Category Archives: Earth Stuff

News of Earth Changes, climate shifts, weather anomalies, volcanoes, etc

New Forever Chemicals Posing Threat

Posted on by

Scientists Detect Unusual Airborne Toxin in the US for the First Time

scientists detect unusual airborne toxin us

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Scientists detected airborne medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs) in rural Oklahoma for the first time, showing these toxic chemicals are not limited to industrial zones
  • MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS “forever chemicals,” building up in your fat, disrupting hormones, and increasing the risk of chronic illness
  • Levels of MCCPs in the air peaked during hot daylight hours, revealing that daily temperature swings directly control how much you breathe in
  • The study linked local farmland and biosolid fertilizer use to high MCCP levels, raising concerns about conventional produce and outdoor exposure near agricultural areas
  • Even small lifestyle changes — like switching to organic food, avoiding PVC products, using an indoor air purifier, and improving mitochondrial health — help your body reduce and resist toxic buildup

You’re surrounded by chemicals you’ve never heard of — and some of the most harmful ones are completely invisible. Medium-chain chlorinated paraffins, or MCCPs, are one of them. These compounds are used in industrial products like lubricants, sealants, and flame retardants, but they don’t stay put. They escape into the environment and hang in the air, where you inhale them without even realizing it.

What makes MCCPs especially concerning is how long they last. They resist breakdown, accumulate in your fat tissues, and interfere with systems that regulate hormones, metabolism, and brain health. Despite their widespread use, they’ve remained largely overlooked in public health conversations and unregulated by federal authorities.

Now, research has revealed that MCCPs are not only persistent but also mobile. They don’t just sit in products or soil — they move with the weather, rise with the heat, and follow air currents across rural and urban areas alike. If you’re breathing, you’re likely exposed. That’s why this matters. To protect your health and lower your risk, you need to know where these toxins come from, how they behave in the environment, and what to do to limit your exposure.

Scientists Track Dangerous Airborne Chemicals for the First Time

A study published in ACS Environmental AU used cutting-edge technology to monitor MCCPs as they floated through the air over farmland in Oklahoma.1 These chemicals are used in industrial products like lubricants and plasticizers, but they don’t stay in one place. Unlike older testing methods that took weeks or months to collect data, this tool allowed researchers to track MCCPs minute by minute, revealing how they rise, fall, and shift depending on the time of day.

•Researchers found MCCPs in the air almost every day, at levels as high as polluted cities — The study ran for about a month and found MCCPs nearly every day, even in a rural area far from big factories. On average, levels hit 3,100 picograms per cubic meter, similar to what’s been found in major cities in China. That means even places that seem “clean” carry dangerous chemicals in the air without anyone realizing it.

•Air levels rose with daytime heat and dropped off again overnight — These chemicals became more airborne as temperatures rose during the day and settled back into the ground or dust when it cooled at night. So, if you’re outdoors in the middle of the day — working, exercising, or even just walking — your exposure is likely much higher than at night.

•The most common MCCPs were lighter-weight types more likely to turn into gas — The six main forms scientists found all had 14 or 15 carbon atoms and six or seven chlorine atoms. These versions are more likely to evaporate into the air, which means they’re the ones you’re most likely to breathe in. Knowing which versions are most common helps health experts focus on which ones pose the biggest risk.

•Nearby sources like farming and waste sites likely fed the pollution — MCCP levels went up on hot days with winds from the southwest, suggesting they were coming from local sources, including sludge-treated farm fields, wastewater, or industrial runoff. When the wind changed or temperatures dropped, the levels fell, pointing to short-range movement rather than distant pollution blowing in.

MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” which build up in your body over time and resist breakdown. In fact, their similarity led Oklahoma lawmakers to recently ban biosolid fertilizer statewide.

Heat Drives How Much MCCP You Breathe in Each Day

The study showed a direct link between temperature and MCCP levels. As the air got hotter, the chemicals quickly evaporated off surfaces like soil and dust. This happened in as little as five minutes, meaning you could suddenly be exposed just by being outside on a hot afternoon.

•Pollution peaked midday and dropped fast in the evening — MCCP levels spiked in the late morning and fell again by sunset. This pattern wasn’t caused by slow-moving weather or breakdown of the chemical — it was driven by heat. So, even spending one hour outside during that peak time raises how much of the toxin gets into your lungs and bloodstream.

•Lighter MCCPs evaporated and disappeared faster than heavier ones — Shorter-chain versions of the chemical rose faster during the day and dropped quicker at night. But the heavier forms hung around in soil and dust longer. That means you breathe in the lighter ones more easily, but the heavier ones may stick to your clothes, enter your home, and get into your food over time.

•Not all MCCPs react to heat in the same way — Some forms jumped sharply when temperatures rose while others barely moved. That difference matters, because it shows some forms are more likely to become airborne while others stay in the environment longer.

•Heavier forms stay longer in soil and dust, which raises different risks — The chemicals with more carbon and chlorine atoms don’t float into the air as easily, but they also don’t go away quickly. These build up in places like your carpets, furniture, or garden soil, creating long-term risks, especially for children and pets who come into contact with surfaces more often.

•MCCPs shift between air and surfaces all day long — These chemicals don’t just rise and fall once — they constantly move back and forth based on heat, humidity, and air particles. You could be exposed during your lunch break outside and not again that night, even if you’re in the same spot. That makes it hard to track exposure and even harder to regulate these chemicals without monitoring them constantly.

Sunlight and Air Pollution Turn MCCPs Into New, More Toxic Forms

The study also picked up MCCPs that had reacted with oxygen in the air, forming new versions called “oxidized MCCPs.” These changes likely happened because of sunlight, ozone, or other molecules floating in the atmosphere. Some of these byproducts are called hydroperoxides, which are known to damage cells once they get inside your body.

•Other MCCPs bonded with nitrogen, hinting at even more complex risks — Scientists also detected MCCPs with nitrogen in their structure. These probably formed by reacting with nitrogen-based pollution, like car exhaust or fertilizer runoff. The health effects of these altered forms aren’t well studied, but their presence means MCCPs don’t stay the same after release — they change, and those changes could make them more reactive or dangerous.

•These altered forms followed the same daily cycle as the originals — Like regular MCCPs, the altered ones spiked during hot daylight hours and dropped off at night. So, whatever your exposure is during the day, you’re not just inhaling the original chemicals — you’re also breathing in the altered versions created by sunlight and air pollution.

How to Lower Your Exposure to Airborne MCCPs and Protect Your Health

If you haven’t heard of MCCPs before now, you’re not alone. These chemicals don’t show up on ingredient labels, but they’re likely in your environment, especially if you live near agriculture, oil drilling, or industrial zones. Once they’re in the air, they’re hard to avoid completely. But you do have control over how much of them gets into your body and how well your body handles the exposure.

Your best protection starts with understanding where MCCPs come from and how to block the main ways they enter your system — mostly through your lungs, skin, and food. If you’re already dealing with hormone issues, chronic fatigue, or inflammatory conditions, lowering your chemical burden is even more important. Here’s how to help reduce your exposure and protect your health:

1.Avoid biosolid-contaminated food and soil — MCCPs are chemically similar to PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” which build up in your body and resist breakdown. They’re commonly used in PVC plastics, flame retardants, and metalworking fluids — and often wind up in wastewater. That wastewater gets turned into biosolid fertilizer and sprayed on conventional farms.

Once in the soil, MCCPs rise into the air during hot weather or end up in your food. Choosing certified organic produce helps you avoid this exposure, since organic standards ban biosolids. If you garden, live near fields, or buy from local markets, ask how the soil was treated and try to stay upwind of sprayed areas during the day, when airborne levels spike.

2.Run a high-quality indoor air filter that targets gas-phase pollutants — Most air purifiers only filter out particles, not gases. But MCCPs enter the air in gas form during the day. You want a system with activated carbon or other gas-phase filtration, especially if your windows are open or you live downwind from farmland or factories.

3.Shower immediately after outdoor exposure to reduce skin absorption — MCCPs are lipophilic, meaning they love fat. That makes your skin, scalp, and oils a prime target. If you’re working outside, walking in farmland areas, or commuting during the heat of the day, shower as soon as you get home. Use warm — not hot — water and a natural cleanser. Skip anything with “fragrance,” which often contains the same class of hormone-disrupting chemicals.

4.Reduce indoor exposure from plastics, furniture, and flame-retardant materials — MCCPs don’t just come from farmland — they’re also in household items like vinyl flooring, cables, older mattresses, and synthetic upholstery treated with flame retardants.

These materials slowly release MCCPs into indoor air and dust. If you’re renovating or replacing furniture, skip items made with PVC and synthetic foam. Choose solid wood, organic cotton, or wool. And vacuum with a HEPA filter weekly to reduce MCCP-laced dust that settles on floors and surfaces.

5.Support your mitochondria to better handle chemical stress — Airborne toxins like MCCPs increase oxidative stress, which puts pressure on your mitochondria, the tiny engines inside your cells that produce energy and regulate detoxification. The stronger and more resilient your mitochondria are, the better your body neutralizes and processes these exposures.

You can support mitochondrial health by getting daily sun exposure (avoid peak hours between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. until you’ve eliminated vegetable oils from your diet for at least six months), moving your body regularly, and making sure you’re eating enough healthy carbs to fuel energy production.

Every small change adds up. Even if MCCPs are in the air around you, you can take real steps to protect your health, especially if you focus on supporting your body’s ability to handle the load and reduce exposure where it counts most.

from:  https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/08/06/scientists-detect-unusual-airborne-toxin-us.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250806Z1&foDate=true&mid=DM1786106&rid=357218642

Relics of the Past ?

Posted on by

17 Out-Of-Place Artifacts That Suggest High-Tech Civilizations Existed Thousands (Or Millions) Of Years Ago

BY TYLER DURDEN
THURSDAY, JUL 10, 2025 – 01:20 PM

Authored by Tara MacIsaac via The Epoch Times,

According to our conventional view of history, humans have only walked the Earth in our present form for some 200,000 years. Much of the mechanical ingenuity we know of in modern times began to develop only a couple hundred years ago, during the Industrial Revolution. However, evidence today alludes to advanced civilizations existing as long as several thousand years ago—or possibly even earlier.

“Oopart”—or “out-of-place artifact”—is the term given to numerous prehistoric objects found in various places across the world today that show a level of technological sophistication incongruous with our present paradigm.

Many scientists attempt to explain these ooparts away as natural phenomena. Yet others say that such dismissive explanations only whitewash over the mounting evidence: that prehistoric civilizations had advanced knowledge, and this knowledge was lost over the ages only to be developed anew in modern times.

We will look at a variety of ooparts here, ranging from millions to hundreds of years old in purported age, but all supposedly demonstrating advancement well beyond their time.

Whether these are fact or merely fiction we cannot say. We can only offer a glimpse at what’s known, supposed, or hypothesized regarding these phenomena, in the spirit of being open-minded and geared toward real scientific discovery.

17. 2,000-Year-Old Batteries?

Clay jars with asphalt stoppers and iron rods made some 2,000 years ago have been proven capable of generating more than a volt of electricity. These ancient “batteries” were found by German archaeologist Wilhelm Konig in 1938, just outside of Baghdad, Iraq.

Right: An illustration of a Baghdad battery from museum artifact pictures. (Ironie/Wikimedia Commons) Background: Map of area surrounding present-day Baghdad, Iraq. Cmcderm1/iStock/Thinkstock

“The batteries have always attracted interest as curios,” Dr. Paul Craddock, a metallurgy expert at the British Museum, told the BBC in 2003. “They are a one-off. As far as we know, nobody else has found anything like these. They are odd things; they are one of life’s enigmas.”

16. Ancient Egyptian Light Bulb?

A relief beneath the Temple of Hathor at Dendera, Egypt, depicts figures standing around a large light-bulb-like object. Erich Von Däniken, who wrote “Chariot of the Gods,” created a model of the bulb which works when connected to a power source, emitting an eerie, purplish light.

The light-bulb-like object engraved in a crypt under the Temple of Hathor in Egypt. Lasse Jensen/CC BY 2.5

15. Great Wall of Texas

In 1852, in what is now known as Rockwall County, Texas, farmers digging a well discovered what appeared to be an ancient rock wall. Estimated to be some 200,000 to 400,000 years old, some say it’s a natural formation while others say it’s clearly man-made.

A historic photo of the “wall” found in Rockwall, Texas. Public Domain

Dr. John Geissman at the University of Texas in Dallas tested the rocks as part of a History Channel documentary. He found they were all magnetized the same way, suggesting they formed where they are and were not moved to that site from elsewhere. But some remain unconvinced by this single TV-show test and call for further studies.

Geologist James Shelton and Harvard-trained architect John Lindsey have noted elements that seem to be of architectural design, including archways, linteled portals, and square openings that resemble windows.

14. 1.8-Billion-Year-Old Nuclear Reactor?

In 1972, a French factory imported uranium ore from Oklo, in Africa’s Gabon Republic. The uranium had already been extracted. They found the site of origin to have apparently functioned as a large-scale nuclear reactor that came into being 1.8 billion years ago and was in operation for some 500,000 years.

Nuclear reactor site, Oklo, Gabon Republic. NASA

Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, believed it wasn’t a natural phenomenon, and thus must be a man-made nuclear reactor.

For uranium to “burn” in a reaction, very precise conditions are needed. The water must be extremely pure, for one—much purer than exists naturally. The material U-235 is necessary for nuclear fission to occur. It is one of the isotopes found naturally in uranium. Several specialists in reactor engineering have said they believe the uranium in Oklo could not have been rich enough in U-235 for a reaction to take place naturally.

13. Sea-Faring Map Makers Before Antarctica Was Covered in Ice?

A map created by Turkish admiral and cartographer Piri Reis in 1513, but sourced from various earlier maps, is thought by some to depict Antarctica as it was in a very remote age before it was covered with ice.

A portion of the Piri Reis map of 1513. Public Domain

A landmass is shown to jut out from the southern coastline of South America. Captain Lorenzo W. Burroughs, a U.S. Air Force captain in the cartographic section, wrote a letter to Dr. Charles Hapgood in 1961 saying that this landmass seems to accurately show Antarctica’s coast as it is under the ice.

Dr. Hapgood (1904–1982) was one of the first to publicly suggest that the Piri Reis map depicts Antarctica during a prehistoric time. He was a Harvard-educated historian whose theories about geological shifts earned the admiration of Albert Einstein. He hypothesized that the land masses shifted, explaining why Antarctica is shown as connected to South America.

Modern studies refute Hapgood’s theory that such a shift could have taken place within thousands of years, but they show it could have happened within millions of years.

12. 2,000-Year-Old Earthquake Detector

In 132 A.D., Zhang Heng created the world’s first seismoscope. How exactly it works remains a mystery, but replicas have worked with a precision comparable to modern instruments.

A replica of an ancient Chinese seismoscope from the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220 A.D.), and its inventor, Zhang Heng. Wikimedia Commons

In 138 A.D., it correctly indicated that an earthquake occurred about 300 miles west of Luoyang, the capital city. No one had felt the quake in Luoyang and dismissed the warning until a messenger arrived days later, requesting aid.

11. 150,000-Year-Old Pipes?

Caves near Mount Baigong in China contain pipes leading to a nearby lake. They were dated by the Beijing Institute of Geology to about 150,000 years ago, according to Brian Dunning of Skeptoid.com.

A file photo of a pipe, and a view of Qinghai Lake in China, near which mysterious iron pipes were found. NASA; Pipe image via Zhax/Shutterstock

State-run media Xinhua reported that the pipes were analyzed at a local smeltery and 8 percent of the material could not be identified. Zheng Jiandong, a geology research fellow from the China Earthquake Administration, told state-run newspaper People’s Daily, in 2007, that some of the pipes were found to be highly radioactive.

Jiandong said iron-rich magma may have risen from deep in the Earth, bringing the iron into fissures where it may have solidified into tubes; though he admitted, “There is indeed something mysterious about these pipes.” He cited the radioactivity as an example of the strange qualities of the pipes.

10. Antikythera Mechanism

A mechanism often referred to as an ancient “computer,” which was built by Greeks around 150 B.C., was able to calculate astronomical changes with great precision.

The Antikythera Mechanism is a 2000-year-old mechanical device used to calculate the positions of the sun, moon, planets, and even the dates of the ancient Olympic Games. Marsyas/CC by SA 3.0

“If it hadn’t been discovered … no one would possibly believe that it could exist because it’s so sophisticated,” said Mathematician Tony Freeth in a NOVA documentary. Mathias Buttet, director of research and development for watch-maker Hublot, said in a video released by the Hellenic Republic Ministry of Culture and Tourism, “This Antikythera Mechanism includes ingenious features which are not found in modern watch-making.”

9. Drill Bit in Coal

John Buchanan, Esq., presented a mysterious object to a meeting of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland on Dec. 13, 1852. A drill bit had been found encapsulated in coal about 22 inches thick, buried in a bed of clay mixed with boulders about 7 feet thick.

File image of coal (Kkymek/iStock) File image of a drill Konstik/iStock; edited by Epoch Times

The Earth’s coal is said to have formed hundreds of millions of years ago. The Society decided that the instrument was of a modern level of advancement. But it concluded that “the iron instrument might have been part of a borer broken during some former search for coal.”

Buchanan’s detailed report did not include any signs that the coal surrounding the instrument had been punctured by drilling.

8. 2.8-Billion-Year-Old Spheres?

Spheres with fine grooves around them, found in mines in South Africa, have been said by some to be naturally formed masses of mineral matter. Others have said they were precisely shaped by a prehistoric human hand.

Top left, bottom right: Spheres, known as Klerksdorp spheres, found in the pyrophyllite (wonderstone) deposits near Ottosdal, South Africa. (Robert Huggett) Top right, bottom left: Similar objects known as Moqui marbles from the Navajo Sandstone of southeast Utah. Paul Heinrich

“The globes, which have a fibrous structure on the inside with a shell around it, are very hard and cannot be scratched, even by steel,” said Roelf Marx, curator of the museum of Klerksdorp, South Africa, according to Michael Cremo’s book, “Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race.” Marx said the spheres are about 2.8 billion years old.

If they are mineral masses, it is unclear how exactly they formed.

7. Iron Pillar of Delhi

To read the rest, go to:  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/17-out-place-artifacts-suggest-high-tech-civilizations-existed-thousands-or-millions

AI Data Centers – A Great Way to Destroy the Environment

Posted on by

‘It will destroy this place:’ Tucker County residents fight for future against proposed data center

As a little known company has proposed a data center and natural gas plant in the tourism destination — known for its natural wonder and outdoor recreation — residents are left with questions, mounting concerns and few answers.

BY:  – MAY 28, 2025 6:00 AM
A complex of data centers in Ashburn, Va. (Photo by Gerville/Getty Images)

 A complex of data centers in Ashburn, Va. The city is located in Loudoun County, which has been dubbed “Data Center Alley.” (Gerville | Getty Images)

As a child, Nikki Forrester dreamed of living in a cabin in the woods surrounded by mountains, trees, water and the outdoor opportunities that came with the natural land. In 2022 — four years after earning her graduate degree and moving to Tucker County from Pittsburgh — Forrester and her partner made that dream a reality when they bought two acres of land near Davis, West Virginia to build a home.

Forrester has thrived in the small mountain town known for its mountain biking, hiking, stargazing, waterfalls and natural scenery. She and her partner moved into their new home in February. Hiking and biking trails are right outside her front door. In the winter, she said, snow piles up making the nearby mountains look like “heaven on Earth.”

It’s been quite literally a dream come true.

“I feel like I’ve never felt at home so much before. I love being in the woods. I love this community. It’s super cheesy, but this was my childhood dream and now it’s actually come true,” Forrester said. “It felt so good to set down roots here. We knew Davis was where we wanted to start our future.”

But in March, one small public notice posted in the Parsons Advocate — noticed by resident Pamela Moe, who scrambled to find answers after seeing it — changed Forrester’s assumptions about that future.

A Virginia-based company, Fundamental Data, was applying for an air permit from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for what it called the “Ridgeline Facility.” The company’s heavily redacted application showed plans to build an off-the-grid natural gas power plant between Thomas and Davis. That power plant will likely be designed to power an enormous data center just a mile out from Tucker County’s most populous and tourist-attracting areas.

Earlier this month, representatives for Fundamental Data — who did not respond to requests for comment on this article — told the Wall Street Journal that the facility could be “among the largest data center campuses in the world,” spanning 10,000 acres across Tucker and Grant counties if fully realized.

Now, Forrester said, she and her neighbors are in the middle of what feels like a “fight for [their] lives” as they attempt to learn more about the vague development plans and fight against “big data.”

Her images of the future — skiing on white snow, hiking through waterfalls, looking up at clear and starry nights all with one-of-a-kind mountain scenery below — now exist in the shadows of a looming natural gas plant, an industrial complex and the contaminants that could come with them. The fresh, mountain air that surrounds her home and community could be infiltrated by tons of nitrogen oxide (gases that contribute to smog), carbon monoxide, particulate matter and other volatile organic compounds, per the company’s air permit application.

“Honestly, I feel like if this happens, it will destroy this place. People come here because it’s remote, it’s small, it’s surrounded by nature. If you have a giant power plant coughing up smoke and noise pollution and light pollution, it puts all of those things in jeopardy,” Forrester said. “It would honestly make me question whether I would want to live here anymore, because I do love the landscapes here so much, but they would be fundamentally altered and, I think, irreparably harmed if this actually comes to be.”

Tucker United and a fight against the many ‘unknowns’

Since learning of the project in March, Forrester and dozens of other Tucker County residents have banned together and formed Tucker United. The residents — all volunteers — want answers from Fundamental Data or anyone else regarding details of the proposed Ridgeline facility.

But that fight hasn’t been easy. The state DEP has allowed Fundamental Data — a company with little to no information publicly available — to submit a redacted air permit application, omitting details regarding potential air pollutants that could come from the site.

 A heavily redacted page from Fundamental Data’s air permit application to the state Department of  Environmental Protection. 

According to reporting in Country Roads News, local officials were unaware of the project before reporters and members of the public brought it to their attention.

Reading the Wall Street Journal article was the first time most residents were alerted about the potential size of the planned development.

Josh Nease, who lives outside of Thomas and Davis in an unincorporated part of Tucker County, said the unknowns about the project have been the most frustrating part to grapple with.

“There’s no lack of uncertainty right now, that’s for sure,” said Nease, a sixth generation West Virginian who moved to Tucker County after spending vacations there as a child growing up in Bridgeport. “I think the unknowns here are really worrying.”

If given the chance, he would want to ask representatives of Fundamental Data the following questions: Why the lack of transparency? Why does the company want to locate in Tucker County and why not further out from the towns? And why does it feel like there’s resistance against working with the local governments and community members?

Luanne McGovern, an engineer by trade who owns property in Tucker County and who sits on the board of West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, an environmental nonprofit in the region, holds similar frustrations to Nease.

Per the permit application, the Ridgeline facility — in its currently proposed form — would use gas-fueled turbines with heat recovery steam generators. Diesel would be kept on site in three 10 million gallon storage tanks as a backup power source in case of gas line interruptions. Those tanks would be 66 feet tall and 180 feet in diameter. Leaks from pumps and valves, among other pieces of equipment, are to be expected per the application. Operations for the facility should begin by 2028.

When residents started working together to make sense of Fundamental Data’s air permit application, they asked McGovern to look it over and share her thoughts. Having worked on similar permit requests before, she knew what she was looking at: A large, natural gas power plant.

What was more notable, however, was what she was unable to view.

Pollutants were listed on the request, but only in annual caps. There was no information on water usage despite some data centers using up to 5 million gallons of drinking water a day, straining resources in communities. While the heights of the diesel storage tanks were included, she said information on the turbines wasn’t.

While the DEP asked for clarification on Fundamental Data’s redactions following an influx of public comments from concerned residents, the company said it believed the omitted information met the state’s standard for confidentiality. The DEP ended up agreeing.

Fundamental Data, through its representative Casey Chapman, provided some details to the DEP in an attempt to put the public at ease: the site “does not plan” to use water from local water systems, rivers or streams and won’t discharge wastewater into them; mountains surrounding the development should “substantially limit” its visibility from populated areas and the facility “expects” to operate at noise levels that adhere with federal regulations.

But McGovern still had questions.

“Where is the water coming from? How high are these turbines? Where will they be? If we had some answers to these questions, we could do some modeling and figure out what the potential environmental impact would be, but we don’t,” McGovern said. “We’re just completely in the dark. There’s so many unanswered questions. As an engineer, there’s huge parts of this permit that are just bad. There’s no information provided, not even a level of standard of information that you would expect.”

Nease is realistic; he understands that these are complex issues and the state — as well as his region — are attempting to find new ways to bolster the economy and, hopefully, improve West Virginia’s economic standings long term.

He sees the challenges hitting Tucker County residents every day. There’s a housing shortage and short-term rentals are driving up costs for the places that do exist, pricing out residents who can’t afford to live where they work. While tourism can bring in crowds, it’s often only seasonal. The county’s population — like most of West Virginia — is declining.

“I fully understand the need to diversify the economy. I support doing that, we talk about it all the time. I guess I’m just not sure that a project like this is the solution,” Nease said. “We just don’t know enough about it. We don’t know if this is going to benefit the Tucker County economy. I sure hope it does, but all I have to rely on for that are vague statements.”

‘It feels extractive:’ West Virginia data centers to operate with no local oversight, questionable economic gains

On March 18 — the same day that Fundamental Data submitted its air permit application to the DEP — House Bill 2014 was introduced at the state Legislature to incentivize data centers to locate in West Virginia and generate their own power sources through microgrids. Senate President Randy Smith, a Republican who represents Tucker County and voted for HB 2014, did not respond to requests for comment on this article.

Despite being a key priority for Gov. Patrick Morrisey who requested its introduction, the bill was presented more than halfway through the state’s 60-day session. In back-and-forths over several weeks, lawmakers amended the bill again and again. One change removed a requirement for microgrids to use renewable energy sources, opening the door for coal and natural gas. Several other amendments changed the tax structure for any property taxes collected on the developments.

The version of the bill that now stands as law allows “high impact data centers” to curtail local zoning ordinances and other regulatory processes and establishes a certified microgrid program, which means data centers can produce and use their own power without attaching to already existing utilities.

The law creates a specialized tax structure for data centers and microgrids, which must be placed in designated districts. Local governments have little say or control over those districts, which are established at the state level.

Taxes collected on any data centers and microgrids operating in West Virginia would be split as so: 50% will go to the personal income tax reduction fund, 30% will go to the county where the data center is located, 10% will go to the remaining 54 counties split on a per capita basis using the most recent U.S. Census, 5% will be placed in the Economic Enhancement Grant Fund administered by the Water Development Authority and the final 5% will be put in the newly created Electric Grid Stabilization and Security Fund.

Initially, those taxes were going to be completely diverted away from localities where the data centers would be located, angering county commissioners and other local leaders from throughout the state.

Kelly Allen, executive director of the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy, said the fact that 50% of any tax revenue collected going to offset the state’s personal income tax cuts is a concern, especially while only 30% will return to localities that host the data centers.

“Local governments are really limited in the ways that they can raise revenue, which is largely controlled by either the state constitution or the state legislature. So taking away a significant slice of one of the only ways that they can raise revenue — through property taxes — leaves [localities] with fewer options to fund basic services,” Allen said. “At the same time, these data centers and micro grids are probably going to increase the need for the public services that local governments pay for.”

Allen pointed to the potential risks that come with operating power plants: county fire and police services will be needed for safety at the plants and water districts may be impacted, she said.

Essentially, she said, counties will be on the hook for funding more services while only receiving a fraction of the revenue generated by the sources of those costs.

And, generally, there’s no guarantee — despite Fundamental Data’s claims for the Tucker County facility — that data centers will serve as massive employers.

Nationwide, according to the U.S. Census, jobs in data centers are increasing. But more than 40% of all jobs in 2023 existed in just three states. Per an analysis by Business Insider, most of the data center jobs available are only in construction and contracted from outside the places the centers are located.

Data centers are largely automated. Microsoft, for example, employs just 50 people per a facility. In West Virginia — because of the inclusion of microgrids, which aren’t mandated to be created for data centers — the picture could look different. But again, the lack of details from companies coming here makes the real impact difficult if not impossible to determine.

Allen said she’s wary of the state’s potential reliance on data centers for a financial boom given the state’s history of extraction-based economics.

Like with the coal economy, residents across the state will bear the aesthetic, environmental and health costs associated with living near data centers and their power plants. Most of the profits, however, may not return to them, Allen said.

“It’s not exactly identical to coal or natural gas or timber, but it feels extractive in the same way in that the benefits of the data center are borne by people outside of West Virginia, while the costs are borne by our residents,” Allen said.

Nease said that while he wants to be “pragmatic” about the potential for development in Tucker County, he can’t help but think of the state’s history in that regard either.

“I’m worried we’re going to fall into that same trap again. It’s an age old story — not just for West Virginia. Some people are going to benefit from this project, they just might not be here,” Nease said. “The company will benefit, its [shareholders] will. But will we?”

‘A race to the bottom:’ While West Virginia lawmakers want to compete with Virginia, locals say it’s not possible

While state lawmakers spent hours this legislative session debating how to craft the state’s new law to attract data centers, several couldn’t stop thinking about — or mentioning — neighboring Virginia, where the development of large, high-impact data centers have boomed.

Echoing sentiments shared by Morrisey through his “Backyard Brawl” plan to compete with neighboring states economically, delegates — including Del. Clay Riley, R-Harrison, who sits on the House Committee on Energy and Public Works, where the bill passed — said they wanted to see data center development here thrive like it has in Northern Virginia.

Loudoun County, Virginia has been dubbed “Data Center Alley.” It’s home to the largest data center market in the world.

But that development didn’t happen overnight, said Julie Bolthouse, director of land use at Piedmont Environmental Council in Virginia.

The industry started building in Northern Virginia in the 1990s and 2000s. Some of the largest data and internet providers at the time were located there. Over time, though, the market has changed.

Bolthouse said what used to be small complexes organized like business parks — featuring restaurants, shopping, day cares and more for people who lived in the region — are now large campuses with few people, no outside amenities and mostly computers and software.

And those “hyper-scaled” complexes — in Virginia and beyond — haven’t come without costs. The pollutants emitted by large centers are known to exacerbate respiratory problems and other health conditions. Residents nearby can hear the incessant buzzing and hums of the computers and generators at work. Light pollution, depending on the size and type of facility, can be impossible to ignore.

But these issues — outside of the environmental ones — vary place to place because of local ordinances.

“That is like the only thing that’s really protecting Virginia communities, because the only way that the people who live in these localities are able to get any kind of protection is because of noise ordinances, because of the lighting ordinances,” Bolthouse said.

In West Virginia under HB 2014, residents won’t have the same protections or powers due to the state’s superseding of local ordinances.

And now, decades into Virginia’s ever changing data center sector, Bolthouse and other environmentalists are seeking more regulations on the state level since the nature of these data centers has changed so much over such a short period of time.

“That’s the push we’re seeing now — for the state to come in and add additional regulations, to look at the environmental impact,” Bolthouse said. “No one is talking about taking away the ability of localities to regulate these facilities. I can’t imagine that.”

And while the landscape for data centers is evolving in Loudoun County and beyond, the reason so many large companies have decided to locate their centers in Northern Virginia goes back to the 1990s. The infrastructure for them to be developed, Bolthouse said, already existed — it wasn’t newly created like West Virginia is attempting to do.

“There’s such a robust fiber network here. These data centers are kind of like a gigantic global computer. They talk to each other, and so the closer they are to all the other cloud providers, the better,” Bolthouse said. “When you put a data center here, your data is stored in Northern Virginia and you are in spitting distance to [Amazon], Google, Microsoft, all the big co-locators … probably every big business has an operation here in Northern Virginia. So it’s like the Wall Street of the data center industry. That’s why they want to locate here.”

Bolthouse warned that without regulations, without protections and without the advantages that Virginia has through its location and infrastructure, West Virginia could be attempting to enter a new sector by inviting in the “worst players.”

“What you’re going to get if you do it this way is the worst players, the ones that didn’t need to be in Northern Virginia … the players that are wanting that lack of regulations because they didn’t want to abide by rules and didn’t want to or need to protect communities, which is worse for West Virginia and the communities,” Bolthouse said. “What West Virginia is doing is not what Virginia is doing.”

She said West Virginia needs to look at the assets it already has, not the assets others in the sector have worked with for decades.

Those assets, in Bolthouse’s words, are the same things that made Forrester feel like her childhood dreams were coming true when she built a home in Tucker County: the state’s “beautiful mountains, its rivers, its natural beauty and outdoor opportunities.”

“That’s what West Virginia should be leveraging. The state shouldn’t be trying to get something that another state has already secured the market on,” Bolthouse said. “I don’t know that West Virginia can become the next Data Center Alley. I don’t think that’s actually feasible … You’re trying to basically have a race to the bottom, and you’re only going to get the worst players.”

from:    https://westvirginiawatch.com/2025/05/28/it-will-destroy-this-place-tucker-county-residents-fight-for-future-against-proposed-data-center/

Climate Phobia – RIP

Posted on by

The Climate Alarmism Grift is Dying

Tim Lynch's avatar
TIM LYNCH
JUL 08, 2025

Last week, the BBC reminded us that we have just three years left to drastically reduce all CO2 emissions, or we risk crossing the dreaded 1.5°C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. A persistent feature of the degreed managerial class is their arrogant refusal to learn from their past flawed predictions. Dire warnings of climate catastrophe have shaped global policy, media narratives, and public perception, resulting in the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars on technology that does not work. Predictions by climate ‘experts’ of submerged cities, the end of snow, vanishing ice caps, and dead coral formations never materialize.

Thinking that highly credentialed Ivy League professors would use science and math to destroy the man-made climate change narrative was not plausible a year ago. Yet, in this new cultural zeitgeist created after the implosion of the Democratic Party, the impossible is now possible

In a shocking display of academic integrity, two eminent professors published a masterfully complex paper that undermines the foundation of climate alarmism. MIT’s Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, and Princeton’s William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, published a paper titled PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM.

Their message is simple: CO2-driven warming poses no danger to the planet, while the net-zero policies designed to reduce CO2 do more harm than good. It takes a paper of serious complexity to validate such a simple message.

Climate experts tend to pronounce things to be so, and that’s the end of it. Yet, a basic understanding of the Earth’s atmospheric gases demonstrated that the foundation of climate alarmism was oversimplified and incorrect.

Before examining their paper, it is helpful to review a few of the forecasts that have not materialized.

In 1971, a new Ice Age was imminent
By 2000, the threat of a new Ice Age disappeared and was replaced by global warming.
Four years later, it was back to a new ice age, but this time caused by global warming.
By 2009, the event horizon was just 96 months away, prompting celebrity climate geniuses to issue hysterical, easily ignored warnings.
Four years later, the Climate Models ™ that had never been correct warned the Arctic would be ice-free in two years.
The topic demands a meme at this point.

Lindzen and Happer use physics to demonstrate that CO2’s warming effect is limited by its logarithmic absorption of infrared radiation. The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases. They estimate low climate sensitivity (~0.5–1.5°C per CO2 doubling), which is far below the IPCC’s range of 2.5–4°C.

They contend that Hurricanes, droughts, and floods exhibit no apparent increase in frequency driven by CO2, with natural variability dominating (e.g., NOAA’s stable hurricane frequency since 1980). They demonstrate that higher CO2 levels enhance photosynthesis, resulting in a 14% global greening trend (NASA, 1982–2015) and a 20% increase in crop yields (FAO, 2000–2020).

They then emphasize that phasing out fossil fuels, which supply 80% of global energy (IEA, 2023), will raise costs and harm developing nations, with minimal climate benefit. Their physics-based approach challenges high-sensitivity climate models, which have overestimated warming in periods such as 1998–2014. They also align with skepticism of alarmist policies, like EPA regulations, which they’ve called a “hoax” in prior work.

The premise of man-made climate change hinges on three key facts: CO2 traps heat, humans have increased CO2 levels (~420 ppm today vs. 280 ppm pre-industrial), and this drives global warming. Lindzen and Happer don’t dispute the first two but argue that the warming is minimal and benign.

They contend CO2 is not destroying the planet; it’s enhancing life on it. Across the globe, elevated CO2 levels are supercharging plant growth and delivering bountiful crop harvests at unprecedented rates.

They then explain that hypothetical climate models rest on a long sequence of assumptions, many of which are either weak, invalidated, or demonstrably false. As a result, the outputs of these models are of questionable value and cannot be taken as reliable evidence.

Climate activists reacted to this paper as expected: they want its authors arrested and jailed.

You would expect this well-researched paper to be big news, providing the rational cover politicians need to drive a stake through the heart of the climate alarmism scam. But that is not going to happen. The political class will ignore it, as they often do with inconvenient data. However, the momentum is shifting much faster than the political class can cope with.

Joe Rogan dealt the climate hoax a bigger setback than any Ivy League professor could hope to accomplish with a well-written, peer-reviewed study. Rogan spent a few hours talking to the hapless, profoundly ignorant Senator Bernie Sanders. Bernie didn’t seem to know much about the topics he attempted to demagogue. Frustrated by Rogan’s effective counters to his preferred narrative, he grasped at something he thought would go unquestioned. “Some people think climate change is a hoax, but it ain’t a hoax.” He stated this as if that were a self-evident fact. His ignorance of contrary facts complemented the arrogance of his statement. Rogan used a WaPo article to school the old fool.

This is the story Joe used to alert Bernie to the fact that he’s behind the times.

Today, every dogma of the neo-liberal religion is being publicly put on trial. Something in the air changed after the COVID-19 saga. COVID was a tipping point, an unmasking of the true nature of our bankrupt professional-managerial class and their bought-and-paid-for “experts.”

The progress of unraveling the climate change scam is slow but steady. Yesterday, President Trump announced he will use an executive order to end tax subsidies for the wind and solar renewable energy grift. Finally, common sense and fiscal responsibility are now evident in Washington, D.C.. Yet, the question remains: how long will it take before the global professional managerial class realizes the gig is up?

from:    https://timlynch.substack.com/p/the-climate-alarmism-grift-is-dying

Discussing Climate Change, uh Global Warming, uh Global Cooling… Whatever

Posted on by

The Fraud of ‘Global Warming’

Taking Aim at One of the Most Pervasive Lies of the Modern Age

Matthew Ehret's avatar
MATTHEW EHRET

In a recent article, Defeating the Depopulation Agenda, I took aim at an insidious ideology which has infiltrated society in the form of a movement to ‘protect nature from humanity’.

In that feature, we reviewed how those forces behind this revival of the pagan Gaia earth mother cults of ancient times were directly connected to the Anglo-Dutch royal families- with explicit focus on Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (‘former SS officer) and Prince Philip Mountbatten.

While I received much positive feedback from readers who appreciated gettting greater clarity to the cultish Gaia worship underlying the eco-imperial agenda which has infested so much of our western education, cultural and even religious institutions… something was missing.

In this article, I will attempt to address that missing ingredient which will involve a summary appreciation of the fraud of climate science per se which has perverted science itself, around a statistical mode of analysis designed to frame a wonderful molecule named carbon dioxide for genocide.

After introducing a rehabilitation and defense of CO2, I will end with some basic facts about the essentials of a true climate science premised around astro-climatology and the actual galactic forces shaping earth’s climate.

Development Greens the Earth

Many people were taken aback by the findings published by a team of scientists analyzing the results of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites.

NASA’s website[5] described the findings (published on February 11, 2019[1]) in the following way:

“The research team found that global green leaf area has increased by 5 percent since the early 2000s, an area equivalent to all of the Amazon rainforests. At least 25 percent of that gain came in China.”

Up until this study’s publication, scientists were not certain what role human economic activity played in this anomalous greening of the earth.

The NASA study demonstrated that this dramatic rate of greening between 2000-2017 was being driven largely by China and India’s combined efforts at eradicating poverty, which involves both reforestation, desert greening efforts (see China’s Move South Water North megaproject[2]), agricultural innovation and also, general industrial growth policies.

The later policies represent genuine efforts by Asian nations to wipe out poverty by investments into large scale infrastructure… a practice once used in the west before the days of “post-industrialism” induced a collective insanity of consumerism in the early 1970s.

A perplexed reader might now be heard to ask: but how can industrial growth have anything to do with greening of the planet?

One simple answer is: carbon dioxide.

CO2: An Innocent Victim Framed for Genocide

As children, we are taught that CO2 is an integral part of our ecosystem and that plants love it.

The processes of photosynthesis, which evolved over long spans of time with the advent of the chlorophyll molecule eons ago requires constant infusions of carbon dioxide that are broken down along with H2O, releasing oxygen back into the biosphere. Over time, free oxygen slowly formed the earth’s ozone layer and fueled the rise of ever higher life forms that relied on this “plant waste” for life.

Today, large amounts of carbon dioxide is regularly generated by biotic and abiotic activity from living animals, decaying biomass as well as volcanos which constantly emit CO2 and other greenhouse gases. A surprisingly small portion of that naturally occurring CO2 is caused by human economic activity.

Taking the entire composition of greenhouse gases together, water vapour makes up 95% of the bulk, carbon dioxide makes up 3.6%, nitrous oxide (0.9%), methane (0.3%), and aerosols about 0.07%.

Of the sum total of the 3.6% carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, approximately 0.9% is caused by human activity.

To restate this statistic: Human CO2 makes up less than 1% of the 3.6% of the total greenhouse gases influencing our climate.

During the mid-20th century, a belief began to emerge among some fringe climate scientists that the 400 parts per million (PPM) average carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the “natural and ideal amount”, such that any upset of this mathematical average would supposedly result in destruction of biodiversity.

These same mathematicians also presumed that the biosphere could be defined as closed systems, such that rules of entropy were the natural organizing principles- ignoring the obvious fact that ecosystems are OPEN, connected to oceans of active cosmic radiations from other stars, galaxies, supernova and more, while being mediated by nested arrays of electromagnetic fields.

As film maker Adam Curtis demonstrated in his, All Watched Over By Machines of Love and Grace (2011)[3], this belief slowly moved from the fringe into mainstream thinking despite the fact that it is simply wrong.

Beyond the facts already presented above, another persuasive piece of evidence can be found in carbon dioxide generators that are commonly purchased by anyone managing a greenhouse[4]. These widely-used generators increase CO2 to amounts as high as 1,500 PPM.

What is the effect of such increases?

Healthier, happier, greener plants and vegetables.

Temperature and CO2: Who Leads in this Dance?

Amidst the frantic alarms sounding daily over the impending climate emergency threatening the world, we often forget to ask if anyone ever actually proved the claim that CO2 drives the climate.

To begin to answer this question, let’s start with a graph showcasing the rise of human industrial CO2 from 1751-2015 broken down into various regions of the earth. What we can see is consistent increase from the mid 19th century until 1950, when a vast spike of emission rate increases can be viewed.

This increase obviously accompanies world population growth and the correlated agro-industrial output.

Next, let us look at the global mean temperature changes from 1880-present.

Here, several anomalies strike the thinking mind.

For starters, absolutely no warming accompanies the period of intensive industrial growth of 1940-1977. In fact during this period, many climate scientists were ringing the alarm over an impending ice age![5]

Another anomaly: Since carbon dioxide emissions have increased continuously over the past 20 years, one would expect to see a correlated spike in warming trends; however, this expected correlation is entirely absent between the year 1998 and 2012, when warming tappers off to a near standstill, sometimes called “the global warming pause” of 1998-2012[6]. This has been an embarrassment for all modellers whose scare-mongering predictions have fallen to pieces to the point that they can only pretend this pause doesn’t exist.

Again, the question must be asked: why would this anomaly appear if CO2 drove temperature?

Let’s take one more anomaly from our temperature records before digging into the hard proof that CO2 does not cause temperature changes: The medieval warming period [see graph].

While certain proven fraudsters like Michael Mann[7] have attempted to erase this warming period from existence with things like the famous “hockey stick” model, crafted with the help of East Anglia’s Phil Jones, the fact remains that from 1000-1350 A.D. global mean temperatures were significantly warmer than anything we are currently living through.

The Vikings in Greenland had no coal plants or SUVs, and yet, mean temperatures were still warmer than today by a long shot.

Why?

Perhaps taking a wider look at the CO2:climate correlation might give us a better idea of what is actually happening.

Below, we can see a chart taking 600,000 years of data into account.

It is certainly the case that CO2 and temperature have a connection on these scales… but correlation is not causation, and as the author of How to Lie with Statistics[8] famously stated, “a well-wrapped statistic is better than Hitler’s Big Lie; it misleads, yet it cannot be pinned on you.”

When a 70,000 year sampling is inspected, we find the slight of hand fully exposed by observing the peaks and troughs of temperature and CO2.

If the later were truly the driving force, as the Great Resetters of our day proclaim, then CO2 peaks and troughs would happen before temperature, but the evidence shows us the inverse.

Let’s look at one more example of an 800 year CO2/temperature lag about 130,000 years ago…

Going back even further into the climate records, it has been revealed that during many of the past ice ages, carbon dioxide had risen up to 800% higher than our current levels, despite the fact that human activity played zero role[9].

A Brief Look at Space Weather

Technically, I could end right now and feel like any honest jury would conclude that CO2 has been falsely framed for murder. But I would like to introduce one more dramatic piece of evidence that gets us back on the path of a true science of climate change and ecosystems management: Astroclimatology.

The fact that the earth is but one of a multitude of spherical bodies in space speedily revolving around an incredibly active sun within the outskirts of a galaxy within a broader cluster of galaxies is often ignored by many computer modelling statisticians for a very simple reason: anyone who has been conditioned to look at the universe through a filter of linear computer models is obsessed with control, and is incredibly uncomfortable with the unknown.

The amount of actual factors shaping the weather, ice ages, and volcanism are so complex, vast and mostly undiscovered that computer modellers would prefer to simply pretend they don’t exist… or if they do acknowledge such celestial phenomena to have any function in climate change, it is often dismissed as “negligible”.

Despite this culture of laziness and dishonesty, the question is worth asking: WHY does evidence of climate change occur across so many other planets and moons of our solar system?

Ice caps on Mars melt periodically[10] and have been melting at faster rates in recent years. Why is this happening? Could the sun’s coronal mass ejections, solar wind, or electromagnetic field be affecting climate change within the solar system as one unifying process?

Often Venus with its atmosphere of 96.5% CO2 is used as a warning for people on the earth what sort of terrible oven we will create by producing more CO2. It is hot, after all, with temperatures averaging 467 degrees Celsius (872 degrees Fahrenheit); however, if CO2 were truly to blame for the heating, then why is Mars so cold with temperatures averaging minus 125 degrees Celsius (-195 degrees Fahrenheit) despite the fact that it’s atmosphere is 95% CO2?

Similarly, what role does cosmic radiation play in driving climate change? Based on the recent discoveries of Heinrich Svensmark and his team in Denmark, strong correlations were found linking cloud formation, climate and cosmic radiation flux over time. Cosmic radiation flux into the earth is a continuous process mediated by the earth’s magnetic field, as well as the oscillating magnetic field of the sun, which shapes the entire solar system as we revolve around the galactic center of the Milky Way every 225-250 million years.

Svensmark’s discovery was outlined beautifully in the 2011 documentary, The Cloud Mystery.[11]

A Return to a True Science of Climate

The point to re-emphasize is that the weather is, and always has been, a complex process shaped by galactic forces that have driven a miraculous system of life on the earth over hundreds of millions of years.

During this time, amounting to approximately two revolutions around the galactic center, living matter has transformed from relatively boring (high entropy) single celled organisms, through a continuous process of increased complexity, and increased power of self-direction (low entropy). Up until now, there is no actual evidence that this process is a closed system, and as such, that any fixed state of no change/heat death is controlling its behavior.

While some might deny this claim, citing the redshifts of galaxies as proof that the universe is in fact dying (or inversely had a starting point “in time” 13.6 billion years ago before there was nothing), I refer you to the work of Halton Arp[12].

This process has been characterized by non-linear discontinuities of living matter emerging where only nonliving matter previously existed, followed later by conscious life having appeared where only non-conscious life had been found and most recently self-conscious life endowed with creative reason appearing onto the scene. While this process has been punctuated by sometimes violent mass-extinction cycles, the overall direction of life has not been shaped by randomness, chance or chaos, but rather improvement, perfectibility and harmony.

When humanity appeared onto the scene, a new phenomenon began expressing itself in a form which the great Russian academician Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945) described as the Noosphere (as opposed to the lithosphere and biosphere). Vernadsky understood this new geological force to be driven by human creative reason, and devoted his life to teaching the world that the law of humanity must accord with the law of nature, stating:

“The noösphere is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time, man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can, and must, rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild it radically in comparison with the past. Wider and wider creative possibilities open before him. It may be that the generation of our grandchildren will approach their blossoming”.[13]

In Vernadsky’s mind, neither the noosphere, nor the biosphere obeyed a law of mathematical equilibrium or statis, but was rather governed by an asymmetrical harmony and progress from lower to higher states of organization. It was only by coming to understand the principles of nature that mankind became morally and intellectually fit to improve upon nature by turning deserts green, harnessing the power of the atom or applying scientific progress to health and agriculture.

Some of his most important insights were published in his Scientific Thought as a Planetary Phenomena (1938), Evolution of Species and Living Matter (1928,) Some Words About the Noosphere (1943), and The Transition of the Biosphere to the Noosphere (1938).[14]

Despite the lasting contributions made by Vernadsky to human knowledge, here we sit, 76 years after the end of WW2, tolerating an unscientific policy of mass decarbonization, which threatens to radically undermine civilization for countless generations.

Is this change being forced upon humanity?

Unlike the forces of fascism and imperialism of the past, today’s terrible self-implosion of civilization is occurring via the consent of those intended to perish under a Great Reset via the collective guilt for the crime of simply being human. It has become the norm for the majority of today’s children to think of themselves as belonging not to a beautiful species made in the image of a Creator, but rather to a parasitic race guilty for the crime of sinning against nature.

So let’s take this opportunity to re-introduce truth back into climate science, and let the social engineers drooling over a Great Reset scream and whine as nations choose a new open system paradigm of life and anti-entropy rather than a closed system world of decay and heat death.

This positive new paradigm of cooperation, scientific and technological progress, and cultural optimism is getting stronger by the day led by Russia, China and other nations joining the international New Silk Road.

Most importantly, let’s finally absolve CO2 of its accused sins, and celebrate this wonderful little molecule as our friend and ally.

Matthew Ehret is the editor-in-chief of The Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow of the American University in Moscow and Director of the Rising Tide Foundation. He has written the four volume Untold History of Canada series, four volume Clash of the Two Americas series and Science Unshackled: Restoring Causality to a World in Chaos. He is also the host of Pluralia Dialogos and Breaking History on Badlands Media where this article was first published.

from:    https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-fraud-of-global-warming?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email

What Does “Organic” Really Mean?

Posted on by

Food Labels: Chicken, Eggs, Beef, Pork, Lamb, Produce

Know what they mean and How to read them

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny's avatar
DR. SHERRI TENPENNY
JUN 28, 2025

With the recent focus on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA) with food, knowing a bit about the USDA and food labeling has never been more important.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a huge executive division within the US government. It is subdivided into 15 agencies with oversight by 15 administrative offices. The USDA employs nearly 100,000 people, working at more than 4,500 locations nationwide and abroad. For 2024, the USDA was given an operating budget of $24.46 billion, an increase of 11.5% over the previous year. The bureaucratic behemoth has oversight regarding food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and issues related to public policy.

One agency is the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The AMS creates and administers domestic and international marketing opportunities for producers of “food, fiber, and specialty crops.” This includes commodity procurement and contract management for cotton, tobacco, livestock, poultry, specialty crops, and all types of food labeled organic.

As it turns out, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory program within the AMS that develops then enforces national standards for organically produced agricultural products sold within the United States. Run by only 34 employees and the Office of the Deputy Administrator, the NOP was allocated $24 million within the 2024 operating budget to oversee and regulate all elements of the organic food industry. For comparison, the budget for the Packers and Stockyards program, which regulates and monitors the activities of livestock, meat, and poultry, was allocated $35 million.

NOP oversees the work of 84 certifiers who perform audits, write audit report reviews, send out notices of noncompliance, issue corrective action reviews, and respond to consumers and producers seeking information and assistance regarding all food categories of organic food and labeling, including meat. The expanded availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms has made it easier for consumers to access organic meat and has contributed to its market’s growth. In 2021, just over 16,000 certified organic farms were in operation in the US, with California having the most certified farms by far (3,061) while nearly 7,000 farms were certified as organic pastureland and rangeland.

Want to become an organic farmer? There’s a lot to know…

The organic food market’s overall growth has impacted the organic meat sector in many positive ways. As consumers become more aware and critical of the quality of food they eat and prepare for their families, their concerns are driving the availability of organic products in retail stores, supermarkets, and online platforms, including the search for organic meat.

The size of the Global Organic Meat Market was valued at USD $18.78 Billion in 2022 and is poised to grow to USD $37.39 Billion by 2031. The concern for animal welfare is a significant driver for the organic markets. North America is expected to lead the global demand for organic meat. This is, at least in part, due to NOP and USDA programs that support the production of organic meat and meat-related goods.

There is also a growing emphasis on regenerative organic practices for the organic meat industry. Organic meat production typically adheres to stricter animal welfare standards than conventional meat production.

Regenerative farming has been used since the late 1970s, but the terms Regenerative Agriculture and Regenerative Farming came into wider circulation in the early 1980s and is becoming a very popular buzzword now. The technology focuses on restoring soil health via holistic land management, rotational grazing, and enhancing crop biodiversity. While organic farms also prioritize soil health, regenerative practices often go beyond organic standards.

Under NOP regulations, each certified organic farm must have an organic systems plan (OSP), a detailed outline that explains how the farm operations will satisfy the requirements of the NOP regulations. Just understanding all the rules used to monitor and market the organic food market is onerous. This includes (in part) keeping track of updates to each of these regulations:

What does “organic” really mean?

According to the USDA,

Organic is a labeling term that indicates that the food or other agricultural products have been produced through approved methods. These methods integrate cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster the recycling of resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used.

The Organic Standards can be found here.

The Label Quiz

Many consumers want to eat as “clean” as possible, meaning they want real food that is not contaminated with chemicals, antibiotics, pesticides, GMOs, and toxic vaccines.

Livestock and poultry farmers have caught on to this. Many farmers believe in the organic certification concept but are unwilling to go through the long, and often very expensive, certification program process. After the certification, farmers have to pay an annual, often pricey, fee to maintain the certification.

When consumers see the word “organic” on a package or a label, they have expectations about the product they are purchasing. USDA-certified organic foods must be grown and processed according to federal guidelines that take into consideration soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and the use of antibiotics and hormones.

USDA organic regulations prohibit the use of GMO ingredients, listing them as “excluded methods.” Foods labeled organic are also not allowed to contain bioengineered ingredients (BE), which means ingredients made using recombinant DNA technology such as gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes. (NOTE: These ingredients ARE in foods that are NOT organic).

Organic products are labeled according to the percentage of organic ingredients they contain. There are four distinct labeling categories for organic products:

  • 100 Percent Organic – Products with this label contain only certified organic ingredients, including any processing aids.
  • Organic – For products in the “organic” category, at least 95% of the ingredients must be certified organic. The remaining five percent of ingredients must be organically produced, unless commercially unavailable or allowed on the National List.
  • Made With Organic ***– For multi-ingredient agricultural products, the “Made with organic ***” label means the product must contain at least 70 percent certified organic ingredients. These products may contain up to 30% of allowed non-organic ingredients. All ingredients – including the 30% non-organic ingredients – must be produced without GMOs.

If a product states, “Made with organic grains,” all ingredients derived from grains— including enriched wheat flour, corn oil, or oats—must be certified organic. If a product contains both organic and non-organic forms of the same ingredient, they must be identified separately in the ingredient statement.

  • Specific Organic Ingredients – This label is a mixture of non-organic and certified organic ingredients. The ingredient statement of the products identifies that the product contains less than 70% organic content.
Chart Source: Cetrafoods.com

These labeling differences help educated consumers to distinguish between products that are either labeled as “made with organic ingredients” or products that are made with a mix of ingredients.

The USDA and NOP organic regulations prohibit organically labeled food from being contaminated with residues from pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, and genetically modified (GMO) or bioengineered (BE) ingredients. Products undergo required residue testing. If foods are found to be even minimally contaminated (there is no minimum level that is tolerated), penalties and warning letters are issued. (In other words, organic food appears to have a zero tolerance level for these residues. That’s good!)

Labels for Meat

Chicken

To be designated as organic, the birds must be raised organically, starting no later than two days after they hatch. The USDA requires the chicken’s feed to be grown without pesticides or synthetic fertilizers and certified.

Being free-range is not the same as being organic. Free-range and cage-free refers to where/how the chickens lived, not what they were fed, and gives no indication about the quality of the air or hygiene levels where they lived. According to the New Roots Institute,

“Outside space provided to free-range chickens is loosely defined and often just a formality: it’s likely too small, barren, and otherwise inadequate for the thousands of chickens being raised in a farm for slaughter.’

  • Free-range. “Free-range” is a marketing term used by the food industry. It means the bird was provided shelter, unlimited access to food, fresh water, and outdoor access during their production or life cycle for at least 51% of their lives (making it “the majority” of their lives).
  • Cage-free. This label indicates that the bird could roam within a building, a room, or an enclosed area with unlimited access to food and fresh water. Cage-free hens generally have no access to the outdoors.

Don’t be fooled by food labels that sound like the living conditions are better for chickens. The ASPC (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals®) has a table to help make informed choices about chicken meat. The guide helps consumers make choices based on chicken welfare. These three are the best choices:

Source: ASPC table

Eggs

With labels like “organic,” “free-range,” “cage-free,” and “vegetarian fed” it’s hard to know which eggs are the best to buy. While food labeling should be simple and transparent, unfortunately, is mostly about marketing.

Conventional Eggs

Conventional eggs are not the most ethical or nutritious eggs. These birds are generally fed poor quality feed that often contains antibiotics and hormones. Hens live in stacked rows of cages and live in a space approximately the size of a sheet of paper. The vast majority of egg-laying hens are confined in battery cages. Unable to spread their wings, caged laying hens are among agribusiness’s most intensively confined animals. The poor living conditions increase the risk of bacterial contamination.

Globally, non-typhoidal Salmonella is the most frequently documented cause of foodborne disease. In the US, it is the second most common cause of foodborne outbreaks, and around 20% of the illnesses caused by Salmonella are related to poultry, poultry products, and eggs.

In a study from 2023, Salmonella contamination varies widely among egg-producing countries. Contamination in US is low, and reported to be 0.005%. In Europe, Salmonella contamination has been found to be about 0.37%, and in China, the world’s largest egg producer eggs, between 0.5% and 5.6% of eggs were found to be contaminated with the bacteria.

Free-Range Eggs

Lines can get blurred when it comes to the free-range egg label. This is because organic eggs must be from free-range hens, but free-range eggs aren’t necessarily organic, because the birds do not need to be fed organic feed. The USDA only requires free-range eggs come from “free-range” chickens but most really only have limited access to a small, fenced in outdoor area.

Likewise, eggs labeled as “vegetarian,” “antibiotic-free,” or “all-natural” don’t have to meet the strict standards required for certified organic eggs. There’s little oversight, so it’s often up to individual farms or companies to define what those labels mean

Organic Eggs

Under the USDA Organic Certification Requirements, organic eggs must come from chickens that are fed only organic feed that is free of animal by-products, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, or chemical additives. These chickens must not be given any antibiotics or additional hormones.

Organic eggs must be laid by 100% free-range, cage-free chickens with access to an outdoor area, even if it’s small. Overall, organically raised hens offer the highest standard of animal welfare, making them the most ethical egg option available.

Organic eggs are more nutritional sound, even though the industry says there is no difference between organic and non-organic eggs. Since the hens are fed high-quality feed, have more movement, and are drug-free, they produce fresher eggs with more nutrients. The yolks of organic eggs have a richer orange color; they certainly taste richer and healthier. After eating organic eggs, I find the non-organic eggs served in most restaurants taste like styrofoam in comparison.

While organic eggs are often more expensive, sometimes double the cost of commercial eggs, they’re worth it. Look for the USDA Certified Organic label on the egg carton or buy from local farmers who follow the strict standard s for raising organic birds.

Beef

NOTE: Grass-fed describes WHAT the animal was eating, whereas pasture-fed describes WHERE the animal was being fed.

Organic means the cows ate only organic feed and were not given antibiotics or hormones.

Grass-fed

Animals receive most of their nutrients from grass and forages (such as hay) throughout their life. However, the animal’s diet has nothing to do with whether or not it received hormones or antibiotics, or was exposed to toxic pesticides, including glyphosate. In other words, just because it the meat is labeled grass-fed, doesn’t necessarily mean it is organic.

The American Grassfed Association (AGA), a non-governmental organization, developed an approval label to clear this concern. If the meat has an AGA label , it means the animal was raised in a pasture, only fed grass or hay, and was never treated with hormones or antibiotics. American Grassfed Association (AGA) is a producer-founded and run non-profit organization that supports American Family Farms and Ranchers through certification, advocacy, and education programs.

A list of AGA-approved providers can be found here.

Pasture-raised

A pastured-raised animal must have had access to the outdoors for at least 120 days per year. According to USDA regulations, this label includes terminology that refers to only a particular animal. For example, the animal may have lived in a field or on a wide-open ranch, or it may have lived outside in a small pen. The USDA has not developed a labeling policy regarding hormones and antibiotics for pasture-raised products.

Pork

Pigs intended for meat products must be raised organically from the last third of gestation and, like beef, without the use of antibiotics and growth hormone stimulants. To be labeled USDA certified organic, the pork must not only come from pigs raised on organically certified farms but also be processed by a USDA certified organic processing plant.

There are four major aspects of USDA-certified organic regulations relating to pig production—source of animals, feed, healthcare, and living conditions. The only piglets that can be sold as organic are those who whose mother (the sow) has been managed organically from the last third of gestation to birth (gestation ranges from 111 to 120 days.) Federal organic regulations require that organic pigs have access to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean drinking water, and direct sunlight. Organic pigs must have access to clean, dry bedding. If the bedding has crop residue, it must be from organic crops. (Pigs are treated more humanely than chickens).

Pork labeled as organic must come from pigs that have only been fed a diet consisting of organic grains and protein sources, including organic soybean meal. The animal feed must be 100% organically produced and without animal byproducts or daily drugs. GMOs, or hormones. While antibiotics are strictly prohibited, vaccines are allowed….and they get many.

Sheep

As of Jan. 31, 2024, there were 5.03 million head of sheep in the United States, with the largest numbers being located in Texas, California, and Colorado. Even though sheep are produced in all 50 states, most large sheep ranches are located west of the Mississippi River. When it comes to the countries with the most sheep, the US isn’t even in the top 10.

Difference Between Lamb and Mutton

Lamb is meat from a young sheep, under one year of age. Lamb is said to have a very delicate, even slightly sweet, grass-fed flavor; the meat is very tender. Lamb is usually 60-70% more costly than mutton. Mutton is the meat of mature sheep, harvested between 2 to 3 years of age. Mutton is said to have a robust, greasy, even gamey taste compared to true cuts of lamb. Because the animal is older, the meat tends to be tougher and more “chewy.” Most lamb meat sold in the US comes from older sheep.

The USDA does not have clear labeling rules that differentiate between lamb and mutton. Classifying and labeling the meat lamb, yearling, or mutton is left to producers. Therefore, any sheep meat under 24 months at the time of harvest can be labelled as lamb when it is actually mutton.

An astonishingly large and diverse number of products are made from sheep and their byproducts, from food to cosmetics and shaving cream to surgical sutures. Check out this American Sheep Industry Association flier to see the full list.

What about produce labels?

Produce can be labeled organic if it was grown in soil that has not had any prohibited substances applied to it for at least three years before harvest. Products that are clearing not organic have no misleading labeling, except for products that now bear the label coated with Apeel, which I’ve written about previously.

Another chemical used on produce since 1996 is called 1-MCP, which stands for methyl-cyclopropane, marketed under the name Smart Fresh. When sprayed on apples and oranges, the shelf life can be extended for up to three years by blocking the replication of bacteria on the surface of the fruit, but it can also disrupts human and animal gut microbiome.

Other labels found on produce are the PLU labels, standing for Price-LookUp codes. They allow retailers to manage inventory, process customer checkout faster, and help manage the produce industry supply chain. Assigned by the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS), more than 1,400 PLU codes have been assigned to various types of fruits and vegetables. The labels also identify if the produce is organic or conventionally grown.

  • A four-digit code starting with the number 3 or 4 (3000 or 4000 series) is used for conventionally grown produce. This means synthetic fertilizers, chemicals, and/or pesticides might have been used during the growth of the produce.
  • A five-digit code starting with the number 3 identifies fruits and vegetables that have been irradiated or electronically pasteurized.
  • A five-digit code starting with the number 6 identifies pre-cut fruits and vegetables.
  • A five-digit code starting with the number 8 is designated for fruits and vegetables that have been genetically modified or bioengineered.
  • A five-digit code starting with the number 9 is designated for organic fruits and vegetables.
  • If the code contains more than five digits, it is not part of the IFPS standardized system.

Summary

the next time you go to the grocery store, spend a little more time reading food labels. Now that you know a little more how they are categorized, you can be an even better consumer for yourself and your family. You’ll want to chose organic eggs, Certified Humane chicken, and AGA labeled beef. You may want to shop using the ASPC food shopping list. They say on their website, but it’s a place to start.

“Where to buy” information is kept up-to-date by individual companies; please contact the store or seller directly to confirm product availability.

*The ASPCA does not audit farms or ranches and instead relies on independent animal welfare certifications as the basis for evaluating different food brands in the marketplace.

from:    https://drtenpenny.substack.com/p/food-labels-chicken-eggs-beef-pork?publication_id=931759&post_id=166770095&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

A Fish Out Of Water

Posted on by

FDA Rubber-stamps Approval of Lab-grown Salmon

 by Veronika Kyrylenko     
FDA Rubber-stamps Approval of Lab-grown Salmon
Firn/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Login to Listen
Article audio sponsored by The John Birch Society

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared its first-ever lab-grown fish for sale in the United States — based entirely on data submitted by the manufacturer. Wildtype, a California-based food tech company, is now approved to serve its cell-cultivated coho salmon.

This FDA approval makes Wildtype the fourth company cleared to market lab-grown animal products in the country. The salmon is now available on the menu at Kann, a high-profile Haitian restaurant in Portland. The company plans to roll out its “salmon” in four additional restaurants in the coming months, followed by a broader launch into the food-service sector.

What FDA Said

In its review, the FDA stated that it had “no questions” regarding the safety of Wildtype’s salmon. This bureaucratic phrasing marks the final step in the agency’s voluntary pre-market consultation process. The agency wrote:

Based on the data and information presented in [Wildtype’s pre-market safety submission to the FDA], we have no questions at this time about Wildtype’s conclusion that foods comprising or containing cultured coho salmon cell material resulting from the production process defined in [the submission] are as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods. Furthermore, at this time we have not identified any information indicating that the production process as described in [the submission] would be expected to result in food that bears or contains any substance or microorganism that would adulterate the food.

The FDA did not conduct its own tests. Instead, it based its clearance on Wildtype’s internal safety assessments. The agency said it found no evidence to contradict the company’s conclusions — but, apparently, also made no effort to verify them independently.

How It’s Made

Wildtype begins the process of creating what it calls “the cleanest, most sustainable seafood on the planet” by extracting cells from a single coho salmon. These can come from muscle tissue or even from a fertilized egg, per the company. The cells belong to the mesenchymal lineage, meaning they have the natural ability to turn into muscle, fat, or connective tissue.

Once collected, the cells are placed in a sterile, nutrient-rich environment designed to mimic the conditions inside a living fish. They grow and multiply in stainless steel tanks, similar to the fermenters used in brewing. Over time, the cell mass expands to form the basis of what will become the finished product.

After harvesting, the cells are combined with a small number of plant-based ingredients. These help fine-tune the taste, color, and texture, giving the final product its sushi-grade look and feel. Wildtype previously used a plant-based scaffold to help shape the product, but has since moved away from that approach. The company now applies thermal processing after harvest to ensure food safety.

The result is a fillet that resembles raw fish in appearance and taste. According to Wildtype, it delivers the same amount of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids as conventional salmon, but without the harmful levels of mercury, antibiotics, or parasites.

However, many of the details remain undisclosed — such as what gives it its pink color or which agents are used to prevent bacterial contamination. While the process appears clean and carefully controlled, critics point out that the lack of transparency and independent oversight leaves some important questions unanswered.

Safety, Hazards, and Oversight

Wildtype claims it follows a rigorous food-safety protocol. This includes a seafood-specific HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) plan, good manufacturing practices, allergen controls, verified suppliers, traceability for all inputs, batch testing, sanitation procedures, and employee retraining. On paper, the system checks all the regulatory boxes.

But key questions remain unanswered. Wildtype conducted no animal trials. No human feeding trials. And there is no post-market surveillance to monitor long-term health effects. The FDA didn’t request any of that. Instead, it accepted the company’s internal safety assessment, backed by a legal mechanism known as GRAS — “Generally Recognized as Safe.”

The GRAS designation was originally developed for substances used widely and safely for decades — food ingredients like vinegar or black pepper. As the FDA itself explains, GRAS status applies only when “all data necessary to establish safety” are publicly available and recognized by qualified experts. GRAS ingredients must meet the same standard as food additives: a “reasonable certainty of no harm” with intended use.

In Wildtype’s case, the FDA stretched that standard, to say the least. The cultivated salmon isn’t a familiar pantry item or time-tested seasoning. It’s an entirely new food category created in a lab, using techniques borrowed from pharmaceutical manufacturing. And the only data the FDA relied on came from the company itself.

Jaydee Hanson, policy director at the Center for Food Safety, told The Defender that the FDA’s move was “outrageous.” He argued that the GRAS pathway was never meant for novel biotech products like this:

The FDA is negligent, I would say, in allowing a company to use the self-approved generally recognized as safe method. And then the FDA should have developed its own new guidelines for how to test this new food.

Without those guidelines, and without independent testing, critics say, the FDA handed off its regulatory role to the very company seeking approval — leaving consumers to hope the science holds up.

Cultivated Food and Globalism

The push for lab-grown meat and seafood doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It aligns closely with Agenda 2030, the United Nations’ sweeping blueprint for global control. Among its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), several specifically target the way food is produced, distributed, and consumed.

Under SDG 2 (“Zero Hunger”) and SDG 12 (“Responsible Consumption and Production”), the UN calls for “sustainable food systems” that reduce environmental impact, use fewer natural resources, and decrease reliance on traditional agriculture. Cultivated meat, at least in theory, promises to do just that: no livestock, no methane, no deforestation.

Global institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF), which supports cell-cultivated food as a scalable solution to “climate change” and global food insecurity, echo this narrative. Together, the UN and WEF promote a future of food that is lab-made, patent-protected, and centrally controlled.

Needless to say, this approach hands power over what we eat to a narrow set of actors: multinational corporations, unelected global bodies, and venture-backed biotech firms. Traditional farming, food independence, and personal choice are being engineered out of the equation.

from:    https://thenewamerican.com/us/tech/fda-rubber-stamps-approval-of-lab-grown-salmon/

This Is NOT Our War

Posted on by

Rep. Thomas Massie Introduces Legislation to Stop US Involvement in Israel-Iran War

June 18, 2025 Gateway Pundit 6

Republican US Representative Thomas Massie introduced an Iran War Powers Resolution with Democrat Representative Ro Khanna to prohibit US involvement in the Israel-Iran war. The resolution notes that “Congress has the sole power to declare war” and would direct the President to terminate use of US military against Iran, “unless explicitly authorized.”

Massie wrote: “This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”

Massie also polled followers, asking, “Should the United States be giving Israel weapons to make war with Iran?” and 85% of the more than 126,000 respondents said “No.”

Trump is losing his base over supporting Israel in another war.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced that he has introduced a resolution to prohibit American involvement in Israel’s war with Iran on Tuesday. 

This comes as Trump signaled on Tuesday that he is seriously considering a strike on Iran and taking out Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there – We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

The President later shared a message he received from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, where Huckabee compared the current situation Trump faces to that of President Harry Truman, who ordered the first nuclear bombs to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending World War II. This prompted concern among supporters of the President, who ran on the promise of ending wars, not starting World War III or involving the U.S. in another endless war in the Middle East, that the nuclear option is being considered.

This comes after Israel carried out a massive bombing campaign on Iran’s nuclear sites. The Jewish state conducted the preemptive strike, called “Strength of a Lion,” after receiving intelligence that Iran had enough enriched uranium to build several nuclear bombs within days. However, as The Gateway Pundit reported, since the 1990s, Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, often citing short timelines for their capability.

The President has gone from calling for Israel to hold off on attacking Iran pending negotiations, even hours before Israel struck Iran, to now calling for “a real end, not a ceasefire” after Israel seemingly vetoed his calls for peaceful negotiation.

Late last month, Trump said he told Israel it wouldn’t be “appropriate” amid the ongoing negotiations:

If Trump decides to go the interventionist route, he will be siding with the warmongers like RINO Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), who has called on the U.S. to go “all in” with Israel and even called for a regime change in Iran.

Rep. Massie announced his resolution on X on Tuesday, saying, “This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.”

The resolution, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) notes that “Congress has the sole power to declare war” and would direct the President to terminate use of U.S. military against Iran, “unless explicitly authorized.”

I just introduced an Iran War Powers Resolution with @RepRoKhanna to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran war.

This is not our war. Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution.

Massie has long been outspoken against involvement in Israel’s war.

On Friday, he vowed to vote against funding for the war, noting that the country evidently “already has enough to start offensive wars.”

 

He also polled followers, asking, “Should the United States be giving Israel weapons to make war with Iran?” and 85% of the more than 126,000 respondents said “No.”

 

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/06/rep-thomas-massie-introduces-legislation-to-stop-us-involvement-in-israel-iran-war/

And Now, They Created Ticks To Make You Allergic to Meat

Posted on by

Bioengineered Ticks Make You Allergic To Red Meat To Fight Climate Change!? There May Be Hope

May 16, 2025 Jimmy Dore, BGR and WDBJ 6

The CDC says up to 400,000 Americans may suffer from alpha-gal syndrome, which presents an allergic reaction to meat and is said to be caused by bites from the lone star tick.

The alpha-gal allergy may have been intentionally cooked up in a lab to combat global warming by stopping red meat consumption.

College of Global Public Health Center for Bioethics at New York University Director, Dr. Matthew Liao, speaking at the 2016 World Science Festival, openly advocated artificially inducing a red meat allergy in the entire human population, using an analog of the algha-gal molecule found in the Lone Star Tick.

Most people think of tick bites as nuisances or, at worst, vectors for Lyme disease. But imagine waking up in the middle of the night with hives, your throat closing up, all because you ate some pork hours earlier.

That was Cathy Raley’s reality, according to reports from Science News, after a single tick bite left her with a severe red meat allergy, a condition known as alpha-gal syndrome.

Alpha-gal syndrome isn’t your typical food allergy. It’s caused by a sugar molecule found in most mammalian meat, and this strange condition begins with a tick bite. The tick’s saliva introduces alpha-gal into the bloodstream, which can trigger a chain reaction in the immune system.

Weeks or even months later, eating beef, pork, lamb, or even dairy or gelatin, can provoke anything from an upset stomach to full-blown anaphylaxis. Until recently, the lone star tick was considered the only U.S. species capable of triggering alpha-gal syndrome.

However, new cases in Washington and Maine suggest otherwise. Scientists now believe that other tick species, like the blacklegged tick and the western blacklegged tick, may also be to blame. These findings could expand the map of risk far beyond the lone star tick’s southeastern stronghold, raising new concerns for hikers, campers, and even pet owners across the country.

This growing awareness is important because alpha-gal syndrome often goes undiagnosed. Its symptoms are delayed and can vary wildly from person to person. Many healthcare providers have never even heard of it, leading to frustrating misdiagnoses and prolonged suffering for patients.

There’s no cure for the condition, and while some people may eventually tolerate red meat again, the best protection remains prevention. That starts with avoiding tick bites altogether by wearing long sleeves and light-colored clothing when hiking.

Researchers also recommend that you treat your gear with permethrin, and always check yourself (and your pets) for ticks after spending any time outdoors. Even a tick that’s quickly removed can spark the syndrome, since the reaction isn’t caused by bacteria but by allergens in the tick’s saliva.

Read full article here…

“Life-changing”: Allergy treatment helps alpha-gal patients find relief

A growing number of people in Central Virginia are being diagnosed with Alpha-Gal Syndrome. It’s an allergy caused by tick bites that makes eating—or even being near—meat or dairy dangerous.

More than 80-thousand people viewed our earlier story about alpha-gal on our website—and we even heard from some who say they were just diagnosed because of it.

WDBJ7 spoke with a doctor and patient who say a therapy called SAAT is offering hope and changing lives.

“When we finally figured out that it was when I was eating beef or pork… she did, she ordered blood work and the next day the bloodwork came back and voila, that was it,” said Nanci Bell, diagnosed with alpha-gal.

Bell was diagnosed two years ago—after years of unexplained reactions, including severe hives.

“It was comforting because I thought I was going crazy. I couldn’t understand why I was randomly getting these awful, awful hives that were so itchy,” said Bell.

After getting the SAAT treatment—short for Soliman Auricular Allergy Treatment—Nanci says her life changed.

“It’s been life-changing, definitely. And I know that does sound strange, but take one of your favorite meals out of your diet forever and imagine what that would feel like,” said Bell.

She was able to eat steak just four days after treatment—with no reaction. That treatment was performed by Dr. Cheryl Hanly, a chiropractor and owner of Creedmoor Wellness Center, in Bracey, Virginia. Hanly was certified in SAAT after seeing more and more patients suffering.

“This training was something that came at the perfect time because so many people are suffering,” said Hanly.

SAAT uses tiny acupuncture needles placed in the ear. There’s no pain, and the needles stay in for a few weeks. Each treatment is tailored to the individual, using homeopathic filters to locate the allergy in the body.

Read full article here…

from:    https://needtoknow.news/2025/05/bioengineered-ticks-make-you-allergic-to-red-meat-to-fight-climate-change-there-may-be-hope/

What’s Going on with the South Atlantic Anomaly?

Posted on by

Bob Rubila

NASA Is Growing Concerned As A Massive Anomaly Spreads Across Earth, Scientists Believe It’s Linked To Deep Earth Forces.

6480846130354 2025 04 28t091835.031

At the heart of the US  agency’s concerns is a geomagnetic phenomenon that is as fascinating as it is worrying: the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). This immense region is characterised by a significantly reduced magnetic intensity compared with the surrounding areas. Far from being a mere scientific curiosity, this weakness acts like a breach in our natural protective shield, allowing high- solar particles to come dangerously close to the Earth’s surface.

To understand AAS, we need to delve deep into the heart of our planet. Its origin is closely linked to geodynamics, the complex process that takes place in the Earth’s outer core. There, the movement of molten iron and nickel generates the magnetic field that envelops us. However, this generation is not uniform.

Two main factors contribute to the formation of the AAS. Firstly, the inclination of the Earth’s magnetic axis in relation to its axis of rotation plays a role. Secondly, the influence of a gigantic, dense structure known as the African province with low shear velocity, located almost 2,900 kilometres beneath the African continent, disturbs the generation of the magnetic field in this region. NASA geophysicists explain that the anomaly is also associated with a  polarity inversion within the Earth’s magnetic field, which further weakens the overall strength of the dipole field in this specific area. As Weijia Kuang from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center explains, a field of reversed polarity has developed in the region, creating a sort of “pothole” in the Earth’s magnetic armour.

A danger for space technology

This magnetic vulnerability is not without consequences. Satellites passing through the AAS are exposed to high levels of high-energy protons. These particles can cause what engineers call Single Event Anomalies (SEUs). These incidents can lead to temporary malfunctions, data corruption or even permanent damage if a critical system is affected.

Faced with this risk, many satellite operators are taking preventive measures, in particular by shutting down non-essential systems as they pass through the anomaly. The International Space Station (ISS) itself passes through the AAS during each orbit. While its shielding effectively protects the astronauts, the external instruments are more exposed. Bryan Blair, deputy principal investigator for the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) instrument installed on the ISS, reports occasional “misfires” and resets, resulting in a few hours of data loss each month, an impact deemed manageable. Other missions, such as the Ionospheric Connection Explorer (ICON), are also closely monitoring the AAS and adapting their operations.

Far from being static, the South Atlantic Anomaly is a dynamic phenomenon. Recent data, notably from ESA’s Swarm constellation and historical measurements from NASA’s SAMPEX mission, confirm a number of worrying trends. The anomaly is slowly drifting north-westwards, expanding at the surface and, most notably since 2020, it is splitting into two distinct lobes, creating two centres of magnetic minimum. This bifurcation, corroborated by various studies, increases the number of dangerous zones for spacecraft and complicates the task of scientists developing predictive models of geomagnetic conditions. Understanding the changing morphology of the AAS is crucial for the safety of current and future satellites,” stresses NASA’s Terry Sabaka.

To refine their understanding and forecasts, NASA combines satellite data with simulations of the dynamics of the Earth’s core. This information is fed into global models such as the International Geomagnetic Reference Field (IGRF), which tracks changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. These models are essential not only for planning space missions, but also for gaining a better understanding of our planet’s internal structure. The approach is similar to weather forecasting, but on much longer time scales, making it possible to estimate Secular Variation, i.e. slow but persistent changes in the magnetic field over years and decades.

While the current evolution of the AAS is unprecedented on the scale of the space age, the geological record suggests that such anomalies are not exceptional over long periods of time. A 2020  even suggests that similar anomalies may have existed 11 million years ago. It is important to stress that, according to the scientists, the current AAS is not a precursor of a magnetic pole reversal, a natural but rare phenomenon that takes place over hundreds of thousands of years. The study of the AAS therefore remains an active area of research, essential to protect our technologies in orbit and to deepen our understanding of the deep forces that drive our planet.

from:    https://farmingdale-observer.com/2025/04/29/nasa-is-growing-concerned-as-a-massive-anomaly-spreads-across-earth-scientists-believe-its-linked-to-deep-earth-forces/