Activation: Power of Creation: "We invite all Planetary Light Servers to sponsor a certain geographical region in which to help establish a stronger pathway of love and light. You may choose any area upon the earth that remains in great density of consciousness, warring, conflict and suffering. Your special geo focus will then be part of the pivotal energy transmission this full moon as we invoke and join the Elohim creation powers of nature.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label change. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Defeating Corporations
Vision: How Small, Mostly Conservative Towns Have Found the Trick to Defeating Corporations | | AlterNet: "Towns Have Found the Trick to Defeating Corporations
As the Right pushes privatization as a solution to the economic collapse, one organization is teaching communities how to defeat corporations.
As the Right pushes privatization as a solution to the economic collapse, one organization is teaching communities how to defeat corporations.
Across the country, small, disparate groups of people are wising up and taking action to combat corporate control by using a new strategy. And these citizens are winning. One of the first rallying calls has been against the privatization of public water infrastructure and attempts by corporate water bottlers to pilfer spring water, as well. Communities are welcoming "Democracy Schools," run by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, into their towns, in an attempt to better understand the laws that protect corporations and the ways to defeat them.
It's too early yet to call these small revolutions a movement, but something is afoot, mostly in America's rural towns, and if it continues to grow it may very well prove transformative.
Water For Sale
Falling on hard times, Coatesville, Penn. decided to sell off its drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in 2001 and invest the money in a trust fund to be used for city services. But privatization hasn't been the economic boon the city was hoping for. After even tougher economic times hit Coatesville, the trust has already been drained by two-thirds and residents have seen their water and sewer rates jump 85 percent since American Water, the larger water corporation in the country, took the helm. Last year the company even proposed a 229-percent rate hike for sewer services, forcing the city to cobble together money for legal fees to fight back.
The story of Coatesville is a wake-up call of sorts. Most of us don't think too much about where our water comes from, and it's usually one of our least expensive monthly bills. And right now, the vast majority of us (80 percent) get our water from a public utility. But this figure has multinational water corporations drooling -- the U.S. is a huge market that could be exploited if Americans can be persuaded (or tricked) into giving up control of their most important resource.
For decades private companies, mostly multinational corporations, have made inroads in the U.S. (and they've had great success elsewhere in the world). But their progress hasn't been major and an inspection of municipalities that have gone from public to private shows that consumers usually end up seeing higher rates and crappier services. And while those facts don't seem like they're changing anytime soon, more and more communities are contemplating privatization, thanks to disaster capitalism.
In a new report, "Trends in Water Privatization," Food and Water Watch found that from 1991 to 2010, private companies bought or leased about 144 public water systems -- an average of about seven deals a year. But since the economic collapse, things are changing. As of October 2010, at least 39 communities were considering whether they should sell or lease their water infrastructure. And the reasons for privatization are changing. Corporations used to swoop in to try and "rescue" communities when they couldn't afford expensive upgrades, but now, even cities with well-functioning, in-the-black water systems are looking to sell or lease them in hopes that privatization will bring an influx of cash to pay for other programs.
Sadly, that's not usually how it pans out. "It's always the same false claim: Private is more efficient than public. The public unions are impossible to work with, they'll say, and we have a corporation that can save us dollars," Jack E. Lohman, author of Politicians: Owned and Operated by Corporate America, wrote in the Capital Times. "Rarely is that true, especially after they add all of the exorbitant salaries, bonuses, shareholder profits, marketing and political bribes that must be passed on to the taxpayer. These costs usually far exceed government waste, unless offset by egregiously low salaries that further harm the economy."
Any sane financial adviser would know that selling off a recurring revenue stream for a one-time boost to the budget doesn't make sense in the long run. After looking at the 10 largest sales and concessions of public water systems, Food and Water Watch found that rates went up an average of 15 percent a year in the 12 years following a privatization deal.
Not only it does it end up being an economic loss for residents and their governments, but it is a huge abdication of power. Water is the lifeblood of our communities. By turning this over to corporations, whose first responsibility is to shareholders, how can we guarantee safe and affordable drinking water for everyone? Should corporations, whose short-sighted drive for profit brought our economy to its knees, really be trusted with our most vital resource?
Communities Revolt
From big cities like Atlanta, Georgia to small towns such as Felton, Calif., communities have fought back to regain public control after water privatization deals went sour. But it's not just drinking water infrastructure that has towns concerned -- water bottling companies, run by multinationals like Nestle, have also been targeting rural communities' spring and well water.
In the small town of McCloud, Calif., a former logging town in the shadow of Mount Shasta, Nestle quietly signed a 100-year deal to bottle 200 million gallons of spring water a year and unlimited amounts of groundwater without any public input and without an environmental impact statement. Concerned community members joined together to fight back, and six years later they succeeded in sending Nestle packing. While residents may have been successful in McCloud, their battle was resource- and time-intensive. Across the country, similar fights were also going on, as small towns worried about depletion and degradation of their water resources fought back against bottling companies, but only sometimes emerged victorious.
Thomas Linzey knows of an easier way to do things. Instead of trying to beat out corporations by fighting the regulatory system, Linzey has helped people to see a different path forward. A founder of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Linzey and his colleagues help "communities to draft and adopt legally binding laws in which they asserted their right to self-govern," according to the organization's Web site.
"We think today's contemporary activism is the wrong frame, and in addition it is aimed at the wrong thing," Linzey said. "Most of it's federal and state activism. We think those things are pretty much dead. The only place where there is a window to operate is at the local level and then that can be used to up-end the state and federal to build a new system of law, which I think our communities are recognizing is needed."
Essentially, Linzey believes, the last 40 years of environmental activism hasn't accomplished very much, and by fighting within the regulatory system, we've been barking up the wrong tree.
His colleague Gail Darrell, an organizer in New England, explains, "Under the regulatory structure you're not allowed to say no to anything permitted by the state -- water withdrawals, sewage sludge, biomass plants, toxic waste dumps, landfills -- all of that is regulated and permitted by state agencies and they issue permits to industry guided by their regulatory statues that allow them to cause harm to the environment within in certain limits. But that structure doesn't allow a municipality to say no to any of those practices. Your feet are cut off at the beginning. When an industry goes to the regulatory agency and gets an application, once that application is administratively complete that permit must be issued by right."
Combine this regulatory bias with corporate rights being ingrained in our Constitution (yes, long before Citizens United) and the tables are stacked against ordinary folks. "Corporations have the same rights as people -- the first, fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments," said Linzey. "They also have rights derived from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution that allows them to sue communities to overturn laws dealing with commerce." Before Citizens United there were 80-100 years of cases ingraining corporate rights, he said.
To even the playing field a bit, CELDF has helped around 120 communities pass binding ordinances that give them the ability to say no to corporate control. Ordinances they've helped to draft have given towns the right to eliminate corporate personhood -- to say no to water bottling companies drilling for water in their towns, for instance -- and to assert the rights of nature.
"Any citizen can stand in the shoes of that river or other piece of nature and advocate for it -- we don't have to own that piece of property" said Darrell. "And if there is a gas spill that happens from a tanker crossing the bridge and it dumps into our river, we can use our rights of nature language to force that corporation to recover the damages and those are paid to the town to restore the river."
Most of this work has been successful in small, rural towns. The organization has its roots in Pennsylvania, working first with communities that wanted to ban corporate factory farms and then with towns that didn't want sewage sludge being dumped where they lived. Later the work branched out to help communities fighting water bottlers, like Nestle, and most recently with towns concerned about the natural gas drilling process of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." The towns where they've been successful, Linzey says, are not liberal enclaves by any stretch; in fact, it's been just the opposite because it started out as a rights issue -- a conservative Republican issue.
"The hardest places to work are the liberal progressive communities because they think we have a democracy and they are intent on working within the existing structure to try to find a remedy rather than tossing it and working on something from scratch," said Linzey. "What's been fascinating to me is when you have south and north-central Pennsylvania towns passing binding local ordinances that refuse to endow corporations with constitutional rights in their communities. But in the liberal progressive bastion of Berkeley, they were passing non-binding resolutions urging Congress to do something about it. I think that difference in approach has become clear to me over the last decade. Here are rural conservatives passing things saying we won't let our rights be taken away and are using a local law as a municipal, collective civil disobedience tool to actually push up against the state to say 'fuck you.' Whereas in Berkeley people get in a huff and do some hand-wringing and pass a resolution which begs and pleads Congress to do something about corporate rights, which is never going to happen, at least in the next 20-30 years."
While most of CELDF's work has been in small towns, this fall the city of Pittsburgh became the largest municipality they've worked with to ban corporate personhood, establish the rights of nature and tell gas drillers interested in fracking to get out of town.
This big victory comes on the heels of many smaller wins that have gone under the radar.
Darrell lives in the town of Barnstead, New Hampshire. After spending years watching a neighboring town try to prevent a bottling company from extracting water in their community (it's going on nine years now), folks in Barnstead got together to find a different solution. They ended up working with CELDF, attending the organization's Democracy School, and passing an ordinance that protects them from bottling companies and corporate control and also establishes the rights of nature. Soon, other nearby towns followed suit.
The idea is pretty simple, but it's also radical. "We're the first folks to talk about really the need to rewrite the Constitution itself, to create a new constitutional structure and most folks aren't touching that," said Linzey. "You can't talk about it in polite company. People talk about amendments, we think the thing is archaic in many ways other than the Bill of Rights. We need a new constitutional structure that recognizes community local self-governance as well as the rights of nature. We can't get there with the document we have which was written in the 1780s. The question is, will enough people come together across the country to actually rise up to demand a new structure?"
Linzey and Darrell both believe the answer is a long way down the road -- perhaps 20 or 30 years. "We need a complete revolt of sorts from the local level," said Linzey, adding that communities in Pennsylvania and New England were already teaming up to try to influence change at higher levels. "I think all that is positive but it is too early, I don't think it's a movement at all, it's just disparate people in disparate places trying to grapple with what this structure delivered to them and figure out what they need to do to fix it."
As the campaign of disaster capitalism marches on, we may begin to see a groundswell of communities rising up to reclaim the rights of people against the advances of corporations. In many places it may spring from a desire to protect what is most critical -- such as water -- but it always, Linzey says, "takes real imminent harm -- that's the only thing powerful enough to get people to rip off the blinders."
Tara Lohan is a senior editor at AlterNet and editor of the new book Water Matters: Why We Need to Act Now to Save Our Most Critical Resource. You can follow her on Twitter @TaraLohan.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Rainwater Scribd
Other collections like this one
http://www.scribd.com/collections/2459884/Permaculture
http://www.scribd.com/collections/2397686/Urban-Agriculture
http://www.scribd.com/collections/2346000/Earth-Charter
Monday, January 10, 2011
Another Kind of Energy
Another Kind of Energy: "PERMACULTURE HAS ITS GENESIS in the visionary work of J. Russell Smith, J. Sholto Douglas, Robert Hart, and others less well known, who, two generations ago and more, realized the urgency of transforming the basis of agriculture through the use of trees and other perennial crops. They saw the progressive devastation of land that followed the plow and knew that only by integrating forestry and farming could man’s impact on the Earth be tempered and hope for humanity’s future be secured into the next century.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
Gardening - Why Mulch?
by Craig Elevitch and Kim Wilkinson
Permanent Agriculture Resources
PO Box 428, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725 USA
http://www.agroforestry.net © 1998
Permanent Agriculture Resources
PO Box 428, Holualoa, Hawaii 96725 USA
http://www.agroforestry.net © 1998
Why Mulch?
Agriculture with mulch in the tropics promotes plant health and vigor. Mulching improves nutrient and water retention in the soil, encourages favorable soil microbial activity and worms, and suppresses weed growth. When properly executed, mulching can significantly improve the well-being of plants and reduce maintenance as compared to bare soil culture. Mulched plants have better vigor and, consequently have improved resistance to pests and diseases.
"Mulch" is a layer of decaying organic matter on the ground. Mulch occurs naturally in all forests; it is a nutrient rich, moisture absorbent bed of decaying forest leaves, twigs and branches, teeming with fungal, microbial and insect life. Natural mulch serves as a "nutrient bank," storing the nutrients contained in organic matter and slowly making these nutrients available to plants. All forms of plant life from the ground layer to shrubs and trees thrive, grow, shed organic matter, die and decay, in a complicated cycle of nutrients.
Mulch forms a necessary link in nutrient cycling vital for our soils. When mulch is absent for whatever reason, the living soil is robbed of its natural nutrient stores, becomes leached and often desiccates. Natural environments without a litter layer are usually deserts. Non-desert plants grown in bare soil require constant fertilization, nutrient amendment and water, not to mention the work required to keep the soil bare.
Sheet mulching as described here is a suggested method for controlling weeds and improving soil and plant health with mulch. The process mimics the litter layer of a forest floor.
Basic Techniques of Sheet Mulching
Once you get the hang of it, sheet mulching can be used anywhere plants are grown in the ground. Sheet mulching may be used either in establishing a new garden or tree planting, or to enrich existing plantings. In both cases, mulch is applied to bare soil or on top of weeds. New plantings are planted through the mulch, and a small area is left open to accommodate established plants and trees.
The benefits of mulching justify putting the energy into doing the job right, using ample materials. Collect all of the materials (as outlined below), and complete the mulching process in a day. A reduction in maintenance and increase in plant vigor will reward the initial effort.
Sheet mulch is put down in layers to mimic natural forest mulch: well decayed compost, weed barrier, partly decayed compost and raw organic matter.
How to sheet mulch
Step 1: The Concentrated Compost Layer
To prepare the site, knock down tall weeds and woody plants with a brush cutter, scythe, or simply by trampling the area. Then proceed to lay down the sheet mulch.
Whether you are mulching bare soil or weeds, the first step is to "jump start" microbial activity by adding enriched compost, poultry or stock manure, worm castings or the like at the rate of about 50 lbs/100 square feet. This high nitrogen matter stimulates soil life and gets things going. If the soil is acid, which it likely is if the area has been disturbed recently and treated with conventional fertilizers, add a layer of lime or crushed coral. A soil analysis will indicate the need for adjustment of pH or mineral amendments. This is the appropriate time to add the recommended doses of amendments such as rock phosphate and K mag.
Soak the area well with water when the amendments are dispersed.
Step 2: The Weed Barrier
Most cultivated areas today harbor untold numbers of weed seeds. There are also weed seeds carried around by wind, animals and people. Soil borne seeds are lying dormant and waiting for the right conditions to sprout. Simply pulling or killing growing weeds will not erase the weed problem: more seeds will sprout almost as soon as the soil is exposed to moisture and light. Therefore the next step in mulching is to put down an organic weed barrier. This barrier prevents the germination and eventual emergence of weeds through your mulch.
Underneath this weed barrier grasses and weeds die and quickly become food for earthworms. From now on, the worms turn and aerate the soil, as they do naturally when in the right environment.
Of the four sheet mulch layers, the weed barrier has no natural counterpart on the forest floor. In the forest, weeds do not sprout because there is "no room for them," which simply means a lack of space above and below the ground, and a lack of light. By planting an area properly, there will eventually be no room for weeds. The weed barrier is needed only for establishment of the mulch, and disappears with time. If your area is planted appropriately, weeds will not emerge after the decomposition of the weed barrier.
Materials for the weed barrier that work well are: 4-6 sheets of newspaper, cardboard, burlap bags, old rugs of natural fiber, worn-out jeans, gypsum board, or whatever you can find around. Banana, ape and ti leaves also work if laid down in several layers. Overlap the pieces of the material so as to completely cover the ground without any breaks, except where there are plants you want to save. Around these leave a generous opening for air circulation around the root crown. Care in laying down the weed barrier will save you the headache of emerging weeds later on.
Step 3: The Compost Layer
This layer is on top of the weed barrier - it must be weed seed free. Well conditioned compost, grass clippings, seaweed and leaves are ideal materials to spread over the weed barrier. Any weed-free material mixture at the right moisture level for a good compost will do. This should form a fairly dense layer about 3 inches thick.
Step 4: The Top Layer
The top dressing mimics the newly fallen organic matter of the forest. It also must be weed-free. Good materials for this include leaves, twigs and small branches, fern or palm fronds, straw, coffee chaff, macadamia nut shells, wood chips, sawdust, bark, etc.. The top layer will slowly decompose into lower layers, and therefore must be replaced periodically; it represents reserves of compost. This layer should be about 3-5 inches deep. Many materials suitable for the top layer often have a pleasant cosmetic appearance. What luck! For this reason, there should be no hesitation in using sheet mulch in all cultivation from landscaping to gardening to permanent orchard crops. In fact, as you use mulch, bare soil will begin to seem ugly and undesirable.
When the soil is amended and sheet mulch applied properly, there will never be a need to turn the soil. Earthworms do the tilling. The only task left will be to keep the soil covered by replenishing the mulch.
Warning: Feral pigs love good, moist soil, and will grub in sheet mulch if they have access to it. Do not use sheet mulch if pigs have access to the area; they will be attracted to it and will destroy both your work and your plantings.
Mulching Around Trees
1) Plant tree.
2) Amend soil around tree in a wide ring shape from a few centimeters from trunk out to 1 meter (3 feet) with a light layer of nitrogen fertilizer, such as chicken manure, and other amendments if necessary. Rake or water in.
3) Spread a layer of permeable weed barrier around the tree in a ring shape, leaving about 15 cm (6 inches) diameter around the trunk of the tree for it to "breathe." Make certain there are no gaps in the ring shape through which weeds can emerge. Water the weed barrier layer thoroughly before the next step.
4) Spread compost and/or mulch about 15 cm (6 inches) thick over the weed barrier, again making sure it is several centimeters away from the trunk of the plant.
The Ongoing Process
To make mulching as efficient and easy as possible, use mulch materials which are readily available. With good planning, mulching of gardens and orchards can become a regular part of maintenance-just mulch with handy materials such as grass clippings, plant prunings (chipped or roughly chopped), animal bedding, etc.. Eventually, other tasks such as watering, fertilization and weeding will be reduced. The overall maintenance burden in mulched conditions, when properly executed, is far less than in conventional systems.
Once a plant is properly mulched, its own leaf drop will constantly add to that mulch. But is natural leaf drop enough to maintain the mulch? The answer to this depends on the plant species and also how the plant is growing in relation to other plants. Certain trees produce tremendous amounts of leaf matter which decomposes rather slowly; examples are: avocado, macadamia, lychee, as well as many others. These trees can be expected to generate sufficient mulch for themselves once vigorous growth is attained. Unfortunately, under most conditions many trees do not create enough long lasting mulch for maintenance of their needs. To explain this apparent deficiency, look once again at the forest. Here, plants are "stacked" in the vertical direction in ground-level, middle, and tall vegetation. This means that the ground under each plant receives organic matter from several plants.
There are many ways to produce sufficient mulch at your site. Grass clippings, for example, represent nutrient rich mulch material. Deep rooted, vigorous growing plants that readily come back from hard pruning or coppicing will also work. There are several nitrogen fixing trees which produce copious amounts of green matter. Each should be evaluated for the specific site before planting. Other plants that work well are kukui, hau, desmodium,, various bunch grasses (such as Guinea grass), lemon grass, comfrey, etc.. Also, many water plants such as water hyacinth are good mulch materials. Since plants that produce heavy amounts of organic matter are by their nature nearly irrepressible, extreme caution should be taken not to let these plants escape your management and become weedy.
Sheet mulching should not be confused with composting, artificial weed barriers, or green manuring. Sheet mulching as described here is quite different from these in that it seeks to recreate the organic mulch layer of the forest with a minimum of effort from people. Properly planned, a backyard or orchard system will produce its own raw mulch in sufficient amounts and people are involved only in putting this material back onto the ground where it belongs.
References and further reading:
Molly Curry's article, "Sheet Mulch Now!" in The Permaculture Activist, issue No. 34-A, August 1996. Order from The Permaculture Activist, P.O. Box 1209, Black Mountain, NC, 28711, USA.
Bill Mollison's excellent Permaculture: A Practical Guide for a Sustainable Future, published by Ten Speed Press and available from bookstores.
ECHO's informative, THICK MULCH FOR NO-TILL GARDENS
Ruth Stout's No Work Gardening Book, published by Rodale Press, is an excellent reference but out-of-print and hard to find.
Agroforestry Net, Inc.
PO Box 428
Holualoa, Hawaii 96725 USA
Contact us: email@agroforestry.net
Saturday, January 08, 2011
Facebook: "from Terry Kok"
Please take a few minutes to wade through the following 9 paragraphs and see if you can come out the other side with a better understanding of how we could be living here on Earth, even with a collapsing biosphere.
Have we run out of room on... this planet? There are those who believe we have reached the overpopulation point. There is plenty of hard evidence that we may have done so: crammed cities, rampant poverty in rural as well as urban areas, malnourished people spread all over the less developed parts of the world, the whole situation complicated by any number of extreme weather events: drought, flood, wind storms, earthquakes, etc. and human caused environmental degradation, soil depletion, and more. It is becoming increasingly hard to provide the masses of humanity with clean water, nutritious food, waste treatment, and, in high pollution zones, fresh air to breathe.
The true picture is not pretty, especially if one looks at the poorest places on the planet. Climate change is going to complicate matters even further with an increase in unpredictable and extreme weather events including a steady rise in worldwide sea levels and the submergence of highly populated lowlands. Inland aquifers are being sucked dry after being poisoned by agricultural chemicals and industrial toxins. Deserts are expanding. Wars are proliferating. Oil is becoming more rare and expensive. We’re running out of power. Given the current data, prospects for a peaceful and abundant future do not look too good unless you are one of the few wealthy elite with the means to pay any price to purchase the remaining resources.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The future does not have to be grim. We do not have to scramble for scraps if we create a practical and affordable solution for dealing with the very real problems we actually face. Most thinking people know how bad it already is and can imagine how bad it might become if we do not change course and quickly. What is this course change? That’s the real question. Does it have something to do with massive population reduction and a return to some sort of primitive existence? Should we attempt a mass migration to Mars? The answer is much simpler than that. We need to recycle everything.
There is plenty of matter available on Earth to make life support miracles happen. The trick is in how we manipulate and shape it and for what purpose. Guns will not keep anyone alive if there is nothing left to hunt. I wouldn’t make more of those. Cell phones can be great communication devices yet I wouldn’t try eating one. I’d much rather step into a high intensity food production greenhouse and chomp down on a carrot than attempt to feed on sawdust and old shoe leather. Get my point? We need to make something new which can get us out of this mess.
The greenhouse is good. It’s part of the solution. Tweek it up a bit and that greenhouse can do more than provide food. It can turn dirty water clean, eliminate organic wastes, and provide fresh oxygen-rich air. Wouldn’t that be nice? Rich people might not care because they already have those things in abundance. Poor people are in dire need and the dwindling middle class is close on their heals. Whatever the economic case, remember this word: CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support System). It is a NASA-derived term for a biological based machine which could keep a colony alive on Mars. I think CELSS has direct application here on Earth as well. We have a lot of people in dire need of sustainable life support.
I actually believe there is more than enough room on this planet for the current population, even an increase, if we employ CELSS to process our stale air, wash water, and organic wastes, using these “natural resources” in conjunction with nature and natural processes to provide us with the essentials of life. In fact, if we have a mind to, we can build life-supporting CELSS out of recycled materials, or mass manufacture them in every style from the developing world economy model to the middle class add-on edition. Custom jobs could be done for the rich and famous.
There is a nice side effect from employing CELSS. Once people start using them on a regular basis, they stop polluting and otherwise disrupting the surrounding environment which then regenerates! Yes, nature has a few tricks up her sleeve. She can perform them if we aid her in the process. The first thing we need to do to help the situation is to stop using Mother Earth like she was our personal milk mom. Aren’t we’re supposed to be adults here? The mark of a mature person is their ability to care for their needs without having to run home to mommy‘s breasts. If I was an ambassador from the Intergalactic Federation sent to Earth to determine whether or not humankind had an advanced enough civilization to merit official entrance into the Federation, I would have to say, “Not yet. They still haven’t learned how to grow up and care for themselves”. We could do so.
“We will transform the Earth from the garbage pit of civilization into its rightful place as the breadbasket of the solar system, plant propagator, green machine, exporter of fine food to the Moon, Mars, and world’s beyond.” - the Alchemist
The task before us is to design and construct small scale “closed loop” ecosystems which are capable of supplying all our basic life support needs on Earth. Advanced versions can be sent to the Moon or Mars once we’ve field tested and perfected CELSS. For now, I would be happy to have one in my yard. Just think of the food, water, and sanitation bills I wouldn’t have to pay! Now, don’t get me wrong. If you love to garden outdoors, by all means continue to do so. Mother Earth loves to be cared for. I’m not talking about having to live sealed in a bubble. Yet, wouldn’t it be nice if your home was outputting oxygen, food, and clean water while you were outside taking it all in? Instead of sucking it all up we could be putting back more than we consume. That is a mark of a highly advanced civilization worthy of Federation membership.
Can you help? We’re not asking for money. Most of all, we need your accumulated knowledge and research capabilities. There are many questions on the particulars of CELSS operations. I’ve built a couple of human scale CELSS-tech “test beds” to see for myself what works and does not. I’ve studied the literature, read the science papers, discussed the details with other researchers, lectured on the topic, presented my own papers, and am now asking if you would like to be involved in the process of perfecting CELSS. There is a whole planet in need of upgrading. It helps if we are working together cooperatively.
More information can be found in this group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/andorprojex where people interested in sustainable systems and communities gather to cooperatively “think tank” viable solutions. We hope you can join us there.
CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support System) is a “living machine” which, ideally, provides it’s inhabitant(s) with 100% of their life support (organic food, fresh oxygen-rich air, clean water) by recycling the waste p...roducts generated by the inhabitant(s) and by the CELSS itself. We call that “closing the loop”. As it has been said, “the devil is in the details”. CELSS is relatively new in the world. Now, of course, the planet-wide life supporting biosphere it a large scale CELSS. By studying what nature does to recycle we may apply these principles on a much smaller personalized scale. It helps to design for the worst possible scenario in the harshest environments (like Mars) and then it becomes easier and simpler to build robust systems for kinder climates. So, to start, imagine we have landed on a barren planet with no air, water, or food to eat except what we brought with us. Here’s what we have to work with (this can get gross):
MATERIAL INPUTS
1) HUMAN BODY: feces, urine, farts, belches, vomit, snot, spit/saliva, phlegm, sweat, tears, earwax, milk, sperm/semen, smegma, menstrual blood, blood, pus, nail clippings, hair, dead skin, water vapor, CO2, trace gasses, heat, medicine residues, and (if someone dies) dead bodies and body parts
2) PLANTS: unused biomass, garbage, plant oils, O2, CO2, ethylene and other trace gasses, water vapor
3) ANIMALS: much the same as what humans output
4) MATERIALS & PROCESSES: oils, soaps, worn out clothing (composed of natural fibers/dyes only), laundry & wash (gray) water, out-gassings (solvents/trace gasses from materials used in the CELSS shell construction and other items inside the CELSS).
That’s what we have to work with in the “hermetically sealed version“. Of course, on Earth or anywhere there are some useful outside resources, our task would be easier. Yet, if we design the hermetically sealed version, I‘m sure, on the way to the final design, we will cover just about any condition or environment we can imagine. While we are brainstorming this “ultimate CELSS” we need to be aware of the amount of energy required to make the whole thing work. The less energy required the better. Also, technologically complex systems tend to break down faster than simple systems. We adhere to the engineering principle of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). We don’t want to design anything which requires a lot of repairs, maintenance, or spare parts. The number of human hours spent per day keeping the system fully operational should also be considered. We’re not into this to work ourselves to death. We shouldn’t have to spend more than a hour or so a day doing our chores in an optimal system. Remember, we’re on a planet’s surface so we have gravity on our side. In space we would have to spin the whole thing to simulate gravity. For now, let’s stay grounded and focused on the transformations.
The MATERIAL INPUTS listed above must be transformed into the following:
1) nutrient rich water and soil for plants, fungi, and symbiotic micro-organisms
2) CO2 and trace gas-rich air for the plants, fungi, and symbiotic micro-organisms
3) clean water for humans and animals
4) oxygen rich air with few trace gasses (ethylene, methane, carbon monoxide, and other exotics) for humans and animals
5) continuously and regularly producing organic food supply for humans and animals
Get the picture? What goes around comes around. There is a dynamic relationship between humans, animals, plants, fungi, and symbiotic micro-organisms. What we are trying to do is optimize this relationship by building containment vessels which provide optimal conditions for each of the above. We want to make everyone and everything involved very comfortable and in a state of being nurtured at all times. We also want to do this in a way which prevents pathogens from thriving. We’re aiming for a high oxygen level (aerobic) conditions throughout the CELSS. Anaerobic conditions (such as found in septic systems) are to be avoided because they breed disease and poisonous gasses like hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor) and methane. Plants out-gas ethylene which is, at certain concentrations, a growth inhibitor for the plants. It too needs to be converted or a hermetically sealed system will die.
How large should a fully operational CELSS be? As small as possible and small is possible. Here are some optimistic figures from the CELSS life support research community:
ESTIMATED GROW SPACE REQUIRED PER PERSON
(may be stacked into multiple levels for more efficient operation)
14 m2 - Gitalson
56 m2 - Bios3
20-30 m2 - Cullingford & Schwatekopf
13-50 m2 - Bugsbee & Salisbury
56.9 m2 - Oleson & Olson
8-20 m2 - MacElroy & Averner
15-20 m2 - Eckhart
24 m2 - Hoff
15 m2 - Vasilyew
As you can see, the above figures are tiny compared to the amount of space the average human being requires for life support in both hunter/gatherer and agriculture-based civilizations. Since the Earth’s “carrying capacity” is already exceeded because of the rapidly expanding human population, anything we do to reduce an individual’s “footprint” (space/resource required to keep a person alive) is a step in the correct direction. Lab work (NASA Ames) has already proven that all the air, water, and food for one person can be grown in a 16’ x 16’ space under optimal conditions with controlled atmosphere, temperature, lighting, and nutrients. Of course this was a highly engineered “hydroponics” style system which required considerable electricity for the lighting, pumps, and climate control plus an outside source of plant nutrients. So, it cannot really be called a CELSS but it sure is an encouraging experiment. I bet we can do pretty good together too!
That’s enough for the moment. Read through the above a few times and start dreaming of how you might turn each of the MATERIAL INPUTS into what we need to get in return. If you have any ideals fleshed ot in some detail, please share them with the group. My job here is to facilitate the “think tanking” and keep us on course to building a functioning CELSS. I’m going to be poking and prodding so don’t take it personally when I question you input or put a new twist into the puzzle. Doing so is part of my job facilitating this group. One thing I’m going to be stressing is INTEGRATING FUNCTIONS. If one piece of hardware can do 3 things simultaneously, I’m probably going to suggest it.
Please take a few minutes to wade through the following 9 paragraphs and see if you can come out the other side with a better understanding of how we could be living here on Earth, even with a collapsing biosphere.
Have we run out of room on... this planet? There are those who believe we have reached the overpopulation point. There is plenty of hard evidence that we may have done so: crammed cities, rampant poverty in rural as well as urban areas, malnourished people spread all over the less developed parts of the world, the whole situation complicated by any number of extreme weather events: drought, flood, wind storms, earthquakes, etc. and human caused environmental degradation, soil depletion, and more. It is becoming increasingly hard to provide the masses of humanity with clean water, nutritious food, waste treatment, and, in high pollution zones, fresh air to breathe.
The true picture is not pretty, especially if one looks at the poorest places on the planet. Climate change is going to complicate matters even further with an increase in unpredictable and extreme weather events including a steady rise in worldwide sea levels and the submergence of highly populated lowlands. Inland aquifers are being sucked dry after being poisoned by agricultural chemicals and industrial toxins. Deserts are expanding. Wars are proliferating. Oil is becoming more rare and expensive. We’re running out of power. Given the current data, prospects for a peaceful and abundant future do not look too good unless you are one of the few wealthy elite with the means to pay any price to purchase the remaining resources.
It doesn’t have to be this way. The future does not have to be grim. We do not have to scramble for scraps if we create a practical and affordable solution for dealing with the very real problems we actually face. Most thinking people know how bad it already is and can imagine how bad it might become if we do not change course and quickly. What is this course change? That’s the real question. Does it have something to do with massive population reduction and a return to some sort of primitive existence? Should we attempt a mass migration to Mars? The answer is much simpler than that. We need to recycle everything.
There is plenty of matter available on Earth to make life support miracles happen. The trick is in how we manipulate and shape it and for what purpose. Guns will not keep anyone alive if there is nothing left to hunt. I wouldn’t make more of those. Cell phones can be great communication devices yet I wouldn’t try eating one. I’d much rather step into a high intensity food production greenhouse and chomp down on a carrot than attempt to feed on sawdust and old shoe leather. Get my point? We need to make something new which can get us out of this mess.
The greenhouse is good. It’s part of the solution. Tweek it up a bit and that greenhouse can do more than provide food. It can turn dirty water clean, eliminate organic wastes, and provide fresh oxygen-rich air. Wouldn’t that be nice? Rich people might not care because they already have those things in abundance. Poor people are in dire need and the dwindling middle class is close on their heals. Whatever the economic case, remember this word: CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support System). It is a NASA-derived term for a biological based machine which could keep a colony alive on Mars. I think CELSS has direct application here on Earth as well. We have a lot of people in dire need of sustainable life support.
I actually believe there is more than enough room on this planet for the current population, even an increase, if we employ CELSS to process our stale air, wash water, and organic wastes, using these “natural resources” in conjunction with nature and natural processes to provide us with the essentials of life. In fact, if we have a mind to, we can build life-supporting CELSS out of recycled materials, or mass manufacture them in every style from the developing world economy model to the middle class add-on edition. Custom jobs could be done for the rich and famous.
There is a nice side effect from employing CELSS. Once people start using them on a regular basis, they stop polluting and otherwise disrupting the surrounding environment which then regenerates! Yes, nature has a few tricks up her sleeve. She can perform them if we aid her in the process. The first thing we need to do to help the situation is to stop using Mother Earth like she was our personal milk mom. Aren’t we’re supposed to be adults here? The mark of a mature person is their ability to care for their needs without having to run home to mommy‘s breasts. If I was an ambassador from the Intergalactic Federation sent to Earth to determine whether or not humankind had an advanced enough civilization to merit official entrance into the Federation, I would have to say, “Not yet. They still haven’t learned how to grow up and care for themselves”. We could do so.
“We will transform the Earth from the garbage pit of civilization into its rightful place as the breadbasket of the solar system, plant propagator, green machine, exporter of fine food to the Moon, Mars, and world’s beyond.” - the Alchemist
The task before us is to design and construct small scale “closed loop” ecosystems which are capable of supplying all our basic life support needs on Earth. Advanced versions can be sent to the Moon or Mars once we’ve field tested and perfected CELSS. For now, I would be happy to have one in my yard. Just think of the food, water, and sanitation bills I wouldn’t have to pay! Now, don’t get me wrong. If you love to garden outdoors, by all means continue to do so. Mother Earth loves to be cared for. I’m not talking about having to live sealed in a bubble. Yet, wouldn’t it be nice if your home was outputting oxygen, food, and clean water while you were outside taking it all in? Instead of sucking it all up we could be putting back more than we consume. That is a mark of a highly advanced civilization worthy of Federation membership.
Can you help? We’re not asking for money. Most of all, we need your accumulated knowledge and research capabilities. There are many questions on the particulars of CELSS operations. I’ve built a couple of human scale CELSS-tech “test beds” to see for myself what works and does not. I’ve studied the literature, read the science papers, discussed the details with other researchers, lectured on the topic, presented my own papers, and am now asking if you would like to be involved in the process of perfecting CELSS. There is a whole planet in need of upgrading. It helps if we are working together cooperatively.
More information can be found in this group: http://groups.yahoo.com/gr
CELSS (Closed Ecological Life Support System) is a “living machine” which, ideally, provides it’s inhabitant(s) with 100% of their life support (organic food, fresh oxygen-rich air, clean water) by recycling the waste p...roducts generated by the inhabitant(s) and by the CELSS itself. We call that “closing the loop”. As it has been said, “the devil is in the details”. CELSS is relatively new in the world. Now, of course, the planet-wide life supporting biosphere it a large scale CELSS. By studying what nature does to recycle we may apply these principles on a much smaller personalized scale. It helps to design for the worst possible scenario in the harshest environments (like Mars) and then it becomes easier and simpler to build robust systems for kinder climates. So, to start, imagine we have landed on a barren planet with no air, water, or food to eat except what we brought with us. Here’s what we have to work with (this can get gross):
MATERIAL INPUTS
1) HUMAN BODY: feces, urine, farts, belches, vomit, snot, spit/saliva, phlegm, sweat, tears, earwax, milk, sperm/semen, smegma, menstrual blood, blood, pus, nail clippings, hair, dead skin, water vapor, CO2, trace gasses, heat, medicine residues, and (if someone dies) dead bodies and body parts
2) PLANTS: unused biomass, garbage, plant oils, O2, CO2, ethylene and other trace gasses, water vapor
3) ANIMALS: much the same as what humans output
4) MATERIALS & PROCESSES: oils, soaps, worn out clothing (composed of natural fibers/dyes only), laundry & wash (gray) water, out-gassings (solvents/trace gasses from materials used in the CELSS shell construction and other items inside the CELSS).
That’s what we have to work with in the “hermetically sealed version“. Of course, on Earth or anywhere there are some useful outside resources, our task would be easier. Yet, if we design the hermetically sealed version, I‘m sure, on the way to the final design, we will cover just about any condition or environment we can imagine. While we are brainstorming this “ultimate CELSS” we need to be aware of the amount of energy required to make the whole thing work. The less energy required the better. Also, technologically complex systems tend to break down faster than simple systems. We adhere to the engineering principle of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). We don’t want to design anything which requires a lot of repairs, maintenance, or spare parts. The number of human hours spent per day keeping the system fully operational should also be considered. We’re not into this to work ourselves to death. We shouldn’t have to spend more than a hour or so a day doing our chores in an optimal system. Remember, we’re on a planet’s surface so we have gravity on our side. In space we would have to spin the whole thing to simulate gravity. For now, let’s stay grounded and focused on the transformations.
The MATERIAL INPUTS listed above must be transformed into the following:
1) nutrient rich water and soil for plants, fungi, and symbiotic micro-organisms
2) CO2 and trace gas-rich air for the plants, fungi, and symbiotic micro-organisms
3) clean water for humans and animals
4) oxygen rich air with few trace gasses (ethylene, methane, carbon monoxide, and other exotics) for humans and animals
5) continuously and regularly producing organic food supply for humans and animals
Get the picture? What goes around comes around. There is a dynamic relationship between humans, animals, plants, fungi, and symbiotic micro-organisms. What we are trying to do is optimize this relationship by building containment vessels which provide optimal conditions for each of the above. We want to make everyone and everything involved very comfortable and in a state of being nurtured at all times. We also want to do this in a way which prevents pathogens from thriving. We’re aiming for a high oxygen level (aerobic) conditions throughout the CELSS. Anaerobic conditions (such as found in septic systems) are to be avoided because they breed disease and poisonous gasses like hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg odor) and methane. Plants out-gas ethylene which is, at certain concentrations, a growth inhibitor for the plants. It too needs to be converted or a hermetically sealed system will die.
How large should a fully operational CELSS be? As small as possible and small is possible. Here are some optimistic figures from the CELSS life support research community:
ESTIMATED GROW SPACE REQUIRED PER PERSON
(may be stacked into multiple levels for more efficient operation)
14 m2 - Gitalson
56 m2 - Bios3
20-30 m2 - Cullingford & Schwatekopf
13-50 m2 - Bugsbee & Salisbury
56.9 m2 - Oleson & Olson
8-20 m2 - MacElroy & Averner
15-20 m2 - Eckhart
24 m2 - Hoff
15 m2 - Vasilyew
As you can see, the above figures are tiny compared to the amount of space the average human being requires for life support in both hunter/gatherer and agriculture-based civilizations. Since the Earth’s “carrying capacity” is already exceeded because of the rapidly expanding human population, anything we do to reduce an individual’s “footprint” (space/resource required to keep a person alive) is a step in the correct direction. Lab work (NASA Ames) has already proven that all the air, water, and food for one person can be grown in a 16’ x 16’ space under optimal conditions with controlled atmosphere, temperature, lighting, and nutrients. Of course this was a highly engineered “hydroponics” style system which required considerable electricity for the lighting, pumps, and climate control plus an outside source of plant nutrients. So, it cannot really be called a CELSS but it sure is an encouraging experiment. I bet we can do pretty good together too!
That’s enough for the moment. Read through the above a few times and start dreaming of how you might turn each of the MATERIAL INPUTS into what we need to get in return. If you have any ideals fleshed ot in some detail, please share them with the group. My job here is to facilitate the “think tanking” and keep us on course to building a functioning CELSS. I’m going to be poking and prodding so don’t take it personally when I question you input or put a new twist into the puzzle. Doing so is part of my job facilitating this group. One thing I’m going to be stressing is INTEGRATING FUNCTIONS. If one piece of hardware can do 3 things simultaneously, I’m probably going to suggest it.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Truth About Pesticides and GMO
Truth About Pesticides and GMO:
Submitted by Buzz Team on Saturday, 25 September 2010
An 11 Year Old Who Gets It!
Email This Post 
Print This Post
Submitted by Buzz Team on Saturday, 25 September 2010
An 11 Year Old Who Gets It!
Email This Post Print This Post Home » General Wellness Buzz
WHAT ARE PESTICIDES?
Pesticides are poisons designed to kill a variety of plants and animals such as insects (insecticides), weeds (herbicides), and mold or fungus (fungicides). Pesticides include active ingredients (chemical compounds designed to kill the target organisms) and inert ingredients which may be carcinogens or toxic substances. They also include rodenticides and wood preservatives.
HOW DO PESTICIDES REACH US?
Pesticides can be absorbed through the skin, swallowed or inhaled (most toxic). During application pesticides drift and settle on ponds, laundry, toys, pools and furniture. People and pets track pesticide residue into the house {3}. Only 5% of pesticides reach target weeds. The rest runs off into water or dissipates in the air. Drift from landscaping ranges from 12 feet to 14.5 miles {1}. More serious effects appear to be produced by direct inhalation of pesticide sprays than by absorption or ingestion of toxins. {2}
ARE REGISTERED PESTICIDES SAFE?
NO. Many of the “safety tests” used to test these products are fundamentally inadequate: they test for the acute (not chronic) effects of single (not multiple) chemicals on healthy (not sick, chemically sensitive or immuno-suppressed etc.) adult (not feta l or young) animal (not human) subjects exposed over short (not long) periods of time {4}. Some of the companies testing pesticides have been charged and convicted of falsifying residue and environmental studies that were used to support pesticide registration in the US and Canada {4}. Some pesticides become even more toxic as they break down. (In the US it is a violation of federal law to state that the use of pesticides is safe.)
BESIDES SENSITIVITY AND TOXICITY WHAT OTHER HEALTH RISKS ARE THERE?
A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Because this involves the transfer of genes, GMOs are also known as “transgenic” organisms.
This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same. Read more.
Where are they?
In your food! First introduced into the food supply in the mid-1990s, GMOs are now present in the vast majority of processed foods in the US. While they are banned as food ingredients in Europe and elsewhere, the FDA does not even require the labeling of GMOs in food ingredient lists.
Although there have been attempts to increase nutritional benefits or productivity, the two main traits that have been added to date are herbicide tolerance and the ability of the plant to produce its own pesticide. These results have no health benefit, only economic benefit.
What foods are GM?
Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (91%), cotton (88%), canola (88%), corn (85%), sugar beets (90%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and tobacco (Quest® brand).
Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. There are also many “invisible ingredients,” derived from GM crops that are not obviously from corn or soy. Read more
Why should you care?
Genetically modified foods have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. The effects on humans of consuming these new combinations of proteins produced in GMOs are unknown and have not been studied. See more under GMO Health Risks.
Crops such as Bt cotton produce pesticides inside the plant. This kills or deters insects, saving the farmer from having to spray pesticides. The plants themselves are toxic, and not just to insects. Farmers in India, who let their sheep graze on Bt cotton plants after the harvest, saw thousands of sheep die!
Herbicide tolerance lets the farmer spray weed-killer directly on the crop without killing it. Comparative studies on the toxic residues in foods from such crops have not yet been done.
Pollen from GM crops can contaminate nearby crops of the same type, except for soy, which does not cross-pollinate. In fact, virtually all heritage varieties of corn in Mexico (the origin of all corn) have been found to have some contamination. Canola and cotton also cross-pollinate. The long-term effects on the environment could be disastrous.
References:
Truth About Pesticides and GMO
Submitted by Buzz Team on Saturday, 25 September 20104 Comments
An 11 Year Old Who Gets It!
Facts about pesticides:
“Chemicals have replaced bacteria and viruses as the main threat to health. The diseases we’re beginning to see as the major causes of death in the latter part of this century and into the 21st century are diseases of chemical origin.” — Dick Irwin, toxicologist at Texas A&M UniversitiesWHAT ARE PESTICIDES?
Pesticides are poisons designed to kill a variety of plants and animals such as insects (insecticides), weeds (herbicides), and mold or fungus (fungicides). Pesticides include active ingredients (chemical compounds designed to kill the target organisms) and inert ingredients which may be carcinogens or toxic substances. They also include rodenticides and wood preservatives.
HOW DO PESTICIDES REACH US?
Pesticides can be absorbed through the skin, swallowed or inhaled (most toxic). During application pesticides drift and settle on ponds, laundry, toys, pools and furniture. People and pets track pesticide residue into the house {3}. Only 5% of pesticides reach target weeds. The rest runs off into water or dissipates in the air. Drift from landscaping ranges from 12 feet to 14.5 miles {1}. More serious effects appear to be produced by direct inhalation of pesticide sprays than by absorption or ingestion of toxins. {2}
ARE REGISTERED PESTICIDES SAFE?
NO. Many of the “safety tests” used to test these products are fundamentally inadequate: they test for the acute (not chronic) effects of single (not multiple) chemicals on healthy (not sick, chemically sensitive or immuno-suppressed etc.) adult (not feta l or young) animal (not human) subjects exposed over short (not long) periods of time {4}. Some of the companies testing pesticides have been charged and convicted of falsifying residue and environmental studies that were used to support pesticide registration in the US and Canada {4}. Some pesticides become even more toxic as they break down. (In the US it is a violation of federal law to state that the use of pesticides is safe.)
BESIDES SENSITIVITY AND TOXICITY WHAT OTHER HEALTH RISKS ARE THERE?
- increased risk of leukemia
- cancers (lung, brain, testicular, lymphoma)
- increase in spontaneous abortions
- greater genetic damage
- decreased fertility
- liver and pancreatic damage
- neuropathy
- disturbances to immune systems (asthma/ allergies)
- increases in stillbirths {1}
- decreased sperm counts
WHAT ARE THE MAIN RISKS FOR CHILDREN?
- cancer: leukemia and brain cancer
- asthma and allergies
- polyneuritis with numbness and pain in lower limbs. {5}
- altered neurological functioning and long-lasting neuro-behavioral impairments. {4}
- birth defects
- neurotoxicity
- gangrene (tissue death) of the extremities
WHO IS MOST SUSCEPTIBLE?
- Children, infants and fetuses – relative to adults, children have more rapid breathing and metabolic rates, greater surface to body mass ratios, thinner skins, spend more time in contact with the ground, more frequently place their fingers in their mouths, and are less likely to be able to read hazard signs.
- Adults – especially those with asthma, lupus erythematosus, vasculitis, dermatitis and chemical sensitivities {1}.
- Animals – pets, wildlife of all kinds and their habitat.
WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS ON ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE?
- Birds die after eating granular pesticides.
- Animals may develop:
- cancer
- abnormal thyroid function
- decreased fertility
- decreased hatching success
- demasculinization and feminization of males
- alteration of immune function {4}
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GMO Foods
What is a GMO?A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Because this involves the transfer of genes, GMOs are also known as “transgenic” organisms.
This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same. Read more.
Where are they?
In your food! First introduced into the food supply in the mid-1990s, GMOs are now present in the vast majority of processed foods in the US. While they are banned as food ingredients in Europe and elsewhere, the FDA does not even require the labeling of GMOs in food ingredient lists.
Although there have been attempts to increase nutritional benefits or productivity, the two main traits that have been added to date are herbicide tolerance and the ability of the plant to produce its own pesticide. These results have no health benefit, only economic benefit.
What foods are GM?
Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (91%), cotton (88%), canola (88%), corn (85%), sugar beets (90%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and tobacco (Quest® brand).
Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. There are also many “invisible ingredients,” derived from GM crops that are not obviously from corn or soy. Read more
Why should you care?
Genetically modified foods have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. The effects on humans of consuming these new combinations of proteins produced in GMOs are unknown and have not been studied. See more under GMO Health Risks.
Crops such as Bt cotton produce pesticides inside the plant. This kills or deters insects, saving the farmer from having to spray pesticides. The plants themselves are toxic, and not just to insects. Farmers in India, who let their sheep graze on Bt cotton plants after the harvest, saw thousands of sheep die!
Herbicide tolerance lets the farmer spray weed-killer directly on the crop without killing it. Comparative studies on the toxic residues in foods from such crops have not yet been done.
Pollen from GM crops can contaminate nearby crops of the same type, except for soy, which does not cross-pollinate. In fact, virtually all heritage varieties of corn in Mexico (the origin of all corn) have been found to have some contamination. Canola and cotton also cross-pollinate. The long-term effects on the environment could be disastrous.
| Food | Properties of the genetically modified variety | Modification | Percent Modified in US | Percent Modified in world |
| Soybeans | Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides | Herbicide resistant gene taken from bacteria inserted into soybean | 93% | 77% |
| Corn, field | Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides. Insect resistance via producing Bt proteins, some previously used as pesticides in organic crop production. Vitamin-enriched corn derived from Soutd African white corn variety M37W has bright orange kernels, witd 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x tde vitamin C and 2x folate. | New genes, some from tde bacterium Bacillus tduringiensis, added/transferred into plant genome. | 86% | 26% |
| Cotton (cottonseed oil) | Pest-resistant cotton | Bt crystal protein gene added/ transferred into plant genome | 93% | 49% |
| Alfalfa | Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides | New genes added/transferred into plant genome. | Planted in tde US from 2005–2007; no longer planted currently due to court decisions | |
| Hawaiian papaya | Variety is resistant to tde papaya ringspot virus. | New gene added/ transferred into plant genome | 80% | |
| Tomatoes | Variety in which tde production of tde enzyme polygalacturonase (PG) is suppressed, retarding fruit softening after harvesting. | A reverse copy (an antisense gene) of tde gene responsible for tde production of PG enzyme added into plant genome | Taken off tde market due to commercial failure. | Small quantities grown in China |
| Rapeseed (Canola) | Resistance to herbicides (glyphosate or glufosinate), high laurate canola | New genes added/ transferred into plant genome | 93% | 21% |
| Sugar cane | Resistance to certain pesticides, high sucrose content. | New genes added/ transferred into plant genome | ||
| Sugar beet | Resistance to glyphosate, glufosinate herbicides | New genes added/ transferred into plant genome | 95% (2010); planting in tde US is halted as of 13 Aug. 2010 by court order | 9% |
| Rice | Genetically modified to contain high amounts of Vitamin A (beta-carotene) | “Golden rice” tdree new genes implanted: two from daffodils and tde tdird from a bacterium | Forecast to be on tde market in 2012 | |
| Squash (Zucchini) | Resistance to watermelon, cucumber and zucchini yellow mosaic viruses | Contains coat protein genes of viruses. | 13% | |
| Sweet Peppers | Resistance to virus | Contains coat protein genes of tde virus. | Small quantities grown in China |
References:
- {1} Rea, William J., 1996, Pesticides. Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine 6, 55-124.
- {2} Lowengart, et al., 1987, Journal of National Cancer Institute, 79: 39-46.
- {3} Eagles Eye, World Wildlife Fund Publication. Summer 1995.
- {4} Hammond, M., 1995, Pesticide Bylaws: Why We Need Them and How to Get Them. Consultancy for Alternative Education, Quebec.
- {5} Journal of the American Medical Association 1989;30:1306. Mayo Clinic;Medical Toxicology 1988;3:350-75. National Poisons Unit, Guy’s Hospital, London, England.
- Pesticide Facts
- GMO Facts
- Richard M. Manshardt ‘UH Rainbow’ Papaya: A High-Quality Hybrid with Genetically Engineered Disease Resistance. Cooperative Extension Service/CTAHR, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Biotechnology of Food. FDA Backgrounder: May 18, 1994.
- Rapeseed (canola) has been genetically engineered to modify its oil content with a gene encoding a “12:0 thioesterase” (TE) enzyme from the California bay plant (Umbellularia californica) to increase medium length fatty acids, see: Geo-pie.cornell.edu
- Potrykus, Ingo (2010) Regulation must be revolutionized Nature, Vol 466, P561, doi:10.1038/466561a; retrieved August 10, 2010
- Pocket K No. 2: Plant Products of Biotechnology
- Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Oxnard, California, retrieved August 12, 2010
- Paroda, Raj (Secretary) Biosafety Regulations of Asia-Pacific Countries
- Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S.
Similar Posts:
Monday, September 20, 2010
The Real Truth About the Top 12 Health Myths
The Real Truth About the Top 12 Health Myths:
CNN has published a list of the “truth about twelve “health myths”. Among the myths this article busts? “If you cross your eyes, they’ll stay that way.” “Eat the crust of your bread because it’s full of antioxidants,” and, “to get rid of hiccups, have someone startle you.”
Seriously?
There is massive amount of medical misinformation circulating right now, which is causing an epidemic of chronic disease, unprecedented in human history, and their big concern is whether or not if you cross your eyes, they’ll stay that way?
CNN is beyond clueless.
The primary purpose of their article is entertainment, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the top health myths. With articles such as this one, CNN is part of the problem of perpetuating misinformation and leading you astray with nonsense.
Below I will review 12 REAL health myths that CNN didn’t bother to mention, even though these are the cause of a lot of unnecessary suffering and premature death.
Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths
CNN has published a list of the “truth about twelve “health myths”. Among the myths this article busts? “If you cross your eyes, they’ll stay that way.” “Eat the crust of your bread because it’s full of antioxidants,” and, “to get rid of hiccups, have someone startle you.”
Seriously?
There is massive amount of medical misinformation circulating right now, which is causing an epidemic of chronic disease, unprecedented in human history, and their big concern is whether or not if you cross your eyes, they’ll stay that way?
CNN is beyond clueless.
The primary purpose of their article is entertainment, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the top health myths. With articles such as this one, CNN is part of the problem of perpetuating misinformation and leading you astray with nonsense.
Below I will review 12 REAL health myths that CNN didn’t bother to mention, even though these are the cause of a lot of unnecessary suffering and premature death.
Sources:
Related Links:
Expert Pediatrician Exposes Vaccine Myths
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
1: Cardio is One of the Best Types of Exercise
2: Vaccines are Safe and Effective and Prevent Disease
3: Fluoride in Your Water Lowers Your Risk of Cavities
4: GMOs Crops are Safe, Well Tested and Economically Beneficial
5: Sun Causes Skin Cancer
6: Saturated Fat Causes Heart Disease
7: Artificial Sweeteners are Safe, Well Tested and Help Promote Weight Loss
8: Soy is a Health Food
9: Whole Grains are Good for Everyone
10: All Plant Based Supplements are as Good as Animal Supplements
11: Milk Does Your Body Good
12: Low-Fat Diets are Healthy
Final Thoughts