START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Oct 29, 2012
Care Enough to Send the Very Worst Cybercriminals resume spamvertising bogus greeeting cards, serve exploits and malware

Remember the recently profiled themed malicious campaign?

It appears that over the past 24 hours, the cybercriminals behind it have resumed spamvertising millions of emails pointing to additional compromised URls in a clear attempt to improve their click-through rates.

More details:

Sample screenshot of the spamvertised email:

Sample spamvertised email

Sample screenshot of the Java script redirection:

Sample of the javascript redirection

Sample spamvertised compromised URls: hxxp://; hxxp://; hxxp://; hxxp://; hxxp://; hxxp://; hxxp://

Sample Black Hole exploit kit landing URL: hxxp://

Detection rate for a sample Java script redirection: MD5: 75e030e741875d29f12b179f2657e5fd – detected by 5 out of 42 antivirus scanners as Trojan.JS.Iframe.aby; Trojan.Webkit!html

Upon successful client-side exploitation, the campaign drops MD5: 864e1dec051cbd800ed59f6f91554597 – detected by 3 out of 42 antivirus scanners as W32/Yakes.AP!tr

Once executed, the malware phones back to (, AS32181). Another domain is known to have been responding to the same IP in the past, namely, hxxp://

Webroot SecureAnywhere users are proactively protected from these threats.

You can find more about Dancho Danchev at his LinkedIn Profile. You can also follow him on Twitter.

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Oct 29, 2012 1:38pm
Oct 29, 2012



New study adds to evidence that common pesticides decimating bee colonies

Jeremy Hance
October 24, 2012

 Honeybees in an apiary in Germany. Photo by: Björn Appel.
Honeybees in an apiary in Germany. Photo by: Björn Appel.

The evidence that common pesticides may be partly to blame for a decline in bees keeps piling up. Several recent studies have shown that pesticides known as "neonicotinoid" may cause various long-term impacts on bee colonies, including fewer queens, foraging bees losing their way, and in some cases total hive collapse. The studies have been so convincing that recently France banned the use of neonicotinoid pesticides. Now a new study finds further evidence of harm caused by pesticides, including that bees who are exposed to more them one chemical, i.e. neonicotinoid and pyrethroid, were the most vulnerable.

In agricultural areas, pesticides are not sprayed in a controlled environment, instead insects like bees may become exposed not to just one type of pesticide, but a whole cocktail of them. Given this, researchers with the University of London were curious as to how bees, which have recently declined in many parts of the world, fared when faced with a mix of different chemicals versus just one.

Scientists split 40 bumblebee colonies into four groups. One group was exposed to imidacloprid, a pesticide in the neonicotinoid family; a second group was exposed to gamma-cyhalothrin, a pyrethroid; a third group was exposed to both chemicals; and the last group was not exposed to any. Bees were exposed to doses that would be commonly found in the field and were then tracked by radio frequency identification (RFID) technology.

The researchers found that bees exposed to imidacloprid lost 41 percent of their worker bees in four weeks compared with 30 percent for the control colonies. Overall, worker productivity was slowed, meaning less food for the hive and fewer bees making it out of the larva stage, findings that are buoyed by past research. The bees exposed to only gamma-cyhalothrin experienced a higher rate of mortality for worker bees, leveling off at 51 percent. But the bees exposed to both chemicals were the worst off, losing 69 percent. Two of the ten colonies treated with both chemicals completely collapsed within just four weeks.

"It's certainly concerning that having these combination of pesticides outside could be causing such a severe impact [...] we've only looked at two pesticides but we know that there are hundreds of pesticides out there," lead author Richard Gill says in a Nature video.

In all, these impacts also likely make the bees more vulnerable to other threats, such as disease.

Past research has also shown that exposure to pesticides can result in Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) over a period of months. Scientists in the U.S. fed tiny doses of neonicotinoid pesticides to 16 hives, and left four hives unexposed. In the first few months all the bee hives remained healthy, but after around six months over 90 percent (15 out of 16) of the hives fed with the pesticides had collapsed, while the four control hives remained healthy.

"There is no question that neonicotinoids put a huge stress on the survival of honey bees in the environment," lead author Chensheng (Alex) Lu, an associate professor at the HSPH, told back in April.

It has taken a long time for scientists to make the connection between bee health and pesticides in part because of the way agro-chemicals are tested. When undergoing testing, scientists look to see if pesticides are lethal, for example if they immediately kill beneficial insects like bees. However, the focus is not on the "sublethal" impacts of pesticides, i.e. impacts that don't outright kill bees, but harm them over the long-term. The other problem is that testing is over short period of times, whereas sublethal impacts may not become clear for weeks or even months. The picture becomes even more complicated when one considers that pesticides may make bees more vulnerable to other well-known impacts, such as habitat loss and disease.

The decline in bees has become a major concern since bees are among the world's most important pollinators, both for agricultural crops and wild plants. Some produces in North America and Europe have seen 90 percent of their hives collapse. While such periodic collapses have occurred in the past, probably linked to disease, the current crisis appears much worse. The economic value of honeybees in the U.S. alone has been estimated at $8-12 billion.


Chensheng Lu, Kenneth M. Warchol, Richard A. Callahan. In situ replication of honey bee colony collapse disorder. Bulletin of Insectology. 2012.

Gill, Richard J.; Ramos-Rodriguez, Oscar; Raine, Nigel E. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature. 2012.

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Oct 29, 2012 9:45am
Oct 26, 2012
An Open Letter to Harper: STOP FIPA

PM Harper raises a toast with the Chinese PremierWe're getting through to Conservative MPs who could help us secure debate on the Canada China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPA). Now we're taking our request to the top—to Prime Minister Harper.

Stand with me, fellow Canadians, and sign my Open Letter to Harper. Together, we demand that he preserve Canadian rights and sovereignty and protect Canada's prosperity.

This treaty must not be enacted without proper public debate and discourse. Help me gather 30,000 signatures on this letter, which I will deliver to Harper on or before November 1st—the day the treaty will become law if we don't speak up now.


November 1, 2012

Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

It is my privilege to deliver to you this letter signed by tens of thousands of Canadian citizens. All of them are deeply concerned about the direction in which this country is headed under your leadership. It is not just the proposed sale of Nexen to CNOOC that is hugely problematic but even more so, the passage of the Canada China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPA).

The signatories to this letter find FIPA unacceptable on a number of fronts:

1. It undermines Canada’s democracy and sovereignty and takes away our right to make decisions or enact laws that protect our natural resources and environment.
2. It allows Chinese corporate interests (both private and state-owned) to sue us behind closed doors for limiting their right to profit from investments they have made in our natural resources.
3. It exposes Canadian taxpayers to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages—made payable to Chinese investors--without their knowledge.
4. It has been tabled quietly in the House of Commons without so much as a press release. There has been no parliamentary debate or vote and no public scrutiny.

With the foregoing in mind, I demand that you suspend passage of this Act immediately and allow Canada’s citizens and their elected representatives to review and debate this pact in full.

I await your response,

Clayton Ruby, C.M.
Board Chair, ForestEthics Advocacy
B.A., LL.B, LL.M., LL.D. (honoris causa)
Your Information
Welcome back!
For your convenience, we have filled out your form with the information you provided previously from postal code M5R 3C2.

Click to see and manage your information.

Not Please click here. Thank you!


Even though you are logged in, please enter the following (optional) information:
Display in list as Anonymous
This petition has a goal of 30000 signatures
1-25 of 3695 signatures Number Date Name Location 3695 Fri Oct 26 20:41:47 EDT 2012 Frithjof Lutscher Ottawa, ON 3694 Fri Oct 26 20:41:36 EDT 2012 Maureen Jones Victoria, BC 3693 Fri Oct 26 20:41:35 EDT 2012 Larry Rezansoff Cobble Hill, BC 3692 Fri Oct 26 20:41:26 EDT 2012 Anne Havard Smithers, BC 3691 Fri Oct 26 20:41:24 EDT 2012 Anonymous Terrace, BC 3690 Fri Oct 26 20:41:23 EDT 2012 Anonymous Terrace, BC 3689 Fri Oct 26 20:41:18 EDT 2012 ryan mccleery Vancouver, BC 3688 Fri Oct 26 20:41:10 EDT 2012 Lesley Wolford Box 39 Westholme, BC 3687 Fri Oct 26 20:41:08 EDT 2012 Jim Abel Peterborough, ON 3686 Fri Oct 26 20:40:54 EDT 2012 sharon lazare vancouver, BC 3685 Fri Oct 26 20:40:38 EDT 2012 Fred Zhu Richmond, BC 3684 Fri Oct 26 20:40:30 EDT 2012 Danielle Léine-Talbot Laval, QC 3683 Fri Oct 26 20:39:57 EDT 2012 Shelley Rowe Calgary, AB 3682 Fri Oct 26 20:39:10 EDT 2012 Lin Norton Regina, SK 3681 Fri Oct 26 20:39:04 EDT 2012 sharon lazare vancouver, BC 3680 Fri Oct 26 20:39:03 EDT 2012 Jason Deeth Campbell River, BC 3679 Fri Oct 26 20:38:57 EDT 2012 Gerry Stephenson Puslinch, ON 3678 Fri Oct 26 20:38:51 EDT 2012 Ebby Mohseni Coquitlam, BC 3677 Fri Oct 26 20:38:37 EDT 2012 Rosemary Manning Edmonton, AB 3676 Fri Oct 26 20:38:12 EDT 2012 Elizabeth Cunningham Eden Mills, ON 3675 Fri Oct 26 20:37:56 EDT 2012 Irene Wood North Vancouver, BC 3674 Fri Oct 26 20:37:55 EDT 2012 Joan Jochim Quesnel, BC 3673 Fri Oct 26 20:37:26 EDT 2012 Danielle Léine-Talbot Laval, QC 3672 Fri Oct 26 20:37:19 EDT 2012 Kurt F K Cehak Victoria, BC 3671 Fri Oct 26 20:37:16 EDT 2012 Johanna Ryffel Sutton, QC Next -> | site map
San Francisco | Bellingham | Vancouver
Site Credits | Privacy Policy
© C

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Oct 26, 2012 5:43pm
Oct 23, 2012
John Deering by John Deering

John Deering

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Oct 23, 2012 10:14am
Oct 16, 2012
Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller

Non Sequitur

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Oct 16, 2012 10:23am
Sep 25, 2012
The Fluoride Debate Heats Up and Finally Gets Some Media Attention
September 25 2012 | 152,934 views | + Add to Favorites
Email to a friend Email

The above video is an excerpt from An Inconvenient Tooth! To watch the entire documentary, click HERE!

Visit the Mercola Video Library

By Dr. Mercola

An Inconvenient Tooth, a documentary by Guy Wagner about fluoride, premiered at City Hall in Portland, Oregon on September 6, 2012, the same day a public hearing was held before the five-member City Council about whether or not the city should fluoridate its water supplies.

As reported by The New York Times:1

"Mayor Sam Adams, who backs the fluoridation plan and has one of five votes on the Council, comes firmly down on the side that says Portland must address dental care for everyone if its progressive goals and self-image are valid.

'It's about health equity, it's about social justice,' he said in an interview. 'Fluoride is a means to an end,' he added. 'I hope that folks, whether they agree with me or not, understand that my intentions are to help those Portlanders that have no voice in this process.'

Some opponents of fluoridation have lobbed that kind of reasoning right back into the laps of the commissioners.

'I don't appreciate you trying to alleviate your white guilt by putting toxins in our water,' Frances Quaempts-Miller, who described herself as mixed black and Muscogee Indian, said in testifying at the public hearing before the all-white Council of four men and one woman.

Who is empowered to make the choice for Portland has become part of the debate as well. Fluoridation efforts have failed at the ballot box here, most recently in 1980.

And two other members of the City Council, in addition to Mr. Adams, who is not seeking re-election in November, said even before public testimony was taken that they planned to vote for the plan – making a majority – when it goes before them..."

A Case of "Big Brother Knows Best"?

The undemocratic process adopted by the council received nationwide media coverage, and for good reason. So far, citizens have already voted 'no' on water fluoridation for Portland on three separate occasions, clearly demonstrating the public will on this subject. This time, more than 275 residents testified at the public hearing, according to The New York Times, with more than 60 percent of them speaking out against the practice. The pro-fluoride lobby were unfairly given a full hour to present their case before the council, while those in opposition were given no time.

In the end, on September 12, the council stuck to their announced game plan and approved the plan to add fluoride to Portland's water supplies by March 2014, despite the strong opposition from residents, who asked for a referendum. Their message: "Public Water, Public Vote." According to The Huffington Post,2 the opposition will start collecting signatures in an effort to force a referendum.

"There is no question that we are going to need a lot of financial and volunteer support to make this happen, but we are seeing a major backlash to how the City Council has handled this," said Kim Kaminski, executive director of Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water.3

While it can certainly be frustrating, there's no doubt we need to open the channels of communication on the issue of water fluoridation. The argument that water fluoridation has been done for over five decades and doesn't appear to have had a detrimental impact on health simply isn't not good enough... There's just too much evidence to the contrary. For example, 34 different studies4 support the contention that water fluoridation lowers IQ in children.

In fact, there are many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your brain, thyroid, bones and joints, it's surprising that the fluoridation lobbyists have been so successful in convincing the medical (and dental) communities that fluoride is safe and effective. Most refuse to consider the skyrocketing increase of cognitive decline in adults (Alzheimer's and various dementia's), and behavioral issues in children (ADD, ADHD, depression and learning disabilities of all kinds) and the possible link to fluoride.

One of the central issues though is FREEDOM. Fluoride is not a nutrient. The fluoride put into drinking water is not a prescription drug, but an industrial waste product. However, it is put into the water as a "drug" to help oral health, and it is done without the consent of those receiving it. Even if you accepted the premise that it works systemically, there is no justification to force it on people under the premise of slightly lowering tooth decay as everyone has the option of using it topically as a toothpaste if they so choose.

Please Help Portland's Referendum Campaign

The Portland referendum campaign to give voters the right to decide on fluoride has just 30 days to gather 20,000 valid signatures in order to take the decision out of city council hands and put the issue on the ballot.

They've had an incredible community-wide response, but due to the secretive nature of the city council's actions, they've had very little time to create a political action committee and build a massive volunteer network from the ground up. They've trained over 200 volunteer signature gatherers so far, but they won't be able to succeed on volunteer efforts alone.

They've put together a team of professional signature gatherers with a highly experienced manager. If they can continue paying the team, there's no doubt they will succeed in getting this issue to the ballot. This is where YOU can help.

The campaign is in urgent need of donations to achieve their goal, so please, make a donation at to donate today, or send a check to:

Clean Water Portland PAC

408 SE 6th AVE

Portland, OR 97214

What's Driving the Irrational Water Fluoridation Mandates?

On September 10, Dr. Paul Connett debated forced-fluoridation lobbyist Kylie Menagh-Johnson on the KBOO morning radio show "Healthwatch." You can listen to the program here.

I've interviewed Dr. Connett on multiple occasions over the last few years. He's recognized worldwide as a leader in the movement to eliminate fluoride from the municipal water supplies, and I'm pleased to be working with him to achieve this goal. He has previously stated that, with the science we now have on fluoride, the current water fluoridation mandates simply do not make any sense. And if it is to continue, then the authorities must come up with some rational explanations to explain this irrational behavior.

"Teeth are important, but I can't believe that all these governments are mobilized to protect this miniscule amount of saved teeth," he says. "What is the rational explanation for this irrational behavior?"

The answer, in his view, boils down to the need to maintain credibility. If the dental associations, health departments, and/or the Department of Health and Human Services admit they were wrong about fluoridation, it means they will lose credibility. And if they lose credibility on this issue, they stand to lose credibility on other public health policies, such as the childhood vaccination schedule, for example. After all, they must have the public's trust in order to effectively oversee public health policy, and that's part of the reason for why they're fighting so hard to stave this issue off.

The fluoride debate has recently ignited in Canada and New Zealand as well, and there's reason to believe health officials are under the same pressure to save face there too.

Fluoride Issue Too Hot for New Zealand's Royal Society?

In July, the Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ) decided to prepare an advisory paper on the "risks and benefits of the treatment of public reticulated water with fluoride for oral health," and issued a call for information and relevant research for inclusion in the risk-benefit analysis. Interestingly enough, the Society suddenly made an abrupt about-face on the issue.

According to one news report:5

"The RSNZ received information from the Government's $1.25 million lobby group, the NFIS, and from those opposed to fluoridation, notably Fluoride Action Network and the independent NZ Fluoridation Information Service (94 pages, with hundreds of pages of scientific attachments).

Following the 20 August deadline, the RSNZ issued a statement on 31 August that '[following initial evidence gathering, initiated to inform decisions on whether to develop a statement on the risks and benefits of the treatment of public reticulated water with fluoride, t]he Council of the Society has now discussed the matter and decided not to include that topic in its current work program.'"

Not surprisingly, this turnabout has many wondering whether or not "vested interests" may have influenced the Royal Society to take a step back and continue ignoring the issue. According to Mark Atkins with the New Zealand Fluoridation Information Service:6

"...One has to wonder if vested interests prompted the original decision to produce a paper, but the Royal Society realized, on the information received, that it would scientifically have to condemn fluoridation if it proceeded, against the interests of some Panel member organizations, not to mention the Government at large. If so, its easiest way out would be to not proceed with the paper, as now decided, but which was a 'done deal' according to its original request for submissions. Or perhaps it just accepted the task was beyond its resources, as was apparent from my original conversation with the Society's reviewer..."

New Zealand has actually made great strides in the fight against water fluoridation. Last year, articles were published in Organic New Zealand, and Grey Power, a magazine for seniors. Dr. Connett also gave a series of talks to various councils. The talks included the video presentation of Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation, which features 15 different scientists who have spent years investigating fluoride.

In June last year, the Ruapehu-Taumarunui District Council confirmed their decision to stop fluoridating their water.7 The town has fluoridated their water supplies for the past 30 years, and their decision came after they had heard from Dr. Connett in person and consulted proponents for their views. Around the same time, the Upper Hutt City council also resolved to lobby Wellington Regional to stop fluoridation, and the council in New Plymouth voted to end their water fluoridation program.

Fluoridation Battle Heats Up in Canada

In related news, city councilors in Cornwall, Canada, also got an earful recently from local citizens who want the city to quit putting fluoride in their drinking water. As reported by Seaway News:8

"While councillors were keeping their cards pretty close to their chest... they did sanction the creation of a report to determine the effects of eliminating fluoride use in our drinking water. Paul Brisebois, a member of Fluoride Free Cornwall, told councillors that the health risks of a 'toxin' like fluorine – which is mixed with other additives to create fluoride and added to drinking water – need to be eliminated.

...[N]ot everyone subscribes to Brisebois' theory. Health officials have noted in the past that fluoride use is supported by more than 90 national and international professional health organizations including Health Canada, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health organization... But critics, including the local group before council, are suggesting fluoride studied by health agencies is different from what is actually used in drinking water. 'It's like saying you're going to test drive a Chevy truck by using a Ford,' said Brisebois."

The issue of what kind of fluoride is actually added to your water is a point of major importance. Many people still do not realize that when scientists study fluoride's toxicity to humans, they study pharmaceutical grade fluoride (same stuff used in antidepressant drugs), but NOT the fluoride compounds actually used for water fluoridation, which include the far more toxic waste materials generated from the fertilizer industry. So, in essence, their already detrimental results may in fact be FAR GREATER than currently perceived.

Phoenix Vows to Re-Examine Health Effects of Water Fluoridation

Citizens in Phoenix, Arizona are also stepping up to the plate on this issue and were recently told a council subcommittee would accept expert testimony on water fluoridation. According to AZCentral:9

"Council members said that after 23 years, it's time to re-examine the health effects and financial impact of the practice. Phoenix spends about $582,000 per year, or about 39 cents per resident, to put fluoride in the water supply."

AZCentral, along with The Arizona Republic hosted a live online chat on September 10, which included Will Humble, director of the Arizona Department of Health Services, and Deborah Dykema, a Phoenix-based osteopathic physician. Highlights of the discussion, which are posted on AZCentral,10 included the following questions and answers:

Q: Are there any studies showing that fluoride consumption from cereal, milk and soda is sufficient to combat tooth decay?

Dykema: Fluoride is not required for any body processes. It is listed as a toxic element in clinical toxicology journals. It is rated as more toxic than lead and only slightly less toxic than arsenic. Additionally, three courts have disagreed with that statement – Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas – where they found the artificial fluoridation of water supplies may contribute to cancer, genetic damage and chronic toxicity, and the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt. There are many class-action lawsuits and courts that are currently weighing in on this topic and the forced mass-fluoridation issue is being rejected.

Humble: It depends. Depending on a person's diet, they might get to an optimal level through the diet. For example, organic green tea contains a fair amount of fluoride, even without the water. So it depends on the person. At the community level, very few people get the optimal amount of fluoride just through dietary sources.

Q: Would it be easier to let people who want fluoride in their water add it after it is delivered to them?

Humble: It's way easier to get the optimal level into the drinking water at the community level. If people were to estimate how much to add on their own, they'd be very likely to get too much or too little.

Dykema: The burden of proof when forcing mass medication on a population lies with the entity forcing that medication. It is up to the city of Phoenix to provide safety data in both long-term studies and toxicity on hydrofluorosilicic acid, and the fact is these studies have not been done.

Mr. Humble's statement that individuals would be "very likely to get too much or too little" fluoride were they to add it to their own water is ironic in the extreme, considering the fact that this is exactly why it's so dangerous to add it to municipal water supplies. It's impossible to gauge or determine how much fluoride an individual will receive in this way, as water consumption will vary greatly from one individual to the next, and the "ideal dose" (if there were such a thing) will also vary depending on age, physical size, and underlying health issues.

For example, infants (who do not even have teeth yet) who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive a disproportionate amount of fluoride compared to breastfed infants and older children and adults.

Fluoridation proponents are finally beginning to acknowledge the susceptibility of infants and young children to excessive fluoride intakes, likely because they can no longer deny the obvious effects that fluoride has on the developing teeth, in the form of dental fluorosis. Nearly 41 percent of adolescents aged 12-15 now have some form of dental fluorosis,11 an outwardly visible sign of fluoride over-exposure and toxicity. And if you can see it on your teeth, just imagine the internal damage you cannot see...

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

The ADA and CDC are pushing hard to ensure they can mark more cities off their checklist as part of their strategy.

They might as well put the fluoride right into soda, as cavities are caused by sugar and not a fluoride deficiency.

99% of all fluoride added to water ends up on your lawn, down your toilet, into your shower drain, used in washing clothes or dishes - so why on earth would they believe this is the best solution to solve a cavity concern that is typically due to a high sugar diet?

Portland needs some immediate help in challenging this misguided decision. Clean Water Portland is working to collect 20,000 signatures as part of a referendum to ensure the public has the right to vote on this issue. It shouldn't be decided by a few council members under heavy pressure from the ADA and dental professionals.

Please donate to Clean Water Portland as they actively collect signatures over the next two weeks to ensure this public vote takes place. If the signatures are collected, it will put an immediate freeze on Portland's plan to fluoridate their citizens.

(503) 893-8999

Clean Water Portland PAC

408 SE 6th Avenue

Portland, OR 97214

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Sep 25, 2012 7:02pm
Sep 25, 2012

Russia suspends import and use of American GM corn after study revealed cancer risk  

  • The European Food Safety Authority orders review in to the research, conducted at a French university
  • Russia's decision could be followed by other nations
  • Experts at the University of Caen conducted an experiment running for the full lives of rats - two years
  • The findings found raised levels of breast cancer, liver and kidney damage
  • The same trials also found minuscule amounts of a commonly used weedkiller, Roundup
  • Both the GM corn and Roundup are the creation of US biotech company Monsanto

By Sean Poulter


Russia has suspended the import and use of an American GM corn following a study suggesting a link to breast cancer and organ damage.

Separately, the European Food Safety Authority(EFSA), has ordered its own review in to the research, which was conducted at a French university.

The decision by Russia could be followed by other nations in what would be a severe blow to the take-up of the controversial technology.

Cancer risk? A farmer shows two corncobs of genetically engineered corn by U.S. company Monsanto, right, and two normal corncobs from Germany, left

Cancer risk? A farmer shows two corncobs of genetically engineered corn by U.S. company Monsanto, right, and two normal corncobs from Germany, left

Historically, biotech companies have proved the safety of GM crops based on trials involving feeding rats for a period of 90 days.

However, experts at the University of Caen conducted an experiment running for the full lives of rats - two years.

The findings, which were peer reviewed by independent experts before being published in a respected scientific journal, found raised levels of breast cancer, liver and kidney damage.


The same trials also found evidence that consumption of minuscule amounts of a commonly used weedkiller, Roundup, was associated with a raised risk of cancer.

Both the GM corn, which carries the name NK603, and Roundup are the creation of US biotech company Monsanto.

The decision by the Russians to suspend authorisation for the American GM corn threatens to trigger a transatlantic commercial and diplomatic row.

Contentious: A combine harvests corn in a field near Coy, Arkansas. The decision by the Russians to suspend authorisation for the American GM corn threatens to trigger a transatlantic commercial and diplomatic row

Contentious: A combine harvests corn in a field near Coy, Arkansas. The decision by the Russians to suspend authorisation for the American GM corn threatens to trigger a transatlantic commercial and diplomatic row

Russia’s consumer rights watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, said today that it has suspended the import and use of the Monsanto GM corn.

Rospotrebnadzor said the country’s Institute of Nutrition has been asked to assess the validity of the study.

It has also contacted the European Commission’s Directorate General for Health & Consumers to ask for the EU’s position on the corn’s safety.

Consumer scepticism in the UK and Europe means GM corn is not on supermarket shelves here, however it is fed to farm animals, including hens, pigs and dairy cows.

Important: In the USA, and much of Europe, corn is used to make an array of food products including cornflakes (picture posed by model)

Important: In the USA, and much of Europe, corn is used to make an array of food products including cornflakes (picture posed by model)

Last week Monsanto said it did not think the French study would affect its license to export the NK603 to Europe but would wait to hear from EFSA.

The company said: ‘Based on our initial review, we do not believe the study presents information that would justify any change in EFSA’s views on the safety of genetically modified corn products or alter their approval status for genetically modified imports.’

The biotech industry and university researchers involved in GM research have mounted a major PR campaign over the last year to win over sceptical consumers.

In the past week, pro-GM scientists have been lining up to undermine the French experiments and criticise the way they were conducted.

However, a number of independent academics have praised the French team’s work, describing it as the most thorough and extensive feeding trials involving GM to date.

Mustafa Djamgoz, the Professor of Cancer Biology, at Imperial College, London, said the findings relating to eating GM corn were a ‘surprise’.

Prof Djamgoz, who describes himself as a neutral on GM, said: ‘The results are significant. The experiments are, more or less, the best of their kind to date.’

However, he said that it is now important to ensure they are repeated with more animals by independent laboratories to confirm the outcome.

‘We are not scaremongering here. More research, including a repetition of this particular study are warranted,’ he said.

The professor said it will take two to three years to get a definitive answer.

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Sep 25, 2012 6:11pm
Sep 25, 2012

This from the Mail On Line. It illustrates further why you don't just prosecute one group for these crimes against children. It's every color and type of person and it is global. Regardless of religion or color you prosecute them as the common criminals they are and for the crimes they commit. You don't condemn an entire people for the stupidity and sociopathic criminality of the few. What about the polticians and the authorities who willing ignored these crimes for ten years? Shouldn't they be prosecuted also? Stiffer penalties for these types of crimes need to be harsher to the point that any rational person would think at least twice before committing them. It seem this is so wide spread now throughout the world. I fear for the human race.

  Chilling footage shows man leading two young girls - one clutching a teddy - into a hotel for sex as eight paedophiles are jailed for 42 years

Chilling footage shows man leading two young girls - one clutching a teddy - into a hotel for sex as eight paedophiles are jailed for 42 years
Pictured John Shaw caught on CCTV with two girls at a hotel

The CCTV image above, showing two young girls aged between 13 and 15 - one clearly carrying a cuddly toy - walking into a hotel with paedophile John Shaw was shown to Derby Crown Court yesterday. The men would pick up girls from care homes and the streets, and have sex with them for as little as £5, cigarettes, drugs and treats. Teen prostitution was so rife in areas of Derby, the court heard, one victim thought it 'was just part of growing up'

The CCTV image above, showing two young girls aged between 13 and 15 - one clearly carrying a cuddly toy - walking into a hotel with paedophile John Shaw was shown to Derby Crown Court yesterday. The men would pick up girls from care homes and the streets, and have sex with them for as little as £5, cigarettes, drugs and treats. Teen prostitution was so rife in areas of Derby, the court heard, one victim thought it 'was just part of growing up'

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Sep 25, 2012 5:09pm
Sep 24, 2012
Energy facts from oil to electricity
Fracking Risks and Benefits
June 3, 2011

Shale gas was first used in the U.S. to light homes at Fredonia, New York in 1821.

The use of shale gas is not new.

Hydraulic fracturing was first used in Texas to stimulate oil-wells in the late 1940s.

Fracking is also not new.

What is new is the development of technical procedures that allow fracking to be used in shale to produce economic quantities of natural gas and additional oil.

Environmentalists have raised concerns about fracking, now that fracking has created an abundance of natural gas. Contamination of water supplies, specifically wells and aquifers, and the use of water are the major concerns raised by them.

Widely disseminated pictures of tap water catching fire have been used in an effort to scare people and stop fracking.

Does fracking cause natural gas to contaminate water supplies?

If there is a poor cement job around the drill pipe, it can allow natural gas to migrate to the surface. This gas can enter well water or aquifers. This has been the case with old natural gas wells that didn’t involve fracking, and possibly with new wells. Gas migration is not due to fracking, but rather to the cement seal around the drill pipe.

Gas migration can also occur when drilling water wells.

Gas migration can be prevented with proper cementing.

What about contaminating aquifers with the chemicals used in fracking?

The contamination of aquifers from fracking is virtually impossible since the shale is usually located thousands of feet below aquifers. Real time fracture propagation can be monitored using observations from instruments so that fractures can be prevented from growing beyond the shale. In addition, shale becomes more plastic as it gets shallower which reduces the potential for propagation of fractures into aquifers when shale is located closer to the surface.

A large quantity, 50% or more, of the fluids used in fracking are removed from the well. If these fluids are not stored properly on the surface or are not properly disposed of, they can contaminate surface waters. There have been reports of flow back fluids spilling from containment ponds onto fields or into surface waters such as creeks, ponds or tributaries.

Flow-back water contains sand, tiny amounts of chemicals, most of which are commonly used in and around homes, but where some are dangerous, and trace amounts of radioactive materials that occur naturally in shale. Thus far, tests have shown that radioactivity levels have been below federal standards for safe drinking water.

Preventing flow-back water from spilling is manageable, as is the proper disposal of the water. It’s in the self interest of drilling companies to prevent spilling flow-back water.

Fracking has also been criticized for its use of large quantities of fresh water. This should not be an issue east of the Mississippi where less than 10% of available fresh water from rainfall is actually used. There may be areas west of the Mississippi where water usage could become an issue. More importantly, efforts are underway to reuse fracking water which would largely eliminate this concern.

New developments to mitigate the above concerns are occurring constantly, and these developments could easily eliminate these concerns. There are reports that Canadian companies have used liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), consisting mostly of propane, instead of water for fracking. Poland is experimenting with vibration for fracking.

Technology is likely to improve fracking, its efficiency and safety.

Currently, fracking isn’t perfect, but the concerns are manageable and the benefits are huge.

Fracking has created an immense supply of low-cost natural gas. Low-cost natural gas reduces the cost of heating for people using natural gas to heat their homes. It provides low-cost electricity and a likely replacement for many older coal-fired power plants. It provides fuel for trucks and busses and possibly for cars.

Problems should be kept in perspective and balanced against the benefits provided by fracking.


Note: Sources include a strategy paper from the European Centre for Energy and Resource Security, and the 2004 EPA report on Coalbed Methane Fracking.

*  *  *  *  *  *

Additional TSAugust web sites:

*  *  *  *  *  *


[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]


© Power USA, 2010 – 2011. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power America with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. June 3, 2011 10:01 am

    I attended a luncheon meeting May 10 of Georgia Interfaith Power & Light in Atlanta, Georgia. This group endorses policies of the EPA and wants to eliminate fossil fuel use. I was talking to a lady attending the meeting who said she was Head of the Department of Chemistry at Georgia State University. One of the reasons she opposed fracking was the companies involved would not disclose the chemicals used in the process. I did not have the presence of mind at the time to ask her if she would eat or drink anything from a company that did not disclose the composition of their product. Atlanta’s most famous product is Coca Cola which is drunk by about every person in the world. The composition of the drink has been kept secret for over 130 years. James H. Rust

  2. June 3, 2011 10:34 am

    Great analogy.
    It also appears as though the drilling companies are beginning to disclose the chemicals used in fracking.
    I suspect, however, that disclosure won’t stop the extreme environmentalists from claiming that chemicals in general are dangerous and then call for applying the precautionary principle.

  3. January 12, 2012 12:11 pm

    Found this article just where you said it would be. Now I have to find the follow ups. Hope they are also called Fracking in one form or another.

    Mike Foote

    • January 12, 2012 2:38 pm

      There are two more: one on September 27 and the other on September 20

Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Sep 24, 2012 3:10pm
Sep 24, 2012

This one made me go hmm. Is there any validity to their arguments. What do you think? They are a non political group who support no candidates or either party and accept no monies from the energy corps at least according to their mandate statement. They do work in the industry. Does anyone who's in Texas know anything about these folks? Is there any validity to their claims?

  We support the Barnett Shale because the Barnett Shale supports our communities, Texas, and America

CLEAN Resources is a group of concerned Texans who represent the more than 70,000 jobs in the Barnett Shale.

We got together because we're tired of a handful of people coming in to
our cities and towns and distorting the facts about shale gas
development, and we think it's about time somebody started telling the
truth about all the good it does for our communities, our state, and our

So here's the truth:

    1. Natural gas is clean burning - reduced greenhouse gases, less pollutants, less emissions. That's just a fact.


    1. Natural gas from the Barnett shale has a huge impact on the economy of our region and our state.
      We're talking jobs, small businesses, banks, taxes, wages, all of that.
      The anti-Barnett crowd either doesn't see that or doesn't care, but
      this is our life and the good of our families we're talking about.


    1. The Barnett Shale makes us more secure because the more natural gas we get from there, the less oil we've got to import. So we don't have to depend as much on the Arab countries or dictators like Chavez.


    1. Drilling in the Barnett Shale is safe and protects the environment.
      It's funny that you got these people running around talking about air
      pollution and earthquakes and such, when the truth is, there's not a
      shred of evidence to support any of that.

Our mission is simple: We want to tell the other side of the story, and
we're going to do that, and we're going to do it every day. So keep
coming back, and we'll keep giving you the facts that nobody else is
talking about.


Visibility: Everyone
Posted: Sep 24, 2012 2:39pm

< Previous 

 Next >
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.


Michael Kirkby
, 1
Toronto, ON, Canada
Shares by Type:
All (77) | Blog (6) | Alert (4) | Message (67)
by Barb K.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\n\\r\\nHello my C2 Family, \\r\\nFirst let me say Thank You to those of you who have so sweetly fwd my posts. You are SO AWESOME!! I will never forget your help. Anytime I can repay the favour, please tell me. Second, my Submit button has disappeared lea...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
Wanted to say that I try not to do too many forwards to my Friends.  When I do forward an article or petition, I hope you k
by Kyra H.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\n   &nbs p;I found an easy way to send Green Stars to Friends easily also and I don\\\'t know if I was the only one to find it difficult returning stars or not but I\\\'m posting this anyway in case.\\r\\n \\r\\n&n bsp;    If...
by Kyra H.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\n   &nbs p; I am making this Share because I figure I\\\'m not the only one who had difficulty in figuring out to return Green Stars. I asked several friends and got 2 answers both of which were right.  I can\\\'t for the life of me re...
by Kyra H.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\n   &nbs p; I basically just wanted to explain why some times there are 3 or 4 days when you don\\\'t get any stars back or comments from me on the cards I receive. Most of you know that I am disabled and therefore should supposedly be fr...
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\nToday I took a stand on something - the deleting of comments and petitions and articles by Care2 for no other reason than C2 doesn\\\'t agree with what some people say.  This is supposed to be a place we can air our feelings, within reason and re...
by Tim C.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\nhere was an intriguing discussion on Facebook amongst some recruiters that I have great respect for (even when their opinions differ!): Casey Kugler had just got access to LinkedIn Recruiter for the first time and he was, of course, rather excited! ...
by Kyra H.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
I just wanted to find a way to say thank you personally to everyone who signed my petition and I couldn\\\'t find a way to send an eCard saying it. Couldn\\\'t send a message either, but I did find this.\\r\\nI knew Care2 was made up of a lot of caring peop...
by Good H.
(0 comments  |  discussions )
\\nNorthern California Beach Reading 500 CPM on 12/20/2013 - Fukushima Radiation Is Here. Via @ AGreenRoad. \\r\\nFr om Rense; \\\"The above video was taken today with an Inspector Plus Geiger counter by \\\'Dave\\\', giving readings on a Northern Californ...
(0 comments  |  0 discussions )
\\nTo everyone at Care2,\\r\\nI wish the warmest of greetings,\\r\\nFrom my home to yours,\\r\\nMay you have smiles and laughter,\\r\\nGood food and good cheer,\\r\\nMuch hugging and love.\\r\\nthat will carry on to next year.\\r\\nThank you all for being my Friends...