"We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent upon its vulnerable reserves of air and soil, all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and, I will say, the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half slave to the ancient enemies of man, half free in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all."


Saturday, August 14, 2010



Agriculture Defense Coalition (ADC)

The Agriculture Defense Coalition is dedicated to protecting agriculture, our water supplies, trees, and pollinators from a wide variety of experimental weather modification and atmospheric testing programs and experiments.

These experimental programs will cause a decline in agriculture crop production, exacerbate declines in tree health, and add toxic chemicals to our water supplies and soils. Just the use of salt particles to make clouds brighter will salt up drinking water in watersheds and cause increases in salt in drinking and agriculture water supplies. The continued use of salt particles in clouds will make productive crop producing soils unusable for agriculture and change fresh water to salt water. The results will be long-lasting and will affect trees, birds, mammals, fish, watersheds, pollinators, crop production, rivers and streams.

Toxic chemicals used in experimental atmospheric testing programs by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and NASA are already showing up in drinking water samples across the United States. The California State Department of Heath, Drinking Water Division in Sacramento, CA, is the repository for all public drinking water tests results required by the State of California and the EPA. These tests showing increasing (spikes), levels of toxic chemicals used in atmospheric tests. (For More Information on these Tests Check the Website by Chemical Name or Go to the NASA Section or the U.S. Navy Section which list some of these Experiments.)

In the United States anyone may modify or mitigate your weather or climate without your consent. Any government agency, the military, state, county, city, private corporation, weather modification company or individual can modify your weather at any time. No public notification is required other than to report these programs to the United States Interior Department, NOAA. However, it has been learned that many programs are not reported to NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration).

U.S. Senate Bill S601 (initiated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison), could be passed by the U.S. Senate at any time. This bill funds experimental weather mitigation and modification programs, does not require congressional oversight, sets up a board of directors who essentially may take bribes and be in office for years, does not have public oversight, public notification or public consent requirements. This bill expands experimental weather modification and mitigation programs in the United States. (For More Information on this Topic and a Listing of Curent and Ongoing Weather Modification Programs from NOAA Check the Weather Modification Section of this Website.)

Upper atmospheric testing contintues without public oversight or consent and with little, if any, public notification. Now Global Geoengineering Plans to reduce the amount of direct sunlight reach the Earth (Solar Radiation Management), are beginning to be planned for our future. The use of toxic chemicals and other upper atmospheric particle releases are planned. There have been three hearings by the U.S. House of Representatives Science & Technology Committee since November 5, 2009. Testimony has only been from those, for the most part, promoting Geoengineering. (For More Information about the Negative Consequences of these Experiment Check the Geoengineering Section of this Website.)

The ADC also works to educate the public about a variety experimental programs that will negatively impact agriculture and our pollinators. This site is dedicated to providing educational information about current legislation, experimental programs, atmospheric geoengineering experiments, and other issues that will affect all of us...our water supplie, tree health, and our crop production. We hope that you will find this site a useful educational tool, research site, and a place to more clearly understand how experimental programs, which may or may not be voted upon by our elected officials, change our lives without our consent, debate or prior notification.


Rosalind Peterson, President



Thursday, August 5, 2010


"...figuring out how much oil lies beneath the water's surface—something satellites can't show..'It's not a matter of predicting if it's going to be there or not,' Roffer said. "It's there.".

"Researchers...have discovered what initial tests show to be a wide area with elevated levels of dissolved hydrocarbons throughout the water column..'Our concern regarding these contaminants is they have the potential to be incorporated in the food web,' said David Hollander, a chemical oceanographer who is a lead investigator in the research mission.""


Gulf Oil Is in the Loop Current, Experts Say

Satellite pictures show oil snared by an eddy.

A three-part diagram shows the progress of oil towards the Gulf  Loop Current. Top frame: the oil as seen by satellite on April 29.  Middle frame: the oil as seen by satellite on May 17. Bottom frame: a  diagram of the Gulf Loop Current. Box indicates approximate area of  satellite images. Alignment/scaling of satellite images is approximate.

Christine Dell'Amore

National Geographic News

Published May 18, 2010

Part of an ongoing series on the environmental impacts of the Gulf oil spill.

Some oil from the Gulf of Mexico spill is "increasingly likely" to be dragged into a strong current that hugs Florida's coasts, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials said today.

But other experts say that the oil is already there—satellite images show oil caught up in one of the eddies, or powerful whorls, attached to the Loop Current, a high-speed stream that pulses north into the Gulf of Mexico and travels in a clockwise pattern toward Florida.

Images from the past few days show a "big, wide tongue" of oil reaching south from the main area of the spill, off the coast of Louisiana, said Nan Walker, director of Louisiana State University's Earth Scan Laboratory, in the School of the Coast and Environment.

Meanwhile, a particular eddy has intensified and expanded north in recent days. The images reveal that the eddy has snagged oil and pulled it southeastward 100 miles (about 160 kilometers), which means the crude is now circulating inside the turbulent waters.

The oil has also reached the point where the eddy connects to the Loop Current, Walker said. That means the oil is traveling eastward alongside the main stream of the Loop Current, and it's likely that it will continue flowing with the current to Florida, Walker said.

Mitchell Roffer, president of Roffer's Ocean Fishing Forecasting Service in West Melbourne, Florida, has also been tracking the oil spill by satellite.

"Several scientists from different organizations have seen the oil in the Loop Current" via "clear and dramatic" satellite pictures, Roffer said.

"Nowhere to Go But On the Beach"

According to Roffer, the northeast portion of the Loop Current has been moving eastward, closer to Tampa, on Florida's western coast (map). That means if an eddy sweeps the oil into the main current, it has "nowhere to go but on the beach," Roffer said.

Once in the Loop Current, oil can travel south and enter the Gulf Stream, a powerful ocean conveyor belt that carries warm water up the eastern seaboard.

Oil brought to Florida's east coast could then get pulled into inlets and harbors, where it would settle into the mangrove forests that are nurseries for many species of sea life, Roffer pointed out in early May. (See pictures of ten oil-threatened animals.)

On Monday the Coast Guard reported the discovery of 20 tar balls at Key West's Fort Zachary Taylor State Park. The sticky balls of congealed oil are currently being analyzed to determine if they came from the Gulf spill. (See pictures of tar balls and dead dolphins that washed up on Alabama beaches.)

But Roffer said it's unlikely that oil-contaminated Loop Current waters could have reached Key West in that short amount of time.

The current travels about 50 to 100 miles (80 to 160 kilometers) a day, so it would take roughly 13 days or more for oil to get from the site of the damaged Deepwater Horizon rig to Key West, LSU's Walker said.

Oil Lies Beneath?

Researchers from the University of South Florida will venture into the Loop Current via boats later this week to collect water samples and verify the oil's presence, according to the Associated Press.

Such testing is "absolutely" necessary, Roffer said, as is figuring out how much oil lies beneath the water's surface—something satellites can't show.

What the satellite pictures definitely reveal, he said, is that the time for modeling whether oil might get into the Loop Current is over.

"It's not a matter of predicting if it's going to be there or not," Roffer said. "It's there."

Invisible Oil Detected in Gulf


USF’s R/V Weatherbird II Detects Invisible Hydrocarbons in Gulf Waters


By Vickie Chachere

St. Petersburg, Fla. (May 28, 2010) – Researchers aboard the University of South Florida’s R/V Weatherbird II conducting experiments in a previously unexplored region of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill have discovered what initial tests show to be a wide area with elevated levels of dissolved hydrocarbons throughout the water column, possibly indicating that a limb of an undersea oil plume has spread northeast toward the continental shelf.

(A June 7, 2010 report by CNN.com covers the findings of USF scientists and researchers. Click here to view the report.)

The Weatherbird II deployed a variety of instruments to detect the signature of hydrocarbons, which will undergo further testing to verify if it Deepwater Horizon oil. The probable concentration of dissolved hydrocarbons was highest at 400 meters below the surface.

"The ramification is that what we see at the surface is not the entire story," said Ernst Peebles, a biological oceanographer who was aboard the Weatherbird II and is one of the lead researchers on the project.

"This is not a big glob of oil drifting," he said. "These are layers. They show up on sonar as layers with clear water in between."

The discovery is significant because it verifies the presence of dissolved hydrocarbons in the deep recesses of the Gulf of Mexico that cannot be seen with the human eye but could eventually become a threat to marine life and habitats.

Samples and data gathered during the voyage are now undergoing additional testing. Given the "insidious" nature of dissolved hydrocarbons on marine environments, the discovery has scientists concerned.

The R/V Weatherbird II made its discovery on Tuesday afternoon while performing tests along a series of stations east and northeast of the collapsed Deepwater Horizon rig. The researchers returned to the area on Wednesday and performed a precise repeat of their experiments which produced the same results.

The researchers’ preliminary findings came from water sampling using three separate technologies: a CDOM Fluorometer, the ship’s sonar and gliders which are able to assess water conditions as they move through the water column.

“Our concern regarding these contaminants is they have the potential to be incorporated in the food web,” said David Hollander, a chemical oceanographer who is a lead investigator in the research mission.

“The first ecological impact of this spill is the effect on coastal habitats, including marshes, beaches and estuaries. The second threat to nature would be the impact on the food webs. That is what’s at risk.”

The R/V Weatherbird II’s journey in the gulf did have some bright findings for the state of Florida. Several stations where water testing was completed between the Loop Current and the Florida coast showed currently clean water, no weathered oil on the surface and no record of dissolved hydrocarbons at depth.

The researchers were investigating the area northeast of the leaking well after models created by USF’s Ocean Circulation Group Director Robert H. Weisberg indicated that oil plume from the spill might have spread underwater in that direction.

The underwater discovery of dissolved hydrocarbons came in area that is 35 kilometers northeast of the ruptured wellhead and in an area roughly south of Mobile, Alabama.

Scientists will need to conduct further tests to determine whether the suspected dissolved hydrocarbons were caused by dispersants or the emulsification of the oil as it moved through the water away from the leaking well.

The R/V Weatherbird II departed May 22 for the spill zone on the six-day mission. Seven scientists from USF and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commisson's research institute and six crew members are on board.

Video by USF News Intern Amy Mariani.

Underwater Lakes Of Oil From BP Spill Will Continue To Cover Gulf Beaches With Toxic Layer Of Invisible Oil For Months


As Washington’s Blog reports BP Gulf Oil Spill Clean Up Workers are having a heard time finding crude floating on the surface because BP has used dispersants to sink the oil beneath the surface.

News headlines state that cleanup workers are having a hard time finding oil.

Sounds good, right?

Actually, if BP had let things run their course:

* Oil-skimming vessels could have sucked up most of the oil

* Booms would have stopped most of the oil from hitting the shore

* And oil-eating bacteria would have broken down most of the remaining oil

Instead, BP has used millions of gallons of dispersants to hide the oil by breaking it up, so it sinks beneath the surface.

That means that oil-skimming vessels can’t find it or suck it up.

But as Washington points out that doesn’t mean the oil has magically disappeared as the media is widely reporting.

Experts: Gulf of Mexico Oil is Breaking Up

The light crude began to deteriorate the moment it escaped at high pressure, and then it was zapped with dispersants to speed the process along. The oil that did make it to the ocean’s surface was broken up by 88-degree water, baked by 100-degree sun, eaten by microbes, and whipped apart by wind and waves.

To the contrary has I have pointed out several times as little as 2% of the oil released in the BP Gulf Oil spill may make it to the surface.

The study called Project “Deep Spill” was first a black eye for BP and the Federal Government when they claimed it didn’t make sense that there where huge plumes oil floating in the ambient currents beneath the surface of the sea because as they put it “oil floats”.

Project “Deep Spill” is now hitting them with another black eye and debunks the lie that the methane gas being released from the well is floating to the surface and not being absorbed into the sea.

The study analyzed a wide range of controlled releases at different depths below the sea surface of different types of oil found all over world to help better understand the flow of hydrocarbons released from a deepwater blowout.

One of the studies, called DeepBlow, released 10,000 barrels of oil per day at a depth of 800 meters which is less than half of the depth of the Deepwater Horizon blowout.

The basic findings of that study has been recreated by scientists from the University of North Carolina.

In their research the scientists simulated of the formation of the underwater oil plumes that are created during deepwater blowouts.

Watch The University of North Caroline Simulation Showing How Oil Released Underwater Forms Plumes

In particular the final report of Project “Deep Spill” found:

  1. Only 2% of the oil released in a deepwater blowout may actually make it to the surface. That’s as little as 2% naturally without the use of dispersants. Add dispersants into the equation and it could be less then one percent of oil that makes it to the surface.
  2. None of the methane released from the deepwater blowout made it to the surface. The study found that released natural gas may dissolve completely within the water column if it is released from a deep enough depth relative to the gas flow rate.From the study of the 800 meter release:

    Echo sounders provided efficient tracking of oil and gas releases in the field and showed that the gas was completely dissolved before it could surface.

    DeepBlow does not include hydrate kinetics, and hence, under hydrate forming conditions, the model predicts solid hydrate particles. Not only is the mass transfer from such particles slower than from gas bubbles, but also hydrate density is closer to that of water than that of natural gas, substantially reducing plume buoyancy.

  3. The buoyant parts of the oil released in a deepwater blowout split from the main plume within the first 200 meters of release. Those buoyant parts, which represent only a small portion of the total amount of oil, turn into small droplets that float to the surface.Here is a graph from the study showing this process.
    Deepwater oil release - Buoyancy particle separation graph
    Deepwater oil release – Buoyancy particle separation graph

    Here is an image that captures the separation process

    Deepwater oil release - Buoyancy particle separation simulation
    Deepwater oil release – Buoyancy particle separation simulation
  4. Within the first 100 to 200 meters from the source of the release the the majority of the oil loses its buoyancy and stops rising. This majority of the oil remains submerged in an underwater plume that is then carried away by subsurface currents.
    Deepwater oil plumes lose buoyancy within the first few couple  hundred meters from release
    Deepwater oil plumes lose buoyancy within the first few couple hundred meters from release
  5. Oil plumes released from deepwater plumes can travel for long distances. It is uncertain if or where they will surface unless they are tracked.
    Deepwater oil plumes travel for long distances
    Deepwater oil plumes travel for long distances
  6. A snippet from the study:

    Based on the models, the experimental studies described in Section 2 and, to a limited extent, the DeepSpill experiment described in Section 3, an accidental release of oil and/or natural gas obeys the following staged pattern. Near the release, oil, gas and entrained seawater rise as a coherent buoyant plume. A few meters above a point-source release, ambient conditions begin to affect the plume: crossflows cause the plume to deflect in the downstream direction and stratification retards the upward plume motion by entrainment of ambient seawater. For cases similar to the DeepSpill experiment, at a height of order 100 m, these ambient effects arrest the plume, and cause the entrained seawater and the dispersed phases to separate. The arrest takes the form of a completely bent over plume in the case of a strong crossflow, or a trap height and intrusion in the case of a stratification dominated plume. At this terminal level, there is rapid spreading, either by advection from the crossflow or gravitational collapse of the intrusion layer, and the oil is distributed over a wide area. Above this trapping zone, the oil rises as individual droplets.

Recently a NOAA expedition by the Gordon Hunter has confirmed that there are massive underwater lakes of oil floating beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico because as a top level whistle blower at the EPA points out the Federal Government has allowed BP to use toxic dispersants to save BP billions in fines.

7. Volume visualization

This report summarizes sensor data from AUV surveys conducted on June 2 – 3, when optical and chemical measurements indicated hydrocarbon detection in a plume-like feature below 1000 meters depth. Physical samples were acquired from this feature by ship and AUV sampling systems, and NOAA is managing shore-based laboratory analyses of these samples. When results from these analyses are available, more complete interpretation of the deep feature mapped by the AUV will be possible, including identification of chemical composition, concentration ranges, and source (wellhead or natural seafloor seep).

NOAA Confirms Huge Underwater Lakes Of Oil 1100 Meters Beneath  Surface Of Gulf

NOAA Confirms Huge Underwater Lakes Of Oil 1100 Meters Beneath Surface Of Gulf

The illustration above shows the deep plume-like feature mapped by the MBARI AUV Dorado on June 3, 2010. The data and methods used to describe this feature are summarized in this report. The brown hues of the feature represent the tea-like colors of Colored Dissolved Organic Matter (CDOM) because CDOM fluorometry was the basis for feature detection, data analysis and visualization.

As NOAA pointed out in the Brooks McCall report the oil trapped in these underwater lakes of oil will take months to surface.

Review of R/V Brooks McCall Data to Examine Subsurface Oil


This report presents a preliminary analyses of data collected by the R/V Brooks McCall near the site of the Deepwater Horizon MC252 (DWH-MC252) wellhead between May 8 and May 25, 2010. During this timeframe the DWH-MC252 wellhead was releasing gas and oil in a turbulent mixture from the broken riser pipe attached to the well. Throughout the data collection period, a plume of oil and gas continually rose from the wellhead with some oil reaching the surface in about three hours. During the trip to the surface, it is expected that some of the oil dissolved in the water column and some formed droplets. The pressure that propelled the oil out of the wellhead was strong enough to cause some of the oil to form water-in-oil emulsion, or mousse.

Dispersing oil at depth, either naturally or chemically, has the effect of breaking up the oil into small droplets within the water column. Because dispersed oil droplets vary in both size and buoyancy, droplets of different sizes take different lengths of time to rise to the water’s surface. Very small droplets, less than about 100 μm in diameter, rise to the surface so slowly that ocean turbulence is likely strong enough to keep them mixed within the water column for at least several months.

So that means that even though there is no oil visible on the surface of the Gulf layers of toxic oil invisible to the naked eye will continue to wash up on Gulf beaches for months.

In fact an ABC 3 Wear TV Report confirms that while there is no longer visible oil washing up on Pensacola beach an invisible layer of toxic oil from the BP Gulf Oil Spill continues to cover Pensacola Beach.

PENSACOLA BEACH – There appears to be a lot less oil washing up on Pensacola Beach lately. But what about the oil you can’t see?

Dan Thomas joins us now with a Channel Three news investigation.

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Rip Kirby has spent the last few years studying Northwest Florida beaches.

He’s a Coastal Geologist with the University of South Florida.

When we first met him a few weeks ago, he showed us this… Sheets of oil under the sand, covered by the outgoing tide.

“Buried Tar and it’s constant.”
But lately, less oil has been washing up, and chances are if you dig today, you won’t see it.

Dan Thomas/dthomas@weartv.com: “The Escambia Health Department says if you can see oil, you should avoid contact with it and take a look out here on the Gulf Islands National Seashore there’s really no oil to be seen, that is until you use the UV light. When you shine it on the sand, just like a sheen on the water, it’s there.”

Through the filter of our camera, the sugar white sand becomes blue and what Kirby says is oil, becomes white.

Rip Kirby/USF Coastal Geologist: “So if you just literally, see the oil under neath it.”

Rip Kirby/USF Coastal Geologist: “This is from somebody’s tire track, it just fell off.”

Rip Kirby/USF Coastal Geologist: “The particular oil product that’s in here, was blown there.”

Rip Kirby/USF Coastal Geologist: “This is where people scrape their feet. See all the oil right there?”

The stuff was everywhere, a few inches into the sand, a light dusting on top and still more washing in.

Rip Kirby/USF Coastal Geologist: “There’s no contamination with the white light, only with the UV light. So during the day if some one came out here and sat in the sand, they’re going to get oil product on them just from sitting in the sand. The question becomes how long can they sit in the sand and have it touch their skin and have them lay on the sand with simply a cotton towel between them and this, breathing it before it becomes a toxic problem for them to deal with 20 years from now when they have some kind of cancer? The answer to that is, I don’t know.”

Rip Kirby/USF Coastal Geologist: “We haven’t seen and I’ve been looking for it for six weeks now and I have not seen a report that tells me the chemical constituents of the oil product that’s in the beach sand.”

We put a call in to BP… They say they’re working on getting us that report.
So far we haven’t seen it either.

Monday, August 2, 2010


http://www.usm. maine.edu/ toxicology/ gulf/index. php

Research Vessel The Odyssey

On April 20 of this year, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded resulting in an uncontrolled release of oil into the ocean. Estimates now indicate that 1.5 million to 4.2 million gallons continue to flood into the Gulf on a daily basis totaling between 85.5 million and 239 million gallons with no end in sight. Superimposed on the threat of the oil, is the already more than one million gallons of toxic chemical dispersants that British Petroleum (BP) dumped into the Gulf to try and breakup the oil. These chemicals are being used in unprecedented amounts and in untested ways.

One major concern is the impact of this crisis on wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico. Marine mammals are a particular concern because they serve as sentinels for human health and because they are key species for both the ocean ecosystem and coastal economies. Marine mammals are at risk in this crisis. For example, there is a resident population of about 1,600 sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico. This population is endangered, as all sperm whales are, but this population is considered to be at particular risk because the size of the group is so small. Losing even a few whales will have dramatic population effects because individual whales take a long time to reach sexual maturity and then only produce a few calves over their lifetimes. The Gulf Oil spill is a specific threat to these sperm whales, because they occupy deeper waters and thus are much closer to the greatest amount of oil. Moreover, studies show that prior to the explosion, many sperm whales spent a lot of time near the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. In fact, a dead sperm whale has recently been discovered near the oil spill though the cause of death has not yet been reported.

Oil can have immediate and long term impacts on whales and other marine mammals. Marine mammals breathe air and, thus, if they surface to breathe in an oil slick, they can inhale the oil resulting in respiratory issues. Even if they do not surface within the slick itself, they may inhale sufficient amounts of the strong fumes emanating from the slick that can render them unconscious and cause them to drown. Oil can contaminate their food, and if they eat it, they can experience digestive disorders and immune system effects. Oil can also have long term effects such as damaging their DNA. If this occurs, it can impair the whales’ ability to reproduce, thus, reducing the number of calves born. The impacts of oil on whale populations were seen after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. That oil decimated the killer whale population, reducing it by 40%. Experts predict that this population will ultimately go extinct.

The effects of dispersants on whales are unknown and have not been studied. They have also never been released into the environment in such massive quantities.

Toxicology is the study of how chemicals (like oil and chemical dispersants) poison people, plants and animals. Currently, there are no focused toxicology efforts to assess the impact of the oil crisis in the Gulf on whales and no efforts to conduct a similar study in Atlantic whales now before the oil arrives. Moreover, no government rapid response funds for university researchers have been allocated for toxicology studies. In fact, remarkably, many of the programs specifically exclude using these funds for toxicology studies. It is essential that we conduct whale toxicology studies in both the Atlantic Ocean (before the oil arrives and then again after it does) and in the Gulf of Mexico in both oiled and non-oiled areas. It will be up to us, the people, to fund these studies.




SEE ALSO the Facebook group "A Race To Save Our Oceans" for up to the minute postings from the crew of the Odyssey...

Ocean Alliance Releases Voyage of the Odyssey Report


The Voyage of the Odyssey Report is the scientific end-product of Ocean Alliance’s 5-year, round the world research expedition during which scientists and crew collected biopsy samples and other data from almost 1,000 sperm whales globally.

Conducted aboard Ocean Alliance’s research vessel Odyssey, a 93-foot ketch motor-sailor, the expedition collected research data from sperm whales while providing formal and informal education and conservation programs in the 118 ports in 22 countries that the Odyssey and crew visited.

Departing from San Diego and traveling 87,000 nautical miles before its return to Boston, the Voyage of the Odyssey was a remarkably successful expedition to collect the first-ever baseline data set on toxic contaminants throughout the world’s oceans by studying the sperm whale, a cosmopolitan whale species that sits atop the oceanic food chain.

To access the Executive Summary, click below:




Report: Toxins found in whales bode ill for humans

June 24, 2010 By ARTHUR MAX , Associated Press Writer Report: Toxins found in whales bode ill for humans (AP)


This undated file photo provided by by Michael Moore of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts shows a sperm whale. Levels of cadmium, aluminum, chromium, lead, silver, mercury and titanium together are the highest ever found in marine mammals, scientists who spent five years shooting nearly 1,000 sperm whales with tissue-sampling darts say, warning that the health of both ocean life and the people who consume seafood could be at risk. (AP Photo/PA, Michael Moore, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

(AP) -- Sperm whales feeding even in the most remote reaches of Earth's oceans have built up stunningly high levels of toxic and heavy metals, according to American scientists who say the findings spell danger not only for marine life but for the millions of humans who depend on seafood.


Tuesday, April 13, 2010


Download the entire pdf's of this excellent article by Bay Chronicle editor Keri Molloy, with special contributions by Auckland biochemist Dr. Robert Mann...excerpts below.



“ ‘Many unanswered scientific questions remain about health hazards from such chemicals, as they got registered after only perfunctory testing. Also, the routine copout ‘if used according to label’ should not be relied upon, as it is well known that use is often not in accord with instructions…

The burden of proof should not be forced onto the public to prove harm, but instead the precautionary principle should be applied to protect them from exposure to chemicals which are reasonably expected to cause serious types of damage, e.g., cancer or birth defects,’ he says.”

" ‘The Health Department has for decades acted as a protective front for the chemical industry, refusing to gather detailed statistics that could possibly reveal damage from xenochemicals spread around our environment.’ “

Some farming districts in New Zealand had higher densities of dioxin-containing 2, 4, 5-T aerial-sprayed upon them than the total attributable to Agent Orange (50:50 2, 4, 5-T/2, 4-D) in Viet Nam. This was done mainly in springtime. Aerial drift onto human dwellings in these sparsely populated areas, as well as into local towns, was unavoidable, given the lax methods of spraying. Drinking water collected on roofs could, as we pointed out in 1971, contain dangerous doses of dioxin.’ “


Dr. Theo Colborn is the author of Our Stolen Future. The video below explains what endocrine disrupting substances are, how they work, and what the implications are for life as we now know it.

VIDEO “The Male Predicament”


“A Case for Revisiting the Safety of Pesticides: A Closer Look at Neurodevelopment” Dr. Theo Colborn




A controversial scientist speaks on plastics, IQ, and the womb

— By Marilyn Berlin Snell

For her groundbreaking work on the effect everyday chemicals have on children, Theodora "Theo" Colborn has been called "the Rachel Carson of the '90s." Just as Carson was pilloried for her 1962 book Silent Spring, which warned of the dangers of the pesticide DDT, Colborn has been in the hot seat for her 1996 book Our Stolen Future (co-authored with Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson Myers). Colborn's controversial message is that even low-dose exposures to many of the man-made chemicals found in common plastics, cleaning compounds, and cosmetics can affect newborn babies and developing fetuses, and can cause a range of problems, including low IQs, genital malformations, low sperm counts, and infertility.

Though scientists have voiced concerns for more than 25 years about the chemicals that disrupt the endocrine (or hormone-secreting) glands, researchers like Colborn are using a multidisciplinary approach—merging toxicology, endocrinology, embryology, and psychology—which has resulted in recent breakthroughs. Some critics have dismissed Colborn's work as fear-mongering pseudoscience. However, in a December 1997 report published by the National Institutes of Health, a researcher set out to review the studies cited in Our Stolen Future on lowered sperm counts and was surprised to find that sperm counts in Europe and the U.S. are even lower than Colborn had initially reported.

Now 70, Colborn raised four children and worked as both a pharmacist and a sheep rancher before her environmental concerns inspired her to go back to school. She received her doctorate in zoology at age 58 and is now a senior scientist at the World Wildlife Fund, where she directs its Wildlife and Contaminants Program.

Q: A recent NIH report showed that a number of organic pollutants and industrial chemicals act like hormones, such as estrogens that can either bring out feminine characteristics or work to counteract male hormones.

A: That's right.

Q: What are the implications of this?

A: What I have always said is that we are neutering the population—we are making females more masculine and we are making males more feminine. Up until day 56 from the day of conception you can't tell the sex of the fetus. The tissue that's there is going to eventually produce testicles or ovaries. Now, it takes just a slight tweak of a hormone to make it grow into a male tissue and become a testicle; a tweak in the other direction and it will become female tissue. What we're finding in fish and birds and even mammals now are ovotestes, or testes that have ovarian tissue in them.

We've uncovered a new series of subtle effects, which probably take place during embryonic and fetal development and which have long-term effects that keep an individual from reaching his or her full development.

Q: What kind of effects?

A: We're seeing an increase in hypospadias in boys. Hypospadias is a condition where the urethra doesn't come out the end of the penis. This particular developmental process starts on day 56 in the womb and ends on day 84.

Q: And it has nothing to do with genetic predisposition?

A: Absolutely not. But what can cause this condition is dioxin and DDT. And it's not just this type of hypospadias that is increasing but also the more severe form, where the end of the urethra actually comes out of the scrotum. It is almost impossible to repair surgically. Hypospadias and undescended testicles—another condition that results from males not fully developing in the womb—put young men at greater risk of developing testicular cancer, which is one of the fastest-growing cancers in the world, and is occurring in younger and younger men. Finally, males with hypospadias and undescended testicles always produce less sperm, which means they are more likely to have reproductive problems.

All of this should be taken into consideration when discussing pregnancy, but we often forget about the embryo. Even the federal government's new Children's Health Initiative talks about the child from the day it's born through to puberty. They don't talk about prenatal exposure. For some reason, there is this fear that if we talk about the embryo, people will mix it up with the abortion issue.

Q: You've determined that early exposure to toxins such as lead, PCBs, and dioxins is much more harmful than exposure later in life. Why?

A: During embryonic and fetal development, the brain isn't developed yet, so you've got an individual that has no feedback mechanism to protect itself. The fetus is still growing new tissue, constructing its nervous system, constructing elements of its immune system and the reproductive tract. When all your organs are formed and fully functioning, it takes a lot more to blow them away.

Q: The transfer of these endocrine-disrupting chemicals occurs not only during pregnancy but also during breast-feeding. According to Environmental Protection Agency estimates, an infant who is breast-fed for one year will receive between 4 and 12 percent of its total lifetime exposure to dioxins. Is breast-feeding doing more harm than good at this point?

A: We don't have enough evidence yet. But I'll tell you quite frankly that I would not want to have to make the decision myself today. It appears that breast-feeding strengthens a baby's immune system, but we also wonder how these chemicals might be interfering with immune competency in these children. So far, the benefits seem to outweigh the risks, but we just don't know.

Q: Is there a way to prove a causal relationship between endocrine-disrupting chemicals and developmental problems, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children?

A: We're never going to be able to prove a causal relationship of anything in a human being because we can't feed chemicals to human beings and wait for them to grow up. With ADHD it's very difficult because the syndrome is probably precipitated prenatally or in early infancy through something that interfered with the development of the brain. And the presence of that chemical in that individual later on in life may or may not indicate that it was the cause. Despite the fact that there are a lot of misdiagnosed kids, I still think ADHD is on the increase. And the evidence is almost overwhelming that these chemicals are involved.

Q: Yet in response to the data in your book, one conservative journal stated flatly that there was absolutely no conclusive evidence linking developmental problems and environmental chemicals.

A: That's not true. I'll just mention one new report by the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that says a sizable proportion of our child population is being exposed to PCBs and their co-contaminants and that these chemicals are affecting our children's neurological and neuromuscular development.

Q: According to United Nations statistics, from 1950 to 1955 the global fertility rate was 5 children per woman; today it's estimated at 2.8. Many hail this decline and cite education, family planning, urbanization, and later marriage as the cause. Not much attention is paid to possible environmental factors.

A: Isn't that amazing? We first began to see a decline in 1970. That is about the time that the first set of individuals exposed in the womb were reaching reproductive age. I've said there's a connection all along, but no one wants to take chemicals into consideration.

Q: But surely we have to acknowledge social factors.

A: Of course. But environmental factors have been a lot more important than people realize. Even Paul Ehrlich [a Stanford University population biologist], who has focused on demographic shifts caused by women getting an education, which impacts fertility rates, is backing down. He has admitted now that we also have to include toxic chemicals in that demographic shift.

Q: How have corporations responded to your research?

A: Let's put it this way: Last night on television I saw a new advertisement on the wonders of plastic and how safe it makes the world for children. I know this is in direct response to our work. This is how they are spending their money: to create the image of motherhood and apple pie where they know they are going to be blasted as the science comes forward.

Q: Are any working with you?

A: The major chemical manufacturers—the petroleum processors, the plastics producers, and the pesticide manufacturers—are not. But the people they supply are. The people who actually produce and package the products that come into your home are very concerned, because they know in the end they are going to be held liable.

Q: But if endocrine-disrupting chemicals and their byproducts are so widely used in paper, solvents, and plastics, how do we avoid them?

A: We may have to do triage. We may need to decide that there are certain places where we are going to use some of these chemicals, like in airplanes, in bridges, or in construction materials that we're not directly exposed to in buildings. The fact is, some plastics are far more durable than steel. But we've got to get rid of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals used in children's toys, cosmetics, and cleaning compounds.

Q: Is the government doing more than just calling for more studies?

A: The EPA is moving very rapidly. But it can't do anything until we come up with recommendations for screening and testing methods.

However, every industry has already started testing its products. They're not waiting. I am convinced, and I have said it publicly, that industry is going to make a tremendous amount of change before the government ever even gets around to writing the first regulation. They are modifying products already.

Q: Which products?

A: Well, for example, you used to see "microwavable plastic wrap" in the supermarket. Now, most manufacturers just put "plastic wrap" on the box and give clear instructions for microwave use. [Studies have shown that chemicals leach out of some plastics when heated.]

Q: To a layperson, your warnings about the dangers of endocrine disrupters are compelling. But when the research is so heatedly contested, one can't help but question whether this isn't just another "technology is bad" campaign.

A: People should look to the scientific journals, but they should also look very carefully at where the scientists who research and write about this issue get their funding.

The issue is very confusing, in part, because there are a lot of industries involved—petroleum, chemical, pesticide, pharmaceutical. But then look at the scientists who are trying to demonstrate that endocrine disruption is real. Where do they get their money? Follow the money. That's what the public is going to have to do.

Q: But that means independent scientists are going to have to lead the way, even though they don't have funding resources.

A: The responsibility lies with the industries that have made the money on these products. They could easily afford to put up a collective $100 million per year to support the kind of research agenda we need. Industry has a moral responsibility to put that money into the pot. And, let's face it: They want a healthy population to which they can sell their products.

Q: Can we be realistic for a moment? Do you actually think industry is going to be willing to act in the public interest when there are so few examples of this ever happening?

A: That's exactly why I'm making this point. I am praying that we can find one or two really conscionable corporate executives who are willing to dedicate the rest of their lives to future generations. This is our only hope. This is why I'm doing this work. I pray I live long enough so that I can needle enough people to do it.


VIDEO "The Fluoride Deception" Interview with Christopher Bryson


VIDEO "The Hidden Agenda: The Fluoride Deception" Interview with Dr. Monteith



Fluoride Causes Premature Births, Brain Degradation, Bone Loss, Cancer and Hormone Disruption

(NaturalNews) A recent study conducted by researchers from the State University of New York (SUNY) found that fluoride ingestion may be responsible for causing premature births. Presented to the American Public Health Association at its annual meeting, these findings ratchet up yet another detrimental consequence of ingesting this toxic poison that is added to most American municipal water supplies.

Sodium fluoride, a waste byproduct of the aluminum industry, is touted by most mainstream health bureaucracies as one of the greatest public health achievements ever discovered. The American Dental Association praises the medication of the public through fluoridated municipal water supplies, claiming that it has done wonders to prevent tooth decay. A simple investigation beyond the glaringly false rhetoric, however, reveals the dirty reality behind fluoride and the incredible harm it inflicts upon those who ingest it.

Contrary to popular belief, fluoride is not a natural substance; it is the byproduct of the aluminum and nuclear industries' use of fluorine gas. The Merck Index lists fluoride's primary use as rat and cockroach poison and it is a known carcinogen. It wasn't until the 1950s that the FDA was somehow convinced that the poison allegedly helped protect teeth.

Fluoride used in Nazi death camps
The first known instances of deliberate water fluoridation were in Nazi Germany ghettos and prison camps. Sodium fluoride was added to the human inmates' water to sterilize them and to cause them to become docile, subservient subjects willing to comply with orders.

Charles Perkins, a research chemist, wrote a letter to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research in 1954 about fluoride. In it, he stated that repeated ingestion of low doses of fluoride over a long period of time will destroy the areas of the human brain that trigger resistance to tyranny and unlawful coercion and control.

Conditions caused by fluoride ingestion
Fluoride ingestion is responsible for causing thyroid dysfunction. The National Research Council (NRC) warns that ingestion of .01 - .03 mg/kg/day of fluoride, which is easily achieved by drinking fluoridated water, can severely inhibit proper thyroid function.

Other problems caused by fluoride include dental fluorosis, a disease of the teeth, weakening of bones and bone loss, bone cancer, kidney problems, and hormone disruption.

Many communities have succeeded in removing fluoride from their water supplies through local campaigns and ballot measures. Since medical professionals and organizations are increasingly becoming opposed to fluoride use, the momentum is stronger than ever to rid the nation's water supplies of toxic fluoride.


Study Links Fluoride to Premature Births - The Batavian

About 'Fluoride' - Truth Every Mother Should Know - Greater Things

Fluoride Action Network

"The Unintended Consequences of Convenience: Why Organic Matters"

An excellent and shockingly informative slide-show on pesticides.

“The Unintended Consequences of Convenience: Why Organic Matters”



Two links to scary information concerning what those 3-digit food additives really are...