Amazon tests bike messengers for one-hour delivery in New York City



 Another benefit and service bikes provide

Bike messengers swarm the streets of New York on a daily basis, and now Amazon's packages may be stowed in their saddlebags. According to The Wall Street Journal, Amazon is staffing up to test a new delivery service for its products there by bicycle that promises to get orders delivered to buyers within the hour. The Journal says it could be called Amazon Prime Now, and be available in Manhattan to start. Presumably it will also cost more than the company's same-day delivery service, which runs $5.99 per order for Prime members and $8.99 for everyone else.

"It might be called "Amazon Prime Now"

Amazon's been on a quest to trim delivery times for orders, including the possibility of using aerial drones to make short haul trips with small packages. However that effort remains years out, and requires advances in both the technology and regulatory approvals. The company has also attempted to add incentives to people who are willing to wait an extra day or two, or pick up packages in lockers placed in other businesses versus their home or office addresses.

But, as the Journal points out, a one-hour service would be the fastest delivery service for Amazon yet, and in an enormous market. It also puts it in fierce contention with the likes of eBay, which launched a delivery service in 2012 that briefly promised one-hour deliveries for a flat $5 fee. The company has since scaled it back to same- and next-day shipping. That kind of time makes some items an impulse purchase, and puts on Amazon on better footing with physical stores where people could venture to get a similar deal.

It's unclear exactly when the service is launching, or if Amazon's planning to extend it beyond Manhattan and into other areas. Amazon is said to be holding time trials with bicycle courier companies before choosing one that will run the orders, suggesting there's still work to be done.

Paris plans to ban cars from its city center

Paris is already the host to the largest bikeshare system outside of China — currently circulates about 18,000 bikes around the city.


From the GRIST -- by Liz Gore

Paris is surging toward the front of the peloton of European cities racing for more bike- and pedestrian-friendly streets. Mayor Anne Hidalgo recently announced an ambitious plan to transform the historic city center into a “semi-pedestrianized” zone, where walking and biking will be encouraged, and automobile access will be limited to emergency vehicles, residents’ cars, and delivery trucks.

Now, when you finally get around to taking that dream vacation to the City of Love, you can travel via bicyclette — or go retro and rock a penny-farthing — down the Avenue des Champs-Élysées with fewer cars and less lung-choking smog. If Hidalgo gets her way, the ban will start on weekends, and eventually be all week.

Hidalgo wants to double the number of bike lanes in the city by 2020 as part of a $147 million cycling development program. She also hopes to implement an electric-powered bikesharing system, and to eliminate diesel cars by 2020 to curb carbon emissions, according to The Age:

In proposing a raft of anti-pollution measures, Ms. Hidalgo is building on the efforts of her predecessor and mentor, the former Paris mayor Bertrand Delanoe.

He championed bike and car rental schemes, expanded bus and bicycle lanes, and reduced speed limits, as he sought to wean Parisians off cars in a bid to make the city more liveable.

Some 84 percent of Paris residents see fighting pollution as a priority and 54 percent supported a diesel ban in the city by 2020, according a poll of 804 people carried out by Ifop for the Journal de Dimanche.

The city enacted a temporary car ban this spring — and the French government even resorted to paying people to bike this summer — in an effort to fight Paris’s infamous smog. This new ban, although partial, is meant to be permanent. The pumped up efforts to encourage biking, walking, and public transportation should help fill the gaps.

Paris is already the host to the largest bikeshare system outside of China — the hugely popular Vélib, which was launched in 2007 and currently circulates about 18,000 bikes around the city. It’s no coincidence that 60 percent of Parisians go carless, up from 40 percent from 2011.

So while Hidalgo’s plan may appear overly ambitious from a U.S. perspective, given the speed at which Parisians are moving toward the car-free lifestyle, it may become a reality très bientôt.

Still, while Paris is surging, the Dutch still own the yellow jersey in the race to become pedestrian and bicycle friendly. (Sorry, Paris, we can talk about this when your bike paths are made of solar panels and your sidewalks glow.)

Solar-Powered Water Wheel Cleans 50,000 Pounds of Trash Per Day

It’s called the Inner Harbor Water Wheel, and though it moves slow, it has the capability to collect 50,000 pounds of trash per day. 

 The timing for John Kellett’s solar-powered creation is crucial—hands and crab nets simply can’t keep up with the growing amount of wrappers, cigarette butts, bottles and other debris carried from storm drains into the harbor.


Water Wheel: Harnessing the power of nature to help keep the Baltimore Harbor clean

The Inner Harbor Water Wheel uses a combination of old and new technology to harness the power of water and sunlight to pick up litter and debris flowing down the Jones Falls River.

The current of the river provides power to turn the water wheel, which lifts trash and debris from the water and deposits it in a dumpster barge.  A solar panel array provides additional power to keep the machine running even when there is not enough water current.  When the dumpster is full, it is towed away by boat and a new dumpster is put in place. READ >>




The Keystone XL Pipeline is NOT about the Need for Oil


The beautiful Athabasca river runs through the Alberta tar pit (in he background) and is at risk of becoming a dead river.
AS YOU CAN SEE THIS WAS POSTED BACK IN 2014, BUT IT'S STILL RELEVANT TODAY

One of the most important facts that is missing in the national debate surrounding the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is this – Keystone XL will not bring any more oil into the United States.
 

The idea that Keystone XL will improve U.S. oil supply is a documented scam being played on the American people by Big Oil, its friends in Washington DC., and especially the Koch Brothers, who will benefit the most by it's approval, own oil leases to 1.5 million acres of the Canadian tar sands. 


Keystone pipeline: Obama bashes project while in Myanmar

Speaking at a press conference while in Myanmar, Obama offered perhaps his harshest assessment to date of the controversial pipeline.


“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf [Coast], where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on U.S. gas prices,” the president said. 

“If my Republican friends want to focus on what’s good for the American people in terms of job creation and lower energy costs, we should be engaging in a conversation about what are we doing to produce even more homegrown energy. I’m happy to have that conversation.”

The U.S. doesn’t need Keystone XL or tar sands

As Congress takes up legislation that would force approval of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, there are countless reasons why this is a bad idea starting with the fact that there is still no established route for the pipeline. 

Tar sands oil is not conventionally drilled but strip mined
This tar sands oil pipeline would allow some of the world’s dirtiest oil flows through the United States, threatening water supplies to hundreds of thousands of people.  And burning the additional tar sands oil would needlessly worsen climate change. By forcing the pipeline’s approval, the law would override presidential  authority and bypass the National Interest Determination process.  In the wake of new polling just released by the Pew Research Center demonstrating support for the pipeline is waning, a rush to force approval is disservice to the American public who deserves an a final assessment of whether the pipeline is truly in America’s national interest.

After the tar sands has been removed, a black, dead, toxic surface is exposed
Millions of gallons of toxic sludge is released back onto the landscape, into rivers and aquafers after extracting the tar oil. Once contaminated the water, about 2.4 million barrels per day, does not "un-contaminate" itself. It's simply a waste product of the process. Gone.

Here is what we know:

On Jobs:  Proponents of the Keystone XL project say it will create over 40,000 jobs.  The State Department found that the construction of Keystone XL would generate 1,950 jobs for two years – giving the project the job creation potential of a medium sized mall. Once completed, it will only require between 35 and 50 permanent jobs. 


If our politicians are concerned about jobs creation, or job killing, they should be focusing on the robot and automation industry. Businesses like UPS and FEDEX have eliminated thousands of jobs due to automation. But that's considered "progress."  Or how about all the jobs lost to "outsourcing?" No mention of ending that anytime soon. But billions have been spent on political campaigns selling a handful of unsustainable jobs in the antiquated, toxic fossil fuel industry. It's not about job creation, or the need for oil. It's all about the usual suspects: money, greed and power.  
 
On Climate: The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would enable a significant increase in carbon intensive tar sands production and undermine efforts to address climate change. At a time when decisive action on climate change is urgently needed, the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would make the problem of carbon pollution worse – enabling the production of some of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuels.
   
On Water:

Water waste and pollution
During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of heat, water and chemicals are needed to separate the tarry substance (known as bitumen) from sand, silt, and clay and to flow up the pipeline. The water used in the process comes from rivers and underground aquifers. It takes three barrels of water to extract each single barrel of oil. Ninety-five percent of the water used to extract the oil, which is about 2.4 million barrels per day, is so polluted that the water must be stored in large human-made pools, known as tailing ponds. As the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom of these ponds, the toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, works its way into neighboring clean water supplies.
- See more at: http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands/keystone-xl-pipeline#sthash.j83yMZb6.dpuf
During the tar sands oil extraction process, vast amounts of heat, water and chemicals are needed to separate the tarry substance (known as bitumen) from sand, silt, and clay and to flow up the pipeline. The water used in the process comes from rivers and underground aquifers. As the heavy bitumen sinks to the bottom of these ponds, the toxic sludge, full of harmful substances like cyanide and ammonia, works its way into neighboring clean water supplies.
 

A spill of tar sands from Keystone XL would put nationally recognized water resources, such as the Ogallala aquifer, at unacceptable risks along the route.  We already know the terrible consequences of tar sands pipeline.  The tar sands spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan has become the most expensive onshore oil spill in U.S. history. After over four years and a billion dollars spent on clean up, large segments of the Kalamazoo River are still contaminated with tar sands.  

Forest Destruction
The tar sands oil are underneath the world’s largest intact ecosystem, the Boreal forests of Alberta. The forests not only serve as an important carbon sink, but its biodiversity and unspoiled bodies of water support large populations of many different species. They are a buffer against climate change as well as food and water shortages. However, in the process of digging up tar sands oil, the forests are destroyed. This valuable forest and its endangered caribou are both threatened by the pipeline. 



Pipeline spills
The Keystone XL pipeline would traverse six U.S. states and cross major rivers, including the Missouri River, Yellowstone, and Red Rivers, as well as key sources of drinking and agricultural water, such as the Ogallala Aquifer which supplies water to more than one fourth of America’s irrigated land and provides drinking water for two million Americans.

The probability of spills from this pipeline is high and more threatening than conventional spills, because tar sands oil sinks rather than floats, making clean ups more difficult and costly. TransCanada's first pipeline proves that this threat is real, as it spilled a dozen times in less than a year of operation. Experts warn that the more acidic and corrosive consistency of the type of tar sands oil being piped into the U.S. as well as the risk of external corrosion from higher pipeline  temperatures makes spills more likely, and have joined the EPA in calling on the State Department to conduct a thorough study of these risks.

In the summer of 2010, a million gallons of tar sands oil poured into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan from a pipeline run by another Canadian company, Enbridge. Although nearly one billion dollars have been spent over the past three years to clean up the spill, almost 40 miles of the river are still contaminated.

In April 2013, a 22-foot crack in an Exxon pipeline caused a devastating tar sands oil spill that began in a residential neighborhood of Mayflower, Arkansas and into Lake Conway, a drinking water source and popular fishing spot. Residents of the community were unaware of the pipeline under their town until this massive spill.

On Energy Security: Keystone XL is an export pipeline through the United States, not to it. Over half of the crude from Keystone XL is forecast to be exported internationally after it is refined and the pipeline is not necessary to transport domestic crude.  With only small quantities of tar sands crude reaching the Gulf Coast, tar sands producers have already filled several tankers of raw tar sands crude in Texas ports and exported it to be refined internationally.

Tar sands crude is three times more carbon intensive than conventional crude. Just the additional emissions from the tar sands in Keystone XL — above average emissions from producing non-tar sands oil — are equal to Americans driving more than 60 billion additional miles every year when we need to be reducing our carbon emissions.

The U.S. doesn’t need Keystone XL or tar sands.  Thanks to strong fuel economy standards, increasing access to alternative fuels and reduced vehicle miles traveled, U.S. demand has fallen by 4.5 million bpd relative to where it was projected to be in 2006. 

Keystone XL would significantly add to carbon pollution that’s driving climate change, undermine the nation’s climate leadership and imperil the health and drinking water of millions of Americans.  

With climate change already harming our communities and pocketbooks across America now is the time for clean energy, not expansion of dirty energy such as tar sands.  There is substantial evidence that Keystone XL is not in our national interest but is a profit scheme for big oil that needs to be rejected.












Maybe George can Help Us Understand What Happened Last Tuesday

It wasn't a good day for the environment last Tuesday.  Many of the clean air, clean water, food and many other common sense health and environmental issues will no doubt be rolled back, tabled or eliminated completely. But, as they say, the people have spoken. Right?


One of the more famous quotes of the late comedian George Carlin could apply to last weeks midterm elections: "Ignorant citizens, elect ignorant leaders." 

This applies to all of us, regardless of party line BS, because a recent survey revealed nearly 75% (I think it's even higher) of the people who voted last week do not know the issues, or who they are voting for, or even care. They just check boxes. Name recognition is about as deep as most of us get. Understanding the issues in plain simple everyday language that everyone can understand ranks up there with the buying of politicians. Until this happens twisted elections and the corruption will continue to be part of the game.

Here's another one of George's quotes:




















We'll be posting more on this topic of free thinking and understanding the language or babble of politicians. Here's a great place to start.
 

You've probably never heard of Pia Mancini. She was a recent speaker on TED. Pia and her colleagues want to upgrade democracy in Argentina and beyond. Through their open-source mobile platform [internet] they want to bring citizens inside the legislative process, and run candidates who will listen to what they say. Check it out HERE. Find out what she has to say and how it works.

Medicine Cabinet Makeover

by Samantha Leach

Our healthcare system is out of control. It’s more like “sick care”. Our system medicates people instead of getting to the root of what’s causing the inflammation, the imbalance, the disease.  Most people don’t think about their health until something goes wrong.

At home, medicine cabinets are stocked with things like aspirin, ibuprofen, sinus relief, antacids, cold remedies, cough syrup, lozenges, and wound care ointment.

What if these drugs are contributing to the problem?

They have side effects. They create imbalance. Antibiotics deplete vitamins and are killing our digestive systems. We don’t think twice about putting these chemicals in our bodies. Somehow we were led to believe the answer to all our health issues could be solved with a pill.

I want to show you the holistic way to health for you and your family


Known as nature’s medicine, plant-based essential oils were civilization’s first medicine and date back thousands of years B.C. They are powerful remedies for many common ailments.  Essential oils are a cheaper, safer alternative to medication. They have healthy, positive effects in the body and don’t have expiration dates.

First off, I only use Certified Pure Therapeutic Grade (CPTG) essential oils. Most oils have some type of synthetics or fillers in them that can be harmful to our bodies. Using oils with the CPTG trademark will ensure you have the safest, purest, and most potent essential oil products available.

When I first learned of essential oils, I knew nothing about their uses or benefits.  Over the last two years, I have learned about the hundreds of uses for oils and seen amazing transformations in people’s health. I don’t have any over-the-counter medications in my house because they have ALL been replaced by essential oils.

I want to share a few tips on how you can clear out your medicine cabinet.

  • Skin disorders – eczema, psoriasis, rashes, acne.
  • Headaches – sinus, tension, or migraines.
  • Digestive issues – constipation, diarrhea, gas, acid reflux, nausea, indigestion, IBS.
  • Mood disorders – lethargy, depression, frustration, anxiety.
  • Hormonal issues – PMS, bloating, mood swings, hot flashes.
  • Joint and muscle issues – arthritis, muscle pain and fatigue.
  • Common colds, the flu, allergies, even head lice.
Are you wondering why after several bottles of pills you can’t get that issue to go away?

Because modern medicine treats the symptom, not the cause.  Day to day, we need a more proactive approach to healthcare.  Heal and treat yourself with natural, effective, safer alternatives than the pills piling up in your home.

Learn more in free on-site classes and webinars by registering at www.feednaturalfood.com

Your health is now brought to you by Wall Street

  "If you thought they hurt us with the banks, wait 'til you see what they are doing to our health care." – Jeff Hays

The new documentary Bought dives deeply into the inner workings of the industries at the core of our food and healthcare system, exploring the truth about how vaccines and drugs are developed and rushed to market and the ongoing secrecy behind the genetic engineering of our food supply.

Like the banks, the food and drug industries have grown more powerful and less transparent over time, and profit has become the primary motive. Hays may be best known for his 2012 documentary "Doctored," which exposes how the medical and drug industry conspire to control the health care system.


See full article and documentary preview  HERE

Farmageddon

The movie tells the story of small, family farmers providing safe, healthy foods to their communities who were forced to stop, often through violent action, by agents of misguided government bureaucracies.  The movie succinctly poses and addresses the question “why is this happening in 21st century America?”


“Many of you have seen Food Inc. and Fresh. Now it’s time for the next level: Farmageddon. Everyone should see this documentary because it takes up where previous documentaries have ended by answering the question: “Why is local food pricey and hard to find?” 

You deserve an answer, and this hard hitting video delivers. I can’t recommend it heartily enough. Who owns your body? What kind of terror do America’s food police inflict on heritage food providers? This is strong language, but we live in disturbing times. You owe it to your children to empower yourself with the truth about food safety and food choice. Look at the dates and please go see this movie. Tell them Joel sent you.” – Joel Salatin

Farmageddon is a powerful film documenting the U.S. government’s constant attacks on innocent farmers and consumers in an attempt to protect massive corporate interests. When the government controls the food you eat and the healthcare you receive, sickness is pervasive – this is exactly what has happened in the U.S.”


Dr. Joseph Mercola
Founder, Mercola.com

The Netherlands Unveils World's First Solar Cell-Paved Bike Path


SolaRoad has been in the works since 2009, and is the brainchild of Dutch research institute TNO. The power-generating pavers are created by embedding crystalline silicon solar cells in 8.2 x 11.5 ft concrete slabs, before covering them in a one-centimeter layer of tempered glass. Then, reports the Guardian, a “non-adhesive finish and a slight tilt are [added] to help the rain wash off dirt and thus keep the surface clean, guaranteeing maximum exposure to sunlight.”

RELATED: Dutch City Boasts Three Times as Many Bikes as Cars
 
These extra steps are pretty important—the flat surface required for transit isn’t exactly ideal for capturing sunlight for power generation. In bike path form the cells are 30 percent less efficient than they would be placed within a standard solar installation. As a result, when this first test strip is extended to its full 100 meters (328 feet) in 2016, it will provide about enough electricity to power three households.

But it does make practical use of an untapped surface area, and there’s plenty of roads available for transformation. Indeed, TNO is not limiting their ambitions to bike paths; the institute estimates that up to 20 percent of the Netherlands’ 140,000km of road could potentially be adapted into SolaRoads, which would amount to an additional 400 to 500 km sq (154 to 193 mi sq) of energy-generating PV which could be fed into the grid, or used to power signage and traffic lights.

Chemicals in Food

Source: Breast Cancer Fund

Modern food-production methods have opened major avenues of exposure to environmental carcinogens and endocrine-disrupting compounds. Pesticides sprayed on crops, antibiotics used on poultry, and hormones given to cattle expose consumers involuntarily to contaminants that become part of our bodies. Some of these exposures may increase breast cancer risk.


In some ways, our ancestors had it easy. Because they didn't have chemically treated food and chemically enhanced kitchenware, their diets and cooking practices exposed them to fewer toxic hazards.

Following are some of the harmful chemicals commonly found in our food and food containers, along with descriptions of what they are, where they're found and why they're bad. And check out our Tips for Prevention section to learn how to avoid them.


Food Packaging

Today, it's not just the food itself that you have to watch, but the containers they're stored in, which can leach toxic chemicals such as BPA, styrene and vinyl chloride. Not only do they sound unappetizing, they're actually bad for you.
 

Bisphenol A (BPA) 

Bisphenol A (BPA) can be found in reusable plastic food containers and the lining of food and beverage cans. Research shows that BPA exposure is linked to breast cancer, and has been shown to interfere with chemotherapy treatment for the disease.
 

Phthalates

Phthalates can be found in some plastic food containers and are considered endocrine disruptors. Phthalate exposure has been linked to early puberty in girls, a risk factor for later-life breast cancer. Some phthalates also act as weak estrogens in cell culture systems.
 

Styrene

Styrene can leach from polystyrene – a component of Styrofoam food trays, egg cartons, disposable cups and carryout containers – when heated, worn or put under pressure. Styrene is an animal mammary carcinogen and is possibly carcinogenic to humans.
 

Vinyl Chloride

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is used to produce food packaging. When PVC is made, vinyl chloride may be released into the air or wastewater. It was one of the first chemicals designated as known human carcinogen and has been linked to increased mortality from breast cancer and liver cancer among workers involved in its manufacture. After disposal, PVC can break down, and if it is incinerated or catches fire, it can form dioxins.
 

Pesticides

Some pesticides and herbicides used on the food we eat have been identified as human or animal carcinogens and many are also found in water supplies and indoor air and dust. Pesticide exposure is of particular concern for agricultural workers. Studies have shown that some herbicides and pesticides stimulate growth of breast cancer cells or cause mammary cancer in rats.
 

Atrazine

More than 75 million pounds of atrazine are applied annually to corn, sorghum and other crops to control broadleaf weeds, which leads to high levels of the herbicide in groundwater and drinking water every spring and summer in areas that grow these crops. Atrazine disrupts the body's own hormone systems in a number of ways and has been linked to a number of reproductive changes in wildlife. Experimental studies suggest it may disrupt mammary gland development.


2,4-D, Chlordane and Malathion

These three pesticides were associated with increased risk of breast cancer in a study of Latina women recently diagnosed with the disease. The risks were highest in young women and those diagnosed with breast cancer early in life.
 

2,4,5-TP

Young children of farmers where this pesticide is used have higher levels of 2,4,5-TP in their urine shortly after the pesticide is applied. In addition, a large study of farm women in Iowa and North Carolina found elevated rates of breast cancer in women exposed to 2,4,5-TP.
 

DDT

While DDT has largely been banned for agricultural use worldwide, it is still used in some countries for malaria control and shows up in humans and animals even where it has not been used for decades. Evidence continues to mount regarding DDT's health effects, including evidence that earlier exposures to the chemical may affect risk of breast cancer risk decades later. This serves as a cautionary tale regarding our use of other pesticides without full safety data.


Dieldrin & Aldrin

Dieldrin and Aldrin are two additional banned pesticides that persist in the environment. Dieldrin has linked to breast cancer in women exposed to the pesticide and both pesticides have hormone disrupting effects.


Heptachlor

Heptachlor was used in high quantities on pineapple crops in Hawaii, which led to contamination of crops and the local dairy supply. Research is needed to see if this exposure is associated with the dramatic increase in breast cancer incidence in Hawaii.
 

Natural and Synthetic Hormones

Some plants and fungi produce compounds that mimic estrogen or alter naturally occuring hormones in other ways. In addition, some synthetic hormones are given to farm animals to increase milk production or increase growth.


Zearalenone

Zearalenone is a naturally occurring chemical compound produced by a fungus that grows on grains such as corn. Studies have found higher levels of zearalenone in people who frequently consume popcorn. The synthetic version of zearalenone is zeranol, which is given to cattle to promote growth. Both compounds mimic estrogen, and in vitro studies show that they can stimulate the growth of breast cells.


Zeranol
The U.S. and Canadian beef, veal and lamb industries have used synthetic growth hormones since the 1950s to hasten the fattening of animals. Zeranol is one of the most widely used chemicals in the U.S. beef industry. It is of special concern since it mimics the hormone estradiol. Scientists recently exposed cancer cells to zeranol-treated beef and the results showed significant increases in cancer growth. Economic and health concerns have led the European Union to ban use of these hormones in their own meat-production systems and to ban imports of hormone-treated beef, including meat from the United States, since 1989 (Hanrahan, 2000).


rBGH/rBST

Since its introduction in 1993, bovine growth hormone (rBGH/rBST) has proven controversial because of its potential carcinogenic effects. Several studies have shown an association between dairy consumption and breast cancer in pre-menopausal women. rBGH has also been shown to raise insulin-like growth factor levels in the body, associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
 

Phytoestrogens

Phytoestrogens are estrogen compounds fround in many plants and plant products, including soy food products. Although scientific evidence suggests that plant-based estrogens offer nutritional benefits, the data is more conflicting when it comes to breast cancer risk. Some studies suggest phytoestrogen consumption during adolescence may help reduce later risk of breast cancer, but other studies suggest it may cause oxidative DNA damage and interfere with breast cancer drugs.






 See http://www.breastcancerfund.org/
 


Meet Your New Fossil Fuel-loving GOP Senators

The best that money can buy
By Ben Adler: Grist

The Democrats got wrecked on Tuesday, and now Republicans are taking over the Senate. Some of the new Republican senators are outright climate deniers. Those who admit that climate change is happening often hide from the issue with nonsensical yammering about how global warming might be due to natural causes. 

Regardless of their views on the science, they are unanimous in their opposition to actually doing anything about it, and in their enthusiasm for exploiting America’s land and water for the benefit of the fossil fuel industries. Check 'em out.


Sea Salt & Baking Soda, Best All Natural Remedy For Curing Radiation Exposure And Cancer


If you have been exposed to any form of radiation, either for medical diagnostic purposes (fluoroscopy / mammography / other medical x-ray exams) or in the course of radiotherapy treatment, or if you are otherwise concerned by excessive radiation exposure, overload or poisoning (such as living near a nuclear reactor facility, working with diagnostic radiological equipment / in the nuclear processing industries / uranium mining / uranium or plutonium processing),  or if you have been exposed to radioactive particles or higher ionizing radiation doses stemming from other sources such as depleted uranium (DU), testing of atomic weapons, frequent flights in higher altitudes, a nuclear disaster (radiation fallout from the Japan nuclear power plants) etc.,  here are a number of tips and suggested remedies how to naturally help your body excrete damaging radioactive elements (e.g. strontium and radioactive iodine) or detoxify their noxious byproducts such as free radicals as well as deal with radiation burns. 

Sea salt and baking soda, best all natural remedy for curing radiation exposure and cancer. If you are having any kind of radiation treatments, macrobiotic is the cure. Macrobiotics is very effective in curing radiation sickness and cancer. 

If you are diagnosed with cancer and you want to survive the cancer avoid any and all exposure to radiation treatment. Radiation treatment of any kind is what actually kills people diagnosed with cancer. Exposure to radiation causes a cascade of free radicals that wreak havoc on the body. Free radicals damages DNA, protein, and fats. Free radical damage has been clinically proven to be a major contributor to cancer. That being said, people don’t die of cancer, they die of radiation poisoning. 

The repeated exposure to radiation through so-called treatment overwhelms the body’s immune system. Cancer doesn’t cause hair loss for cancer patients, the radiation treatment is solely responsible for that. Cancer doesn’t cause weight loss, the radiation treatment causes that because it suppresses your appetite. Cancer doesn’t cause a cancer patient to become very weak and sick, the radiation treatment poisons the body and makes them very weak and sick. 

According to Michio and Aveline Kushi, in his book Macrobiotic Diet, Michio Kushi states: ‘At the time of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945, Tatsuichiro Akizuki, M.D., was director of the Department of Internal Medicine at St. Francis Hospital in Nagasaki. Most patients in the hospital, located one mile from the center of the blast, survived the initial effects of the bomb, but soon after came down with symptoms of radiation sickness from the radioactivity that had been released. Dr. Akizuki fed his staff and patients a strict macrobiotic diet of brown rice, miso* and tamari soy sauce soup, wakame and other sea vegetables, Hokkaido pumpkin, and sea salt and prohibited the consumption of sugar and sweets. As a result, he saved everyone in his hospital, while many other survivors in the city perished from radiation sickness.’” 

In case you missed it the secret to surviving all forms of radiation exposure is sea salt. If you are concerned about the radiation fallout from the Japan nuclear plants disaster or if you had an X-ray (from hospitals and airport screening) or radiation treatments for cancer, soak your body in sea salt (not iodized table salt) baths to help pull out the radiation from your body. 

If you were diagnosed with mouth or throat cancer and you were subjected to deadly radiation treatments gargling with baking soda mixed in water will help neutralize the radiation. Baking soda is so powerful in curing radiation contamination that at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, researcher Don York has used baking soda to clean soil contaminated with uranium. Sodium bicarbonate binds with uranium, separating it from the dirt; so far, York has removed as much as 92 percent of the uranium from contaminated soil samples. 

Still not convinced? Would it help to know that the United States Army recommends the use of baking soda to protect the kidneys from radiation damage. Radiation is very toxic. Exposure to radiation of any amount is harmful to your body. Exposure to radiation through x-rays (hospitals and airport screening) or any of the so-called cancer treatments are the most dangerous source of radiation poisoning. 

X-rays and radiation cancer treatments are far deadlier than radiation fallout because the exposure is concentrated and frequent. To pull the radiation poison out of the body, try bathing in half a cup of sea salt and half a cup of baking soda. Soak for at least 20-30 minutes, every day for three weeks or every other day for six weeks. . . or go on a vacation to the West Indies or South Pacific and swim in the ocean every day for three weeks! 

Why the Indies or South Pacific? Because of the higher concentration of sea salt. Where is the best place on Earth to go for curing yourself of radiation? The Dead Sea. The Dead Sea salt content is four times that of most world’s oceans. Sea salt draws the radiation out of the body. Can’t afford to travel to the Dead Sea and cure yourself of the radiation poison from nuclear plant fallout, x-rays and radiation cancer treatment? A tiny pinch of good quality sea salt in several glasses of distilled water each day will provide one with all the minerals and trace elements you need to rid your body of the radiation and stay healthy. 

Can’t stomach sea salt? The amino acid, cysteine also protects against the damaging effects of radiation by terminating the free radicals produced by ionizing radiation. Cysteine, together with methionine, cystine, and their derivatives, is numbered among the “sulphurated amino acids” due to the fact that these amino acids contain sulfur in addition to carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. 

Source: presscore.ca

The Trouble With Antibiotics

On Oct. 14, FRONTLINE’s "The Trouble With Antibiotics" examines the widespread use of antibiotics in food animals and whether it’s fueling the growing crisis of antibiotic resistance in humans.


Sharp Increase Seen in Sales of Antibiotics for Use in Farm Animals

Think organic this Thanksgiving. Or go meatless
New data from the Food and Drug Administration shows that the sale of antibiotics for farm animals is on the rise, amid concerns that their use is contributing to increasing drug-resistant infections in humans.

The FDA reported that sales of antibiotics for agriculture climbed 16 percent in the United States between 2009 and 2012. More than 32 million pounds of antibiotics intended for use on American farms were sold in 2012 alone — a nearly 8 percent rise over the previous year.

The new data comes at a time when the FDA is trying to reduce antibiotic use in food animals. In December 2013, the agency began a voluntary three-year phase out of the practice of using antibiotics to make farm animals grow faster.

Antibiotics have long been considered vital to human health, but in recent decades, many have been rendered less effective or useless as bacteria have become increasing resistant. Human overuse and abuse of the drugs has contributed to antibiotic resistance, but for more than four decades, scientists and public health officials have warned that their widespread use in agriculture may also play a role.

Watch Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria, FRONTLINE’s investigation into the rise of drug-resistant bacteria.
Up to 70 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. 
are used in food animals. Animals we eat.

For years, farmers and ranchers have used antibiotics to help food animals grow faster on less feed. This practice, known as “growth promotion,” is the target of the FDA’s voluntary phase-out program. The program will also require that veterinarians administer any antibiotics sold over the counter to treat or prevent disease.

According to the new FDA data, nearly all medically important antibiotics used on the farm were sold over the counter in 2012.

Historically, the farm lobby and Congress have blocked efforts to restrict the use of antibiotics in agriculture, and industry has maintained that farmers are not adding significantly to the risks for human health.

The debate has been clouded by a lack of information. While the new FDA report provides data — gathered from pharmaceutical manufacturers — about antibiotics sales and distribution, it does not show how the drugs are used. Manufacturers are not required to report this to the FDA, and the agency says it cannot break down sales data by specific drugs and indications because it is considered confidential business information. Attempts by a few legislators in Congress to require more specific data reporting have gone nowhere.

The new report shows that by far the largest class of antibiotics given to farm animals — about two-thirds of the total — are tetracyclines. While not widely used in humans, doctors do prescribe them to treat certain conditions like acne. The sales and distribution of tetracyclines increased by 13 percent in 2012, the agency reported.

The report also shows a surge in the use of another class of antibiotics, cephalosporins, which are more widely prescribed for human use, for example to treat severe salmonella poisoning in children and pregnant women. Cephalosporins sales rose 37 percent between 2009 and 2012, according to FDA’s new data.


View the video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/trouble-with-antibiotics/

Tar-sands industry loses $17.1 billion thanks to public opposition



Here’s some good news for your tar-sands blues: Grassroots activism makes a difference!

$17.1 billion of difference, in fact. According to a new report produced by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis and Oil Change International, oil companies and investors looking to gain from Alberta’s tar sands lost a whopping $30.9 billion between 2010 and 2013.

WHY? People are becoming aware what's been happening out there and a lot more aware of these issues now than in the past. There has been more pressure on the government to address the environmental concerns, the health issues and indigenous rights violations. Just three years ago most people had never heard of the Alberta Tar Sands, and those that did, didn't really know what it was, what type of oil it produced, or how it was refined. Here are 10 top facts about the Alberta Oil Sands

You decide if this is in your best interest, or another buck or two for big oil and the Koch-Sucker Brothers.

Other Links:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/04/3588893/tar-sands-17-billion-activism/






Sweden’s Environmental Leadership Earns #1 Ranking

Global Green Economy Index Rankings Just Released 
 "Sweden continues to assert itself as one of the “greenest” countries in the world through its innovative use of household garbage as a source of electricity and heat for its 9.5 million citizens and aims to break its oil dependency by 2020."
  

It’s true that Sweden came out on top in the recently released ranking of 60 countries according to sustainability by consulting firm Dual Citizen Inc. in its fourth annual Global Green Economy Index (GGEI). Norway, Costa Rica, Germany and Denmark rounded out the top five. The rankings take into account a wide range of economic indicators and datasets regarding leadership on climate change, encouragement of efficiency sectors, market facilitation and investing in green technology and sustainability, and management of ecosystems and natural capital.

Sweden’s first place finish reflects the Swedes’ ongoing commitment to climate change mitigation and sustainability policies and practices. The country is a leader in organic agriculture and renewable energy as well as per capita investment in green technology and sustainability research. Upwards of 75 percent of Swedes recycle their waste, while only four percent of the country’s garbage goes to landfills. In fact, Sweden imports garbage from other nations to burn as a renewable source of energy.

On the climate front, Sweden was one of the first countries in the world—going back to 1991—to put in place a heavy tax on fossil fuels to encourage the development of greener sources of energy. Indeed, the high price of gas there has notably boosted sales and consumption of homegrown, renewable ethanol. Just a few decades ago Sweden derived 75 percent of its energy from fossil fuels, but is on track to shrink that to 18 percent by 2020, with many Swedes clamoring for the country to abandon fossil fuels entirely at that point. As if that wasn’t enough, Sweden recently announced that it would pay a whopping $500 million over the next four years into the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, a pool of money sourced from richer countries to help poorer ones transition to a future less dependent on polluting fossil fuels.

The United States didn’t fare so well in the GGEI, ranking just 28th overall, just behind Rwanda and slightly ahead of Canada. Despite leadership in green technology and environmental awareness, Americans’ disproportionately large carbon footprint and resistance to a national policy on climate change mitigation are hurdles to the U.S. achieving a better ranking.

The GGEI isn’t the only sustainability ranking of countries. The Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy and Columbia University’s Center for International Earth Science Information Network recently released their 2014 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a similar but more expansive ranking of 178 nations on environmental health and ecosystem vitality. Switzerland topped that list, followed by Luxembourg, Australia, Singapore and the Czech Republic. Sweden ranked 9th and the U.S. 33rd.

The fact that global rankings like the GGEI and EPI exist shows without a doubt that sustainability concerns are a global phenomenon, and that people from Iceland to Australia (two highly ranked countries) realize the importance of taking care of Mother Earth. Despite issuing different rankings, both indices had a lot in common, with five countries (Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Austria and Spain) making the top 10 list of each. Another common conclusion was that the U.S. has much to do if it hopes to be taken seriously among world leaders committed to protecting the planet and our common future.

CONTACTS: GGEI 2014; EPI.
- See more at: http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk/swedens-environmental-leadership#sthash.6OrvYAFW.dpuf

Less Than 1% Of Sweden's Trash Ends Up In Landfills

by Justine Alford

 Humans produce an astonishing amount of trash and we all know it’s not good for the environment. We can shove it away in landfills, but there are numerous environmental problems associated with these ugly rubbish dumps. Greenhouse gases such as methane seep out of them and toxic chemicals, for example from household cleaning products, can pollute both the soil and groundwater. They’re also smelly, noisy, can damage wildlife and are breeding grounds for disease-transmitting vermin.

While recycling has helped cut down on the amount of waste that ends up in landfills, a considerable amount still gets dumped in them all over the world each year. But one country is showing us that it doesn’t have to be that way—Sweden.

Swedish people produce about the same amount of waste per year as other Europeans but, remarkably, less than 1% of household trash ends up in landfills. This is in part due to the 32 waste-to-energy (WTE) plants that have been set up across the country. These plants incinerate over two million tons of trash annually—almost 50% of the waste produced by the country—and have been in operation for years, according to the Huffington Post.

Of course, Sweden still recycles whatever it can, but anything that can’t be reused or recycled normally ends up at these WTE plants. As the name suggests, the garbage doesn’t go to waste but is used to generate energy. WTE plants contain huge incinerators for the trash. As it’s burnt, steam is produced that spins generator turbines which produce electricity. This is then transferred to transmission lines and distributed across the country by a grid.









Amazingly, WTE plants provide close to a million homes with heating and over a quarter of a million homes with electricity. So not only is it reducing the amount of trash that ends up in landfills, but it also helps to reduce Sweden’s reliance on fossil fuels.

“A good number to remember is that three tons of waste contains as much energy as one ton of fuel oil… so there is a lot of energy in waste,” Göran Skoglund, spokesperson for Öresundskraft, one of the country’s leading energy companies, explains in the short video below. That means that the two million tons of waste incinerated each year produces around 670,000 tons worth of fuel oil energy. Sweden even helps to clean up other countries in the EU by importing their trash and burning it.

But what about the environmental impacts of burning rubbish? The process generates byproducts such as ash that contain dioxins, a class of chemical contaminant. However, over the years Sweden has significantly improved the process and byproducts are cleaned up, meaning that only a tiny amount of dioxins are dispersed into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, because many products contain materials that cannot currently be recycled or incinerated, landfills are still necessary. Reducing the amount of waste we produce altogether would obviously be the best solution, but that is easier said than done. Still, it seems Sweden is making good of a bad situation, and maybe eventually other countries will start to follow suit.

Frackers are dumping toxic waste into California's groundwater


California can officially add one more disaster to its rapidly growing list of water woes: The EPA just found that at least nine fracking sites throughout the state have been dumping billions of gallons of contaminated wastewater into its protected aquifers.

Not only do many of these aquifers supply drinking water to residents throughout the Central Valley, they’re also reaching dangerously low levels due to overuse, as many farmers rely on aquifers for irrigation and have been overpumping groundwater supplies as the drought carries on.

According to a letter sent to the EPA by the California State Water Resources Board, roughly 3 billion gallons of wastewater were illegally injected into aquifers throughout central California. The EPA ordered the report following contamination concerns after 11 fracking wastewater injection wells were shut down in July by state officials, DeSmogBlog reports:

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity, reveals … that half of the water samples collected at the 8 water supply wells tested near the injection sites have high levels of dangerous chemicals such as arsenic, a known carcinogen that can also weaken the human immune system, and thallium, a toxin used in rat poison.

Timothy Krantz, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Redlands, says these chemicals could pose a serious risk to public health: “The fact that high concentrations are showing up in multiple water wells close to wastewater injection sites raises major concerns about the health and safety of nearby residents.”

The full scope of the contamination still remains to be seen — as many as 19 other injection wells could be sources of contamination as well, according to the report. Historic drought, top water officials who don’t follow their own water restrictions, and now widespread contamination of what little water in the state is left? The Golden State just can’t catch a break.
Source:

Confirmed: California Aquifers Contaminated With Billions Of Gallons of Fracking Wastewater, DeSmogBlog.

California Plastic Bag Ban

California made big news recently when it announced the first statewide ban on plastic shopping bags set to kick in during the middle of 2015. Beginning in July, large grocery stores, pharmacies and other food retailers in the Golden State will no longer be able to send shoppers home with plastic bags, while convenience markets, liquor stores and other small food retailers will join the ranks a year later.

Back in 2007, San Francisco became the first U.S. municipality to ban plastic shopping bags. In intervening years upwards of 132 other cities and counties in 18 states and the District of Columbia instituted similar measures. Of course, Americans are late to the party when it comes to banning plastic bags: The European Union, China, India and dozens of other nations already have plastic bag bans or taxes in place.

But the trend here toward banning plastic shopping bags comes in the wake of new findings regarding the extent and harm of plastic in our environment. Since plastic isn’t biodegradable, it ends up either in landfills or as litter on the landscape and in waterways and the ocean. Plastic can take hundreds of years to decompose and releases toxins into the soil and water in the process.

Littered plastic is also a huge problem for the health of wildlife, as many animals ingest it thinking it is food and can have problems thereafter breathing and digesting. The non-profit Worldwatch Institute reports that at least 267 species of marine wildlife are known to have suffered from entanglement or ingestion of marine debris, most of which is composed of plastic; tens of thousands of whales, birds, seals and turtles die every year from contact with ocean-borne plastic bags. A recent European Commission study on the impact of litter on North Sea wildlife found that some 90 percent of the birds examined had plastic in their stomachs.

Another reason for banning plastic bags is their fossil fuel burden. Plastic is not only made from petroleum—producing it typically requires a lot of fossil-fuel-derived energy. The fact that Americans throw away some 100 billion plastic grocery bags each year means we are drilling for and importing millions of barrels worth of oil and natural gas for a convenient way to carry home a few groceries.

It’s hard to measure the impact of pre-existing plastic bag bans, but some initial findings look promising. A plastic bag tax levied in Ireland in 2002 has reportedly led to a 95 percent reduction in plastic bag litter there. And a study by San Jose, California found that a 2011 ban instituted there has led to plastic litter reduction of “approximately 89 percent in the storm drain system, 60 percent in the creeks and rivers, and 59 percent in City streets and neighborhoods.”

Environmental groups continue to push for more plastic bag bans. “As U.S. natural gas production has surged and prices have fallen, the plastics industry is looking to ramp up domestic production,” reports the Earth Policy Institute. “Yet using this fossil fuel endowment to make something so short-lived, which can blow away at the slightest breeze and pollutes indefinitely, is illogical—particularly when there is a ready alternative: the reusable bag.”

CONTACTS: Worldwatch Institute; Earth Policy Institute.
- See more at: http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk/plastic-bag-bans#sthash.JGgqEOwO.dpuf

'Susan G. Komen Partners With Global Fracking Corporation to Launch “Benzene and Formaldehyde for the Cure®”'

What a Scam

San Francisco, CA – Breast Cancer Action today thanked Susan G. Komen and Baker Hughes for partnering on the most ludicrous piece of pink sh*t they’ve seen all year – 1,000 shiny pink drill bits. BCAction hailed this partnership as the most egregious example of “pinkwashing” they’ve ever seen and heartily lauded Komen and Baker Hughes for doing their bit to increase women’s risk of breast cancer with their toxic fracking chemicals.

BCAction commended Baker Hughes and Komen for their ingenious pinkwashing profit cycle, whereby Baker Hughes helps fuel breast cancer while Komen raises millions of dollars to try to cure it.

“With all the toxic chemicals Baker Hughes is pumping into the ground, we thought they didn’t care about women’s health. However, this partnership with Komen makes it clear where both organizations stand on this issue,” said Karuna Jaggar, executive director of Breast Cancer Action.

Breast Cancer Action coined the term pinkwashing as part of their Think Before You Pink® campaign to describe a company or organization that claims to care about breast cancer by promoting a pink ribbon product, but also produces, manufactures and/or sells products linked to the disease. Over 700 chemicals are commonly used in the process of drilling and fracking for oil and gas. At least 25% of these chemicals increase our risk of cancer.

“Komen has been notably absent from all discussions about fracking and breast cancer, but with these pink drill bits they are thrusting this issue onto the national stage,” Jaggar said. “Now people will learn how fracking relies on carcinogens like formaldehyde and benzene. Personally, I love a good dose of benzene with my pink ribbon.”

Baker Hughes is certainly “doing their bit” by fracking for gas and oil, which entails taking millions of gallons of water, mixing it with tens of thousands of gallons of chemicals and pumping the mixture underground at extreme pressure to break up rock formations and release oil or natural gas. Baker Hughes has been busy breaking up all those rock formations and injecting chemical-laden water deep underground – in 2013, the corporation made $22.4 billion drilling for gas and oil.

These drill bits are painted a specially commissioned pink to exactly match Komen’s brand color. Baker Hughes will use these pink drill bits to create an underground path for their special toxic mix of fracking chemicals that have a high chance of seeping into groundwater supplies and poisoning all living things in the vicinity, including women’s bodies.

“When future generations have to choose between safe drinking water and developing breast cancer, they can look back and thank Baker Hughes and Susan G. Komen,” Jaggar said.

Best regards,
Breast Cancer Action
657 Mission St., #302
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.243.9301
415.243.3996 (fax)
877.278.6722 (toll free)

Your help makes this work possible:
Challenging assumptions. Inspiring change.
http://www.bcaction.org/
http://www.thinkbeforeyoupink.org

Watch Morgan Freeman present an awesome vision of a green future

This short film, What’s Possible, kicked off the recent U.N. Climate Summit, presented and narrated by Morgan Freeman (as only Morgan Freeman can).

He puts in perspective what 'green' is all about and suggests we cut the political crap and use a common sense approach about the issues.....before it's too late. It's one of the best videos I've seen on the subject and encourage everyone to check it out.  View it HERE

Stop Toxic Air in Montana!

by Montana Environmental Information Center

PPL earned $1.1 billion in profits in 2013, and can afford to clean up its toxic air pollution. It just doesn’t want to spend the money. PPL just asked the State to give it another year before it has to control its toxic air pollution. Tell DEQ to say NO to this appalling corporate handout!
 



After decades of delay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adopted the first-ever federal limits for toxic air pollutants from coal-fired power plants in 2012. The regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), requires coal-fired power plants to reduce toxic air pollutants such as mercury, arsenic, and heavy metals by 2015. These pollutants harm public health, they harm the environment, and power plants have been pumping massive quantities of toxins into the air for far too long.

Now, PPL, the operator of the Colstrip coal plant, has asked the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for yet another delay – this time for an entire year – before having to control Colstrip’s toxic air pollution. DEQ should protect the public’s right to breathe clean air. It should protect public health not corporate polluters! It should just say NO!

Germany has hit a new clean energy milestone

So far this year, Germany has gotten more electricity from renewables than from any other single source, 27.7 percent. That (just barely) beats the 26.3 percent of power generated by lignite coal, according to Agora research organization.

Wind accounted for 9.5 percent of the power fed into the country’s grid in the first nine months of 2014, biomass for 8.1, solar for 6.8 percent, and hydropower for less than 4 percent.

Last year, Germany got 24.1 percent of its electricity from renewables, so it’s up more than 3 percent. German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government is aiming to get as much as 60 percent of the nation’s electricity from clean sources by 2035, even while phasing out nuclear power by 2022.

The U.S., by contrast, thanks to a broken and corrupt political system and a greedy do nothing congress, got just 6 percent of its electricity from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal last year, and other 7 percent from hydro.

October: Breast Cancer Awareness Scam Month




by Karuna Jagger
Executive Director
Breast Cancer Action

It’s Breast Cancer Industry Month and the pink floodgates have opened. And again we ask: what have all these pink ribbon products and promotions done for women living with and at risk of breast cancer?

Pinkwashing is now a household word. People understand that you always have to “follow the money” in pink ribbon marketing. We’ve exposed the hypocrisy in pink ribbon fundraising and achieved some momentous wins against corporations.

This October, we’re taking it further. We’re calling out the empty awareness, the misinformation, the profiteering, the pinkwashing, the degrading of women, the “tyranny of cheerfulness” that hides the harsh realities of this disease.

We’re sick of marketing giants raking in billions of pink ribbon dollars while women continue to be diagnosed with and die from this disease.

This October, we’re targeting some of the most outrageous pink ribbon promotions that exemplify everything that’s wrong with pink ribbon culture:

  • The NFL is spreading misinformation about breast cancer by repeating disproven and misleading advice about mammography screening in their “Crucial Catch” campaign. 
  • Kohls’ recent “Pink Elephant in the Room” promotion was outrageous profiteering; it exploited concern for women affected by breast cancer to make millions for the company.
  • Alhambra Water is pinkwashing by selling plastic polycarbonate water bottles which contain BPA, a hormone-disrupting chemical linked to breast cancer.
  • NASCAR is selling breast cancer awareness t-shirts that say “Check Your Headlights” which degrade women by objectifying and sexualizing women’s breasts and bodies.
  • Hooters’ breast cancer campaigns obscure the harsh reality of breast cancer by promoting a story of triumphant survivorship based on positive thinking, beauty tips, and sanitized, carefully chosen images of women.
  • Oriental Trading is spreading empty awareness via its endless supply of plastic pink ribbon trinkets – the company pockets all the money from these sales!
If these marketing giants really care about addressing breast cancer, they’ll Stop the Distraction! They’ll take bold action, provide evidence-based information, be accountable and transparent in their fundraising, stop degrading women, value women’s diversity, and stop hiding the harsh realities of this disease. READ >

Also, check out this blog. http://www.blogher.com/october-breat-cancer-awareness-scam-month-dont-be-fooled

McDonald's Restaurants Should be Reclassifed as Hazardous Toxic Dumpsites

Every mouthful of McDonalds meal contains a handful of chemicals that raise 'bad'cholesterol levels, increase diabetes risk, lower immunity, and damage DNA.
I had a weak moment last night and went to McDonald's. It's been a couple years since I last had a weak moment. Maybe it took that long to get the after taste out of my mouth. In spite the little voices telling me no, I went ahead anyway and ordered a Big Mac and a large of order of fries. Like in the picture above.

When I picked it up off the conveyor belt I almost sent it back. It looked disgusting. It didn't smell like food and it certainly didn't taste like food. AND it wasn't cheap, or that fast. $7.50 for an order toxic sludge. 

I can't believe they haven't been shut down by the FDA, the health department and every location be classified as a hazardous toxic dump site. And to think parents actually take their kids there to feed them and call it a TREAT! 

If it wasn't bad enough that I actually went inside one of these hazardous sites , an article appeared on my facebook postings today titled, "You'll Never Eat at McDonald's After Reading these 10 Horrifying Facts." Oh great. I wondered if it wasn't too late to undigest. 

It says, most people are aware that fast food is unhealthy and fattening, but did you know it could hurt your body in other ways as well?  Did you also know you're likely eating crushed beetles and/or duck feathers with your fast food burger? Here are some of the most disgusting additives you're eating: Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/09/youll-never-eat-mcdonalds-again-after-reading-these-10-horrifying-facts.html
You'll Never Eat McDonald's Again After Reading These 10 Horrifying Facts Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/09/youll-never-eat-mcdonalds-again-after-reading-these-10-horrifying-facts.html
You'll Never Eat McDonald's Again After Reading These 10 Horrifying Facts Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/09/youll-never-eat-mcdonalds-again-after-reading-these-10-horrifying-facts.html
You'll Never Eat McDonald's Again After Reading These 10 Horrifying Facts Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/09/youll-never-eat-mcdonalds-again-after-reading-these-10-horrifying-facts.html
You'll Never Eat McDonald's Again After Reading These 10 Horrifying Facts Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/09/youll-never-eat-mcdonalds-again-after-reading-these-10-horrifying-facts.html
You'll Never Eat McDonald's Again After Reading These 10 Horrifying Facts Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/09/youll-never-eat-mcdonalds-again-after-reading-these-10-horrifying-facts.html
You'll Never Eat McDonald's Again After Reading These 10 Horrifying Facts Read More: http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2014/09/youll-never-eat-mcdonalds-again-after-reading-these-10-horrifying-facts.html