Showdown set on bid to give UN control of Internet October 29, 2012 by Rob Lever
http://phys.org/news/2012-10-showdown-internet.html
When delegates gather in Dubai in December for an obscure UN agency meeting, fighting is expected to be intense over proposals to rewrite global telecom rules to effectively give the United Nations control over the Internet.
It is expected to be the mother of all cyber diplomatic battles. When delegates gather in Dubai in December for an obscure UN agency meeting, fighting is expected to be intense over proposals to rewrite global telecom rules to effectively give the United Nations control over the Internet.
Russia, China and other countries back a move to place the Internet under the authority of the International Telecommunications Union, a UN agency that sets technical standards for global phone calls.
US officials say placing the Internet under UN control would undermine the freewheeling nature of cyberspace, which promotes open commerce and free expression, and could give a green light for some countries to crack down on dissidents.
Observers say a number of authoritarian states will back the move, and that the major Western nations will oppose it, meaning the developing world could make a difference.
"The most likely outcome is a tie, and if that happens there won't be any dramatic changes, although that could change if the developing countries make a big push," said James Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
"But there is a lot of discontent with how the Internet is governed and the US will have to deal with that at some point."
Lewis said there was still an overwhelming perception that the US owns and manages the Internet. Opponents have a "powerful argument" to create a global authority to manage the Internet, Lewis said, but "we need to find some way to accommodate national laws in a way that doesn't sacrifice human rights."
Terry Kramer, the special US envoy for the talks, has expressed Washington's position opposing proposals by Russia, China and others to expand the ITU's authority to regulate the Internet.
"The Internet has grown precisely because it has not been micro-managed or owned by any government or multinational organization," Kramer told a recent forum.
"There is no Internet central office. Its openness and decentralization are its strengths."
The head of the ITU, Hamadoun Toure, said his agency has "the depth of experience that comes from being the world's longest established intergovernmental organization."
Toure wrote in the British newspaper The Guardian that any change in regulation should "express the common will of ITU's major stakeholders" and "find win-win solutions that will act as a positive catalyst.
" But Harold Feld of the US-based non-government group Public Knowledge said any new rules could have devastating consequences. "
These proposals, from the Russian Federation and several Arab states, would for the first time explicitly embrace the concept that governments have a right to control online communications and disrupt Internet access services," Feld said on a blog post.
"This would reverse the trend of the last few years increasingly finding that such actions violate fundamental human rights."
Paul Rohmeyer, who follows cybersecurity at the Stevens Institute of Technology, pointed to a "sense of anxiety" about the meeting in part because of a lack of transparency.
He said it was unclear why the ITU is being considered for a role in the Internet.
"The ITU historically has been a standards-setting body and its roots are in the telecom industry. I'm not familiar with anything they've done that's had an impact on the Internet today," Rohmeyer told AFP.
And the analyst noted that the significance of extending "governance" of the Internet to the ITU remains unclear.
Some observers point out that the ITU hired a Russian security firm to investigate the Flame virus, which sparked concerns about the dangers in cyberspace and the need for better cybersecurity cooperation.
Rohmeyer said it was unclear whether a conspiracy was at hand, but that "the suggestion that the Internet is a dangerous place could be used to justify greater controls."
Observers are also troubled by a proposal by European telecom operators seeking to shift the cost of communication from the receiving party to the sender. This could mean huge costs for US Internet giants like Facebook and Google.
"This would create a new revenue stream for corrupt, autocratic regimes and raise the cost of accessing international websites and information on the Internet," said Eli Dourado of George Mason University.
Milton Mueller, a professor of information studies at Syracuse University who specializes in Internet governance, said most of the concerns are being blown out of proportion.
Mueller said the ITU "already recognizes the sovereign right of nations to restrict communications into and out of the country." "
What gets lost in the confusion over content regulation is that the real motive of most of the reactionary governments is to protect themselves from economic competition caused by telecom liberalization and deregulation, of which the Internet is only one part," he said. (c) 2012 AFP
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2012-10-showdown-internet.html#jCp
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Genetically Modified Wheat May Permanently Alter Human Genome, & Spark Early Death
Genetically Modified Wheat May Permanently Alter Human Genome, & Spark Early Death
Experts say that the GM wheat currently in development by an Australian governmental research agency could, if ingested, shut down certain genes, leading to premature death or risk thereof to multiple generations.
The GM wheat developed by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) using public funds is engineered to turn off genes permanently. The organization’s intent to turn off wheat genes, however, could affect human and animal genes.
“Through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes,” says Professor Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury’s Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety. His report was published in Digital Journal.
DNA Matches in GM Wheat and Humans
The wheat genes intended to be silenced are known as SEI, the sequence of which are classified by CSIRO. What experts know about SEI is that parts of it match the human GBE gene sequence. GBE dictates glycogen storage, without which the liver scars and causes death in children. Adults with malfunctioning GBE genes can experience cognitive impairment, pyramidal quadriplegia, peripheral neuropathy, and neurogenic bladder.
“The findings are absolutely assured,” insists Heinemann. “There is no doubt that these matches exist.”
Survives Digestion, Cooking, Generations
Moreover, Heinemann describes the double stranded RNA (dsRNAs) present in GM wheat as “remarkably stable in the environment.” It is able to withstand digestion (even after cooking) and thereafter circulates through the body, where it amplifies into more and different dsRNAs and “alters gene expression in the animal.” These altered genes are passed to later generations, assuming the consumer doesn’t die of cancer or liver damage before procreating – seen in the recent GMO french study.
Dangers Well-Known by Agribusiness
No doubt, agribusiness will swoop to CSIRO’s rescue and claim that Heinemann’s findings are irrelevant. Monsanto, however, uses this same tactic in its genetically modified plants. The plants are engineered to produce dsRNA that survives digestion in the insect, shuts down genes, stunts growth, and kills it.
This may be welcome news for some, given one biotech scientist’s email not only acknowledging the risks of disease and reproductive difficulties inherent in GMO consumption but also praising it as a ‘remedy’ for global over-population.
Agribusiness has gone to great lengths to silence skeptics of GMOs The Food and Drug Administration—which abounds in ties to agribusiness—deleted 1 million signatures for a GMO labeling campaign. Monsanto has been burning millions of dollars to campaign against GMO labeling. Depending on the poll, about 93% of Americans advocate GMO labeling.
Additional Sources:
Green Med Info
GE Food Labels
The Huffington Post
Chicago Tribune
This article first appeared at Natural Society, an excellent resource for health news and vaccine information.
Why Some People See Sound
Why Some People See Sound
The senses are more intermingled than we realize — what we hear influences what we think we see, Live Science writes:Some people may actually see sounds, say researchers who found this odd ability is possible when the parts of the brain devoted to vision are small.
Scientists took a closer look at the sound-induced flash illusion. When a single flash is followed by two bleeps, people sometimes also see two illusory consecutive flashes. They found the smaller a person’s visual cortex was — the part of the brain linked with vision — the more likely he or she experienced the illusion. On average, the volunteers saw the illusion 62 percent of the time.
“The visual brain’s representation of what hits the eye is very efficient but not perfect — there is some uncertainty to visual representations, especially when things happen quickly, like the rapid succession of flashes in the illusion,” de Haas said. “In the real world, sources of light and sound are often identical, and combining them will be advantageous.”
Friday, October 26, 2012
Supreme Court Weighing ‘First Sale’ Copyright Doctrine
Supreme Court Weighing ‘First Sale’ Copyright Doctrine
- 10.25.12
- 5:41 PM
The Supreme Court on Monday will hold oral arguments concerning the global reach of U.S. copyright law, in a case testing whether buyers of foreign copyrighted works may resell them in the United States without the copyright holder’s permission.
The case tests the so-called “first sale” doctrine, which generally allows the purchaser of copyrighted works to re-sell or use the work without the copyright holder’s permission. That’s why used bookstores, libraries, GameStop, video rental stores and even eBay are all legal. But how the doctrine applies to foreign-purchased works — the so-called gray market — has been a matter of considerable debate. And the lower courts are conflicted.
The case the justices will hear Monday concerns textbook maker John Wiley & Sons and California entrepreneur Supap Kirtsaeng, who was reselling on eBay textbooks that were purchased at lower prices overseas — and he found eager buyers in U.S.-based students. The publisher sued, and a New York federal jury agreed with John Wiley & Sons’ position that the first-sale doctrine did not apply, and awarded $600,000 in damages for copyright infringement, a decision affirmed by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
And just as the lower courts are conflicted on the issue, so are the Supreme Court’s justices.
The Supreme Court in 2010 said the first-sale doctrine did not apply to overseas purchases of copyrighted works that were imported for resale in the United States. The 4-4 ruling meant Costco was liable for copyright infringement for selling foreign-made watches without the manufacturer’s authorization. However, because there was no majority decision, the ruling did not set a nationwide precedent and solely affirmed a lower court’s ruling.
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the Costco case, as she had worked on it when she was solicitor general. She had urged the justices to side with Omega, the watchmaker. The government’s position was, and still is that the U.S. Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine does not apply to goods produced and copyrighted overseas and imported to the United States — period. Costco had told the Supreme Court that the decision effectively urges U.S.-based manufacturers to flee the United States(.pdf) to acquire complete control over distribution of their goods in the American market, arguments now being made in the latest case.
To mark Monday’s hearing before the high court, activist group Demand Progress has set up a website, youvebeenowned.org, which has assisted more than 100,000 people in e-mailing their lawmakers in support of the first-sale doctrine. The site has embeddable ribbons and ball-and-chain icons saying “owned” or “you’ve been owned,” and is urging web admins to display it on their sites to protest.
“This vastly under-reported case has tremendous implications for millions of Americans and could undermine our ability to use sites like eBay and Craigslist — or even hold old-fashioned garage sales,” said David Segal, Demand Progress’ executive director.
In many ways, this is a battle over non-digital goods. Most digital goods, like software, e-books and MP3s — because of licensing or sandboxing — cannot be resold. However, a U.S. startup, ReDigi, istesting that theory when it comes to online music.
Stefan Mentzer, a partner of the law firm White & Case, says the outcome could have also wide-ranging ramifications even for the art world.
“The 2nd Circuit’s decision could have serious unintended consequences for the art museum community and the viewing public,” said Mentzer. “If the decision below is upheld, merely hanging a foreign-made painting on the walls of a museum, buying and importing a sculpture that was created outside the country, or loaning either to another institution for exhibition to the public, could give rise to claims of copyright infringement.”
The justices usually rule weeks or months after oral arguments.
The Psychology of Liberals and Conservatives
The Psychology of Liberals and Conservatives
- 10.25.12
- 6:00 AM
It’s election season in the U.S., and the campaigning between the Democrats and Republicans is fiercer than ever. Now, here at GeekDad, we prefer to steer clear of partisan politics, so this posting is not going to tap-dance into that minefield; instead, we’re going to take a look at the more interesting subject of the psychology of conservative and liberal viewpoints. And regardless of which way you lean politically, I’m pretty sure that once we’re finished, you’ll concede that both the left and the right have perfectly reasonable world views, and that the human mind is an intriguingly subtle organ.
The main focus of this posting is Jonathan Haidt’s TED Talk, The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives, so settle back and prepare for a little profound insight into human nature:
If you watch the video, you’ll see that Haidt’s thesis is that we humans all have five foundations of morality — five sources of intuitions and emotions that drive everything we do:
Harm/Care
Fairness/Reciprocity
In-Group/Loyalty
Authority/Respect
Purity/Sanctity
Both conservatives and liberals all agree on the first two points; but the real trouble comes on the final three. As Haidt said in regard to those points, “We can say that liberals have a kind of a two-channel, or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation, or five-channel morality.”
Now, that math may make it sound as if liberals are less moral than conservatives, but Haidt is careful to point out that it’s not as simple as that:
Liberals reject three of these foundations. They say “No, let’s celebrate diversity, not common in-group membership.” They say, “Let’s question authority.” And they say, “Keep your laws off my body.”
Liberals have very noble motives for doing this. Traditional authority, traditional morality can be quite repressive, and restrictive to those at the bottom, to women, to people that don’t fit in. So liberals speak for the weak and oppressed. They want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos.
Conservatives, on the other hand, speak for institutions and traditions. They want order, even at some cost to those at the bottom.
So once you see this — once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability — then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix.
That last part is the most important part of everything Haidt has to say in his talk, by the way. Recognizing the basis for human morality is academically interesting, but the important thing is to put this insight into use in some way. And Haidt has an answer for that, too:
A lot of the problems we have to solve are problems that require us to change other people. And if you want to change other people, a much better way to do it is to first understand who we are — understand our moral psychology, understand that we all think we’re right — and then step out, even if it’s just for a moment, step out of the moral matrix, just try to see it as a struggle playing out, in which everybody does think they’re right, and everybody, at least, has some reasons — even if you disagree with them — everybody has some reasons for what they’re doing. Step out. And if you do that, that’s the essential move to cultivate moral humility, to get yourself out of this self-righteousness, which is the normal human condition.
So, what does all of this have to do with being a GeekDad? Well, given that it is election season, the Geeklings are likely to have questions about the entire process and why there is so much animosity between the two political extremes. As a good parent, your job is to help your kids understand the world better, so that means you’re going to have to explain the underlying motivations of those extremes. And now that you understand the five foundations of morality, you can explain it to your kids, too. If you do a good job of it, and emphasize that both points of view are valid and valuable, then you’ll have made the world just a little bit better. Good luck….
Maya demand an end to doomsday myth
Maya demand an end to doomsday myth
Foreign 2012-10-25 15:01
GUATEMALA CITY, Oct 24, 2012 (AFP) - Guatemala's Mayan people accused the government and tour groups on Wednesday of perpetuating the myth that their calendar foresees the imminent end of the world for monetary gain.
"We are speaking out against deceit, lies and twisting of the truth, and turning us into folklore-for-profit. They are not telling the truth about time cycles," charged Felipe Gomez, leader of the Maya alliance Oxlaljuj Ajpop.
Several films and documentaries have promoted the idea that the ancient Mayan calendar predicts that doomsday is less than two months away, on December 21, 2012.
The Culture Ministry is hosting a massive event in Guatemala City -- which as many as 90,000 people are expected to attend -- just in case the world actually does end, while tour groups are promoting doomsday-themed getaways.
Maya leader Gomez urged the Tourism Institute to rethink the doomsday celebration, which he criticized as a "show" that was disrespectful to Mayan culture.
Experts say that for the Maya, all that ends in 2012 is one of their calendar cycles, not the world.
Gomez's group issued a statement saying that the new Maya time cycle simply "means there will be big changes on the personal, family and community level, so that there is harmony and balance between mankind and nature."
Oxlajuj Ajpop is holding events it considers sacred in five cities to mark the event and Gomez said the Culture Ministry would be wise to throw its support behind their real celebrations.
More than half of Guatemala's population of nearly 15 million are from indigenous groups of Mayan descent.
The Mayan calendar has 18 months of 20 days each plus a sacred month, "Wayeb," of five days. "B'aktun" is the larget unit in the time cycle system, and is about 400 years. The broader era spans 13 B'aktun, or about 5,200 years.
The Mayan culture enjoyed a golden age between 250 AD and 900 AD.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Bradley Manning Still Detained
Government to argue speedy trial doesn’t apply to Bradley, veterans to rally in support
By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. October 24, 2012.
As Army Private First Class Bradley Manning nears 900 days in jail without trial, his lawyer moves to dismiss all charges for lack of a speedy trial. Beginning Tuesday, October 30, the government’s witnesses will try to explain away the prosecution’s extensive delays. Meanwhile, over 14,000 supporters of Bradley Manning have now donated to his defense fund—over the last three weeks alone raising $50,000 during a matching grant challenge by the Brightwater Fund. On Thursday, November 1, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War will lead a rally and speak-out for Bradley at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Bradley’s constitutional rights deprived
When Bradley Manning returns to Ft. Meade on Tuesday, October 30, he’ll have spent nearly 900 days in jail awaiting court-martial trial. That’s almost two and a half years wondering whether he’ll be spending the rest of his life in jail, and whether he’ll get to see the “debates, discussions, and reforms” that chat logs suggest he sought. That’s two and a half years too long.
Bradley’s lawyer, David Coombs, will argue his most recent motion to dismiss charges with prejudice for lack of a speedy trial, which denounces and seeks accountability for the government’s inaction, unjustifiable delays, and sheer disregard for PFC Manning’s constitutional rights (1). RCM 707 affords 120 days from arrest to arraignment, but Bradley was arraigned nearly two years after his arrest in May 2010. UCMJ Article 10 compels the prosecution to act diligently and expediently, yet the government was inactive or needlessly slow for months prior to Bradley’s first pretrial hearing.
Judge Denise Lind and the parties have agreed to bifurcate this speedy trial motion: from October 30 to November 2, the government will bring its witnesses to testify. But the defense won’t be able to argue its portion of the motion until the December 10-14 hearing, which comes after the Article 13 motion to dismiss based on Bradley’s conditions at Quantico, which Coombs will litigate November 27-December 2. By that time, Bradley will have surpassed 900 days in jail without trial.
Government witnesses
Next week, the government will call three witnesses to the stand, to attempt to account for the several pre- and post-arraignment delays that have protracted Bradley’s proceedings. The defense had also requested two of these witnesses, Col. Carl Coffman and Master Sgt. Monica Carlile.
Carl Coffman is the Special Court Martial Convening Authority for Bradley’s pretrial proceedings, so he signed off on almost all of the government’s delays, marking them as excludable from the speedy trial clock. In January, Coffman denied the defense’s request to depose nine essential witnesses, including Defense Sec. Robert Gates and State Secretary Hillary Clinton, citing the “difficulty, expense, and/or effect on military operations outweighed the significance of the expected testimony.” Coombs derided this decision as “yet another example of the government improperly impeding the defense’s access to essential witnesses” (2).
Coffman is expected to explain why he signed off on the government’s delays, and why they were excluded from the speedy trial clock.
Monica Carlile was a paralegal at the Office of the Staff Justice Advocate in the Military District of Washington (apparently before she was promoted to Master Sergeant), when she signed one of the government’s delays for Coffman. Carlile is expected to explain why she signed off on that delay, why it was excluded from the speedy trial clock, and her authority to sign in Coffman’s place.
Third is Bert Haggett, whom the prosecution deems a classification expert and whom the Army cites as an Information Security Point of Contact. Kevin Gosztola writes that the government will call Haggett to testify to “how long it takes to clear documents requested by defense for discovery evidence. He apparently worked on a classification review of the unclassified portion of the Army CID investigation into Manning.”
With these witnesses, the government will try to show that it had no choice but to wait nearly two years to arraign PFC Manning, and that the mere scope of information and lengthy classification review process takes a long time. But Coombs’ motion preempts those arguments multiple times, noting that the government has vastly more resources than the defense to wade through these myriad documents, and that the prosecution both didn’t need to wait for the reviews to go to trial and didn’t sufficiently pressure the Original Classification Authorities to conduct the reviews more quickly.
Support grows despite government delays
Suspending the pretrial process is only to the government’s advantage. The defense is paid by grassroots donations from around the world, and two and a half years of delays have pushed legal expenses to nearly $250,000.
But Bradley’s supporters have countered this effort in inspiring ways. The Brightwater Fund recently announced that it would match donations to the defense fund dollar for dollar up to $50,000, and we’ve surpassed that goal already, now up to $55,000 and counting (3). That number will continue to rise this week, as rock-and-roll legend Graham Nash will perform in Santa Monica, CA, and ticket proceeds from that event will go to the Bradley Manning Support Network (4).
Veterans are responding as well. At an anti-NATO rally this summer, several Iraq Veterans Against the War publicly disowned their military medals, some in honor of PFC Bradley Manning. Those and more veterans are holding a rally and speak-out for Bradley on Thursday, November 1, just outside of Ft. Meade while he’s in court (5).
When Bradley Manning’s court-martial trial finally gets underway on February 4, 2013 – if it isn’t delayed yet again – he’ll have been imprisoned for nearly 1,000 days. This trial is anything but speedy, and the government has thus far enjoyed total immunity for violating Bradley’s basic rights. It’s long been time for that to change.
Footnotes:
The government has made an “absolute mockery” of Bradley Manning’s right to a speedy trial
David Coombs’ blog post on Col. Coffman rejecting his request for government witnesses
Brightwater Fund to match donations to the Bradley Manning Support Network
Graham Nash to perform in support of Bradley Manning
Iraq Veterans Against the War to rally at Ft. Meade for Bradley Manning
Bradley Manning Support Network | Contact Us! | Donate to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund
By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. October 24, 2012.
As Army Private First Class Bradley Manning nears 900 days in jail without trial, his lawyer moves to dismiss all charges for lack of a speedy trial. Beginning Tuesday, October 30, the government’s witnesses will try to explain away the prosecution’s extensive delays. Meanwhile, over 14,000 supporters of Bradley Manning have now donated to his defense fund—over the last three weeks alone raising $50,000 during a matching grant challenge by the Brightwater Fund. On Thursday, November 1, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War will lead a rally and speak-out for Bradley at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Bradley’s constitutional rights deprived
When Bradley Manning returns to Ft. Meade on Tuesday, October 30, he’ll have spent nearly 900 days in jail awaiting court-martial trial. That’s almost two and a half years wondering whether he’ll be spending the rest of his life in jail, and whether he’ll get to see the “debates, discussions, and reforms” that chat logs suggest he sought. That’s two and a half years too long.
Bradley’s lawyer, David Coombs, will argue his most recent motion to dismiss charges with prejudice for lack of a speedy trial, which denounces and seeks accountability for the government’s inaction, unjustifiable delays, and sheer disregard for PFC Manning’s constitutional rights (1). RCM 707 affords 120 days from arrest to arraignment, but Bradley was arraigned nearly two years after his arrest in May 2010. UCMJ Article 10 compels the prosecution to act diligently and expediently, yet the government was inactive or needlessly slow for months prior to Bradley’s first pretrial hearing.
Judge Denise Lind and the parties have agreed to bifurcate this speedy trial motion: from October 30 to November 2, the government will bring its witnesses to testify. But the defense won’t be able to argue its portion of the motion until the December 10-14 hearing, which comes after the Article 13 motion to dismiss based on Bradley’s conditions at Quantico, which Coombs will litigate November 27-December 2. By that time, Bradley will have surpassed 900 days in jail without trial.
Government witnesses
Next week, the government will call three witnesses to the stand, to attempt to account for the several pre- and post-arraignment delays that have protracted Bradley’s proceedings. The defense had also requested two of these witnesses, Col. Carl Coffman and Master Sgt. Monica Carlile.
Carl Coffman is the Special Court Martial Convening Authority for Bradley’s pretrial proceedings, so he signed off on almost all of the government’s delays, marking them as excludable from the speedy trial clock. In January, Coffman denied the defense’s request to depose nine essential witnesses, including Defense Sec. Robert Gates and State Secretary Hillary Clinton, citing the “difficulty, expense, and/or effect on military operations outweighed the significance of the expected testimony.” Coombs derided this decision as “yet another example of the government improperly impeding the defense’s access to essential witnesses” (2).
Coffman is expected to explain why he signed off on the government’s delays, and why they were excluded from the speedy trial clock.
Monica Carlile was a paralegal at the Office of the Staff Justice Advocate in the Military District of Washington (apparently before she was promoted to Master Sergeant), when she signed one of the government’s delays for Coffman. Carlile is expected to explain why she signed off on that delay, why it was excluded from the speedy trial clock, and her authority to sign in Coffman’s place.
Third is Bert Haggett, whom the prosecution deems a classification expert and whom the Army cites as an Information Security Point of Contact. Kevin Gosztola writes that the government will call Haggett to testify to “how long it takes to clear documents requested by defense for discovery evidence. He apparently worked on a classification review of the unclassified portion of the Army CID investigation into Manning.”
With these witnesses, the government will try to show that it had no choice but to wait nearly two years to arraign PFC Manning, and that the mere scope of information and lengthy classification review process takes a long time. But Coombs’ motion preempts those arguments multiple times, noting that the government has vastly more resources than the defense to wade through these myriad documents, and that the prosecution both didn’t need to wait for the reviews to go to trial and didn’t sufficiently pressure the Original Classification Authorities to conduct the reviews more quickly.
Support grows despite government delays
Suspending the pretrial process is only to the government’s advantage. The defense is paid by grassroots donations from around the world, and two and a half years of delays have pushed legal expenses to nearly $250,000.
But Bradley’s supporters have countered this effort in inspiring ways. The Brightwater Fund recently announced that it would match donations to the defense fund dollar for dollar up to $50,000, and we’ve surpassed that goal already, now up to $55,000 and counting (3). That number will continue to rise this week, as rock-and-roll legend Graham Nash will perform in Santa Monica, CA, and ticket proceeds from that event will go to the Bradley Manning Support Network (4).
Veterans are responding as well. At an anti-NATO rally this summer, several Iraq Veterans Against the War publicly disowned their military medals, some in honor of PFC Bradley Manning. Those and more veterans are holding a rally and speak-out for Bradley on Thursday, November 1, just outside of Ft. Meade while he’s in court (5).
When Bradley Manning’s court-martial trial finally gets underway on February 4, 2013 – if it isn’t delayed yet again – he’ll have been imprisoned for nearly 1,000 days. This trial is anything but speedy, and the government has thus far enjoyed total immunity for violating Bradley’s basic rights. It’s long been time for that to change.
Footnotes:
The government has made an “absolute mockery” of Bradley Manning’s right to a speedy trial
David Coombs’ blog post on Col. Coffman rejecting his request for government witnesses
Brightwater Fund to match donations to the Bradley Manning Support Network
Graham Nash to perform in support of Bradley Manning
Iraq Veterans Against the War to rally at Ft. Meade for Bradley Manning
Bradley Manning Support Network | Contact Us! | Donate to the Bradley Manning Defense Fund
What's really in vaccines?
What's really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury
Wednesday, October 24, 2012by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
(NaturalNews) Have you ever wondered what's really in vaccines? According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control's vaccine additives page, all the following ingredients are routinely used as vaccine additives:
• Aluminum - A light metal that causes dementia and Alzheimer's disease. You should never inject yourself with aluminum.
• Antibiotics - Chemicals that promote superbugs, which are deadly antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that are killing tens of thousands of Americans every year.
• Formaldehyde - A "pickling" chemical used to preserve cadavers. It's highly toxic to the nervous system, causing blindness, brain damage and seizures. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services openly admits that formaldehyde causes cancer. You can see this yourself on the National Toxicology Program website, featuring its 12th Report on Carcinogens.
There, the formaldehyde Fact Sheet completely neglects to mention formaldehyde in vaccines. This is the "dirty little secret" of government and the vaccine industry. It does state, however, that "...formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia, and rare cancers including sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancer."
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) - A neurotoxic chemical called an "excitotoxin." It causes brain neurons to be overexcited to the point of death. MSG is toxic even when consumed in foods, where it causes migraine headaches and endocrine system damage. You should NEVER inject MSG into your body. But that's what health workers do when they inject you with vaccines.
• Thimerosal - A methyl mercury compound that causes severe, permanent nervous system damage. Mercury is highly toxic to the brain. You should never touch, swallow or inject mercury at any dose. There is no safe dose of mercury! Doctors and vaccine pushers LIE to you and say there is no mercury in vaccines. Even the CDC readily admits vaccine still contain mercury (thimerosal).
• Formaldehyde - A "pickling" chemical used to preserve cadavers. It's highly toxic to the nervous system, causing blindness, brain damage and seizures. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services openly admits that formaldehyde causes cancer. You can see this yourself on the National Toxicology Program website, featuring its 12th Report on Carcinogens.
There, the formaldehyde Fact Sheet completely neglects to mention formaldehyde in vaccines. This is the "dirty little secret" of government and the vaccine industry. It does state, however, that "...formaldehyde causes myeloid leukemia, and rare cancers including sinonasal and nasopharyngeal cancer."
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) - A neurotoxic chemical called an "excitotoxin." It causes brain neurons to be overexcited to the point of death. MSG is toxic even when consumed in foods, where it causes migraine headaches and endocrine system damage. You should NEVER inject MSG into your body. But that's what health workers do when they inject you with vaccines.
• Thimerosal - A methyl mercury compound that causes severe, permanent nervous system damage. Mercury is highly toxic to the brain. You should never touch, swallow or inject mercury at any dose. There is no safe dose of mercury! Doctors and vaccine pushers LIE to you and say there is no mercury in vaccines. Even the CDC readily admits vaccine still contain mercury (thimerosal).
In addition, National Toxicology Programs admits in its own documents that:
• Vaccinations "...may produce small but measurable increases in blood levels of mercury."
• "Thimerosal was found to cross the blood-brain and placenta barriers."
• The "...hazards of thimerosal include neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity." (This means brain and kidney toxicity.)
• "...similar toxicological profiles between ethylmercury and methylmercury raise the possibility that neurotoxicity may also occur at low doses of thimerosal."
• "... there are no existing guidelines for safe exposure to ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal."
• Vaccinations "...may produce small but measurable increases in blood levels of mercury."
• "Thimerosal was found to cross the blood-brain and placenta barriers."
• The "...hazards of thimerosal include neurotoxicity and nephrotoxicity." (This means brain and kidney toxicity.)
• "...similar toxicological profiles between ethylmercury and methylmercury raise the possibility that neurotoxicity may also occur at low doses of thimerosal."
• "... there are no existing guidelines for safe exposure to ethylmercury, the metabolite of thimerosal."
• "...the assessment determined that the use of thimerosal as a preservative in vaccines might result in the intake of mercury during the first six months of life that exceeded recommended guidelines from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)..."
• ..."In the U.S., thimerosal is still present as preservative in some vaccines given to young children, as well as certain biological products recommended during pregnancy. Thimerosal remains a preservative in some vaccines administered to adolescents and adults. In addition, thimerosal continues to be used internationally as a vaccine preservative."
The report then goes on to say that the FDA studies thimerosal and somehow found it to be perfectly safe. It also states that vaccine manufactures are "working" to remove thimerosal from vaccines, but in reality it's still being manufactured right into the vaccines.
By the way, this report also reveals that the FDA requires preservatives like thimerosal only in so-called "multi-dose" vaccines -- vials that contain more than one dose of the vaccine. Drug companies could, if they wanted to, produce "clean" single-dose vaccines without any mercury / thimerosal. But they choose not to because it's more profitable to product mercury-containing multi-dose vaccines. As the report admits, "Preservatives are not required for products formulated in singledose vials. Multidose vials are preferred by some physicians and health clinics because they are often less expensive per vaccine dose and require less storage space."
So the reason why your child is being injected with vaccine boils down to health care offices making more money and saving shelf space!
"Mercury in vaccines is a conspiracy theory!
I've been told by numerous "skeptics" and doctors that there's no such thing as mercury in vaccines, and that any such suggestion is nothing more than a "wild conspiracy theory." That just goes to show you how ignorant all the skeptics, doctors and health professionals really are: They have NO CLUE what's in the vaccines they're dishing out to people!
All they have to do is visit this CDC vaccine additives web page, which openly admits to these chemicals being used in vaccines right now. It's not a conspiracy theory, it turns out. It's the status quo of modern-day vaccine manufacturing!
And just in case the CDC removes that page, here's a screen shot, taken October 22, 2012, showing exactly what was on the CDC vaccine additives page:
Feel that headache after a vaccine? That's the feeling of chemicals eating your brain
Now, consider this: The most common side effect of a vaccine injection is a headache. The CDC admits that over 30 percent of those receiving vaccines experience headaches or migraines. Gee, think about it: What could possibly be in vaccines that would cause headaches, migraines and brain damage?
Ummm, how about the mercury, the formaldehyde, the aluminum and the MSG!
Even if you believe in the theory of vaccines as a helpful way to train the immune system to recognize pathogens, why would anyone -- especially a doctor -- think it's okay to inject human beings with mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum?
The argument of the vaccine pushers is that each vaccine only contains a tiny dose of these highly toxic substances, and therefore it's okay to be injected with them. But this argument makes a fatal error: U.S. children are now receiving over twenty vaccines by the time they're six years old! What's the cumulative effect of all these vaccines, plus the mercury from dental fillings and dietary sources? What's the effect of injected mercury on an immune-suppressed child living in a state of chronic nutritional deficiency?
Scientists don't know that answer because such studies have never been conducted. So they pretend that nothing bad will happen and keep pushing more and more vaccines on infants, children and even expectant mothers. They're playing Russian roulette with our children, in other words, where every injection could cause a seizure, coma, autism or death.
Why doesn't the vaccine industry offer "clean" vaccines free from all toxic additives?
If vaccines are supposed to be good for you, why do they contain so many additives that are BAD for you? You wouldn't want to eat mercury in your tuna fish. You wouldn't want MSG in your sandwich, and you certainly wouldn't want formaldehyde in your soda. So why would you allow yourself to be injected with these deadly substances?
And just as importantly, why wouldn't the vaccine industry offer CLEAN vaccines? Without any brain-damaging additives?
Think about it: When you buy health food, you want that health food to have NO mercury, NO MSG, NO aluminum and certainly no formaldehyde. No sane person would knowingly eat those neurotoxic poisons. And yet, astonishingly, those same people literally line up to be INJECTED with those exact same brain-damaging poisons, with the justification that, somehow, "This injection is good for me!"
Absurdly, the vaccine industry says these toxic ingredients are intentionally added to vaccines to make them work better! Yes, that's the reason: Mercury makes vaccines work better, they insist. Click here to see a video news report actually claiming mercury makes vaccines work better, granting children "improved behavior and mental performance."
No, I'm not making this up. The mainstream media literally claims that mercury is GOOD for babies. Vitamins might kill you, they say, but mercury is good for you!
But hold on a second: I thought the theory behind vaccines was that weakened viruses would give the immune system a rehearsal so that it would build up antibodies to the real thing. Where does mercury, MSG or formaldehyde fit anywhere in that theory? Does your body benefit in any way from exposure to formaldehyde? Of course not. The very idea is ludicrous.
So are there such things are clean vaccines? I challenge you to try to find one. They simply don't exist for the population at large. Nearly all vaccines for the masses are deliberately formulated with neurotoxic chemicals that have absolutely nothing to do with the science of vaccinations, but everything to do with autism, Alzheimer's disease, early-onset dementia, immune suppression, and the mass dumbing down of brain function.
Vaccines are designed with chemical additives to poison the population, not to protect the population
That's the real purpose of vaccines: Not to "protect children" with any sort of immunity, but to inject the masses with a toxic cocktail of chemicals that cause brain damage and infertility: Mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum. The whole point of this is to dumb the population down so that nobody has the presence of mind to wake up and start thinking for themselves.
This is precisely why the smartest, most "awake" people still remaining in society today are the very same ones who say NO to vaccines. Only their brains are still intact and operating with some level of awareness.
The system wants you to stay dumbed down, of course. It makes you easier to control. Watch George Carlin brilliantly explain the concept of "Obedient Workers" (explicit):
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2AKwDGC7T
Articles Related to This Article:
• Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies
• Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines
• The Health Ranger interviews neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock on mandatory vaccine trials, fraudulent vaccine science and vaccine ethics
• Institute of Medicine adverse reactions report admits MMR vaccines cause measles, seizures, anaphylaxis and other health problems
• Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
• NaturalNews exposes secret vaccine industry ties and military involvement with Institute of Medicine, reveals fatal conflicts of interest at IoM
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2AKyKGLdT
About the author: Mike Adams is an award-winning journalist and holistic nutritionist with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored more than 1,800 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, and he has published numerous courses on preparedness and survival, including financial preparedness, emergency food supplies, urban survivaland tactical self-defense. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2010, Adams created TV.NaturalNews.com, a natural living video sharing site featuring thousands of user videos on foods, fitness, green living and more. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the founder of a well known HTML email software company whose 'Email Marketing Director' software currently runs the NaturalNews subscription database. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2AKwOSXwD
The report then goes on to say that the FDA studies thimerosal and somehow found it to be perfectly safe. It also states that vaccine manufactures are "working" to remove thimerosal from vaccines, but in reality it's still being manufactured right into the vaccines.
By the way, this report also reveals that the FDA requires preservatives like thimerosal only in so-called "multi-dose" vaccines -- vials that contain more than one dose of the vaccine. Drug companies could, if they wanted to, produce "clean" single-dose vaccines without any mercury / thimerosal. But they choose not to because it's more profitable to product mercury-containing multi-dose vaccines. As the report admits, "Preservatives are not required for products formulated in singledose vials. Multidose vials are preferred by some physicians and health clinics because they are often less expensive per vaccine dose and require less storage space."
So the reason why your child is being injected with vaccine boils down to health care offices making more money and saving shelf space!
"Mercury in vaccines is a conspiracy theory!
I've been told by numerous "skeptics" and doctors that there's no such thing as mercury in vaccines, and that any such suggestion is nothing more than a "wild conspiracy theory." That just goes to show you how ignorant all the skeptics, doctors and health professionals really are: They have NO CLUE what's in the vaccines they're dishing out to people!
All they have to do is visit this CDC vaccine additives web page, which openly admits to these chemicals being used in vaccines right now. It's not a conspiracy theory, it turns out. It's the status quo of modern-day vaccine manufacturing!
And just in case the CDC removes that page, here's a screen shot, taken October 22, 2012, showing exactly what was on the CDC vaccine additives page:
Feel that headache after a vaccine? That's the feeling of chemicals eating your brain
Now, consider this: The most common side effect of a vaccine injection is a headache. The CDC admits that over 30 percent of those receiving vaccines experience headaches or migraines. Gee, think about it: What could possibly be in vaccines that would cause headaches, migraines and brain damage?
Ummm, how about the mercury, the formaldehyde, the aluminum and the MSG!
Even if you believe in the theory of vaccines as a helpful way to train the immune system to recognize pathogens, why would anyone -- especially a doctor -- think it's okay to inject human beings with mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum?
The argument of the vaccine pushers is that each vaccine only contains a tiny dose of these highly toxic substances, and therefore it's okay to be injected with them. But this argument makes a fatal error: U.S. children are now receiving over twenty vaccines by the time they're six years old! What's the cumulative effect of all these vaccines, plus the mercury from dental fillings and dietary sources? What's the effect of injected mercury on an immune-suppressed child living in a state of chronic nutritional deficiency?
Scientists don't know that answer because such studies have never been conducted. So they pretend that nothing bad will happen and keep pushing more and more vaccines on infants, children and even expectant mothers. They're playing Russian roulette with our children, in other words, where every injection could cause a seizure, coma, autism or death.
Why doesn't the vaccine industry offer "clean" vaccines free from all toxic additives?
If vaccines are supposed to be good for you, why do they contain so many additives that are BAD for you? You wouldn't want to eat mercury in your tuna fish. You wouldn't want MSG in your sandwich, and you certainly wouldn't want formaldehyde in your soda. So why would you allow yourself to be injected with these deadly substances?
And just as importantly, why wouldn't the vaccine industry offer CLEAN vaccines? Without any brain-damaging additives?
Think about it: When you buy health food, you want that health food to have NO mercury, NO MSG, NO aluminum and certainly no formaldehyde. No sane person would knowingly eat those neurotoxic poisons. And yet, astonishingly, those same people literally line up to be INJECTED with those exact same brain-damaging poisons, with the justification that, somehow, "This injection is good for me!"
Absurdly, the vaccine industry says these toxic ingredients are intentionally added to vaccines to make them work better! Yes, that's the reason: Mercury makes vaccines work better, they insist. Click here to see a video news report actually claiming mercury makes vaccines work better, granting children "improved behavior and mental performance."
No, I'm not making this up. The mainstream media literally claims that mercury is GOOD for babies. Vitamins might kill you, they say, but mercury is good for you!
But hold on a second: I thought the theory behind vaccines was that weakened viruses would give the immune system a rehearsal so that it would build up antibodies to the real thing. Where does mercury, MSG or formaldehyde fit anywhere in that theory? Does your body benefit in any way from exposure to formaldehyde? Of course not. The very idea is ludicrous.
So are there such things are clean vaccines? I challenge you to try to find one. They simply don't exist for the population at large. Nearly all vaccines for the masses are deliberately formulated with neurotoxic chemicals that have absolutely nothing to do with the science of vaccinations, but everything to do with autism, Alzheimer's disease, early-onset dementia, immune suppression, and the mass dumbing down of brain function.
Vaccines are designed with chemical additives to poison the population, not to protect the population
That's the real purpose of vaccines: Not to "protect children" with any sort of immunity, but to inject the masses with a toxic cocktail of chemicals that cause brain damage and infertility: Mercury, MSG, formaldehyde and aluminum. The whole point of this is to dumb the population down so that nobody has the presence of mind to wake up and start thinking for themselves.
This is precisely why the smartest, most "awake" people still remaining in society today are the very same ones who say NO to vaccines. Only their brains are still intact and operating with some level of awareness.
The system wants you to stay dumbed down, of course. It makes you easier to control. Watch George Carlin brilliantly explain the concept of "Obedient Workers" (explicit):
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2AKwDGC7T
Articles Related to This Article:
• Facebook crowdsourced investigation exposes vaccine denials of SIGA Technologies
• Evidence-based vaccinations: A scientific look at the missing science behind flu season vaccines
• The Health Ranger interviews neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock on mandatory vaccine trials, fraudulent vaccine science and vaccine ethics
• Institute of Medicine adverse reactions report admits MMR vaccines cause measles, seizures, anaphylaxis and other health problems
• Flu vaccines revealed as the greatest quackery ever pushed in the history of medicine
• NaturalNews exposes secret vaccine industry ties and military involvement with Institute of Medicine, reveals fatal conflicts of interest at IoM
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Related video from NaturalNews.TV
Your NaturalNews.TV video could be here.
Upload your own videos at NaturalNews.TV (FREE)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2AKyKGLdT
About the author: Mike Adams is an award-winning journalist and holistic nutritionist with a passion for sharing empowering information to help improve personal and planetary health He has authored more than 1,800 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, and he has published numerous courses on preparedness and survival, including financial preparedness, emergency food supplies, urban survivaland tactical self-defense. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies' products. In 2010, Adams created TV.NaturalNews.com, a natural living video sharing site featuring thousands of user videos on foods, fitness, green living and more. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the founder of a well known HTML email software company whose 'Email Marketing Director' software currently runs the NaturalNews subscription database. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates. Known by his callsign, the 'Health Ranger,' Adams posts his missions statements, health statistics and health photos at www.HealthRanger.org
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2AKwOSXwD
LEARN WHAT IS IN THE FOOD YOU EAT SEE ARTICLE Proposed Cancer Causes (vii)
LEARN WHAT IS IN THE FOOD YOU EAT SEE ARTICLE http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/causes7.html
Proposed Causes of Cancer (VI)
The Fungal/Mycotoxin Causation of Human Illness (particularly CANCER)
Fungalbionics - The Fungal Etiology of Disease
by Dr. Juergen Buche, N.D., N.H.C., M.I., Phy.D.,
republished by Healing Cancer Naturally with permission.Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Researchers discover evidence of premonition
Researchers discover evidence of premonition
By Stacey Pounsberry | October 24, 2012
Credit: FlickrResearchers at Northwestern University say that our body may be able to sense future events without any conscious clues.
According to an analysis performed by researchers at Northwestern University, in collaboration with other institutions, our bodies may be psychic.
The study, “Predictive Physiological Anticipation Preceding Seemingly Unpredictable Stimuli: A Meta-Analysis,” recently published in Frontiers in Perception Science, analyzes the results of 26 studies published between 1978 and 2010.
The studies examined used either randomly ordered presentations of arousing versus neutral stimuli, or a process of guessing tasks with correct versus incorrect feedback. Results were measured in terms of physical activity in the skin, heart, blood, eyes, and brain. The surprising results: Even if we can’t consciously express future events, our bodies subconsciously anticipate them.
“What hasn’t been clear is whether humans have the ability to predict future important events even without any clues as to what might happen,” said Julia Mossbridge, lead author of the study and research associate in the Visual Perception, Cognition and Neuroscience Laboratory at Northwestern in a statement. Co-authors of the study include Patrizio Tressoldi of the Università di Padova, Padova, Italy, and Jessica Utts of the University of California, Irvine.
This phenomenon is sometimes called a presentiment, or even a premonition, but Ms. Mossbridge said the research does not show whether or not people are really sensing the future, or just anticipating the supposedly random process based on minute clues.
“I like to call the phenomenon ‘anomalous anticipatory activity,’” Ms. Mossbridge said. “The phenomenon is anomalous, some scientists argue, because we can’t explain it using present-day understanding about how biology works; though explanations related to recent quantum biological findings could potentially make sense.” Further research in quantum biology might even be able to describe how to exploit such biology, or at least become aware of them.
Further explaining the term describing the anomaly, Ms. Mossbridge said, “It’s anticipatory because it seems to predict future physiological changes in response to an important event without any known clues, and it’s an activity because it consists of changes in the cardiopulmonary, skin and nervous systems.”
Although researchers know that it occurs, they don’t know precisely how it happens. Therefore, anomalous anticipatory activity may be difficult to test.
Let’s say, for example, you are playing a video game at work with your headphones on. The study suggests that with a heightened awareness and a little luck, you may be able to get away with it.
“[Our] analysis suggests that if you were tuned into your body, you might be able to detect these anticipatory changes between two and 10 seconds beforehand and close your video game,” Ms. Mossbridge said. “You might even have a chance to open that spreadsheet you were supposed to be working on. And if you were lucky, you could do all this before your boss entered the room.”
Grandmothers responsible for human longevity
Grandmothers responsible for human longevity
Posted on October 24, 2012 - 08:01 by Kate Taylor
http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/67061-grandmothers-responsible-for-human-longevity
The helpfulness of grandmothers is the reason humans don't die in their thirties the way chimpanzees do, new research shows - and may even explain our bigger brains.
Computer simulations show that with only a little grandmotherly care, animals with chimpanzee lifespans evolve to reach a human level in less than 60,000 years.
"Grandmothering was the initial step toward making us who we are," says Kristen Hawkes of the University of Utah.
The simulated creatures were given an initial lifespan of 25 years from reaching adulthood. But after 24,000 to 60,000 years of grandmothers caring for grandchildren, the creatures reaching adulthood lived another 49 years, just like human hunter-gatherers.
The long-standing 'grandmother hypothesis' says that when grandmothers help feed their grandchildren after weaning, their daughters can produce more children at shorter intervals. Thus, a few ancestral females who lived long enough to become grandmothers passed their longevity genes to more descendants.
Bigger brains have also been suggested as an explanation for human longevity. Crucially, though, the model made no assumption about brain size, showing that the grandmother effect was enough all on its own. Indeed, says Hawkes, it may itself explain increasing brain size.
"Grandmothering gave us the kind of upbringing that made us more dependent on each other socially and prone to engage each other's attention," she says, giving rise to "a whole array of social capacities that are then the foundation for the evolution of other distinctly human traits, including pair bonding, bigger brains, learning new skills and our tendency for cooperation."
That's a lot to thank your grandma for.
The helpfulness of grandmothers is the reason humans don't die in their thirties the way chimpanzees do, new research shows - and may even explain our bigger brains.
Computer simulations show that with only a little grandmotherly care, animals with chimpanzee lifespans evolve to reach a human level in less than 60,000 years."Grandmothering was the initial step toward making us who we are," says Kristen Hawkes of the University of Utah.
The simulated creatures were given an initial lifespan of 25 years from reaching adulthood. But after 24,000 to 60,000 years of grandmothers caring for grandchildren, the creatures reaching adulthood lived another 49 years, just like human hunter-gatherers.
The long-standing 'grandmother hypothesis' says that when grandmothers help feed their grandchildren after weaning, their daughters can produce more children at shorter intervals. Thus, a few ancestral females who lived long enough to become grandmothers passed their longevity genes to more descendants.
Bigger brains have also been suggested as an explanation for human longevity. Crucially, though, the model made no assumption about brain size, showing that the grandmother effect was enough all on its own. Indeed, says Hawkes, it may itself explain increasing brain size.
"Grandmothering gave us the kind of upbringing that made us more dependent on each other socially and prone to engage each other's attention," she says, giving rise to "a whole array of social capacities that are then the foundation for the evolution of other distinctly human traits, including pair bonding, bigger brains, learning new skills and our tendency for cooperation."
That's a lot to thank your grandma for.
Stephen Covey: 10 Quotes That Can Change Your Life
Retrirved via http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinkruse/2012/07/16/the-7-habits/2/ Article by Kevin Kruse of Forbes
Stephen Covey will be remembered most as the author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, which sold over 25 million copies. It’s been many years since I read “the habits” but I was delighted recently when I learned that my 8th grade daughter read The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teens in school. Although they weren’t completely original thoughts, the catchy labels he gave the habits made them memorable:
Habit 1: Be Proactive
Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind
Habit 3: Put First Things First
Habit 4: Think Win-Win
Habit 5: Seek First to Understand
Habit 6: Synergize
Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw
Below are 10 quotes from Stephen Covey that have the power to completely change the direction of one’s life.
1) The key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule, but to schedule your priorities.
2) The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
3) Live out of your imagination, not your history.
4) Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.
5) Most of us spend too much time on what is urgent and not enough time on what is important.
6) I am not a product of my circumstances. I am a product of my decisions.
7) You have to decide what your highest priorities are and have the courage—pleasantly, smilingly, nonapologetically, to say “no” to other things. And the way you do that is by having a bigger “yes” burning inside. The enemy of the “best” is often the “good.”
8) I teach people how to treat me by what I will allow.
9) Love is a verb. Love – the feeling – is the fruit of love the verb or our loving actions. So love her.
Kevin is a NY Times bestselling author and his latest book is Employee Engagement 2.0.
He is also a serial entrepreneur and angel investor, who builds and sells companies with a talent-first strategy.
Kevin loves to connect with readers. Grab his newsletter atkevinkruse.com, like his FB page, and connect on LinkedIn.
Stephen Covey: 10 Quotes That Can Change Your Life
Stephen Covey will be remembered most as the author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, which sold over 25 million copies. It’s been many years since I read “the habits” but I was delighted recently when I learned that my 8th grade daughter read The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teens in school. Although they weren’t completely original thoughts, the catchy labels he gave the habits made them memorable:
Habit 1: Be Proactive
Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind
Habit 3: Put First Things First
Habit 4: Think Win-Win
Habit 5: Seek First to Understand
Habit 6: Synergize
Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw
Below are 10 quotes from Stephen Covey that have the power to completely change the direction of one’s life.
1) The key is not to prioritize what’s on your schedule, but to schedule your priorities.
2) The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
3) Live out of your imagination, not your history.
4) Trust is the glue of life. It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication. It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.
5) Most of us spend too much time on what is urgent and not enough time on what is important.
6) I am not a product of my circumstances. I am a product of my decisions.
7) You have to decide what your highest priorities are and have the courage—pleasantly, smilingly, nonapologetically, to say “no” to other things. And the way you do that is by having a bigger “yes” burning inside. The enemy of the “best” is often the “good.”
8) I teach people how to treat me by what I will allow.
9) Love is a verb. Love – the feeling – is the fruit of love the verb or our loving actions. So love her.
10) Live, love, laugh, leave a legacy.
________________________Kevin is a NY Times bestselling author and his latest book is Employee Engagement 2.0.
He is also a serial entrepreneur and angel investor, who builds and sells companies with a talent-first strategy.
Kevin loves to connect with readers. Grab his newsletter atkevinkruse.com, like his FB page, and connect on LinkedIn.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Drones: What Wasn't Asked at the Debate
Sourced via http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-v-santore/drones-what-wasnt-asked-a_b_2005552.html
MR. SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you, Governor, because we know President Obama’s position on this, what is — what is your position on the use of drones?
Drone warfare was the subject of only one question posed by Bob Schieffer at the third presidential debate:
MR. SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you, Governor, because we know President Obama’s position on this, what is — what is your position on the use of drones?
This question was not entirely without utility, because in his response, Mitt Romney stated the following:
MR. ROMNEY: Well, I believe that we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it’s widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.
In a campaign designed to highlight differences between the parties' candidates, a demonstration of the parity between those candidates on this critical issue is valuable.
That said, Schieffer clearly missed an excellent opportunity to push Obama and Romney in a way that would have educated voters and revealed the candidates' thought process concerning a crucially important topic. Here is a list of relevant questions that could have been asked of either Romney or Obama:
1) Why has the administration fought the ACLU's efforts to make America's use of drones more transparent, and what justifies its opposition?
2) The Obama administration has authorized hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan alone, resulting in the deaths of numerous civilians. Why is it justifiable to kill such a large number of civilians in the name of protecting civilians from terrorism?
3) Did John Brennan lie when he claimed in June , 2011 that U.S. counter-terrorism activities had not resulted in “a single collateral death" during the previous year, or was he employing a controversial accounting method (see 6 below)?
4) Are so-called "double-tap" drone strikes morally justifiable, considering that the United States has criticized terrorist groups for using the tactic?
5) Can the administration (or Romney) guarantee the accuracy of "signature" strikes used against targets “even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known"?
6) Can the administration (or Romney) defend its practice of counting “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants" as revealed by Jo Becker and Scott Shane in the New York Times last May?
7) How does the administration (or Romney) view the September report authored jointly by scholars at Stanford and NYU arguing that America's use of drones "undermine[s] respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents," as well as inflicting terror upon Pakistani civilians?
8) How does the administration (or Romney) respond to the September statements of Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, who argued that America's use of drones in her country was (in its current form) "illegal" and fostered anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani population?
Multiple top-ranking administration officials have defended the morality and legality of America’s use of drones, including Harold Koh, Jeh C. Johnson, Eric Holder, and John Brennan. As such, Schieffer was correct to say that Obama's position on their use is known (i.e., he favors that use).
However, it is also true that the president himself has spoken only sparingly in public about his drone program, and his administration has not been forthcoming regarding the program's details. (As mentioned before, the ACLU's transparency efforts have been opposed, and the officials mentioned above have defended drones in largely theoretical terms).
It is highly unlikely the average citizen understands how this weapon has been used by the White House, which would mean it is equally unlikely the average citizen is familiar with the moral and legal questions raised by its use.
There is no reason why President Obama shouldn't have been asked anything about his use of drones during this, the campaign's only foreign policy debate. And there is no reason why Schieffer should have permitted Romney to offer platitudinous support for the administration's policies without asking him to further justify that support.
Schieffer's question, therefore, represented another example of why even our highest-level political debates are routinely of limited use.
In a campaign designed to highlight differences between the parties' candidates, a demonstration of the parity between those candidates on this critical issue is valuable.
That said, Schieffer clearly missed an excellent opportunity to push Obama and Romney in a way that would have educated voters and revealed the candidates' thought process concerning a crucially important topic. Here is a list of relevant questions that could have been asked of either Romney or Obama:
1) Why has the administration fought the ACLU's efforts to make America's use of drones more transparent, and what justifies its opposition?
2) The Obama administration has authorized hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan alone, resulting in the deaths of numerous civilians. Why is it justifiable to kill such a large number of civilians in the name of protecting civilians from terrorism?
3) Did John Brennan lie when he claimed in June , 2011 that U.S. counter-terrorism activities had not resulted in “a single collateral death" during the previous year, or was he employing a controversial accounting method (see 6 below)?
4) Are so-called "double-tap" drone strikes morally justifiable, considering that the United States has criticized terrorist groups for using the tactic?
5) Can the administration (or Romney) guarantee the accuracy of "signature" strikes used against targets “even when the identity of those who could be killed is not known"?
6) Can the administration (or Romney) defend its practice of counting “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants" as revealed by Jo Becker and Scott Shane in the New York Times last May?
7) How does the administration (or Romney) view the September report authored jointly by scholars at Stanford and NYU arguing that America's use of drones "undermine[s] respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents," as well as inflicting terror upon Pakistani civilians?
8) How does the administration (or Romney) respond to the September statements of Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, who argued that America's use of drones in her country was (in its current form) "illegal" and fostered anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani population?
Multiple top-ranking administration officials have defended the morality and legality of America’s use of drones, including Harold Koh, Jeh C. Johnson, Eric Holder, and John Brennan. As such, Schieffer was correct to say that Obama's position on their use is known (i.e., he favors that use).
However, it is also true that the president himself has spoken only sparingly in public about his drone program, and his administration has not been forthcoming regarding the program's details. (As mentioned before, the ACLU's transparency efforts have been opposed, and the officials mentioned above have defended drones in largely theoretical terms).
It is highly unlikely the average citizen understands how this weapon has been used by the White House, which would mean it is equally unlikely the average citizen is familiar with the moral and legal questions raised by its use.
There is no reason why President Obama shouldn't have been asked anything about his use of drones during this, the campaign's only foreign policy debate. And there is no reason why Schieffer should have permitted Romney to offer platitudinous support for the administration's policies without asking him to further justify that support.
Schieffer's question, therefore, represented another example of why even our highest-level political debates are routinely of limited use.
Follow John V. Santore on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnvsantore
FOLLOW POLITICS
Anonymous going to lauch wikileaks like project called TYLER
Anonymous going to lauch wikileaks like project called TYLER
International hacker group Anonymous is going to create a WikiLeaks competitor scandalous leak portal called Tyler, for the publication of secret information from governments of various countries. One of the group’s members, who specified that he is representing the collective, spoke about the TYLER project and the rift with WikiLeaks in an email interview with the Voice of Russia.
They have scheduled this new project to December 21 this year. According to the hacker, who requested anonymity, the conflict between Anonymous and the website of Julian Assange revolves around the forced funding techniques and lack of transparency around money to WikiLeaks.
So far Anonymous defends WikiLeaks and Assange personally and supported the mission of the site to share information, news and classified information with the public. They even helped to publish more than 2 million emails, known as the Syrian file.
Since Assange has repeatedly threatened to close the WikiLeaks, hackers have decided to create their own platform for publishing secret government documents. According to Anonymous, Tyler will be a unique service project, as it will not have fixed the server - it will be based on the principle of decentralized or peer to peer network based on the equality of participants. Hackers claim that the attack or close the platform due to this will be impossible.
When asked about the future of WikiLeaks, the anonymous hacker said “Julian has threatened on at least one previous occasion to pull the plug on the project because the fundraising was not meeting his expectations. It was at that time that Anonymous began planning to field our own alternative disclosure platforms. Julian desperately needs WikiLeaks, and he is the only one that can pull the plug on the project. I rather think that so long as he is in dire straits, he will not do so despite any threats from him to the contrary.”
In this case, it is unclear whether the hacker to interview to Russian media reflect the views of the entire community of anonymous or its individual fragments as haktivistite not acting in an organized group with a recognized leader.
Subscribe for Quick Updates - Be the 1st to know about Hackers | Join us on Facebook , Google+ and Twitter
About Author:
.jpg)
Mohit Kumar aka 'Unix Root' is Founder and Editor-in-chief of 'The Hacker News'. He is a Security Researcher and Analyst, with experience in various aspects of Information Security. His editorials always get people thinking and participating in the new and exciting world of cyber security. Other than this : He is an Internet Activist, Strong supporter of Anonymous & Wikileaks. His all efforts are to make internet more Secure. Follow him @ Twitter | LinkedIn | Google | Email
Tags: Anonymous , Anonymous Hackers , hacking news , Julian Assange , leaked the database , Syrian file , TYLER , WikiLeaks
- See more at: http://thehackernews.com/2012/10/anonymous-going-to-lauch-wikileaks-like.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#_
10 Food Additives That Will Make You Question What You Eat
10 Food Additives That Will Make You Question What You Eat
JOE MARTINO OCTOBER 19, 2012 2
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2012/10/19/10-food-additives-that-will-make-you-question-what-you-eat/
In the US it is known as High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and in Canada Glucose/Fructose. In both countries it is a highly-refined artificial sweetener which has become the number one ingredient to help sweeten foods and beverages. It also is the number one source of calories in north american diets. You can find HFCS (G/F) in almost all processed foods. HFCS packs on the pounds faster than any other ingredient, increases your LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels, and contributes to the development of diabetes and tissue damage, among other harmful effects. Not only that, the chemical mixtures used in HFCS introduce mercury into the mix which has been proven to cause brain damage in those who consume it.
HFCS or G/f can be found in: most processed foods, breads, candy, flavored yogurts, salad dressings, canned vegetables, cereals
Aspartame, (E951) also known as Nutrasweet and Equal, is often found in foods labeled “diet” or “sugar free”. Aspartame is not only carcinogenic but is a serious neurotoxin. Aspartame produces Methanol when in the body which then converts into formaldehyde. While it is often believed that formic acid is the issue with Aspartame, it is actually formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a serious neurotoxin and carcinogen. According to the EPA, Methanol is considered a cumulative poison which means is accumulates in the body and very little is excreted each time it is consumed. and accounts for more reports of adverse reactions than all other foods and food additives combined. Known to erode intelligence and affect short-term memory, the components of this toxic sweetener may lead to a wide variety of ailments including brain tumor, diseases like lymphoma, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue, emotional disorders like depression and anxiety attacks, dizziness, headaches, nausea, mental confusion, migraines and seizures. Acesulfame-K, a relatively new artificial sweetener found in baking goods, gum and gelatin, has not been thoroughly tested and has been linked to kidney tumors. Read more about the dangers of Aspartame here.
Aspartame can be found in: diet or sugar free sodas, diet coke, coke zero, jello (and over gelatins), desserts, sugar free gum, drink mixes, baking goods, table top sweeteners, cereal, breathmints, pudding, kool-aid, ice tea, chewable vitamins, toothpaste
Common food dyes are not only found in foods but also other products we put on our bodies. Studies show that artificial colorings contribute to behavioral problems in children and lead to a significant reduction in IQ. Alternate studies have also linked food colorings to cancer. Watch out for these ones:
Blue #1 and Blue #2 (E133)
Banned in Norway, Finland and France. May cause chromosomal damage
Found in: candy, cereal, soft drinks, sports drinks and pet foods
Red dye # 3 (also Red #40 – a more current dye) (E124)
Banned in 1990 after 8 years of debate from use in many foods and cosmetics. This dye continues to be on the market until supplies run out! Has been proven to cause thyroid cancer and chromosomal damage in laboratory animals, may also interfere with brain-nerve transmission
Found in: fruit cocktail, maraschino cherries, cherry pie mix, ice cream, candy, bakery products and more!
Yellow #6 (E110) and Yellow Tartrazine (E102)
Banned in Norway and Sweden. Increases the number of kidney and adrenal gland tumors in laboratory animals, may cause chromosomal damage.
Found in: American cheese, macaroni and cheese, candy and carbonated beverages, lemonade and more!
While it can be naturally occurring in animals, trans fat is used to enhance and extend the shelf life of food products and is among the most dangerous substances that you can consume. Trans fats can most often found in deep-fried fast foods and processed foods. Trans fats are created from the process of hydrogenation which is why foods like margarine or products that contain other hydrogenated oils are not a good choice for consumption. A number of studies have shown that trans fat increases LDL(“bad) cholesterol levels while decreasing HDL (“good”) cholesterol. This increases the risk of heart attacks, heart disease and strokes, and contributes to increased inflammation, diabetes and other health problems. Oils and fat are now forbidden on the Danish market if they contain trans fatty acids exceeding 2 per cent, a move that effectively bans partially hydrogenated oils.
Trans fats can be found in: margarine, other hydrogenated oils, chips and crackers, baked goods, fast foods
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydrozyttoluene (BHT) are preservatives found in cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. This common preservative keeps foods from changing color, changing flavor or becoming rancid. They both effect the neurological system of the brain, contribute to altering behavior and increase the risk of cancer. BHA and BHT are oxidants which form cancer-causing reactive compounds in your body.
Both can be found in: Potato chips, gum, cereal, frozen sausages, enriched rice, lard, shortening, candy, jello
Sodium nitrate (or sodium nitrite) is used as a preservative, coloring and flavoring founds in favorites such as bacon and hot dogs. Pretty much any processed meat or sandwich meat you buy at the deli will contain Sodium Nitrate. While it sounds harmless, it is actually highly carcinogenic once it enters the human digestive system. Once there, it forms a variety of nitrosamine compounds that find their way into the bloodstream and cause a number of issues with internal organs- the liver and pancreas being most affected. Interestingly enough, this product was motioned to be banned by the FDA but was vetoed by food manufacturers who complained they had no alternative for preserving packaged meat products. It is interesting to note that we destroy health simply to allow industry to flourish.Other than preservation this chemical just happens to turn meats bright red. It helps to make old, dead meats look fresh and pleasing to eat.
Sodium Nitrate/Nitrite can be found in: hotdogs, bacon, ham, luncheon meat, cured meats, corned beef, smoked fish or any other type of processed meat
Another one on the list that we are probably all subject to given it is household staple- Potassium Bromate. It is an additive used to increase volume in some white flour, breads, and rolls, potassium bromate is known to cause cancer. Even small amounts in bread can create quite serious problems for humans. It is important to note that glutenous bread blocks nutrient receptors in the intestines which hinders the bodies ability to intake nutrients from other foods.
Potassium Bromate can be found in: breads
This additive is often why many people have trouble drinking store bought wine. It can also be found in other processed foods. According to the FDA, approximately 1 in 100 people is sensitive to sulfites in food and wine. Individuals who are sulfite sensitive may experience headaches, breathing problems, and rashes. In severe cases, sulfites can actually cause death by closing down the airway altogether, leading to cardiac arrest.
Sodium sulfite can be found in: Wine, processed foods and dried fruit
Sulfur additives are toxic and in the United States of America, the Federal Drugs Administration have prohibited their use on raw fruit and vegetables. Adverse reactions include: bronchial problems particularly in those prone to asthma, hypotension (low blood pressure), flushing tingling sensations or anaphylactic shock. It also destroys vitamins B1 and E. Not recommended for consumption by children. The International Labour Organization says to avoid E220 if you suffer from conjunctivitis, bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma, or cardiovascular disease.
Found in: beer, soft drinks, dried fruit, juices, cordials, wine, vinegar, and potato products.
Something to Think About
When we look at the majority of the health problems we experience today, is it not true that the majority, if not all, can be linked directly to the foods we eat? Is it worth debating whether these substances are good or bad when they aren’t natural or naturally occurring in the foods to begin with? Is it possible that maybe our food system has become more about convenience and not about health whatsoever? I think it is important to think about these things as what we eat does in fact affect what happens in our bodies in a HUGE way. Whether or not these substances will heavily affect you in the next 5 or 10 years, one thing is certain, they are not helping out your health in any way and considering most of this stuff is found in processed foods or HIGHLY acidic foods, we shouldn’t be consuming them anyway if good health is our goal.
Sources:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035542_potassium_bromate_baked_goods_cancer.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/509298-how-nitrates-nitrites-affect-our-bodies/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/24/are-you-or-your-family-eating-toxic-food-dyes.aspx
http://www.naturalnews.com/034272_MSG_monosodium_glutamate.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/032948_high_fructose_corn_syrup_glutaraldehyde.html
What food additives are in your daily diet and should you be rethinking eating foods that contain them?
When it comes to food additives they are generally anything but natural in both their make up as well as why they are used. Food additives are usually added to help with processing, packaging and preserving foods. When you are at the grocery store, have you ever realize there are quite a few foods that can sit on the shelf for quite a while? Even things like processed meats seem to last for quite a while in the store and then your fridge, seems a little unnatural doesn’t it? What is tough to swallow is the average north american family spends about 80% of their food budget on processed foods! The worst part of this statistic is the health consequences.
Let’ have a look at some of the top food additives to avoid:
MSG can be found in: Chinese food (Chinese Restaurant Syndrome ) many snacks, chips, cookies, seasonings, most Campbell Soup products, frozen dinners, alot of noodle bowls, cold cuts (sandwich meat)
When it comes to food additives they are generally anything but natural in both their make up as well as why they are used. Food additives are usually added to help with processing, packaging and preserving foods. When you are at the grocery store, have you ever realize there are quite a few foods that can sit on the shelf for quite a while? Even things like processed meats seem to last for quite a while in the store and then your fridge, seems a little unnatural doesn’t it? What is tough to swallow is the average north american family spends about 80% of their food budget on processed foods! The worst part of this statistic is the health consequences.
Let’ have a look at some of the top food additives to avoid:
1. Monosodium Glutamate (MSG / E621)
We have all heard of this one before, MSG is an amino acid used to enhance flavors in salad dressings, chips, soups, noodle bowls, and many restaurant foods. MSG is known as an excitotoxin, a substance which overexcites cells to the point of damage or death. A number of studies have revealed that regular consumption of MSG may result in adverse side effects which include depression, disorientation, eye damage, fatigue, headaches, and obesity. Another important factor when it comes to MSG is that it effects the neurological pathways of the brain and disengages the “I’m full” function. This is why there can often be weight gain in those consuming MSG.MSG can be found in: Chinese food (Chinese Restaurant Syndrome ) many snacks, chips, cookies, seasonings, most Campbell Soup products, frozen dinners, alot of noodle bowls, cold cuts (sandwich meat)
2. High Fructose Corn Syrup or Glucose/Fructose
In the US it is known as High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and in Canada Glucose/Fructose. In both countries it is a highly-refined artificial sweetener which has become the number one ingredient to help sweeten foods and beverages. It also is the number one source of calories in north american diets. You can find HFCS (G/F) in almost all processed foods. HFCS packs on the pounds faster than any other ingredient, increases your LDL (“bad”) cholesterol levels, and contributes to the development of diabetes and tissue damage, among other harmful effects. Not only that, the chemical mixtures used in HFCS introduce mercury into the mix which has been proven to cause brain damage in those who consume it.
HFCS or G/f can be found in: most processed foods, breads, candy, flavored yogurts, salad dressings, canned vegetables, cereals
3. Artificial Sweeteners
Aspartame, (E951) also known as Nutrasweet and Equal, is often found in foods labeled “diet” or “sugar free”. Aspartame is not only carcinogenic but is a serious neurotoxin. Aspartame produces Methanol when in the body which then converts into formaldehyde. While it is often believed that formic acid is the issue with Aspartame, it is actually formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is a serious neurotoxin and carcinogen. According to the EPA, Methanol is considered a cumulative poison which means is accumulates in the body and very little is excreted each time it is consumed. and accounts for more reports of adverse reactions than all other foods and food additives combined. Known to erode intelligence and affect short-term memory, the components of this toxic sweetener may lead to a wide variety of ailments including brain tumor, diseases like lymphoma, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue, emotional disorders like depression and anxiety attacks, dizziness, headaches, nausea, mental confusion, migraines and seizures. Acesulfame-K, a relatively new artificial sweetener found in baking goods, gum and gelatin, has not been thoroughly tested and has been linked to kidney tumors. Read more about the dangers of Aspartame here.
Aspartame can be found in: diet or sugar free sodas, diet coke, coke zero, jello (and over gelatins), desserts, sugar free gum, drink mixes, baking goods, table top sweeteners, cereal, breathmints, pudding, kool-aid, ice tea, chewable vitamins, toothpaste
4. Common Food Dyes
Common food dyes are not only found in foods but also other products we put on our bodies. Studies show that artificial colorings contribute to behavioral problems in children and lead to a significant reduction in IQ. Alternate studies have also linked food colorings to cancer. Watch out for these ones:
Blue #1 and Blue #2 (E133)
Banned in Norway, Finland and France. May cause chromosomal damage
Found in: candy, cereal, soft drinks, sports drinks and pet foods
Red dye # 3 (also Red #40 – a more current dye) (E124)
Banned in 1990 after 8 years of debate from use in many foods and cosmetics. This dye continues to be on the market until supplies run out! Has been proven to cause thyroid cancer and chromosomal damage in laboratory animals, may also interfere with brain-nerve transmission
Found in: fruit cocktail, maraschino cherries, cherry pie mix, ice cream, candy, bakery products and more!
Yellow #6 (E110) and Yellow Tartrazine (E102)
Banned in Norway and Sweden. Increases the number of kidney and adrenal gland tumors in laboratory animals, may cause chromosomal damage.
Found in: American cheese, macaroni and cheese, candy and carbonated beverages, lemonade and more!
5. Trans Fat
While it can be naturally occurring in animals, trans fat is used to enhance and extend the shelf life of food products and is among the most dangerous substances that you can consume. Trans fats can most often found in deep-fried fast foods and processed foods. Trans fats are created from the process of hydrogenation which is why foods like margarine or products that contain other hydrogenated oils are not a good choice for consumption. A number of studies have shown that trans fat increases LDL(“bad) cholesterol levels while decreasing HDL (“good”) cholesterol. This increases the risk of heart attacks, heart disease and strokes, and contributes to increased inflammation, diabetes and other health problems. Oils and fat are now forbidden on the Danish market if they contain trans fatty acids exceeding 2 per cent, a move that effectively bans partially hydrogenated oils.
Trans fats can be found in: margarine, other hydrogenated oils, chips and crackers, baked goods, fast foods
6. BHA and BHT (E320)
Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydrozyttoluene (BHT) are preservatives found in cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils. This common preservative keeps foods from changing color, changing flavor or becoming rancid. They both effect the neurological system of the brain, contribute to altering behavior and increase the risk of cancer. BHA and BHT are oxidants which form cancer-causing reactive compounds in your body.
Both can be found in: Potato chips, gum, cereal, frozen sausages, enriched rice, lard, shortening, candy, jello
7. Sodium Nitrate/Sodium Nitrite
Sodium nitrate (or sodium nitrite) is used as a preservative, coloring and flavoring founds in favorites such as bacon and hot dogs. Pretty much any processed meat or sandwich meat you buy at the deli will contain Sodium Nitrate. While it sounds harmless, it is actually highly carcinogenic once it enters the human digestive system. Once there, it forms a variety of nitrosamine compounds that find their way into the bloodstream and cause a number of issues with internal organs- the liver and pancreas being most affected. Interestingly enough, this product was motioned to be banned by the FDA but was vetoed by food manufacturers who complained they had no alternative for preserving packaged meat products. It is interesting to note that we destroy health simply to allow industry to flourish.Other than preservation this chemical just happens to turn meats bright red. It helps to make old, dead meats look fresh and pleasing to eat.
Sodium Nitrate/Nitrite can be found in: hotdogs, bacon, ham, luncheon meat, cured meats, corned beef, smoked fish or any other type of processed meat
8. Potassium Bromate
Another one on the list that we are probably all subject to given it is household staple- Potassium Bromate. It is an additive used to increase volume in some white flour, breads, and rolls, potassium bromate is known to cause cancer. Even small amounts in bread can create quite serious problems for humans. It is important to note that glutenous bread blocks nutrient receptors in the intestines which hinders the bodies ability to intake nutrients from other foods.
Potassium Bromate can be found in: breads
9. Sodium Sulfite (E221)
This additive is often why many people have trouble drinking store bought wine. It can also be found in other processed foods. According to the FDA, approximately 1 in 100 people is sensitive to sulfites in food and wine. Individuals who are sulfite sensitive may experience headaches, breathing problems, and rashes. In severe cases, sulfites can actually cause death by closing down the airway altogether, leading to cardiac arrest.
Sodium sulfite can be found in: Wine, processed foods and dried fruit
10. Sulfur Dioxide (E220)
Sulfur additives are toxic and in the United States of America, the Federal Drugs Administration have prohibited their use on raw fruit and vegetables. Adverse reactions include: bronchial problems particularly in those prone to asthma, hypotension (low blood pressure), flushing tingling sensations or anaphylactic shock. It also destroys vitamins B1 and E. Not recommended for consumption by children. The International Labour Organization says to avoid E220 if you suffer from conjunctivitis, bronchitis, emphysema, bronchial asthma, or cardiovascular disease.
Found in: beer, soft drinks, dried fruit, juices, cordials, wine, vinegar, and potato products.
Something to Think About
When we look at the majority of the health problems we experience today, is it not true that the majority, if not all, can be linked directly to the foods we eat? Is it worth debating whether these substances are good or bad when they aren’t natural or naturally occurring in the foods to begin with? Is it possible that maybe our food system has become more about convenience and not about health whatsoever? I think it is important to think about these things as what we eat does in fact affect what happens in our bodies in a HUGE way. Whether or not these substances will heavily affect you in the next 5 or 10 years, one thing is certain, they are not helping out your health in any way and considering most of this stuff is found in processed foods or HIGHLY acidic foods, we shouldn’t be consuming them anyway if good health is our goal.
Sources:
http://www.naturalnews.com/035542_potassium_bromate_baked_goods_cancer.html
http://www.livestrong.com/article/509298-how-nitrates-nitrites-affect-our-bodies/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/02/24/are-you-or-your-family-eating-toxic-food-dyes.aspx
http://www.naturalnews.com/034272_MSG_monosodium_glutamate.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/032948_high_fructose_corn_syrup_glutaraldehyde.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)