science+English Articles.

Showing posts with label science+English. Show all posts

Apr 23, 2015

Chinese scientists say they have tweaking the genes of human embryos for the first time in history

The genome-editing enzyme known as CAS9 at work on a strand of DNA.A group of Chinese scientists just reported that they modified the genome of human embryos, something that has never been done in the history of the world, according to a report in Nature News.  

A recent biotech discovery — one that has been called the biggest biotech discovery of the century — showed how scientists might be able to modify a human genome when that genome was still just in an embryo.

This could change not only the genetic material of a person, but could also change the DNA they pass on, removing "bad" genetic codes (and potentially adding "good" ones) and taking an active hand in evolution.

Concerned scientists published an argument that no one should edit the human genome in this way until we better understood the consequences after a report uncovered rumors that Chinese scientists were already working on using this technology. 

But this new paper, published April 18 in the journal Protein and Cell by a Chinese group led by gene-function researcher Junjiu Huang of Sun Yat-sen University, shows that work has already been done, and Nature News spoke to a Chinese source that said at least four different groups are "pursuing gene editing in human embryos."

Specifically, the team tried to modify a gene in a non-viable embryo that would have been responsible for a deadly blood disorder. But they noted in the study that they encountered serious challenges, suggesting there are still significant hurdles before clinical use becomes a reality.

CRISPR, the technology that makes all this possible, can find bad sections of DNA and cut them and even replace them with DNA that doesn't code for deadly diseases, but it can also make unwanted substitutions. Its level of accuracy is still very low.

Huang's group successfully introduced the DNA they wanted in only "a fraction" of the 28 embryos that had been "successfully spliced" (they tried 86 embryos at the start and tested 54 of the 71 that survived the procedure). They also found a "surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations," according to Nature News.

Huang told Nature News that they stopped then because they knew that if they were do this work medically, that success rate would need to be closer to 100%. 

Our understanding of CRISPR needs to significantly develop before we get there, but this is a new technology that's changing rapidly.

Even though the Chinese team worked with non-viable embryos, embryos that cannot result in a live birth, some say that editing the human genome and changing the DNA of an embryo is ethically questionable, because it could lead to more uses of this technology in humans. Changing the DNA of viable embryos could have unpredictable results for future generations, and some researchers want us to understand this better before putting it into practice.

Still, many researchers think this technology (most don't think it's ready to be used yet) could be invaluable. It could eliminate genetic diseases like sickle cell anemia, Huntington's disease, and cystic fibrosis, all devastating illnesses caused by genes that could theoretically be removed. 
 

Others fear that once we can do this accurately, it will inevitably be used to create designer humans with specific desired traits. After all, even though this research is considered questionable now, it is still actively being experimented with.

Huang told Nature News that both Nature and Science journals rejected his paper on embryo editing, "in part because of ethical objections." Neither journal commented to Nature News on that statement.

Huang plans on trying to improve the accuracy of CRISPR in animal models for now. 

But CRISPR is reportedly quite easy to use, according to scientists who previously argued against doing this research in embryos now, meaning that it's incredibly likely these experiments will continue.



Apr 16, 2015

Study : Pineapple Enzyme More Effective than Chemotherapy Agent, Kills Cancer Without Killing You

Could an extract of pineapple fruit be both safer and more effective than a blockbuster chemotherapy agent?

Every once in a while a study pops up on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic citation database known as MEDLINE that not only confirms the therapeutic relevance of natural substances in cancer treatment, but blows the conventional approach out of the water. Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:
“This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control.”
What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for nearly 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.

As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells — which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells — into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.

The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for 5-FU states:


The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.



Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it.  Bromelain’s MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!


How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancers patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as exchanging billions of dollars for?

There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called “selective cytotoxicity,” whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property (because chemicals don’t have behave like natural compounds), which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to “blame the victim” and simply write that patient’s cancer off as “chemo-resistant,” or “exceptionally aggressive,” when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.

Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval. Capital, at the present time, does not flow into the development of non-patentable (i.e. non-profitable) cancer therapies, even if they work, are safe and extremely affordable. This is simply the nature of the beast. Until we compel our government to utilize our tax dollars to invest in this type of research, there will be no level playing field in cancer treatment, or any treatment offered through the conventional medical establishment, for that matter. Or, some of us may decide to take our health into our own hands, and use the research, already freely available on possible natural cancer treatment, to inform our treatment decisions without the guidance of the modern day equivalent of the “priest” of the body, the conventional oncologist, who increasingly fills the description of an “applied pharmacologist/toxicologist” – nothing more, nothing less.

To view additional research on the potential therapeutic properties of bromelain in over 30 health conditions, visit the open source, natural medical resource page on bromelain.

Source : GreenMedInfo


Apr 11, 2015

Japan : Fukushima Robot Dies Three Hours After Entering Radioactive Reactor Vessel

A robot sent to inspect a reactor' containment vessel at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant stopped responding three hours into the operation.

TEPCO hoped to take a look inside the vessel containing one of the three reactors, which underwent a meltdown in the 2011 nuclear disaster.
 A group of approximately 40 workers sent the remotely-controlled device, allegedly capable of withstanding high levels of radiation, into the vessel at 11:20 a.m. The robot stopped functioning after covering two thirds of the route at approximately 2:10 p.m., according to the Tokyo Electric Power Co.

No Fukushima Ever Again: Fourth Anniversary of the 2011 Earthquake in Japan

The company did not say whether it would send another robot into the vessel on Monday, as previously planned. TEPCO's ultimate goal is to use the robot to inspect the melted fuel inside the vessel.

Source : Sputniknews


Apr 10, 2015

Police Drones against Protesters: the “Machine Imperative”

“I predict that we will see a whole new wave of UAVs emerging with payloads more unusual than tasers, dart guns and paintball guns.” - Guy Martin, editor of Defence Web, BBC News, Jun 18, 2014

Innovation, Edmund Burke reminds us in “A Letter to a Noble Lord,” does not necessarily imply reform.  While the peaceful uses of drones are often treated as the benign effects of the security industrial complex, the spill over into more violent deployments has proven unavoidable. What is done in Waziristan against Taliban militants will eventually be done to US citizens on a smaller yet significant scale – the civilian cloaking there becomes as irrelevant in tribal foothills as it does on the streets of Chicago.

The drone monitors have gotten excited by an announcement that Indian police forces will be making use of drones to deploy pepper spray against protesters. Trials were conducted on Tuesday in Lucknow, with the city’s police force anticipating using five such vehicles later this month.  “The results,” claimed the jubilant police chief  Yashasvi Yadav, “were brilliant.  We have managed to work out how to use it to precisely target the mob in winds and congested areas.”[1]

The language used by Yadav serves an important purpose. Drones are weapons of use against that dark, primordial “mob,” difficult to control, unruly of purpose.  From the perspective of many state authorities, any protesting group constitutes an unruly “mob”.  The idea of a peaceful protest is nowhere to be seen, the greatest of unnatural phenomena. But Yadav insists that, “Pepper is non-lethal but very effective in mob control.  We can spray from different heights to have maximum results.”

Controlling protests via the use of drones is at the forefront of new policing technologies, be they used by private entities or more conventional police forces. It is certainly interesting weapons manufacturers, who are lining up their customers.  South Africa-based Desert Wolf is one example, telling the BBC in June last year that it had secured the sale of 25 “riot control copters” that would deal with crowds “without endangering the lives of security staff.”[2]

As is the habit of those in the business of providing such weapons, benevolence accompanies the authoritarian, somewhat murderous streak.  Using such weapons against dissenting citizens will save, rather than inflict, the loss of life. According to Desert Wolf’s managing director Hennie Kieser, “We cannot afford another Lonmin Marikana [where striking miners were killed] and by removing the police on foot, using non-lethal technology, I believe that everyone will be much safer.” All this, despite the obvious point that using pepper spray, or firing projectiles from the air, can constitute lethal forms of action.

Such octacopter drones brandish the necessary menace that policing authorities will find attractive. They can carry up to 4,000 bullets at a time, as well as sporting the added feature of “blinding lasers” and onboard speakers. The Skunk variety has four high-capacity paintball barrels, each with a firing capacity of 20 bullets per second.  The culprit purchasers in this instance came from the mining industry, a sector always keen to iron out protesting strife.

The International Trade Union Confederation immediately saw misty red. Spokesman Tim Noonan deemed the purchases a “deeply disturbing and repugnant development and we are convinced that any reasonable government will move quickly to stop the deployment of advanced battlefield technology on workers or indeed the public involved in legitimate protests and demonstrations” (BBC, Jun 18, 2014).

The police have traditionally felt left out when it comes to the assortment of weapons the military deploy against designated enemies.  But the increasing militarisation of the police forces makes waiting for such weapons less of a problem.  Military grade weapons are used against petty criminals.  They are used in a hopelessly categorised “war on drugs”.

In the apocalyptic language of an ACLU report, War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing (Jun 23, 2014), it is noted how, “Our neighbourhoods are not warzones, and police officers should not be treating us like wartime enemies. An[d] yet, every year, billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment flows from the federal government to state and local police departments.”[3]

Alli McCracken, national coordinator of Code Pink, a body opposed to the deployment of drones, fears the innovations advanced by the Lucknow police force.  “We can’t as a world rush into utilising this tech. The police are already so militarised. It’s a matter of privacy and safety.”[4]

The increasing use of drones to carry out policing functions is deemed by such officials as Yadav to be the logical and natural consequence of police work.  For him, there is little difference in using such vehicles in monitoring crowds at religious festivals, to then deploying pepper spray when the gathering crowds misbehave.

This cognitive blindness is to be expected from those supporting the machine imperative. Irony proves inescapable, though it is lost on those behind this security push: to humanise policing, machines must be used.  To improve public safety, the human element must be removed from the security agent monitoring the ground. Effectively, decisions on life and order are to be made at a location separate and even distant from the protest.  This is the gruesome logic of targeting from vast distances.

Where police departments treat protesters as sinister enemies, seeing themselves as protective warriors, problems proliferate. Drone technology desensitises the task of policing, focusing less on public safety than police security. The machine imperative in this regard neuters human judgment. 

Added to this the attractions offered by weaponized drones, and a world of urban mayhem filled with strafing vehicles and poor decision-making is not so much around the corner as very much pressing against us.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: 

Source : GlobalResearch


Apr 9, 2015

United States Military Preparing Unmanned, Robotic Systems Doctrine

The US military is preparing the first draft of a doctrine regulating the development and use of robotic and unmanned systems on the battlefield, the Defense News website reported.

The United States started to develop a unified strategy, fearing its enemies could deploy robots alongside soldiers first.

"In the end, we want to prevent our enemies from leaping ahead of us," Lt. Col. Matt Dooley, lethality branch chief at the Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC), said on Wednesday as quoted by the website.

According to Defense News, the United States is considering robots for supply convoys, tactical reconnaissance and as robotic wingmen for soldiers on foot.

"There is a risk associated with investing a lot of money and a risk to not doing anything. We have to acknowledge conditions on the battlefield in 2025 will include robotics whether we invest in it or not."

The official pointed out that there was no intention to create a lethal autonomous function at the moment.

Firefighting Robot (SAFFiR)
"We're not going to leave those types of decisions to a robot," he said. On Thursday, a joint report by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic called on the international community to ban the development, production, and use of fully autonomous weapons, or "killer robots."

The US army actively uses semi-autonomous systems in its military operations around the globe. The United States has carried out more than 500 lethal live-fire drone strikes since 2001, killing an estimated 3,674 militants and 473 civilians, according to the US Council on Foreign Relations.

Source : SputnikNews


Apr 7, 2015

United States Stanford University's Scientists Develop Greener Battery

Stanford scientists have developed a flexible, high-performance aluminum battery that charges in about 60 seconds

A Chinese-led research team from Stanford University in the U.S. state of California, announced they have developed a rechargeable and high-performance aluminum battery that could be a safe alternative of conventional batteries.


By using aluminum for the anode, graphite for the cathode and an ionic liquid as the electrolyte, the Stanford scientists, led by chemistry professor Dai Hongjie, claim they are able to create an aluminum-ion battery that is fast-charging, long-lasting, inflammable, inexpensive and flexible.

The leading professor said that their aluminum battery is very safe because the ionic electrolyte is nonflammable and aluminum and graphite are much less reactive than lithium. It's safer than the widely-used lithium-ion battery, which can be a fire hazard.

While an iPhone 6 takes around two hours to fully charge its in-built battery, if it was fitted with the aluminum power source, it would be completely topped up in around 60 seconds.

And it will keep going for more than seven times as long as a lithium-ion battery. A traditional battery can be recharged around 1,000 times, while the new one can withstand 7,500 cycles.

Although the new battery currently only produces half the voltage of a typical lithium battery, the scientists are confident that they will improve output within the next few years.

The research has been published in Monday's online edition of the scientific journal, Nature.

Source : CRI


Apr 5, 2015

3D printing helps give girl a new face

The great thing about medical school cadavers is that they can't die. If a surgeon in training makes a mistake, there's always next time. It is the last environment where medical errors have no consequences. 

But 3D printing is changing that, giving even experienced operating room teams valuable practice on a model that looks and feels like the real thing. It has life-saving and life-altering implications.

Violet Pietrok was born two years ago with a rare deformity called a Tessier cleft. The bones that normally join to form the fetal face had not fused properly.

As a result, Violet's eyes were set so far apart, her vision was more like a bird's than a human's. She also had no cartilage in her nose.  

But the corrective operation is extraordinarily complex. So Violet's family turned to one of the world's leading reconstructive surgeons, Dr. John Meara, at Boston Children's Hospital.

Violet Pietrok
Dr. John Meara has begun Violet's series of surgeries. (Boston Children's Hospital)

He warned them of the danger of making sophisticated cuts through the skull, very close to the optic nerve. "They might be very close to the brain," Meara explained in an interview. "So the ability to make these cuts on the model first and see the trajectory of a sawblade or where that cut would come through in relationship to the eye is absolutely critical."

To get that model, the simulation team at Boston Children's took multiple MRIs of Violet's skull and replicated it on a 3D printer.

It took more than a day to print, but the model is exact. Even the density of the bone is precise.

 "We were actually able to do the procedure before going into the operating room," Meara said.

"So we made the cuts in the model, made the bony movements that we would be making in Violet's case and we identified some issues that we modified prior to going into the operating room, which saves time and means that you're not making some of these critical decisions in the operating room."

During the surgery earlier this year, Meara kept a model of Violet's skull close by and referred to it as he went through the complicated steps of the operation. This successful surgery was just the first of several that will be needed to remake Violet's face.

Other hospitals are interested

Boston's success has prompted a lot of calls from hospitals around the world looking to set up their own 3D printing simulations to Dr. Peter Weinstock, who runs the Boston program.

He equates medicine with sports teams. Any team worth its salt, he says, practises before the game.

"We looked at that and thought, why is health care not doing that?  If you can see the patient before you see the patient, if you can do the operation before you do the operation, you have the opportunity to tailor your approach, to tailor your team to the specific environment and event. Think about that opportunity."

Weinstock's printer now runs 24/7 preparing for procedures at Boston Children's — well worth the $400,000 investment.

The models are game-changing — giving a whole new meaning to personalized medicine. With each new print, the models are getting more sophisticated. Soon, the replicated veins and arteries will bleed as they would in real-life.

Boston Children's has also found better recovery times. Patients of surgeons who've practiced on the models typically leave hospital sooner and get back on their feet more easily.

Weinstock's simulation program began a few years ago with Surgical Sam, the world's first operable infant mannequin. Sam is becoming a bit outdated, but his beating heart and other lifelike organs keep him useful.

A model of an individual

But Weinstock wanted not just a model of generic human but one of a specific person.

That's also what Adam Stedman needed. Adam was born with arteriovenous malformation or AVM, a tangled mess of arteries and veins in the brain that restricts blood flow and prompts progressively worse seizures that can cause brain damage.

He could have had a stroke at any moment, or a hemorrhage, his mother Amy tearily explained. But surgically tackling the web of tubes inside Adam's brain was also potentially deadly, or it could leave him blind.

The 3D printer re-created Adam's brain — including the AVM — something his surgeon could hold, manipulate, examine, re-examine and ultimately, practice on. 

The surgery was a success — taking only a third of the expected time because the entire operating room team had done it before just hours earlier on the practice model.

When Adam came out of the OR, he smiled and his mother broke down. "He just has a blind spot," she said in an interview in her Connecticut home. To her, that's a big improvement.

"I honestly think that the 3D printing has the majority to do with that, as far as where they knew, where to cut and where not to."
 
 
Source : CBC


CERN II: The Search for Dark Matter Begins

Scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) have restarted the Large Hadron Collider following a two-year break for a refit, Reuters reports.

The 27-kilometer long LHC, located near Geneva beneath the Franco-Swiss border, is set to continue its search for "dark matter," ultimately aiming to find new explanations for the workings of the universe.
 "It's fantastic to see it going so well after two years and such a major overhaul," CERN Director General Rolf Heuer noted in on the organization's live blog Sunday. Heuer thanked scientists and engineers present at the lab, adding that "now the hard work starts."

The LHC's refit included the installation of new magnets, stronger energy beams and higher voltage rates, together with a thorough check of wiring, detectors and magnets. CERN is preparing the LHC for new particle-smashing collisions, expected to start in June. The organization notes that new experiments will smash particles into each other with nearly double the energy used in the first run, and as before at close to the speed of light.

Scientists working with the Large Hadron Collider [LHC] are optimistic of a new breakthrough in particle physics

Over the next three months, engineers will slowly inject protons into the LHC at relatively low energy, gradually increasing the beams' energy levels to 13 trillion electronvolts, compared to 8 trillion electronvolts used in the first round of experimentation between 2010 and 2013. Scientists expect that any new discoveries are unlikely until mid-2016.

In 2012, CERN scientists finally found the Higgs boson particle, following years or research. The Higgs boson, known in the Standard Model of particle physics as a "force carrier", was the last to be found among 17 subatomic particles used to describe the universe in the Standard Model.

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 27 kilometer (17 mile) long particle accelerator straddling the border of Switzerland and France, is nearly set to begin its first particle beam tests.
This time, scientists hope that the new findings from LHC experimentation will allow them to break out of the Standard Model and into the realm of New Physics. This includes an explanation of "dark matter", an all-encompassing force believed to make up about 96 percent of the universe, but detectable only by its influence on visible matter.
 Particle physics enthusiasts can find updates on CERN's live blog here.


Source: SputnikNews


Mar 25, 2015

Apple Wants You to Get Accustomed to Real-Time Tracking

Tracking tech compliments ongoing and evolving surveillance by the NSA. Tech giant Apple is not coy about it. They want you to get used to real-time tracking. That’s why they are changing Find My Friends to Track My Friends.

A patent granted to the company on Tuesday by the government describes a process that allows a user of a mobile device to view a visual representation of the movement of a person with another device.

“For example, someone is going for a hike or a trip and wants you to stay informed of his or her whereabouts,” CNet explains. “That person would enable a feature on a mobile device to allow you to see and track in real time the path being taken on your own mobile device or computer. On the flip side, you could also share your route so the two of you can stay abreast of each other’s ongoing location.”

Also on the flipside, this information could be “shared” with the NSA and possibly local police. The mega-surveillance agency already has a number of tracking programs in place — such as “Boundless Informant,” a tool that tracks information across the internet — and police departments are using Stingray and Hailstorm technology to track cell phone calls.

The NSA’s PRISM and associated programs “can find cellphones anywhere in the world, retrace their movements and expose hidden relationships among individuals using them,” former NSA employeeEdward Snowden revealed in 2013. The NSA collects, identifies, sorts and stores at least 11 different types of electronic communications and works tirelessly to tweak and improve its surveillance technology.

Apple’s technology will ultimately enhance this ability. For now, however, it is being sold as nifty way to stay in contact with your friends.


The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office awarded Apple U.S. Patent No. 8,989,773.

“Concerns over privacy and security always arise in any technology such as the one described here. But as Apple points out, the feature would need to be enabled by the person being tracked, so you wouldn’t be able to track people without their permission,” CNet writes.

This concern is irrelevant to the NSA and the government. They already illegally surveils GPS, cellular networks and have the ability to snoop and compromise WiFi networks (the agency can hack WiFi device from eight miles away with Nightstand hardware).

Apple, of course, is primarily interested in gaining market share by offering new and inventive technology attractive to consumers. The obvious dual use capability of Track My Friends and the ease and prevalence of NSA surveillance should however be kept in mind.

Tech pundits may champion Apple’s decision to use a new and powerful encryption method with the release of the iPhone 6, but as usual the NSA is not far behind.

As part of a $79.7 million classified program, the agency is working on a “a cryptologically useful quantum computer” capable of breaking any kind of encryption used to protect banking, medical, business, government records and, more than likely, encryption used on personal electronic devices.

Source : GlobalResearch

Mar 16, 2015

Dr. Robert Rowen Reveals the Raw Truth About Vaccines at the Vaccine World Summit

Vaccine “science” as it’s most typically presented to the public is a hollow house of cards propped up only by deception and lies. Ask any doctor out there to show you even just one all-cause morbidity and mortality study proving the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and you’ll never get to see it, because such a study is nonexistent.

Johns Hopkins University graduate Dr. Robert Rowen has been investigating the claims surrounding the “safety and effectiveness” of vaccines for many years, and his undeniable conclusion is that vaccines don’t work and they aren’t safe. The measures by which the modern medical profession claims that vaccines are safe and effective don’t hold water, he maintains, and are easily disproven.

“In China, well over 90 percent of large populations are getting vaccinated, and allegedly they have immunity, and they measure immunity by immunoglobulins,” explained Dr. Rowen during a recent interview with NaturalHealth365.com host Jonathan Landsman, which is available online for free through the Vaccine World Summit.

“It turns out that that’s not a good way to measure immunity because people with immunoglobulins are getting measles. It just doesn’t seem to work.”
Vaccines provide only temporary immunity at best, and come with a high risk of permanent health damage

A widespread misconception holds that vaccines are the only way to attain immunity and avoid infectious disease. But quite the contrary is actually true, as vaccines only provide temporary immunity, at best, while simultaneously and significantly increasing the risk of immune dysfunction, behavioral disorders and other major health problems.

“There’s a graph of how these communicable diseases have fallen since the introduction of vaccines, and a corresponding, parallel, identical rise in chronic immune dysfunction, like asthma, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and others,” warns Dr. Rowen, who used to advocate for vaccines before he understood their true risks.

“No one has ever done an all-cause morbidity and mortality study on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, and that’s what I’ve called for since 1990 when I first got alerted to the situation.”

Chronic disease has skyrocketed among children alongside massive additions to vaccine schedule

Dr. Rowen cites a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) back in 2010 that highlights a doubling in the rate of chronic health conditions among children between the years of 1994 and 2006 — from 12.8 percent to 26.6 percent. This directly corresponds with substantial increases in the number of vaccines added to the government’s vaccine schedule.

Another study he references demonstrated that infant mortality rates are higher among vaccinated children.

“Do we want to be trading a few less problems with measles, or these other illnesses which are far more benign — mumps is benign, chicken pox is benign, German measles, rubella is totally benign [unless it's caught by a pregnant woman] — do we want to be trading a few less complications from that for a doubling in chronic [immune] diseases that we can’t treat?” asks Dr. Rowen.

“I’d rather have lifelong immunity than deal with getting a shot when I’m 18 months old and then get temporary immunity, at best, and then have it wear off when I’m 30 or 40 and be far more susceptible to a problem because these are disease that you don’t want to get when you’re an adult.”

“If the vaccine is safe and effective, then you go get your vaccine. I have no problem with that. You take the 26 percent risk of chronic, intractable, untreatable diseases, or autism, for your child… But don’t blame me, because your child is immune based on your choice, if what you say is true. And if what you say is a lie, then you have a problem.”

Be sure to listen to the full, eye-opening interview with Dr. Rowen by signing up for the Vaccine World Summit:

VaccineWorldSummit.com.

Sources:
http://vaccineworldsummit.com
http://vaccineliberationarmy.com

Mar 5, 2015

The Impacts of Genetic Engineering: Not Science, Just Lies and Propaganda: The Massive Fraud Behind GMOs Exposed

This is not what the GMO industry wanted to see: banner headlines today in major newspapers and across the internet exposing the fraud behind GMOs. But this constitutes much more than a PR nightmare. The story behind the headlines shakes the very foundations upon which the industry is built.  

‘Altered Genes, Twisted Truth’ is a new book by the US public interest lawyer Steve Druker. The book is the result of more than 15 years of intensive research and investigation by Druker, who initiated a lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that forced it to divulge its files on GM foods. Those files revealed that GM foods first achieved commercialisation in 1992 but only because the FDA covered up the extensive warnings of its own scientists about their dangers, lied about the facts and then violated federal food safety law by permitting these foods to be marketed without having been proven safe through standard testing.

If the FDA had heeded its own experts’ advice and publicly acknowledged their warnings that GM foods entailed higher risks than their conventional counterparts, Druker says that the GM food venture would have imploded and never gained traction anywhere.

He also argues that that many well-placed scientists have repeatedly issued misleading statements about GM foods, and so have leading scientific institutions such as the US National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the UK’s Royal Society.

Druker states that contrary to the claims of biotech advocates, humans have indeed been harmed by consuming the output of genetic engineering. The technology’s first ingestible product (a food supplement of the essential amino acid, L-tryptophan) caused dozens of deaths and seriously sickened thousands of people (permanently disabling many of them). Moreover, the evidence points to the genetic alteration as the most likely cause of the unusual contamination that rendered the supplement toxic.

He explains that laboratory animals have also suffered from eating products of genetic engineering, and well-conducted tests with GM crops have yielded many troubling results, including intestinal abnormalities, liver disturbances, and impaired immune systems.
Druker says:
“Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.”
Eminent environmentalist and anthropologist Jane Goodall has written the foreword to the book and states that Steven Druker is a hero for exposing this massive fraud and is worthy of a Nobel prize for lifting the lid on the truth about GM.
She goes on to state that the industry worked to:
“convince the public and government officials, through the dissemination of false information, that there was an overwhelming expert consensus, based on solid evidence, that the new foods were safe. Yet this, as Druker points out, was clearly not true.”
Goodall adds that the companies have spread disinformation to try and win public support. She states:
“Druker describes how amazingly successful the biotech lobby has been – and the extent to which the general public and government decision makers have been hoodwinked by the clever and methodical twisting of the facts and the propagation of many myths. Moreover, it appears that a number of respected scientific institutions, as well as many eminent scientists, were complicit in this relentless spreading of disinformation.”
Jane Goodall is best known for her 55-year study of social and family interactions of wild chimpanzees in Gombe Stream National Park, Tanzania. She holds many awards for her environmental and humanitarian work, including the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Life Science, the French Legion of Honour, the Benjamin Franklin Medal in Life Science, Japan’ s Kyoto Prize and the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement.

She describes Druker’s work as one of the most important books of the last 50 years, and adds:
“It will go a long way toward dispelling the confusion and delusion that has been created regarding the genetic engineering process and the foods it creates. Although this book tells a story that’s in many ways distressing, it’s important that it has finally been told because so much confusion has been spread and so many important decision-makers have apparently been deluded.”
 Steven Druker gave a press conference in London on Wednesday and has challenged Britain’s Royal Society to apologise for its pro-GM stance and its part in rubbishing scientists who have safety doubts over the crops and food. (Perhaps the likes of Owen Paterson and Anne Glover should too for their role in dismissing legitimate concerns about GMOs, especially Paterson for his recent tirade against critics see this and this.)

His work highlights research which has found tumours, liver and kidney harm in animals given GM feed in trials. And he complains, that researchers who dare to raise these problems have been pilloried.
He said:
“Contrary to the assertions of its proponents, the massive enterprise to reconfigure the genetic core of the world’s food supply is not based on sound science but on the systematic subversion of science – and it would collapse if subjected to an open airing of the facts.”
With the TTIP having the potential to open the floodgates to allow GMOs into Europe, Pat Thomas, director of the campaigning group Beyond GM, said:
“Steven Druker’s investigation into the history of fraud and deceit that ushered in the era of GM deserves serious consideration before we take actions that will irreversibly alter the European food supply.”
 
 
 
Source : GlobalResearch

Feb 26, 2015

1984 Is Here: Samsung Admits its TVs Might Spy on You, Warns Against Carrying Out Sensitive Conversations

In the prescient 1984 tome, author George Orwell wrote about a supposedly “fictitious” future in which the civilized world lived in what can only be called a surveillance society, in which “the government” would be able to keep watch on the citizenry 24-7, and through a variety of technological means.

It turns out that Orwell’s premonitions were a lot more realistic than even he likely imagined.

Today, surveillance cameras are everywhere, at least in the modern world. Police have a range of listening devices and surveillance technology, some of which can see through your walls and into your home. And federal spy agencies like the NSA routinely intercept and track Internet and wireless communications.

Now, it seems, even your household goods can spy on you. As reported by Britain’s Daily Mail, you might want to keep a lid on what you say this evening when you sit down in front of your television.

Samsung has issued a warning to owners of its Internet-connected “smart TV” — anything they say while sitting in the vicinity of the device could be overheard.

As the Mail reported further:

The popular televisions are voice activated, so users can switch channels or ask for suggestions of what to watch simply by giving a verbal command.

However, the technology which allows this to happen has a worrying side effect: it records everything else that goes on near the television.

Privacy? What privacy?

According to a clause in Samsung’s privacy policy, buyers should beware:

“Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party.”

For instance, that means that the TVs might be able to record a family argument that took place in the living room; executives discussing strategy in corporate boardrooms equipped with such smart TVs are at risk of sharing confidential information.

Privacy advocates are understandably upset and concerned, noting that the technology is ripe for abuse by government agencies and “Big Brother” in general (coincidentally, the name of the authoritarian state in Orwell’s novel).

“This thing is going to be in your house, listening in on you,” Renate Samson, of Big Brother Watch, a campaign group named after this very notion, said, as quoted by the Mail. “Samsung say they are providing you with a service, but really the only service you need from a television is to watch programmes.”

More than half of all smart TVs sold in Britain are made by Samsung, the Mail noted.

The problem is in the technology, which was sold as a convenience. The TVs “listen” for simple commands, such as those to switch channels or turn up the volume. But it can process more complicated commands as well, after recording users’ speech and sending it on to a third-party company called Nuance, which is located in the U.S.

Nuance then sends the voice data to a computer server, which then translates the spoken word into text and spits out a response.

As further reported by the Daily Mail:

To give these complex commands, viewers must press a button on the remote control as they speak, and during that time, anything within ‘earshot’ will be collected.

The data is encrypted, but can be listened to by authorised Nuance staff.

The technology giant remained tight-lipped about whether it then keeps users’ data, only saying that it does not sell information on, and that it operates within privacy laws, which vary by country.

Professor Peter Sommer, a digital forensics expert who has lectured at the London School of Economics, said there was ‘no reason’ Samsung would not be storing up data.

“The fear is they could be building up a pattern of your preferences, or learning your voice,” he told the Mail.

Even when interactivity is turned off, the TV can collect data

Users do have the option of stopping the recording of their conversations by Samsung; they can turn the voice recognition feature off. But even then, the South Korean-based technology giant can still collect some information.

“While Samsung will not collect your spoken word, Samsung may still collect associated texts and other usage data so that we can evaluate the performance of the feature and improve it,” says the company’s privacy statement.

The Samsung smart TVs are not the only video and television technology capable of monitoring your activity. As Natural News editor Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, reported last year, Amazon Fire TV (and similar services) has the capability to act as a spying device.

Read his full report here.

Sources:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

http://www.naturalnews.com

Feb 24, 2015

Psychic Supercomputers? United States Intelligence Seeks Tech to Predict Cyberattacks

As the US government begins looking for creative solutions to its cybersecurity woes, it’s focusing on “psychic computers,” machines capable of predicting attacks long before they happen. But an army of omniscient supercomputers may raise new concerns for privacy advocates.

Every morning, hundreds of meteorologists wake, fill their coffee mugs, and take one bold look at the sky. What will tomorrow bring? Rain, sun, snow? Hurricane? Polar vortex? These are the predictions that meteorologists make every day.

Now imagine using the same idea to foresee the next cyberattack.
The US government is hoping to develop a computer which would do just that. The intelligence community is opening a contest to software engineers to see who can develop the technology.

Known as the Cyber-attack Automated Unconventional Sensor Environment, or CAUSE, the project was conceived by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA)  as a four-year race to develop the software. Whoever does so first will receive an as-yet undetermined financial prize.

President Barack Obama prepares to speak at the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center.

“[This is] an industry that has invested heavily in analyzing the effects or the symptoms of cyberattacks instead of analyzing and mitigating the – cause – of cyberattacks,” IARPA program manager Rob Rahmer told Nextgov. “Instead of reporting relevant events that happen today or in previous days, decision makers will benefit from knowing what is likely to happen tomorrow.”
The idea is to analyze data that floats in the social media sphere, as well as other sources in the deep web, to detect a broader pattern.

“If you were able to look at every single Facebook post and you processed everything and ran it through some filter, through the conversations and the little day-to-day things people do, you could actually start to see larger patterns and you could imagine that is a ton of data,” David Burke, research lead for machine learning at computer science research firm Galois, told Nextgov. “You would need some sort of big data technology that you’d have to bring to bear to be able to digest all that.”

Hacker Rene
It’s a big job. Only a computer could be capable of sorting through the millions of daily Facebook posts, everything from political outrage, to prom selfies, to slightly disgruntled grandfathers posting breadstick complaints to the page of a Hyattsville Olive Garden.

But that kind of massive data collection isn’t exactly a popular notion, given the current climate surrounding the revelations of Edward Snowden about NSA spying.

“Currently, CAUSE is planned to be an unclassified program,” Rahmer said.
But that only applies to its current, contest stage of development. While contest participants will not be given access to the National Security Agency intel, it is unclear how this technology could blend with the surveillance apparatus once completed.

Earlier this month, the Obama administration announced the formation of a new cybersecurity agency called the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center. That agency’s goal is to “connect the dots between various cyber threats in as close as real time as possible,” according to an anonymous White House officials speaking to the Washington Post.

“The internet cannot be protected by the government, because the government will never permit a system that it can’t zero into,” Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox Business. “Any government agency that is big enough to protect us, is big enough to surveil us.”

While the “real-time” aspect of the CTIIC’s mission statement may worry privacy advocates, so-called psychic computers may present even graver concerns, potentially allowing the government to twist its way even deeper into Americans’ digital lives.

Source : SputnikNews

Feb 20, 2015

Media Blackout on the U.S. “Smart Grid Deployment”: Designs and Monied Interests Behind “Smart Meters” Installed across America

Over the past several years a conspiracy of silence has surrounded the implementation of the Smart Grid across the United States, perhaps with good reason. If the public were aware of what lay behind this agenda there would likely be considerable outcry and resistance.

“Smart meters”–the principal nodes of the Smart Grid network–are being installed on homes and businesses by power utilities across the United States under the legal and fiscal direction of the United States government. In December 2007 both houses of the US Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA).

This 310-page piece of legislation employs the dubious science of anthropogenic CO2-based climate change science to mandate an array of policies, such as fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and “green” energy initiatives. Tucked away in the final pages of this law is the description and de facto mandate for national implementation of the Smart Grid that the Bush administration promised would result in “some of the largest CO2 emission cuts in our nation’s history.”[1]
The bill unambiguously lays out the design and intent behind the Smart Grid, including surveillance, tiered energy pricing, and energy rationing for all US households and businesses through round-the-clock monitoring of RFID-chipped “Energy Star” appliances.[2] Congress and “other stakeholders” (presumably for-profit utilities and an array of Smart Grid technology patent holders[3] whose lobbyists co-wrote the legislation) describe the Smart Grid’s characteristics and goals via ten provisions.

(1) Increased use of digital information and controls technology to improve reliability, security, and efficiency of the electric grid.
(2) Dynamic optimization of grid operations and resources with full cyber-security.
(3) Deployment[4] and integration of distributed resources and generation, including renewable resources.
(4) Development and incorporation of demand response, demand-side resources, and energy efficiency resources.
(5) Deployment of “smart” technologies (real-time, automated, interactive technologies that optimize the physical operation of appliances and consumer devices) for metering, communications concerning grid operations and status, and distribution automation.
(6) Integration of “smart” appliances and consumer devices.
(7) Deployment and integration of advanced electricity storage and peak-shaving technologies, including plug-in electric and hybrid electric vehicles, and thermal-storage air conditioning.
(8) Provision to consumers of timely information and control operations.
(9) Development of standards for communication and interoperability of appliances and equipment connected to the electric grid, including the infrastructure serving the grid.
(10) Identification and lowering of unreasonable or unnecessary barriers to adoption of smart grid technologies, practices, and services [emphases added].[5]

Less than two years after EISA’s enactment President Barack Obama directed $3.4 billion of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to Smart Grid development. Matching funds from the energy industry brought the total initial Smart Grid investment to $8 billion.[6] The overall completion of the Smart Grid will cost another $330 billion.[7] Today a majority of energy delivery throughout the US is routed to homes equipped with smart meters that monitor power consumption on a minute-to-minute basis.

As noted, the American public remains largely unaware of the numerous designs and monied interests behind the Smart Grid–not to mention how smart meters themselves pose substantial dangers to human health and privacy. This is because the plan for tiered energy pricing via wireless monitoring of household appliances has been almost entirely excluded from news media coverage since the EISA became law on December 19, 2007.

A LexisNexis search of US print news outlets for “Energy Independence and Security Act” and “Smart Grid” between the dates December 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008 yields virtually no results.

An identical LexisNexis search of such media for the dates December 1, 2007 to February 18, 2015 retrieves a total 11 print news items appearing in US dailies (seven in McClatchey Tribune papers; one article appearing in each of the following: New York Times 8/14/08, Santa Fe New Mexican, 5/12/09, Providence Journal, 2/24/11, Tampa Bay Times, 12/13/12).[8]

Even this scant reportage scarcely begins to examine the implications of the EISA’s Smart Grid plan. The New York Times chose to confine its coverage to a 364-word article, “The 8th Annual Year in Ideas; Smart Grids.” “It’s a response to what economists would call a tragedy of the commons,” the Times explains.
[P]eople use as much energy as they are willing to pay for, without giving any thought to how their use affects the overall amount of energy available … Enter Xcel’s $100 million initiative, called SmartGridCity, a set of technologies that give both energy providers and their customers more control over power consumption … Consumers, through a Web-enabled control panel in their homes, are able to regulate their energy consumption more closely — for example, setting their A.C. system to automatically reduce power use during peak hours.[9]
News in far more modest papers likewise resembles the promotional materials distributed by the utilities themselves. “There will soon be a time when homeowners can save electricity by having appliances automatically adjust power for peak-demand times and other periods of inactivity by a signal sent through the electrical outlet,” an article in Sunbury Pennsylvania’s Daily Item reads. “‘Right now, it’s at the infant stage,’” a power company executive observes. “‘We didn’t worry about this until two years ago. Nobody cared when electricity was five cents per kilowatt hour. People just bit the bullet and paid the bill.’”[10]

Hoffman_Smart_Grid_Czar
Smart Grid Czar Patricia Hoffman

Along these lines, the Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Patricia Hoffman, is charged under the EISA with federal oversight of nationwide Smart Grid implementation. In other words, Hoffman is America’s “Smart Grid Czar.” Yet despite heading up such a dubious program since 2010, she has almost entirely escaped journalistic scrutiny, having been referenced or quoted in only four US daily papers (Washington Post, 2/8/12, St. Paul Pioneer Press, 4/26/12, Palm Beach Post, 5/12/13, Pittsburgh Tribune Review 11/13/13) since her tenure began.

In an era where news media wax rhapsodic over new technologies and fall over each other to report consumer-oriented “news you can use,” the Smart Grid’s pending debut should be a major story. It’s not. Indeed, almost the entire US population remains in the dark about this major technological development that will profoundly impact their lives.

When one more closely examines the implications and realities of the federally-approved Smart Grid scheme—from the adverse health effects of electromagnetic radiation to surveillance and energy rationing—there should be little wonder why this degree of silence surrounds its implementation. Such a technocratic system would never be freely accepted if subject to an open exchange and referendum.

Notes
[1] “Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,” whitehouse.gov, December 19, 2007.
[2] “ENERGY STAR is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) voluntary program that helps businesses and individuals save money and protect our climate through superior energy efficiency. The ENERGY STAR program was established by EPA in 1992, under the authority of the Clean Air Act Section 103(g).” http://www.energystar.gov/about
[3] Jeff St. John, “Who’s Got the Most Smart Grid Patents?” greentechmedia.com, August 5, 2014.
[4] The word “deployment,” commonly used in government and technical plans for the Smart Grid’s launch, is a military term. From the Latin displicāre, “to scatter,” the modern definition is “[t]o distribute (persons or forces) systematically or strategically.”
[5] Public Law 110-140, Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title XIII, Section 1301, Washington DC: United States Congress, December 19,2007.
[6] “President Obama Announces $3.4 Billion Investment to Spur Transition to Smart Energy Grid,” energy.gov, October 27, 2009.
[7] Jon Chavez, “Expert Sees $2 Trillion Benefit For Country in Smart Grid,” Toledo Blade, January 16 2013.
[8] In contrast, seven times as many articles (78) appeared in law journals over the same seven year period.
[9] Clay Risen, “”The 8th Annual Year in Ideas; Smart Grids,” New York Times, December 14, 2008.
[10] Jaime North, “Devices Will Soon Monitor Themselves,” Daily Item, October 4, 2008.

Feb 19, 2015

There Is No Debate: Vaccine Data Is Largely Based on Research Fraud and Intimidation of Scientists

When pro-vaccine scientists and skeptics claim that they believe what they believe because of “science,” it’s important to remember that much of what is assumed to be science today is actually pseudoscience for the promulgation of special interests. Concerning vaccines, it continues to come to light that many of the studies and research projects upon which regulators bought into the vaccine agenda were manipulated, faked or otherwise tampered with to push an agenda.

This is especially true about the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, which currently dominates news headlines amidst widespread fears over measles. Government spokespersons, media correspondents, celebrities and others are urging everyone, young and old alike, to march down to their local pharmacy and get an MMR vaccine, which they insist will provide protection against the threat of infection.

But is this actually true? Both the safety and efficacy of the MMR vaccine have been called into question on numerous occasions, including late last summer when U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whistleblower Dr. William Thompson came forward with information about how the MMR had been shown to cause autism in children, and particularly African American children. The government tried to conceal this data from the public, but Thompson bravely brought it to light in a move that could cost him his career.

More recently, it was brought to our attention that a lawsuit had been filed against Merck & Co., the maker of the MMR II vaccine currently administered to U.S. children as part of the CDC’s official vaccination schedule. Filed under the False Claims Act, the shocking suit by two former Merck scientists alleges that Merck manipulated early trial data on the MMR to make it appear safe and at least 95 percent effective, allowing it to receive a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) endorsement.

Time and time again, vaccine manufacturers have been caught massaging the numbers, altering study criteria and even tampering with study subject matter, including blood samples and test subjects, in order to achieve a desired outcome. It doesn’t matter if a vaccine actually works or is safe — as long as the data can be adjusted or changed to create the illusion, the government and the public seem to have no problem accepting the official narrative.

“It cannot be denied that today’s mandatory childhood vaccine programs are little more than blind experiments with the possibility of unthinkable and irreversible consequences for our children’s physical, mental, and emotional health in the future,” wrote Dr. Harold E. Buttram, M.D., and Catherine J FrompovichCatherine J FrompovichCatherine J. Frompovich about the issue. “The time is long overdue for a complete reevaluation of the current vaccine formulations and programs.”

Vaccines directly spread the diseases they are claimed to prevent, science shows
The MMR vaccine has long been a source of controversy ever since gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield reported on an unusual bowel condition that he and his colleagues observed in direct conjunction with the jab. The study, which was originally published in The Lancet, sparked a global debate in which the vaccine establishment has ever since had to aggressively brainwash the public just to stay in business.

But there’s simply no denying that the MMR isn’t nearly as safe as Merck and the government claim it is. This is evidenced not only by previously concealed information about its dangers brought to light by Dr. Thompson and the two former Merck scientists but also by Merck’s own admissions in the MMR II package insert that the vaccine can cause serious, life-threatening conditions like:

• Vasculitis (inflammation of the blood vessels)
• Pancreatitis (inflammation of the pancreas)
• Diabetes
• Thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet count)
• Chronic arthritis
• Encephalitis (inflammation of the brain)
• Panniculitis (inflammation of the subcutaneous fat layer)

Several of these conditions are directly brought about by the live viruses contained in the MMR, including encephalitis, which is also a marker of autism. Even the mainstream media is now acknowledging measles encephalitis as a risk factor, though sources are associating this condition with wild measles as opposed to atypical vaccine-induced measles.

Then there’s the issue of permanent, lifelong immunity, something that can’t be achieved with any vaccine. In fact, vaccines eliminate all possibility of a person developing lifelong immunity to infectious diseases like measles because they circumvent innate immunity, the body’s first line of defense against disease, exposing the adaptive immune system to viral components that it would never otherwise encounter.

This causes permanent damage to the immune system and helps explain why many people today are stricken with autoimmune disorders that prior to vaccines were virtually nonexistent. What the media isn’t telling you is that natural exposure to measles, for instance, is generally mild and imparts permanent immunity — it is nature’s vaccine, without all the chemicals and heavy metals.

“Whereas natural recovery from many infectious diseases usually stimulates lifetime immunity, vaccines only provide temporary protection and most vaccines require ‘booster’ doses to extend vaccine-induced artificial immunity,” said National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) President Barbara Loe Fisher.

Sources for this article include:
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.naturalnews.com[PDF]
http://naturalnews.com[PDF]
http://www.naturalnews.com
http://www.fda.gov[PDF]
http://www.npr.org
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org
http://healthimpactnews.com
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

The New Home Battery: Is Off Grid Living About to Become Mainstream?

From Tesla Motors' CEO Elon Musk. One of the brains behind Tesla motors and Paypal, Tesla Motors CEO and entrepreneur Elon Musk has a new invention up his sleeve that will help power homes at low cost, and it will make living off-grid easier than ever.

A Florida woman had to stand up to a local judge to continue living off grid when he declared it illegal, but if millions of people start to live more self-sufficiently and sustainably, what will the corrupt judiciary say then?

Musk’s new invention is based on Tesla’s lithium-ion battery technology, and the new battery is expected to help the company become a leader in the growing home energy-storage market.
“We are going to unveil the Tesla home battery, the consumer battery that would be for use in people’s houses or businesses fairly soon,” Bloomberg quoted Musk as saying.
Not only does this mean that people could tell their electric company (and their high bills) good-bye, better lithium-ion storage also means that even solar arrays would work better. Soon, clean energy could be powering everything from our ovens to our computers and lights with more ease.
If homesteaders were ever concerned about having a sufficient supply of on-demand energy, Musk’s technology would put those worries to bed. Many solar panel manufacturers won’t currently warranty their goods for off-grid living because of storage issues, but the new battery changes that problem considerably.
“We are trying to figure out what would be a cool stationary (battery) pack,” Forbes had quoted Musk as saying at the time. “Some will be like the Model S pack: something flat, 5 inches off the wall, wall mounted, with a beautiful cover, an integrated bi-directional inverter, and plug and play.”

A Nissan Leaf battery pack – similar to what you might expect for a home battery.
The production of the battery is set to begin in the next 6 months. Lithium-ion technology is popular because the “li-on” batteries are great with energy density; a LIB setup can pack a lot of power into a very small space. According to MIT researchers, “Li-on” batteries offer sufficient charge times and a high number of discharge cycles before they die.
“The long-term demand for stationary energy storage is extraordinary,” JB Straubel, Tesla’s chief technical officer, said. “We’ve put in a huge amount of effort there.”
Overall, the “system” is built to discourage any lifestyle, which would make one sovereign – that is, sustainable, and not dependant on government plutocracies. This threatens our very independence, and in a time when our water and soil is being poisoned, forces us to partake of a disenfranchising system, which causes ill health to the masses.
Anything that helps us live a more self-sufficient life untied from government-led living systems could very well help us survive in the not-so-certain future.


Source : NaturalSociety

Popular Posts This Week

Sitemap