The Extinction Time Bomb

The Infertility Extinction Time Bomb Anthony Gucciardi NaturalSociety March 14, 2012 With the increase in solar flares and expert warnings over the threat of asteroids, volcanoes, and earthquakes, it’s understandable to be concerned about the future of the earth and mankind alike. What many experts and publications are forgetting, however, is that these disasters may actually be less threatening than the harm placing on our own bodies. Known by some as the ‘infertility timebomb’, men are increasingly becoming infertile at an astounding rate that worries many scientists. We can’t control the trajectory of asteroids, but we can control what we put into our bodies. Scientific reports have been revealing that men are rapidly on the path to infertility at an alarming pace. One in five men between the ‘healthy’ ages of 18 and 25 were reported to produce abnormal sperm counts, with only 5 to 15% of their sperm healthy enough to be classified as ‘normal’ by the World Health Organization. What’s more, a male infertility problem is considered important by a shocking 40% of couples. Professor Niels Skakkebaek from the University of Copenhagen has been speaking out about the fertility issue, stating that it is as important as the severe environmental concerns that currently face the planet. Another scientist stated that if scientists from another planet were to study the male reproductive system, they would actually conclude that ‘man was destined for rapid extinction’. Ubiquitous, Toxic Chemicals Leading to Mass Infertility Given the severity of the problem, you must be wondering why you haven’t heard of it before. Well, it may have to do with the corporate food industry as well as biotech giant Monsanto. Chances are that you are being exposed to infertility-linked items on a daily basis, from food products to common herbicides. Ubiquitous substances like bisphenol A (BPA) have been tied to fertility defects in offspring which cut off their ability to reproduce, and can be found in everything from plastic water bottles to canned goods. Shockingly, fertility-crushing BPA has been found in 90% of babies’ cord blood. Even junk food, which compromises a significant percentage of the American diet, has been directly linked to infertility. Analyzing a similar demographic of males between the ages of 18 and 22, scientists found that those who ate a high amount of junk food had poorer quality sperm than those with a nutrient-dense diet. Is it any wonder that fertility rates are declining? Unfortunately, it does not stop there. One recent study found that Monsanto’s best-selling herbicide Roundup can also be contributing to the possible extinction of the human race. Researchers tested Roundup on mature male rats at a concentration range between 1 and 10,000 parts per million (ppm), and found that within 1 to 48 hours of exposure, testicular cells of the mature rats were either damaged or killed. The most disturbing part? In a study conducted by a German university, the active component of Roundup, Glyphosate, was found in all urine samples tested. The very substances linked to infertility are perhaps some of the most commonly found in the body. And this is not a complete list — in fact, it is but only a small sample. Fertility expert Dr. Gillian Lockwood says that these devastating effects on reproductive health occur even before birth, attacking the fetus as it develops. ‘Sperm counts are declining and there is mounting evidence that the problem starts even before birth,’ says Dr Gillian Lockwood, medical director of Midland Fertility Services. Time For Change Scientists and experts are sounding the alarm. It’s time to change the current health paradigm and rid the biosphere of toxic substances that are leading to the demise of the entire human race. Infertility-causing chemicals are a threat even in small concentrations, but many of these chemicals like BPA are being ingested in such large amounts that the catastrophic effects on the global populace will not be fully known for years. The same holds even more true for Monsanto’s Roundup, which is not only threatening the reproductive capabilities of the population, but the environment as a whole. Activism works. Global activism has forced companies like Campbell’s to change their BPA-containing recipe, rid the food supply of high-fructose corn syrup, and introduce a number of GMO labeling campaigns internationally. Now it’s time to take back the health freedom of the planet and secure the prosperity of the human race as a whole. This is not an isolated issue. Explore More: Monsanto’s Best-Selling Herbicide Roundup Linked to Infertility The Causes of Infertility | Why She Can’t Get Pregnant Common Plastic Chemicals Leading to Miscarriages, Infertility World’s Top Commercial Weed Killer Linked to Infertility: Scientist Monsanto’s Infertility-Linked Roundup Found in All Urine Samples Tested Mother’s Obesity May Lead to Infertility in the Next Generation The Natural Society Newsletter Email * Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/chemically-induced-infertility-threatens-human-race/#ixzz1pCEsiJoW

Sodas Cause Heart Attacks

What is a soda? Actually it is bubbly chemical blend of artificial flavors and colors mixed with sugar. How could that be healthy? Well it's not. It causes heart attacks. How many are you going to have today?

Actually you could make your own healthy 'soda' just by getting some carbonated water and squeezing in some lemon or lime or other natural flavor.

Soda Consumption Tied to Heart Attacks

NaturalSociety
March 13, 2012

Proving once again that soda consumption leads to a massive decline in health, recent research gives people just one more reason to stay away from the sugar-laden beverages. The recent study shows how consuming only one soda or sugar-sweetened beverage per day can result in a 20 percent increased risk of coronary heart disease in men.

Heart Disease Risk Increased by 20 Percent from Soda Consumption

For 22 years, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health tracked approximately 43,000 individuals, including dentists, pharmacists, physicians, veterinarians, and other health professionals ages 40 to 75. During this time, the participating men filled out surveys telling of their diet and other health habits. Blood samples were also collected by the researchers from over 18,000 men.

The blood sample tests showed that individuals consuming sugary beverages very often had higher higher levels of dangerous blood fats known as triglycerides and proteins linking to heart disease. The research, published in the American Heart Association’s journal Circulation,found that 12 ounces of sugar drinks such as soda, fruit drinks, or other beverages with added sugar rose the risk of heart disease by 20 percent. Heart disease risk increased with each additional sugary beverage consumed.

This research comes shortly after soft drink giants Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co. took action in removing a carcinogenic ingredient from their soft drink formulas, still insisting that the cancer-linked substance was ‘safe’. Consumer watchdog group Center for Sciences in the Public Interest has been urging the Food and Drug Administration for quite some time to ban the use of the carcinogenic ingredient used as caramel coloring, but it wasn’t until very recently the soft drink giants decided to remove it. The removal, however, wasn’t initiated to protect consumers from the harmful nature of the substances, but rather to avoid being slapped with a cancer warning label.

Needless to say, the health risks soft drinks pose to your health is not limited to coronary heart disease or the carcinogenic nature of the recently removed caramel coloring. These beverages are packed with cancer-inducing sugars, often in the form of high-fructose corn syrup, and contribute to countless health complications. With the consumption of sugary beverages comes an increased risk of diabetes, obesity, pancreatic cancer, metabolic syndrome, and DNA damage, to name a few.

Explore More:

1. Diet Soda Increases Risk of Heart Attack and Stroke
2. Soda Consumption Increases Asthma and COPD Risks
3. Soda Damages Your Heart, Contains Carcinogenic Ingredients
4. Turmeric Shown to Cut Heart Disease, Diabetes Risk
5. Too Much TV Raises Risk of Diabetes, Heart Disease and Death
6. Over-Consumption of Fructose Linked to Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes

The Natural Society Newsletter

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/soda-consumption-tied-to-increased-coronary-heart-disease-risk/#ixzz1p6ROR1ME

Radiation Sickness in Japan (video)

Americans Becoming Aware of Health Risks of Nuclear Power

One year out from the on-going Fukushima nuclear disaster, and despite government efforts to sugar-coat the spreading risks of radioactive fallout, increasing numbers of American apparently are not believing the hype. They have very real and deep concerns about their health and the environmental effects of nuclear power and  the overall safety of the nuclear power plant down the street.

Survey: Americans Not Warming Up to Nuclear Power One Year After Fukushima

By Civil Society Institute, Newton, MA; and ORC International

Posted: 11:02am on Mar 7, 2012; Modified: 11:07am on Mar 7, 2012

WASHINGTON, MARCH 7, 2012 — Contrary to Industry Predictions, Reactor Disaster Seen As Having a "Lasting Chill" on Perceptions;

It's Not All Fukushima:  3 in 5 Americans Less Supportive Due to Woes of U.S. Nuclear Industry in Last Year.

WASHINGTON, March 7, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --One year after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, Americans continue to want to keep the brakes on more nuclear power in the United States, according to a major new ORC International survey conducted for the nonprofit and nonpartisan Civil Society Institute (CSI).  

To gauge any shift in public attitudes, the new survey was benchmarked to an earlier poll carried out by ORC International in March 2011 for CSI.  Conducted February 23-26 2012, the new survey of 1,032 Americans shows that:

• Nearly six in 10 Americans (57 percent) are less supportive of expanding nuclear power in the United States than they were before the Japanese reactor crisis, a nearly identical finding to the 58 percent who responded the same way when asked the same question one year ago.  This contrasts sharply with pre-Fukushima surveys by Gallup and other organizations showing a 60 percent support level for nuclear power.
• More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) say they are now more supportive than they were a year ago "to using clean renewable energy resources – such as wind and solar – and increased energy efficiency as an alternative to more nuclear power in the United States."  This finding edged up from the 2011 survey level of 76 percent.
• More than three out of four Americans (77 percent) would support "a shift of federal loan-guarantee support for energy away from nuclear reactors" in favor of wind and solar power. This level of support was up from the 74 percent finding in the 2011 survey.
• In response to a new question in the 2012 survey, more than six in 10 Americans (61 percent) said they were less supportive of nuclear power as a result of reports in the U.S. during 2011 and so far in 2012 of nuclear reactors that had to be shut down due such factors as natural disasters, equipment failure and radioactive leaks.
• About two thirds (65 percent) of Americans now say they would oppose "the construction of a new nuclear reactor within 50 miles of [their] home."  This figure was roughly the same as the 67 percent opposition level in the March 2011 survey.

Pam Solo, founder and president, Civil Society Institute, said: "It is clear that Fukushima left an indelible impression on the thinking of Americans about nuclear power. The U.S. public clearly favors a conservative approach to energy that insists on it being safe in all senses of the word – including the risk to local communities and citizens.  These poll findings support the need for a renewed national debate about the energy choices that America makes."   

Peter Bradford, former member of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, former chair of the New York and Maine utility regulatory commissions, and currently adjunct professor at Vermont Law School on Nuclear Power and Public Policy, said:  "This survey is another piece of bad news for new nuclear construction in the U.S.  For an industry completely dependent on political support in order to gain access to the taxpayers' wallets (through loan guarantees and other federal subsidies) and the consumers' wallets (through rate guarantees to cover even canceled plants and cost overruns), public skepticism of this magnitude is a near fatal flaw.The nuclear industry has spent millions on polls telling the public how much the public longs for nuclear power.  Such polls never ask real world questions linking new reactors to rate increases or to accident risk.  Fukushima has made the links to risk much clearer in the public mind.  This poll makes the consequences of that linkage clear."

Pollster Graham Hueber, senior researcher, ORC International, said:  "I would summarize these findings as follows:  We see here a lasting chill in how the public perceives nuclear power.   The passage of one year since the Fukushima nuclear reactor crisis in Japan has neither dimmed concerns in the U.S. about nuclear power nor has it made Americans more inclined to support an expanded federal focus on promoting more nuclear reactors in the U.S."

Robert Alvarez, senior scholar, Institute for Policy Studies, where he is currently focused on nuclear disarmament and environmental and energy policies, and former senior policy advisor, U.S. Secretary of Energy, where he coordinated the effort to enact nuclear worker compensation legislation, said: "Nuclear power remains expensive, dangerous, and too radioactive for Wall Street.  This survey shows why the industry has no future unless the U.S. government props it up and forces the public to bear the risks."

OTHER KEY SURVEY FINDINGS

• 72 percent of Americans do not "think taxpayers should take on the risk for the construction of new nuclear power reactors in the United States through billions of dollars in new federal loan guarantees for new reactors."   This level of opposition was nearly identical to the 73 percent opposition level reported in the March 2011 survey.
• Nearly four out of five Americans (78 percent) would favor Congress reviewing a 1957 law indemnifying nuclear power companies from most disaster clean-up costs.  Instead, Americans would hold the companies "liable for all damages resulting from a nuclear meltdown or other accident."   This figure is up 5 percentage points from the 73 percent support level seen in 2011.
• Over half (52 percent) of Americans living within 50 miles of a nuclear reactor do not know "what to do in the event of nuclear reactor emergency," such as "the evacuation route and what other steps to take."  (That figure is unchanged from the 2011 survey findings.)  The 2012 poll indicates that nearly one in five (18 percent) of Americans say they live within 50 miles of a nuclear power reactor.
• Over half (51 percent) of Americans would now support "a moratorium on new nuclear reactor construction in the United States," if "increased energy efficiency and off the shelf renewable technologies such as wind and solar could meet our energy demands for the near term." This support level was little changed from the 53 percent level seen in the March 2011 survey.

For the full survey findings, go to http://www.CivilSocietyInstitute.org on the Web.

METHODOLOGY

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/03/07/3923636/survey-americans-not-warming-up.html#storylink=cpy

The False Excuses for Forced Vaccinations

the mass medication of large populations is not only unethical and dangerous, it violates the Constitution which guarantees that we be secure within our persons. This is why an informed consent must be signed before any medical procedure, especially one that breaks the skin like vaccinations. Without informed consent such breaches can be considered an assault! What about the argument about "herd immunity"? Read below for the answers. Forced Vaccinations, Government, and the Public Interest, Part 1 Is herd immunity real? By Russell Blaylock, M.D. Health Freedom NewsCreated: December 27, 2009Last Updated: January 8, 2010 Related articles: Health » Western Medicine Do governments officials wish the United States to be a nation of sheep? Herd immunity doesn't apply to vaccines. (Photos.com) Those who are observant have noticed a dangerous trend in the United States as well as worldwide: the resorting of various governments at different levels to mandating forced vaccination upon the public at large. The state of Mississippi has one of the most restrictive vaccine-exemption laws in the United States, where exemptions are allowed only upon medical recommendation. Ironically, vaccine-exemption exists only on paper, as many people have had as many as three physicians-some experts in neurological damage caused by vaccines-provide written calls for exemption, only to be turned down by the state's public-health officer. Worse are the states, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland, where forced vaccinations have either been mandated by the courts, the state legislature, or have such legislation pending. All such policies strongly resemble those found in national socialist empires, Stalinist countries, or communist China. When public-health officers are asked for the legal justification for such draconian measures as forcing people to accept vaccines that they deem a clear and present danger to themselves and their loved ones or that have caused them serious adverse reactions, they usually resort to the rationale of protecting the public. One quickly concludes that if the vaccines are as effective as being touted by the public-health officials, then why should one fear the unvaccinated? Obviously the vaccinated would have at least 95 percent protection. This question puts public-health officials in a very difficult position. Their usual response is that a small percentage of the vaccinated will not have sufficient protection and would still be at risk. Now, if they admit what the literature shows, that vaccine failure rates are much higher than the 5 percent they claim, they must face the next obvious question: Why should anyone take the vaccine if there is a significant chance it will not protect? When pressed further, they then resort to their favorite justification, the Holy Grail of the vaccine proponents: herd immunity. This concept is based upon the idea that 95 percent-and some now say 100 percent-of the population must be vaccinated to prevent an epidemic. Related Articles Forced Vaccinations, Government, and the Public Interest, Part 2 The percentage needing vaccination grows progressively. I pondered this question for some time before the answer hit me. Herd immunity is mostly a myth and applies only to natural immunity, that is, contracting the infection itself. In the original description of herd immunity, the protection to the population at large occurred only if people contracted the infections naturally. The reason is that naturally acquired immunity lasts for a lifetime. Vaccine proponents quickly latched onto this concept and applied it to vaccine-induced immunity. But there was one major problem: Vaccine-induced immunity lasts for only a relatively short period, from 2 to 10 years at most, and then this applies only to humoral immunity. This is why they quietly began to suggest boosters for most vaccines, even the common childhood infections such as chickenpox, measles, mumps, and rubella. Then they discovered an even greater problem: The boosters were lasting for only two years or less. This is why we are now seeing mandates that youth entering colleges have multiple vaccines, even those that they insisted gave lifelong immunity, such as the MMR. The same is being suggested for full-grown adults. Ironically, no one in the media or medical field is asking what is going on. They just accept that it must be done. That vaccine-induced herd immunity is mostly myth can be proven quite simply. When I was in medical school, we were taught that all of the childhood vaccines lasted a lifetime. This thinking existed for over 70 years. It was not until relatively recently that it was discovered that most of these vaccines lost their effectiveness 2 to 10 years after being given. What this means is that at least half the population, that is the baby boomers, have had no vaccine-induced immunity against any of these diseases for which they had been vaccinated very early in life. At least 50 percent of the population has been unprotected for decades. If we listen to present-day wisdom, we are all at risk of resurgent massive epidemics should the vaccination rate fall below 95 percent. Yet we have all lived for at least 30 to 40 years with 50 percent or less of the population having vaccine protection. Herd immunity has not existed in this country for many decades, and no resurgent epidemics have occurred. Vaccine-induced herd immunity is a lie used to frighten doctors, public-health officials, other medical personnel, and the public into accepting vaccinations. When we examine the scientific literature, we find that for many of the vaccines, protective immunity was 30 percent to 40 percent, meaning that 60 percent to 70 percent of the public has been without vaccine protection. Again, this would mean that with a 30 percent to 40 percent vaccine-effectiveness rate combined with the fact that most people lost their immune protection within 2 to 10 year of being vaccinated, most of us have been without the magical 95 percent number needed for herd immunity. This is why vaccine defenders insist the vaccines have 95 percent effectiveness rates. Without the mantra of herd immunity, these public-health officials would not be able to justify forced mass vaccinations. I usually give the physicians who question my statement that herd immunity is a myth a simple example. When I was a medical student almost 40 years ago, it was taught that the tetanus vaccine would last a lifetime. Then 30 years after it had been mandated, we discovered that its protection lasted no more than 10 years. Then I ask my doubting physician if he or she has ever seen a case of tetanus? Most have not. I then tell them to look at the yearly data on tetanus infections. One sees no rise in tetanus cases. The same can be said for measles, mumps, and other childhood infections. It was and still is all a myth. The entire case for forced mass vaccination rest upon this myth, and it is important that we demonstrate the falsity of this idea. Neil Z. Miller, in his latest book, “The Vaccine Information Manual,” provides compelling evidence that herd immunity is a myth. Next week: Part 2, “The Road to Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions” Dr. Blaylock is a board-certified neurosurgeon, author, and lecturer. Source: thenhf.com/vaccinations/vac_299.htm

Tips for the Careful Food Shopper

Confused over what to buy to eat healthy? Here is a nifty little guide that may help to cut through the confusion. Here are two lists: the first is the 'dirty dozen' that are likely to have the highest amount of chemical pesticides, etc that must be bought 'organic'. The other list is of the 'cleanest 15' that are typically lower in chemicals. It's not a perfect solution but it may help.

Executive Summary

Eat your fruits and vegetables! The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. Use EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides to reduce your exposures as much as possible, but eating conventionally-grown produce is far better than not eating fruits and vegetables at all. The Shopper's Guide to Pesticide in Produce will help you determine which fruits and vegetables have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. You can lower your pesticide intake substantially by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated produce.

Commodity crop corn used for animal feed and biofuels is almost all produced with genetically modified (GMO) seeds, as is some sweet corn sold for human consumption. Since GMO sweet corn is not labeled as such in US stores, EWG advises those who have concerns about GMOs to buy organic sweet corn.

^ back to top

EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce

Dirty Dozen

Buy these organic

1

Apples

2

Celery

3

Strawberries

4

Peaches

5

Spinach

6

Nectarines
– imported

7

Grapes – imported

8

Sweet bell peppers

9

Potatoes

10

Blueberries
– domestic

11

Lettuce

12

Kale/collard greens

Clean 15

Lowest in Pesticide

1

Onions

2

Sweet Corn

3

Pineapples

4

Avocado

5

Asparagus

6

Sweet peas

7

Mangoes

8

Eggplant

9

Cantaloupe
- domestic

10

Kiwi

11

Cabbage

12

Watermelon

13

Sweet potatoes

14

Grapefruit

15

Mushrooms

^ back to top

© 2011, Environmental Working Group, All Rights Reserved.
EWG Headquarters: 1436 U St. N.W. Suite 100, Washington, DC 20009 | (202) 667-6982 | Contact Us
Environmental Working Group | About | Terms & Conditions

Raw Milk War Rages

Anybody who thinks that the right to good food is guaranteed has not been paying attention. There is a war raging over the issue. On one side are ordinary folks who think that somehow they have a right to eat the good wholesome food of their choice such as raw unprocessed milk. Ranged against them with the full backing of government police power are those who are determined that whole natural foods be driven out of existence and replaced with a debased food that is privately owned and patented by corporations like Monsanto. 

SWAT teams have been used to raid raw milk producers and sellers, in addition to widespread suppression of the ability of Americans to access raw milk across state lines as though somehow it is a crime to want to consume wholesome food. Well maybe in this society at this time it is a crime, but Martin Luther King was clear when he said that there is no obligation to obey an unjust law. Under the Constitution of the United States it is the people who are responsible for -not just judging the guilt or innocence of their peers through juries- but judging the law itself!

Raw Milk Wars Continue in California with Arrest of Rawsome Foods Owner

$1 million dollar bail set

NaturalSociety
March 5, 2012

James Stewart, owner of Rawsome Foods of Los Angeles, was arrested on Friday March 2, 2012 by the Clara Shortridge Foltz LA County Superior Court.  His bail is set at $1 million and he was still in custody on Sunday.  When contacted by phone, a Sheriff’s Department representative said that Stewart was charged with grand theft.

It is unknown at this time whether this case is related to Mr. Stewart’s raw milk enterprise and why his bail has been set so high.

James Stewart has faced legal challenges before.  Rawsome Foods was raided by armed food police on 2 prior occasions on June 30, 2010 and again August 3, 2011 for selling raw milk to the public without proper permits.  Raw milk is legal in California.  Watch this video of the first raid where you can see that officers have drawn their weapons:

Rawsome’s private members-only food club gave members an ownership interest in the farm.

According to the Rawsome members’ contract, the food sold there excluded chemical contaminants like industrial pesticides, fertilizers and cleansers.  The members’ contract clearly spells out that the natural foods they were selling could contain salmonella, e. coli, parasites, etc.  Some people prefer the risk of eating natural foods over chemically processed foods.  It is the right of the individual to choose what they put in their body.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/no-justice-allowed-raw-milk-provider-held-on-1-million-bail/#ixzz1oLbdwlft