Funding for organic research questioned

commondreams has this up on the questions of who funded this bogus study.  Knowing about how corporations are trying to influence university’s research, I was suspicious of this study from the start.

Links on the subject here. 

And here.

And here.

And here.  This isn’t shocking to me–Monsanto was giving huge amounts to Purdue University.  During a panel on the genetically modified organisms, circa 1998, they asserted there was no problem with GMO’s.  The panel was made up of three scientists–one against GM’s and the other two for them.  The technology was new and had not been tested for adverse affects not only on humans, but nature, as well.

Deer have been known to cross a road to eat organic corn if a choice were given between GMO corn.  Here’s a link to an article.

A thought struck me as I read that last article–these crops are engineered to “drink poison”.  If we put aside the genetic manipulation, and look at the ability for the gene to absorb much more pesticides, etc., wouldn’t that be multiplying the devastating effects of those chemicals on the body?  I mean, we know how devastating chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT, etc.) are…so it stands to reason that it’s exponentially more so with these GM crops.  And the Celiac thing–how much is being influenced by not only eating GM crops, but breathing in that poison from, say, corn pollen? Article here. Note that this was clear back in 1999–this stuff has been known…and yet the Monsanto monster continues to grow…

Whales attacked by seagulls

Michael Warren of the AP has this up on a disturbing story of whales being attacked by seagulls.

I’m concerned that the seagulls, since they are feeding on fish, perhaps are exhibiting such bizarre behavior because of mercury.  It’s a big clue that this has only been happening the last eight years.  This leads me to be skeptical that the open trash containers and fish refuse thrown by fisherman is the cause…trash has been around for a few decades and the fishermen have most likely always discarded the unwanted fish parts…so why now?

I found this. Interesting–but not really surprising because mercury is a known neurotoxin, so it is conceivable that it would affect that part of the brain that sexual desire is located.  It is fairly well known among the mercury group that desire is affected.  I don’t think this subject has been broached, probably because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Here’s a paper on mercury’s devastating effects on humans, fish, birds, et al.  If you look on page 7, there is a table with an astonishing number of over 4 billion tons of mercury in the ocean water.

From the paper:

There is a strong relation between the food of birds from Minamata and the Hg content in feathers; the content is highest in fish-eating seabirds and lowest in herbivorous waterfowl (Doi et al. 1984; Table 4). This same relation held in birds collected from China and Korea, although concentrations were significantly lower (Doi et al. 1984). There are close correlations between Hg contents of zooplankton and suspended particulate matter, and of sediments and fish muscle, suggesting a pathway from sediment to fish by way of suspended matter and zooplankton. The conversion from inorganic Hg to methylmercury is believed to have occurred primarily in zooplankton (Nishimura and Kumagai 1983).

page 13:

An elevated concentration of mercury (i.e., >1.0 mg/kg fresh weight), usually as methylmercury, in any biological sample is often associated with proximity to human use of mercury. The elimination of Hg point-source discharges has usually been successful in improving environmental quality. However, elevated levels of mercury in biota may persist in contaminated areas long after the source of pollution has been discontinued (Rada et al. 1986). For example, Hg remains elevated today in resident biota of Lahontan Reservoir, Nevada, which received about 7,500 tons of mercury as a result of gold and silver mining operations during the period 1865 to 1895 (Cooper 1983). It is noteworthy that some groups of organisms with consistently elevated Hg residues may have acquired these concentrations as a result of natural processes, rather than from anthropogenic activities. These groups include older specimens of long-lived predatory fishes, marine mammals (especially pinnipeds), and organisms living near natural Hg-ore-cinnabar deposits.

~~~~~~~~~

If you look down a bit, they list the Bald Eagle egg as increasing its mercury contamination from .35 in 1974 to .84 in 1979–doubled.

Further down, it lists a cat that ate fish below a chloralkali plant–look at the fur:  121 mg mercury /kg

The harbor seal in California: 269 mg/kg

The striped dolphin in Japan: 205 mg (in the liver)

The sea lion in California: from 73.0 to 1,026 mg/kg

The paper goes on to summarize that mercury in birds was highest by those that ate fish and other birds.

More from the paper:

The most probable source of recent elevated Hg residues in feathers of the Finnish sparrowhawk (Accipiter nisus) was from consumption of avian granivores that had become contaminated as a result of eating seeds treated withorganomercury compounds; in 1981, 5.6 tons of methoxyethylmercury compounds were used in Finnish agriculture for protection of seeds against fungi (Solonen and Lodenius 1984).

~~~~~~~

Another reason to push for sustainable farming practices…birds being contaminated by mercury application (as a fungicide) by farmers.

This is an understatement:

Mercury is a known mutagen, teratogen, and carcinogen. At comparatively low concentrations in birds and mammals, it adversely affects reproduction, growth and development, behavior, blood and serum chemistry, motor coordination, vision, hearing, histology, and metabolism. It has a high potential for bioaccumulation and biomagnification, and is slow to depurate.

~~~~~~~~~~

Mutagens change your DNA.  Teratogen is a fancy word for birth defects.  And of course, carcinogen is cancer causing.  Note that this states low concentrations affect behavior–hence my concern about the seagulls attacking the whale is not normal behavior and that’s why I suspect mercury (or other toxins).

This also applies to we mammals by the way:

MAMMALS
Mercury has no known physiological function (EPA 1985). In humans and other mammals, it causes teratogenic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic effects; the fetus is the most sensitive life stage (NAS 1978; Chang 1979; Khera 1979; EPA 1980, 1985; Elhassani 1983; Greener and Kochen 1983; Clarkson et al. 1984). Methylmercury irreversibly destroys the neurons of the central nervous system. Frequently, a substantial latent period intervenes between the cessation of exposure to Hg and the onset of signs and symptoms; this interval is usually measured in weeks or months, but sometimes in years (Clarkson et al. 1984). At high sublethal doses in man, mercury causes cerebral palsy, gross motor and mental impairment, speech disturbances, blindness, deafness, microcephaly, intestinal disturbances, tremors, and tissue pathology (Chang 1979; EPA 1980, 1985; Elhassani 1983; Clarkson et al. 1984). Pathological and other effects of Hg may vary from organ to organ, depending on factors such as the effective toxic dose in the organ, the compound involved and its metabolism within the organ, the duration of exposure, and the other contaminants to which the animal is concurrently exposed (Chang 1979). Many compounds–especially salts of selenium–protect humans and other animals against mercury toxicity, although their mode of action is not clear (NAS 1978; Chang 1979; EPA 1980, 1985; Eisler 1985).

 

GMO monsters; Nanoparticles and Karl Rove…

Jill Richardson has this up at PR Watch.  Can anyone make sense of this?  The chemical/bioengineering industry is a monster running amok—make more toxic food that makes people, animals sick and poisons the atmosphere…

…so they can grow more food per acre.

I have a question:  if people are dying from the poison food and poison atmosphere, who is this serving?  Not us.

~~~~~~

More from PR Watch on the propaganda of Monsanto, et al…

Good Grief. Nanoparticles are nothing to worry about??  Just a little benzene (one of the most toxic chemicals out there)  isn’t going to hurt…/snark

And the debate on sunscreens also questions their validity and necessity.

CDC link here: http://www.ewg.org/analysis/toxicsunscreen

Natural News has a story here.

~~~~~~~~

Finally there’s this story on Rove controlling the purse strings…the behind the scenes and under the radar guy.

Italy’s Chernobyl and other toxic disasters

this up at commondreams. 

If there isn’t a big explosion, or bomb, or someone bleeding…well, it’s just *got to be* something else besides toxic chemicals.  Seriously.  There are people who, faced with evidence, will still not believe that chemicals can do so much harm.

Also up from common dreams is this.  I clicked on the link someone posted in the comments section for American Progress–the paper is too long for me to read on the limited time here, so I’ve scrolled down to the companies responsible for getting this law pulled–for the Midwest: Link here.   (In case this doesn’t work, the page number is 11.)

For the general list  (page 9) of those fighting the EPA:  link here.

Another article in the comments section on the same subject here.

Again, the articles address the affects to humans, such as asthma, but fail to entertain the scope of all of nature being affected by the poisonous air.  Not to mention the affects on crops.

Boiling Fish

commondreams has this up on Illinois nuke plants dumping 100 degree water into the rivers and waterways…in essence, boiling the fish.  The cavalier attitude is typical–it’s just a couple of fish, what are you so keyed up about?

The comments section has some thoughtful comments–forcing them to reuse the heated water, forcing them to power down.  And as stated, they’re not in the business to power down–that’s cutting into their profits.  And we all know that utility companies will not do the conscientious thing like actually taking into account the environmental damage they may be causing.

Good Grief.

GMO backers

Grist also has this up on the companies who don’t want the public to know what’s in their food.

Again, I go back to the often used Bush-era phrase:  “If you have nothing to hide…”  Why would one object to the GMO labeling unless they know that the public is going to stop buying that trash food in droves when they realize it’s GMO?  Or perhaps they’re afraid that people will finally be able to link their health issues with GMO food–gut inflammation, allergies, skin rashes, lung issues, heart issues, etc.?

 

 

The Farm Bill

Alliance for Natural Health has this report up on the Farm Bill. (hat tip to organic consumers).

From the article:

The aforementioned Farm Bill riders would outlaw any EPA review of a genetically engineered crop under the Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. This terrible legislation would ensure that no agency other than the USDA (which is decidedly pro-GMOs) will be allowed to provide analysis of the impacts of GMO crops. Further, the riders also establish extremely short deadlines for approval of GMOs. If the crops are not reviewed and approved within the extremely short timeline, they would default to immediate approval and commercialization.

So…if this is true, then there’s an underhanded reason why Obama is urging the passage of the Farm Bill–given that he appointed Vilsack as Secretary of Ag, who is a Monsanto toadie…yeah, well, it’s real hard not to think Obama is doing their bidding...

(Note that Methinks They Lie also brings up the Shirley Sherrod fiasco…yeah, that was a great move. Not.)

They’re buying air, land, water…

Good God, it’s come to fruition…

…how in the hell does one, in good conscience, try to make a profit off of something one had no hand in creating…?  What kind of soulless being thinks it’s okay to do such a thing?

From the story:

Like other aspects of neoliberalism, the commodification of nature forestalls democratic choice. No longer will we be able to argue that an ecosystem or a landscape should be protected because it affords us wonder and delight; we’ll be told that its intrinsic value has already been calculated and, doubtless, that it turns out to be worth less than the other uses to which the land could be put. The market has spoken: end of debate.

~~~~~~

Exactly.  Once the price tag has been set, the $$$ will trump all other values…because one cannot put a price tag on beauty, on value to other beings besides two-leggeds (because all the rest don’t matter, according to these folks), nor can a value be assigned when the benefits are unknown, as most of the natural world’s benefits aren’t known until they’re lost…