Who's the Conspiracy Theorist Now? Gov't Scaring the Public with Aliens, Asteroids, and Global Pandemics

October 2010
By Nicholas West
activistpost.com 

"Is everything a conspiracy? No, just the important stuff." 

-- Jeff Wells, Rigorous Intuition

 

Pandemics, Aliens, and Asteroids -- Oh My! It appears that the corporate-government-media has recently become the number one propagator of conspiracy theories. That is, of course, as long as the fear campaign pushes the right buttons for the agenda.

The dumbed-down public will always be led by fear until they realize that no major events happen by mistake in the matrix. All major events, reactions, and proposed solutions are thoroughly orchestrated and performed by the power players. They hit all the right notes, all of the time, save for some minor tuning as needed.

It's convenient for establishment leaders to claim that major events are mistakes. For example, we're told the attacks of September 11th were a massive failure on the part of the intelligence community. Additionally, we're told that the "idiots" on Wall Street did not see the housing collapse coming, or predict the 2008 financial meltdown, or the recent currency wars, or the recent gold and commodity rush.

t's the typical story told to the public when catastrophe strikes: whoops, who could have seen that coming? Even some of the most enlightened minds that predicted these events still call the people in charge "stupid" for not seeing or adapting to it. Perhaps many of the useful idiots who run the gears of the system don't know the fundamentals well enough to predict events, but the true controllers know exactly what they're doing, what reaction they will get, and what calculated solution will ultimately give them more power and wealth.

We all witnessed the incredible consolidation of wealth and power orchestrated by our corrupt state since the 9/11 attacks, all at the expense of the common man's treasure, blood, and rights -- all caused by 19 (U.S. funded) extremists with box cutters who came from caves. Only scared little sheep could believe that theory, especially given what has transpired to date.

Yesterday's article in AOL News announced that Obama's science czar John Holdren is concerned about threats of asteroid impacts on Earth. While a valid concern, the timely disclosure seems to be yet another attempt to reach out to the alternative media. This comes after the increasing stories which seem to be leading up to revealing the alien threat to the public, while other new threats of currency wars and new pandemics

However, the 9/11 problem-reaction-solution playbook seems stale, as Al-Qaeda seems less scary by the day. The matrix is now moving on to the next stage of fear campaigns with aliens, asteroids, more pandemics, and more manufactured economic catastrophes. This is their all-out attempt to hit us with full spectrum fear. It seems that if the establishment can't defeat the "conspiracy" crowd, they'll seek to distract, divert, or co-opt it to the best of their ability. As a sign of their desperation to control free humanity, their version of the threats facing us read more like a comic book or a science fiction script, rather than news about actual events.

For those who doubt that any of our multi-threats could have been orchestrated, I suggest you look around to see which part of society actually has benefited from terror and the constant threat of more terror. The conclusion should be clear: The Mega-Cartels that seek higher levels of control over their slave population. abound.

 
Source: activistpost.com
Source: http://www.redicecreations.com

Study: Alcohol 'Most Harmful Drug': Followed by Crack and Heroin

November 1, 2010

By the CNN Wire Staff

Alcohol ranks "most harmful" among a list of 20 drugs, beating out crack and heroin when assessed for its potential harm to the individual imbibing and harm to others, according to study results released by a British medical journal.

A panel of experts from the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs weighed the physical, psychological, and social problems caused by the drugs and determined that alcohol was the most harmful overall, according to an article on the study released by The Lancet on Sunday.

Using a new scale to evaluate harms to individual users and others, alcohol received a score of 72 on a scale of 1 to 100, the study says. It was compared to 19 other drugs using 16 criteria: nine related to the adverse effects the drug has on an individual and seven on its harm against others.

That makes it almost three times as harmful as cocaine or tobacco, according to the article, which is slated to be published on The Lancet's website Monday and in an upcoming print edition of the journal.

Heroin, crack cocaine and methamphetamine were the most harmful drugs to individuals, the study says, while alcohol, heroin and crack cocaine were the most harmful to others.

In the article, the panelists said their findings show that Britain's three-tiered drug classification system, which places drugs into different categories that determine criminal penalties for possession and dealing, has "little relation to the evidence of harm."

Panelists also noted that the rankings confirm other studies that say that "aggressively targeting alcohol harms is a valid and necessary public health strategy."

The Lancet article was co-authored by David Nutt, a professor and Britain's former chief drug adviser, who caused controversy last year after he published an article saying ecstasy was not as dangerous as riding a horse.

"So why are harmful sporting activities allowed, whereas relatively less harmful drugs are not?" Nutt wrote in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. "I believe this reflects a societal approach which does not adequately balance the relative risks of drugs against their harms."

Nutt later apologized to to anyone offended by the article and to those who have lost loved ones to ecstasy. He said he had no intention of trivializing the dangers of the drug and that he only wanted to compare the risks.

In the article released by The Lancet on Sunday, ecstasy's harmfulness ranking -- 9 -- indicates it is only one-eighth as harmful as alcohol.

The study was funded by the London-based Centre for Crime and Justice studies.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com

 

NASA is Building a 'Solar Shield' to Protect Power Grids from Space Weather

October 2010

Solar Weather NASA/SDO

 

 

They’re out there, biding their time. Waiting patiently. And when you least expect it, they’re going to plunge you and everyone you care about into total darkness. Luckily, we can see solar storms coming from about 93 million miles away, and NASA is now in the process of creating a “Solar Shield” that should be able to minimize the damage to power grids caused by electromagnetic disturbances in the atmosphere and ground caused by foul weather on the sun.

The threat to power grids during bad solar weather is known as GIC, or geomagnetically induced current. When the sun ejects a huge coronal mass in our direction, the impact with our atmosphere shakes up Earth’s magnetic field. That generates electric currents from the upper atmosphere all the way down to the ground. These can cripple power grids, overloading circuits and in some cases melting heavy-duty transformers.

Those transformers are very necessary to keep the power flowing. They’re also expensive, irreparable in the field, and can take a year to replace. Meaning that a massive coronal ejection could knock down entire power grids for long stretches of time, grinding economies to a halt and making life more than a little inconvenient.

But NASA has a plan to battle these blackouts with blackouts. If transformers are offline at the time the storm hits they will not be affected, so the trick is to figure out where and when a storm is going to hit before it reaches the atmosphere. To do that, NASA’s SOHO and two STEREO spacecraft identify a coronal mass ejection (CME) heading toward earth and create a 3-D image of it, allowing researchers to characterize its strength and determine when it will hit.

Depending on the intensity of the CME, the trip from sun to Earth can take 24-48 hours. NASA would track the CME across the sky, with the pivotal moment coming about 30 minutes prior to impact when the storm comes screaming past the ACE spacecraft, something like 930,000 miles from Earth. Sensors aboard ACE gather more data on the storm’s speed, magnetic field, and density that is fed into computer models at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

With less than 30 minutes until impact, NASA’s models calculate the places most likely to be impacted with dangerous GIC and utilities are notified so they can pull their grids offline. This will cause a blackout in the region, but only a temporary one. When the storm ends, the grids come back online and life goes on.

Solar Shield is experimental at this point, and its hard to know how successful it will be, mainly because it hasn’t had the trial by fire it needs to see if it works. Solar weather has been fairly quiet this year, so the team hasn’t been able to gather the data it needs. But considering we’re going into a period of increased solar activity (solar weather ebbs and flows cyclically) that will peak in 2013, Solar Shield will likely get its chance soon enough.

NASA Science News

Source: http://www.popsci.com

Glowing Plants Have Gold in Their Veins

November 2010 

by Yuriko Nagano

The glowing vegetation of the moon Pandora from the movie Avatar may become reality if a Taiwanese group of researchers have their way. The team have created a living light source using gold nanoparticles.

The researchers, headed by Yen Hsun Su of the Research Center for Applied Sciences at the Academia Sinica in Taipei, dipped Bacopa caroliniana, an aquatic plant used commonly in indoor aquaria, into a solution of these nanoparticles, which diffuse into the plant's cells after a day or so. The plants are then exposed to ultraviolet rays, which energise electrons in the nanoparticles and cause them to emit a violet-blue light. That light in turn makes the chlorophyll fluoresce and emit red light.

The nanoparticles stayed in the leaves for between two weeks to two months.

Read full story at New Scientist

Look Out, Your Medicine is Watching You: 18 Month Outlook as Big Pharma Pushes Smart Pill Forward

November 2010

Reuters – Trevor Mundel, Head of Pharma Development at Novartis Pharma and a member of the Pharma Executive Committee …

 

 Novartis AG plans to seek regulatory approval within 18 months for a pioneering tablet containing an embedded microchip, bringing the concept of "smart-pill" technology a step closer.

The initial program will use one of the Swiss firm's established drugs taken by transplant patients to avoid organ rejection. But Trevor Mundel, global head of development, believes the concept can be applied to many other pills.

"We are taking forward this transplant drug with a chip and we hope within the next 18 months to have something that we will be able to submit to the regulators, at least in Europe," Mundel told the Reuters Health Summit in New York.

"I see the promise as going much beyond that," he added.

Novartis agreed in January to spend $24 million to secure access to chip-in-a-pill technology developed by privately owned Proteus Biomedical of Redwood City, California, putting it ahead of rivals.

The biotech start-up's ingestible chips are activated by stomach acid and send information to a small patch worn on the patient's skin, which can transmit data to a smartphone or send it over the Internet to a doctor.

Mundel said the initial project was focused on ensuring that patients took drugs at the right time and got the dose they needed -- a key issue for people after kidney and other transplant operations, when treatment frequently needs adjustment.

Longer-term, he hopes to expand the "smart pill" concept to other types of medicine and use the wealth of biometric information the Proteus chip can collect, from heart rate and temperature to body movement, to check that drugs are working properly.

Because the tiny chips are added to existing drugs, Novartis does not expect to have to conduct full-scale clinical trials to prove the new products work. Instead, it aims to do so-called bioequivalence tests to show they are the same as the original.

A bigger issue may be what checks should be put in place to protect patients' personal medical data as it is transmitted from inside their bodies by wireless and Bluetooth.

"The regulators all like the concept and have been very encouraging. But ... they want to understand how we are going to solve the data privacy issues," Mundel said.

A technology that ensures a patient takes his or her medicine and checks that it is working properly should deliver better outcomes and justify a higher price tag.

 

reuters

Source: http://beforeitsnews.com

Has Belfast Film-maker Found Time Travel Evidence?

October 2010

A Belfast film-maker has posted a video on the internet showing what he says could be evidence of time travelling.

George Clarke from east Belfast has been puzzled for more than a year by a scene in a film which appears to show a woman talking on a mobile phone.

The unusual thing is that the movie was made by Charlie Chaplin in 1928 - long before mobile phones were invented.

In the eight days since George posted the clip on Youtube - more than 1.5m people have viewed the video online.

Even the US talk show host Jay Leno created his own spoof version.

George was checking the extras on a Chaplin DVD box-set and began watching a clip of the 1928 Hollywood premiere of The Circus.

"As I sat back to watch it I realised in the first 30 seconds there's A lady strolling by with her hand up to her ear which looked quite familiar in today's society.

"So I wound it back and watched it again, zoomed it in and slowed it down and got other people in to check it out.

"Everybody had the same reaction - it looks like she's talking on a mobile phone."

He has since showed the clip to a number of people, including the audience of a Belfast film festival. He said no-one has been able to provide an explanation.

Since posting it on Youtube it has had more that 1.5m views and provoked 10,000 comments.

"A mystery like this one, bottom line I don't think we're ever going to find out," George said.

"My initial reaction was that's a mobile phone, they weren't around then, my only explanation - and I'm pretty open-minded about the sci-fi element of things - it was kind of like wow that's somebody that's went back in time." 

Source: www.bbc.co.uk

Say Cheese: 15 Fascinating Facts About Smiling!

July 12th, 2010

Everyone loves the quote "laughter is the best medicine".

In fact, smiling can boost your mood and even your immune system. Keep reading for more fascinating facts about our smiles.

1. Forcing yourself to smile can boost your mood: Psychologists have found that even if you're in bad mood, you can instantly lift your spirits by forcing yourself to smile.
2. It boosts your immune system: Smiling really can improve your physical health, too. Your body is more relaxed when you smile, which contributes to good health and a stronger immune system.
3. Smiles are contagious: It's not just a saying: smiling really is contagious, scientists say. In a study conducted in Sweden, people had difficulty frowning when they looked at other subjects who were smiling, and their muscles twitched into smiles all on their own.
4. Smiles Relieve Stress: Your body immediately releases endorphins when you smile, even when you force it. This sudden change in mood will help you feel better and release stress.
5. It's easier to smile than to frown: Scientists have discovered that your body has to work harder and use more muscles to frown than it does to smile.
6. It's a universal sign of happiness: While hand shakes, hugs, and bows all have varying meanings across cultures, smiling is known around the world and in all cultures as a sign of happiness and acceptance.
7. We still smile at work: While we smile less at work than we do at home, 30% of subjects in a research study smiled five to 20 times a day, and 28% smiled over 20 times per day at the office.
8. Smiles use from 5 to 53 facial muscles: Just smiling can require your body to use up to 53 muscles, but some smiles only use 5 muscle movements.
9. Babies are born with the ability to smile: Babies learn a lot of behaviors and sounds from watching the people around them, but scientists believe that all babies are born with the ability, since even blind babies smile.
10. Smiling helps you get promoted: Smiles make a person seem more attractive, sociable and confident, and people who smile more are more likely to get a promotion.
11. Smiles are the most easily recognizable facial expression: People can recognize smiles from up to 300 feet away, making it the most easily recognizable facial expression.
12. Women smile more than men: Generally, women smile more than men, but when they participate in similar work or social roles, they smile the same amount. This finding leads scientists to believe that gender roles are quite flexible. Boy babies, though, do smile less than girl babies, who also make more eye contact.
13. Smiles are more attractive than makeup: A research study conducted by Orbit Complete discovered that 69% of people find women more attractive when they smile than when they are wearing makeup.
14. There are 19 different types of smiles: UC-San Francisco researcher identified 19 types of smiles and put them into two categories: polite "social" smiles which engage fewer muscles, and sincere "felt" smiles that use more muscles on both sides of the face.
15. Babies start smiling as newborns: Most doctors believe that real smiles occur when babies are awake at the age of four-to-six weeks, but babies start smiling in their sleep as soon as they're born.

Source: www.nursingschools.net

Earth May Have Had Water From Day One

November 2010
By David Shiga
Magazine issue 2785

In the beginning, there was water. Earth's life-sustaining liquid came from the dust from which the planet was born, a new look at these particles suggests, and not simply from collisions with objects that later crashed into the planet from space.

The origin of the oceans has long been a mystery. Earth's birthplace in the dusty nebula around the young sun should have been hot enough to keep any water vaporised. So it seemed clear that the dust that coalesced to create Earth was bone dry, and that water somehow arrived later.

Ice-rich comets or asteroids from farther out in the solar system could have supplied it, but that raises a further problem. Comets are richer in deuterium, a stable heavy isotope of hydrogen, than Earth's oceans. And asteroids should have brought more platinum and other rare elements than have been found. These mismatches are difficult to explain if most of Earth's water came from impacts.

Read the full story at newscientist.com

Earth Passing Into the Cosmic "Energy Cloud"

October 2010

By Lawrence E. Joseph

On Christmas Eve, 2009, the startling hypothesis that our Solar System, the Sun and all its planets, are moving into a potentially dangerous and destabilizing interstellar energy cloud, was resoundingly sustained. In their research paper, "A strong, highly-tilted interstellar magnetic field near the Solar System," published the December 24, 2009 issue of Nature, a highly respected scientific journal, M. Opher et al report on data transmitted from Voyager, the twin spacecraft that have been exploring the outer reaches of the Solar System since 1977.

"We have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the solar system. This magnetic field holds the interstellar energy cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all," says Opher, a NASA Heliophysics Guest Investigator from George Mason University. He explains that this energy cloud is at least twice as strong as had previously been predicted and that the Solar System has begun to pass into it, adding that this field "is turbulent or has a distortion in the solar vicinity."

In fact, most scientists had either minimized the possible significance of the interstellar energy cloud or dismissed the whole notion of its existence altogether. But not Dr. Alexei Dmitriev, the esteemed Russian space physicist whom I visited in Akademgorodok, a clandestine scientific research city outside of Novosibirsk, Siberia. In my recent book, Apocalypse 2012: An Investigation into Civilization's End, I detailed Dmitriev's conclusions, based on his team's analysis of Voyager data, that the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune are inexplicably excited -- immense storms, mammoth eruptions, plasma arcs jetting from the planets' surface to their moons. He reasoned that this turbulence is caused by an external injection of energy into the planets' atmospheres: to wit, an interstellar energy cloud which the leading edge of the Solar System has now entered.

The Nature article does not examine the earthly ramifications of moving into the energy cloud beyond suggesting that we could face an increase in cosmic rays, which could affect everything from space travel to rainfall. But the prescient Dmitriev, who has been publishing on the subject for the past fifteen years, observes that passage into this interstellar cloud has already begun to perturb the Sun, causing solar outbursts that are leading to hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes of unprecedented ferocity here on Earth. He is on record as predicting that we will face global catastrophe in "not tens but ones of years." When pressed, Dmitriev guesstimates that the Solar System will remain within this turbulent energy cloud for something on the order of three millennia.

The confirmation of Dmitriev's interstellar energy cloud hypothesis marks the third time that major predictions made in Apocalypse 2012 have been validated since it was published in 2007. Much of the book concerned the potential impacts of solar turbulence on climatic and seismic events, on the global satellite network and also the electrical power grid. Lo and behold, in December, 2008, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a 100+ page report detailing the grave vulnerability of the electrical power grid to solar blasts, which, by scientific consensus, are next expected to climax in late 2012 or early 2013. The NAS concludes that up to 130 million people could find themselves without electricity for months or years due to solar mega-storms shorting out the grid. Without telecommunications, water or gasoline (the pumps are electric), refrigeration, and basic law enforcement or military security, civilization as we know it would be brought to its knees.

Apocalypse 2012 also reported extensively on evidence that the Earth's protective magnetic shield is showing signs of realignment and deterioration, a hypothesis emphatically validated in December, 2008, THEMIS, a squadron of five NASA research satellites unexpectedly flew through a giant, pole-to-equator breach in our planet's magnetic field. The astrophysicists attached to the THEMIS project were utterly astonished by the e data, with David Sibeck, the project leader, going so far as to declare that "it was as though the Sun rose in the west." The shields are down, Scotty, and the Sun is going to begin pummeling us big time in late 2012 or early 2013.

Our space neighborhood is changing, and not for the better. We need to take precautions to defend our home planet, our way of life, starting right now.

Source: huffingtonpost.com

Source: www.redicecreations.com

4 Simple Ways to Minimize Household Chemicals

November 2, 2010
By Mary Hickcox, RN

We are addicted to chemicals:  bleach, ammonia, window cleaner, toilet bowl cleaner, drain cleaner, shampoo, body wash, laundry detergent, fabric softener, conditioner, deodorant, toothpaste, body creams, shave gel, dish soap, antibacterial spray, deodorizer, mildew remover, and the list goes on and on. We have been convinced that we need these products in order to keep natural odors and bacteria, mold, and germs at bay. But the cost is staggering in many ways.   

They cause environmental damage, personal harm from an incredible amount of toxic chemicals combined in a day, and finally there's the actual financial cost.  Consequently, in the long run we spend all this money unnecessarily, given our access to easy and natural alternatives.

I'm as guilty as the next person, having spent loads of money on all these products over the years without considering the impact they had.  Admittedly, I even thought people were downright strange for some of the alternative products they were using.  I have slowly been awoken!

Having concerns about the chemicals that we exposed our children to was really the spark for us to investigate further.  We knew what we were doing was not great, but it took some research to really get on board with living more naturally.  I suppose the first step for me was deciding to use cloth diapers for my youngest son.  It was far easier than I thought it would be and it made me feel terrific about saving money and reducing our rubbish.  I began to wonder where else I could simplify our needs.

This year I saw The Story of Cosmetics, which had a major impact on me.  I was shocked by the abundance of chemicals we expose ourselves to unnecessarily.  It really forced me to question what we were doing to ourselves, our children, and the planet. When talking to a good friend about how we could change our ways, she said to me, “well you just do the best you can do.”  At that moment, I realized that I may tell myself I'm doing my best, but I knew that I wasn't, and I knew I could do more.  Most importantly, it gave me the the desire to do better.

The following are simple ways that anyone can minimize household chemicals and save money.  Come on -- you know you can do better:

1. Vinegar and more vinegar

It's easy:  just stop buying all those products to clean your home and replace them all with plain white vinegar and you’ll see a huge savings on your grocery bill. 

Does it really work though?  I know that it seems crazy, because if it were true surely everyone would already be doing it, right?  Well, I have a very messy family of 5 including 3 boys under 12, two dogs, the occasional free-range chicken roaming in the kitchen, and vinegar still does the trick every time.  

It is inexpensive, natural, safe, and kills 99% of bacteria and 85% of molds and germs. 

Vinegar works great on windows, floors, ceramic, counters, toilets, as a fabric softener, as an ant deterrent, and so much more.  

One common concern is if it leaves that sour odor behind -- I can assure you it does not.  We use a 50/50 (water/vinegar) mix to keep it easy, and within 10 minutes after cleaning any surface the smell has dissipated.  

It is easy, better for you and the environment, and you'll save a fortune.  I spend about $4 per month on vinegar, compared to over $30 that I was spending on various products it has replaced.  Buying natural (green) products may be a better option, chemically (if you can believe the label), but they typically come with an astronomically high price tag attached. 

Plain white vinegar is your best bet.

2. Baking Soda

What cannot be accomplished using vinegar can most likely be accomplished using another safe, cost effective item: baking soda.  It is a great odor eliminator and fire extinguisher, so many of us already have some in the house.  

The simple ways that our family benefits from baking soda is as a deodorant and as an abrasive cleaner.  For deodorant, simply put some in a Tupperware container with dried lavender, dip a powder puff in and apply after your shower.  My husband was a skeptic and hesitant to try it at first, but after the first day he could not deny its effectiveness.  It's far safer than any deodorant on the market (you can also use a crystal stick, but we prefer baking soda).  

At less then a dollar for a two-person month's worth, you will save big by swapping your deodorant for baking soda.  As an abrasive cleaner you can make a paste with a small amount of water, dip a sponge in and scrub away.  Effective, easy, and safe!  To live a more chemical-free lifestyle be sure to keep lots of this stuff on hand; it has many uses.

3. Make your own laundry detergent

Laundry detergent is one of the things that can greatly affect us; it covers most things that touch us and it is one of the more expensive items on any grocery list.  I make over 300 ounces of detergent in 10 minutes and it costs around $4, while Tide would cost $45-$50 for a comparable amount.  

I use about the same amount as I would with a normal detergent, so clearly the savings is incredible.  

To make an easy, effective detergent I grate a bar of soap (biodegradable, safe, and neutral bar of soap), throw it in a saucepan with a small amount of water, and cook until it is melted (about 5 minutes).  Take 2 gallons of hot, not boiling, water and add the soap to it.  Stir until dissolved, add 2 cups of baking soda and a few drops of tea tree oil or your preferred blend of essential oils, stir and pour into adequate containers.  I find that shaking the detergent before using ½ cup per large load is most effective.  It literally takes under 10 minutes to make, works wonderfully, and not only is safer for my family and the Earth, it also saves me at least $250-$300 per year.  

There are many recipes out there on the Web, but I find this to be the easiest and most cost effective.

4. Dr. Bronner’s Castile Soap

There are many brands of castile soap out there, but I find Dr. Bronner’s to be a great value for an exceptional product.  It is all vegetable based, fair trade, organic and completely biodegradable.  It's very easy to get as it can be ordered online or found at popular stores like Target. 

Castile soap can be used for many things, but we primarily use it for showering.  It can be used as shave gel, body wash, shampoo and even toothpaste.  I re-use an old 32-ounce shampoo bottle and put ¼ cup of castile soap and the rest water.  This combination seems to work well, but again, you can add various essential oils depending on taste and effectiveness as well.  It will be a bit more watery then you may be accustomed to, but believe me it works delightfully.  It also has an oil base, so I find that even with my thick hair I usually do not need any conditioner.  

The diversity of uses is amazing and at $10-$15 per 32-ounce bottle,  figured with conservative dilution levels, it is far more cost effective than most shampoos or body washes, regular or green.

Take Action

These days we all spend a lot of time on the Internet, so why not spend some extra time researching what you can do to keep your family and the planet healthy?  There are numerous blogs and sites that can offer a wealth of knowledge on all types of natural, easy-to-make and use products.  If one thing you try doesn’t seem to work, then just look up a different recipe and try that; the information is out there we just need to be willing to seek it out and apply it.

All in all, these really are simple changes to make; it is just a matter of setting your mind to it.  I have continually been amazed at how easy it has been to make these changes, and how rewarding it feels to know I really am doing my best to make a difference in my household.  The information may feel overwhelming at times, especially when you see how toxic most commercial products are for you. But if you start simply and have faith that even one change can make a difference, you're on your way.

Change can be a challenge, especially when you are initiating it for the entire family.  Explain to them why it is so important and ensure them it will work and hopefully they will be accepting of your choices.  In my case, as the homemaker, I just implemented them by force -- ultimately to the approval of the clan. If you're a skeptic, then try changing just one product a month as an experiment. Within 6 months you will be able to look what you have done with pride that you saved money and created a healthier household and environment.

Author Mary Hickcox is a Registered Nurse, unschooling advocate, mother, and life guide to three sons (11, 7, 3).

RECENTLY by Mary Hickcox:

• A Journey to Unschooling
• 4 Ways to Change the Way We View Education

Source: www.activistpost.com

Beer Lubricated the Rise of Civilization, Study Suggests

November 2010
By Charles Q. Choi

May beer have helped lead to the rise of civilization? It's a possibility, some archaeologists say.

Their argument is that Stone Age farmers were domesticating cereals not so much to fill their stomachs but to lighten their heads, by turning the grains into beer. That has been their take for more than 50 years, and now one archaeologist says the evidence is getting stronger.

Signs that people went to great lengths to obtain grains despite the hard work needed to make them edible, plus the knowledge that feasts were important community-building gatherings, support the idea that cereal grains were being turned into beer,  said archaeologist Brian Hayden at Simon Fraser University in Canada.

Read the full story at www.livescience.com

Removing the Mercury From Your Teeth

November 2010

By Dr. Lina Garcia, DDS, DMD

For decades, it’s been known that mercury is dangerous to human health because it accumulates in the body and damages its cells.  Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause memory loss, headaches, loss of coordination, weakness, kidney damage, respiratory damage, infertility, birth defects, and psychiatric effects.  Mercury has also been linked to multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, arthritis, and lupus. As Dr. Mercola mentioned in his October 12, 2010 newsletter, mercury-amalgam fillings are essentially unethical human experiments:  “If you have “silver” amalgam dental fillings, I’m sorry to say that you, too, have been the subject of an ill-fated experiment. In the words of Charlie Brown, president of the World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry:  “Amalgam is a primitive, polluting, 19th century product that began when physicians were sawing off legs. Medicine has since moved forward.” Unfortunately, this aspect of dentistry has not. The American Dental Association (ADA) continues to give amalgam (mercury) fillings their seal of approval despite the known fact that mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can damage your brain, central nervous system and kidneys. A single dental amalgam filling releases as much as 15 micrograms of mercury per day, which is absorbed directly into your body. Canada advised dentists to stop placing amalgam in children and pregnant women in 1996 — nearly 15 years ago! Denmark, Norway and Sweden have essentially banned amalgams. But in the United States, they’re still regarded as the “gold standard” of dental care — unfortunately once again at the expense of your health.” Many of you have probably decided to take the next step toward better health by removing your mercury fillings. But have you considered what material will replace your old amalgam?  This choice is incredibly important. If you do not use the most biocompatible material available, you may compromise your wellbeing and take a step backwards in your health, rather than forward. Don’t undermine your healthy choice to remove your mercury-amalgam fillings by restoring them with harmful materials! Patients today have several choices when it comes to selecting dental restoration materials: porcelain, composite resin, all-metal, and porcelain-fused-to-metal. Porcelain is an Excellent Choice  I believe that the ideal replacement for a mercury-amalgam filling is an all-porcelain inlay or onlay. Porcelain is a ceramic material that most closely resembles natural tooth enamel in terms of appearance and functionality, and it is the most biocompatible restoration material available on the market today. (“Biocompatible” means that it is as neutral as possible when placed in your mouth, and it is most agreeable with the rest of your body.) Porcelain is the best choice, even if biocompatibility tests conclude that you would be okay with other materials like gold, platinum, or composite resins (made of an acrylic plastic). Why? Because porcelain is chemically inert and does not contain any ionized metal or plastic. Composites are Weak and Contain Plastic  The plastic content in composite resin fillings and bondings make them susceptible to shrinkage and dilation in response to temperature changes, such as when you drink hot or cold liquids. This can affect the seal between the filling and the tooth and allow bacteria to leak under the material, which can cause tooth sensitivity and decay. Composites are also relatively weak — they wear down much faster than natural tooth enamel, which can lead fractures and tooth loss. In addition, dental composites typically contain compounds that are derived from bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical that is potentially toxic. BPA mimics the body’s natural hormones (specifically, estrogen), disrupting the function of the endocrine system.  BPA has been shown to affect reproduction and brain development in animal studies. In humans, it has been identified as a possible cause of breast and uterine cancer, prostate cancer, decreased testosterone levels, and developmental effects in children. (This is why we currently favor drinking water out of glasses rather than plastic bottles, why parents are switching to BPA-free baby bottles, and why lawmakers are pushing for restrictions on BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, and other food containers.) Be Careful Not All Porcelains are Created Equal  You need to be aware that when a conventional dentist uses porcelain as a replacement material the base of the actual replacement is actually a metal and then it is covered with porcelain. The next section discusses some of the problems with using metals in your mouth.  Ideally you would want a metal-free porcelain replacement to avoid the problem with electric currents that may interfere with the proper functioning of your brain. Metals Cause Galvanic Activity and Immunological Responses  Metal restorations can cause a large number of harmful side effects, so these are the worst choice for replacing your amalgam fillings. Metal crowns, inlays, and onlays constantly release metal ions into patients’ mouths due to corrosion and galvanism. These ions are distributed through the lymphatic system and bloodstream to the entire body.  This constant exposure to metallic ions can cause toxic, allergic, and immunologic reactions. Depending on their genetic makeup, individuals may tolerate more or less exposure to metals before showing adverse systemic effects.  The immunological effects of metals can be either very general, such as the activation or suppression of the immune system, or very specific, such as allergy, inflammation, and autoimmunity (any disease in which the body attacks itself, like multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis).  Furthermore, metal restorations cause galvanic activity. Dental metals contain all the ingredients you need to create a charged battery in your mouth. A battery only requires two or more different metals and a liquid that can conduct electricity (i.e., an electrolyte), like saliva.  An electric current, called a galvanic current, is generated by the transportation of the metal ions from the metal-based dental restorations into your saliva.  This is called “oral galvanism.” Oral galvanism increases the rate of corrosion of metal restorations, causing even more metallic ions to be released into your body. It can also cause a constant metallic or salty taste or a burning sensation in your mouth, unexplained pain, nerve shocks, ulcerations, and inflammation.  Moreover, there is concern that oral galvanism directs electrical currents into brain tissue and can disrupt the natural electrical current in the brain.  Even if you have only one metal filling or crown in your mouth, you may still be exposed to galvanic toxicity. All-metal and metal-fused-to-porcelain restorations can contain any number of different metals, because they are always made of alloys (metal blends). No pure metals are used, not even gold, because the physical characteristics are inappropriate.  Since I am dedicated to providing my patients with the most biocompatible treatments available, my dental practice is completely metal-free.  Even though researchers are beginning to test metal sensitivity in patients and test the role of metals in chronic disease, I take my practice one step further by offering only ceramic implants and restorations, even if test results show that a patient can tolerate a particular metal.  I believe that most people WILL respond immunologically to ionized metals — if not today, then at some point in the future, as a result of cumulative dental, medical, and environmental exposure.  Therefore, I choose only the best materials currently available in order to fulfill my patients’ functional and cosmetic needs while minimizing the toxicity in their mouths (which could influence the rest of their bodies). And right now, ceramics are the most biocompatible choice. What About Aluminum and Zirconium Oxides?  Many patients ask, “Doesn’t porcelain contain aluminum oxide, which is a metal?” Most ceramics, including porcelain and zirconia (which we use for dental implants and bridges), consist of one or more varieties of a metal oxide, a compound of a metal and oxygen.  But these oxides are NOT cause for concern, because ceramics do NOT release metallic ions into your mouth.  Once the metal is chemically bonded to the oxygen (or “oxidized”), it becomes a chemically inert, non-metallic ceramic. The metal is completely bound and is part of a crystalline lattice structure; it is no longer available to ionize or dissociate and bind chemically with our tissues when placed in the body. (The binding to our tissues is what creates toxicity concerns.)  An oxidized metal no longer acts like a metal — for example, its electrons are not available for donation and therefore does not cause galvanic activity — which is why it is classified as a ceramic. This makes porcelain highly biocompatible, unlike dental metals such as mercury, gold, copper, nickel, and titanium.  Think of it this way: porcelain is as different from its components, aluminum and oxygen, as table salt is from its components, sodium and chlorine. Sodium and chlorine are highly reactive and are potentially toxic in their natural states. But when they are combined to create sodium chloride — table salt — they change into a completely new, edible compound. The same is true for porcelain.  When the aluminum is oxidized, it becomes a ceramic and no longer releases metal ions that are bioavailable to chemically bind with the tissues in your body. Thus, porcelain does not create the same health concerns as metallic materials. Furthermore, no local or systemic adverse reactions have been reported in relation to ceramic dental materials. What About Biocompatability Testing?  It is common for many biological dentistry to do a biocompatability blood test of a patient’s blood. This is a test that evaluates the reactivity of the patients’ blood to many different dental materials, including metals.  Those materials are being used for root canals, implants, temporary and permanent restorations, removable partials, bridges, and cements, which is essentially, all the available dental materials. After 25 years of private holistic practice, it is of my professional opinion, that the majority of the materials being tested do not belong in a patient’s mouth.  As previously stated, metals interact with the patient’s saliva causing galvanic activity and immunological response. In the long run and sometimes acutely, these materials will compromise a person’s health, even if the biocompatibility test measures inert or non-reactive to your blood at the time it was done.  My advice is to simplify the process by using materials that are more similar to tooth structure, and bone such as porcelain and ceramic materials, which are more biologically inert and better tolerated by the immune system. Make Sure You Get Dental Replacement Material Correct  Keep in mind that no material is a perfect substitute for your tooth as a result of the issues described above. That’s why prevention is the key to health. We educate our patients in eating healthy for their metabolic type, having excellent oral hygiene, maintaining great sleeping habits, and making good lifestyle choices. And when they remove their mercury fillings, we make sure to follow the right protocol and replace them with only the strongest and most biocompatible material. Remember it is best to seek out a dentist that has been trained in biological dentistry to perform any mercury removal. For more information on this important topic please review the article Dr. Mercola wrote in September.

Related

• Fluoride Consumption From Tea and Toothpaste Damages Bones 
• Metallic poison in food we consume

 Source: www.noonehastodietomorrow.com