Move over FDA - since you doing nothing but tuck yourself in bed with the companies you profess to regulate - Mike Adams has decided to take matters into his own hands with his own cutting edge laboratory. Looks like we'll soon be able to see what's really in all the food and beverages available on the market and one of the places I really look forward to him reviewing is Wholefoods, "Lookout Wholefoods," he says, "cause we're coming for ya." Here's a few of his introductory videos:
http://labs.naturalnews.com/Video-Forensic-Food-Lab-Announcement.html
http://labs.naturalnews.com/Video-Metals-Retention-Factor-Explained.html
http://labs.naturalnews.com/Video-Metals-Capturing-Capacity.html
And you can go to his website for more info:
... because it has practical information about what to eat before you eat something that contains toxic elements (as you might expect if you go out to eat) that will bind the the toxin so it doesn't get absorbed in the blood stream. Also, you'll see that radioactive iodine is not much of a concern from nuclear accidents, but cesium is.
Great post. Thanks.
He's a hero in my book. "If you want a job done right, you've gotta do it yourself."
Beyond the obvious health implications, this work also exemplifies just how useless government is in its service to humanity. Why are we supporting these buffoons with our tax dollars?
We so need independent monitoring like this. Go Mike Adams!!!
that point really hit home with me too. Here I was taking nascent iodine and zeolites thinking I was really staying ahead of the game and then Mike comes along and knocks the wind out of my sails. Not only is radiation danger centered more on cesium instead of iodine but now he's finding cadmium, lead and other dangerous metals in certain brands of raw cacao and other superfoods. But, hey, this is the stuff we need to know. I sure trust Mike Adams more than the USDA Organic symbol or FDA cerifications. You know, it used to really piss me off to see stickers saying, "WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm," on every raw organic unprocessed food I would buy (I have so many around the house it didn't take me long to find one of these stickers). Now after his explanation it makes much more sense. Processed foods don't have these dangerous metals and chemicals because they've had EVERYTHING stripped out, including the healthy vitamins and minerals that a body needs to survive. Man, they sure found a dirty loophole to scare the unaware consumer away from healthy foods. I mean, if you were pregnant or simply concerned about your health without really knowing any of this inside info chances are you would never buy anything with the above sticker attached. Of course I got to the point where I didn't trust or buy anything without it attached
But it sure makes me think there's a wicked chess match going on behind the scenes, because here they're not lying, similar to the flouride fiasco, wait, with flouride they are lying, see, I had to think about it, but they're using manipulative science and politics and clever word play to dupe the unassuming customer into purchasing their way. They have a way of tweaking things their way, either with or without force, until the average person just believes what they proclaim to be true. Well enough is enough, maybe now we'll finally begin getting some straight answers.
Good observations, Francis. Have you ever noticed that health food products like ketchup and mayonaise are labeled "imitation?" That's because the original recipe is made with sugar and the healthier version leaves it out.
Conversely, no special labeling is required for GMO foods even though you can't get more tainted than that. Heck, even MSG (monosodium glutamate) is disguised under a variety of euphemisms, including "natural flavoring."
Might I theorize that there might be a conspiracy going on here?
I finally joined a meat csa and feel great about it. (no need to join a veggy csa because we grow so much in our own garden) Time to stop buying and eating foods with labels at all. Go local - if you can talk to the person who grew it, it's a much safer bet.
I hope Mike eventually reorganizes his results by listing the foods with the highest absorption and retention factors for each heavy metal.
I enjoyed reading your posts about Mike Adams' lab project and your experience with stickers. I'll also second Noa's observation about how useless and insidious our satanic government is (although government, which literally means "mind control," is NEVER in service to humanity, only to it's own parasitical survival.)
Unfortunately, though, if you live in San Francisco, over the coming year you will start living with low level background Fukashima radiation anyway, so eating the right foods, while laudable, is only slowing down your contamination.
It's my guess that for the last three years, they've been constantly lying to us (surprise, surprise; what governments do best) while they try to come up with a plan to decommission the fuel rods. My speculation is that they will probably be rolling their plan out this year since the increase in incidents of sicknesses will begin to get obvious over the next five years or so.
What this plan is, and how much more effective it will be than Tepco simply spraying water on the fuel rods with a garden hose, is anybody's guess (of course I'm being facetious here, but given the seriousness of the catastrophe, I don't think I'm too far off in my description).
We will be dealing with this catastrophe for decades, and from the research I've done, I can't rule out Fukashima transforming into an extinction level event if these three reactors meltdown from another earthquake or some other act of Murphy's Law. And just like in the Nevil Shute novel "On the Beach," the radioactive cloud will get to us all eventually because the bottom line is those reactors are still leaking.
(Just in case Democracy Now! is not traditional enough for you).
... Fred's post here titled "Radiation Levels in California"? It's worth a read, for the sake of a balanced perspective.
I've looked at alternative "debunking" material and I don't buy it. The reactors are still leaking, and will continue to do so. While the effects aren't being felt now, they will eventually as it has been nearly three years since the event, and what do we see? Tepco still running the clean up? A damn corporation?
What is this "balanced perspective" you're referring to, Bob? Truth is singular; is radiation leaking out of three reactors 24/7 a problem or not? Is radiation harmful to humans or not?
Believe you me, government funded science and media will be investing billions to keep articles like the kind Fred is pointing to coming because quite simply, they don't have a solution. Besides, that article is kind of pointless since the radiation from Fukashima isn't estimated to arrive in CA until March.
First step in solving a problem is admitting you have one and getting out of denial. Just saying "Well the levels aren't so bad and a lot of exaggeration out there, so let's not lose our heads here" is absurd in my opinion. I'm not saying "be afraid," that's a reaction; I'm looking for a response which, in my view, we haven't had.
you can't solve an existing problem with the same thinking that caused the problem - and here I refer mainly to science and it's analytical left brain thinking which throughout history has sought to dissect the host in order to discover why it lives and breathes. I don't argue here that Fukishima is possibly the biggest disaster to happen to mankind in ages, but I do have a problem with "major scientific studies" put out by Academia which has a long history of releasing majorly biased and slanted "peer-reviewed" studies that tow the company line for whatever the day's power player agenda is as well as a general and far-reaching squashing and suppression of the truth of the real scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that could have liberated humanity from corporate corruption nearly one hundred years ago. As far as Michio Kaku goes, to be honest, whenever I hear him speak my spidey senses scream out fraud and hack, that he's nothing but a tool for today's corporate scientific agenda which seeks to keep the populace on fossil fuels and enmeshed in a veil of ignorance brought about by today's hopelessly clinical scientific thinking which still believes in, I would even say violently defends, isolationsim, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, chemo-therapy, the combustion engine, nuclear energy, nationalism, war, the list goes on and on, and these are exactly the areas of study, the "peer-reviewed studies," where the compartmentalized scientific thinking of our era has failed us. While Fukishima is clearly a dangerous situation and may even be poisoning me right now here in San Francisco while writing this, what I think we should learn from it is that we need to shut down and dismantle all remaining nulear reactors around the world, many of which sit on fault lines and are many more disasters waiting to happen right here in our backyards, no matter where you live. I'm sure I'll get some backlash for my views on science but it had to be said.
... I'm not disagreeing with you, Greg, because I don't know. And that's where I'm coming from: not knowing what to believe because the results of tests or studies can be skewed from all sides, either end, and by anyone involved, depending on their accepted beliefs or agenda. For example:
1) Here's one take on "the truth": Fukashima is the worst disaster in human history and could spell the end of human life on the planet. Tests prove this. So who do we have suspicions want this message to go out and be believed by everyone? The Globalist elite who want to use every disaster -- real, imagined, or exaggerated -- to scare us into giving up everything we have to give up to be "saved" by them under an authoritarian one-world government. ...So this is more or less the extreme case on one side.
2) Here's the opposite take: The Fukashima disaster is minor, overstated, and people are just getting into a fear mentality where they can't even evaluate the situation rationally. Tests prove this. And who do we have suspicions want this message to be believed by everyone? The exising power elite who own and conrol virtually all the power sources on the planet (nuclear and fossil and even new bio) and would like us to be comfortable with them so they can continue their monopoly and financial enslavement of mankind. ...And so this is more or less the case on the other side.
It can be argued "rationally" either way, just by cutting it a little differently. Makes sense either way, and I'm sure there are several shades in between. Whom can we truly trust? What's true? Unless we have the testing equipment in our own hands, we can't know. Wendy, from MA (see her post above) does have some equipment and says that so far, at least in MA, there doesn't appear to be a contamination problem. But time will tell. Do you personally know anyone in California who has tested for radiation? If not, then we have only the "truth" as rendered by 3rd party concerns whom we don't know, plus our own conditioning (ideas/beliefs we've absorbed that form the screen through which we see and evaluate things).
A relevant aside: You say that radiation from Fulkashima isn't destined to arrive until March. By air? By sea? How long would it take by air, by sea? Haven't we heard that it's alreay here? How long ago did Fukashima happen? I remember seeing a map of the US with the already contaminated areas shaded in (can't find that again right now, but it was supposedly the "official" word, the facts.) What's the truth here?
So, Greg, my comment about a more balanced perspective was about allowing in, for objective consideration, the opposite view, or a different view. You say that you've looked at the "alternative debunking" material and you don't buy it. You've even titled your post, "Disinfo." Well, that comes off as a conclusion right from the start of your argument (akin to "begging the question"). I don't know how thoroughly and openly you looked. In any case, you've decided what the truth is and that a different conclusion would be "denial." I mean to point out that most folks seem to have decided what's true -- even though precious few are in a position to actually know -- and they will proclaim that truth freely, even ferociously. My feeling: in most things that don't involve us personally, we don't know squat.
I confess that I'm weary of proclamations and pronouncements of "truth". We get it everywhere -- especially in the media, but also everyone seems to have an sure-thing bead on what's going on, from experts in suits and white coats to the drunk at the end of the bar. At this point in my life, I trust the viewpoint of "I don't know" far more than I do anything like "This is the way it is." At least that leaves some openness to a possibility different from what we believe. The truth may well come from outside the box of what we "know".
Finally, Francis, I completely agree that there's plenty of evidence that's been accumulated over the decades to show that it would be nuts to allow nuclear power to continue, for the reasons you lay out.