Author Archives: marcia

Colorado Fires, East Coast Storms

Posted on by

Two people are dead in the Colorado Springs area due to the Black Forest fire, which continues to rage virtually unchecked about five miles northeast of Colorado’s second largest city (population 400,000.) The fire’ had burned through 15,700 acres by late Thursday afternoon, and was 5% contained. Over 38,000 people in 13,000 homes had been evacuated. The weather was no help on Thursday, as afternoon temperatures spiked to 90°, winds were sustained at 33 mph, gusting to 40 mph, and the humidity dropped as low as 14%. The fire began on Tuesday, June 11, during a record heat wave. Colorado Springs hit 98° on June 10–the city’s hottest temperature ever recorded so early in the year. The temperature topped out at 97° on June 11. The extreme heat, combined with the extreme drought gripping the region, made for ideal fire conditions. Fire conditions will not be as dangerous in the Colorado Springs area on Friday, as a weak cold front is expected to pass through the region during the afternoon, bringing cooler temperatures and increased humidity. Strong winds may still be a problem, though.


Figure 1. The Black Forest Fire burns behind a stand of trees on June 12, 2013, near Colorado Springs, Colo. (Chris Schneider/Getty Images)


Figure 2. Aerial view of a Colorado Springs neighborhood burned in the Black Forest Fire on June 13, 2013. (Image: AP Photo/John Wark)

The three most expensive fires in Colorado history have all occurred in the past year
The 360 homes burned by this week’s Black Canyon fire are the most ever destroyed in Colorado by a fire, and will likely make it the most expensive fire in Colorado history. The previous record was the $353 million Waldo Canyon fire of June 23 – July 10, 2012. That fire killed two people, destroyed 347 homes, forced the evacuation of over 32,000 people, and burned 18,247 acres of land. The High Park fire of June, 2012, which destroyed 259 buildings near Fort Collins, now ranks as the third most expensive Colorado fire (it was the most expensive one at the time.) The Black Forest fire has a long ways to go if it wants to challenge the 2002 Hayman Fire as the largest fire in Colorado history. The Hayman fire burned 138,000 acres, an area about nine times as large as this week’s Black Forest fire.

According to a federal report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2012, Colorado can expect to see a sharp increase in wildfires during the coming decades, if the climate warms as expected. The report cited research predicting that a 1.8°F increase in Colorado’s average temperature–the level of warming expected by 2050 under a moderate global warming scenario–would cause a factor of 2.8 – 6.6 increase in fire area burned in the state.

Video 1. Aerial view of the Colorado Springs Black Forest fire on June 11, 2013.

Severe thunderstorms pound the Mid-Atlantic
It was another intense day of severe thunderstorm activity for the Mid-Atlantic region on Thursday. A child was killed in Virginia by a falling tree, and at least three people were injured in Albemarle, North Carolina when a violent thunderstorm blew trees onto homes. NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center (SPC) logged 376 reports of damaging thunderstorm wind gusts in the 15 hours ending at 11:25 pm EDT Thursday night, and three of these gusts were 74 mph or greater. SPC is now acknowledging that Wednesday’s bow echo that traveled 600 miles from Indiana to New Jersey was a low-end derecho, with over 150 damaging wind reports. The most impressive thunderstorm winds from the derecho occurred in Wabash County, Indiana, where a “macroburst” produced winds of 90 – 100 mph across an area seven miles long and three miles wide, destroying three buildings and causing extensive tree damage. Total damage from the two-day severe weather outbreak over the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic will likely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.


Figure 3. Severe weather reports for the 15 hours ending at 11:25 pm EDT June 14, 2013, from SPC.


Figure 4. Radar composite of the June 12 – 13 bow echo that traveled from Indiana to new Jersey. Image credit: NOAA/SPC.

from:    http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/show.html

Old Cassette Tapes Make Sound Fashion

Posted on by

Sonic Fabric Recycles Cassette Tapes

Jun 14, 2013 09:32 AM ET // by Jesse Emspak

Tape cassettes seem are like endangered species: not often seen in the wild and on their way to extinction. Conceptual artist Alyce Santoro has come up with a way to use the tape, appeal to fashion and create a whole new way of making music at the same time.

She mixed strips of the old 1/8-inch audio tape with polyester fibers to create a material called “sonic fabric.” The tape and polyester are woven together on a loom — fittingly, older technology seems to work better on audio tape. The audio tape retains its magnetization, which means it can play sounds. The tape, Santoro told DNews, is actually new — it comes from a company that makes audiobooks.

“Hearing” the fabric requires running a cassette player’s tape heads across the clothing. The tape heads pick up the patterns of the magnetic fields on the tape and makes a sound. The original recording cannot be heard because the tape has been woven in with other material. Instead, one hears a kind of warbling tone.

Santoro didn’t stop there. She posted a YouTube video that shows how to take apart an old Sony Walkman and make it into a player. (It involves detaching the tape head and inserting a piece of wood under the “play” button, so the head faces outward). One design on her website even has the Walkman built into a glove, which would “play” the clothes as the wearer runs her hands across them. In 2003 she made a “percussion suit” for Jon Fishman, of the band Phish, who played it at one of the band’s live shows.

Then there’s putting specific sounds on the tape. Rather than deal with the randomness of salvaged cassettes, Santoro designed fabrics that have specific tones recorded on them, such as 131.6 hertz, or C-sharp.

Fashion, recycling, and a little 80s nostalgia – you can’t beat that.

via CNN

Credit: Photo courtesy Alysa Santoro

from:    http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/sonic-fabric-recycles-cassette-tapes-130614.htm

Hubble Finds New Planet

Posted on by

Hubble Discovers Far-Out Baby Planet

Jun 14, 2013 01:40 AM ET // by Irene Klotz

Even by celestial standards, the span between a newly found suspected baby planet and its host star is astronomical — 7.5 billion miles, which is about twice as far as Pluto orbits the sun.

To date, no other other extrasolar planet is as far away from its host star as the fledgling world circling TW Hydrae, a small red dwarf located about 176 light-years from Earth.

PHOTOS: Hubble’s Latest Mind Blowing Cosmic Pictures

Scientists are at a loss to explain how the planet, which is believed to be six- to 28 times as big as Earth, could exist. For starters, the host star is only about 8 million years old, which was believed to be too young to support planets. It also is small, about half as massive as the sun.

Computer models show that a planet 7.5 billion miles from its parent star would take 200 times longer to form than a planet positioned about where Jupiter is in our solar system. Jupiter, which took about 10 million years to form, is around 500 million miles from the sun.

The baby planet was detected indirectly from a telltale gap in a 41-billion-mile wide ring of gas and dust circling TW Hydrae. The gap is believed to be due to the growing planet gravitationally sweeping up material that is then incorporated into the planet. Astronomers used the Hubble Space Telescope for their survey.

The research is published in The Astrophysical Journal.

Image credit: NASA, ESA, J. Debes (STScI), H. Jang-Condell (University of Wyoming), A. Weinberger (Carnegie Institution of Washington), A. Roberge (Goddard Space Flight Center), G. Schneider (University of Arizona/Steward Observatory), and A. Feild (STScI/AURA)

from:    http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/hubble-spies-far-out-baby-planet-130613.htm

Pesky Nutrition Myths

Posted on by

10 Common Nutrition Myths and Misconceptions

nutrition-myths15th June 2013

By Tracy Kolenchuk

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

The most common misconception about nutrition is that we actually know a lot about nutrition.

Fact: no-one studies healthy nutrition and diet in a serious, scientific fashion. We have lots of theories, lots of errors, lots of contradictions, but little true scientific testing in search of truth.

Virtually all of the scientific research into nutrition is ‘illness based’, not healthiness based. This bias creates a lot of knowledge about specific diseases but little understanding of health. When we research ‘illness’, we search for specific causes and specific cures.

Did you ever wonder why everything seems to be bad for you, and almost everything seems to be good for you as well? This is a result of researching illness and ignoring healthiness. Illnesses are ‘specific’. Healthiness is general. Lessons learned by studying illness are poor teachers when trying to attain healthiness.

As a result, we have many theories about nutrition that are repeated over and over, but are simply, clearly wrong. Others are simply myths.

[I distinguish between myths and wrong ideas in this article – although I suspect I have not done so in previous articles. Although many people use the word myth to describe ‘wrong ideas’, I will use the word Myth for ideas that are widely believed, but not proven, and Error for ideas that have been proven wrong].

Some of these theories include:

1. Error:  ”Calories in = calories out“.

The truth – poo burns. Normally, it contains about 20 percent fats, but we don’t have much research into how eating more, or less fat changes that ratio. Poo contains calories. So does sebum. So does urine if you are diabetic. Both contain more if you have specific illnesses or if you consume specific diets. Calories in = calories out math simply doesn’t work. If we use it to estimate the weight based on averages in calorie consumption increases in the past two decades, the average weight would be about 900 pounds.

This Error is often stated differently: “Cutting calories will cause weight loss”. Experiments have clearly shown that cutting calories, but consuming the wrong foods (eg. high in carbs) will continue to increase obesity. Cutting back on the wrong foods does not make a difference to a poor diet. Unfortunately, figuring out what are ‘the right foods for you’ can be a huge challenge.

2. Myth: “Vegetarianism is a healthy diet”.

Vegetarianism is an ethical diet, marketed as a healthy diet. It has been studied (a bit) to determine what illnesses might result, and what illnesses might benefit, but it has not been studied from a healthiness perspective. It is very easy for someone who is not a vegetarian to switch to vegetarianism and choose a very unhealthy diet without realizing it.

At the same time, there has been little study of an all meat diet, because it is not seen as an ethical diet. There have been some studies which found an all meat diet can also decrease illness and may improve healthiness in specific cases. But the studies are so few and so limited that, as most studies conclude, “more study is required”.

3. Myth: “Breakfast is the most important meal”.

There is no significant evidence to support this, nor any other eating pattern for optimal healthiness. Of course it can always be said that breakfast is the most important meal – when we recognize that every meal ‘breaks the previous fast’, even if our lunch or dinner is actually our ‘breakfast’. For some people, breakfast is essential to get started, for others, breakfast can easily be left aside until lunchtime or later. Nobody has attempted to measure which of those ‘types’ are healthiest, nor if their healthiness is caused by their eating patterns.

We don’t scientifically test eating times and their effects on healthiness. Hospitals provide food ‘when it is convenient’, not on a schedule to improve or maximize healing or healthiness. When we truly know which eating patterns were healthiest, hospitals will want to know, and senior’s homes might need to change their schedules. It may well turn out that simple eating plans are not as healthy as more complex, diverse eating plans.

Glass of water - Copy4. Myth: “Drink eight glasses of water a day for health”.

Where did this myth come from? You might find the answer here “The mysterious origins of the “8 glasses of water a day” rule“, where the author reports:

“The origins of the “8 glasses of water a day” rule was explored by Dr. Heinz Valtin in a 2002 article and Dr. Tsindos  in a 2012 article. After extensive searches of the published literature, they found absolutely no scientific evidence for the idea that most people need to drink at least 8 glasses of water a day.”

How much water should you drink? At the very least, you should listen to your body and let it decide. If you are suffering a headache – the morning after – you are probably suffering from dehydration as your body tried to remove toxins by urinating. Drink some water.

5. Myth: “Vitamins are dangerous”.

More people die from drinking too much water than from taking too many vitamins. Vitamins are called vitamins because they are essential to health. But then it gets complicated – really complicated. All vitamins are studied in isolation – studies of combinations are much more difficult. Scientific studies of vitamins are tested against illness – to determine if they cause, or cure illness. Many nutritional studies were designed to ensure that prisoners don’t get sick.

There are no vitamin studies that test changes in ‘healthiness’. Because of the focus on illness, much vitamin research is ignored. For example, a deficiency of Vitamin C results in scurvy (in theory) – but this research ignores that fact that a diet of meats alone does not result in scurvy, even though the Vitamin C consumed is much less than required to prevent scurvy on a carb diet.

Many so called ‘vitamins’ are actually chemicals created to ‘act like’ natural vitamins – and these are poorly studied with regards to healthiness and illness. It is certainly possible that some of these vitamins are dangerous.

When we are truly interested in learning about healthiness of vitamins and minerals, we will study which vitamin combinations improve healthiness the most – and study their relationships to different dietary regimens.

6. Myth: “Lean meats are good for your heart”.

There is no scientific evidence that lean meats are healthier than fatty meats. The same goes for other low fat foods (milk and cheese). If anything, the science demonstrates the opposite. The ‘avoid fat’ concept is simply a misunderstanding on how fat is created in our bodies – fat is created from sugars.

The lean meat myth was created by the American Heart Association, and is actively maintained by them in full view of much scientific evidence to the contrary. It has become fundamental to their fundraising operations – and it is unlikely they can change without losing a lot of face – and possibly a lot of money.

Most people who restrict themselves to ‘lean meats’ compensate with high glycemic foods like bread, pasta, and sugar. These foods are far worse for your heart and circulatory system than fatty foods.

7. Error: “Fiber is an essential nutrient for health”.

Fiber is not an essential nutrient – in fact, it is not even a nutrient. It is likely that fiber is important for specific dietary regimes, or specific purposes, but is completely useless in other diets. We simply don’t know and there is little scientific research that tests the fiber theories across different diets. Fiber is typically suggested to resolve illnesses that cannot be clearly diagnosed, not to improve healthiness.

8. Error: “You need to consume sugar for your brain to function”.

This is a misconception that is proved wrong by the simple act of fasting. Your blood supply runs out of dietary sugar in less than a day. Your brain has no problem functioning for weeks.

9. Error: “Fasting is unhealthy”.

Short term fasts are prescribed for blood tests etc., but many doctors claim that fasting is unhealthy or simply does not enhance healthiness. The simple truth is that we don’t test overall healthiness, we don’t measure overall healthiness, and we don’t know the facts about fasting either. Sleeping, frankly is fasting. And it’s healthy.

You might wonder how long someone can fast ‘safely’? The answer is simply, ‘it depends’. There are different types of fasts, and different people. If you ask Google, you might think that the longest fast is just over 40 days. But no. Here is a scientific report of a therapeutic fast that lasted 382 days. The patient started at over 400 pounds and emerged a healthy weight of 180 pounds. Fasting can be unhealthy – so can crossing the street.

10. Myth: “Toxins in foods are not at levels dangerous to your health”.

Many foods contain toxins. We know this. Many foods contain ‘natural toxins’ that the plants develop to fight insects. What the toxins do to our bodies, whether they build up or are excreted is poorly studied.

Toxins come in many forms and might be natural, coming from nature, or unnatural, created by man. Many GMO ‘foods‘ contain designer toxins. So do most patented medicines. Every day, more chemicals are created and used on foods and in our environment.

Studies of toxins are extremely weak. We don’t even have scientific agreement on simple questions like ‘Is fluoridated water healthy or unhealthy?’ We have many studies on the toxicity of fluoride and very few studies that suggest it may prevent dental caries. But no studies on healthiness of fluoride. However, in many communities fluoride is routinely added to drinking water.

Conclusions:

a) Simple rules are not so simple, and often not accurate. Take all advice with a grain of salt – I recommend natural salt. But I also recommend that you make your own decisions.

b) Studying illness to create healthiness is a poor choice, resulting in many simple errors.

c) If we want to learn about health, we need to study healthiness.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/06/15/10-common-nutrition-myths-and-misconceptions/

Elderberries Take on the Flu

Posted on by

Elderberries make flu shots look like ridiculous poison cocktails

Thursday, June 13, 2013 by: Lance Johnson

NaturalNews) With the flu season behind us, it’s definitely not time to grow passive and lax toward taking care of our immune system. Now is the perfect time to think about growing, harvesting, and utilizing key anti-flu herbs that protect against virus and bacteria.

A real flu fighter isn’t a cocktail shot in the arm; rather, a true flu fighter is a naturally antiviral, antibacterial, immune building powerhouse. One wonderful food medicine flourishing right among us is the elderberry. This flu fighting Spartan has been used throughout history to deter influenza virus. In fact, in 1995, an entire influenza epidemic was thwarted in Panama utilizing elderberry treatment.

Why do we need flu shots then?

With commercial ads promoting flu shots at every turn, it’s easy to let other “more knowledgeable” accredited people think for us. For some, it seems much easier to pull up to the drive thru, roll the sleeve back, and take the cocktail injection right in the arm, driving off self-assured.

It all sounds nice and beneficial, but when it comes down to it, there are serious unintended consequences that stem from consuming heavy metal laced vaccinations and absorbing a “quick fix” health philosophy:

The number one consequence is the growing rate of autism.

Study upon study is finding increased levels of thimerosal in autistic children. Thimerosal, a preservative used in vaccines, is known to inhibit methionine sythetase by 50 percent in vitro. Normal functioning of methionine sythetase is absolutely necessary for the biochemical development of the brain, attention, and the production of an important detoxifying agent called glutathione.

With thimerosal levels increasing in human tissues, brain function is deteriorating in general. Autism rates in 2000 were 1 in 150. Today autism affects an astounding 1 in 50! This is a serious epidemic that needs further examination. Autism awareness isn’t enough. It’s time to confess the root causes and be honest about autism origins. GMOs, pesticides, plastics, BPA all destroy natural human brain function, and thimerosal from vaccinations is leading this dark parade.

Elderberry makes flu shots look ridiculous

Elderberry simply makes contemporary flu shots look hideous, ridiculous, and insane. Who needs to be injected with formaldehyde, mercury, factory flu strains all in hopes of not getting sick?

It’s much wiser and safer to incorporate elderberries and other antiviral herbs into one’s lifestyle, promoting prevention rather than an insane injection of heavy metal, autism-inducing vaccinations.

Why aren’t we growing fields of this wonderful herb?

Elderberry is found growing wildly in North America, Europe, North Africa, and Western Asia. In 2005, researchers in London studied Black Elderberry and found that it’s 99 percent effective in fighting the Avian Flu (H5N1) virus. In Germany, scientists conducted studies that linked elderberry anthocyanins to enhanced immune function. Elderberry essentially works by boosting the production of cytokines, which are unique proteins that act as messengers that help regulate immune response. Their studies revealed that elderberry’s antioxidant powers were greater than equal doses of vitamin E and vitamin C. Furthermore, this activity has been shown to also decrease swelling in mucous membranes and sinuses.

Elderberry doesn’t wait on the flu, it stays on the offensive

Since flu viruses cannot replicate themselves, they use DNA from living cells to survive. To achieve their destruction, flu viruses puncture living cell walls with spiky features called hemagglutinin. This flu virus invasion can be completely prevented with elderberry because elderberry effectively disarms the spikes and halts the action of their enzymes.

Essentially, elderberry’s cytokine production prevents flu virus invasion before it ever takes hold – a much more effective strategy than heavy-metal-laced flu shot injections.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.beneficialbotanicals.com

http://www.quantumhealth.com/news/flu_alternatives_to_flu_vaccine.html

http://www.cellgevity4life.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/035452_autism_vaccinations_children.html

Resources for Non-GMO Products

Posted on by

Boycott these Monsanto-pandering factory ‘food’ companies and help drive GMOs out of the food supply

Thursday, June 13, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

(NaturalNews) If Americans are truly serious about making real progress in the fight against genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), then we are going to have to take things to the next level by voting with our wallets, and boycotting every single factory food company that continues to secretly use GMOs in its products. And one way to help jump start this efforts is to get the health-conscious community up to speed about which major food companies are still using GMOs in secrecy.

The blog REALfarmacy.com recently created a “Do Not Buy” list that outlines all the major food producers that use GMOs in their products. Besides the more obvious offenders such as Coca-Cola, General Mills, Pepsi, and Frito-Lay, the list also pins “health”-branded food companies like Nature Valley and Morningstar that many people are still unaware also use GMOs in their products. You can view this list here:
http://www.realfarmacy.com

As you will notice, virtually every major food brand in America uses GMOs in its products. This is hardly surprising, as the most recent figures show that 88 percent of all corn, 90 percent of all canola (rapeseed), 93 percent of all soybeans, and nearly 100 percent of all sugar beets grown in the U.S. contain transgenic traits patented and owned by Monsanto, Bayer CropScience, and a handful of other biotechnology companies. In fact, any food product that is not certified organic or that is not specifically designated as being non-GMO likely contains GM ingredients.

Purchase only local, non-GMO, organic foods; avoid eating out at restaurants that serve conventional food

Though admittedly difficult due to the sheer volume of contamination caused by GMOs, boycotting all products that contain them will be vital for eventually ridding the food supply of these toxic poisons. Major progress has already been made in the form of voluntary GMO labeling by food chain Chipotle, for instance, as well as mandatory GMO labeling in all Whole Foods Market stores by 2018 (or potentially even 2015, pending the passage of GMO labeling legislation at the individual state level). Even big-box retailer Target has jumped onboard, having announced that it will unveil a new non-GMO store brand known as “Simply Balanced.”

But we must do more. The brands we frequent as health-conscious individuals must be willing to take a stand now to eliminate GMOs from their product lines, or else they are not worth purchasing. Companies like Amy’s Kitchen, Annie’s, Applegate Farms, Beanitos, Bragg, Earthbound Farm, Eden Foods Organics, Kettle, Lundberg Family Farms, Nature’s Path, Organic Valley, and Pacific Foods are among those leading the way in providing clean, non-GMO foods. But what about all the other major brands that are still floundering in their commitment to clean food?

You can view a full list of verified non-GMO brands, as certified by The Non-GMO Project, here:
http://www.nongmoproject.org

The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has also created a Non-GMO Shopping Guide designed to help you avoid common ingredients like soy, canola, cottonseed, corn, sugar from sugar beets, and now wheat – unapproved GM wheat was recently found growing in a commercial field in Oregon – that are likely of GM origin. You can access this guide here:
http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/

You can also view the IRT “Buy Non-GMO” link with helpful shopping quick tips here:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/buy-non-gmo

As far as dining out is concerned, it is always best to ask questions and essentially let restaurant owners and managers know that you are concerned about the quality and integrity of their offerings. As them what types of oils they cook with, for instance, and inquire about which foods are prepared fresh and which ones are canned or bagged. IRT has some helpful tips for avoiding GMOs while dining out that you can access here:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/buy-non-gmo/dine-out-non-gmo

SUpreme Court: Human Genes Cannot be Patented

Posted on by

 

Sanity prevails: US Supreme Court rules that human genes are not eligible for patent protection

Thursday, June 13, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that human genes cannot be patented. The ruling invalidates the thousands of patents that have already been granted on human genes, including the patent by Myriad Genetics on the BRCA breast cancer genes which the company says no one else can research or even detect without paying it a royalty. Click here to read the complete ruling.

“Myriad did not create anything,” said Justice Clarence Thomas. “To be sure, it found an important and useful gene, but separating that gene from its surrounding genetic material is not an act of invention.”

Well, exactly. This point should have been obvious to the lower courts, too, but in today’s world of corporate domination over seemingly everything, gene industry lawyers were able to argue that patent protection would somehow inspire more innovation and research. “The biotechnology industry had warned that an expansive ruling against Myriad could threaten billions of dollars of investment,” wrote Reuters.

But exactly the opposite is true. Gene patents restricted research and created medical monopolies that raised prices for consumers. Even USA Today seemingly gets this point, saying, “The decision represents a victory for cancer patients, researchers and geneticists who claimed that a single company’s patent raised costs, restricted research and sometimes forced women to have breasts or ovaries removed without sufficient facts or second opinions.”

The ACLU, which argued the case before the Court, said, “By invalidating these patents, the Court lifted a major barrier to progress in further understanding how we can better treat and prevent diseases.”

Corporate efforts to influence the Supreme Court ultimately failed

Had the Supreme Court upheld the patentability of human genes, it would have unleashed a horrifying new era of corporations and universities rushing to claim monopoly patent protection on every gene in the human genome. Virtually no one in the media covered this angle other than Natural News. We warned readers that everything found in nature could then be patented: blades of grass, insects, human ears, eye colors, hair colors… anything encoded with DNA.

We also pointed out that Angelina Jolie’s carefully orchestrated announcement of a double mastectomy following BRCA gene testing seemed timed to be part of a public relations campaign engineered by the biotech industry to influence the Supreme Court decision. We also challenged Jolie to publicly denounce patents on human genes, which she never did.

It’s clear that powerful forces were at work behind the scenes to try to influence this Supreme Court decision, but they failed. Ultimately, the court discovered a moment of unanimous sanity… something we see so rarely that perhaps it deserves patent protection, too.

Huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries

It’s important to note that this decision is a huge loss for the biotech and pharmaceutical industries, both of which relentlessly seek total domination over all forms of life on the planet through monopoly patent protection. The biotech industry, of course, would love to patent all seeds and food crops — even ones it hasn’t genetically engineered. And the pharmaceutical industry would love to patent every human gene, thereby claiming literal ownership over every human being born into the world.

Myriad Genetics tried every desperate argument to convince the court that human genes should be patentable by corporations. They even rolled out a whacky “baseball bat theory” which claims it’s an “invention” to decide where to start and end a gene sequence:

“A baseball bat doesn’t exist until it’s isolated from a tree. But that’s still the product of human invention to decide where to begin the bat and where to end the bat.” – Myriad lawyer Gregory Castanias.

That absurd argument claims that the mere deciding of which genes to snip out of DNA strands somehow makes all genes corporate property. Thankfully, the court did not agree with the baseball bat theory. As Chief Justice John Roberts explained:

“The baseball bat is quite different. You don’t look at a tree and say, well, I’ve cut the branch here and cut it here and all of a sudden I’ve got a baseball bat. You have to invent it.”

Huge victory for humanity

Ultimately, this decision is a tremendous victory for all humankind because it prevents the power-hungry, evil-bent medical and biotech corporations from claiming ownership over genetic sequences that already occur in nature.

This ruling means the biotech industry cannot patent common plants and animals, either. They can’t patent human body parts or human gene sequences. Yes, the industry can still patent synthetically-created genes, said the Supreme Court, but that’s something they would actually have to create rather than merely discover in an already-existing organism.

Today’s ruling also means that men and women will have access to far less expensive testing for gene sequences in their own bodies. Currently, women who want to test themselves for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes must pay as much as $4,000 for the test due to the monopoly “ownership” of those genes by Myriad Genetics. But now that the Supreme Court has ruled such patents are invalid, prices for the test should drastically fall over time as competition enters the picture. Ultimately, the test could eventually be offered for as little as $100.

The ruling also means that other companies can conduct research on those genes without first seeking permission from Myriad. This will actually spur more innovation, potentially leading to more advanced genetic analysis tests that might help people better understand their health risks (and hopefully encourage them to change their diets and lifestyle choices to avoid expressing those genes).

In a world that seems increasingly dominated by corporate monopolies and biotechnology insanity, this ruling is a breath of fresh air. It confirms that corporations cannot patent naturally-occurring things which have been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and it confirms that when you have a child through an act of genetic replication, corporations cannot force you to pay royalties for your own child.

This is a decision of fundamental freedom, which is why I’m shocked the court actually ruled this way. This must be one of those rare moments of sanity in a Supreme Court that otherwise seems intent on destroying human liberty, dignity and justice.

Decision shows the important work of ACLU in protecting human rights against corporate domination

We must all thank the ACLU on this decision, as it was the ACLU which argued this to victory.

“Over the last 30 years, the U.S. Patent Office has issued patents on thousands of human genes, including genes associated with colon cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy, and many other devastating diseases. The status quo meant that companies controlling gene patents had the right to stop all other scientists from examining, studying, testing, and researching our genes,” the ACLU wrote in a press release.

The ACLU further wrote:

We celebrate the Court’s ruling as a victory for civil liberties, scientific freedom, patients, and the future of personalized medicine. It also demonstrates the power of creating alliances and fighting for the public interest. The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed the case four years ago on behalf of twenty plaintiffs, including organizations representing over 150,000 medical professionals, geneticists, breast cancer and women’s health advocacy groups, and patients. Few thought we had a chance against the decades-long Patent Office practice as well as the entrenched industry position. But litigation can be a strong tool in producing change, never more than when diverse communities come together. Here, the medical, scientific, and patient communities united, and were soon joined by many others, eventually including the U.S. government. We honor the contributions everyone made to our success today.

The ACLU, by the way, has also filed suit against the NSA’s Patriot Act phone surveillance.

 

GMO Court Case Update

Posted on by

Farmers vs. Monsanto: Court Case Update

Organic market13th June 2013

By Jack Adam Weber

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Many of you likely recall the OSGATA vs. Monsanto case from last year. The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), comprised of some 300,000 individuals and non-GMO farming alliances, filed suit against the biotech behemoth Monsanto in 2011 in order to protect themselves against Monsanto’s suing for incidental GMO seed drift onto their non-GMO fields.

To the world’s outrage, OSGATA’s case was denied last year by judge Naomi Buchwald on insufficient grounds for bringing a preemptive case against Monsanto. In other words, they were denied the right to protect themselves against Monsatno’s frivolous lawsuits. OSGATA vowed to appeal, which they did, and that appeal was finally heard by a three-judge panel on June 10, 2013.

Unfortunately, Judge Buchwald’s decision was again upheld. But this time, we won something. The plaintiffs were denied because Monsanto went on record making a promise. “Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower’s land).

Dan Ravicher, the attorney for OSGATA, understands the recent decision as a partial victory.

“Before this suit, the Organic Seed plaintiffs were forced to take expensive precautions and avoid full use of their land in order to not be falsely accused of patent infringement by Monsanto,” said Ravicher. “The decision today means that the farmers did have the right to bring the suit to protect themselves, but now that Monsanto has bound itself not to sue the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals believes the suit should not move forward.”

In other words, even though OSGATA again had their case denied, farmers across the nation are now guaranteed protection against Monsanto’s dubious practice of aggressively seeking out otherwise innocent and often unwitting violators to persecute for stealing Monsanto’s “intellectual property”—i.e., their lousy patented GMO seeds.

On the brightest side, today’s decision allows farmers who are contaminated by Monsanto’s GMO junk to sue Monsanto and Monsanto’s customers for damages caused by that contamination without fear Monsanto’s retaliating with a “patent infringement” claim.

Today’s ruling may give farmers a toehold in courts regarding the unwanted contamination of their crops, but it does not protect our food supply from the continued proliferation of Monsanto’s flawed technology,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit. “The real threat of continued contamination of our nation’s food supply was only highlighted last week when Monsanto’s unapproved GMO wheat was discovered in an Oregon farmer’s field more than 10 years after it was legally planted in that state.”

Despite the Court of Appeals’ Decision today the plaintiffs (OSGATA) still have the option to ask the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals decision and to reinstate the case. Attorney Ravicher said the Organic Seed plaintiffs are considering doing so.

We hope they do and gain more injunctions against the biotech bully—for our sake and for the Earth’s sake!

Please continue to boycott all Monsanto products and if you have not, please join GEM for updates and how to safeguard your health and those you love from the pollution of GMOs.

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/06/13/farmers-vs-monsanto-court-case-update/

THe Mind of the Heart

Posted on by

Activating Your Heart’s Intelligence

Burning Heart14th June 2013

By Marianne Weidlein

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

Understanding the function and power of the heart is essential for effective self-management and quality of life.

The physical world, including our bodies, is made from electrical and magnetic fields of energy. The human heartbeat is known to be the strongest generator of the body’s electrical and magnetic fields. I’ve read it to be 60, 100, or 100,000 times electrically stronger than the brain. And I consistently read the heart to be 5,000 times magnetically stronger than the brain. This makes the human heart very powerful!

Physics says that to change the atoms of physical matter, either the electrical field or magnetic field must be changed. The heart is so strong that it can affect both! Whereas, the energetically weaker brain cannot. It is more like a computer that processes and stores information, directs bodily functions, and so on.

The heart has its own nervous system with which it can sense, learn, remember, and process emotion and vibrational information from the environment and brain. It decodes the energy it receives, and with each heartbeat, transmits these impulses to the brain to interpret and act upon.

The heart is the sensing, feeling organ that guides us to make choices that honor our truth. It sources our frequencies of courage, caring, love, and compassion, with which it helps to guide our thinking and decision-making.

However, when neural pathways between the brain and heart have not been activated, the intellect functions independent of the power of the heart. Since this lack of connection then disconnects us from ourselves and life, we feel separate. We are dominated more by fear, insecurity, anxiety, limitation, and so on than by intention. To survive, we tend to develop divisive strategies of control, defense, competition, manipulation, excessive attention or work, or even deception or fighting to survive.

Simply said, our thoughts influence our feelings and emotions. Likewise, the energy of the heart influences our ability to effectively attract what we need and want. Understanding this can help us to magnetize and cultivate the quality of life we want for ourselves, our families, and the world.

Indeed, with increasing global instability and disruption, we need sound decision-making. For this, the heart and its wisdom, must come alive… through the heart of each of us in caring for ourselves… in caring for each other… in caring for all life. An awakened heart inspires wisdom and all is cultivated and well-tended. It’s time for humanity to become nurturers and protectors of life, and move into a thriving future!

© Marianne Weidlein 2012

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/06/14/activating-your-hearts-intelligence/

Benefits of Range Grazing Cattle

Posted on by

Grazing Livestock May Hold the Secret to Reversing Climate Change

Farm_Cattle14th June 2013

By Carolanne Wright

Contributing Writer for Wake Up World

Allan Savory is a controversial figure with a shocking message: Global warming and desertification can be radically reversed by grazing large herds of animals.

The antithesis of accepted thought on climate change, Savory’s solution has rubbed many in the scientific community the wrong way. But the question remains — can his method save us from imminent environmental doom?

Standing ovation for a radical message

After Allan Savory’s presentation “How to Green the Desert and Reverse Climate Change” at the 2013 TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) global conference, “The Young. The Wise. The Undiscovered.“, he received an enthusiastic standing ovation from the audience.

This was not the typical parched scientific lecture on global warming. The TED talk explored the disturbing trend of desertification, described by Savory as “a fancy word for land that is turning into desert,” and the implications this holds.

The devastation of habitat, usable land and waterways are the stark realities of spreading deserts. Climate change is also accelerated.

Due in part to the widespread practice of burning dry grasslands in an attempt to revitalize the soil, global warming is also aggravated by the carbon and moisture loss from exposed soil. Considering the burning of a single hectare of land “gives off more and more damaging pollutants than 6,000 cars,” said Savory, better solutions are urgently needed.

Keep in mind that Africa alone burns over one billion hectares a year.

According to Savory, if carbon remains in the ground instead of rising into the air, the soil is healthy and can sustain plant life. Waterways are preserved as well. The ramifications are enormous. Not only is the land fertile for agriculture and livestock but entire communities also have access to water, curbing disease along with starvation. And global warming is rapidly reversed too.

Holistic land management 101

Developed over 40 years ago, Holistic Management is a system that “results in ecologically regenerative, economically viable and socially sound management of the world’s grasslands … [It] teaches people about the relationship between large herds of wild herbivores and the grasslands,” as stated by the Savory Institute.

Allan Savory discovered through years of observation, study and failure that when herd animals are removed from the land, the soil dies. Yet, when domesticated animals are properly managed to mimic natural herd migrations and grazing, the soil and surrounding ecosystem spring back to life.

He realized herd animals play a crucial role in easing desertification by providing dung and trampled plant matter. A protective layer is formed through this process, trapping moisture and carbon in the soil. The results are truly staggering — lush and healthy grasslands, waterways and communities replace barren desert.

Too good to be true?

Critics of Savory’s method are quick to point out thorough scientific research is lacking. They also maintain that livestock grazing, regardless of management, remains destructive to the environment and atmosphere. Savory counters that his proof is in the outcome. One of the many stunning success stories is found with the rangelands in Dimbangombe, Zimbabwe.

When all is said and done, the end result is what counts. Environmentalist Bill McKibben observes, “Done right, some studies suggest, this method of raising cattle could put much of the atmosphere’s oversupply of greenhouse gases back in the soil inside half a century. That means shifting from feedlot farming to rotational grazing is one of the few changes we could make that’s on the same scale as the problem of global warming.”

from:    http://wakeup-world.com/2013/06/14/grazing-livestock-may-hold-the-secret-to-reversing-climate-change/