Wednesday, December 29, 2010

The Futuristic San Francisco!

            San Francisco is already one of the greenest cities in the US, but check out this wild new concept from IwamotoScott Architects to completely remake the city into an ecotopia in the near future (They say 2108, but if we as a society get our proverbial “shit” together, I believe we could easily make this a reality by somewhere closer to 2050!)
            The design, which is as visually stunning as it is thought-provoking, recently won the History Channel’s City of the Future competition. It’s a full-scale urban system that combines the most innovative green technologies with San Francisco’s unique microclimate and geologic conditions, to produce a compelling vision for the future. Hydro-Net, as the project is known, will bring the lovely city-by-the-bay squarely into the 22nd Century with algae-harvesting towers, geothermal energy ‘mushrooms’, and fog catchers which distill fresh water from San Francisco’s infamous fog.
            San Francisco’s Hydro-Net is perhaps the most remarkable, modern and futuristic concept ever envisioned for the City. And considering the hunt for alternative energy sources in the coming century, it’s extremely important! It is an extensive network of above ground and underground systems that fulfill infrastructural needs for the movement of people, water, hover-cars, and energy throughout the city. This network would connect water, power collection, and distribution systems across the city, forming one giant super-system.
           The hydrogen would in turn be used as fuel to run hover-cars in the underground tunnels. The network also includes fog catchers that harvest air moisture, ecotowers, and more. Sound crazy? Designers Lisa Iwamoto and Craig Scott, the partners of San Francisco-based design firm IwamotoScott, don’t think so, and frankly neither do I. The concept recently won the $10,000 grand prize for their entry in the City of the Future competition, organized by the History Channel.
     -Jean Claude

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

S510 "The Food Saftety" Act, DANGEROUS.

S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.

 This is what's scary about s510 

1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.


2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:




Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.


3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into "the United States." Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, "entry of food into the US" covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and "entering into" it by virtue of being produced.


4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.


5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds ­ How to criminalize them, for more details.


6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.


7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production ­ put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.


8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.


9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil- based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed the Five Pillars of Food Safety are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.


10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review.


For further information, watch these videos


Food Laws ­ Forcing people to globalize? Corporate Rule? Reclaiming Economies?

Friday, December 10, 2010


Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, gives a damning interview on the history of water fluoridation, the involvement of major industries to put certified toxic waste into our drinking water, and why government health authorities refuse to conduct scientific studies into the dangers of fluoridation. After watching this video I will never look at tap water the same way again.
Connett describes how he initially thought people who opposed fluoridation were “a bunch of whackos,” before conducting his own research which found that sodium fluoride was a toxic substance that contributed to a wide array of health defects. Heavy industry is barred from dumping this toxic waste into the sea by international law, but being able to sell it enables them to remove its hazardous characteristic and it becomes a product, explains Connett, polluting not only our water supply but also toothpaste and thousands of different foods.
Connett provides a detail run down of the many health problems caused by fluoride consumption, including dental fluorosis, which the Centers For Disease Control just recently announced was a problem for 41 per cent of children aged 12-15 in the United States, clearly indicating that children are being over-exposed to fluoride and that this is affecting other tissues and organs in the body, including bone disorders, a problem also wreaking havoc amongst adults in the United States as one in three now suffer from arthritis, which again is being caused by a build-up of toxic fluoride in the body. Connett also points to fluoride’s connection with thyroid disorders.
There have now been over 100 studies involving animals which show that fluoride damages the brain, stresses Connett, which is a particular concern for newborn babies who are susceptible to fluoride build up because of their weak blood-brain barrier. Connett cites numerous studies which prove a link between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. Another important fact is that when studying the dental health of people in fluoridated areas and non-fluoridated areas, research shows that there are no health benefits at all that can be achieved through fluoridating the water supply.
In my opinion Fluoride’s most detrimental impact is on the pineal gland, which is a piece of brain tissue that sits in-between the two hemispheres of the brain. The reason it’s so important is because fluoride attracts to our pineal gland like a magnet! Researchers have found through animal studies that fluoride lowers the ability of the pineal gland to produce the hormone melatonin. The pineal gland has also been described as our spiritual third eye so the calcification of this gland can have dramatic effects on our ability to acess higher levels of consciousness. 
        Connett shows how out of control health authorities in the United States have become, putting out studies that claim vaccines containing mercury is perfectly safe for babies’ brains, while regulating mercury emissions in every other field because it is highly toxic. They have taken a similar approach in the fluoride debate, issuing studies that claim sodium fluoride, a toxic waste which has been heavily regulated in the industrial world for decades, has many beneficial health advantages when ingested into the human body. This is fostering widespread distrust in government health agencies because scientists involved with them are overseeing a “sickening” cover-up of the fluoride issue, states Connett.
The case against fluoride demolishes the notion that fluoride has any rightful place in our public water supply!

Monday, December 6, 2010

From I-pad to I-thought.

Will Mac’s next computer be the Thought-Pad?

A new study, funded by the NIH and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, involved subjects having their brains hooked up to a computer displaying two images, and through thought-control, the subjects were able to make the computer display one image and discard the other.

This study was composed of 12 participants with epilepsy who had wires implanted in their brains to search for the areas causing a seizure. Wires were inserted in the medial temporal lobe, which is responsible for memory and the ability to recognize faces. Connected to a computer, each subject was shown two pictures on a computer screen and told to choose one and focus their thoughts on until it was the only one visible. Subjects had a 70 percent rate of success in forcing one image to show exclusively.

Brain-computer interfaces, or BCIs, allow people to control computers with their thoughts. They offer real hope for people with prosthetic limbs or suffering from paralysis. In this study, however, the focus was more on understanding the brain’s thought and decision making processes instead of performing tasks, such as controlling a cursor, as in previous BCI studies. Interestingly, signals from only a handful of cells were needed to cause the change to one image.

As Dr. Babcock, M.D., Ph. D. and program director at NINDS said, "The remarkable aspects of this study are that we can concentrate our attention to make a choice by modulating so few brain cells and that we can learn to control those cells very quickly.” This is astounding, especially considering that visual comprehension, memories, information, and decision-making are all involved in a choice like the one in this study.