“When will we demand protection- cell phone radiation?”

“Does radiation from cellphone towers cause cancer?Yes, said the Kasliwals, two of who have been diagnosed with brain cancer after three towers were installed next to their upscale C-scheme neighborhood in Jaipur.Since then, illnesses, both minor and major, have become a part of their lives and the lives of the 50 other families in their neighborhood”1

Do we care or must we continue to ignore and share our hazards of cell phone/cell tower radiation with all living things on the planet?

This flagrant blindness will literally kill millions of life forms unless we wake up and find alternatives or solve the EMF challenge that all electrical devices ig and small pose to our way of life.

1. in.news.yahoo.com/mobile-phone-tower-radiation\

2. thehindu.com

“Will organic farmers slew the Giant? Help needed!”

On March 31, 2012, a judge in the Southern District Court of
New York will decide whether a class action lawsuit —

Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association (OSGATA)
et al.vs.Monsanto — representing some 300,000 organic farmers
against biotech giant Monsanto can proceed to trial.

Will you help set farming on a safer healthier soil?

Watch the video produced by Food Democracy Now, and find out
how you can get involved locally, to help America’s Farmers
grow their crops in peace, without being sued for “infringing
on Monsanto’s patented seed”, of which trace amounts were
detected under inspection, and which pollinated naturally.

Please watch this video and share.

Share on Facebook:

Image courtesy of  progressivetimes

“Photon energy -chicken health”

Poultry is subject to a widespread vaccination regime. While some of the vaccinations are mandatory by law, most vaccinations are given under the assumption that it can’t hurt to give the chickens some extra protection. Diseases are then dealt with mostly through the use of antibiotics.
Vaccinations are known to produce a reaction that will inflict harm on the chickens, visible in the number of deaths, disturbances in the digestive tract and breathing problems to name a few. And there is evidence suggesting that not only bacteria from mother chickens are present in chicks hatched from their eggs, but that the effects of the vaccinations in the mother chickens seem to be present in their offspring as well. Antibiotics are a further strain on the chickens. Also, laying hens are known to suffer from burn out, where the chicken will keep producing eggs while depleting any reserves it has, causing chickens to die suddenly at the end of the laying period.

After being treated for vaccinations effects with the Chiren’s photon energy, the feed intake changed, as did the growth of the chickens. To briefly set the standard: A ‘normal’ growth patterns means that a chicken being raised as a laying hen will grow no more than about 9 to 10 grams per day, 14 or 15 grams for exceptional farmers and chickens.

The limited growth for laying hens is caused by the cross breeding that has taken place to maximize the laying capabilities of chickens. A byproduct of that cross breeding is that it is difficult to get the chickens to eat enough.

After the first treatments with the Chiren, the chickens not only grew between 18 and 25 grams per day, but ate and drank more than before. The chickens grew faster than the normal, and ate less than they should have according to the accepted norm: 5.7 kg/chicken instead of 6.3 kg/chicken in feed intake over a period of time. And this was for chickens that were already 12 weeks old when we started with the treatment.

Second experiment -older hens

Currently, we monitoring and treating a new flock of chicks the same farmer is raising. In the first two weeks, the chicks grew according to the accepted norm, but used almost 35% less feed to achieve that. So far, we can only assume that the feed intake may possibly drop to the almost 10% lower feed intake the slightly older laying hens are currently showing.

Next, the production flock of laying hens was treated. After several weeks, the death rate dropped from 2 to 4 chickens per week to 0 to 1 chickens per week. The industry norm of 12  deaths in flocks of the same size.

Usually after 42 weeks, laying hens are past their prime and normally show a decrease in the number of eggs laid. This Chiren treated flock,showed an increase in the egg production overall, and is producing 1.5% more eggs than before treatment.

Conclusions:

Chickens overall health and production increased after treatment with Chiren/photon energy.

This all was possible after the effects of the vaccines were eliminated.

What are the implications for human health and longevity?
Reprinted with permission from Sander Lourens and Paul Mak from the Wageningen University and Lively Research for Health Angel Foundation

Image courtesy of featurepics.com

“New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research”

By Dr. Mercola  October 15 2011

Two widely cited, published cancer research studies contain fabricated data, will be retracted

The Mayo Clinic concluded that data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, resulting in the retraction of 17 papers in nine research journals
Cancer research in the United States needs to be scrutinized, as much is money-driven and based on developing new drugs

In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

It seems fairly evident that the cancer industrial complex is a highly lucrative, well-oiled system that tends to support funding for expensive drug treatments that don’t address the cause of the problem, and have yet to make a significant dent in the decrease of the overall cancer rate in the US despite investing hundreds of billions of dollars. Much of the support comes from flawed and biased “research” studies that support the use of expensive drugs as detailed in the featured articles.

Researchers, too, are well aware of the notoriety and money to be found in cancer research … particularly what may be deemed successful cancer research (which unfortunately is often measured by the discovery of new drug treatments). But, as with many areas of medical research, it’s important to read between the lines of “scientifically proven” studies, even those that are well accepted.

Often what you’ll find is the research gives the perception of science when really it is a heavily manipulated process designed to control and deceive. Case in point, here again we have an example of widely accepted, published research that turned out to be fabricated.

10 Years of Cancer Research Down the Drain

The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) at the U.S. Department of Health reported in August 2011 that final action has been taken against Sheng Wang, PhD, of Boston University School of Medicine, Cancer Research Center. ORI states:

“The Respondent engaged in research misconduct by fabricating data that were included in two (2) published papers.”

This includes:

Oncogene February 2009, which found that HIC1, a protein thought to suppress tumor growth, is a “central molecule in a novel mechanism controlling cell growth and that the disruption of this HIC1-mediated pathway may lead to abnormal cell proliferation and, ultimately, cancer.”
Molecular Endocrinology December 2009, which found “reintroducing HIC1 into resistant breast cancer cells restored their sensitivity to the estrogen antagonists, indicating the existence of a novel regulatory mechanism for growth control of breast cancer cells.”

Specifically, six of the eight figures in the Oncogene paper and six of the seven figures in the Molecular Endocrinology study were said to contain data from fabricated experiments. Though Wang is now required to retract the papers, and he reportedly stopped working for Boston University in July, he will only be ineligible for federal funding for 2 years.

Further, the fabricated research may continue to live on, as it has been cited by other studies and once a finding is accepted in the medical community, it’s very hard to make it go away. Unfortunately, scientific retractions are actually becoming increasingly common.

As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“Just 22 retraction notices appeared in 2001, but 139 in 2006 and 339 last year. Through seven months of this year, there have been 210, according to Thomson Reuters Web of Science, an index of 11,600 peer-reviewed journals world-wide …

At the Mayo Clinic, a decade of cancer research, partly taxpayer-funded, went down the drain when the prestigious Minnesota institution concluded that intriguing data about harnessing the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated. Seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted. A researcher, who protests his innocence, was fired. In another major flameout, 18 research journals have said they are planning to retract a total of 89 published studies by a German anesthesiologist …”

Fabricated Research is More Common Than You Might Think

Peer-reviewed research published in medical journals gets the golden star of approval in the media, yet many, if not most, of the findings are incredibly misleading. One of the best exposé’s into this muddled system came from none other than Dr. Marcia Angell, who was the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposed many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, and said flat out:

“Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time.”

For instance, in 2009 Dr. Scott Reuben, who was a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former professor at Tufts University’s medical school, allegedly fabricated the data for 21 studies!

Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting numerous studies published, and those studies were accepted as fact and swayed the prescribing habits of doctors. It was only due to a routine audit raising a few red flags that a larger investigation was later launched.

So how did those false studies, or any studies for that matter, become worthy of being published? Part of the problem may be the peer-review process itself, as this puts researchers in charge of policing other researchers’ results, and most do not want to insult a fellow researcher’s work with negative comments.

As written in Gaia Health:

“It’s all about money. Get published in a major medical journal and your future is made. Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That’s what makes them peers. They want to be able to publish. Therefore, they are not particularly inclined to make more than perfunctory negative comments. Obviously, they don’t want to alienate the authors of papers, since they either are or hope to become published themselves.

Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers. Yet, for decades we’ve had peer review trotted out as the be-all and end-all in determining the legitimacy of papers. It’s been unquestioned, while a little examination of the concept demonstrates that it’s nearly certain to result in fraudulent work being passed as good science.”

It’s almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process, as peer reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. And although the system is based on the best of intentions, it lacks consistent standards and the expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal.

Given that cancer research is such a lucrative business right now — the National Cancer Institute, which gave the grant money to support Dr. Sheng Wang’s fabricated research, had a $5.1 billion budget for fiscal year 2010 — the stakes are exceptionally high. So it stands to reason that it may be subject to even more fraud and manipulation than less lucrative research prospects.

As The Economist reported, there were more new cancer drugs in development in 2010 than any other therapeutic area. Drug makers are well aware that a blockbuster cancer drug could easily earn them profits in the billions, even if the drug is only borderline effective. It is abundantly clear that profit is a primary motive of these companies so it should not be a surprise that they have moved in this direction, and this is where the abundance of research is focused as well.

Why You Might Want to Think Twice Before Donating to Anti-Cancer Charities

A lot of people put their faith in charity organizations like the American Cancer Society (ACS), dutifully donating money to help in the “war on cancer.” But in the report titled American Cancer Society—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.

For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that’s just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!

The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.

“Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention. Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding,” Dr. Epstein writes.

Many also do not realize that when you donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.

Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their “war on cancer” strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies, the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution. We CAN turn this trend around, but to do so the medical and research communities must stop focusing on drug treatments and overlooking the methods that can actually have a significant impact on preventing this disease.

My Top 12 Tips for Cancer Prevention

Rather than put your health in the hands of cancer researchers willing to do just about anything to discover the next cancer drug breakthrough, take control of your health by following the cancer-preventive lifestyle changes below.

Avoid Fructose and Sugar

It’s quite clear that if you want to avoid cancer, or are currently undergoing cancer treatment, you absolutely MUST avoid all forms of sugar — especially fructose — and this is largely due to its relation to insulin resistance. According to Lewis Cantley, director of the Cancer Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard Medical School, as much as 80 percent of all cancers are “driven by either mutations or environmental factors that work to enhance or mimic the effect of insulin on the incipient tumor cells,” Gary Taubes reports.

Some cancer centers, such as the Cancer Centers of America, have fully embraced this knowledge and place their patients on strict low-sugar, low-grain diets. But conventional medicine in general has been woefully lax when it comes to highlighting the health dangers of this additive.

As a standard recommendation, I strongly advise keeping your TOTAL fructose consumption below 25 grams per day including fruits. But for most people it would also be wise to limit your fructose from fruit to 15 grams or less, as you’re virtually guaranteed to consume “hidden” sources of fructose if you drink beverages other than water and eat processed food.
Optimize Your Vitamin D Level

There’s overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths — which amounts to 2 million worldwide and 200,000 in the United States — could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population.

On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.

If the notion that sun exposure actually prevents cancer is still new to you, I highly recommend you watch my one-hour vitamin D lecture to clear up any confusion. It’s important to understand that the risk of skin cancer from the sun comes only from excessive exposure.
Exercise

If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn’t immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer. One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells.

For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly may reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.It’s important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as those described in my Peak Fitness program.

These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body’s natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
Get appropriate amounts of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats.
Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much under appreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
Engage in activities that help you reduce your stress levels, such as exercise, meditation, journalling, music, gardening, etc. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed.
Only 25 percent of people eat enough vegetables, so by all means eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
Maintain an ideal body weight.
Get appropriate amounts of high-quality sleep.
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them. Better yet eat as many of your foods raw as you can.

Reprinted with permission Mercola.com

“Haiti is getting clean H2O”

Clean water in various parts of the world clean water is the gold standard -not the norm.

Even before the earthquake, conditions in Haiti were quite desperate. Just behind our hotel in Port-au-Prince, we visited a creek bed. Just above this area it was clear that this valley was used as the neighborhood trash dump. Pigs and goats fed on the trash.

As terrible as that was, nothing prepared us for this: animals using the same creeks that Haitians drink from everyday. When you live in the city and don’t have access to water in Haiti you either get water from a water truck or scavenge it from open water sources like this one.

Check out how it is coming now to Haiti.

Excerpt courtesy of my.water.org

Many people are helping other people. Share your story with us at compmed.com.

“Life +death- adult brain cell”

Knoth et al. as reported in PLoS One has been able to study the growth and death of adult human brain cells (neurogenesis). He uses the double cortin (DCX), a protein involved in cell movement and the extension of neuronal processes.
His study focused on the hippocampal cells included a large number of subjects between 0 to 100 years of age. It is believed that  neurogenesis declines with age in both man, rodents and other primates.
The hippocampus is part of the limbic system(emotional center) and plays important roles in the consolidation of information from short-term memory to long-term memory and spatial navigation. Change in the growth rate of these cells can profoundly affect memory, learning, recall of information and emotional well being.

The cell marker DCX found that  DCX+ cells decreased with age and there seems to be about a tenfold decrease from puberty to old age.

Morphology of DCX+ cells observed by Knoth et al.ranging from immature (lt) to mature cell (rt)
The oldest age at which DCX+ cells were still found to be proliferating depended on which endogenous marker of proliferation was used (Ki67 – 38yr, Mcm2 – 65yr, PCNA – oldest age). It is possible that major proliferation of hippocampal cells ends in middle age and that DCX+ cells found in the oldest subjects are the result of a very slow cellular maturation process.

Possibly there is a wide variance in human brain tissue that may or may not be age dependent, but if the research was ex[anded to include more seniors that lead a healthy active life style and were well hydrated these cells may not decrease has rapidly.
Does brain cell proliferation occur in old age more slowly? Much more work is needed.
Could this be a help to changing the aging of the human brain? Time will tell.

What do you think?
Excerpts courtesy of   http://goo.gl/iRmY2
Image courtesy of   http://goo.gl/uiu7y

‘Secondhand smoke +early childhood illness”

Homes where children under 12 are exposed to secondhand smoke show an 50% increase in many neurobehavioral and learning and breathing disorders including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, and conduct disorders.
If you must smoke do not do it around your children.

Many childhood diseases are linked to second-hand smoke exposure and smoking in the home, so a smoke-free home has major protective advantages against childhood diseases.

  • Respiratory problems
  • an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome,
  • acute respiratory infections,
  • more frequent and more severe asthma attacks.

In 2007, about 5.5 million of US children lived in households where someone smoked inside the home.

The National Survey of Children’s Health analyzed 55,358 children younger than 12 years of age. The study was done conducted between April 2007 and July 2008. It found 6% of the children across the US (4.8 million ) younger than 12 years were exposed to secondhand smoke in the home.
Of these children, 8.2% had learning disabilities, 5.9% had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and 3.6% had behavioral and conduct disorders.
The Risks

Boys had a significantly higher risk, and older children aged 9 to 11 years and those living in households with the highest poverty levels were at greater risk.

Excerpts courtesy of Pediatrics

Excerpts courtesy of Medscape.com

Image courtesy of  http://goo.gl/lM4Cd

“House of Rep. votes no on GM salmon”

GMO salmon goes down in flames in US House of Representatives.
Good news!

The American consumer has been heard. Now will the Senate follow suite?

The The FDA has lead no studies to uncover the long-term health effects from genetically modified salmon or any other GM foods. The FDA has long held that consumers should not even know which foods contain genetically modified ingredients.

Many consumers in the US mistakenly believe that the FDA approves GM foods through rigorous, in-depth, long-term studies. In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements. Instead the agency relies on research from companies like Monsanto that produce the GMO products for their scientific evidence of safety. Sort of like relying on a bully to gently take care of a class of wild toddlers.

GMOs,products are produced by modifying the organism’s genetic code with some type of poison, chemical or hormone. When this is done to a plant it causes widespread infertility.

Why did the “need ” for more salmon arise?

Seems by damming our rivers and  feeder streams, polluting the head waters with mining wastes and oceans with trash then over fishing these poor creatures their numbers are falling.
So why not grow a frankenfish in a polluted pond or at the ocean’s edge in pens and feed them chicken feed or better yet frankinfood and inject them with chemicals to encourage their growth year around.  YUMMY–YUCK!
Look at this bloated fish-three times the size of the average salmon that tastes like a “salmon” make three times the profit and to heck with the health of people and our oceans.
Why?

  • the pens never can be kept few of wastes.
  • If these fish get loose 5% are fertile and can destroy health fish not just of salmon, but any fish or  other animal or plant population that feeds on it.
  • GM crops and animals are generally banned in the more progressive health conscious nations.
  • Decreased Nutritional Value
  • Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria—Genetic engineers use antibiotic-resistance genes to mark genetically engineered cells. This means that genetically engineered crops contain genes which confer resistance to antibiotics. These genes may be picked up by bacteria which may cause an infection in humans or animals. (New Scientist 1999) 
Gene Pollution Cannot Be Cleaned Up—Once genetically engineered organisms, bacteria and viruses are released into the environment it is impossible to contain or recall them. Negative effects maybe irreversible.
  • Tell your Senate representatives we do not want any frankenfish salmon for on our plates -thank you!

Resources

Excerpts courtesy of   http://bit.ly/mcEEtH

Excerpts courtesy of  http://bit.ly/je1Jpt

Excerpts courtesy of   http://bit.ly/je1Jpt
Image courtesy of http://bit.ly/jTvrPR

“Effects of Japanese radiation blast now downplayed-poor choice”

Marine scientists say they are concerned about radiation spewing from the crippled Japanese nuclear plant.

“Radiation from Japan’s damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant is accumulating in marine life off Japan’s coast above legal limits for food contamination, Greenpeace said Thursday.
The environmental group said its findings run counter to Japanese government reports and the WoodsHole report that radiation from the Fukushima plant, damaged in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, is being diluted as time passes.

What is being released from the Fukushima reactors and how dangerous is it?

The Fukushima reactors have been primarily composed of two radioactive substances: iodine-131 and cesium-137. In large doses, both of these isotopes or radionuclides can cause long-term health problems.

Are there different types of radiation?
In general, there are two types of radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing. Non-ionizing radiation includes visible light and radio waves — things that, as the name implies, do not have the ability to form charged ions in other materials. Ionizing radiation, however, can and as a result presents a serious health threat because it can alter the atomic structure of living tissue. Ionizing radiation also comes in several different types, including alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, all with different degrees of concern and health impacts.

How long is the radiation from these substances a risk to humans and the environment?
Radioactive materials are, by their very nature, unstable and decline in strength over time -a long time. This change is measured in half-lives — the length of time it takes for the radiation to decrease by one-half. Every radioactive substance has a different half-life, ranging from fractions of a second to billions of years. Those with longer half-lives are potentially more difficult to deal with because they remain radioactive for longer periods of time. Cesium-137, for example, has a half-life of 30 years and so is a potentially serious health threat for decades or centuries. Iodine-131, on the other hand, has a half-life of just 8 days and so loses much of its potency after just days and effectively disappears after one to two months.

How far can radiation travel?
Ionizing radiation itself cannot travel very far through the air. Typically, dust and other particles, seawater and other liquids, or even gases become radioactive due to exposure to radionuclides and are then transported great distances. In the months and years after the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine scientists were able to track the spread of radioactive material in the atmosphere and the ocean around the globe. Within a week after the explosions at the Fukushima plant, there were reports of very small increases in the continental U.S.

How will the radioactive material released in Japan affect humans?
People who live near the plants were evacuated to a safe distance restrictions and other precautions recommended by the Japanese government and at-risk individuals needed to take suggested extra precautions such as taking potassium iodide to avoid thyroid problems.

Near the reactors, seafood and other products taken from the sea are not safe for human consumption.  However, crops and other vegetation near the reactor site (including grass that cows eat to produce milk) that receive fallout from the atmosphere build up radioactivity can not be eaten even if washed. When these foods are consumed, a person receives much of this dose internally, often a more severe pathway to receive radiation than by external exposure.

Prevailing winds over from Japan blow east towards North America; ocean currents in the region also flow generally east into the North Pacific, though much slower than winds. Radiation from the plants have been found in milk in Phoenix, AZ USA and in the waters over the eastern coast of the US.  The concept that this increasing radioactivity is not a point of cern is ridiculous. Drinking milk contaminated with more radiation then is already polluting are environment is not a problem makes no sense. It equates with someone saying well if you take a little more poison daily you won’t notice the difference in your health.
I am disappointed the Woods Hole has played down the dangers of this worldwide radiation increase.
Resources

Excerpts courtesy of  http://bit.ly/jW7Jzx

Excerpts courtesy of  http://bit.ly/loX0te

Image courtesy of  http://bit.ly/lkmWTY

“Mushrooms say oil spills be gone!”

Researcher Paul Stamets says mushrooms can eat oil spills and rid the world of toxins.

For more than a decade, mycologist, inventor and researchers Paul Stamets has known

that mushrooms eat oil. Now he has to learn how to do it on a larger scale and get the US government’s blessing.

After the Deep Water Horizon explosions last year, the EPA contacted him several times to request a proposal. They wanted to understand how mycoremediation—the reduction of toxic compounds into harmless ones by fungi—could work as a component of their cleanup strategy for the spill.

Stamets calls fungi the “interface organisms between life and death” because they specialize in breaking indigestible substances down into smaller particles that other living things can use as nutrients.

In fact, polishing the public image of fungus may be more important for Stamets than any decision to bring mushrooms to the Gulf spill. This is because he sees human partnership with fungi as essential to the broader project of creating a sustainable society. Like most other environmentalists, Stamets believes our society is hurting the earth and that the consequences of this damage will be severe. But he differs from the others in his conviction that fungi are the key to repairing that damage, healing the planet and accepting decay as part of nature as well.

Stamets calls fungi the “interface organisms between life and death” because their mic specialize in breaking indigestible substances down into smaller particles that other living things can use as nutrients. It is this ability to digest complex organic compounds that makes fungi so promising for cleaning up oil.

 

Stamets first tested the fungal appetite for oil in 1997, when he teamed up with researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to provide fungi for several lab-based experiments. The team selected mycelial strains and set them loose on diesel-contaminated soil.

After eight weeks, they found that the fungi had removed 97 percent of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)—heavy chemicals within oil that other forms of remediation had consistently failed to break down.

The next year Washington State Department of Transportation joined with Stamets and the Battelle Marine Science Laboratory to research the most effective bio-safenmethods for cleaning up a maintenance yard contaminated with diesel fuel. Workers scooped piles of the toxic soil onto tarps, and each of several piles were inoculated with, either with a form of oil-eating bacteria or with Stamets’  oyster-mushroom mycelia and wood chips mix.

There were also several control patches of soil.

Results showed that his patches were teeming with huge oyster mushrooms feasting happily on the diesel compounds while destroying more than 95 percent of the PAHs and the mushrooms were also free of any petroleum products. The control and the bacteria patches, were dead, dark, and stinky and the diesel compounds remained.

Because the contamination in the soil patches was very uneven,  it was difficult to measure the precise concentration of contaminants both before and after remediation. However, researchers at the Department of Transportation eventually declared the fungi-cleansed soil pure enough to use for landscaping purposes along the highways of Washington. And in the years since, Stamets’s findings have been replicated by many other researchers, and further study has shown that various types of fungi are able to partially or fully detoxify oil and pesticides.  T^he fungi have also been successful at breaking down depleted uranium from anti-tank shells by allowing it to bond with phosphates to form a more stable mineral.

Since the Deepwater Horizon spill in April 2010, Stamets has been testing his oyster mushrooms for tolerance to salt water and sun in preparation for a gig off the coast of Texas or Louisiana. So far, he’s managed to isolate a strain that can tolerate the salinity of Puget Sound, which is only slightly less than that of the Gulf. And he’s found ways to float the mushrooms cheaply on hemp “mycobooms” filled with straw and mycelia from which the mushrooms can metabolize oil on the surface of the sea.

Stamets has discovered is that the enzymes and acids that mycelium produces to decompose this debris are superb at breaking apart hydrocarbons – the base structure common to many pollutants. So, for instance, when diesel oil-contaminated soil is inoculated with strains of oyster mycelia, the soil loses its toxicity in just eight weeks

Creative solutions under pressure

Stamets says this new research is “very cool and unlikely to have been discovered if it were not for this disaster.” He believes it will be used in the near future and has applied for a provisional patent to prevent oil companies from stealing the research.

(Most likely the oil companies would not want to spend their profits on solutions, but maybe you could try using mushrooms to clean up any small oil soil caused by your car  or truck..- Editor’s note)

Stamets says he would be happy to share it for free

with affected communities in the Gulf of Mexico.

Six ways mushrooms can save the world.

Excerpts courtesy of  http://bit.ly/lLQtR2

Image courtesy of  http://bit.ly/m7U7s3