Shocking information here. This is an ad for the Ban 1080 party for the election just gone. A short clip that provides visual evidence of DoC’s documentation of Kiwi deaths. Remember our post on the 89 deaths that showed no testing for 1080 as being cause of death … the obvious sure fire way to prove it WASN’T 1080 & they didn’t use it? Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Why would they not do that? DoC it would appear, prefers to squirm out of the obvious ways of proving to us that 1080 is doing a good job. Then there was the NZ Lab’s loss of a human heart that a MD had asked to have tested for possible 1080 poison. Again, makes you wonder doesn’t it? What are they hiding? In my humble opinion I think it might be the evidence 1080 isn’tworking.
For further info and links to the Graf Boys’ must watch doco ‘Poisoning Paradise’, their websites, YT Channel and other relative info see our 1080 pages at the main menu EnvirowatchRangitikei
We’ve been hearing this message on chlorine a lot lately. Sadly it’s well installed in many (most?) water supplies with little hope of getting it removed. If it’s not chlorine it’s fluoride, both poisonous chemicals. It’s government (corporation) approved. (Like your Local Govt, Central Govt is also a business folks so their primary focus is profits, not as you’d thought, you, the tax/rate payer). This is why their CEs are paid ‘modest’ salaries like a quarter of a million dollars and higher. Seems at this stage your only hope is to filter or distill it out yourself at very great cost. But whatever you do, protect yourself and remove it somehow anyway. With these kinds of health risks it’s imperative. (Thanks to thecontrail for the link) EnvirowatchRangitikei
One of the most shocking components to all of these studies is that up to 2/3s of our harmful exposure to chlorine is due to inhalation of steam and skin absorption while showering
CHLORINATED SHOWERS & BATHS KILL GUT FLORA
It makes intuitive sense that drinking chlorinated water can create imbalances in your intestinal flora. We know that chlorine will kill many of the good bacteria and microbes that live symbiotically with us in our gut. These good bacteria help us digest our food, keeping us serene and healthy. But most of us fail to take this thought to it’s logical end. I know I did.
You see, I thought that if I just drank filtered water, I’d have my bases covered. It never even occurred to me that the chlorine in my shower and bath water could be just as damaging, if not more so. That’s because your skin is your largest organ, and it’s naturally gifted with the ability to absorb both nutrients and toxins.
Chlorine from drinking water can enter your body in several ways, including ingestion. You also inhale chloroform, a byproduct of chlorine, when you take a hot shower or bath. According to an article from Science News, researchers found increases in chloroform in study participants’ lungs of about 2.7ppb after a 10-minute shower. Warm water also further opens pores, so the combination of what your skin absorbs and your lungs inhale during a 10-minute shower is greater than the amount you would ingest drinking eight glasses of water from the same tap. In fact, studies at the University of Pittsburgh found less chemical exposure from ingesting chlorinated water than from showering or washing clothes in it. The study found that, on average, absorption through the skin was responsible for 64 percent of waterborne contaminants that enter the human body.
Karmen from ShowerHeadly, urges us to consider that, “not only is it dangerous to drink chlorinated water, but it’s even more dangerous to shower or bathe in it.” Even the EPA’s own scientists agree:
There is a lot of well founded concern about chlorine. When chlorine is added to our water, it combines with other natural compounds to form Trihalomethanes (chlorination byproducts), or THMs. These chlorine byproducts trigger the production of free radicals in the body, causing cell damage, and are highly carcinogenic. “Although concentrations of these carcinogens (THMs) are low, it is precisely these low levels that cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States“. The Environmental Defense Fund
Simply stated chlorine is a pesticide, as defined by the U.S. EPA, who’s sole purpose is to kill living organisms. When we consume water containing chlorine, it kills some part of us, destroying cells and tissue inside our body. Dr. Robert Carlson, a highly respected University of Minnesota researcher who’s work is sponsored by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, sums it up by claiming , “the chlorine problem is similar to that of air pollution”, and adds that “chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times!”
For example, a secret high-level dioxins working group at the EPA acknowledged thatdioxins are extraordinarily poisonous chemicals – yet the agency suppressed the fact that dioxins were found in everyday products such as diapers and coffee filters. And, the EPA suppressed its own research that found high levels of dioxin in environmental samples and human breast milk following routine use of 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T (Agent Orange) by the federal Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
(NaturalHealth365) A massive cache of documents and correspondence between regulatory agencies and the chemical industry has now seen the light of day – and it exposes a stunning pattern of collusion and deceit. Over 200,000 documents – including study summaries, internal secret memos, meeting minutes and sworn testimonies – attest to the fact that both industry and regulators were aware of the extreme toxicity of many chemical products, and conspired to hide this information from the public.
The explosive papers became news on July 26, when the online publication The Intercept published an interview with author and archivist Carol Van Strum. To learn more about the incredible pattern of corruption and collusion, read on.
Undeniable evidence: Federal agencies and chemical manufacturers were “in bed” together
Naturally, the most obvious question is, ‘who are the major players in the Poison Papers?’ The answer reveals many people at the highest levels of government regulation and corporate industry.
Federal regulatory agency sources implicated in the scandal include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Department of Defense. The chemical manufacturers include Dow, Monsanto, DuPont and Union Carbide.
In addition, the toxic chemicals referenced in the documents include 2,4-D, Dicamba, permethrin, atrazine and Agent Orange – all of which continue to be manufactured and sold. In fact, it’s “business as usual” for 2,4-D, which has just been authorized by the EPA for use on Dow’s new GMO 2,4-D-tolerant soybeans – in spite of the fact that it is contaminated with dioxins.
To be clear, the Poison Papers are not just testament to deception and collusion that occurred in the past – they also reflect betrayals of the public that are ongoing to this day.
More sustainable development from our LG folks. I challenge you to examine LG websites (Councils, Regional Council, Horizons) – they’re replete with a ton of rhetoric about sustainable this and sustainable that … all of which they pay mere lip service to. Note the comment from them in the article when whose responsibility it is is being followed up:
“T&T Landfills manager Sophie Gray said all information was available on the council’s website. When asked when the drainage problems would be fixed, she said it was a matter between “me and the council” before hanging up.”
In my opinion placed there to lull you into thinking all this toxic pollution is not their fault. One gets the impression these DCs are fully in bed with the respective industries. Examine also though some of the events that transpire in the various other regions where the life in the waterways is dying off. Recently we had a huge die off of pipi and tuatua at Waitarere Beach. We hear a flurry in the news of ‘yes we are testing’ etc etc etc, and unless you pester them you’ll likely hear no more of it. Or when you do it is some curious thing to blame like I read recently, ‘pine pesticide’. Then they blame floods or high temps. All ‘natural’ phenomena of course so industrial pollution can’t be blamed. But here in this video, the stream is said to stink of chemicals, to which the likely reply will be the usual mantra of ‘it can’t be proven’. Not without extensive and expensive testing at least. Which predictably nobody will feel responsible enough to stump up with the costs for. Industries/corporations manage to let themselves off the hook in terms of responsibility for clean up. They have succeeded in reframing all of that by calling the damages externalities and making the public pay. Really the must watch as I always recommend is, ‘The Corporation’ doco. The profits of corporations are generally so large they pay for any fines out of their lunch money. If they get any fines that is. Largely they create carnage then move on leaving the locals to suck it up … get poisoned … whatever. They are rarely made to pay. So here we have dying eels as the canary in the coal mine. How long will it be before there is nothing left? We can’t swim in these streams and rivers any more, many more we can’t even wade in they’re so toxic. So why would we be expecting eels to survive in them? The regional authorities need to step up & enforce their consents properly instead of turning the proverbial blind eye.
Forget clean and green – this Wellington stream is brown, bubbly and litter-strewn
As Jane Poata walks beside Wellington’s Owhiro Stream, the toxic stench rekindles childhood memories of holidaying beside New Zealand’s most-contaminated site.
It is a metallic smell she described as ammonia and lime, rising from the brown and bubbly stream, a tributary of which passes through T&T Landfills before running behind a primary school and homes then into Taputeranga Marine Reserve off the capital’s south coast.
Greater Wellington Regional Council has confirmed the contamination came from the T&T Landfills, which was in the process of diverting the tributary to Owhiro Stream and creating a filtering wetland so it no longer picked up debris and contaminants when flood water rushed through.
“Any contaminant can be toxic and harmful to the stream ecology and people coming into contact, but it depends on the levels we find.”
The landfill was fined following a similar incident in November. Cross said further fines had not been ruled out but the council was more focused now on fixing the problem.
T&T Landfills manager Sophie Gray said all information was available on the council’s website. When asked when the drainage problems would be fixed, she said it was a matter between “me and the council” before hanging up.
This first hand report is from a very interesting blog by a mother who fell ill from exposure to the many fragrances found in everyday products that we are frequently not aware of. Learn about her story.
She “developed Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, Environmental Sensitivities (MCS/ES), Fibromyalgia, and eventually a side of Electromagnetic HyperSensitivity to wireless technologies (EHS or otherwise included in ES), tossed in just to make things more interesting (as the old Chinese curse goes). Adult onset, intermittent relapsing autism and MS have also made appearances, along with toxic brain injury symptoms caused by gas leaks and a series of other unavoidable exposures.” lindasepp.wordpress.com
“Below is a list of 3090 materials that were reported to be used in fragrance compounds by IFRA members in a 2008 voluntary survey. IFRA members are responsible for possibly 90% of the world’s fragrance production. The list was updated in 2011 and they say they will occasionally update it again with info from future surveys.
There could be ingredients used in fragrance manufacture that are not on this list.
Many of the fragrance ingredients are made from petrochemicals. Yes, from petroleum. Great stuff to breathe in (especially for children and pets) and absorb through our skin.
I hope to be able to get a list of the 4000 – 7000 chemicals that (according to the CDC) are in cigarette smoke, and then find a way to compare the two.
Note that health effects are not known for a significant portion of the chemicals in production and use today. Testing has simply not been done. When substances do show health harm, it is extremely difficult to get them off the market.
That said, there are more than a few substances listed below that are known to cause serious health harm.
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity: Reflections by Dr. L. Christine Oliver and Alison Johnson http://www.alisonjohnsonmcs.com Dr. Oliver is an Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Co-Director of Occupational and Environmental Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. Alison Johnson is the author/producer/director of books and documentaries on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. Visit http://www.alisonjohnsonmcs.com to download a transcript or to purchase her books or DVDs.
As always it’s so important to be awake and aware and be prepared to read extensively. The independent research is often shuffled away and needs to be uncovered. Industry frequently conceals it or adds it in very fine print. Most of us (as I used to) don’t read beyond the large label. Flip over any product though and examine the list of those unpronounceable chemicals there and then record and research them on the many ID sites available for these, along with the information as to whether they’ve been tested or not. EWG is an excellent site to do this. There are others. Minimizing our exposure to these unhealthy additives can only be healthy. There are safer natural alternatives. You may think your exposure is minimal however remember the chemicals soak straight through your skin into your bloodstream and accumulate. The damage is long term and cumulative. A cancer tumor can take up to 15 years to develop. An excellent book to read is ‘The Politics of Cancer’ by Samuel Epstein, a Medical Doctor who warned back in the ’70s of the chemicals in our environment that are leading to cancer.
There must be a very compelling reason why a bag of chemotherapy must be handled with gloves.
No doubt about it, the cytotoxic drugs used in cancer chemotherapy are hazardous. They work by disrupting the growth and reproduction of cancer cells. Unfortunately, that action often afflicts certain healthy cells as well, causing toxic side effects in the patients who receive chemotherapy and posing health risks to the nurses who administer it without taking protective measures…
Accidental exposure to such agents can occur in several ways: by direct absorption of a drug through the skin; by ingestion while eating or drinking after hand contact with a drug; and by inhalation of airborne droplets…
The development of secondary malignancies such as leukemia, bladder cancer, and lymphoma is well documented.”
“As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.” Alan Nixon, Ph.D. , Past President, American Chemical Society.
Aside from the above precautionary introduction, there are empirical factors showing that chemotherapy should not be part of one’s menu when dealing with cancer and other severe maladies, that even the experts are not willing to subject themselves to it…
75% Physicians Won’t Take Chemotherapy
The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:
See our Cancer pages at the main menu for more info & links, search categories for further cancer articles or use the search box. Sign up here for emails or if you’re on FB follow our page for updates. Use the share buttons to spread truth!
“There’s no problem with the ban of DBCP [dibromochloropropane] within the United States. In fact, it was the best thing that could have happened to us. You can’t sell it here anymore but you can still sell it anywhere else. Our big market has always been exports anyway.” (Executive, AMVAC Corporation)
We are living in a world now that is awash with chemicals, found not only in sprays and pesticides, but in our food, water and air. Their use has become largely acceptable now with scant regard often for researching into their possible harmful effects. Any alarms sounded about possible risks are greeted with cries of ‘scaremongering’ or ‘over reaction’ … and yet the independent research is usually there and often ignored. I’m constantly dismayed at this lack of regard for the evidence, especially since our recent generations consider themselves more enlightened than those of our forbears. We have
the knowledge alright, but who will listen and heed it? A video which has encouraged me to keep speaking up about these environmental risks to our health has been that produced by TED talks (they’re on Youtube also) called ‘The Dangers of Willful Blindness’ (the video is on our Home page). Gayla Benefield was just doing her job — until she uncovered an awful secret about her hometown that meant its mortality rate was 80 times higher than anywhere else in the U.S. Worse, when she tried to warn people of her discovery they didn’t want to know! How often we are faced with fact but choose not to believe. We adopt what I call the ‘three monkeys’ approach where it’s assumed, if we neither see, hear nor speak we’re safe … a lot like the ostrich really. But somewhere down the track we run the high risk of it all coming back to bite us on the proverbial rear end!
The Environmental Justice Foundation on pesticide poisoning states that … Across all agricultural sectors, an estimated 1 to 5 million cases of pesticide poisoning occur every year, resulting in 20,000 reported deaths among agricultural workers and at least 1 million requiring hospitalisation….While developing countries account for less than 30% of global pesticide consumption, the bulk of pesticide poisonings occur in a developing world scenario, including an estimated 99% of pesticide-induced deaths…
Check our our Chemicals and Glyphosate pages … particularly note under Chemicals the 1080 page and how NZ is being bombarded with it. We consume the highest amount in the world, gradually ensuring there is a rapidly diminishing wild food supply. Another excellent source of information, a Kiwi site, is the Pesticide Action Network Aotearoa NZ (PANANZ).
It just gets sillier doesn’t it? Reminds me of the pregnant woman recently who declined the TDAP vaccination … whose Doctor had never read the insert saying it had neither been tested for the unborn nor proven safe for under 10 year olds ! The astute young mother demanded to see the insert then read it out slowly to her Doc and his nursing staff. The Doc was very shocked as indeed he should be with the fees he charges and the lives he’s trusted with protecting.
Similar scenario here. They’re recommending you can eat 1080 while the manufacturer warns quite clearly to wear goggles and a mask while handling it … ‘may cause reproductive or developmental damage’. They don’t always though (wear protective apparatus). See the workers in the video further down. And DOC (those people entrusted with protecting our wildlife among other things) write on their signs, ‘deadly to dogs’.
Hmmm. Same again as the glyphosate debacle, the product that we’re told is drinkable. Harmless as dishwash liquid farmers were told back in the 1970s when they first sold it to them. (Same people who made DDT and Agent Orange and told us it was safe). And have you seen the employees handling the product? Full overalls, gloves and masks (at least if you’re not in a Third World country … they’re poisoned there … by Western corporations, with impunity). If you doubt this read ‘The Corporate Crime of the Century’.
They spray it on your food. You know, the GE variety that’s so safe there’s no need to label it? Just how gullible can people be? The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies 1080 as ‘Extremely Hazardous’, most countries ban it outright. DOC’s signs certainly don’t indicate it’s safe as crisps. ‘Do not touch’ let alone eat. WHO also labeled glyphosate as being a probable carcinogen … for a while at least … until corporate persuasion convinced them Prof Séralani’s rats would’ve probably got cancerous tumours anyway.
What else would you expect? This from the same scientific/corporate club that told us smoking was good for us! Good for corporate pockets would be more to the point. If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable. Crisps with your ciggies anybody? (Do watch the video & research 1080 for yourself … check out our 1080 pages for links to what mainstream media isn’t telling you … under ‘Chemicals’ on the menu). EnvirowatchRangitikei
Here is an article from 2007, and the drops continue, in spite of the clear scientific evidence it is not beneficial to our ecosystem. One has to ask, what, aside from profits, is their agenda?
“We have audited Department of Conservation scientific research and produced an 88-page monograph reviewing more than 100 scientific papers.
The results are startling and belie most of the department’s claims.
First, there is no credible scientific evidence showing that any species of native bird benefits from the dropping of tonnes of 1080 into our forest ecosystems
Second, considerable evidence exists that DoC’s aerial 1080 operations are doing serious harm” Quinn and Patricia Whiting-O’Keefe
Scientists, Quinn and Patricia Whiting-O’Keefe: “Poison facts belie the claims”
There is now a familiar litany of scientifically insupportable claims about what great things aerial 1080, a universal poison, is doing for our forest ecosystems. The people of New Zealand have a right to know the truth about what the scientific evidence shows.
We have audited Department of Conservation scientific research and produced an 88-page monograph reviewing more than 100 scientific papers.
The results are startling and belie most of the department’s claims.
First, there is no credible scientific evidence showing that any species of native bird benefits from the dropping of tonnes of 1080 into our forest ecosystems, as claimed by the department and Kevin Hackwell. There is certainly no evidence of net ecosystem benefit.
We have repeatedly challenged DoC and Mr Hackwell, a representative of the Forest and Bird Society, to come forward with the hard scientific evidence for their “dead forest” claims. They have not.
Second, considerable evidence exists that DoC’s aerial 1080 operations are doing serious harm, as one would expect, given that 1080 is toxic to all animals. It kills large numbers of native species of birds, invertebrates and bats.
Moreover, most native species are completely unstudied. In addition considerable evidence shows there are chronic and sublethal effects to vertebrate endocrine and reproductive systems, possibly including those of humans.
Third, DoC claims that one can drop food laced with 1080, a universal poison (World Health Organisation classification “1A extremely hazardous”) indiscriminately into a semi-tropical forest ecosystem and only negatively affect one or two target “pest” species. That is counterintuitive and scientifically improbable.
Fourth, as far as we can determine no other country in the world is doing (or has ever done) anything remotely similar – mass poisoning of a semi-tropical ecosystem on the scale that the department is now doing to ours.
Fifth, and perhaps most disturbing, is that what the department-sponsored research shows has been habitually misrepresented – entirely unjustifiable assertions regarding 1080’s benefits and lack of harm.
Statements like those of Mr Hackwell that the forests will be “dead” without poisoning them with 1080, and from John McLennan (Landcare Research) and Al Morrison (Director General of DoC) that 1080 is existentially necessary to Kiwis is pure demagoguery and scientific nonsense.
What is at risk by continuation of this extraordinary practice – and it is unique in the world – is the ecological integrity of our forest ecosystems, our reputation as an environmentally sane and responsible country, and our existence as a society in which reason and rationality can triumph over bureaucratic prerogative and budgetary gain.
Since Galileo Galilee first discovered the moons of Jupiter in the 17th century, the way to resolve this kind of disagreement has been to do the experiment and examine the evidence, and that is precisely what we urge everyone to do.
Don’t believe DoC. Don’t believe Mr Hackwell. Don’t believe us – believe the evidence. To that end we will provide a copy of our report and the source scientific research papers to all who would like to read them.
* Quinn and Patricia Whiting-O’Keefe are retired scientists.
See also our 1080 pagesfor info & links, &/or search ‘categories’ drop down box for further related articles (at left of any page).
Consider liking our FB page &/or following our blog (right of any page) to help spread the word on all the untruths we have been told – we are about exposing corruption and lies! Use the share buttons!
A 10 minute clip interviewing “Dr. Thomas Levy, [cardiologist], discusses a topic from his recent book on root canals. Find out why he thinks the common procedure can be very dangerous and can actually lead to serious health problems down the road, [including heart attacks]. He mentions some interesting studies and examples that might make you think before getting a root canal yourself.” http://www.ihealthtube.comhttp://www.facebook.com/ihealthtube
Here are two more compelling short videos from Medical Doctors on the topic:
http://www.ihealthtube.com Dr. Hal Huggins offers a safe alternative to root canals. He explains why they are dangerous and why it’s been hard to convince the dental association and others of that.
“In this educational video Dr. Matthew Carpenter illustrates the safe removal of a root canal tooth.” He also explains why you should consider not getting one.
Note: Dr Hal Huggins’ research identified the dangers of amalgam (mercury) fillings however the American Dental Association would not recognize this information and subsequently set about to destroy him. He passed away late 2014, however his work continues. You can find out more about his pioneering work at the links below.