Subscriptions, Current Issue & Back Issues

Current Issue | Annual Subscriptions | Back Issues

Tag: Health

Water From Thin Air? New Device Can Pull Water From Desert Air

This new solar-powered device can pull water straight from the desert air

You can’t squeeze blood from a stone, but wringing water from the desert sky is now possible, thanks to a new spongelike device that uses sunlight to suck water vapor from air, even in low humidity. The device can produce nearly 3 liters of water per day for every kilogram of spongelike absorber it contains, and researchers say future versions will be even better. That means homes in the driest parts of the world could soon have a solar-powered appliance capable of delivering all the water they need, offering relief to billions of people.

The new water harvester is made of metal organic framework crystals pressed into a thin sheet of copper metal and placed between a solar absorber (above) and a condenser plate (below).

Wang Laboratory at MIT

There are an estimated 13 trillion liters of water floating in the atmosphere at any one time, equivalent to 10% of all of the freshwater in our planet’s lakes and rivers. Over the years, researchers have developed ways to grab a few trickles, such as using fine nets to wick water from fog banks, or power-hungry dehumidifiers to condense it out of the air. But both approaches require either very humid air or far too much electricity to be broadly useful.

To find an all-purpose solution, researchers led by Omar Yaghi, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, turned to a family of crystalline powders called metal organic frameworks, or MOFs. Yaghi developed the first MOFs—porous crystals that form continuous 3D networks—more than 20 years ago. The networks assemble in a Tinkertoy-like fashion from metal atoms that act as the hubs and sticklike organic compounds that link the hubs together. By choosing different metals and organics, chemists can dial in the properties of each MOF, controlling what gases bind to them, and how strongly they hold on.

Source: Sciencemag.

 

Transhumanist Madness: Chinese Man Marries Self-Built Robot.

Zheng Jiajia carried his robot wife – with head covered in red cloth in accordance with local tradition

© Provided by Guardian News

Zheng Jiajia carried his robot wife – with head covered in red cloth in accordance with local tradition A Chinese artificial intelligence engineer has given up on the search for love and “married” a robot he built himself.

Zheng Jiajia, 31, decided to commit after failing to find a human spouse, his friend told Qianjiang Evening News.

Zheng had also become tired of the constant nagging from his family and pressure to get married, so he turned to a robot he built late last year, who he named Yingying.

After two months of “dating”, he donned a black suit to “marry” her at a ceremony attended by his mother and friends at the weekend in the eastern city of Hangzhou.

While not officially recognised by the authorities, the union had all the trappings of a typical Chinese wedding, with Yingying’s head covered with a red cloth in accordance with local tradition.

China has one of the worst gender gaps in the world, mainly due to sex selective abortions after the introduction of the country’s widely criticised one-child policy, which for decades controlled how many children each family could have.

There were 113.5 men for every 100 women in China, according to the latest figures published by the World Economic Forum. The gender imbalance, coupled with changing attitudes towards marriage among the country’s middle class, means many men will never find wives.

For now Yingying can only read some Chinese characters and images and speak a few simple words, but Zheng plans to upgrade his “bride” to be able to walk and do household chores. Until then he has to carry the 30kg robot to move her.

Reaction in China to the union has been mixed, with some social media users mocking Zheng and others wondering if it is all a publicity stunt.

“You won’t have her mother looking down on you, you don’t have the pressure to buy a home and you get to save money and energy,” one user wrote on WeChat, a popular social network.

“He’ll slowly get old, his face will become wrinkled and his hair will grow white – but will he upgrade her to grow old, or just to be prettier?” another user asked.

Stories of robots replacing humans is commonplace in China, most notably in a smattering of restaurants where the waiters are automated. However, the machines rarely live up to expectations.

Zheng previously worked at Huawei, the Chinese smartphone company, before quitting to focus on an artificial intelligence startup.

 

It was only a matter of time I guess. Sigh….!

Healthcare Bill Defeated: The World Ends, By Jon Rappoport

Healthcare bill defeated: the world ends

Healthcare insurance scheme bill defeated

THE WORLD ENDS

by Jon Rappoport

March 26, 2017

Reuters: “In the past few years, the House has voted more than 60 times to repeal or alter Obamacare, but Republicans had no hope a repeal would become law as long as Obama was president and could veto their bills.”

But now that the new version of national health insurance has failed to pass in Congress ONCE, well, according to press accounts, obviously the world is over. Mountains are falling into the sea. An asteroid just struck the Pacific Ocean. And oh yes, Trump is finished.

On top of the world ending, there is this: no one seems to know exactly what is in the new bill that just failed; Congress had to pass it to read it.

NEW HEALTHCARE BILL WHICH NO ONE HAS READ FAILS TO PASS; WORLD ENDS.

This lunacy is one of a string of lunacies since Trump was elected. If you believe the press, his reign has already ended a hundred times. It ended when somebody said somebody else had proof Trump desecrated a hotel room in Russia where Obama once stayed. It ended when Michael Flynn talked to a Russian on the phone. It ended when Trump allowed a few non-mainstream reporters into press conferences, and it ended when he excluded a few mainstream reporters from a press gaggle. It ended when a judge, ruling on behalf of all America, decided Trump’s EO limiting immigration should be temporarily suspended. It ended when the CIA implied Trump was a Russian agent. It ended when somebody on The View said he should be impeached.

Of course, it had already ended, during the campaign, when George Clooney said Trump would never become president, and when Alec Baldwin said he hated Trump. It ended when Hillary “won” the first debate.

Since the attention span of half of America is about as long as a kitten’s, all beginnings and endings must happen very quickly. There is no time to waste.

“Isn’t Hillary the president now? Didn’t we already have another election? Isn’t Trump in prison? Hasn’t global warming taken away the coastline of America?”

Trump must be out of the White House by now and in handcuffs, because Twitter has had a hundred thousand tweets demanding it. The final judgement.

Newspapers and broadcast networks are fighting over who can assess Congress’ failure to pass a new healthcare bill as the greatest possible humiliation for Trump.

Other reasons why Trump is toast: James Comey, head of the FBI, came to the White House to talk to Trump, for reasons as yet unclear. Trump’s wife didn’t immediately move into the White House after the inauguration. Trump shuttles between the Oval office and Trump Towers. Rioters smashed cars, lit fires, and threw rocks through store windows in Berkeley. Mexican officials say they won’t pay for The Wall. Trump hasn’t yet brought five million new jobs back to America. He hasn’t cut taxes yet. The stock market, riding on new highs, dipped in the last few days.

The press isn’t pounding on Trump’s new Goldman Sachs appointees in his administration—which would be real reason to worry. They aren’t pounding on his failure to bring any American troops home from overseas. They aren’t pounding on his plan to gut environmental safety rules to protect genuine corporate polluters. They aren’t pounding on his plan to speed up FDA approval of new (toxic) drugs.

And of course, they express no joy at his proposed budget, which would slash US funds for that diabolical self-styled world government on the East Side of Manhattan, the United Nations; which would slash even more billions doled out to those self-styled princes of medicine at the National Institutes of Health, where the vaunted (toxic) War on Cancer has been failing for decades. Nor is there a scintilla of support for his possible investigation of vaccine safety.

But mixed bags aren’t permitted. Trump must either be the messiah or the devil, after two months in office.

We must already decide to what precise degree he is a Nationalist, a Globalist, or a neocon. The word must be final.

As I’ve pointed out on these pages, I admire Trump for three reasons: Hillary Clinton, arch-Globalist and destroyer of Libya, isn’t president; Trump is relentless in attacking fake-news mainstream media; and whether sincere or not, his anti-Globalist message has awakened untold numbers of people to the fact that the enemy is trying to destroy this country and fold it into a single planetary management system.

Other than that, everything is up for grabs.

Many months ago, I said he should establish his own avenue of direct communication with the American people, via the Web (see also this from Robert Steele, here), where he makes several reports a week on the content and progress of his agenda; and where he can receive feedback from the people who elected him. So far, there is no sign of that happening. It’s a major mistake. If he is going to circumvent the media who are trying to destroy him at every turn, he needs to talk often to those millions who want genuine freedom and prosperity. If he’s going to dump the media, DUMP THEM.

If Trump is going to be an embattled president as long as he’s in the White House, then he should take the battle all the way. That’s a rule. If you’re going to go up against the establishment and the Deep State (and not just pretend you are), then GO. Don’t hold back. If that means you fail to pass one significant piece of legislation, if that means your whole agenda falls flat, so be it. Explain why it’s falling flat. Tell the American people who is trying to stop it. Name names. Report frequently and in detail what is happening in The Swamp.

The people who desire freedom and prosperity for America; who are sick and tired of foreign wars and endless enemies; who want to smash Rockefeller “free trade”; who know the system is rigged; who know the military-industrial complex is a mad leech sucking on the soul of America; who never wanted collectivism; who believe in striving for what they earn; who refuse to embrace psychotic political correctness; who want to limit immigration because they see its effects; who know wide open borders isn’t a utopian “share-and-care” policy, but instead is a grand Globalist deception meant to sow chaos within our borders, making it easier to incorporate the US under “international governance”; who know banksters (including the private Federal Reserve) are stealing us blind; who know climate change is pseudoscience intended to choke off national energy production and torpedo the economy; who, yes, want to stop egregious corporate polluters from getting away with murder—all these people want a president who is on their side and will go the distance, who will keep them informed every step of the way, who will invent his own media outlet to do it…

Note to Trump: There is a difference between appointing an administration filled with people who know how the inside game is played, and surrounding yourself with people who fully intend to keep playing that game.

Washington DC is not just a swamp. It’s a den of obstructionists and parasites and thieves and liars and traitors and killers who have risen up through the ranks and guard their positions with venomous determination. What America has become is of no concern to them. They already live in a world of crime. An underworld. They are satisfied to be there. It’s what they fervently want.

Dislodging all THAT is a voyage of a lifetime. Many lifetimes.

Overcoming THAT is an enterprise of extreme radicalism.

The more radical (and thus honorable) a president can be, even if he fails to plant one definitive flag of policy-victory during his tenure, because of his enemies, the greater the chance of ultimate victory.

Victory would require a string of radical presidents, and a population willing and eager to support them. Nothing less.

The people who rallied behind Trump want something more than a few wins on the scoreboard.

Many of those people once rallied behind another man, Ron Paul, who is far more radical than Trump. They rallied behind Paul in great numbers, and the media giants cut him off at the knees and excluded him from having a voice, once it became apparent how far he wanted to go.

The word “radical” comes from the Latin, meaning “root.” As in championing the root of life, which is liberty. As in digging up the root of corruption and destroying it.

This goes beyond the art of the deal. It goes beyond clever maneuvering.

The people who are truly for freedom and prosperity and honor must understand THEY themselves are the driving force, whether the man in the White House is with them all the way or not.

That movement must not end.

Ever.


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Who Wants To Live Forever?

  • Scientists have discovered a key signalling process in DNA repair
  • They have used this process in the development of a drug to reverse ageing 
  • Trials on mice found that the pill repaired DNA damage after a week
  • Nasa wants the new technology to protect its astronauts from solar radiation 

Scientists have made a discovery that could lead to a revolutionary drug that actually reverses ageing.

The drug could help damaged DNA to miraculously repair and even protect Nasa astronauts on Mars by protecting them from solar radiation.

A team of researchers developed the drug after discovering a key signalling process in DNA repair and cell ageing.

Scientists have made a discovery that could lead to a revolutionary drug that actually reverses ageing. A team of researchers developed the drug after discovering a key signalling process in DNA repair and cell ageing

Scientists have made a discovery that could lead to a revolutionary drug that actually reverses ageing. A team of researchers developed the drug after discovering a key signalling process in DNA repair and cell ageing

THE ANTI-AGEING DRUG TRIALS

The experiments in mice, from a team at the University of New South Wales, suggest a treatment is possible for DNA damage from ageing and radiation.

It is so promising it has attracted the attention of Nasa scientists in their quest to reach Mars.

While our cells can naturally repair DNA damage – such as damage caused by the sun – this ability declines with age.

The scientists identified that the call signalling molecule NAD+, which is naturally present in every cell in the body, has a key role in protein interactions that control DNA repair.

Treating mice with an NAD+ ‘booster’ called NMN improved their cells’ ability to repair DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or old age.

Human trials of NMN therapy will begin within six months.

During trials on mice, the team found that the drug directly repaired DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or old age.

‘The cells of the old mice were indistinguishable from the young mice after just one week of treatment,’ said lead author Professor David Sinclair.

Human trials of the pill will begin within six months.

So since we can’t geoengineer Mars due to the lack of magnetosphere, we need to re-engineer humans for life on Mars? Opens up a whole world of speculation and dot-joining methinks….
…However, maybe NASA has a solution to the magnetosphere issue?
But what effect putting a giant magnet at the Lagrange point? How will this affect Earth?
Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Ryancare Dead On Arrival: Can We Please Now Try Single Payer Please?

VIDEO: Let the States Provide Single Payer Health Care

The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than Americans. . . . We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan, as many individual states are doing.  — Donald Trump, The America We Deserve (2000)

The new American Health Care Act has been unveiled, and critics are calling it more flawed even than the Obamacare it was meant to replace. Dubbed “Ryancare” or “Trumpcare” (over the objection of White House staff), the Republican health care bill is under attack from left and right, with even conservative leaders calling it “Obamacare Lite”, “bad policy”, a “warmed-over substitute,” and “dead on arrival.”

The problem for both administrations is that they have been trying to fund a bloated, inefficient, and overpriced medical system with scarce taxpayer funds, without capping its costs. US healthcare costs in 2016 averaged $10,345 per person, for a total of $3.35 trillion dollars, a full 18 percent of the entire economy, twice as much as in other industrialized countries.

Ross Perot, who ran for president in 1992, had the right idea: he said all we have to do is to look at other countries that have better health care at lower cost and copy them.

So which industrialized countries do it better than the US? The answer is, all of them. They all not only provide healthcare for the entire population at about half the cost, but they get better health outcomes than in the US. Their citizens have longer lifespans, fewer infant mortalities and less chronic disease.

President Trump, who is all about getting the most bang for the buck, should love that.

Hard to Argue with Success

The secret to the success of these more efficient systems is that they control medical costs. According to T. R. Reid in The Healing of America, they follow one of three models: the “Bismarck model” established in Germany, in which health providers and insurers are private but insurers are not allowed to make a profit; the “Beveridge model” adopted in Britain, where most healthcare providers work as government employees and the government acts as the single payer for all health services; and the Canadian model, a single-payer system in which the healthcare providers are mostly private.

A single government payer can negotiate much lower drug prices – about half what we pay in the US – and lower hospital prices. Single-payer is also much easier to administer. Cutting out the paperwork can save 30 percent on the cost of insurance. According to a May 2016 post by Physicians for a National Health Program:

Per capita, the U.S. spends three times as much for health care as the U.K., whose taxpayer-funded National Health Service provides health care to citizens without additional charges or co-pays. In 2013, U.S. taxpayers footed the bill for 64.3 percent of U.S. health care — about $1.9 trillion. Yet in the U.S. nearly 30 million of our citizens still lack any form of insurance coverage.

The for-profit U.S. health care system is corrupt, dysfunctional and deadly. In Canada, only 1.5 percent of health care costs are devoted to administration of its single-payer system. In the U.S., 31 percent of health care expenditures flow to the private insurance industry. Americans pay far more for prescription drugs. Last year, CNN reported, Americans paid nearly 10 times as much for prescription Nexium as it cost in the Netherlands.

Single payer, or Medicare for All, is the system proposed in 2016 by Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. It is also the system endorsed by Donald Trump in his book The America We Deserve. Mr. Trump confirmed his admiration for that approach in January 2015, when he said on David Letterman:

A friend of mine was in Scotland recently. He got very, very sick. They took him by ambulance and he was there for four days. He was really in trouble, and they released him and he said, ‘Where do I pay?’ And they said, ‘There’s no charge.’ Not only that, he said it was like great doctors, great care. I mean we could have a great system in this country.

Contrary to the claims of its opponents, the single-payer plan of Bernie Sanders would not have been unaffordable. Rather, according to research by University of Massachusetts Amherst Professor Gerald Friedman, it would have generated substantial savings for the government:

Under the single-payer system envisioned by “The Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act” (H.R. 676), the U.S. could save $592 billion – $476 billion by eliminating administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry and $116 billion by reducing drug prices . . . .

According to OECD health data, in 2013 the British were getting their healthcare for $3,364 per capita annually; the Germans for $4,920; the French for $4,361; and the Japanese for $3,713. The tab for Americans was $9,086, at least double the others. With single-payer at the OECD average of $3,661 and a population of 322 million, we should be able to cover all our healthcare for under $1.2 trillion annually – well under half what we are paying now.

The Problem Is Not Just the High Cost of Insurance

That is true in theory; but governments at all levels in the US already spend $1.6 trillion for healthcare, which goes mainly to Medicare and Medicaid and covers only 17 percent of the population. Where is the discrepancy?

For one thing, Medicare and Medicaid are more expensive than they need to be, because the US government has been prevented from negotiating drug and hospital costs. In January, a bill put forth by Sen. Sanders to allow the importation of cheaper prescription drugs from Canada was voted down. Sanders is now planning to introduce a bill to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, for which he is hoping for the support of the president. Trump indicated throughout his presidential campaign that he would support negotiating drug prices; and in January, he said that the pharmaceutical industry is “getting away with murder” because of what it charges the government. As observed by Ronnie Cummins, International Director of the Organic Consumers Association, in February 2017:

. . . [B]ig pharmaceutical companies, for-profit hospitals and health insurers are allowed to jack up their profit margins at will. . . . Simply giving everyone access to Big Pharma’s overpriced drugs, and corporate hospitals’ profit-at-any-cost tests and treatment, will result in little more than soaring healthcare costs, with uninsured and insured alike remaining sick or becoming even sicker.

Besides the unnecessarily high cost of drugs, the US medical system is prone to over-diagnosing and over-treating. The Congressional Budget Office says that up to 30 percent of the health care in the US is unnecessaryWe use more medical technology then in other countries, including more expensive diagnostic equipment. The equipment must be used in order to recoup its costs. Unnecessary testing and treatment can create new health problems, requiring yet more treatment, further driving up medical bills.

Drug companies are driven by profit, and their market is sickness – a market they have little incentive to shrink. There is not much profit to be extracted from quick, effective cures. The money is in the drugs that have to be taken for 30 years, killing us slowly. And they are killing us. Pharmaceutical drugs taken as prescribed are the fourth leading cause of US deathsafter heart disease, cancer and stroke.  

The US is the only industrialized country besides New Zealand that allows drug companies to advertise pharmaceuticals. Big Pharma spends more on lobbying than any other US industry, and it spends more than $5 billion a year on advertising. Lured by drug advertising, Americans are popping pills they don’t need, with side effects that are creating problems where none existed before. Americans compose only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet we consume fully 50 percent of Big Pharma’s drugs and 80 percent of the world’s pain pills. We not only take more drugs (measured in grams of active ingredient) than people in most other countries, but we have the highest use of new prescription drugs, which have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious adverse reactions after they have been approved.

The US death toll from prescription drugs taken as prescribed is now 128,000 per year. As Jon Rappaport observes, with those results Big Pharma should be under criminal investigation. But the legal drug industry has grown too powerful for that. According to Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, writing in 2002:

The combined profits for the ten drug companies in the Fortune 500 ($35.9 billion) were more than the profits for all the other 490 businesses put together ($33.7 billion). Over the past two decades the pharmaceutical industry has [become] a marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit, [using] its wealth and power to co-opt every institution that might stand in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical centers, and the medical profession itself.

It’s Just Good Business

US healthcare costs are projected to grow at 6 percent a year over the next decade. The result could be to bankrupt not only millions of consumers but the entire federal government.

Obamacare has not worked, and Ryancare is not likely to work. As demonstrated in many other industrialized countries, single-payer delivers better health care at half the cost that Americans are paying now.

Winston Churchill is said to have quipped, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” We need to try a thrifty version of Medicare for all, with negotiated prices for drugs, hospitals and diagnostic equipment.

Ellen Brown is the founder of the Public Banking Institute and a Research Fellow at the Democracy CollaborativeShe is the author of a dozen books including the best-selling Web of Debt, on how the power to create money was usurped by a private banking cartel; and The Public Bank Solution, on how the people can reclaim that power through a network of publicly-owned banks. She has written over 300 articles, posted at EllenBrown.com; and co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown.”

Cellphone Radiation: Sensible Advice

(Natural News) In 2015, New York Times writer Nick Bilton wrote an article entitled “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech,” warning the public that devices like smartphones and Apple Watches emit a low-level radiation which has been linked to cancer, brain tumors and other problems when worn close to the body for extended periods. His article was based on a press release issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in May of 2011, which warned, “The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.”

Bilton was not praised for his public health warning; in fact, the mainstream media attacked him, with many calling for his dismissal from the Times.

The truth is, there is ample evidence that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and ot…. This has just been reinforced yet again, in a document released by the California Department of Public Health, entitled simply “Cell Phones and Health.”

The Department has been sitting on the document, which has been revised several times, for the past seven years, refusing to make it public. It was only when Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, sued the Department last year, and the judge indicated that she would order the release of the document, that the Department made it public.

The document states clearly, “Health officials are concerned about possible health effects from cell phone EMFs because some recent studies suggest that long-term cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer and other health problems.” [Emphasis added]

It also notes that studies have found that people diagnosed with certain forms of brain cancer are more likely to have used cellphones in the preceding decade and that the cancers usually occurred on the side of the head that their cellphones were most often used on. It adds, “These studies suggest that regular cell phone use increases the risk of developing some kinds of brain cancer.” (RELATED: Read more about how cell phones are a ticking time-bomb when it comes to cancer here.)

The use of cell phones clearly carries serious health risks, but with modern society so dependent on them, it is unrealistic to think that people will be able to totally end their use. It is, therefore, important to know how to utilize this technology in the safest possible way.

An earlier Natural News article provided several tips on how to protect yourself from cell phone radiation, including:

  1. Reduce the amount of time you spend talking on your cell phone, keeping in mind that every 2-minute phone call disrupts brain activity for up to an hour.
  2. Send text messages rather than making phone calls.
  3. Replace your cell phone with one that emits less radiation. A list of suggestions can be found here.
  4. The jury is still out on whether or not they will really be less damaging in the long-term, but it still might be worth using a headset or speaker rather than talking directly on your cell phone.
  5. Avoid using your cell phone in elevators or other metal enclosures, including your car, as more power is needed to connect the call, emitting more radiation in the process.
  6. A similar problem arises when your cell phone’s battery is low, so charge it before you use it.
  7. If you have to use your phone directly without a headset or speaker, wait until the person you’re calling actually answers before putting it to your ear.

So, the reality is that you probably have to use a cell phone, but by limiting its use and applying the suggestions above, you can try to make the process less damaging to your health.

Follow more news on the health risks of EMFs at EMF.news.

Sources:

SanFrancisco.CBSLocal.com

Drive.Google.com[PDF]

NaturalNews.com

IARC.fr[PDF]

NaturalNews.com
Source

Source:

https://thecontrail.com/group/emf-and-emr-information-and-support/forum/topics/after-years-of-secrecy-cellphone-radiation-risks-are-finally-bein?xg_source=activity

Rappoport: NZ Drowning In fluoride!

A  subject I’m very passionate about myself, and have sent a submission to government about.
Pleasing to see Jon R. is on the case.
Image result for nz water fluoridation
By Jon Rappoport
The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?
From The NZHerald, 3/13/16—my comments are in CAPS:
“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.”
“The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).” [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES—A TAKEOVER.]
“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.”
“In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION—A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]
“‘The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.”
“‘It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]
“Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.”
“At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]
My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies. The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.
The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.
I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.
For the edification of New Zealand’s feds, who believe “the science is settled” and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.
Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement- “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”-written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:
“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”
“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”
“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”
“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”
“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”
“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”
“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled,’Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”
“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”
“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled – and apparently uncontrollable – exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”
“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”
“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”
That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.
So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.
Quite clear.
The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.
The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.
They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.
Use this link to order Jon’s Matrix Collections.
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world.
You can find this article and more at NoMoreFakeNews.com

NZ: We’re Coming For Your Water

 Considering the other water associated ills currently affecting New Zealand; Over-extraction by irrigating dairy farms, dirty dairying, the “swimmable rivers’ debacle,  the last thing we need is our precious water being practically given away to overseas corporations.  Read and weep people.
And the Environment minister wants us to believe that the amount of water taken is ‘Insignificant”. The same minister who wants us to believe a scummy, dried up river bed is a swimmable river. Sickening.

Chinese company Nongfu Spring wants more NZ water

  • 14/03/2017
  • By Isobel Ewing

 https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/should-companies-pay-royalties-to-export-water.html

A Chinese company wants to buy a Bay of Plenty water bottling plant and dramatically increase its water take, and it will get the water virtually for free.

Otakiri Springs currently pays only $2003 in compliance costs each year, allowing it to take 700,000 litres a day. The consent doesn’t expire until 2026.

Now prospective owner Nongfu Spring Natural Mineral Water wants to increase the water take to 5 million litres a day. It’s the same aquifer where New Zealand company Oravida takes 400,000 litres a day.

Whakatane District Councillor Mike van der Boom says companies are taking a precious resource from his area and not paying a cent for it.

“We’re subsidising them to make a profit,” he says.

“We just want our water preserved, a sustainable take – what is a sustainable take? Do they know what that is? I have a lot of questions and not many answers.”

Environment Minister Nick Smith maintains his stance that charging companies to take water is ridiculous

“If parties opposite want to start imposing new taxes on the use of water, where are they going to stop? Will air be charged for next?”

But Parliament’s opposition parties are united – get water, pay a royalty.

“We do believe that commercial businesses that are taking water out of the ground for free and then making a profit out of it should pay for the use of that resource,” Greens co-leader James Shaw says.

New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters also says there should be a royalty paid.

“They will pay to export it offshore, and the money will go back to the local community from where the water was extracted in the first place.”

The Overseas Investment Office is currently assessing the sale of Otakiri Springs to Nongfu Spring.

Otakiri Springs has been contacted for comment about its plans.

Newshub.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/03/should-companies-pay-royalties-to-export-water.html

THIS IS WHAT NZ GOVERNMENT CALLS A “SWIMMABLE RIVER”:

Image result for n swimmable rivers

Image result for dune water quotes