‘Mind-reading machine’ can convert thoughts into speech

(Telegraph/UK)   Researchers have been able to translate brain signals into speech using sensors attached to the surface of the brain for the first time. Read more

HEALTH ALERT: Cannabis Cures Cancer

Read more

Eternal Vigilance: The Cost of Freedom

*Insert audio article here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOasa4NlxEg&feature=player_embedded

Eternal Vigilance: The Cost of Freedom

Nathan Janes
Pupaganda.com

“Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” Bertrand Russell, 20th Century Philosopher & Nobel Prize Winner

The most widespread form of slavery today is of the mind. Individuals are controlled and managed by the Establishment on a level that can be hard to recognize. Disinformation is continuously spread by the mass media. Children are schooled by the State yet never receive education. The traditional family is in danger of extinction. Our food and water is full of toxins. We have adapted to incremental changes that amount to significant threats to our personal freedoms, independent thoughts, and quality of life. Largely, the public has become sick and dumb. Our country is in a state of crisis.

The Establishment has colluded to sabotage education in America, producing a population that is unable to think critically and logically. Children are indoctrinated through schooling, trained not to question authority, and rewarded for competing with their peers and doing exactly as they are told. With the prevalence of after and before school programs, many children are now spending up to 12 hours a day at school. Children are taught disrespect for family, and the mind and character of the child is overwhelmingly influenced by the State.  The Establishment is controlling tomorrow by schooling the youth of today.

Sexual education classes are often taught before children have even reached puberty. We live in a culture that is ever increasingly encouraging children to have pre-pubertal sex. Children over stimulated sexually before puberty are likely to become hyper-sexualized adults unable to deeply bond with another person. The ‘entertainment’ industry is constantly sending the message of promiscuity through movies and television that capture an audience of young viewers. According to Nielsen television statistics, ‘Desperate Housewives’ was the most popular television show with girls aged 9-12 in 2005. Even the United Nations pushes the agenda, advocating masturbation for children as young as 5 years old in a 2009 report titled “International Guidelines for Sexuality Education.”

Culture is being used as a weapon against the traditional family.  The media continuously portrays fathers as pathetic fools celebrated for their stupidity rather than for moral strength and integrity. Women have been portrayed as independent career focused self-obsessed individuals who are sexually aggressive and promiscuous. An atmosphere has been created where breast-feeding is seen as obscene but women are expected and encouraged to expose their breasts in a sexual nature. Clearly excluded from this image are family values and the raising of children. Instead of surrounding the family dinner table for meals and discussions, we surround the television each evening, absorbing the views and ideas it promotes.

-Continue Reading Here: http://pupaganda.com/originals/Erternal_vigilance.html

Poster

FDA opens probe into University of Miami cancer research

(MiamiHerald)   The Food and Drug Administration is investigating cancer studies at the University of Miami after problems were found with one study. Read more

Cattle ‘cloned from dead animals’

Cloned Meat May Already Have Invaded Our Food Supply, Posing Alarming Health Risks

(ALTERNET)   It’s just a matter of time before we are eating clones, if we are not eating them now.

When Canadian agricultural leaders asked Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last week after a scandal about unlabeled clone products in Europe if “cloned cows or their offspring have made it into the North American food supply,” he said, “I can’t say today that I can answer your question in an affirmative or negative way. I don’t know.”

And when AlterNet asked the USDA this week if cloned products are already in the food supply, a spokesman said the department was “not aware of an instance where product from an animal clone has entered the food supply” thanks to a “voluntary moratorium”– but that offspring of clones, at the heart of the Europe scandal,” are not clones and are therefore not included” in the voluntary moratorium.

Sounds like Europe is not the only place eating milk and meat from unlabeled clone offspring. In fact, the BBC, UK newspapers and even a US grocer all report that US consumers are digging into clone food, whether or not they know it.

Like bovine growth hormone and Roundup Ready crops, the government says clone products are so safe they don’t need to be labeled. But the 2008 FDA report (PDF), Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment and a report from the European Food Safety Authority released at the same time, raise questions about the health of cloned animals, the safety of their milk and meat and even the soundness of the clone process itself.

To clone an animal, “scientists start with a piece of ear skin and mince it up in a lab. Then they induce the cells to divide in a culture dish until they forget they are skin cells and regain their ability to express all of their genes,” writes the Los Angeles Times’ Karen Kaplan. “Meanwhile, the nucleus is removed from a donor egg and placed next to a skin cell. Both are zapped with a tiny electric shock, and if all goes well the egg grows into a genetic copy of the original animal.”

So far so good except that it turns out many clones lack the ability to “reprogram the somatic nucleus of the donor to the state of a fertilized zygote,” says the FDA report and be the perfect replica a clone is supposed to be.

The reprogamming problem, called epigenetic dysregulation, means many clones — some say 90 percent — are born with deformities, enlarged umbilical cords, respiratory distress, heart and intestine problems and Large Offspring Syndrome, the latter often killing the clone and its “mother,” the surrogate dam. Clones that survive epigenetic dysregulation often require surgery, oxygen and transfusions at birth, eat insatiably but do not necessarily gain weight and fail to maintain normal temperatures, admits the report.

While denying that such dysregulation is endemic to cloning, the FDA report nonetheless reassures readers that “residual epigenetic reprogramming errors that could persist” in clones will “reset” over time. The errors will also “reset” in offspring who, though “the same as any other sexually-reproduced animals,” may nonetheless have them. Oops.

http://www.alternet.org/food/147878/cloned_meat_may_already_have_invaded_our_food_supply%2C_posing_alarming_health_risks/

‘Fructose-Slurping’ Cancer Could Sour the Soda Business

(DAILY FINANCE)   Soda and processed-food manufacturers have long insisted that all sugars are essentially the same. Yet, simultaneously they’re delicately backing away from high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as one study after another links the corn-based sweetener to obesity and diabetes. While the market for HFCS declined by 9% in 2008, says Ken Roseboro of the Organic and Non-GMO Report, it was still used in 55% of all sweetened edibles in 2009.

New findings published this month in the journal Cancer Research by University of California Los Angeles researchers could further sour the public’s sentiment toward the super-sweet, super-cheap syrup and reduce its use even further. HFCS is 55% fructose and 42% glucose. The study found that pancreatic tumor cells metabolized fructose differently than glucose and that the cancer cells “readily metabolized fructose to increase proliferation.” In other words, as the headline reads, “Cancer cells slurp up fructose.”

Lawsuits Are Sure to Follow

This is a direct challenge to the Corn Refiner’s Association, which made a splash in 2008 with commercials belittling consumers who disdained high-fructose corn syrup as self-righteous and incoherent. (The ads inspired a little outrage and a lot of spoofs and rebuttals.) In March 2010, the association put on its website a clip from CBS News calling differences in the chemistry of HFCS and table sugar “an urban myth.” And despite the occasional study linking HFCS consumption to obesity, as well as insulin resistance and diabetes, the prevailing sentiment of the food industry was that the difference between HFCS and cane or beet sugar was negligible.

“Fructose is a natural, simple sugar commonly found in a variety of sweeteners, including table sugar, honey, and high fructose corn syrup, as well as in many fruits, vegetables, and juices,” says Audrae Erickson, President of the Corn Refiners Association in a statement. “This study does not look at the way fructose is actually consumed by humans, as it was conducted in a laboratory, not inside the human body. The study also narrowly compared pure fructose to pure glucose, neither of which is consumed in isolation in the human diet.”

Despite the Corn Refiner’s Association’s best efforts, high fructose corn syrup is still being maligned. But it is this latest study linking the sweetener to pancreatic cancer that may be the weapon of choice for eager attorneys in defense of angry consumers. As Frost & Sullivan industry analyst Christopher Shanahan says, laughing, when asked whether there will be lawsuits, “Yes, I’d put money on it.”

But as damning as the headlines of this latest study seem to be, other scientists caution that further research needs to be done before people leap to the assumption that fructose helps cancer proliferate. The science blogger known as “Orac” writes that the research is “rather interesting,” but far more work should be done before it’s seen as proof that HFCS causes pancreatic cancer. “It’s far too early to make any sort of recommendations about high fructose corn syrup and diet based on this study,” he writes.

In a statement, the American Beverage Association said: “It is important to recognize that this was not a clinical trial performed on humans, but rather a test tube study. In addition, the isolated cancer cells were subjected to extremely high levels of fructose that are unlikely in normal human metabolic processes. In fact, human beings do not typically consume fructose by itself, as it is normally found in combination with glucose in fruits and vegetables, or in the form of sucrose or high fructose corn syrup as found in myriad foods and beverages. The fact remains that no single food or beverage causes cancer, including pancreatic cancer.”

Beverage Makers Under the Gun

The beverage companies are the easiest targets in the crusade against HFCS, says Shanahan. For “the corn manufacturers, the sugar manufacturers, the processed-food manufacturers, there is an underlying fear that, in the next 10 years, this is going to be a critical challenge similar to the top-down mandates that impacted the tobacco industry.”

He points to a central problem of the U.S. agricultural system: Very few crops — soy, wheat and especially corn — account for a huge percentage of the American diet, especially when you consider the soy- and corn-fed livestock and myriad processed foods made from corn derivatives.

“The recent obesity measure, weight issues, diabetes, all can be routed back to the American diet,” Shanahan says, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture is complicit in the problem, with rich subsidies for wheat, soy and corn, the top recipient. The amount varies widely from year to year, but corn subsidies totaled $73.8 billion from 1995 to 2009. With corn so cheap, there’s incentive to put it in more and more foods in place of other, more expensive, ingredients. Now it’s in practically every processed food, and lots of nonfoods, too, including ethanol for fuel.

Getting the HFCS Out

Roseboro, of the Organic & Non-GMO Report, says change is coming. Big brands like Hunt’s (CAG), Gatorade (PEP) and Starbucks (SBUX) are reformulating some of their products to remove HFCS. “I think the fact that big companies [like Hunt's and Pepsico] are going to stop using it is indication that a trend is going to be that companies will be taking it out, using sugar instead, and the smaller companies will follow along.”

Shanahan agrees. “Food manufacturers are starting to diversify their product line to include cane sugar,” he says. “The corn refiners are going to stop making corn sweeteners, and make ethanol instead.”

It might be longer than he thinks before beverage companies and, most important, government agencies decide it’s time for change, however. Switching away from corn sweeteners won’t be easy. Cheap corn is, after all, the basis of many processed foods. It’s not just the HFCS, of course. Corn is the source of oil for salad dressing and frying, of coloring for sodas, juices and yogurts, of livestock feed that makes $1 hamburgers possible.

“Over time, consumers will change their diets as they are taught the real cost of food,” Shanahan says. “This is going to be a diminishing problem.” Food and beverage makers have plenty of skin in this game and may as well get ahead of eventual regulation, he says, adding that a healthful product line is where the industry is headed. “Food processors are only doing what the man wants. They’re going to sell you healthy food if you want it.”

Just as with tobacco, we’re in for a decade or two of growing awareness about the destructive effects of our subsidized cheap-sweetener system, with lawsuits and regulations to follow. But we’ll get over it, Shanahan says. “In this transitional period, people don’t want to eat the stuff, but they’ll be more than happy to put it in their cars.”

HEALTH ALERT: LSU Toxicologist Talks About Health Risks In the Gulf

Read more

Big Pharma nanotechnology encodes pills with tracking data that you swallow

(NaturalNews)   The emerging field of nanotechnology is currently gaining a lot of attention across many industries. Nanotechnology allows scientists to manipulate individual atoms and molecules to create unique materials and even micro-scale devices, and this is leading to a wide range of applications in clothing, textiles, electronics and even food and medicine.

Sounds great, right? Except for the fact that, like genetic modification of food crops, nanotechnology tampers with Mother Nature in a way that’s largely untested for safety. And here’s something really bizarre: The pharmaceutical industry may soon begin using nanotechnology to encode drug tablets and capsules with brand and tracking data that you swallow as part of the pill.

To really explain how this works, let me simplify how nanotechnology works so you’ll see why this is so bizarre (and potentially dangerous). Instead of using materials and elements as they’re found in nature to build and construct things, nanotechnologists are deconstructing the basic building blocks of these materials and elements to make completely new ones. In other words, nanoscientists are reconstructing the molecular building blocks of our world without yet knowing what it will do to humans and to the environment.

The long-term consequences of nanotechnology are still largely unknown because not a single formidable study has ever been conducted on this emerging science that proves it to be safe. In fact, most of the studies that have been conducted on nanotechnology show that it’s actually detrimental to health and to the environment (which I’ll cover further, below).

But that hasn’t stopped Big Pharma from potentially adopting it for use in a new tracking and identification system that could be integrated into the very drug pills and capsules that millions of people swallow every day.

By the way, I’ve also posted a video explaining all this. Check it out here: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=93626…

Nano-encrypted barcode in every dose

Now don’t get me wrong. Big Pharma isn’t the only industry using nanotechnology despite a complete lack of safety evidence. “Nanoparticles” are present in sunscreens, fabric protectors, plastic food liners, and other products. But what’s different about the nanoparticles soon to be found in a pill near you is that they are capable of storing data about where the drug was made, when it was made, and where it has traveled.

It’s a lot like the barcodes used on parcels to track them along their shipping journeys, except that in the drugs, it’s a molecular barcode that people will be swallowing. During digestion of the pill, the nano data bits will be distributed throughout your body and can become lodged in your body’s tissues.

A company that’s introducing this system for pharmaceuticals, says it this way on its website:

“In the NanoEncryption process, NanoCodes are incorporated directly onto tablets, capsules and vial caps. These codes may be associated with an unlimited amount of manufacturer-determined data, including product information (strength and expiration date), manufacturing information (location date, batch and lot number) and distribution information (country, distributor, wholesaler and chain).”

So if you take these drugs, you’ll be swallowing nano “hard drives” that can store data — data that will be distributed throughout your body and can be read by medical technicians who could then track what drugs you took in the past. And what’s the rationale for this? According to the company, it’s to “defen[d] against pharmaceutical counterfeiting and illegal diversion”.

It sounds like a good idea, right? Unfortunately, there’s a whole lot more to this technology than meets the eye.

Editor’s Note: UPDATE 1 — The company originally mentioned in this story now denies what NaturalNews reported. Their own website text as quoted in this story, was apparently misleading, and they now claim they do not use nano “material” of any kind to achieve their nano encoding. We are temporarily removing the name of this company from this story while we attempts to sort out the truth of the matter. In the past, we’ve had many company rush to change their own website text after we ran a story on them. All quotes published in this story were 100% accurate at the time of publication, and we made a good faith attempt to report this story accurately.

The dangers of nanotechnology

Though you’ll rarely hear about it in the mainstream media, little is known about what nanoparticles really do to people’s bodies and to the environment in the long term. Studies continue to show that nanoparticles tend to easily build up in the body where they can potentially cause damage. They also behave differently than the materials from which they are derived and constructed, posing unknown hazards.

Researchers from the University of Rochester discovered back in 2006 that nanoparticles are easily absorbed throughout the body via inhalation. According to the report, nanoparticles travel from the nasal cavity directly to brain tissue where they deposit themselves and cause brain inflammation. In other words, nanoparticles very easily cross the blood-brain barrier, which is the mechanism by which the brain normally protects itself from foreign materials.

The same study, which is part of a five-year, $5.5 million investigation into the safety of nanoparticles, also determined that this artificial micro-matter makes its way to the lungs when inhaled.

Nanoparticles are different from their parent particles

Nanoparticle use is on the rise based on the flawed assumption that if the elements and compounds from which they are derived are considered safe, then the nanoparticles themselves must also be safe. But research reveals that this simply isn’t the case.

A study from 2004 found that low levels of fullerenes, a type of carbon nanoparticle used in electronics and other materials, changed the entire physiology of fish that were exposed to it. Exposure to just 0.5 parts per million (ppm) over the course of two days literally caused significant brain damage in these fish.

“Given the rapid onset of brain damage, it is important to further test and assess the risks and benefits of this new technology (nanotechnology) before use becomes even more widespread,” emphasized Dr. Eva Oberdorster, author of the study, back in 2004.

Again in 2007, scientists from the University of California, San Diego, discovered that iron nanoparticles are toxic to nerve cells and nerve function. Even though iron is a necessary mineral that benefits the body in its natural form, its nanoparticle is quite dangerous, it turns out.

According to Sungho Jin, senior author of the study which was published in the journal Biomaterials, nanoparticles in general “may not be as safe as we had once thought.”

But none of the nation’s regulatory bodies seem to be paying any attention to these studies, or to the many others I didn’t mention that also highlight the toxicity of nanoparticles. Instead, they’ve allowed nanoparticles to invade our society without so much as a single piece of credible evidence showing that they’re safe.

Based on all the research, we know that nanoparticles cross through the skin, lungs, and blood-brain barrier, where they lodge themselves in body tissues. We also know that their compositional differences cause them to be highly reactive with other chemicals, particularly in the body where they create damaging free radicals. But there’s more to this story… it gets even worse.

Nanoparticles are safe in food?

It’s amazing to me that altered molecules with no scientific backing of safety are now being deliberately allowed in the food supply. It would seem unacceptable to allow their use in food manufacturing equipment because of the potential for residue contamination, but that’s exactly where they are being used right now.

According to a DiscoveryNews report from 2009, nanoparticles are everywhere in the food supply. Externally, they’re used in the packaging, containers, films, and other storage materials to kill bacteria and increase shelf life. Internally, they’re used to enhance or alter the flavors and textures of food.

Nanoparticles are even being used in some vitamins, supplements and other “nutraceuticals” to allegedly improve nutrient assimilation and delivery.

The report actually encourages the use of nanotechnology in food, citing all the potential benefits (but remaining silent on all the dangers). One section even hawks nanotechnology as a “green” technology.

But the real truth is that using nanoparticles in food is a grant experiment with an unknown outcome. When it comes to nanotechnology in food, there’s a lot of speculation and pseudo-science being peddled as scientific fact, but there’s truly no scientific backing to support the safe use of man-made nanoparticles in things we consume.

Do the people actually benefit from nanotechnology?

It’s quite common for big industry to persuade the public into accepting new technologies based on promises that they will make their lives better and safer. And that’s exactly what’s happening with nanotechnology: We’re all being sold a bill of goods on something that’s entirely unproven.

And getting back to the issue of embedding nanoparticles in drugs, the whole argument for why this is necessary stems from the notion that there’s a lot of drug fraud occurring, and that it could be stopped if only drugs contained proprietary nanocode data that could be read from your body tissues. But does this benefit the consumer in any way? Who really stands to benefit from this?

Protecting their monopolies

Most NaturalNews readers already know this, but when a pharmaceutical company creates a new drug, it patents it so that no other company can sell it until the patent expires. After acquiring FDA approval for the drug, the company then sells it for thousands of times more than what it costs to produce it. This is the FDA-enforced monopoly known as the modern pharmaceutical industry.

How does this tie into nano protection for drugs? Since drugs are exclusively owned and protected by 20-year patents here in the U.S., which allows drug companies to charge whatever they want for them with no competition, Big Pharma stands to benefit tremendously from a technology that ensures no one else can “counterfeit” its patented drugs.

Because right now, all those counterfeit imitations (which are actually the same chemicals without the brand name) are sold for far less than the brand name drugs, and some people are buying them because they can’t afford the real thing. By integrating nanotechnology into each and every drug pill, it will be easier for Big Pharma to verify and control the drugs people are taking.

Nano-protected pills can be scanned by a detection device that will verify their authenticity and trace them back to the factories where they were manufactured, the warehouses where they were distributed, the pharmacies where they were stocked and sold, and so on. But here’s the part where this all turns Big Brother: The same scanning technology can theoretically be used to scan your body tissues and determine which drugs you’ve been taking, who sold them, where you bought them, where they were made and possibly even how long you’ve been taking them.

By swallowing these nano-protected pills, you are essentially turning your body into a walking Big Pharma hard drive that’s storing all kinds of data on your particular drug habits. This data could be read by law enforcement or even used against you in a court of law. It’s sort of like swallowing RFID technology that tracks your medication use.

Take your approved meds, or else

A few years ago, a friend of mine showed me a clever device that uses a laser to detect antioxidant levels in the body. It basically takes a reading based on the molecular signature of antioxidants in your skin. It uses a blue laser to produce a number revealing your antioxidant level. (Mine was very high, something like 90,000 on this machine.)

Theoretically, a similar detection device could be used to scan patients for nano particles to see whether or not they’ve taken their meds for the day, for the week, or even for the year. You could be scanned by a laser that you don’t even see, and the government or anyone else could “read” your entire history of medication use. This information could be used against you in many ways:

• To deny you employment.
• To deny you health insurance coverage.
• To serve as evidence against you in a court of law.
• To take away your children by labeling you mentally unstable.
• To force you to take vaccines that you’ve been avoiding.

… and so on. This is a “drug enforcement” technology that makes all your private medication habits easily and instantly available to Big Brother and health industry drug enforcers who want you to “take all your meds.”

As such, this technology could further destroy health freedom. The federal government would no doubt attempt to use this technology to control your medication and vaccination intake while enforcing your compliance with random scanning of your hand or other tissues.

Imagine this scenario. Your government-approved doctor says you have a mental disorder because you prefer healthy foods (See my recent article on “orthorexia” if you don’t know what I’m talking about), and he prescribes you a brand name drug to treat it. You decide that eating healthy is normal and you refuse to take the drug. The next time you go in for a checkup, your doctor scans you to check your nanoparticle count and discovers that you haven’t been taking your meds. Since he ordered you to take them and you didn’t, he assesses you a fine and tells you begin taking them or else face potential arrest and prison time.

This scenario is entirely fictitious at the moment, but with the way things are going with Big Brother and Big Pharma, it’s a very real possibility in the near future. Nano technologies can be used in precisely this way to enforce compliance with things like drug prescriptions and treatment mandates. Big Brother will have access to your medical records because they’ll have been implanted into your body tissues through nanotechnology, sort of like radio-frequency identification (RFID) for pharmaceuticals.

It’s a way for the drug industry to turn a human body into a compliant profit machine. And it’s being marketed right now.

Real questions that need to be answered about nanotechnology

It’s not my intention to sound alarmist about nanotechnology, but rather to ask some obvious questions that have yet to be answered. Why has nanotechnology essentially been approved for practically any and every use with absolutely no credible backing showing that it’s safe? Why have most of the studies showing its dangers been ignored by most mainstream scientists? Why are nano particles about to start showing up in our pharmaceuticals?

In theory, nanotechnology may sound like a great thing, but as I’ve mentioned in previous articles I’ve written on the subject, we should be wary of its seductive promises. Not only are nanoparticles potentially dangerous, but many of its uses are completely unnecessary.

Back in 2004, I wrote a piece about the top ten technologies that were around at the time, and nanotechnology wasn’t one of them. My reasoning for this was that nanotechnology, particularly in the field of medicine where it was being promoted the most, was entirely unnecessary because our bodies contain their own built-in “nanoparticles”, so to speak, that cause the body to heal itself naturally. The best nanotechnology in the world already exists inside you — it’s called your immune system.

But science has decided instead to try to engineer its own imitation of the immune system by constructing artificial nanoparticle “robots” to do the job instead. It’s an example of Man’s arrogance over nature. Instead of supporting the human body’s innate immune system technology, arrogant scientists want to overthrow it with their own micro-mechanical robots that attempt to serve the same role.

And now, with the nano technology mentioned here, Big Pharma could be embedding your body’s tissues with nanoparticle data that turns you into a compliant, monopoly-priced drug consumer whose medication habits can now be scanned right off your skin. That’s what Big Pharma wants, of course: Total control over your body. Combined with targeted lobbying of corrupt Washington lawmakers and bureaucrats, Big Pharma could achieve a “mandatory medication requirement” across the entire country, where every citizen is required to dose themselves with psychiatric drugs, statin drugs or vaccines. Your compliance will be verified with a nanotech scan that reads the nanodata right off your skin, and if you’re found to be non-compliant, you could be arrested and forcibly medicated on the spot.

Don’t think this is possible? Much of this has already come true with forced vaccinations of children. See the article I wrote in 2007, Children herded like cattle into Maryland courthouse for forced vaccinations as armed police and attack dogs stand guard (http://www.naturalnews.com/022267.html).

The conspiracy between Big Government and Big Pharma will always try to find a way to make you take more meds (whether you need them or not). This nano-protection technology could play right into their hands, providing an enforcement and tracking technology that would turn your body into a walking Big Pharma storage device.

It’s just one more reason to avoid taking pharmaceuticals in the first place (as if there weren’t enough already!).

If you want to see more about this, watch the video I’ve posted about Big Brother monitoring your medication: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=93626…

http://www.naturalnews.com/029210_nanotechnology_medicines.html

BP says over 15% of oil cleanup workers show high levels of Corexit dispersant toxin; Figure likely much higher

New BP Data Show 20% of Gulf Spill Responders Exposed to Chemical That Sickened Valdez Workers, New York Times, July 9, 2010:

In an under-the-radar release of new test results for its Gulf of Mexico oil spill workers, BP PLC is reporting potentially hazardous exposures… among more than 20 percent of offshore responders. …

2-butoxyethanol was detected at levels up to 10 parts per million (ppm) in more than 20 percent of offshore responders and 15 percent of those near shore. …

Natural Resources Defense Council Senior Scientist Gina Solomon described BP’s continued offshore 2-butoxyethanol detection during the month of June as “worrisome.” “It suggests to me that there is still, clearly, a serious air-quality concern. … [Gulf] air quality, if anything, seems to be deteriorating,” Solomon said.

Hunter College toxicology professor Frank Mirer said it would be “implausible” that the ongoing detection of 2-butoxyethanol among workers could be attributable to only BP’s early use of Corexit 9527. …

http://www.floridaoilspilllaw.com/bp-says-corexit-dispersant-toxin-found-in-more-than-15-of-oil-cleanup-workers-figure-likely-much-higher

Next Page »