(GARDEN FOWL) Earlier this year I designed a wine bottle bed for the 2010 Northwest Flower and Garden Show display we created in partnership with Seattle Tilth. After the garden show I moved it into a spot in our garden and grew our very first RIPE pepper, before any of our tomatoes ripened!!!
The idea is simple: the sunlight warms up the air inside the glass and expands. The heated air is pushed through the bottle neck into the soil warming it, and the plant growing in the soil.
Because of the limited size of the garden show display we made it small and in a circle large enough for one plant. This concept can be used for any size bed – just keep in mind the size or length of your bottles, which can be valuable growing space.
Follow these steps:
- collect bottles (wine, beer or soda) that is the fun part!
- place in an area for raised bed(s)
- concrete the necks, one row at a time – leaving the necks open for air movement(we used half cobb in this mixture)
- stack at least 3 bottles high
- fill with good growing soil
- plant inside of the raised bed a plant that thrives off of heat (peppers, tomatoes, melons, etc)
This is a great way to grow warmth loving crops that don’t normally thrive in a limited growing season. Here in the Pacific Northwest I live in one of those cold micro-climates that is nearly one month behind the warmer maritime micro-climates of Seattle. I plan to build many more of these, and much larger… so, I’d better get to emptying those bottles!
(Chance Sanders) As a society, we like to think of our home as the one place we can relax and feel safe. When not at work, we spend the majority of our time at home. Our most valuable possessions are kept in our home. For most of us, that is our family. Yet, the majority of Americans give little thought to the actual security of their home. I hope to bring some solutions to often overlooked weak points in a home security plan.
The first thing we want to do is a complete threat assessment of our area. This should extend out into our local area where we conduct most of our activities. When doing a threat assessment, you should take into consideration the routes where you shop, eat and conduct business. I recommend getting to know your local law enforcement to get a real view of what’s going on in your area. Simple things such as an online search will give you list of all registered sex offenders in your area. It would be wise to purchase a police scanner and learn the 10 codes of law enforcement and emergency responders in your area. Also, purchase a street map and plot locations of emergency responses and close proximity civil unrest should it ever happen. After a short time, you will have a good idea of what’s going on and where threats to your home security are located. It is also important to know the distance from your home and the nearest police substation so you can estimate response time and where to drive if you are being pursued. For a SHTF situation, this map will be invaluable for plotting your exit route. Knowing where gangs are located and which direction they are likely to go in a civil unrest situation is vital.
After we look at our general area, it’s time to assess our home and property. You want to pay special attention to avenues of approach and egress as well as concealment. One way to do this is try to sneak up on your own house. Is there ample cover to move unseen to the house? Are there any dogs or nosey neighbors (which isn’t always a bad thing)? What about obstacles and lighting? Are you starting to see the picture? This should be done prior to and after any security upgrades. Most physical security countermeasures can be remedied by a trip to the local hardware store and at most a call to a fencing contractor. Expensive alarm systems require monitoring, a power source, and a dedicated response officer. Consider an alert dog to be a worthy replacement for such a system. Remember, you are always the first responder to any situation that may occur at your home. Be sure to conduct routine surveys of your property to determine any unauthorized activity. Cut fencing, tire marks, and litter (cigarette butts, food wrappers, drink cans) are all indicators of human activity. Consider installing cameras like those used to monitor game trails. Newer models allow them to be viewed remotely and less fancy versions are relatively inexpensive.
Now let’s look at the home itself. You want to ensure that you have ample lighting outside of your home. Try to avoid lighting that back lights you and instead blinds an intruder. You should position light fixtures where tampering would be both difficult and noticeable. Keep in mind a power failure would render these ineffective unless they have an independent power source.
Next on the list is a look at controlling entry into our home. As we all know, doors are a major weak spot in our homes physical security. Most residential doors can be defeated by a determined fifteen year old. A door that fits loosely in a frame is a serious security hazard. Consider replacing all exterior doors with one of solid core construction and ensure a proper tight fit as well as adding a strong mesh outer door. This will enable you to open the inner door without making yourself vulnerable to attack. This door should have a dead bolt lock as well. If this is not possible, then perhaps an intercom and/or a camera mounted discreetly facing the door would be a good alternative. Special attention must be given to the integrity of the doorframe and hinges. If the hinges face out towards the intruder, then all that is needed to defeat the door is a screwdriver. There are ways to prevent this such as drilling a small hole though the hinge itself and inserting a pin into the main hinge pin. Although they are not standard on most houses, an outward opening door will withstand being kicked in to a greater degree.
Locks are the first line of defense for most homes and as such they should be effectively integrated into other security and protection systems. Locks should be carefully considered and seen as an investment. The better quality designs and strength of materials should be considered for upgrading your doors’ locks. A phone call to your local locksmith will most likely give you a good recommendation for what locks you need. A strict control of keys is imperative to controlling access. Having a hidden lockbox with your homes key will prevent you from losing them and having to replace all of your keys. Locks are by no means foolproof and should be considered a delaying device. Paired with a motion alarm that will alert you to any presence around the general vicinity of the lock will serve as an early warning system. This will give you those precious few seconds to implement your response plan. A serviceable motion sensor can be reasonably purchased at your local hard ware store and painted to match your environment. These can further be hidden in bird houses built around them.
Windows pose more of a security problem than doors given the material in which they are constructed. Most intruders try not to break glass due to the noise. However, depending on their intent, they may have no such inhabitations. There are screens that can be purchased to limit flying glass from a broken window. A simple way so secure a window is to drill a hole through the frame and insert a pin that can be removed in hurry if you need to open the window and escape. Although considered overkill by some, placing bars over windows will prevent unauthorized access. They must however have the ability to be opened from inside in case of fire or other emergency that requires you to exit. If possible and depending on your geographical location, keep enough material on hand to board up your windows in case of adverse weather or civil unrest.
Once we have done our physical security measures, it’s time to do some more planning. Sit the family down and go over some basic safety rules. First thing, children never answer the door. Adults do not open the door until identity and business has been verified. Any questions like, “Is your husband home?” by someone knocking on your door may just be the answer a home invader is looking for. We also need to develop a recall roster for adults of the house, workplace and emergency contact numbers. This should be kept by the phone. It’s also a good idea to develop a security alert plan. Each person will know where to go and what to do. For example, if the dog barks, perhaps mom looks after the children while dad investigates. This is something one needs to give much thought. Protection of one’s family comes before protecting property. It does your family no good if you are shot trying to keep a thug from stealing your lawnmower. Do not allow yourself to be drawn into fight over something that can be replaced. The exception to this is when you are protecting something that is vital to your family’s life and welfare. Items such as food and water should be stored in a secure location and away from unauthorized access. A good practice is to keep a few good caches around the property so no one can deprive you of all your preps. Something else to think about is creating a safe room or safe zone within your home. This could be just installing the same type doors as on the exterior of the house. One may get as creative with this as their wallet allows.
I have left firearms for the conclusion even though that is the first thing that most people think of when home security is discussed. A well placed handgun or shotgun should be part of your overall security plan. However, it should be the last resort instead of the first option. Proper weapons selection and rapid access to those weapons are vital. The market is full of bedside safes, holsters, and single long gun storage units. I strongly recommend keeping a small pouch with a spare magazine, flashlight and cell phone that can be draped around your neck before going out to investigate a noise or alarm. I personally keep a bulletproof plate carrier nearby that can be donned in seconds. This gives me a much greater chance of surviving an armed conflict in my home. Remember your first responsibility is to your family. Secure them first then deal with the threat. It is a good idea to look where the kids or other household members sleep in relation to where you are. Over penetration is a real danger and should be considered when selecting a firearm and ammunition. As with most things, it is the sum of the parts that makes the whole and home security is no different.
Chance Sanders is a former U.S. Marine marksmanship instructor and firearms and security specialist. He teaches survival skills in his native South Carolina.
(DAILY MAIL) Hair dyes used by millions of women contain chemicals linked to cancer, British scientists have warned. They say that both home hair colouring kits and the dyes used at expensive salons pose a potential risk to health. Writing in a respected scientific journal, they say chemicals in permanent hair dyes can react with tobacco smoke and other pollutants in the air to form one of the most powerful cancer-causing compounds known to man. With more than a third of women and one in ten men regularly colouring their hair, the researchers say it is ‘imperative’ that the risk to health is quantified. However, the cosmetics industry has strongly disputed the claim. The warning comes from scientists at Leeds-based company Green Chemicals who conducted a review of the chemistry surrounding hair dye. They said that all the information was already available and they simply ‘joined the dots’ to make the link with cancer.
(JOE MARTINO) Each year, Americans consume about 5,250 tons of aspartame in total, of which about 86 percent (4,500 tons) is from the consumption of diet sodas. Diet soda is the largest dietary source of aspartame in the U.S. A study recently published at the beginning of December 2012 links the consumption of Aspartame to increased risk of Lymphoma and Leukemia. The study was conducted by the Channing Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. The study was a follow up after a 22 year period of data collection including health frequent dietary and health check ups of the study group.
We have covered the subject of aspartame on several occasion including findings that show aspartame damages the brain at any dose. This new study suggests that as little as a single 355ml can of diet soda daily greatly increases the risk for cancers in men and women. It can also increase the risk of multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in men. The results of this study forces us to really look at the effects of aspartame as there has never been a more comprehensive, long term study ever done on the topic. It is important to note that this can also reveal many more serious diseases and illnesses as data is observed even further.
The Most Comprehensive Study to Date on Aspartame
This study tracks over two million person-years giving it a huge pile of data to generate results from. Researchers prospectively analyzed data from the Nurses’ Health Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study for a 22-year period. A total of 77,218 women and 47,810 men were included in the analysis, for a total of 2,278,396 person-years of data. It is not just the sample size of this study that makes it impressive, it is also the thoroughness with which aspartame intake was assessed in comparison to previous studies. Over the course of the study, every two years, participants were given a detailed dietary questionnaire, and their diets were reassessed every four years. Shockingly, previous studies done on aspartame who revealed no link between aspartame and cancer in humans, only assessed participants’ aspartame intake at one point in time. This poses a major weakness in the accuracy of preview studies.
The combined results of this new study showed that just one 12-fl oz. can (355 ml) of diet soda daily leads to:
- 42 percent higher leukemia risk in men and women (pooled analysis)
- 102 percent higher multiple myeloma risk (in men only)
- 31 percent higher non-Hodgkin lymphoma risk (in men only)
This is a powerful set of results as it leaves little to ponder about the long time talked about risks of aspartame on our health. The results were based on multi-variable relative risk models, all in comparison to participants who drank no diet soda. It is important to note that it still remains unknown why only men drinking higher amounts of diet soda showed increased risk for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but the continuation of this powerful study may reveal these results later.
Most of the past studies showing no link between aspartame and cancer have been criticized for being too short in duration and too inaccurate in assessing long-term aspartame intake. This new study solves both of those issues. The study in fact shows a positive link to cancer and it should come as no surprise given that a previous best-in-class research study done on animals (900 rats over their entire natural lifetimes) showed strikingly similar results back in 2006: aspartame significantly increased the risk for lymphomas and leukemia in both males and females. More worrying is the follow on mega-study, which started aspartame exposure of the rats at the fetal stage. Increased lymphoma and leukemia risks were confirmed, and this time the female rats also showed significantly increased breast (mammary) cancer rates. This raises a critical question: will future, high-quality studies uncover links to the other cancers or diseases in which aspartame has been implicated?
My Own Thoughts
I have been researching aspartame and other health related ilnesses for a few years now and have found a lot of different information as it relates to effects of various substances on health. This study stands out from many as is shows the importance of conducting research that is of quality and done over time. While we cannot confirm with 100% accuracy that this was the key factor in these ilnesses, we can confirm that it does play a big role. Also, when we look at what exists today as studies that are in favor of Aspartame being safe, we find that there are many weaknesses and often funding behind them that would produce poor results in accuracy.
Of course we can always go back to what feels natural and what would make sense when we look at our foods and I think this is something that we dont require a scientific analysis to observe. Of course this is my opinion but, when we are adding chemicals that are synthetic and created in a lab to our food, it does not reflect naturally occurring elements that we are designed to consume. The human body was not designed to take in these types of substances through nature, which makes perfect sense as to why the majority of chemicals found in foods today have numerous links to serious health affects. This isn’t to say the can’t handle all synthetics, but instead just shows that we should not be surprised to find out results like this.
If previous research on the subject was not enough, there is now undeniable evidence that suggests we should not be consuming aspartame at all in our diet. Switching over to sugar sweetened soda is also not a good alternative as this study also found that men consuming one or more sugar-sweetened sodas daily saw a 66 percent increase in non-Hodgkin lymphoma. It has become clear that having no soda at all in our diet is the ideal way to go. This would not only remove the aspartame and sugar risks, but it will also help in keeping your body in a more alkaline state.
(VAX TRUTH) When a normal, healthy, vibrant seven year-old child dies suddenly we want to know why. Things like that just don’t happen – at least they didn’t used to happen at the rate they appear to be happening lately.
This report from an Independent News Source in Vermont relates the story of what happened after Kaylynne Matten was taken by her parents for her annual physical on December 2, 2011. During the physical Kaylynne was given a flu vaccine. Four days later she was dead. She wasn’t even sick when she went to the doctor!
The state health commissioner, Dr. Harry Chen, “is not convinced” the girl’s death was from the flu vaccine, citing the “very rare” incidence of serious reactions to the flu shot and the huge numbers of people who receive them each year. Dr. Chen declares that serious reactions to flu vaccines are so “rare” that death by flu shot has never been reported in Vermont.
BINGO! There’s the problem. Every time a healthy child dies or is seriously injured by a vaccine, those who are responsible for determining the cause of death immediately rule out vaccines because they are “so safe” and serious reactions are “so rare” – No. They’re not. They’re just not reported because of people like Dr. Chen, whose job is dependent on the sale of vaccines. That’s what he does. He ensures that all of the people in his state are fully vaccinated. Without vaccines, Dr. Chen would be unemployed; at the very least he’d be looking for another job. But then, without vaccines there would be a LOT of doctors looking for jobs, so there’s a good chance Dr. Chen would be collecting unemployment benefits.
Dr. Chen is worried that people will over-react to this girl’s death. He cautions about “alarmist” reactions to the death of Kaylynne Matten. Excuse me? We are not supposed to be ALARMED? Clearly, Dr. Chen has become complacent when it comes to young children dropping dead for “no apparent reason.” Dr. Chen is worried that if people become “alarmed” their concerns may lead them to avoid getting a flu shot. If they start looking into the dangers of flu shots, it’s a very slippery slope. You know how it goes. Flu shot research is like “the gateway drug” that causes us (parents who are easily influenced) to become fanatics. We research the flu vaccine and the true dangers of the flu and before you know it we start to realize we’ve been lied to. From there it’s all downhill for Dr. Chen and his cronies. As we become “hooked” on research we learn more and more about vaccines and the more we learn the more we realize that vaccines are dangerous and the risks of infectious diseases are small in comparison.
As the article states, Vermont already has one of the most dismal (hear the sarcasm, please) vaccination rates in the nation. If even more people start researching and learning about the children and adults throughout the U.S. and the world who have died or been seriously harmed by vaccines, that dismal number might just fall even farther. Heavens! That would be a real tragedy – for Dr. Chen.
The fox is guarding the henhouse. How in the world can this vaccine-related death even be questioned? It’s like saying “John Smith walked across the 495 beltway and was hit by a semi. Mr. Smith survived the accident and was taken to the hospital where he lapsed into a coma and died 4 days later. Mrs. Smith believes it was the semi that killed her husband. The hospital administrator (who happens to be married to the driver of the semi) is not so sure. Autopsy results are pending…” GIVE ME A FREAKIN’ BREAK!
According to the CDC there are between 3,000 and 49,000 deaths each year in the U.S. due to the flu (influenza). That sure sounds like a lot of people dying from the flu. Before we become “alarmed” by these “huge” numbers, lets see what they mean in terms of the percentage of U.S. citizens. The U.S. Census Data indicates that the population of the U.S. is somewhere around 300,000,000 people: 304,059,700 as of the latest data. That means in a “good” year (fewer deaths from flu) the percentage of U.S. citizens who die from the flu is 0.0000986%. Whoa….. that’s a lot of zeros. In translation, this equates to 9.8 (less than ten) people for every 1 Million citizens in the U.S. Of course, in a very BAD year the numbers are higher. Taking the worst-case scenario (49,000 deaths), the yearly death toll would be 0.0016115% of the U.S. population. This number equates to 1.6 (less than two) deaths per 1,000 people. That’s a little bit scarier. However, we have to consider how many of those deaths occur in 7 year-old children.
Just what is the real risk of death from flu for a seven year old? How do we find out? If we just read the article, we are told “The majority of those severe illnesses and [3,000 to 49,000] deaths occur among infants, young children, pregnant women, seniors and people with chronic medical conditions.” I don’t know about you but when I read this I tend to think this means infants, young children and pregnant women are those who are MOST at risk. It might just be me, but when something falls at the top of the list when someone is talking about relative risk, I associate that with meaning they are the ones we need to be most concerned about. Actually, the opposite is true in this case.
Among persons aged <19 years, an estimated annual average of 97 (range: 41 in 1981–82 to 234 in 1977–78) influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes occurred . The average annual rate of influenza-associated deaths for this age group was 0.1 deaths per 100,000 persons (range: 0.1–0.3). Among adults aged 19–64 years, an estimated annual average of 666 (range: 173 in 1981–82 to 1,459 in 2004–05) influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes occurred. The average annual rate of influenza-associated deaths for this age group was 0.4 deaths per 100,000 persons (range: 0.1–0.8). Among adults aged ≥65 years, an estimated annual average of 5,546 (range: 673 in 1978–79 to 13,245 in 2003–04) influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes occurred. The average annual rate of influenza-associated deaths for this age group was 17.0 deaths per 100,000 (range: 2.4–36.7). Deaths among persons aged ≥65 years accounted for 87.9% of the overall estimated average annual influenza-associated deaths with underlying pneumonia and influenza causes.
So…. how do we figure out the risk for a seven year-old? One way would be to divide 97 by 19, which would give us the average number of deaths per year of age. We can estimate this as FIVE, since 97 is very close to 100 and 19 is very close to 20. According to this calculation, there are approximately FIVE seven year-olds in the U.S. who die from the flu each year. Clearly the risk of death from the flu was astronomically small for 7 year-old Kaylynne.
Dr. Chen can talk all he wants about the risks of flu. His fear mongering won’t save his job. People are too smart to fall for the trickery anymore. Parents in the United States and around the world are tired of being lied to. We are tired of doing as we are told and watching our children die as a result.
Dr Chen: I suggest you update your resume. I think you’re going to need it.
Kaylynne Matten: Cause of Death “Undetermined.” Parents Believe Flu Vaccine Killed Their 7 Year-Old Daughter.
(WWJ) There are no longer any visible signs of the skin cancer on the forehead of Ferndale’s Michael McShane. McShane had a check-up with his dermatologist and says Dr. Ali Mooin is no longer recommending surgery to treat the lesion.
That’s the update to a story that WWJ’s Sandra McNeill reported last month. When McNeill spoke with Michael McShane in August, he claimed he had been using a topical oil made from medical marijuana on the skin cancer on his forehead and in just over two months it was nearly gone.
McShane says he’d recommend the treatment to anyone.
“It was absolutely painless, it caused no euphoric effect or high at all, it was just something that I did twice a day, and it went away, the cancer went away,” said McShane.
Dr. Mooin will no longer speak with WWJ. Last month, he said he’d pursue surgery if the cancer was not gone. McShane says surgery was not on the table today.
(NY DAILY NEWS) A six-year-old California boy who suffers severe seizures that leave him shaking on the ground and crying for help has finally found some relief, his family says.
Jayden David now takes a dose of medical marijuana.
“He’s in pain and suffering and crying,” father Jason David said. “You can’t help him no matter what. What are you supposed to do? You have to do whatever it takes to save their life.”
Jayden’s seizures were an almost daily nightmare, David told CNN. His son’s life was so crippled by the violent shaking caused by Dravet’s syndrome, a rare form of epilepsy, he couldn’t walk or eat solid food and he had been rushed to the hospital in their hometown of Oakland more than 40 times.
Jayden was even taking 22 pills a day, though nothing improved his condition.
So last year, David gave his son a liquid form of marijuana, which is legal for some medical purposes in California. The results were dramatic, David said.
For the first time since he was four-months-old, Jayden can now make it through a day without a seizure, his father said.
In the past year he has been able to walk, run, swim and play with other children.
(HUFFINGTON POST) A teen who consumes alcohol is likely to have reduced brain tissue health, but a teen who uses marijuana is not, according to a new study.
Researchers scanned the brains of 92 adolescents, ages 16 to 20, before and after an 18-month period. During that year and a half, half of the teens — who already had extensive alcohol and marijuana-use histories — continued to use marijuana and alcohol in varying amounts. The other half abstained or kept consumption minimal, as they had throughout adolescence.
The before-and-after brain scans of the teens consuming typically five or more drinks at least twice a week showed reduced white matter brain tissue health, study co-author Susan Tapert, neuroscientist at University of California, San Diego, told HuffPost. This may mean declines in memory, attention, and decision-making into later adolescence and adulthood, she said.
However, the level of marijuana use — up to nine times a week during the 18 months — was not linked to a change in brain tissue health. The researchers did not test performance; they only looked at brain scans.
The study was conducted by researchers at UC San Diego and is scheduled to be published in the April issue of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research.
(FORBES) Pay attention, as I can’t say this seriously enough. Last week, the FDA took a drug off the market, and the reasons should send shivers of fear down the backs of consumers, investors, generic drug companies – and the FDA.
The FDA announced last week that the 300mg generic version of Wellbutrin XL manufactured by Impax Laboratories and marketed by Teva Pharmaceuticals was being recalled because it did not work. And this wasn’t just a problem with one batch – this is a problem that has been going on with this particular drug for four or five years, and the FDA did everything it could to ignore it.
The FDA apparently approved this drug – and others like it – without testing it. The FDA just assumed if one dosage strength the drug companies submitted for approval works, then the other higher dosages work fine also. With this generic, American consumers became the FDA’s guinea pigs to see if the FDA’s assumption was right. It wasn’t.
In December 2006, the first generic versions of the popular anti-depressant Wellbutrin XL were approved by the FDA. The drug comes in two dosage strengths, 150 milligrams and 300mg. The 300mg dose is generally used for patients with more severe depression and anxiety and patients who don’t respond to the lower dose. The FDA approved generic versions of both dosage strengths from a few generic drug companies: Teva Pharmaceuticals (manufactured by Impax Laboratories and marketed by Teva Pharmaceuticals), Anchen, Actavis, Watson Pharmaceuticals and Mylan Pharmaceuticals. Almost immediately, the FDA started receiving reports from patients that claimed the 300mg dose was being associated with side effects and reduced efficacy.
The People’s Pharmacy, a well-known syndicated radio and newspaper columnist husband and wife team, notified the FDA that hundreds of patients had logged their own complaints of side effects with the then-recently approved generic version of Wellbutrin XL. The FDA brushed off the People’s Pharmacy and others that raised the issue, stating that they had faith that the drugs were equivalent and that perhaps the patients, who had mental disease, were more prone to perceived problems with a change in the medication than others. This was seen by many as essentially telling patients “it’s all in their head.” After several more years and public outcry, the FDA was forced to take action.
What Action Did The FDA Take?
Instead of doing its own study on the drug, the FDA asked the drug maker to conduct a study to determine whether the generic drug was equivalent to the brand. The FDA, in their recent press release, claims that Teva started the trial but later abandoned it because of slow patient enrollment. It was already 2010, several years after knowing there was a problem, the FDA was forced to do its own study.
(Andrew Puhanic) Around the world, it is estimated that tens of millions of people are affected by both dental and skeletal fluorosis. In many cases, it is the addition of fluoride into drinking water supplies by governments that is the primary cause of both dental and skeletal fluorosis.
Common techniques used for defluoridation are coagulation-precipitation, membrane process and ion exchange.
The problem with these three techniques is that they are either too expensive or they further pollute the water.
Researchers from the National University of Sciences and Technology in Pakistan have discovered an effective method to remove fluoride from drinking water that is less expensive than conventional filtration processes and is safe to use.
The study, published in the Journal of Chemistry, concluded that the removal of fluoride from drinking water using modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) resulted in a removal efficiency that was 1.35 times higher than normal immobilized activated alumina.
Modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) was added to water that was tainted with fluoride and then analysis was conducted to evaluate the quantity of fluoride that was removed from the water.
Effect of an adsorbent dose on the removal of fluoride at 20 ± 1°C.
It was discovered that MIAA, at 20 +/- degrees celsius has the capacity to remove more than 95% of fluoride from water. In fact, the adsorption capacity of MIAA was much higher (0.76 mg/g) when compared to the adsorption capacity of activated charcoal (0.47 mg/g) for the same concentration fluoride samples.
The adsorption method that is used by modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) is much more cost-effective (Ali, I., & Gupta, V. K. (2007) Advances in water treatment by adsorption technology. Nature Protocols) than the popular Reverse Osmosis Filtration method.
Considering that both MIAA and Reverse Osmosis Filtration remove more than 90% of fluoride, MIAA could be a viable alternative to removing fluoride from drinking water supplies in developing countries.
Unfortunately, there are some limitations to the use of MIAA in removing fluoride from drinking water. The greatest challenge in the use of MIAA for removing fluoride from drinking water is filtering MIAA once all fluoride has been absorbed.
Real water samples with initial fluoride concentration and final concentration
However, considering that the granules produced by MIAA varied from 3 to 6 mm, all that was required during the study to remove the MIAA granules from the water was basic water filtration.
Ultimately, the primary challenge faced when trying to removing fluoride from drinking water is cost.
The use of modified immobilized activated alumina (MIAA) to remove fluoride from drinking water could become a viable option that would enable communities in both developed and developing nations to remove fluoride from drinking water.
To download a copy of this publication, click here.
Andrew Puhanic is the founder of the Globalist Report. The aim of the Globalist Report is to provide current, relevant and informative information about the Globalists and Globalist Agenda. You can contact Andrew directly by visiting the Globalist Report