Enviro News /environews Enviro News - Enviro Information Sun, 15 Jan 2017 04:28:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2 Mathematical proof that man-made climate change is a total hoax /environews/2017-01-15-mathematical-proof-that-man-made-climate-change-is-a-total-hoax.html /environews/2017-01-15-mathematical-proof-that-man-made-climate-change-is-a-total-hoax.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 One of the grandest scientific hoaxes ever perpetrated against humankind is that Man’s modern life (along with cattle farts) is causing catastrophic “climate change”—or “global warming,” depending on the day.

There has been a plethora of evidence to prove the whole thing is a hoax, for anyone willing to actually see it and accept it. This has ranged from faking warming data, to pretending that climate change is “settled science,” to hiding the real motives behind the hoax. In fact, hoaxers have even changed the entire narrative; once upon a time it wasn’t global warming that was going to destroy all life, it was global cooling.

Now, there is even mathematical evidence proving the great climate lie. Infowars reporter Millie Weaver recently interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a conservative British politician and inventor of mathematical puzzle “Eternity,” who said there is a breaking discovery that will prove the entire climate change scare is based on faulty mathematics. This seems logical, given that the vast majority of claims that the earth is warming and that modern industry is the cause are primarily based on incorrect computer models.

At a conference in Phoenix called, “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Lie,” Monckton discussed in depth a mathematical discovery made by he and his team and that their findings have since been submitted for the proper academic peer review. (RELATED: Follow the real science about climate change at ClimateScienceNews.com)

‘I knew there was an error’

The team of international scientists has “discovered a major, significant, substantial error in the way in which the computer models calculate how much warming they would predict should be happening.” He said if the error is taken away, “there is no longer any climate problem.” And while there will indeed be “one or two Celsius of warming” and a doubling of CO2 concentration “but you won’t get much more than that.”

The notion being pushed by Left-wing control freaks in global government that our planet is warming at an alarming, unstoppable rate, is completely bogus, and it always has been. Monckton and his team have demonstrated it mathematically, and no matter how many more times alarmist hoaxer Al Gore claims all of the ice caps are going to disappear “soon,” it just isn’t true. (But the sheeple will believe almost anything. Follow more sheeple news at Sheeple.news)

Monckton said he has known that the modeling error existed and that he had been trying to find it for about a decade. “But I didn’t know what the error was,” he told Weaver. “I just knew they’d made a mistake.” He also says he knew that because he is “a classical mathematician,” which is based on the findings of Menaechmus of Alopeconnesus (380-320 BC).

As further reported by The New American, Monckton—a climate realist and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—showed during his conference presentation that the so-called “red flags” of climate change based largely on United Nations data were nearly all wrong. Because of this and other problems associated with the UN, he then proposed that both Britain and the U.S. leave the UN, even though Monckton has been a regular at UN “climate” summits around the world, to expose their fraud and mock their phony findings and made-up data. He even dropped into one such event held in South Africa with a parachute.

Tired of seeing bad policy made on phony narratives

Monckton’s instincts were spot-on, as noted by an earlier report from The Daily Caller noting that 95 percent of climate models predicting rising temperatures have been wrong.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former scientist for NASA, says climate models relied on by the federal government (which has been all-in pushing this hoax under President Obama) to create actual policies “have failed miserably.” So not only is the science incorrect, but actual government policies are being based on these failed models. (Stay informed on real science at Scientific.news)

Spencer said he examined 90 climate models and compared them to real surface temperatures and satellite temperature data; he found more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trends since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

On his blog, Spencer wrote that he had grown tired of well-used and oft-cited statements since the 1950s that “most warming” is “human-caused,” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming” (a lie), neither of which led to any demonstrable conclusion that proved the claims. He said such statements also should not have led government policymakers to conclude that “we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more people to death for the greater good.” And yet, that’s exactly the direction all of the policy is going.






/environews/2017-01-15-mathematical-proof-that-man-made-climate-change-is-a-total-hoax.html/feed 0
Court allows seeds to continue to be sprayed with bee-toxic pesticides /environews/2017-01-14-court-allows-continuation-of-seeds-sprayed-with-bee-toxic-pesticides-neonicotinoids.html /environews/2017-01-14-court-allows-continuation-of-seeds-sprayed-with-bee-toxic-pesticides-neonicotinoids.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 At the end of November, a judge from the Northern District of California delivered a crushing blow to our nation’s beekeepers, and effectively approved of the EPA policies that will allow seeds to be coated with bee-toxic pesticides, known as neonicotinoids, or neonics for short. These pesticides, which can persist in soil and water with ease, are associated with killing bees indiscriminately, leading to a dramatic drop in pollinator populations and massive environmental damage. (RELATED: Stay informed on environmental news at Enviro.news)

The judge ruled against the beekeepers and public interest advocates in their lawsuit — which was seeking to protect bees, and the rest of the environment, from unregulated damages that may be caused by the Environmental Protection Agency’s rather sloppy policies regarding seeds that are coated with certain insecticides that are known to kill bees in large numbers.

Andrew Kimbrell, Director of the Center for Food Safety, said, “It is astounding that a judge, EPA or anyone with any common sense would not regulate this type of toxic pesticide use, especially when the seed-coatings are so broadly applied and there is so much at risk. Study after study has shown that seeds coated with these chemicals are a major culprit in catastrophic bee-kills. Now more than ever our country’s beekeepers, environment and food system deserve protection from agrichemical interests, and it is EPA’s job to deliver it.”

Kimbrell’s lamenting of the ruling is easily understandable; we know neonics are harmful pesticides and yet, our bureaucratic government is doing nothing to stop the damage.

Neonics have been linked to record all-time highs of colony deaths, water pollution, and are known to pose risks to other valuable species, like birds.

Earlier this year, the federal government itself released a report admitting that neonics are harmful and have been causing catastrophic bee deaths across the country. The findings were part of the first scientific risk assessment to conducted on this type of insecticide and their affect on bee populations. (Read more news about avoiding exposure to pesticides and other chemicals at GreenLivingNews.com)

Indeed, the government’s own report confirmed what many activists and beekeepers have been saying for years: neonics weaken, disorient and kill honeybees.

The analysis particularly highlighted the harmful nature of imidacloprid, showing that it clearly caused damage to beehives and honey production. The EPA itself confirmed that when bees are exposed to imidacloprid at concentrations of at least 25 parts per billion — a pretty standard amount on crops — they suffer grieviously.

“These effects include decreases in pollinators as well as less honey produced,” the EPA’s press release states.

The report on imidacloprid is very concerning — but what is perhaps even more concerning is the fact that this report focused on just one, singular neonictonoid, when there are in fact several used nation-wide. It is not just one form of this insecticide that has been indicated as harmful — it is the entire class of neonics that many have found to be problematic.

What is most concerning about seed coatings containing neonics is that they are not exactly regulated  well. The group of beekeepers who filed suit against the EPA did so for this exact reason. Seed coating is the most prolific form of neonic use — and yet the EPA has never conducted safety testing on this use.  Toxic dust floats in the air every spring after corn is planted, thanks to neonic seed coatings, and it is this dust that is what is often most problematic.

Beekeeper Brett Adee lost more than 6,000 hives last spring during corn planting. A state investigation concluded that his bees were poisoned by a neonic that was used on the seeds his neighbors had planted. Mr. Adee is not the first beekeeper to lose his bees to insecticides, and he surely won’t be the last — given that the EPA has exempted seed coating from regulation.

When dismissing the case filed by beekeepers and advocates, the judge proclaimed, “The Court is most sympathetic to the plight of our bee population and beekeepers. Perhaps the EPA should have done more to protect them, but such policy decisions are for the agency to make.”

What kind of country are we living in? (Related: See more examples of stupid government policies at Stupid.news)





/environews/2017-01-14-court-allows-continuation-of-seeds-sprayed-with-bee-toxic-pesticides-neonicotinoids.html/feed 0
Rats’ intestines destroyed just 90 days after being fed Monsanto GMO corn /environews/2017-01-12-rats-intestines-destroyed-just-90-days-after-being-fed-monsanto-gmo-corn.html /environews/2017-01-12-rats-intestines-destroyed-just-90-days-after-being-fed-monsanto-gmo-corn.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Ever since agribusiness giant Monsanto began pushing its GM crops on the public, the company has maintained that the technology is safe, and that consumption of Frankenfood products, such as genetically-modified corn, causes no ill effects in either animals or humans.

Monsanto propaganda holds that GMOs have been proven safe, but the truth is that few real safety studies have ever been conducted, while much of the existing scientific literature on the subject is bogus industry-backed drivel. However, despite Monsanto’s efforts to control the narrative, independent researchers have been finding evidence that contradicts the company’s claims.

GM Watch recently published the results of one such study, conducted by two researchers at the Faculty of Medicine at Tanta University, Egypt.

The researchers fed Monsanto GM corn – a genetically-altered version of a local Egyptian corn variety – to laboratory rats over a 90-day period, with a control group being fed a non-GM variety of local corn. (RELATED: Stay informed about all the news on GMOs at GMO.news)

Researchers find ‘alarming signs’

The rats which were fed the GM corn (MON810: Ajeeb YG) developed “serious damage to the surface mucous membranes of the jejunum (part of the small intestine).”

From GM Watch:

“In the GM-fed rats, some areas of the villi – finger-like structures in the intestine that absorb nutrients from food – were damaged. They were distorted and flattened, with some cells joined together. The damage can clearly be seen in the images included in the study. The crypts (mucosal glands) were disrupted and blood vessels were congested. Signs of inflammation – white blood cell infiltration – were seen around areas of damage. In addition, the cells of the intestinal lining were abnormal in structure.

“Other signs of damage included increased shedding of mucosal cells, increased numbers of mucous-secreting goblet cells, and higher rates of division of cells lining the crypts.”

The researchers concluded that despite Monsanto’s assurances, the consumption of GM corn “profoundly altered the histological structure of the jejunal mucosa at many levels and revealed several alarming signs.”

Two earlier Egyptian studies involving rats that consumed the same Monsanto GM variety corn revealed other types of damage. One of the studies found “differences in organ and body weights and in blood biochemistry” between rats that consumed MON810: Ajeeb YG and those which ate a non-GM version of the same variety, suggesting that the GM corn might produce “potential adverse health/toxic effects.”

The second study, conducted by the same research team, found “toxic effects” in several organs of lab rats caused by the same GM variety – including damage to the liver, kidneys, intestines and testes.

The publication of the study comes as the European Commission pushes plans to begin growing MON810 corn in 2017. A vote is scheduled for January 17.

Monsanto GM corn strain poses genetic contamination risk

Interestingly, there appears to be another problem with MON810. Independent nonprofit research institute Test Biotech has reported that MON810 poses a risk of GM transgenes spreading to other plant species, and is calling for a withdrawal of Monsanto’s application to the EU for approval of its cultivation.

It’s become increasingly evident that GM technology has turned out to be – as many predicted – a dangerous experiment gone completely awry. GM crops have failed to produce the promised yields, while more and more studies are uncovering health risks associated with the technology.

Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup – an herbicide essential to the whole Monsanto biotech equation – is a highly toxic and carcinogenic chemical. Glyphosate has now become the most widely used herbicide in history, and roughly 19 percent of all glyphosate produced since it was first introduced in 1974 has been dumped on the United States alone. (Related: We also cover glyphosate “RoundUp” news at Glyphosate.news)

It’s time for a complete global ban on GM agriculture and the use of glyphosate.

To stay informed on all the nefarious people pushing these poisons on humanity, read MonsantoMafia.com.







/environews/2017-01-12-rats-intestines-destroyed-just-90-days-after-being-fed-monsanto-gmo-corn.html/feed 0
New quietly approved rule allows companies like McDonald’s to sponsor and advertise in national parks /environews/2017-01-12-new-quietly-approved-rule-allows-companies-like-mcdonalds-to-sponser-and-advertise-in-national-parks.html /environews/2017-01-12-new-quietly-approved-rule-allows-companies-like-mcdonalds-to-sponser-and-advertise-in-national-parks.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 When seeking an escape from the bustle of daily life and the marketing messages that bombard us everywhere we go. from our kids’ TV shows to the local grocery store, many of us head to the great outdoors. Out in nature with an abundance of fresh air and clean water, and surrounded by plenty of greenery, we relish the chance to unwind and unplug.

If your idea of “getting away from it all” entails visiting a national park, however, you might soon find that it is less of an escape from corporate America than it once was. While you were busy enjoying the holidays with your family and friends, a controversial set of rules was quietly granted approval that will allow advertisements to intrude on the parks’ natural beauty.

Order lifts ban on ads in national parks

The new order signed by National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis on December 28, puts an end to the ban on commercial advertising in national parks and removes restrictions on naming rights. The order, which is known as Order #21 on Donations and Philanthropic Partnerships, expands commercial contracts with private firms and corporate sponsorships. (RELATED: Read more examples of total stupidity at Stupid.news)

The National Park Service controls 412 parks, monuments, recreational areas and battlefields that together cover 84 million acres of land, which means an influx of new marketing opportunities will be opened up to corporate sponsors. The National Park Service recently said it was launching a fundraising campaign to the tune of $350 million; the federal budget set aside nearly $3 billion for the agency in 2016.

Public outcry

More than 200,000 people have signed a petition against the controversial move. Kristen Strader, the coordinator of the advocacy group, Public Citizen, who organized a campaign against these proposed reforms, said the move was “disgraceful.” In addition to the petition, hundreds of individuals have lodged official objections with the National Park Service.

Public Citizen joined forces with the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood to publish public comments on the proposal after the Parks Service failed to do so. They say that 78 percent of commenters were opposed to the policy.

“Now that this policy has been finalized, park visitors soon could be greeted with various forms of advertisements, like a sign reading ‘brought to you by McDonald’s’ within a new visitor’s center at Yosemite, or ‘Budweiser’ in script on a park bench at Acadia,” Strader said.

The park service is now trying to allay people’s fears by implying that the public does not fully understand the order. While it will allow donors to be recognized by the parks with labels on some items, corporations and other types of sponsors will not be allowed to rename parks. They also point out that logos and ad language will not be allowed. They liken these provisions to those found in hospitals, museums and universities whereby certain rooms might be temporarily renamed in recognition of a donor that supported renovations, for example. The NPS director must approve of all signage.

Despite these assurances, opponents insist that the move is opening up our national parks to a previously unseen amount of commercial influence, and many fear this is only the beginning. This approach embodies much of what is wrong with America these days. Commercialization already reaches us everywhere we go, and the value of nature is being increasingly marginalized in favor of the all-important bottom line. Whether it’s the push by Big Pharma to make people think their toxic prescriptions are superior to the healing plants provided by the earth, or the ongoing global deforestation to clear land for other money-making endeavors, governments around the world are turning a blind eye to corporate tactics that destroy our planet’s natural resources and beauty.

Sources include:





/environews/2017-01-12-new-quietly-approved-rule-allows-companies-like-mcdonalds-to-sponser-and-advertise-in-national-parks.html/feed 0
Obama has placed more land and water under federal control than any other president in history /environews/2017-01-12-obama-has-placed-more-land-and-water-under-federal-control-than-any-other-president-in-history.html /environews/2017-01-12-obama-has-placed-more-land-and-water-under-federal-control-than-any-other-president-in-history.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 In what appears to be a thinly-veiled slap in the face to President-Elect Donald Trump, who’s made it clear that he supports expanded domestic energy production, outgoing President Barack Obama has once again decided to seize land in the United States and place it under the jurisdiction of the federal government, effectively rendering it off-limits to any and all human activity.

Taking advantage of a little-known law passed by former President Theodore Roosevelt back in 1906, Obama has officially declared 1.5 million acres of U.S. land, most of which is located in the state of Utah, as “national monuments.” By doing this, said land will be closed of to any sort of human expansion, including for development, farming, or energy use.

Reports indicate that the 1.3 million acres of land in Utah has been declared as the “Bears Ears Monument” in honor of Native American tribes and other conservationist groups that claim it to be sacred. Obama has also claimed another 300,000 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, declaring it to be the “Gold Butte National Monument” for many of the same reasons.

Despite bipartisan opposition from Utah’s state legislature, which vehemently opposed this unprecedented land grab, Obama went through it anyway, presumably to stifle potential efforts by the incoming administration to utilize these geographical locales for domestic energy production — even when doing so would help decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and other forms of energy.

“It’s one of the biggest land grabs in the history of the United States, and it was done as this midnight monument in the waning hours of the Obama administration,” said Utah congressman Jason Chaffetz during a recent interview with Fox News.

Will a Trump administration be able to restore control of land back to states? House Republicans are hopeful

There have been many instances during Obama’s eight years in the Oval Office when the controversial president decided to seize land for federal purposes. Since his first inauguration, Obama has collectively seized more than half a billion acres of land and water in the federal interest, utilizing the so-called “Antiquities Act of 1906,” the law that allowed him to do so, a whopping 29 times.

In 2016 alone, Obama claimed more than 260 million acres as federally-protected space, including a 100-million-acre piece of land in Alaska that’s roughly equivalent in size to the entire state of New Mexico. Obama has also utilized the Antiquities Act of 1906 more times than any other president since it first became law, his executive land grabs accounting for some 20 percent of all such land grabs combined.

“In the eight years he’s been in office, President Obama has seized more than 553 million acres of land and water (roughly 865,000 square miles) and placed it under federal ownership and control — enough square mileage to cover the entire state of Texas more than three times over,” writes Brittany Hughes for MRCTV.com.

“In fact, the self-aggrandizing conservationist-in-chief has placed more land and coastal areas under federal control than any other president in history, shutting off millions of miles of land to energy production or human settlement, along with shifting it outside the scope of local and state jurisdictions.”

House Republicans are already moving forward with trying to reverse these land grabs and restore control of the seized lands back to state and local jurisdictions. But this may not be possible, some reports indicate, as such reversals may not be lawful. At the same time, Obama’s use of the Antiquities Act of 1906 to seize land for non-emergency political purposes may, in and of itself, not have been lawful in the first place.

Sources for this article include:



/environews/2017-01-12-obama-has-placed-more-land-and-water-under-federal-control-than-any-other-president-in-history.html/feed 0
Water crisis: Obama’s EPA to approve dramatic increase in limits on radiation exposure allowable in public drinking water /environews/2017-01-10-water-crisis-on-obamas-final-day-epa-plans-for-huge-spike-in-radiation-exposure-allowed-in-public-drinking-water.html /environews/2017-01-10-water-crisis-on-obamas-final-day-epa-plans-for-huge-spike-in-radiation-exposure-allowed-in-public-drinking-water.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 As one of its closing acts before leaving the stage, the Obama administration plans to relax EPA guidelines regarding maximum allowable radiation levels in the nation’s drinking water, increasing them to levels thousands of times above current legal limits.

A federal lawsuit filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) led to the release of documents confirming details of the planned “Protective Action Guides” (PAGs) to be implemented, which include the new radically higher maximum allowable radiation levels.

PEER has accused the EPA of jeopardizing public health in favor of public relations.

From a PEER press release dated December 22, 2016:

“Following Japan’s Fukushima meltdown in 2011, EPA’s claims that no radioactivity could reach the U.S. at levels of concern were contradicted by its own rainwater measurements showing contamination from Fukushima throughout the U.S. well above Safe Drinking Water Act limits. In reaction, EPA prepared new limits 1000s of times higher than even the Fukushima rainwater because ‘EPA experienced major difficulties conveying to the public that the detected levels…were not of immediate concern for public health.’”

EPA kept details of new guidelines a secret

Although the EPA released its proposed PAGs for public comment, it conveniently neglected to include “all but four of the 110 radionuclides covered, and refused to reveal how much they were above Safe Drinking Water Act limits.”

Only after the PEER lawsuit forced the EPA to release the pertinent documents did it become clear how much the levels were to be increased. Even so, more than 60,000 people had already left comments in opposition of the proposed guidelines on the agency’s website.

Current drinking water radiation limits are defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act, established in the 1970s.

The documents obtained by PEER revealed that the EPA plans to raise maximum allowable limits of iodine-131, cobalt-60 and calcium-45 to more than 10,000 times the levels allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Others would be hundreds or thousands of times higher under the new guidelines.

The agency’s justification for withholding the new proposed limits from the public until after the proposal had been adopted was that it wanted to “avoid confusion.”

The EPA deliberately hid the details not only from the public, but also from some of its own staff, according to PEER:

“The documents also reveal that EPA’s radiation division even hid the new concentrations from other divisions of EPA that were critical of the proposal, requiring repeated efforts to get them to even be disclosed internally.”

Even the George W. Bush administration’s attempt to introduce higher limits – a plan that was ultimately withdrawn – was modest in comparison to the levels proposed under the Obama EPA.

On December 1, outgoing EPA administrator Gina McCarthy gave final approval to all of the proposed PAGs – except for the drinking water standards. It’s unclear at this point whether she will actually approve the water section before leaving office, or whether she will leave the issue to the next administration to deal with.

Voice your opposition (before it’s too late)

There appears to be a good chance McCarthy will approve the rest of the PAGs before the changing of the guard, and there is still time to make your opposition to the proposals known.

It’s important to understand that higher allowable radiation limits will take pressure off the nuclear and fracking industries as well, which may be the real motivation for the establishment of the new guidelines – with Fukushima merely serving as an excuse to do so.

“The Dr. Strangelove wing of EPA does not want this information shared with many of its own experts, let alone the public,” said PEER executive director Jeff Ruch. “This is a matter of public health that should be promulgated in broad daylight rather than slimed through in the witching hours of a departing administration.”

If you would like to voice your opposition to the EPA plan, click here.





/environews/2017-01-10-water-crisis-on-obamas-final-day-epa-plans-for-huge-spike-in-radiation-exposure-allowed-in-public-drinking-water.html/feed 0
EPA admits to Gold King Mine disaster but refuses to pay claims to Native Americans /environews/2017-01-10-epa-admits-to-gold-king-mine-disaster-but-refuses-to-pay-claims-to-native-americans-2.html /environews/2017-01-10-epa-admits-to-gold-king-mine-disaster-but-refuses-to-pay-claims-to-native-americans-2.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 The Environmental Protection Agency is very likely the most abusive, over-regulatory, economy-killing bureaucracy within the federal government. Now, I’m adding irresponsible to that list.

Longtime readers of Natural News will recall the Gold King Mine spill in Colorado in August 2015, which saw more than 3 million gallons of contaminated water rife with mining chemicals and heavy metals leach into surrounding major waterways and tributaries. This disaster was created by a contracting crew working on behalf of the EPA.

It took legal action and over a year in court to force the agency to pony up for the damage caused by the spill. But as usual, the EPA continues to skirt is obligation to repay all the monies owed to interested parties as well as clean up after itself, like the agency would require any private company to do.

One of the injured and aggrieved parties is the Native American Navajo Nation, which is accusing the Obama administration of refusing to clean up the damage caused by the EPA, the Mexico Star is reporting.

The August 2015 spill saw contaminated water from the mine spill into the nearby Animas River, then leach into the San Juan River, which flows through about 200 miles of Navajo territory. In addition to tainting Navajo lands, the spill also tainted waterways in three states: Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

Other states joining in suit against EPA

After being exposed to the air, iron sulfide in the contaminated water formed a sulfuric acid, which turned the water a bright mustard-orange color.

“The Navajo Nation’s water supply has been severely compromised as a result of the spill,” said Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch. “Tragically, we won’t know the full extent of the impacts the heavy metals released in the spill will have on our people for some time because those impacts generally only become observable in the long term.”

She added that the Navajo government has already spent millions of dollars responding to the crisis, adding that just to mitigate the damage to the nation’s water supply—and “not to mention long-term health needs and other impacts”—it is expected to cost in excess of $100 million to secure alternative water supplies, more water treatment and monitor the water well into the future.

But none of that matters much to Obama’s EPA.

Earlier in December, Navajo Nation attorneys submitted a claim to the agency for more than $160 million, in order to cover costs that the nation has spent in the aftermath of the spill. The amount requested also factored in cost estimates of long-term medical care, as well as monitoring of soil, groundwater, crops and livestock on Navajo Nation lands. In addition, the amount requested would also cover expected costs for the building and operation of an alternative water supply, as well as treatment systems for areas affected by the spill.

And while the EPA has already admitted responsibility for the spill, it has rejected all but  $602,000 of those claims on the grounds that, on Aug. 19—two weeks after the spill—the agency tested the waters in the San Juan River and allegedly found metal concentrations had gone back to “pre-event” levels.

‘Native lives don’t matter’

That, of course, says nothing about the long-term damage done to groundwater, soil and other natural resources. The immediate traces of heavy metals from the spill were gone, so as far as the EPA is concerned, that’s the end of it.

“The EPA’s evaluation of costs is consistent with the agency’s legal authorities and the requirements under the Superfund,” an EPA spokesperson told VOA, as cited by the Mexico Star. “The agency can only reimburse documented and allowable incurred response costs submitted by government partners.”

In May, New Mexico also filed suit against the EPA, alleging injuries from the spill, as well as the state of Colorado. Utah is also considering a suit against EPA.

Branch said that Navajo Nation plans to appeal the EPA’s rejection of its claims before the early January 2017 filing deadline. She also expressed her disappointment in President Obama.

“The Obama administration’s response has reinforced the message that Native lives don’t matter,” Branch said. “And the EPA has focused their energy on minimizing potential legal liability to themselves, rather than ensuring cleanup and protection of the environment.”

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.





/environews/2017-01-10-epa-admits-to-gold-king-mine-disaster-but-refuses-to-pay-claims-to-native-americans-2.html/feed 0
Medical experts say mercury in makeup is BAD for children, but mercury in vaccines is GOOD for children /environews/2017-01-09-medical-experts-say-mercury-in-makeup-is-bad-for-children-but-mercury-in-vaccines-is-good-for-children-2.html /environews/2017-01-09-medical-experts-say-mercury-in-makeup-is-bad-for-children-but-mercury-in-vaccines-is-good-for-children-2.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Health officials are attempting to crack down on a so-called “backyard” cosmetics industry in parts of the Global South, because there are few safeguards in place and they believe their youth are in danger.

In Kuala Lumpur, for instance, the New Straits Times reports, health experts are calling for tighter regulations while noting that many of the cosmetics are packed with deadly chemicals which will have adverse effects on “involuntary” users, including children and unborn babies.

One of those deadly compounds is mercury, a heavy metal that can be found in many cosmetics products in the third world. These experts are warning that parents who use them—mothers in particular—are inadvertently harming their unborn children, as well as themselves.

Too bad these same experts are not warning parents to avoid mercury-containing vaccines.

Dr. Mohd Hasni Ja’afar, an environmental health physician and toxicologist at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center, says children are most at risk because they have a far greater absorption rate—nearly 100 percent—of all chemicals to which they have been exposed, especially mercury.

Many cosmetic products in the third world are tainted with heavy metals

“Children have a 10 to 20 percent higher absorption rate compared to adults due to their high metabolism,” he said. “Unfortunately, their bodies cannot differentiate between good and bad chemicals.”

He added that all they do is absorb what is put in and on their bodies, which will create worrying ill-effects in the future.

Hasni also said he has real issues with parents who put lipstick and other cosmetics on them, because they are so vulnerable to the toxic heavy metals found in them.

“Your children may look adorable and beautiful with lipstick on, but the lips are considered mucous membranes and will absorb whatever chemicals put on [them] at an accelerated rate,” he said, noting further that there should be tighter regulations and stricter monitoring of the cosmetics industry, in part for that reason.

The toxicologist said that high levels of mercury are also very common in skin-whitening products, which is culturally accepted in many parts of the world, and as such highly absorbed, even in topical applications. Traces of the heavy metal will not only accumulate in the body’s primary organs, but the mercury is also transferred to an unborn baby, where it is especially damaging to the brain.

Among its neurological effects are mental retardation, seizures, vision and hearing loss, speech disorder, memory loss and delayed physical development. Hasni said that with a nearly 80 percent absorption rate, mercury is deposited in the kidneys, in bone matter and in the brain.

“The level of absorption also depends on other factors, including age and amount of make-up applied,” he said.

“Mercury has a significant effect on babies as their blood-brain barrier — the dynamic interface that separates the brain from the circulatory system and protects the central nervous system from harmful chemicals — is not fully developed,” he said.

What about mercury-laden vaccines?

But again, why aren’t experts concerned about the amount of mercury being injected into babies and small children, in the form of vaccines?

The establishment medical industry says that’s not a concern anymore—vaccines are not laden with mercury. But Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, knows better. In June 2014, he published exclusively the results of independent lab testing he conducted himself indicating a “shockingly high level of toxic mercury” in an influenza vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline.

“Tests conducted via ICP-MS document mercury in the Flulaval vaccine at a shocking 51 parts per million, or over 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury in drinking water set by the EPA,” he wrote.

Vaccine mercury-okay; make up mercury-not so much?

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.





/environews/2017-01-09-medical-experts-say-mercury-in-makeup-is-bad-for-children-but-mercury-in-vaccines-is-good-for-children-2.html/feed 0
Nightmare in Beijing: Pollution so bad, Chinese government tells schools to keep children indoors /environews/2017-01-09-nightmare-in-beijing-pollution-so-bad-in-chinese-government-tells-schools-to-keep-children-indoors.html /environews/2017-01-09-nightmare-in-beijing-pollution-so-bad-in-chinese-government-tells-schools-to-keep-children-indoors.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Environmental groups like to portray the West and, in particular the United States, as the world’s biggest polluter. But that’s because many of those folks have never been to China, where—thanks to rapid industrialization and lack of government oversight—the rapid, irreversible poisoning of the country’s natural resources is occurring.

That includes the poisoning of future generations of Chinese. As reported by the state-run China Post, authorities in Beijing have warned in recent days that the pollution hanging over the city will remain heavy for days to come and is so bad that they are urging the suspension of outdoor school activities and construction projects.

The Post noted that the government’s warning comes in the form of an “orange alert,” which is the second-highest in a four-stage system. Officials said the alert means there will be at least three consecutive days of heavy smog, which will fill the air with dangerous levels of toxins. A red alert means that heavy air pollution is expected to persist for more than three days.

Local authorities in China’s capital city advised kindergartens, primary and middle schools to keep all kids inside and not let them play out of doors. There was no mention of the city’s high schools, which the Post said focus mostly on indoor preparations for testing.

China is the world’s largest operator of coal-fired power plants

Building sites all over the always-expanding city were also being targeted by authorities because their equipment only adds to the toxic exhaust, dust and other pollutants looming in the air.

The warning system was launched three years ago in response to worsening—and chronically bad—air pollution throughout Beijing, amid rising public concern over air quality. It is one tool authorities are using to address the problem after decades of extreme economic growth and industrialization that led to the construction of hundreds of coal-fired power plants and skyrocketing automobile ownership.

Officials have said they are making progress. In recent days environmental officials in Beijing said that a key indicator of bad air quality—the density of particulate matter PM2.5—fell during the first 10 months of 2016.

In addition, global environmental organization Greenpeace East Asia said that levels of toxic heavy metals including arsenic, cadmium and led in the PM2.5 in Beijing has been declining rapidly since 2013. The organization said the drop was tied to the closing of a number of coal-fired power plants in and around Beijing.

That said, the Beijing Municipal Environmental Monitoring Center acknowledged that air quality in the megatropolis was only going to get worse in the near term as the coal-powered winter heating system activates across northern China. And it’s unclear how many Chinese have their own air filtration systems in their homes.

Plus, just because a state-run newspaper says things are getting better in Beijing, pollution-wise, doesn’t make it so. The country’s hyper-economic growth has brought with it new wealth, for certain, living millions of Chinese out of poverty. But it has all come at a heavy environmental cost; China, like neighboring India, is causing permanent damage to its citizenry through its industrialized toxification of its air, water and soil.

Why Chinese food products cannot be truly “organic” if grown in the open air

As we have reported, China and India have more coal-fired power plants than the rest of the world combined, and China has built more of them than India, which is also struggling to adjust to skyrocketing economic growth. The pollution being generated by China is so bad, in fact, that Japanese scientists have complained that the peaks on the nearly 13,000-foot Mt. Fuji are coated with toxic mercury.

Also, as we have noted, China’s environmental damage is so pervasive that it is impossible for the country’s so-called “organic” food growers to make that claim. Writing in 2013 Natural News founder/editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reported that when it comes to foods and nutritional supplements from China, the organic food market is largely a hoax because there are no limits to how much heavy metals like arsenic and lead and mercury are permitted in “organic” products.

On that issue, in October we reported that such contaminated foods were nevertheless entering the United States marked as organic, when in fact they were cultivated and grown in contaminated soil using contaminated water.

In fact, U.S. Customs personnel often turn away food shipments from China because they contain unsavory additives and drug residues, are mislabeled, or are just generally filthy. Some Chinese food exporters have responded by labeling their products “organic,” though they are far from it, we reported.





/environews/2017-01-09-nightmare-in-beijing-pollution-so-bad-in-chinese-government-tells-schools-to-keep-children-indoors.html/feed 0
China going clean? Province bans GMO crops for five years /environews/2017-01-08-china-going-clean-province-bans-gmo-crops-for-five-years.html /environews/2017-01-08-china-going-clean-province-bans-gmo-crops-for-five-years.html#respond Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 Economic power China is not known for its quality control of products. In fact, especially when it comes to food production, it’s really not possible for the country to claim any of its agricultural products are “organic,” just because the air, soil and water over much of Chinese farmland is so polluted with heavy metals.

But it could be the country is trying to clean up its act somewhat.

As reported by the Financial Times, agriculture authorities in the largest grain-producing province in China have implemented a five-year ban on genetically modified crops, which is a blow to the central government’s efforts to transform the country into a global GMO-producing powerhouse.

Even though the central government has spent billions of dollars on food biotechnology, Beijing currently does not allow the cultivation of any GMO crops with the exception of cotton and papaya, due to extreme suspicion and scrutiny from consumers over the perceived health risks.

The five-year ban, which was recently announced by officials in China’s northeastern Heilongjiang province, begins in May and applies to staple crops like rice, corn and soybeans.

China wants to become a global GMO power

“The black soil of Heilongjiang and its biodiversity needs special protection,” state-run China News Service reported, citing provincial officials.

The decision comes following plans published by the central government in August in which Beijing said it would begin to develop specific GMO crops that included corn and soybeans for the very first time. That announcement followed President Xi Jinping’s call for his country to “dominate high points of GMO techniques” that he mentioned during a speech released in 2014.

The $44 billion bid by Chemchina for Switzerland’s Syngenta, a GMO giant, is also being viewed as an attempt to bolster China’s global GMO prowess, despite the fact that in the U.S. and throughout Europe opposition to genetically-modified crops has been steadily increasing for years.

The five-year ban was prompted by a survey of the people which showed that more than 90 percent of respondents in the Heilongjiang province objected to the growing of GMO crops, the official Xinhua news agency reported. In addition, the ban follows a report by the global environmental organization Greenpeace earlier this year, which found there was rampant and widespread illegal use of GMO crops among agricultural operations in neighboring Liaoning province.

“Consumers in China, having experienced a litany of food scandals, are understandably distrustful of regulation round food and agriculture, and this extends to a distrust of genetically modified foods,” Sam Geall, a research fellow at the University of Sussex’s Science Policy Research Unit, told FT.

Other experts told Chinese state media that the ban was in direct conflict with the central government’s efforts to become a global GMO producer.

No doubt anti-GMO activists will seek to make the ban permanent, and nationwide

“The local government lacks foresight as it has rejected any possibility of developing GM technologies in China,” said Lu Baorong, a biology professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, in an interview with the Global Times newspaper.

However, Elrand Ek, an agricultural researcher at China Policy, a think tank based in Beijing, said that the five-year ban is important because it can be used as a tool for the central government to gain the public’s trust regarding any future moves to expand GMO crop development and production. Also, the Heilongjiang decision is important “because they would like to protect [the province’s] advantage as a producer of non-GMO soybean for the domestic and international market.

Currently China does allow for the importation of GMO soybeans, but only for use in animal feed. Ek said the ban is mostly about the protection of local produce and gaining a “comparable advantage” in response to the increase in GMO imports from the United States and other countries.

Still, there will be some agricultural and environmental experts who will no doubt be pushing to make the ban permanent and, perhaps, spread it to all of China, as it should be.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.






/environews/2017-01-08-china-going-clean-province-bans-gmo-crops-for-five-years.html/feed 0