Mother Nature: “Waste Not..Please!”

Japan To Dump Radioactive Waste From Fukushima Disaster Into Pacific Ocean

By Amanda Froelich (July 15, 2017)

The head company responsible for cleaning up the Fukushima disaster plans on dumping 580 barrels of water tainted with tritium — a radioactive form of hydrogen — into the Pacific Ocean.

Though it is well-established that the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear disaster is a detriment to human health, wildlife and the environment, the head company responsible for the Fukushima clean-operation, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), is intent on dumping water tainted with tritium — a radioactive form of hydrogen — into the Pacific Ocean. Presently, there are about 580 barrels of the radiative water which were used to cool the nuclear plant’s damaged reactors.

According to The Independent, the company’s decision to dump tainted water from Fukushima’s triple meltdown has outraged locals and citizens around the globe. Despite the fierce outcry, Takashi Kawamura, chairman of TEPCO, declared: “The decision has already been made.” However, TEPCO is not legally allowed to release the nearly 777,000 tons of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean until the government gives the final approval. “We cannot keep going if we do not have the support of the state,” said Mr. Kawamura.

Among those infuriated by the proposal to dump tritium-tainted water into the ocean are fishermen, who say the decision will affect their livelihoods. Kanji Tachiya, head of a local fishermen’s cooperative, for instance, told the press: “Releasing (tritium) into the sea will create a new wave of unfounded rumors, making our efforts all for naught.”

TEPCO claims tritium is of little danger to humans unless exposed to high quantities. Said NRA chairman Tanaka, the chemical is “so weak in its radioactivity it won’t penetrate plastic wrapping.” Oceanagrapher Simon Boxall, who works at the University of Southhampton, agreed. He told The Guardian, “In the broad scale of things, if they do end up putting the material in the Pacific, it will have minimal effect on an ocean basin scale.”

Whether or not the water harms wildlife is questionable, but of more concern, it seems, to environmental activists is the potential that similar practices may become more common. “They say that it will be safe because the ocean is large so it will be diluted, but that sets a precedent that can be copied, essentially permitting anyone to dump nuclear waste into our seas,” said Aileen Mioko-Smith of Green Action Japan. Considering radiation from Fukushima crippled two robots in the past, some believe there is cause for concern.

What are your thoughts? Please comment your thoughts below and share this news!

True Activist / Report a typo

Lead in Food

Lead in Food: A Hidden Health Threat

Moms Clean Air Force

BY ON June 15, 2017

Our core issues are air pollution and climate change, but in our work to protect children’s health we were surprised to learn that food is a source of young children’s exposure to lead.

New research from Environmental Defense Fund, our parent organization, explores the problem of lead in baby food. We are reposting their article about the research here in full because we think it’s so important. No safe level of lead has been identified. Even very low blood lead levels can lead to behavioral problems and lower IQ.

Lead has no place in a child’s diet! Please call the customer service number of the company that makes your baby food. FDA allowable levels are not good enough.

Here’s what you can say: “I don’t want lead in my baby’s food – no matter what FDA says is permissible. Can you assure me that you have tested your food for lead and that it meets the guidelines laid out by the American Academy of Pediatrics for no more than 1 ppb of lead?”


Food is a meaningful – and surprising – source of young children’s exposure to lead.

No safe level of lead in blood has been identified. In children, even very low blood lead levels can cause behavioral problems and lower IQ. Protecting children’s ability to learn and thrive demands that we find effective ways to reduce exposures to lead from all sources.

EDF analyzed 11 years of data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and found that food, and baby food in particular, is a meaningful – and surprising – source of lead. If it were eliminated completely, we estimate the societal benefits at more than $27 billion annually.

Key findings

EDF‘s analysis of 11 years of FDA data found:

  • Lead was detected in 20% of baby food samples compared to 14% for other foods.
  • Eight types of baby foods had detectable lead in more than 40% of samples.
  • Baby food versions of apple and grape juices and carrots had more samples with detectable lead than the regular versions.

EDF also found that more than 1 million children consume more lead than FDA’s limit. Eliminating lead in food would save society more than $27 billion annually in total lifetime earnings from saved IQ points.

What we did

EDF evaluated data collected and analyzed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2003 to 2013 as part of the agency’s Total Diet Study (TDS). Since the 1970s, the TDS has tracked metals, pesticides, and nutrients in food. While we evaluated all types of food collected by FDA, we focused on types of baby food because infants are most vulnerable to lead.

What we found

Overall, 20% of 2,164 baby food samples and 14% of the other 10,064 food samples had detectable levels of lead. At least one sample in 52 of the 57 types of baby food analyzed by FDA had detectable levels of lead in it. Lead was most commonly found in the following baby foods types:

  • Fruit juices: 89% of grape juice samples contained detectable levels of lead, mixed fruit (67%), apple (55%), and pear (45%)
  • Root vegetables: Sweet potatoes (86%) and carrots (43%)
  • Cookies: Arrowroot cookies (64%) and teething biscuits (47%)

We also found that the baby food versions of apple and grape juice and of carrots had samples with detectable lead more often than the regular versions.

Juice with detectable level of lead

Recommendations

Both FDA and food producers can and must do better to reduce lead in food, especially baby food.

EDF recommends that FDA:

  • Ensure lead is not added to any food contact material where it is reasonably expected to get into food;
  • Make clear that the international standards for fruit juice are inadequate;
  • Update its limits and food safety guidance to reflect current scientific understanding of lead risks that better protect children; and
  • Encourage manufacturers to reduce lead levels in food and take enforcement action when limits are exceeded.

Manufacturers need not wait for FDA to act. EDF recommends companies:

  • Set a goal of less than 1 ppb of lead in baby food and other foods marketed to young children;
  • Continue to prioritize lead contaminant minimization when sourcing ingredients;
  • Test more frequently during processing to identify additional sources of lead and take appropriate corrective actions; and
  • Publicly commit to consumers to drive down lead levels through health-protective limits and robust product stewardship.

In the meantime, parents of young children should consult with their child’s pediatrician to learn about all the ways to reduce lead exposure. They should also check with their favorite brands to ask whether the company:

  • Regularly tests its products for lead; and
  • Ensures that, especially for baby food, there is less than 1 ppb of lead in the food and juices they sell.

Healthy eating requires safe, nutritious food. (Tweet this) Lead has no place in a child’s diet.

Download the report [PDF]

JOIN THE FORCE

TOPICS: Children’s Health, Politics, Toxics

FYI: “Safest Travel?”

 

“Asbestos of the Sky” – The Aviation Industry’s Darkest Coverup

Image result for asbestos on a plane

 

Posted on: Tuesday, January 3rd 2017
at 5:00 am Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2017

 
The aviation industry hangs its hat on air travel being “the safest way to travel.” The truth, however, is that it has harbored a dark secret since its inception: it’s poisoning its passengers and crew due to deeply flawed aircraft design, de-prioritizing safety in favor of profit.

In flight, every crew member and passenger relies on an air supply. The assumption, of course, is that this air is filtered if not fresh. Perhaps you have sensed (and promptly dismissed) that there may be quality control issues around cabin air. The problem goes further than that, however, and astoundingly, this is not by accident but by design.

What’s more concerning is the fact that the industry has known about this completely preventable health hazard for at least 40 years, but no attempts have been made to filter this cocktail of hundreds of chemicals (including organophosphates in the same category as toxic nerve agents like Sarin) out of the cabin air before travelers are forced to breath them in. Nor has the root cause of the problem — unsafe aircraft design and the deprioritization of human safety — been effectively addressed.

A history of cabin air supply
Essentially, the problem comes from the need to supply the jet airliners with warm compressed air while flying at high altitudes. In order to do so, all planes used by commercial airlines since 1963 inject the cabin with air directly from the compressors of their jet engines in what is known as ‘bleed air.’ In the 50’s, engineers designed airplanes which pulled fresh air into the cabin, but this “modification” was deemed too costly by decision-makers at the time. As a result of poor design, every breath that the crew and passengers take today, consists of a 50/50 mix of recirculated cabin air and bleed air, the latter of which can contains a wide range of synthetic chemicals, such as tricresyl phosphate (TCP or TOCP), an organophosphate which is highly neurotoxic to humans. In fact, the World Health Organisation stated in 1990 that “Because of considerable variation among individuals in sensitivity to TOCP, it is not possible to establish a safe level of exposure” and “TOCP are therefore considered major hazards to human health.”1
And so, with the exception of single aircraft — the new Boeing 787, where cabin air is taken directly from the atmosphere with electrically powered compressors — all flights today involve a high risk of exposure to these neurotoxic chemicals. When you consider there are about 100,000 flights a day (only 5% of which occur on “safe” Boeing 787’s, with at least 1 in 100 flights experiencing a major ‘fume event,’ this amounts to the health endangerment of millions of daily passengers. Entire advocacy organizations exist which are dedicated to exposing the truth about the dangers of toxic airplane air, and pressuring the industry to initiate reform.

READ FULL ARTICLE: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/asbestos-sky-aviation-industry-s-darkest-coverup

 

‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | EWG

‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | @ewg | #ChemicalSafety

health_flouride-h2o

In the film “Erin Brockovich,” the environmental crusader confronts the lawyer of a power company that polluted the tap water of Hinkley, Calif., with a carcinogenic chemical called chromium-6. When the lawyer picks up a glass of water, Brockovich says: “We had that water brought in ‘specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.”

The lawyer sets down the glass and says, “I think this meeting’s over.”

But almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation,[1] the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.

The standoff is the latest round in a tug-of-war between scientists and advocates who want regulations based strictly on the chemical’s health hazards and industry, political and economic interests who want more relaxed rules based on the cost and feasibility of cleanup. If the industry challenge prevails, it will also extend the Environmental Protection Agency’s record, since the 1996 landmark amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, of failing to use its authority to set a national tap water safety standard for any previously unregulated chemical.[2]

In 2008, a two-year study by the National Toxicology Program found that drinking water with chromium-6, or hexavalent chromium, caused cancer in laboratory rats and mice.[3] Based on this and other animal studies, in 2010, scientists at the respected and influential California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that ingestion of tiny amounts of chromium-6 can cause cancer in people, a conclusion affirmed by state scientists in New Jersey and North Carolina.

The California scientists set a so-called public health goal of 0.02 parts per billion in tap water, the level that would pose negligible risk over a lifetime of consumption.[4] (A part per billion is about a drop of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.) But in 2014, after aggressive lobbying by industry and water utilities, state regulators adopted a legal limit 500 times the public health goal.[5] It is the only enforceable drinking water standard at either the state or federal level.

 

Potentially unsafe concentrations for two-thirds of AmericaSpurred by a groundbreaking 2010 EWG investigation that found chromium-6 in the tap water of 31 cities[6] and a Senate hearing prompted by the findings, the EPA ordered local water utilities to begin the first nationwide tests for the unregulated contaminant. From 2013 to 2015, utilities took more than 60,000 samples of drinking water and found chromium-6 in more than 75 percent of them.[7] EWG’s analysis of the test data estimates that water supplies serving 218 million Americans – more than two-thirds of the population – contain more chromium-6 than the California scientists deemed safe.

(Read Full Article: Click “Source” Link Below)

Source: ‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | EWG

Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods | Food Democracy Now

Source: Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods | Food Democracy Now

Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods

A new report by Food Democracy Now! and the Detox Project exposes shocking levels of glyphosate contamination in popular American foods, including Cheerios, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish and Stacy’s Pita Chips.

Levels found in these product are well above the levels found by independent peer-reviewed studies which show that ultra-low levels of glyphosate can cause organ damage starting at 0.1 parts per billion (ppb). This is 1,750 times lower than what the EPA currently claims is safe. The highest levels detected were found in General Mills’ Original Cheerios, which were simply off the charts, at 1,125.3 ppb or nearly twice the level considered potentially harmful according to the latest scientific research in a single serving.

As a result, we’re calling on the EPA Inspector General to investigate the agency’s failure to properly test and regulate glyphosate, end the practice of pre-harvest spraying of Roundup as a drying agent and release ALL of the industry data submitted to federal agencies, but kept hidden from the American public as “trade secrets.”

Demand that your regulatory agencies, like the EPA, FDA and USDA protect the American people from toxic chemicals in our food, water and air! It’s time to get Monsanto’s Roundup off your plate, ban glyphosate and label GMOs! We need your help today. Every voice counts! The report can be viewed here.

America: Food System Broken?

America And Our Broken Food System, Can It Be Healed?
FOODS_FUTURE

With this most unusual and divisive presidential election season heading into its final stretch, the candidates are narrowing their focus on swing states, including New Hampshire. But when they come courting voters, will they speak to issues that matter most to our families, our health, our economies and our well-being?

As a Dartmouth professor of sustainability science and a researcher who has delved deeply into some of the most pressing issues affecting our future, I believe that food is one of those topics.

Yes, food. Today’s food and farming system is complex and mixed up with many other issues of the day – immigration, climate change, resource depletion and water pollution, not to mention the obesity epidemic and its implications for health care spending and even military readiness. And yet food issues have been glaringly absent from the campaign trail.

By now, the candidates should be well aware that the United States has a broken food system. When I say “food system,” I mean the policies pertaining to how we grow food, how it winds up on our tables and all the steps in between.  (READ FULL ARTICLE)

THEY SAY “NO GMO!”

First Scotland Then Germany Now Greece Has Kicked Out Monsanto As GMO Bans Sweep Through Europe  http://www.healthfreedoms.org/first-scotland-then-germany-now-greece-has-kicked-out-monsanto-as-gmo-bans-sweep-through-europe/

FOODS_GMO-NO2

First Scotland and Germany booted GMOs from their countries, citing fear of GMO crops contaminating their food supplies and concern over putting their food and beverage industries in jeopardy. Now, Greece and Latvia are telling Monsanto exactly what they can do with their genetically modified crops. The tide is turning. A tipping point just became evident through the actions of two additional European countries who have had enough of the Biotech strong arm.

Latvia and Greece have opted out of GMOs, as are Germany and Scotland, as part of the new allowances indicated in legislation that recently passed for EU countries.

The geographical opt-outs specifically target Monsanto’s MON810 GM Maize, which countries may choose to grow or refuse in the next several months. This is currently the only genetically modified crop allowed to be grown within the EU at present – but only when countries give specific permission.

As Sustainable Pulse explains, “while the European Commission is responsible for approvals, requests to be excluded also have to be submitted to the company making the application i.e. Monsanto for MON810.”

If additional member states deny Monsanto, we can be assured that the biotech company will try to find other ways to force their GM crops on the world (e.g. the Trans Pacific Trade partnership) but as we collectively say NO, upholding bans, and demanding labeling, we will rid this planet of the plague that is genetically modified food.

Source(s):

getholistichealth.com
reuters.com
naturalsociety.com
sustainablepulse.com
politicalvelcraft.org

DOZENS of Food Crops Treated with Pre-Harvest Roundup

DOZENS of Food Crops Treated with Pre-Harvest Roundup (it’s not just wheat!)
by Sarah Green Living

ENVIRONS_ROUND-UP7.jpg
Glyphosate spraying Pre-harvest application of herbicides as a (toxic) drying agent on wheat is an established practice on many conventional farms. The method was first suggested as early as 1980, becoming routine in North America over the past 15 years or so. Use is also widespread in the UK.

Applying herbicides like Roundup 7-10 days before harvest is viewed as especially helpful for wheat that ripens unevenly, a common occurrence. It is also considered a helpful tool to initiate an earlier harvest when weather conditions threaten plant viability. Other benefits are earlier ripening for earlier replanting and reducing the green material in the field. This puts less strain on farm machinery during harvest.

Farmers euphemistically call the practice “desiccation”. When used during wheat harvest, it can result in slightly greater yield by triggering plants to release more seeds.

The result? Most non-organic wheat in North America is now contaminated with glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and similar herbicides.
WHO: Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen

A March 2015 report by the World Health Organization identified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Several EU countries have banned it as a result with more in the works.

However, in North America, glyphosate use shockingly continues to remain a popular farming tool.

And, as it turns out, use of Roundup as a drying agent on wheat prior to harvest is just the tip of the iceberg.

Dozens of other food crops are subjected to glyphosate dousing prior to harvest as well.
But Wait! Isn’t Roundup Just for GMO Crops?

It is well known that Roundup is sprayed directly on GMO crops like corn and soy because they are genetically engineered to withstand the toxic onslaught without withering. So much Roundup is used on GMO crops, in fact, that herbicide-resistant “superweeds” are now a huge problem little more than a decade later (1).

“If Roundup kills plants that aren’t genetically modified to resist it, then why use it on nonGMO crops?”

“Wouldn’t glyphosate kill a nonGMO crop?”

“Why would a farmer do this?”

Indeed, these common consumer questions indicate the ultimate irony of using Roundup for desiccation purposes on a food crop producing farm. Killing the crop and/or the greenery around it is actually the whole idea. For crops like wheat, it evens up the field, allows for an earlier harvest, protects machinery and/or increases profit.

The  Bottom Line?

Pre-harvest treatment of crops with glyphosate helps farmers to harvest their crops more efficiently and at less cost (2)

Crazy as it may seem, Roundup is used everywhere in the North American conventional food supply and not just on GMO crops or to kill weeds!

Glyphosate is applied directly to dozens of nonGMO food crops, in many cases, right before they are harvested. This is the worst possible time to apply a herbicide because it causes the glyphosate to be absorbed into the food crop directly. In other words, the glyphosate can’t be washed off later as it has become part of the food. This toxin will then be ingested by those who consume it either directly as a “whole food” or via processed foods that contain it as an ingredient.

According to the Cornucopia Institute:

Ubiquitous in food production, glyphosate is used not just with row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat but also a range of fruits, nuts and veggies. Even spinach growers use glyphosate (3).

Desiccating crops with herbicides before harvest is catching on in the UK as well where summers are wet and crops may ripen ripen slowly and unevenly. This can potentially lead to reduced yields and a lower quality crop. For example, 78% of the UK oilseed rape crop (similar to canola) is desiccated before harvest, but only 4% in Germany (4).

(READ FULL ARTICLE)

It’s Here: Another Dreaded Super-Bug!

The superbug that doctors have been dreading just reached the U.S.
HEALTH_SUPR-BUGS

CRE, a family of bacteria pictured in this illustration, is considered one of the deadliest superbugs because it causes infections that are often resistant to most antibiotics. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/Reuters)

This post has been updated.

For the first time, researchers have found a person in the United States carrying bacteria resistant to antibiotic of last resort, an alarming development that the top U.S. public health official says could signal “the end of the road” for antibiotics.

The antibiotic-resistant strain was found last month in the urine of a 49-year-old Pennsylvania woman. Defense Department researchers determined that she carried a strain of E. coli resistant to the antibiotic colistin, according to a study published Thursday in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, a publication of the American Society for Microbiology. The authors wrote that the discovery “heralds the emergence of a truly pan-drug resistant bacteria.”

[Superbug known as ‘phantom menace’ on the rise in U.S.]

(READ FULL ARTICLE)

 

EWG Petition Re: BPA

Tell the Senate to Label BPA

Halimah Allah,

The dangers of the toxic chemical bisphenol A are no secret.

Even tiny amounts of BPA can disrupt the endocrine system. It has been linked to a wide variety of ills, including infertility, cancer, obesity, diabetes, early puberty, behavioral changes in children and resistance to chemotherapy.

In other words, it has no place anywhere in our food or food packaging – yet it continues to be used to coat the insides of most of the 131 billion food and beverage cans made in the U.S. annually.

The good news is, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has introduced the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act, a bill that would require food companies to label packaging that contains BPA.

Click here to tell your senators you have a right to know about BPA in food packaging. Tell them to support S. 821.

This important bill would not only make sure consumers know which food packages contain BPA, but also instruct the Food and Drug Administration to investigate the hazards of trace exposures to BPA through food packaging.

Last year, EWG scientists scrutinized more than 250 canned food brands and found that more than a third of them were still using BPA-based epoxy can linings for all their products.

The BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act would make sure American consumers know which products contain BPA and would empower the FDA to investigate and regulate it.

Tell your senators: Support S. 821, the BPA in Food Packaging Right to Know Act.

Thanks for standing with us,

Ken Cook
President, EWG

(TYH Note:  This Post Is For Information Only)

« Older entries