Ads 468x60px

Blogger templates

Monday, April 29, 2013

Freak Factor: Discovering Uniqueness by Flaunting Weakness by Dave Rendall at TEDxMarinette - YouTube

Freak Factor: Discovering Uniqueness by Flaunting Weakness by Dave Rendall at TEDxMarinette - YouTube:

'via Blog this'

Thursday, April 25, 2013

AGENDA 21



'via Blog this'

Jon Stewart | Video Cafe

Jon Stewart | Video Cafe:

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, April 3, 2013

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK - YouTube

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK - YouTube:

'via Blog this'

Agent Orange outrage | Local | News | Timmins Press

Agent Orange outrage | Local | News | Timmins Press:

'via Blog this'

A news article uncovering the use of the chemical Agent Orange in Northern Ontario forests has MPP Gilles Bisson (NDP - Timmins-James Bay) "shocked."
Bisson said he awoke Thursday morning to calls from a Toronto media outlet about Ministry of Natural Resource documents revealing a spraying program on the Gordon Cosens forest between Hearst and Kapuskasing in the 1950s and 1960s.
"It's absolutely nuts," said Bisson. "I really don't believe they knew the harmful effects at the time, but when the MNR and the industry found out what this chemical does to people, they should have informed the public.
"Certainly to God, when they found out it causes cancer, they had an obligation to to tell people."
Agent Orange is a herbicide and defoliant used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam war.
It may have been used by lumber companies to defoliate leafy trees, said Bisson.
The MPP is calling on the Ontario government, along with forestry companies to release documents containing more information about the harmful spraying.
"We don't have any other information about it. We don't know where else this has happened," Bisson said.
"What we do know is that rates of cancer in Northern Ontario are higher than even the provincial average."
He said lumber companies who used the chemical should be tracking former employees, or anyone who may have been exposed, so people can be tested and treated.
Studies show the chemicals found in Agent Orange can remain in the body for decades, causing skin disorders, liver problems, certain types of cancer, and impaired function.
"I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, but the issue here is the conspiracy of silence," Bisson said. "This is a democracy, and we don't work that way in a democracy. Now that they know, they have an obligation to investigate this.
"There are campers, blueberry pickers, forestry workers. Anyone who used that forest in the 1950s, '60s, or '70s."
He said although people affected may deserve compensation, the most important thing is safety.
"It's a matter of having to do everything we can to inform people. It's a question of people affected needing to see a doctor for possible effects of these toxins."
Bisson said he will be addressing the issue with Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffrey in Queens Park on Tuesday.
"The questions I'll be asking the Minister are very straightforward.
"Quite frankly, I can't believe this happened in Northern Ontario."

Agent Orange outrage | Local | News | Timmins Press

Agent Orange outrage | Local | News | Timmins Press:

'via Blog this'

A news article uncovering the use of the chemical Agent Orange in Northern Ontario forests has MPP Gilles Bisson (NDP - Timmins-James Bay) "shocked."
Bisson said he awoke Thursday morning to calls from a Toronto media outlet about Ministry of Natural Resource documents revealing a spraying program on the Gordon Cosens forest between Hearst and Kapuskasing in the 1950s and 1960s.
"It's absolutely nuts," said Bisson. "I really don't believe they knew the harmful effects at the time, but when the MNR and the industry found out what this chemical does to people, they should have informed the public.
"Certainly to God, when they found out it causes cancer, they had an obligation to to tell people."
Agent Orange is a herbicide and defoliant used by the U.S. military during the Vietnam war.
It may have been used by lumber companies to defoliate leafy trees, said Bisson.
The MPP is calling on the Ontario government, along with forestry companies to release documents containing more information about the harmful spraying.
"We don't have any other information about it. We don't know where else this has happened," Bisson said.
"What we do know is that rates of cancer in Northern Ontario are higher than even the provincial average."
He said lumber companies who used the chemical should be tracking former employees, or anyone who may have been exposed, so people can be tested and treated.
Studies show the chemicals found in Agent Orange can remain in the body for decades, causing skin disorders, liver problems, certain types of cancer, and impaired function.
"I'm not pointing a finger at anyone, but the issue here is the conspiracy of silence," Bisson said. "This is a democracy, and we don't work that way in a democracy. Now that they know, they have an obligation to investigate this.
"There are campers, blueberry pickers, forestry workers. Anyone who used that forest in the 1950s, '60s, or '70s."
He said although people affected may deserve compensation, the most important thing is safety.
"It's a matter of having to do everything we can to inform people. It's a question of people affected needing to see a doctor for possible effects of these toxins."
Bisson said he will be addressing the issue with Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffrey in Queens Park on Tuesday.
"The questions I'll be asking the Minister are very straightforward.
"Quite frankly, I can't believe this happened in Northern Ontario."

Agent Orange probe widens | Toronto Star

Agent Orange probe widens | Toronto Star: "Senator Brazeau's "

'via Blog this'

Ontario's Minister of Natural Resources Linda Jeffrey has asked the WSIB to open a special hotline for forestry workers who may have been exposed to Agent Orange and other toxic defoliants.

EXPLORE THIS STORY

1PHOTO
Save to Mystar
Ontario has widened its probe of Agent Orange spraying to include all areas of the province, government officials say.
The Ministry of Natural Resources plans to release details of its toxic chemical spraying operations in Ontario next week, Minister Linda Jeffrey said in her first interview since aToronto Star investigation published Thursday revealed Agent Orange was used to strip Crown land during the 1950s, 60s and 70s.
“I can understand how worried some families may be,” Jeffrey said.
“We’re going to probably have to do a fairly large public information outreach to reach everybody we feel may have been exposed and may be experiencing symptoms.”
A ministry official confirmed to the Star it is not just looking at Northern Ontario but all government managed forests on Crown Land.
The ministry is in the process of assembling information from its district offices including records showing when and where spraying occurred and what chemicals were used.
“I’m committed to obtaining all the facts and I’m prepared to share all of that information in a very transparent fashion,” said the Brampton-Springdale MPP. “I will do everything in my power to make sure we deal with this issue properly.”
Documents obtained from provincial archives by the Star reveal the government and timber companies conducted extensive aerial herbicide spraying programs in Northern Ontario. Forestry records showed they were using the same chemicals that were employed to defoliate dense jungles during the Vietnam War, including the infamous Agent Orange. Exposure to this chemical cocktail has been associated with more than 50 diseases and medical conditions by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.
In Canada, the chemicals targeted what forestry reports described as “weed trees” — including birch, maple, poplar — which competed for sunlight and soil nutrients with the more commercially viable spruce trees.
The chemicals caused the broad leaves on these unwanted trees to grow so quickly they starved to death, leaving the spruce to flourish.
Jeffrey noted that the chemicals used were all federally approved at the time.
Spraying reports obtained by the Star describe how forestry workers — often high school students and junior rangers — acted as human markers holding red, helium-filled balloons on fishing lines while low-flying planes sprayed chemical cocktails on the boys and brush below.
With the ministry’s blessing, Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company launched the first aerial spraying program in Kapuskasing, Ont. in 1956.
Company records filed at the archives show it used the Agent Orange chemical mix of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T in equal parts during the summer of 1964. The company was sold to Tembec in 1991.
Jeffrey said her ministry would talk with the company about contacting former employees of Spruce Falls.
In an emailed statement, Tembec told the Star it is “committed to providing the assistance we can to the authorities.”
On Thursday, Premier Dalton McGuinty encouraged forestry workers who may have been exposed to these harmful chemicals to call the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board so the province can begin to “build up a data bank and assess what we’re looking at here.”
Jeffrey said she has asked the WSIB to create a special hotline for forestry workers.
In the meantime, anyone concerned about exposure to these herbicides should call the general Occupational Disease Information line and register their case.
WSIB information line: 416-344-4440 or toll-free at 1-800-387-0750, ext. 4163444440.
Diana Zlomislic can be reached at (416) 869-4472 or dzlomislic@t

AGENT ORANGE

jorma_jyrkkanen:

'via Blog this'

Agent Orange and Other Toxins in Pesticides Used in BC

24 Sept 2008

When I was habitat protection technician for the BC Fish and Wildlife Branch between 1981 and 1987, I got a request by the BC Ministry of Forests to use Estron 3-3E in a sensitive area near the mouth of the Lakelse River. Upon examination of the ingredients, I determined that it was in fact one of the Agent Orange (AO) concoctions and rejected the application along with a note to MOF that I was not very pleased that they had entertained such an option.

I wondered how widespread had been the use of AO in BC when In a personal communication with the former head of the BC Pesticide Branch, Mike Whately, I was informed that AO had been in wide-spread use especially for alder and other brush control and had seen considerable use on the west coast and the Queen Charlottes.

Bill Brinnen, the applicant on behalf of MOF, died not long after from some rare blood disorder and was unable to explain to me what applications were underway at that time and was silent about what applications he had been involved with formerly. I met an applicator, and in fact beat him and the champion (right arm only) in arm wrestling at the pub's annual competition, Vince Helsenfels, who said he was using the stuff all over the place without any protective clothing or respirators as were others because they were told it was harmless.

Regarding my concerns about certain pesticide application referrals, I was ordered by my boss not to become an expert on pesticides on government time and was instructed to rubber stamp pesticide applications.

It dawned on me that the MOF had a culture of recklessness with public and environmental safety and was deceitful and misleading with safety information and that we in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Division of MOE had a culture of supporting that. The argument advanced was that these pesticides were approved for use in Canada by the Federal government who are experts and so they must be assumed safe if used as directed.

I had found from personal examination of the literature and from having had a sample of forestry herbicide Vision tested for 1,4-dioxane, that carcinogen residues were in fact being applied to much of BC's Forests and workers and the general public were not appraised of the fact by the MOF or pesticide branch.

The information on carcinogenicity was not available through MOF and was only discovered by me personally by investigative journalism and personal research. The Feds, DOF and DOE and DOA did not and would not divulge the name of the surfactant being used (polyoxyethyleneamine) nor that the contaminant 1,4-dioxane was present nor that both were probable carcinogens arguing that these were 'Trade Secrets'.

I found all of this out by becoming an expert on my own time. They only confessed after I sent them the lab results with the help of MP Jim Fulton who graciously paid for my research.

( I affirm that everything I have said above is true and correct.)

Jormawankenobe

© 2008 J. Jyrkkanen

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Exposure worries on MSN Video

Exposure worries on MSN Video:

'via Blog this'

The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal | Collective-Evolution

The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal | Collective-Evolution:

'via Blog this'

The Shocking Story of How Aspartame Became Legal

artificial sugarDid you know that Aspartame was banned by the FDA twice? How is this product legal now?
The bittersweet argument over whether Aspartame is safe or not has been going on for a long time. On one side we have medical evidence that suggests we should avoid using it and on the other side we lean on the FDA’s approval that suggests it is safe. Since generally that seems to be the factor that many continue to hold trust based upon, I thought we could look into the Aspartame story to find out how it came to be accepted as safe by the FDA. You would think that something so widely used and so well accepted would have quite the pristine story leading to its acceptance. I imagine one will discover otherwise after reading this post.
It all starts in the mid 1960′s with a company called G.D. Searle. One of their chemists accidentally creates aspartame while trying to create a cure for stomach ulcers. Searle decides to put aspartame through a testing process which eventually leads to its approval by the FDA. Not long after, serious health effects begin to arise and G.D. Searle comes under fire for their testing practices. It is revealed that the testing process of Aspartame was among the worst the investigators had ever seen and that in fact the product was unsafe for use. Aspartame triggers the first criminal investigation of a manufacturer put into place by the FDA in 1977. By 1980 the FDA bans aspartame from use after having 3 independent scientists study the sweetener. It was determined that one main health effects was that it had a high chance of inducing brain tumors. At this point it was clear that aspartame was not fit to be used in foods and banned is where it stayed, but not for long.
Early in 1981 Searle Chairman Donald Rumsfeld (who is a former Secretary of Defense.. surprise surprise) vowed to “call in his markers,” to get it approved. January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Searle took the steps to re-apply aspartame’s approval for use by the FDA. Ronald Reagans’ new FDA commissioner Arthur Hayes Hull, Jr., appointed a 5-person Scientific Commission to review the board of inquiry’s decision. It did not take long for the panel to decide 3-2 in favor of maintaining the ban of aspartame. Hull then decided to appoint a 6th member to the board, which created a tie in the voting, 3-3. Hull then decided to personally break the tie and approve aspartame for use. Hull later left the FDA under allegations of impropriety, served briefly as Provost at New York Medical College, and then took a position with Burston-Marsteller. Burstone-Marstella is the chief public relations firm for both Monsanto and GD Searle. Since that time he has never spoken publicly about aspartame.
It is clear to this point that if anything the safety of aspartame is incredibly shaky.  It has already been through a process of being banned and without the illegitimate un-banning of the product, it would not be being used today. Makes you wonder how much corruption and money was involved with names like Rumsfeld, Reagan and Hull involved so heavily. In 1985, Monsanto decides to purchase the aspartame patent from G.D. Searle. Remember that Arthur Hull now had the connection to Monsanto. Monsanto did not seem too concerned with the past challenges and ugly image aspartame had based on its past. I personally find this comical as Monsanto’s products are banned in many countries and of all companies to buy the product they seem to fit best as they are champions of producing incredibly unsafe and untested products and making sure they stay in the market place.
Since then, aspartame has been under a lot of attack by scientists, doctors, chemists and consumers about it’s safety and neurotoxic properties. Piles of comprehensive studies have been completed that show aspartame is a cause for over 90 serious health problems such as cancer, leukemia, headaches, seizures, fibromyalgia, and epilepsy just to name a few. We have written several articles discussing various affects of aspartame. Aspartame Leukemia Link. Aspartame and Brain Damage.
For a full timeline on aspartame’s legal and safety battles, expand the box below.
[toggle title="Full Aspartame Timeline"]
Timeline
December 1965– While working on an ulcer drug, James Schlatter, a chemist at G.D. Searle, accidentally discovers aspartame, a substance that is 180 times sweeter than sugar yet has no calories.
Spring 1967– Searle begins the safety tests on aspartame that are necessary for applying for FDA approval of food additives.
Fall 1967– Dr. Harold Waisman, a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin, conducts aspartame safety tests on infant monkeys on behalf of the Searle Company. Of the seven monkeys that were being fed aspartame mixed with milk, one dies and five others have grand mal seizures.
November 1970– Cyclamate, the reigning low-calorie artificial sweetener — is pulled off the market after some scientists associate it with cancer. Questions are also raised about safety of saccharin, the only other artificial sweetener on the market, leaving the field wide open for aspartame.
December 18, 1970– Searle Company executives lay out a “Food and Drug Sweetener Strategy’ that they feel will put the FDA into a positive frame of mind about aspartame. An internal policy memo describes psychological tactics the company should use to bring the FDA into a subconscious spirit of participation” with them on aspartame and get FDA regulators into the “habit of saying, “Yes”.”
Spring 1971– Neuroscientist Dr. John Olney (whose pioneering work with monosodium glutamate was responsible for having it removed from baby foods) informs Searle that his studies show that aspartic acid (one of the ingredients of aspartame) caused holes in the brains of infant mice. One of Searle’s own researchers confirmed Dr. Olney’s findings in a similar study.
February 1973– After spending tens of millions of dollars conducting safety tests, the G.D. Searle Company applies for FDA approval and submits over 100 studies they claim support aspartame’s safety.
March 5, 1973– One of the first FDA scientists to review the aspartame safety data states that “the information provided (by Searle) is inadequate to permit an evaluation of the potential toxicity of aspartame”. She says in her report that in order to be certain that aspartame is safe, further clinical tests are needed.
May 1974– Attorney, Jim Turner (consumer advocate who was instrumental in getting cyclamate taken off the market) meets with Searle representatives to discuss Dr. Olney’s 1971 study which showed that aspartic acid caused holes in the brains of infant mice.
July 26, 1974– The FDA grants aspartame its first approval for restricted use in dry foods.
August 1974– Jim Turner and Dr. John Olney file the first objections against aspartame’s approval.
March 24, 1976– Turner and Olney’s petition triggers an FDA investigation of the laboratory practices of aspartame’s manufacturer, G.D. Searle. The investigation finds Searle’s testing procedures shoddy, full of inaccuracies and “manipulated” test data. The investigators report they “had never seen anything as bad as Searle’s testing.”
January 10, 1977– The FDA formally requests the U.S. Attorney’s office to begin grand jury proceedings to investigate whether indictments should be filed against Searle for knowingly misrepresenting findings and “concealing material facts and making false statements” in aspartame safety tests. This is the first time in the FDA’s history that they request a criminal investigation of a manufacturer.
January 26, 1977– While the grand jury probe is underway, Sidley & Austin, the law firm representing Searle, begins job negotiations with the U.S. Attorney in charge of the investigation, Samuel Skinner.
March 8, 1977– G. D. Searle hires prominent Washington insider Donald Rumsfeld as the new CEO to try to turn the beleaguered company around. A former Member of Congress and Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration, Rumsfeld brings in several of his Washington cronies as top management.
July 1, 1977– Samuel Skinner leaves the U.S. Attorney’s office and takes a job with Searle’s law firm. (see Jan. 26th)
August 1, 1977– The Bressler Report, compiled by FDA investigators and headed by Jerome Bressler, is released. The report finds that 98 of the 196 animals died during one of Searle’s studies and weren’t autopsied until later dates, in some cases over one year after death. Many other errors and inconsistencies are noted. For example, a rat was reported alive, then dead, then alive, then dead again; a mass, a uterine polyp, and ovarian neoplasms were found in animals but not reported or diagnosed in Searle’s reports.
December 8, 1977– U.S. Attorney Skinner’s withdrawal and resignation stalls the Searle grand jury investigation for so long that the statue of limitations on the aspartame charges runs out. The grand jury investigation is dropped.
June 1, 1979– The FDA established a Public Board of Inquiry (PBOI) to rule on safety issues surrounding NutraSweet.
September 30, 1980– The Public Board of Inquiry concludes NutraSweet should not be approved pending further investigations of brain tumors in animals. The board states it “has not been presented with proof of reasonable certainty that aspartame is safe for use as a food additive.”
January 1981– Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of Searle, states in a sales meeting that he is going to make a big push to get aspartame approved within the year. Rumsfeld says he will use his political pull in Washington, rather than scientific means, to make sure it gets approved.
January 21, 1981– Ronald Reagan is sworn in as President of the United States. Reagan’s transition team, which includes Donald Rumsfeld, CEO of G. D. Searle, hand picks Dr. Arthur Hull Hayes Jr. to be the new FDA Commissioner.
March, 1981– An FDA commissioner’s panel is established to review issues raised by the Public Board of Inquiry.
May 19, 1981– Three of six in-house FDA scientists who were responsible for reviewing the brain tumor issues, Dr. Robert Condon, Dr. Satya Dubey, and Dr. Douglas Park, advise against approval of NutraSweet, stating on the record that the Searle tests are unreliable and not adequate to determine the safety of aspartame.
July 15, 1981– In one of his first official acts, Dr. Arthur Hayes Jr., the new FDA commissioner, overrules the Public Board of Inquiry, ignores the recommendations of his own internal FDA team and approves NutraSweet for dry products. Hayes says that aspartame has been shown to be safe for its’ proposed uses and says few compounds have withstood such detailed testing and repeated close scrutiny.
October 15, 1982– The FDA announces that Searle has filed a petition that aspartame be approved as a sweetener in carbonated beverages and other liquids.
July 1, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association (NSDA) urges the FDA to delay approval of aspartame for carbonated beverages pending further testing because aspartame is very unstable in liquid form. When liquid aspartame is stored in temperatures above 85 degrees Fahrenheit, it breaks down into DKP and formaldehyde, both of which are known toxins.
July 8, 1983– The National Soft Drink Association drafts an objection to the final ruling which permits the use of aspartame in carbonated beverages and syrup bases and requests a hearing on the objections. The association says that Searle has not provided responsible certainty that aspartame and its’ degradation products are safe for use in soft drinks.
August 8, 1983– Consumer Attorney, Jim Turner of the Community Nutrition Institute and Dr. Woodrow Monte, Arizona State University’s Director of Food Science and Nutritional Laboratories, file suit with the FDA objecting to aspartame approval based on unresolved safety issues.
September, 1983– FDA Commissioner Hayes resigns under a cloud of controversy about his taking unauthorized rides aboard a General Foods jet. (General foods is a major customer of NutraSweet) Burson-Marsteller, Searle’s public relation firm (which also represented several of NutraSweet’s major users), immediately hires Hayes as senior scientific consultant.
Fall 1983– The first carbonated beverages containing aspartame are sold for public consumption.
November 1984– Center for Disease Control (CDC) “Evaluation of consumer complaints related to aspartame use.” (summary by B. Mullarkey)
November 3, 1987– U.S. hearing, “NutraSweet: Health and Safety Concerns,” Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Senator Howard Metzenbaum, chairman.
[/toggle]
Sources:
http://www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html
http://rense.com/general33/legal.htm
http://dorway.com/
 

Sample text

Sample Text

Sample Text