Agenda 21, Al Gore, algae, algae jet fuel, Americans, Baltic Sea, Barack Obama, Berkshire Hathaway, Billionaires, bio-fuels, Blackstone Group, BP, Bush Administration, carbon dioxide, chemtrails, Chesapeake Bay, clean energy, climate change, CO2, Colorado, Congress, Constellation Energy, conversion, Corexit, Craig Venter, Dead Zone, Death, Deepwater Horizon, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, depopulation, destruction, DNA, DOD, earth, Elite, Elitists, Energy, environmental catastrophe, environmental disaster, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, ExxonMobil, farmers, fertilizer, GE, George Soros, Global Warming, globalists, GM, Goldman Sachs, Great Lakes, greed, Gulf of Mexico, Halliburton, Holocaust, Koch Brothers, Lake Erie, Life, major waterways, Martek Biosciences, Mississippi River, money, Nalco, New World Order, nitrates, nitrogen, Obama Administration, oceans, Ogallala Aquifer, oil, oil companies, One World Government, OriginOil Inc., Pat Stryker, planet, politicians, power-hungry, President, renewable oil, research, seas, sell, Sequestration, South America, stocks, Synthetic Genomics, T. Boone Pickens, technology, Transocean, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Military, United States, University of Chicago, Warren Buffet, water, Water resources, water scarcity, water shortages, world
I bring this information to the public with a very heavy heart. Some journalists revel in being able to expose the type of dramatic conspiracy contained in this article. I take no such pleasure in bringing this to your attention. I will receive no awards or accolades, nor do I seek any. I am setting myself up to be criticized as “one of those conspiracy theorists” with too much time on his hands who has nothing better to do with my time than to invent wild tales of corruption in an attempt to draw attention to myself. I will not be invited on Coast to Coast AM, to reveal my findings to an audience of 12 million people. Perhaps, 10-20 thousand people will actually take the time to read the stunning facts contained in the following paragraphs. What I am trying to accomplish is to start a chain reaction that will culminate in waking up a majority of the public in order to rise up against the abject evil that runs our country. This article is controversial, and I might not actually believe it myself except that every fact in this article is true.
This article is structured in such a way that if the reader takes the time to follow the evidence trail, there can only be one conclusion that makes any sense.
Specifically, this article will detail the following:
- The globalists through their government minions are in the process of destroying massive bodies of water including, but not limited to Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The destruction is not because of neglect, it is willful destruction with very ulterior motives in mind.
- The globalists are using nitrates from fertilizer and Corexit to accomplish their desire to create a dead zone in the aforementioned bodies of water.
- The globalists are creating water dead zones which will allow the proliferation of algae growth and the oil companies have initially led the charge to convert our energy usage from oil to algae.
- Prominent globalists are involved in this conspiracy and have contributed massive resources to this endeavor.
- Prominent globalists are attempting to buy up as much water as possible to exacerbate the destruction of water resources in the aforementioned areas. In other words, Americans are looking at extreme water scarcity from which the globalists can wage wars and force submission to their will, while at the same time carry out their stated depopulation agenda.
- My instincts tell me that this conspiracy has more breadth and depth than what is revealed here and it is my sincere hope that my fellow researchers will afford some much needed attention to these issues, because I strongly believe there is more to learn and we do not have much time because humanity’s fate hangs in the balance.
How many times in the history of the insurance industry, have individuals or businesses been caught setting fire to their homes and businesses in order to receive a lucrative payout of insurance money? This is exactly what BP and Exxon are doing. They are intentionally burning down their own home (oil) in order to construct a behemoth palace (bio-fuels).
From Parts Five and Six of this series, it was conclusively proven that BP, Goldman Sachs, Transocean and Halliburton prepositioned (e.g. BP stock dumping) themselves to make money from the destruction of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. However, there is a lot more going on in the Gulf than a handful of corporations each making hundreds of millions of dollars from their contrived role in the oil spill. The motive to destroy the Gulf holds the promise of making certain entities and individuals multi-trillions of dollars.
The Obama administration and many others (individual billionaires, select politicians, BP, Exxon, Nalco, GM, GE, Goldman Sachs, University of Chicago, and many others including the Department of Defense) are all deeply invested in bio-fuels. These billionaire psychopaths will willingly sacrifice the Gulf and all of its residents for this multi Trillion Dollar industry representing a new era of energy applications.
Algae Will Replace Oil As the Nation’s Energy Source
Nitrogen fertilizers and Corexit are being used to systematically create dead zones in large bodies of water in the United States. The use of nitrogen fertilizers and Corexit are accomplishing the same result. This is no coincidence, as the tragedy in the Gulf was perpetrated to accomplish this end.
Farmers apply nitrogen fertilizer to crops to increase yield. Farmers are compensated by the government for crop yield. Therefore, farmers overload the soil. Plants absorb only 30 to 50% of the nitrogen, so as much as 70%, or 87 pounds per acre will end up running off into the nearest body of water. The only thing that grows in this environment is algae. Therefore, nitrogen has a decided evil side as it is creating huge problems with major bodies of water that we are only now beginning to understand. The EPA is aware of the problem, yet remains silent on the issue.
Chesapeake Bay is polluted beyond repair in which massive fish kills, general habitat degradation and bacteria proliferation threatens the health of humans. The damage is rampant. This massive pollution, resulting from the nitrogen runoffs resulting from agricultural endeavors, fills the Chesapeake Bay and, again, the only substance which flourishes in the bay is algae.
Each and every spring, excess fertilizer is deposited into the Mississippi River which eventually ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, thus causing a massive algae bloom that leads to a giant oxygen-deprived “dead zone” where fish can’t survive. And the same thing is going on in the Great Lakes in places like Lake Erie.
Following the Gulf oil spill, and against all common sense, the most lethal form of dispersant, Corexit, was used to treat the oil spill. Instead, what happened is that the spill has resulted in the creation of the second largest dead zone body of water in the world; second only to the Baltic Sea. And, as the reader will discover later in this article, the new energy craze among the so-called environmentalists is algae.
In isolation, we seem to only be looking at a pollution problem that the EPA should deal with. Simply put, the use of nitrogen fertilizer and Corexit should be banned. However, when we look at the totality of the Corexit/nitrogen problem being used to destroy our water supplies, one should immediately sit up and take notice.
Once one understands that Algae proliferates in an otherwise dead zone of water, then one will understand why Corexit was used in the Gulf. And when one understands that fact, one can only conclude that Gulf oil spill was not an accident as it marks the ushering in of a new era in which the bio-fuel, algae, will replace oil. And, amazingly, the oil companies are among those who are behind this plot to destroy major bodies of water in order to allow for the propagation of algae.
President Obama is also participating in this conspiracy against humanity. On March 15, 2013, President Obama announced that it is his intention to move American vehicles away from oil to bio-fuels. Obama, amazingly in this period of Sequestration, has asked Congress for two billion dollars to expand research in this area. And isn’t it an interesting coincidence that the President’s science advisor,John Holdren, in 2009, advocated for “fertilizing” the oceans? I remember that most people thought Holdren had lost his mind when he proposed this as a solution for global warming. However, in the context of creating dead zones through the use of Corexit and nitrogen fertilizers, his suggestion makes a great deal of sense in light of today’s heightened interest in bio-fuels. This cannot be described as anything but psychopathic thinking in that the EPA would allow nitrogen fertilizers to destroy major bodies of water in which only algae can grow. And that this administration would even entertain the idea of creating oceanic dead zones through fertilizing these bodies of water is nothing but pure insanity. It is dangerous to the entire well-being of the planet. But of course, we are dealing with psychopaths.
How many brush fires equals an all-out forest fire? How many coincidences does it take to make a conspiracy? For those who think that there are some interesting thoughts presented here, but the conspiracy angle of destroying major bodies of water to foster the growth of algae needs more proof, let’s take a look at a variable which will connect all the dots.
Amazingly, the oil companies are attempting to lead the way in the process of converting our energy sources from oil to bio-fuels such as algae.
Burning Down Their Own Houses
I began to realize that many of our major bodies of water were being destroyed and all that was necessary to reverse the destruction was to halt the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Then I discovered that Corexit creates the same kind of dead zones just like nitrogen which also was unnecessary in its use because a less virulent dispersant could have been used in the Gulf. Did you know that Corexit is banned in 19 countries? It was at that moment that the light went on for me as I realized that we were witnessing the systematic destruction of major bodies of water on a grand scale. This was coupled with my discovery that the oil companies appear to be preparing to transition from oil to algae.
In August of 2009, BP entered into a partnership with Martek Biosciences to study the use of algae to convert sugar into biodiesel. Eight months later, BP’s and Transocean’s “negligence” led to the oil spill which gravely impacted the food chain, poisoned all life forms in the Gulf and dealt an eventual death blow to the Gulf by creating a massive series of dead zones where nothing will grow, except for algae, for generations to come.
BP is not alone with regard to a major oil company’s foray into the algae business. ExxonMobil entered into a partnership with Synthetic Genomics in order to develop energy’s next king, bio-fuels from algae. From this work, it was discovered that Corexit increases the bioaccumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons into golden-brown algae. For oil companies to be involved in algae conversion is the metaphorical equivalent of burning down your own house in order to collect the insurance money, and this is precisely what they did to the Gulf.
These facts certainly beg the question as to why BP and Exxon Mobil would be investing in a technology which would threaten their only viable product, namely oil?
Algae has the potential to avoid most of the problems of conventional bio-fuels production, such as competition with food crops, and in principle can have dramatic effects on carbon dioxide emissions, even consuming emissions from sources such as coal-fired power plants.
The major problem with using algae as the next bio-fuel is that the fuel yields from algae are still too low for it to be a break-even proposition. However, if that problem were to be solved, algae would be king because it is such a low-maintenance substance. In a related and stunning development, Exxon has partnered with Craig Venter, the pioneer of DNA research. Venter has a stellar record of achievement in his work on the human genome. If anyone can solve the algae yield problem, Venter would the guy. However, if Venter cannot solve the problem of algae yield, OriginOil, Inc. is developing a novel technology which will transform algae into a source of renewable oil. Below is a depiction of the process.
It Is Not a Conspiracy Until You Follow the Money
Readers need to keep in mind, that Exxon and BP began moving into the algae business several months prior to the Gulf oil spill and BP and its partners have been caught pre-positioning their stock moves to maximize profits and minimize losses IN ADVANCE of the oil spill event. And now they are leading the way to convert the nation from oil to algae energy use. These twin giant oil companies have had a lot of help in making this massive conversion a reality. George Soros is involved in “clean energy conversion” away from oil. Readers may recall from Part Six of this series proved that Soros financial interests were among the top five of financial institution which dumped BP stock a few short weeks before the oil spill, thus, making him a co-conspirator. And now Soros is heavily invested in Gulf algae farms as he has invested $1 billion dollars in the endeavor.
The US military invested $35 million dollars in algae jet fuel. Blackstone Group consulted with the Chesapeake Bay region energy provider Constellation Energy to sell company to Warren Buffet and his company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet is majorly involved in bio-fuels and the algae laden Chesapeake Bay is prime hunting ground for this globalist. Al Gore is also involved in various algae projects as well. The same cast of characters keep rearing their ugly faces in their attempt to subjugate humanity while at the same time make a King’s ransom in the process.
T. Boone Pickens is well on his way to controlling the vast Ogallala Aquifer. Pat Stryker and Koch brothers are involved in garnering Colorado’s water resources in the beta test battleground for Agenda 21. Did you know that that it is illegal in Colorado to reuse irrigation water and to catch rain water? We should be asking ourselves why. Additionally, the Bush family controls the biggest water aquifer in South America. Meanwhile, the globalists are destroying vast amounts water resources in the United States. It seems that the globalists are hell-bent on creating water scarcity.
I do not believe that the globalists only motive is to destroy the Gulf and fresh water supplies so that their new biofuel craze can take hold. I think this is a byproduct to what the central planners are truly after, control over all water which will result in control over who lives and dies. This and more will be covered in the next installment of the Great Gulf Coast Holocaust.
Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials and articles in several publications such as Freedoms Phoenix, News With Views and The Arizona Republic.
The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.
1900's, 1930's, 1970's, 1980's, 1990's, 2, 2000, 4-D, Agent Orange, agriculture, brain disorders, caffeine, Cancerous, Carcinogenic, chemicals, control, corruption, crooks, crops, Deadly, dioxin, DNA, EPA, evil, FDA, Federal Government, flavoring, food, Food & Water Watch, food supply, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genocide, GM food, GMO seeds, GMOs, greed, harmful, hazardous, Health Problems, herbicides, History, horror, Indian farmers, insecticide, Lethal, List of Superfund sites in the United States, manipulation, monopoly, Monsanto, PCBs, pesticides, plastics, poison, poisonous, Political corruption, Polychlorinated biphenyl, power, power abuse, power-hungry, Roundup, rubber, saccharin, Satan, Sauget Illinois, seeds, sterilization, suicide, synthetic, technology, Toxic, U.S, United States, unsafe., vanilla, vanillin, Vietnam War
How Monsanto Went From Selling Aspirin to Controlling Our Food Supply
Monsanto controls our food, poisons our land, and influences all three branches of government.
Forty percent of the crops grown in the United States contain their genes. They produce the world’s top selling herbicide. Several of their factories are now toxic Superfund sites. They spend millions lobbying the government each year. It’s time we take a closer look at who’s controlling our food, poisoning our land, and influencing all three branches of government. To do that, the watchdog group Food and Water Watch recently published a corporate profile of Monsanto.
Patty Lovera, Food and Water Watch assistant director, says they decided to focus on Monsanto because they felt a need to “put together a piece where people can see all of the aspects of this company.”
“It really strikes us when we talk about how clear it is that this is a chemical company that wanted to expand its reach,” she says. “A chemical company that started buying up seed companies.” She feels it’s important “for food activists to understand all of the ties between the seeds and the chemicals.”
Monsanto the Chemical Company
Monsanto was founded as a chemical company in 1901, named for the maiden name of its founder’s wife. Its first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin. The company’s own telling of its history emphasizes its agricultural products, skipping forward from its founding to 1945, when it began manufacturing agrochemicals like the herbicide 2,4-D.
Prior to its entry into the agricultural market, Monsanto produced some harmless – even beneficial! – products like aspirin. It also made plastics, synthetic rubber, caffeine, and vanillin, an artificial vanilla flavoring. On the not-so-harmless side, it began producing toxic PCBs in the 1930s.
According to the new report, a whopping 99 percent of all PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, used in the U.S. were produced at a single Monsanto plant in Sauget, IL. The plant churned out toxic PCBs from the 1930s until they were banned in 1976. Used as coolants and lubricants in electronics, PCBs are carcinogenic and harmful to the liver, endocrine system, immune system, reproductive system, developmental system, skin, eye, and brain.
Even after the initial 1982 cleanup of this plant, Sauget is still home to two Superfund sites. (A Superfund site is defined by the EPA as “an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people.”) This is just one of several Monsanto facilities that became Superfund sites.
Monsanto’s Shift to Agriculture
Despite its modern-day emphasis on agriculture, Monsanto did not even create an agricultural division within the company until 1960. It soon began churning out new pesticides, each colorfully named under a rugged Western theme: Lasso, Roundup, Warrant, Lariat, Bullet, Harness, etc.
Left out of Monsanto’s version of its historical highlights is an herbicide called Agent Orange. The defoliant, a mix of herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, was used extensively during the war in Vietnam. The nearly 19 million gallons sprayed in that country between 1962 and 1971 were contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogen so potent that it is measured and regulated at concentrations of parts per trillion. Dioxin was created as a byproduct of Agent Orange’s manufacturing process, and both American veterans and Vietnamese people suffered health problems from the herbicide’s use.
Monsanto’s fortunes changed forever in 1982, when it genetically engineered a plant cell. The team responsible, led by Ernest Jaworski, consisted of Robb Fraley, Stephen Rogers, and Robert Horsch. Today, Fraley is Monsanto’s executive vice president and chief technology officer. Horsch also rose to the level of vice president at Monsanto, but he left after 25 years to join the Gates Foundation. There, he works on increasing crop yields in Sub-Saharan Africa. Together, the team received the National Medal of Technology from President Clinton in 1998.
The company did not shift its focus from chemicals to genetically engineered seeds overnight. In fact, it was another 12 years before it commercialized the first genetically engineered product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH), a controversial hormone used to make dairy cows produce more milk. And it was not until 1996 that it first brought genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans, onto the market.
By 2000, the company had undergone such a sea change from its founding a century before that it claims it is almost a different company. In Monsanto’s telling of its own history, it emphasizes a split between the “original” Monsanto Company and the Monsanto Company of today. In 2000, the Monsanto Company entered a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia. The newly formed Pharmacia then spun off its agricultural division as an independent company named Monsanto Company.
Do the mergers and spinoffs excuse Monsanto for the sins of the past committed by the company bearing the same name? Lovera does not think so. “I’m sure there’s some liability issues they have to deal with – their various production plants that are now superfund sites,” she responds. “So I’m sure there was legal thinking about which balance sheet you put those liabilities on” when the company split. She adds that the notion that today’s Monsanto is not the same as the historical Monsanto that made PCBs is “a nice PR bullet for them.”
But, she adds, “even taking that at face value, that they are an agriculture company now, they are still producing seeds that are made to be used with chemicals they produce.” For example, Roundup herbicide alone made up more than a quarter of their sales in 2011. The proportion of their business devoted to chemicals is by no means insignificant.
Monsanto’s pesticide product line includes a number of chemicals named as Bad Actors by Pesticide Action Network. They include Alachlor (a carcinogen, water contaminant, developmental/reproductive toxin, and a suspected endocrine disruptor), Acetochlor (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Atrazine (a carcinogen and suspected endocrine disruptor), Clopyralid (high acute toxicity), Dicamba (developmental/reproductive toxin), and Thiodicarb (a carcinogen and cholinesterase inhibitor).
Roundup: The Benign Herbicide?
Defenders of Monsanto might reply to the charge that Roundup is no Agent Orange. In fact, the herbicide is viewed as so benign and yet effective that its inventor, John E. Franz, won the National Medal of Technology. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, kills everything green and growing, but according to Monsanto, it only affects a metabolic pathway in plants, so it does not harm animals. It’s also said to break down quickly in the soil, leaving few traces on the environment after its done its job.
Asked about the harmlessness of Roundup, Lovera replies, “That’s the PR behind Roundup – how benign it was and you can drink it and there’s nothing to worry about here. There are people who dispute that.” For example there is an accusation that Roundup causes birth defects. “We don’t buy the benign theory,” continues Lovera, “But what’s really interesting is that we aren’t going to be having this conversation pretty soon because Roundup isn’t working anymore.”
Lovera is referring to “Roundup-resistant weeds,” weeds that have evolved in the past decade and a half to survive being sprayed by Roundup. Nearly all soybeans grown in the United States is Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready variety, as are 80 percent of cotton and 73 percent of corn. Farmers spray entire fields with Roundup, killing only the weeds while the Roundup Ready crops survive. With such heavy use of Roundup on America’s farmfields, any weed – maybe one in a million – with an ability to survive in that environment would survive and pass on its genes in its seeds.
By 1998, just two years after the introduction of Roundup Ready soybeans, scientists documented the first Roundup-resistant weed. A second was found in 2000, and three more popped up in 2004. To date, there are 24 different weedsthat have evolved resistance to Roundup worldwide. And once they invade a farmer’s field, it doesn’t matter if his crops are Roundup-resistant, because Roundup won’t work anymore. Either the weeds get to stay, or the farmer needs to find a new chemical, pull the weeds by hand, or find some other way to deal with the problem.
“We’ve wasted Roundup by overusing it,” says Lovera. She and other food activists worry about the harsher chemicals that farmers are switching to, and the genetically engineered crops companies like Monsanto are developing to use with them.
Currently, there are genetically engineered crops waiting for government approval that are made to tolerate the herbicides 2,4-D, Dicamba and Isoxaflutole. (These are not all from Monsanto – some are from their competitors.) None of these chemicals are as “benign” as Roundup. Isoxaflutole is, in fact, a carcinogen. Let’s spray that on our food!
Corporate Control of Seeds
No discussion of Monsanto is complete without a mention of the immense amount of control it exerts on the seed industry.
“What it boils down to is between them buying seed companies outright, their incredible aggressive legal maneuvering, their patenting of everything, and their enforcement of those patents, they really have locked up a huge part of the seed supply,” notes Lovera. “So they just exercise an unprecedented control over the entire seed sector. Monsanto products constitute 40 percent of all crop acres in the country.”
Monsanto began buying seed companies as far back as 1982. (One can see an infographic of seed industry consolidation here.) Some of Monsanto’s most significant purchases were Asgrow (soybeans), Delta and Pine Land (cotton), DeKalb (corn), and Seminis (vegetables). One that deserves special mention is their purchase of Holden’s Foundation Seeds in 1997.
George Naylor, an Iowa farmer who grows corn and soybeans, calls Holden’s “The independent source of germplasm for corn.” Small seed companies could buy inbred lines from Holden’s to cross them and produce their own hybrids. Large seed companies like Pioneer did their own breeding, but small operations relied on Holden’s or Iowa State University. But Iowa State got out of the game and Monsanto bought Holden’s.
Monsanto’s tactics for squashing its competition are perhaps unrivaled. They use their power to get seed dealers to not to stock many of their competitors products, for example. When licensing their patented genetically engineered traits to seed companies, they restrict the seed companies’ ability to combine Monsanto’s traits with those of their competitors. And, famously, farmers who plant Monsanto’s patented seeds sign contracts prohibiting them from saving and replanting their seeds. Yet, to date, U.S. antitrust laws have not clamped down on these practices.
With the concentrated control of the seed industry, farmers already complain of lack of options. For example, Naylor says he’s had a hard time finding non-genetically engineered soybean seeds. Most corn seeds are now pre-treated with pesticides, so farmers wishing to find untreated seeds will have a tough time finding any. Once a company or a handful of companies control an entire market, then they can choose what to sell and at what price to sell it.
Furthermore, if our crops are too genetically homogenous, then they are vulnerable to a single disease or pest that can wipe them out. When farmers grow genetically diverse crops, then there is a greater chance that one variety or another will have resistance to new diseases. In that way, growing genetically diverse crops is like having insurance, or like diversifying your risk within your stock portfolio.
Food and Water Watch Recommendations
At the end of its report, Food and Water Watch lists several recommendations. “There are a lot of ways that government policy could address the Monsanto hold on the food supply,” explains Lovera. “The most important thing is that it’s time to stop approval of genetically engineered crops to stop this arms race of the next crop and the next chemical.”
She also calls Monsanto “the poster child for the need for antitrust enforcement” – something that the Justice Department has yet to successfully deliver up. In fact, last November the government ended a three-year antitrust investigation of Monsanto.
A third recommendation Lovera hopes becomes a reality is mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. “If we had that label and we put that information in consumers’ hands, they could do more to avoid this company in their day-to-day lives,” she says.
In the meantime, all consumers can do to avoid genetically engineered foods is to buy organic for the handful of crops that are genetically engineered: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets, and alfalfa.
agriculture, corporations, corruption, deception, Dupont, farmers, fraud, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified organism, global, GMO, GMO seeds, GMOs, greed, harmful, Lawsuits, lies, monopoly, Monsanto, poisonous, Political corruption, power-hungry, Roundup, Roundup-Ready, technology, Toxic, unsafe., world-wide
Apparently discontent with its more than $13.5 billion-plus in annual sales, genetic modification kingpin Monsanto has been trying for the past four-or-so years to extract billions more dollars from rival DuPont for alleged patent infringements involving its genetically-modified (GM) Roundup-Ready soybean technology. And the agri-giant has apparently achieved this goal, having recently settled its longstanding feud with DuPont in exchange for a massive $1.75 billion royalty payout to be delivered over the course of the next 10 years, according to reports.
As we covered last year, Monsanto has been waging war against DuPont since at least 2002, when the corporate monolith decided that DuPont had violated its licensing agreements by borrowing a Roundup-Ready trait for use in its rival soybean product, known as Optimum GAT. Following the initiation of a lawsuit by Monsanto against DuPont for this alleged infringement, DuPont counter-sued, alleging that Monsanto had illegally obtained its patent on the Roundup-Ready trait in question, rendering it unenforceable.
But the two companies have finally agreed to call it quits, according to Phys.org, presumably because both of them are in the wrong and are trying to avoid encountering any further obstacles in their mutual GMO-propagating Ponzi scheme. The two companies will now work together, in other words, to spread more GMOs around the world, and utilize each other’s technologies for the implied purpose of maximizing corporate profits in the process.
Read more here: http://www.naturalnews.com/039895_Monsanto_Dupont_patents.html
Americans, Barack Obama, cancer, cancer-causing, Cancerous, Carcinogenic, catscans, corruption, crime, CT scans, Deadly, deception, dirty bombs, Dirty Fossil Fuels, disease, Drinking Water, emergencies, EPA, EPA Administrator, exposure, Federal Government, Federal Register, food, George W. Bush, Gina McCarthy, global nuclear meltdowns, Humans, Lethal, Nuclear accidents, nuclear industry, Nuclear power, nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors, Nuclear safety, Nuclear War, Obama, Obama Administration, PEER, Political corruption, population, Problems, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Radiation Poisoning, Radioactive, radioactive fallout, radiology, shelter, sickness, soil, thyroid problems, U.S, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Well Water, White House, x-rays
The White House has given final approval for dramatically raising permissible radioactive levels in drinking water and soil following “radiological incidents,” such as nuclear power-plant accidents and dirty bombs. The final version, slated for Federal Register publication, is a win for the nuclear industry which seeks what its proponents call a “new normal” for radiation exposure among the U.S population, according Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
Issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the radiation guides (called Protective Action Guides or PAGs) allow cleanup many times more lax than anything EPA has ever before accepted. These guides govern evacuations, shelter-in-place orders, food restrictions and other actions following a wide range of “radiological emergencies.” The Obama administration blocked a version of these PAGs from going into effect during its first days in office. The version given approval late last Friday is substantially similar to those proposed under Bush but duck some of the most controversial aspects:
- In soil, the PAGs allow long-term public exposure to radiation in amounts as high as 2,000 millirems. This would, in effect, increase a longstanding one in 10,000 person cancer rate to a rate of 1 in 23 persons exposed over a 30-year period;
- In water, the PAGs punt on an exact new standard and EPA “continues to seek input on this.” But the thrust of the PAGs is to give on-site authorities much greater “flexibility” in setting aside established limits; and
- Resolves an internal fight inside EPA between nuclear versus public health specialists in favor of the former. The PAGs are the product of Gina McCarthy, the assistant administrator for air and radiation whose nomination to serve as EPA Administrator is taken up this week by the Senate.
agriculture, Almond, almonds, American Bee Journal, Bee, beekeepers, bees, California, Colony Collapse Disorder, crops, Deadly, Death, diseases, flowers, food supply, fruit, global, hives, honey, Honey bee, honeybees, insecticide, Lethal, nectar, Neonicotinoid, nutrition, pesticides, pollen, pollination, United States, vegetables, world
Two studies have found that the pesticide neonicotinoid, used since 1990, is contributing to killing the honeybees needed for pollination of our food crops. Our food supply is reliant on bees to pollinate the crops. They contribute to $15 billion worth of our food supply. In fact, it’s estimated that one third of the food in our diet is connected to honeybees in some way. Honeybees pollinate our corn, apples, almonds, lemons, broccoli, onions, cherries, oranges, avocadoes, and other fruits, vegetables and flowers, not to mention honey. California‘s almond crop will soon be at stake, as the trees need pollination every year and there are not enough honeybees to do the job.
Neonicotinoid insecticide is contributing to the declining bee population in the U.S. and around the world. The pesticide affects over 94 million acres of land, via seeds treated before they are planted, especially corn, cotton and sunflower seeds. Even small amounts of neonicotinoid make the bees more susceptible to other diseases, and reduces their homing ability. Continued exposure to the chemical is fatal to honeybees. Colony Collapse Disorder caused beekeepers to lose up to 90 percent of their hives in 2006.
Honeybees dying caused the worst honey production year in 2012, and may lead to a crisis in the California almond industry. The American Bee Journal reported that the shortage of nectar and pollen in the hives in 2012 took a toll on the bee colonies as the bees suffered from poor nutrition. Fewer bees survived the winter. Of the 1.6 million bee colonies that California relies on to pollinate the almonds, 500,000 come directly from California and the rest are brought in by trucks from across North America. The loss of bee colonies could wreak havoc with the almond pollination period in California, and lead to an economic loss for California almond growers, as well as higher prices of almonds for consumers. California supplies 80 percent of the world’s almonds, three quarters of which are shipped worldwide. Almonds are a $3 billion industry.
America, biodiversity, Deadly, farmers, FDA, food, Food and Drug Administration, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, Genetically Modified Organisms, GMO, GMOs, Guinea pig, Health, Health Problems, herbicides, Humans, hunger, Lethal, mega-corporation, Monsanto, Overpopulation, patents, people, pesticides, poisonous, Poor, Poverty, resistance, Roundup, starvation, super weeds, Toxic, U.S, United States, world
Globalization affects everyone. The shrinking world brings people in the United States closer to ideas and cultures from all corners of the earth. Likewise, other countries are introduced to many facets of the American life and that way of life includes genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The use of GMOs in food originated in America and while much of the West has banned their use, the developing world is taking part – to their detriment.
Genetically engineered crops came to the market in America in the mid 90s. With much help from the FDA, who didn’t require additional labeling, due to their concept of “substantial equivalence,” the consumer was none the wiser. Basically, the FDA didn’t find it necessary to inform consumers of GMO use through labeling because they didn’t see any significant difference between GMOs and conventional crops.
Fast forward to modern day. The use of GMOs in food has been problematic. Super weeds are destroying farmers’ fields; only a handful of multinational corporations own the patents to these crops; biodiversity is diminishing. What’s more, these crops have yet to be found safe for long-term human consumption in any independent studies. This is because the studies are done by the corporation responsible for the technology which allows for a severe bias. America is exceedingly at the whim of these mega-conglomerates who are making very large claims. Genetic engineering is the future of food; it is supposed to help alleviate world hunger, produce larger yields, resist pests without a lot of pesticides, and help reduce farmers’ labor. The technology is now being pawned off to the developing world as a solution to their poverty and hunger. How do these claims stack up? And are these corporations really helping the third world?
clay, contamination, corruption, cover-ups, deception, defective, Faulty, Friday, Fukushima, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Fukushima Disaster, Fukushima Prefecture, global nuclear meltdowns, land, Leak, Leaks, lies, liners, Nuclear power, nuclear power plants, nuclear reactors, plastic, Political corruption, Power station, radiation, Radiation Poisoning, Radioactive, Radioactive decay, Spent fuel pool, storage facility, storage pools, Sunday, Tepco, Tokyo, Tokyo Electric Power Co., Tokyo Electric Power Company, water, water pollution
The first pool, No. 2, was found to have leaked 120 tons of highly radioactive water on Friday. The size of the leak at the second pool, No. 3, was confirmed at 3 liters late Sunday. The leaks are likely to force Tepco to review its storage strategy for the toxic water, which has become its biggest enemy.
Since the leak is small, there are no plans to drain pool No. 3 into another storage area as is being done with pool No. 2, Tepco said.
The pools are part of a group of seven vast clay-lined storage pits at the plant measuring 60 meters long, 53 meters wide and 6 meters deep. Since each is covered in three layers of protective waterproof lining, how the water escaped will remain a mystery until the faulty pits are drained and examined.
Alaska, blackout, Caesium-137, California, Canada, Canadian, cancer, catastrophic, Cesium, Cesium-134, Cesium-137, citizens, Colorado, cover-ups, Daiichi Reactor, Deadly, Death, deception, earthquake, environment, environmental disaster, Federal Government, food, Fukushima, Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Fukushima Disaster, Fukushima-Diary.com, Genocide, global, Isotopes of caesium, Japan, Japanese, Lethal, lies, Life, mass media, Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare (Japan), nuclear, Nuclear fallout, Oregon, people, population, prefecture, produce, radiation, rice crackers, Rocky Mountains, scientific evidence, Shizuoka, Shizuoka Prefecture, tangerines, thyroid, thyroid problems, Tokyo, tsunami, U.S, United States, Washington, Washington D.C., west coast
New data released by Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (MHLW) shows once again that the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster is far from over. Despite a complete media blackout on the current situation, levels of Cesium-137 (Cs-137) and Cesium-134 (Cs-134) found in produce and rice crackers located roughly 225 miles away from Fukushima are high enough to cause residents to exceed the annual radiation exposure limit in just a few months, or even weeks.
According to Fukushima-Diary.com, which posts up-to-date information about the Fukushima disaster, rice crackers and tangerines produced in the Shizuoka prefecture are testing high for both Cs-137 and Cs-134. Rice crackers, according to the data sheet, tested at 3.7 Becquerels per kilogram (Bq/Kg) of Cs-137, while tangerines tested at 1.46 Bq/Kg of Cs-134 and 3.14 Bq/Kg of Cs-137.
The Shizuoka prefecture is located about 80 miles southwest of Tokyo, which is highly concerning as it is actually farther away from Fukushima than Tokyo. This suggest that potentially deadly levels of radiation are still affecting large population centers across Japan, including those that are not even in close proximity to the Fukushima plant.
Adults, America, Americans, Canada, Confusion, crop, Education, environment, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genetics, GMO Ban, GMO restrictions, GMOs, Huffington Post, Interviews, Monsanto, North America, Poll, Polls, surveys, U.S., Uneducated, United States, United States of America
1. How much have you heard about companies developing genetically modiﬁed crops to make
them grow faster or bigger, or to resist bugs, weeds, disease, herbicides or pesticides?
Heard a lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%
Heard a little . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
Heard nothing at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%
2. Should companies that develop genetically modiﬁed crops be allowed to patent the crops
that they develop?
Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%
No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
3. Based on what you’ve heard, do you think that foods containing genetically modiﬁed
ingredients are generally safe to eat or dangerous to eat?
Safe to eat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%
Dangerous to eat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%
4. Based on what you’ve heard, do you think growing genetically modiﬁed crops is generally
good for the environment or bad for the environment, or does it have no impact?
Good for the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%
Bad for the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%
No impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%
5. Do you think foods that contain genetically modiﬁed ingredients should be labeled indicating
that, or do you think that’s not necessary?
They should be labeled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%
It’s not necessary to label them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9%
Not sure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%