cause great harm to human and environmental health.

Toxic Pesticides Are Not an Irreplaceable Farming Necessity

Even more importantly, their report firmly denies the idea that pesticides are essential to ensure sufficient amounts of food for a growing world population, calling the notion “a myth.”13

Not only have decades of heavy pesticide use failed to eliminate global hunger, they said, the same chemicals have now become a troubling food contaminant — contaminants made all the worse by the fact that they cannot be washed off like many older generation pesticides could. According to Elver and Tuncak:14

“The assertion promoted by the agrochemical industry that pesticides are necessary to achieve food security is not only inaccurate, but dangerously misleading.

In principle, there is adequate food to feed the world; inequitable production and distribution systems present major blockages that prevent those in need from accessing it …”

Moreover, the report highlighted developments in sustainable and regenerative farming, where biology can completely replace chemicals, delivering high yields of nutritious food without detriment to the environment.

“It is time to overturn the myth that pesticides are necessary to feed the world and create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production,” they said.

Which Foods Are the Most Contaminated?

According to the 2017 Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) “Dirty Dozen” and “Clean 15” reports,15,16,17 which rank foods based on highest and lowest pesticide contamination, strawberries still top the list of foods most likely to contain the highest amounts of residues, containing a minimum of 20 pesticides — twice the amount of the second-most contaminated crop — while non-GMO sweet corn has the lowest amounts.

EWG’s Dirty Dozen — Foods containing the highest amounts of pesticide residues and therefore best to purchase organic include:

1. Strawberries 2. Spinach 3. Nectarines
4. Apples 5. Peaches 6. Pears
7. Cherries 8. Grapes 9. Celery
10. Tomatoes 11. Sweet bell peppers 12. Potatoes

EWG’s Clean 15 — Foods containing the lowest amounts of residues, and therefore safer to buy conventional if you cannot afford organic varieties include:

1. Non-GMO sweet corn 2. Avocados 3. Pineapple
4. Cabbage 5. Onions 6. Frozen sweet peas
7. Non-GMO papaya 8. Asparagus 9. Mangos
10. Eggplant 11. Honeydew melon 12. Kiwi
13. Cantaloupe 14. Cauliflower 15. Grapefruit

European Parliament Report Highlights Benefits of Organic Foods

Another favorable piece of news is the recently released report,18 “Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture,” by the European Parliament, detailing the many benefits of organics. The report is unusually comprehensive in that it reviews a wide range of effects of organics, from nutritional content and the benefits of fewer pesticides to environmental impacts and sustainability.

Its conclusions are based on hundreds of epidemiological and laboratory studies and food analyses. The clearest benefits of organics on human health were found to be related to lowered pesticide, antibiotic and cadmium exposure. As noted by Civil Eats:19

“Most striking in its findings is the evidence suggesting organic food can help protect children from the brain-altering effects of some pesticides. And while there is evidence of greater nutrient content in some organic food — particularly milk and meat — as health benefits, these differences appear to be less significant than organic food’s lack of hazardous chemicals …

The report was prepared for a European audience, but its findings clearly apply to the U.S. ‘They did a really comprehensive job of a global literature search, so I don’t think anything in the report wouldn’t be applicable,’ said Boise State University assistant professor of community and environmental health Cynthia Curl, who researches links between diet and pesticide exposure …

‘As a consequence of reduced pesticide exposure, organic food consequently contributes to the avoidance of health effects and associated costs to society,’ write the authors, noting that research suggests these costs are currently ‘greatly underestimated.’”

Consumer Rights Group Sues EPA Over FOIA Violations

Although the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate — the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide — as a probable human carcinogen in 2015,20 the product has not been pulled from the market. Citing this finding and other research, more than 60 cancer patients are coordinating lawsuits against Monsanto.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), contradicted the IARC’s findings when it, in September, 2016, declared glyphosate “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans21 — a determination that has been met with severe criticism and accusations of violating EPA guidelines22 and protecting Monsanto’s interests23 at the expense of public health.

Now the consumer rights group, U.S. Right to Know (USRTK), has filed a federal lawsuit against the EPA for violating Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provisions. As reported by USRTK:24

“The lawsuit … seeks documents related to EPA’s assessment of … glyphosate … [USRTK] requested the EPA records after the EPA posted an internal memorandum titled “GLYPHOSATE: Report of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee” to the agency’s website on April 29, 2016.

The internal EPA report, known as the CARC report, concluded that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” The EPA then deleted the public posting on May 2, saying that the document was posted inadvertently.

But before it was deleted Monsanto officials copied the document, promoted it on the company website and on social media and made reference to it in a court hearing dealing with lawsuits filed by agricultural workers and others who allege Monsanto’s herbicide gave them cancer.

The May 12, 2016 FOIA request asked for certain records relating to the CARC report on glyphosate as well as records of communications between Monsanto and EPA officials that discussed glyphosate issues. Under FOIA, the EPA had 20 working days to respond to the request, but well over 190 working days have now passed and the EPA has yet to produce any records in response to the request …”

Glyphosate — A Most Troublesome Toxin

Glyphosate is most heavily applied on GE corn, soybeans and sugar beets, but it’s also commonly used to desiccate conventional (non-GMO but non-organic) wheat and protect other conventional crops from weeds. Disturbingly, glyphosate and Roundup may actually be even worse than DDT, having been linked to an ever-growing array of health effects, including but not limited to:25,26

Nutritional deficiencies, especially minerals, as glyphosate immobilizes certain nutrients and alters the nutritional composition of the treated crop Disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids (these are essential amino acids not produced in your body that must be supplied via your diet)
Increased toxin exposure (this includes high levels of glyphosate and formaldehyde in the food itself) Impairment of sulfate transport and sulfur metabolism; sulfate deficiency
Systemic toxicity — a side effect of extreme disruption of microbial function throughout your body; beneficial microbes in particular, allowing for overgrowth of pathogens Gut dysbiosis (imbalances in gut bacteria, inflammation, leaky gut and food allergies such as gluten intolerance)
Enhancement of damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and environmental toxins as a result of glyphosate shutting down the function of detoxifying enzymes Creation of ammonia (a byproduct created when certain microbes break down glyphosate), which can lead to brain inflammation associated with autism and Alzheimer’s disease
Increased antibiotic resistance by priming pathogens to more readily become resistant to antibiotics Increased cancer risk.27,28,29,30 Since the IARC’s determination, agricultural personnel have begun suing Monsanto over past glyphosate exposure, claiming it played a role in their bone cancer and leukemia31,32

The Many Drawbacks of Industrialized Agriculture

The UN’s special report on pesticides and call for a transition toward sustainable agriculture worldwide adds ammunition to an already well-stocked munitions store against conventional agriculture and genetic engineering. I’ve detailed a wide range of drawbacks of chemical-dependent industrial farming in previous articles, including the following:

Degrades and contaminates soil

Grains account for about 70 percent of our daily calories, and grains are grown on about 70 percent of acreage worldwide. The continuous replanting of grain crops each year leads to soil degradation, as land is tilled and sprayed each year, disrupting the balance of microbes in the soil.

Top soil is also lost each year, which means that, eventually, our current modes of operation simply will no longer work. Soil erosion and degradation rates suggest we have less than 60 remaining years of topsoil.33

Forty percent of the world’s agricultural soil is now classified as either degraded or seriously degraded; the latter means that 70 percent of the topsoil is gone. Soil degradation is projected to cause 30 percent loss in food production over the next 20 to 50 years. Meanwhile, our global food demands are expected to increase by 50 percent over this span of time.

As explained in Peter Byck’s short film, “One Hundred Thousand Beating Hearts,” farm animals form symbiotic relationships where one species helps keep parasites from overwhelming another. It is the separation of crops and animals into two distinctly different farming processes that has led to animal waste becoming a massive source of pollution rather than a valuable part of the ecological cycle.

Contaminates water and drains aquifers

Agriculture accounts for 70 percent of our fresh water use. When the soil is unfit, water is wasted. It simply washes right through the soil and past the plant’s root system. We already have a global water shortage that’s projected to worsen over the coming two or three decades, so this is the last thing we need to compound it. On top of that, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are a major water polluter, destroying what precious little water we do have.

The EPA has noted that U.S. states with high congregations of CAFOs report 20 to 30 serious water quality problems each year.34 According to a report35 by Environment America, corporate agribusiness is “one of the biggest threats to America’s waterways.” Tyson Foods Inc. is among the worst, releasing 104.4 million pounds of toxic pollutants into waterways between 2010 and 2014; second only to a steel manufacturing company.

Contributes to greenhouse gas emissions

While fertilizer production produces its share of greenhouse gases, most of the emissions occur upon application. According to the International Panel on Climate Change, 1 out of every 100 kilos of nitrogen fertilizer applied to farm land ends up in the atmosphere as nitrous oxide (N2O), a potent greenhouse gas (300 times more potent than CO2) known to deplete the ozone.36

In 2014, the amount of N2O created by nitrogen fertilizer spread on American farmland was equal to one-third of the N2O released by all cars and trucks in the U.S. More recent research suggests the real number is three to five times higher than that.

Reduces biodiversity

The efficiency model of large-scale industrialized agriculture demanded a reduction in diversity. Hence, we got monoculture: farmers growing all corn, or all soy, for example. Monoculture has significantly contributed to dietary changes that promote ill health. The primary crops grown on industrial farms today — corn, soy, wheat, canola and sugar beets — are the core ingredients in processed foods known to promote obesity, nutritional deficiencies and disease.

According to a report by the Royal Botanic Gardens in the U.K., one-fifth of all plants worldwide are now threatened with extinction, primarily through the expansion of agriculture.37 Ethanol and corn sweetener subsidies have also led to farmers abandoning conservation measures designed to preserve fragile lands and protect biodiversity in the natural landscape.38

Worsens food safety and promotes pandemic disease

Agricultural overuse of drugs, especially antibiotics, has led to the development of drug-resistant disease,39 which has now become a severe health threat. Pandemic outbreaks are also becoming more prevalent in CAFOs, revealing the inherent flaws of industrialized animal farming.

In 2015, an avian flu outbreak spread across 14 states in five months. The year before that, a pig virus outbreak killed off 10 percent of the American pig population. As noted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy:40 “The rapid spread of new disease strains … is one very visible reason why the expansion of factory-style animal production is viewed as unsustainable.”

Threatens food security by decimating important pollinators such as butterfly and bee populations.41

Promotes nutritional deficiencies and poor nutrition

Industrial farming is set up and subsidized to grow ingredients used in processed foods. This is the cheapest way to feed the masses. However, what people really need more of in order to thrive is fresh produce.

According to research42 presented at the 2016 American Heart Association’s Epidemiology meeting, reducing the price of fruits and vegetables by 30 percent could save nearly 200,000 lives over 15 years by lowering rates of heart disease and stroke.

If people added just one additional serving of fruits and vegetables a day, up to 3.5 million deaths from heart disease could be prevented in just two years. Testing also reveals nutrient content of foods has dramatically declined across the board since the introduction of mechanized farming in 1925. For example:

  • To receive the same amount of iron you used to get from one apple in 1950, by 1998 you had to eat 26 apples; today you have to eat 36
  • Between 1950 and 1999, levels of protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and vitamin C levels in 43 different vegetables and fruits significantly declined43
  • Analysis of nutrient data from 1975 to 1997 found that, on average, calcium levels in 12 fresh vegetables dropped 27 percent; iron levels dropped 37 percent; vitamin A levels dropped 21 percent; vitamin C levels declined by 30 percent

Healthy soils contain a large diversity of microorganisms, and it is these organisms that are responsible for the plant’s nutrient uptake,44,45 health and the stability of the entire ecosystem. The wide-scale adoption of industrial farming practices has decimated soil microbes responsible for transferring these minerals to the plants.

If we do not change, we will eventually reach a point of no return, where soils will be too depleted and microbially “dead” to grow food. Conventional may be more efficient, and may provide somewhat greater yields in some cases, but in the long term it’s unsustainable.

Necessitates the use of toxins, poisons and harmful mechanical farming methods:

Industrialization led to the separation of crops and livestock farming into two different specialties. That change alone has done tremendous harm, as livestock are actually a core component of regenerative agriculture. As a result, a whole host of land maintenance services that animals serve for free have had to be replaced with chemical and mechanical means — all of which have detrimental effects on human health and the environment.

Is less profitable than organic farming and cannot affordably and sustainably increase production

Research has even shown that conventional farming cannot significantly compete with organic in terms of profitability. At least 1,000 studies have compared organic and conventional farming in terms of productivity, environmental impact, economic viability and social wellbeing.

One such study46,47 found that organic farms are more profitable,48,49 earning farmers anywhere from 22 to 35 percent more than their conventional counterparts. They also produce equally or more nutritious foods with fewer or no pesticide residues. Organic farms also use far less energy, were found to be at a distinct advantage during droughts, and provide unique benefits to the ecosystem, along with social benefits that are hard to put a price tag on. According to one of the authors:

“If I had to put it in one sentence, organic agriculture has been able to provide jobs, be profitable, benefit the soil and environment and support social interactions between farmers and consumers. In some ways, there are practices in organic agriculture that really are ideal blueprints for us to look at feeding the world in the future. Organic may even be our best bet to help feed the world in an increasingly volatile climate.”

Assures decimation of food production should feared climate changes turn into reality

Recent research50,51 indeed confirms that conventional farming methods cannot protect us from a repeat of the devastating conditions experienced during the 1930s “dust bowl,” a time when consecutive droughts decimated food production in the U.S. According to simulations, if the U.S. were to experience the same kind of drought as in 1936, we’d lose 40 percent of our corn and soy, and 30 percent of our wheat.

These losses are very similar to those back in 1936. But when including current climate change trends into their calculations, crop losses increase by 25 percent for each 1-degree increase in temperature. A 4-degree increase in average temperature would reduce crop yields by a staggering 80 percent over the course of a season. As noted by bioethicist George Divorsky:52

“Given recent predictions53 that parts of the U.S. could soon experience “megadroughts” lasting for as long as 35 years (yes, you read that correctly), these results should serve as a serious wakeup call.”

Directly promotes ill health and chronic disease

Health statistics suggest the average toxic burden has become too great for children and adults alike. More than half of all Americans are chronically ill, and toxins in our food appear to play a primary role. According to Dr. Joseph E. Pizzorno,54founding president of Bastyr University, toxins in the modern food supply are now “a major contributor to, and in some cases the cause of, virtually all chronic diseases.”

A recent report55,56 by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.57 which represents OB-GYNs in 125 countries, warns that chemical exposures, including pesticides, now represent a major threat to human health and reproduction. Pesticides are also included in a new scientific statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals by the Endocrine Society task force.58,59

This task force warns that the health effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals is such that everyone needs to take proactive steps to avoid them — especially those seeking to get pregnant, pregnant women, and young children. Even extremely low-level pesticide exposure has been found to considerably increase the risk of certain diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease.

What Can You Do to Protect Your Family Against Pesticides?

In order to reduce your exposure to toxic pesticides, you’d be wise to make some changes in your lifestyle choices. Here are just a few suggestions to help you get started.

  • Eat organic foods. Look for organic produce and grassfed meats and dairy products. Investigate the farmers markets in your area and consider planting your own garden to supply produce through the summer months. Although buying organic foods may be slightly more expensive today, they help to reduce your overall health costs in your future.
  • Go green in your lawn and garden care. You don’t have to give up a green lawn if you want to remove pesticides from your garden. However, it may take a season or two in order to get the growth you’re looking for.
  • Talk with your school board about lawn care at your children’s school. Pesticides sprayed on the school lawn and play areas can increase your child’s exposure. You may be able to change how they care for the lawn when you educate the administration about the risks involved to the children.
  • Play in a healthy environment. Before joining a golf club or playing frequently, talk with the course superintendent about the pesticides they use to control weeds and insects. Bring members together to request cleaner and safer lawn care. Talk to your city administrators about the care given to the lawn in your local parks. Educate them about the risks to adults, children and pets from pesticides.

Watch the video. URL:

Source: mercola.com