my questions to the local govt owned news

Anyone on facebook feel free to add anything or just like to show some support =]

https://www.facebook.com/ONENewsNZ/posts/249708675116529?notif_t=like

“Are you not going to report about the new paper from Oxford about being allowed to murder innocent newborn children because they are morally irrelevant?? or is it just more of the eugenics plan with bill gates and his ultrasound device that kills sperm and his TED talk on bringing the population down through vaccines and propper healthcare, the georgia guidestones lay it out very clearly. and also funding Monsanto heavily and yes our so called GE free clean green country is selling GE Monsanto seeds to our farmers under their subsidary company Seminis seeds. As well as the go ahead for oil drilling in the beatiful oceans and fracking which destroys the land polutes our beautiful water to the point that the water itself becomes flamable. And all fast food and procesed foods contain chemicals that cause the brain to bleed leading to brain damage

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

http://www.dailytarheel.com/index.php/article/2012/02/new_study_may_lead_to_male_birth_control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

“Monsanto Vegetable Seeds Division

68 Pook Road R D 2 Pukekohe 2677 New Zealand

Chris Bone +64 9 239 0666

chris.bone@monsanto.com”

http://www.nzgsta.co.nz/m/members/seminis-vegetable-seeds-nz-ltd/

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/166/3903/386.short http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTYaNWskXtE “

Advertisements

Shocking levels of arsenic found in baby formula made with brown rice syrup

arsenic

Think baby formula with brown rice syrup is the healthier choice? Think again: infant formula made with brown rice syrup may contain 30 times more arsenic than other formulas, according to a new study from Dartmouth College.
Environmental chemist Brian P. Jackson led the team of researchers in their study of arsenic levels in 17 infant formulas. Their results are surprising: formulas made with brown rice syrup contained a staggering 20 to 30 times more arsenic than other formulas. One organic infant formula sweetened with brown rice syrup contained six times the amount of arsenic the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers safe for drinking water.
The research team also looked at arsenic levels in 29 cereal bars. Brown rice syrup and other rice products were listed in the top five ingredients of 22 of these bars – and those were the cereal bars that contained the highest arsenic levels.
While arsenic is regulated in drinking water, there are no current federal limits for arsenic in food. Because of this, high levels of arsenic can be present in foods many parents assume are safe for children, such as organic infant formulas and cereal bars. Researchers say, “There is an urgent need for regulatory limits on arsenic in food.”
Jackson adds, “In the absence of regulations for levels of arsenic in food, I would certainly advise parents who are concerned about their children’s exposure to arsenic not to feed them formula where brown rice syrup is the main ingredient.”

The trouble with brown rice syrup? Banned pesticides left high levels of arsenic in the soil

Many people consider brown rice syrup a healthy alternative to cane sugar, but brown rice syrup comes with a serious disadvantage: high levels of arsenic.
The problem is that rice used to make brown rice syrup is typically grown in regions where arsenic pesticides were heavily used before the EPA banned them in 2009. And while these pesticides are no longer used, their toxic residue is still lurking in the soil where our food is grown.
Rice appears to soak up unusually large amounts of arsenic from the soil as it grows. Much of this arsenic ends up in the brown hull, so brown rice and brown rice syrup will contain particularly high amounts of arsenic compared to products like white rice and rice starch.
Unfortunately, buying organic doesn’t solve the problem. Organic rice syrup has been found to contain very high levels of arsenic, because even organic rice absorbs arsenic already present in the soil.
Sources for this article include:
http://abcnews.go.com
http://www.businessweek.com
http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=604352
http://www.naturalnews.com/035010_arsenic_baby_formula_brown_rice_syrup.html#ixzz1mtxH2YJF

3rd Briton dies of Legionnaires’ disease in Spain

A government statement said the three, aged between 73 and 78, had contracted the disease at a hotel in the eastern town of Calpe. The statement said a further 10 Britons and four Spaniards were being treated for the disease.

 

The U.K.-based company Saga Holidays reported the first two deaths Thursday, saying the Britons had stayed at the Diamante Beach Hotel in Calpe. The names of the three victims were not released. The Valencia government said authorities have taken measures to control the outbreak, including closing the hotel.

Saga Holidays said it learned Jan. 14 that one of its customers was being treated for pneumonia caused by the Legionnaires’ bacteria and it then began moving customers to other hotels. Paul Green, head of communications, said customers who had stayed at the hotel previously were contacted, and five people who recently stayed there were treated in British hospitals with all but one later discharged.

 

Legionnaires’ disease is named for an outbreak at an American Legion convention in 1976 where 34 people died. It is caused by a bacterium most often found in sources of standing water and can be contracted by breathing air contaminated by the bacterium.

The elderly and people with weak immune systems or lung problems are most susceptible.

Bill Gates backs climate scientists lobbying for large-scale geoengineering

Other wealthy individuals have also funded a series of reports into the future use of technologies to geoengineer the climate
What is geo-engineering?Scientists criticise handling of geoengineering pilot project

Microsoft Corp. chairman Bill Gates speaks at a breakfast hosted by Climate Solutions in Seattle

The billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates is backing a group of climate scientists lobbying for geoengineering experiments. Photograph: Ted S. Warren/AP

A small group of leading climate scientists, financially supported by billionaires including Bill Gates, are lobbying governments and international bodies to back experiments into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.

The scientists, who advocate geoengineering methods such as spraying millions of tonnes of reflective particles of sulphur dioxide 30 miles above earth, argue that a “plan B” for climate change will be needed if the UN and politicians cannot agree to making the necessary cuts in greenhouse gases, and say the US government and others should pay for a major programme of international research.

Solar geoengineering techniques are highly controversial: while some climate scientists believe they may prove a quick and relatively cheap way to slow global warming, others fear that when conducted in the upper atmosphere, they could irrevocably alter rainfall patterns and interfere with the earth’s climate.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space, except for small-scale scientific studies.

Concern is now growing that the small but influential group of scientists, and their backers, may have a disproportionate effect on major decisions about geoengineering research and policy.

“We will need to protect ourselves from vested interests [and] be sure that choices are not influenced by parties who might make significant amounts of money through a choice to modify climate, especially using proprietary intellectual property,” said Jane Long, director at large for the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in the US, in a paper delivered to a recent geoengineering conference on ethics.

“The stakes are very high and scientists are not the best people to deal with the social, ethical or political issues that geoengineering raises,” said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace. “The idea that a self-selected group should have so much influence is bizarre.”

Pressure to find a quick technological fix to climate change is growing as politicians fail to reach an agreement to significantly reduce emissions. In 2009-2010, the US government received requests for over $2bn(£1.2bn) of grants for geoengineering research, but spent around $100m.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society’s inquiry into solar radiation management last year through his Carbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, are the world’s two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (Ficer). Nearly half Ficer’s money, which comes directly from Gates’s personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.

Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

According to the latest Ficer accounts, the two scientists have so far given $300,000 of Gates money to part-fund three prominent reviews and assessments of geoengineering – the UK Royal Society report on Solar Radiation Management, the US Taskforce on Geoengineering and a 2009 report by Novin a science thinktank based in Santa Barbara, California. Keith and Caldeira either sat on the panels that produced the reports or contributed evidence. All three reports strongly recommended more research into solar radiation management.

The fund also gave $600,000 to Phil Rasch, chief climate scientist for the Pacific Northwest national laboratory, one of 10 research institutions funded by the US energy department.

Rasch gave evidence at the first Royal Society report on geoengineering 2009 and was a panel member on the 2011 report. He has testified to the US Congress about the need for government funding of large-scale geoengineering and, according to a financial statement he gave the Royal Society, also works for Intellectual Ventures. In addition, Caldeira and Keith gave a further $240,000 to geoengineering advocates to travel and attend workshops and meetings and $100,000 to Jay Apt, a prominent advocate of geoengineering as a last resort, and professor of engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. Apt worked with Keith and Aurora Flight Sciences, a US company that develops drone aircraft technology for the US military, to study the costs of sending 1m tonnes of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere a year.

Analysis of the eight major national and international inquiries into geoengineering over the past three years shows that Keith and Caldeira, Rasch and Prof Granger Morgan the head of department of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University where Keith works, have sat on seven panels, including one set up by the UN. Three other strong advocates of solar radiation geoengineering, including Rasch, have sat on national inquiries part-funded by Ficer.

“There are clear conflicts of interest between many of the people involved in the debate,” said Diana Bronson, a researcher with Montreal-based geoengineering watchdog ETC.

“What is really worrying is that the same small group working on high-risk technologies that will geoengineer the planet is also trying to engineer the discussion around international rules and regulations. We cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop.”

“The eco-clique are lobbying for a huge injection of public funds into geoengineering research. They dominate virtually every inquiry into geoengineering. They are present in almost all of the expert deliberations. They have been the leading advisers to parliamentary and congressional inquiries and their views will, in all likelihood, dominate the deliberations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as it grapples for the first time with the scientific and ethical tangle that is climate engineering,” said Clive Hamilton, professor of Public Ethics at the Australian National University, in a Guardian blog.

The scientists involved reject this notion. “Even the perception that [a small group of people has] illegitimate influence [is] very unhealthy for a technology which has extreme power over the world. The concerns that a small group [is] dominating the debate are legitimate, but things are not as they were,” said Keith. “It’s changing as countries like India and China become involved. The era when my voice or that of a few was dominant is over. We need a very broad debate.”

“Every scientist has some conflict of interest, because we would all like to see more resources going to study things that we find interesting,” said Caldeira. “Do I have too much influence? I feel like I have too little. I have been calling for making CO2 emissions illegal for many years, but no one is listening to me. People who disagree with me might feel I have too much influence. The best way to reduce my influence is to have more public research funds available, so that our funds are in the noise. If the federal government played the role it should in this area, there would be no need for money from Gates.

“Regarding my own patents, I have repeatedly stated that if any patent that I am on is ever used for the purposes of altering climate, then any proceeds that accrue to me for this use will be donated to nonprofit NGOs and charities. I have no expectation or interest in developing a personal revenue stream based upon the use of these patents for climate modification.”.

Rasch added: “I don’t feel there is any conflict of interest. I don’t lobby, work with patents or intellectual property, do classified research or work with for-profit companies. The research I do on geoengineering involves computer simulations and thinking about possible consequences. The Ficer foundation that has funded my research tries to be transparent in their activities, as do I.”

Source

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering

Teen girl rushed to hospital for eating nothing but chicken nuggets for 15 years

If you ate only McDonald’s chicken McNuggets every day for practically every meal, what do you think your health condition would be like in 15 years? One British girl, 17-year-old Stacey Irvine, recently found out the hard way that such a diet severely destroyed her health when she was rushed to the hospital after collapsing and having severe difficulty breathing.
Yahoo! News reports that the young factory worker had been eating practically nothing else besides McDonald’s chicken McNuggets since she was about two years old. Shockingly, Stacey has also never once eaten a single fruit or vegetable, according to the same report, which has left her grossly deficient in practically every single vitamin and mineral in existence.
This horrific diet finally caught up with Stacey, however, when she fell over at work and had to be rushed to the emergency room. Doctors discovered severely-swelled veins on the young girl’s tongue, and quickly diagnosed her with anemia. They subsequently put her on an “emergency vitamin regimen,” according to reports, and warned her that if she does not change her dietary habits, she will soon die.
But Stacey’s addiction to fast food nuggets is so severe that she still apparently refuses to eat anything else besides them, except for the occasional piece of toast or potato chips. And Stacey’s mom, Evonne, has apparently tried everything to get her daughter to eat other foods, including starving the girl at one point, but to no avail.
“She’s been told in no uncertain terms that she’ll die if she carries on like this,” Evonne is quoted as saying by CBS News. “But she says she can’t eat anything else. I’m at my wit’s end. I’m praying she can be helped before it’s too late.”
McDonald’s chicken McNuggets, of course, are made from a so-called food product called “mechanically separated chicken,” which is created from chickens that have been “stripped down to the bone, and then ‘ground up’ into a chicken mash, then combined with a variety of stabilizers and preservatives, pressed into familiar shapes, breaded and deep fried, freeze dried, and then shipped to a McDonald’s near you.”
You can see a horrifying picture of mechanically separated chicken at the following link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com
McDonald’s chicken McNuggets also contain dimethylpolysiloxane, an antifoaming agent composed of the same silicone chemicals used in cosmetic products (http://www.naturalnews.com/032820_Chicken_McNuggets_ingredients.html). A federal judge put it well back in 2003 when he called McNuggets a “McFrankenstein creation of various elements not utilized by the home cook.”

McCruelty and destruction

I overheard some parents recently talking about how their pre-school kids prefer to eat hamburgers and not their vegetables, and how they were getting so chubby.

One of the mothers said, she was also putting on weight because she was eating the junk food too, but it was easier to give in to their kids than fight it. Then one of the parents added, “yeah, McDonalds are so evil”.

But are they really one of the most evil food producers? McDonalds are selling a product that people buy. They are supplying to meet a need (or ‘want’). This is why they have inspired so many rivals.

Are they selling a product which can kill people? Yes. Are they selling a product that does kill BILLIONS of animals. Hell yes. Is the Amazon rainforest being chopped down to make cattle ranches? Yes (may or may not be McDonalds doing it)

If the true cost of a hamburger was reflected in the charge to consumers it would sell for about $100. The pollution, chemical waste, health care costs, environmental degradation, and subsidies of farming from governments, none of these factors are considered in the retail cost.

They do these things because they can. Because it is not illegal, because people continue to buy their product. What ever problems society has with them is a reflection of that society and not a company who is in business to make a profit.

There was a big controversy recently in New Zealand when Weight-Watchers (TM) teamed up with McDonalds to add the Weight-Watchers logo to select items to the menu. And in return Weight-Watchers will promote McDonalds. But Weight-Watchers (TM) food is so full of artificial low fat, fake sugar additives anyway, they seem like perfect partners to me.

But why are animal welfare groups getting upset that they treat the animals badly? They sell dead bodies and all you care about the size of the cages or slaughtering methods?

and Why are parents getting upset that their kids fill up on junk food and not vegetables? There must a reason why they do it.

Why are health officials upset at the levels of saturated fats, salt, sugar, etc in the food? McDonalds sell what they are legally allowed to. In the US President Obama wanted to crack down on the level of salt in food and Glen Beck and other talking heads acted like it was the coming of the Fourth Reich.

Why are busy working parents, on low incomes feeding their family this pretend food? Because healthy food isn’t always, fast, cheap or available, and fast food requires no arguments over who cleans up.

Why do more 3 year-olds recognise the McDonalds golden M symbol than their own name? Is this really McDonalds problem, or a problem with when the legislators allow junk food to be advertised to children? and the parents who feed their children junk.

McDonalds – and fast food corporations like it – are symptoms. They show us what is wrong with the nutritional information available, and the healthy alternative messages not getting out, animal liberation allowing the animal debate to be dominated by welfarists, lack of information about healthy, fast, cheap alternatives, access to nutritious alternatives. What ever problems we have with them and their rivals – from labour practices, to environmental destruction, to animal welfare issues, the ads and toy products aimed at very young children, or even just the food itself – this is what we (as a society) have allowed to happen.

And if we don’t like it, what are we doing besides complaining about it.

…. And in terms of what it is doing to our kids health, At least it’s not a KFC Double-Down – that’s a whole other story.