Why Scientists Are in Alarm Mode Over the Keystone XL Pipeline

Why are scientists in alarm mode over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,700-mile long conduit that would transport a chemical-laden synthetic oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to refineries in Texas? Scientists across specialized fields have joined forces to make public statements, penned a formal letter to President Obama, and have even committed acts of civil disobedience in front of the White House during the national Tar Sands Action [3].

What do they know that we don’t?

I sought out these questions, traveling to the furthest southern extent of Cape Cod to the township of Woods Hole; a place of world renown for its oceanic studies and a hub of scientific exploration since the late 1800s. I had come to meet with one of the signatories of the Obama letter [4], ecologist George M. Woodwell, at the Woods Hole Research Center.

While awaiting his arrival, I walked around the facility and its grounds. WHRC, also a campus, is ensconced in eight acres of oxygen-rich forest where burnt and downed tree trunks are left alone to decompose. The carpet of detritus underfoot was so dense and varied its components were indecipherable to the naked eye. The outdoor laboratory is a sliver of what they do on a global scale: WHRC is a preeminent collector of data on forests. They track and record the health of forests worldwide in tandem with cooperators in the Amazon, the Arctic, Africa, Russia, Alaska, Canada, New England, and the Mid-Atlantic.

Taiga Biome

Once the interview was underway, Woodwell, founder and director emeritus of WHRC, did not mince words about the Keystone XL project: “The tar sands is a complete scandal; it’s totally for profit—for Canadian profit, political profit, financial profit—and not for the public good because the oil poisons the world, and the methods of getting it poisons the world in more ways than anybody is admitting.”

Woodwell believes the role of government is to protect the public welfare, and that includes protection of the environment. For those who argue for less oversight, he presented an inventory of what a loosely regulated business world has produced in the past: slavery, the effluence of smelters that killed people and vegetation, silicosis in miners, and chemical and radiation poisoning of workers. For an example of a country in ecological collapse, he pointed to Haiti. “They don’t have a functioning environment, economy, or government. All must stand together. Take one away, or make one fail, and the others fail.”

He has been accused on more than one occasion of being political. Woodwell conducted the groundbreaking research on DDT that formed the basis for its eventual nationwide ban in 1972. He has a very short answer why such accusations exist: “Environmental science gets politicized because it has economic implications.”

Woodwell, who prefers the term “climate disruption” to climate change, is clear on what must be done to stabilize the already teetering-on-the-edge biosphere. The use of fossil fuels must be reduced and “we have to stop deforestation, all of it, all over the world because the carbon pool in the vegetation of the earth is connected to forests.”

The carbon storage capacity of forests is approximately three times as large as the pool of carbon in the atmosphere. If forests are changed, reduced, or eliminated, the pool, or captured carbon, goes into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide (CO2). According to Woodwell, the carbon release from deforestation accounts for “25 to 30 percent of the four to five billion tons of carbon accumulating a year in the atmosphere from the total of all human activities.”

Listening to Woodwell explain the role of the tundra and forests in carbon sequestration, it became evident where his years of scientific research and the Keystone XL pipeline intersect. The tar sands are largely mined in northeastern Alberta in an area classified as boreal forest.

The boreal forest, or taiga, is the largest forest in the world. It is a circumpolar biome—a community of related plant and animal species fostered by a similar climate—occurring at high-altitudes across Alaska, Canada, Northern Europe, and Russia. The boreal forest exists on 14.5 percent of the earth’s surface, but contains over 30 percent of the earth’s terrestrial carbon. The forest in its natural state is considered a sink: a repository for carbon. If disrupted, it becomes a source, releasing carbon back into the atmosphere.

Mining the Tar Sands

Techniques used to extract the tar sands are more akin to mining than drilling, both in the methods employed and amount of land destruction necessary for the removal of a tarry, viscous hydrocarbon called bitumen. Two techniques are used: in situ recovery and surface mining.

In situ recovery begins with drilling wells into bitumen deposits then injecting steam into the reservoir. The steam reduces viscosity and enables the bitumen to be pumped to the surface.

Surface mining, also referred to as strip mining, entails clearing large swaths of land. The forest is first cut down, followed by the removal of carbon-rich peat (the peat is put in storage for later usage in required remediation efforts). The bitumen and surrounding soils are then gouged out by heavy equipment. The usable hydrocarbon is separated on site using a caustic hot-water process, with the resultant wastewater sent to facilities for processing. The water is eventually stored in outdoor tailing ponds.

The tailing ponds, collectively covering more than 19 square miles, contain fine particulate matter and toxic chemicals (naphthenic acid and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons). These open ponds, also a part of required reclamation, allow fine particles to settle. The estimated time for settlement varies from several decades to 150 years.

The total amount of energy used in tar sands extraction and production results in greater amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than from conventional sources of oil. The amount of increased emissions remains an issue of concern and calculation, though not all studies are equal.

The Department of Energy’s National Environmental Technology Lab estimated the GHG emissions of tar sands production to be “approximately 17 percent higher than gasoline from the 2005 average mix of crude oil consumed in the U.S.,” while a study conducted by TIAX, LLC, found emissions “only 2 percent higher when compared to gasoline from Venezuelan heavy crude.”

That’s a difference of 15 percent, though both reports used a “well-to-wheels” calculation. A well-to-wheels calculation factors in GHG emissions from extraction, processing, distribution, and combustion. But what about the additional emissions as a result of deforestation and the destabilization of associated soils—what scientists refer to as “land-use change”?

From Sink to Source

To some degree, this question is addressed in a paper by Yeh et al. (2010). In tar sands surface mining, by “removing the functional vegetation layer at the surface of a peatland, the disturbed ecosystem loses its ability to sequester CO2 from the atmosphere.” When peat is put into storage for later reclamation purposes, it decomposes, releasing CO2 and CH4 (commonly known as methane, one of six identified greenhouse gases). Over time, tailing ponds also produce CH4 emissions—a gas “25 times more potent than CO2.”

GHG emissions from land-use change factors in the loss of a sink (a natural system known to capture carbon), as well as the addition of sources (gases produced from stored peat and tailing ponds). I queried the State Department on whether these emissions had been considered in their estimates. The first spokesperson responded, “off the record, no.” The question was also submitted to the Clean Energy Branch of Alberta Environment, who quickly replied, “We have supported some scientific research in this respect; that work is currently in the peer review process so we cannot report on that work at this point in time.”

The area of boreal forest to be razed as part of tar sands extraction is small. So far, about 150 square miles of Canada’s two million square miles of boreal forest have been denuded for tar sands operations. If projected GHG emissions from land-use change were available, they would most likely be a fraction of the total. However, fractions add up and the exclusion of that data in final, official reports does say something about an approach to calculation that puts human activity at the top while neglecting to weigh long-term environmental outcomes.

Woodwell cautions it is time to consider environment and economy as mutually dependent: “We’re at a stage we can’t afford to lose any more forests in the world. The building up of carbon, year after the year, is the problem. We're pulling climate out from under all life including civilization, and the consequences of that are devastating."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-scientists-are-alarm-mode-over-keystone-xl-pipeline

Pesticide Industry Backed Opponents of GMO Labeling Get Criminal in California

The $36 million No on 37 campaign, bankrolled by $20 million from the world's six largest pesticide companies, has been caught in yet another lie, this time possibly criminal.

These companies and their allies in the junk food industry know that their profit margins may suffer if consumers have a choice whether to purchase genetically engineered foods or not.  And that's why opponents are spending nearly a million dollars per day trying to make Prop 37 complicated. But really it's simple - we have the right to know what's in our food.

To date, the No on 37 campaign has been able to repeat one lie after another with near impunity. But has this pattern of deceit finally caught up to it?

Yesterday, the Yes on 37 campaign sent letters to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a criminal investigation of the No on 37 campaign for possible fraudulent misuse of the official seal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  

The No on 37 campaign affixed the FDA's seal to one of the campaign's mailers. Section 506 of the U.S. Criminal Code states: "Whoever...knowingly uses, affixes, or impresses any such fraudulently made, forged, counterfeited, mutilated, or altered seal or facsimile thereof to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper of any description...shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."

The letter also provides evidence that the No on 37 campaign falsely attributed a direct quote to the FDA in the campaign mailer. Alongside the FDA seal, the mailer includes this text in quotes. "The US Food and Drug Administration says a labeling policy like Prop 37 would be 'inherently misleading." The quote is entirely fabricated. The FDA did not make this statement and does not take a position on Prop 37.

In addition, the three identified authors of the "Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 37" include a Dr. Henry I. Miller, who is identified solely as "Founding Director, Office of Biotechnology of the Food & Drug Administration." Dr. Miller in fact, does not currently work for the FDA in any capacity - as millions of California voters have been erroneously led to believe.

This is not the first blatant act of deception that the No on 37 campaign has been caught perpetrating on the citizens of California - particularly relating to their "top scientist" Dr. Henry Miller.

Consider Miller's growing "rap sheet":

• On Oct. 4 the No on 37 campaign was forced to pull its first ad off the air and re-shoot it after they were caught misrepresenting Miller as a doctor at Stanford University  when he is actually a researcher at the Hoover Institute on Stanford's campus, as the Los Angeles Times reported.
• Last week, the campaign was reprimanded by Stanford again for misrepresenting the university in a mailer that went out to millions of voters. And this week, the campaign was caught sending out yet another deceptive mailer involving the University.

In addition to allowing his university affiliation to be repeatedly overblown, Miller has a sordid history of parroting the talking points of some of the world's most notorious corporate bad actors: he's a founding member of a now defunct tobacco front group that tried to discredit the links between cigarettes and cancer, he's repeatedly called for the reintroduction of DDT - known to cause premature birth, fronted for an oil industry funded climate change denial group for Exxon, claimed that people exposed to radiation from the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster "may have benefited from it", and attacked the US Food and Drug Administration's efforts to ensure proper vetting and testing of new drugs safety while urging it to outsource more of its functions to private industries.

This is the man the No on 37 campaign has portrayed to voters as an arbiter of good science and promoted as an expert worthy of our trust. In reality, Miller is nothing more than a corporate shill that will say whatever his paymasters ask him to, be it Exxon, Phillip Morris, Monsanto, or DuPont.

Does the No on 37 campaign stand behind Miller's fringe views on tobacco, climate change, nuclear radiation and DDT?

But this pattern of deceit doesn't end with Miller:

• On Oct. 5, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the nation's largest professional association for nutritionists and dieticians, accused the No on 37 campaign of misrepresenting its position and misleading voters in the official California Voter's Guide that went to 11 million voters.
• And the anti-Proposition 37 ads that are now blanketing the state have been described as misleading by the San Jose Mercury News, Sacramento Bee, and San Francisco Chronicle.

Perhaps these latest revelations will prompt the mainstream press to begin focusing their attention on the No on 37 campaign's pattern of deceptions - including a potentially criminal act - rather than on easily discredited pesticide industry Prop 37 "red herrings" like common sense exemptions, phony lawsuit scares, bogus "big bureaucracy claims", and "cost increase hysteria".

So who should we trust?

Who should we trust when it comes to our right to know what's in the food we eat: Monsanto, DuPont, and Henry Miller or the millions of California consumers and leading consumer, health, women's, faith-based, labor and other groups; 61 countries that already require GMO labeling; and a growing stack of peer-reviewed research linking genetically engineered foods to health and environmental problems?

Who has our best interests at heart, the pesticide and junk food industry, or Prop 37 supporters like Consumers Union, California Nurses Association, California Democratic Party, California Labor Federation, United Farm Workers, American Public Health Association, Consumers Union, Sierra Club, Whole Foods Market, California Council of Churches, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, and Food Democracy Now!?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/10/19

Michelle Roberts - Typhoid vaccine failure warning

Typhoid fever is uncommon in England, with an estimated 350 cases occurring each year

More than 700,000 people recently immunised against typhoid may not have full protection because of a dud vaccine that has now been recalled, say experts.

Manufacturer Sanofi Pasteur MSD has recalled 88% of its stock - 16 batches - of Typhim Vi vaccine because tests found some samples were too weak.

Anyone immunised with the vaccine since January 2011 could be affected.

Officials stress that the vaccine was safe and posed no health threat.

But it could mean as many as 729,606 people who potentially received the affected vaccine are not fully immunised against typhoid, according to the body that regulates drugs in the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Anyone who has been to a typhoid region of the world and has a fever, abdominal pain and vomiting should contact a healthcare professional”

End Quote A spokeswoman from the MHRA

Read More:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19873171

Tom Philpott - Some GMO Cheerleaders Also Deny Climate Change

"GMO Opponents Are the Climate Skeptics of the Left," declares the headline of a recent piece by Keith Kloor in Slate. The argument goes like this: Just as certain conservative writers flout science by denying the urgency of climate change, there are progressive writers—he named me as a prominent example—who defy an alleged scientific consensus by criticizing the genetically modified crop industry. We're hypocrites, the charge goes, because we thunder against the denial of good science when it comes to climate, but indulge in denialism when it comes to GMOs.

I think Kloor's critique is nonsense. Sure, there are wackos who campaign against GMOs, but not all GMO critique is wacko. In a 2009 roundtable in Seed Magazine, I debunked the idea that there's a scientific consensus around GMOs analogous to the one around climate. 

Read More:

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/gmo-climate-change-science

Heidi Stevenson - Gardasil Destroys Girl’s Ovaries: Research on Ovaries Never Considered

The BMJ has published the case report of a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl whose womanhood appears to have been stolen by Gardasil vaccinations. She has been thrust into full-fledged menopause, her ovaries irrevocably shut down, before becoming a woman. The authors, Deirdre Therese Little and Harvey Rodrick Grenville Ward¹, draw direct attention to the fact that, though the girl has been thoroughly examined and tested, there is no known explanation other than the series of three Gardasil vaccinations she had.

Making matters worse is that there may be many other such cases, but most are likely masked by the routine treatment of irregular or scanty menstruation with oral contraceptives. Indeed, it’s only because this girl refused them that the truth of her situation was unmasked. Just how many other girls have lost their chance at motherhood, but don’t know because their condition is masked?

Read More:

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-10-17/gardasil-destroys-girls-ovaries-research-on-ovaries-never-considered/

Search Engines Trailer - (YouTube Video)

Trailer for a documentary following those seeking to understand autoimmune illness and the path to true healing.

Empowering people to understand the potential of a holistic approach to their health is the true way we will solve the health care crisis in the U.S. and around the world. This film will entertain, inspire and inform a broad audience of this essential knowledge.

Greg Palast - Mitt Romney's Bailout Bonanza

This investigation was supported by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute and by the Puffin Foundation. Elements of it appear in Palast’s new book, Billionaires & Ballot Bandits: How to Steal an Election in 9 Easy Steps (Seven Stories). Research assistance by Zach D. Roberts, Ari Paul, Nader Atassi and Eric Wuestewald.
 
Mitt Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout has haunted him on the campaign trail, especially in Rust Belt states like Ohio. There, in September, the Obama campaign launched television ads blasting Romney’s November 2008 New York Times op-ed, “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” But Romney has done a good job of concealing, until now, the fact that he and his wife, Ann, personally gained at least $15.3 million from the bailout—and a few of Romney’s most important Wall Street donors made more than $4 billion. Their gains, and the Romneys’, were astronomical—more than 3,000 percent on their investment.

It all starts with Delphi Automotive, a former General Motors subsidiary whose auto parts remain essential to GM’s production lines. No bailout of GM—or Chrysler, for that matter—could have been successful without saving Delphi. So, in addition to making massive loans to automakers in 2009, the federal government sent, directly or indirectly, more than $12.9 billion to Delphi—and to the hedge funds that had gained control over it.

Read More:

http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza

GM Wheat May Damage Human Genetics Permanently

The Australian government, in the form of its science research arm, is joining Agribusiness profiteering by designing a GM wheat that could kill people who eat it & be inherited by their children.

by Heidi Stevenson

We have not yet seen the worst damage that genetic engineering may do. Australia's governmental agency, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), is developing a wheat species that is engineered to turn off genes permanently.

Professor Jack Heinemann at the University of Canterbury's Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety  has studied the wheat's potential. Digital Journal reports that he says¹:

What we found is that the molecules created in this wheat, intended to silence wheat genes, can match human genes, and through ingestion, these molecules can enter human beings and potentially silence our genes. The findings are absolutely assured. There is no doubt that these matches exist.

The implications are clarified by Professor Judy Carman of Flinders University:

If this silences the same gene in us that it silences in the wheat—well, children who are born with this enzyme not working tend to die by the age of about five.

Silencing the equivalent gene in humans that is silenced in this genetically modified wheat holds the potential of killing people. But it gets worse. Silenced genes are permanently silenced and can be passed down the generations.

Silenced Genes

The wheat genes involved are called SEI. The specific sequences of those genes are being termed classified confidential information. CSIRO, which is part of the Australian government, is developing a commercial application, but refuses to divulge the information that's most significant to the people of Australia! The government is apparently more interested in profits than in the people's safety.

Dr. Heinemann was asked to provide his opinion of CSIRO's genetic engineering on wheat plants and produced the report "Evaluation of risks from creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants and recommendations for risk assessment"². He discusses the nature of the genetic entities that are being played with and explains how they can affect human health.

RNA is similar to DNA, which is the molecule that carries genetic inheritance. There are several types of RNA, but a particular group called double stranded RNA (dsRNA) is of concern. Heinemann writes:

dsRNAs are remarkably stable in the environment. Insects and worms that feed on plants that make dsRNA can take in the dsRNA through their digestive system, where it remains intact.

He delineates research documenting that once dsRNA is taken through an animal's skin or digestive tract, it can wreak havoc. It circulates throughout the body and has been known to be amplified or cause a secondary reaction that:

... leads to more and different dsRNAs ("secondary" dsRNAs) with unpredictable targets.

Heinemann points out that a silencing effect on a gene, once initiated, can be inherited. Though it's known to happen, little is yet known about the process.

dsRNA is known to be a tough molecule. It survives readily, even through digestion. Worse, though, it's known to pass into the body through digestion. Then, as Dr. Heinemann writes:

Once taken up, the dsRNA can circulate throughout the body and alter gene expression in  the animal.

That is, gene expression can be altered as the result of eating a food with dsRNA altered by genetic engineering. Judy Carman, of Flinders University, who also provided an expert opinion, wrote in "Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties"³:

In fact, employees from the world's largest GM company, Monsanto, have written at least one paper about how to commercially exploit the fact that dsRNA survives digestion in insects, in their attempts to try to control insect pests of plants. That is, the plant is genetically engineered to produce a dsRNA, which insects ingest when they eat the plant; the dsRNA survives digestion in the insect and then silences genes in the insect to stunt its growth and kill it.

There can be no question that dsRNA can be transferred to humans by eating.

The Risks

Heinemann makes these three points:

1. Plant-derived microRNA [a type of dsRNA] precursors have been detected in human blood, thus demonstrating that they can survive the human digestive tract and be passed into the body through it. He emphasizes: "There is strong evidence that siRNAs [a type of dsRNA and the one of particular concern here] produced in the wheat will transfer to humans through food."
2. dsRNA that have been shown to transmit to humans through food have also been shown to survive cooking! He points out: "There is strong evidence that siRNAs produced in the wheat will remain in a form that can transmit to humans even when the wheat has been cooked or processed for use in food."
3. Plant-derived dsRNA was able to silence a human gene in cultured cells. He wrote: "There is strong evidence that once transmitted, siRNA produced in wheat would have the biological capacity to cause an effect."

Judy Carman states succintly:

As a result, there is a chain of evidence to show that there is a risk that the dsRNA from this GM wheat may survive digestion, enter the tissues of people that eat it and silence a gene or genes in those people. There is also evidence that any genetic changes so produced may be stable and become established in many cells of an organ. Furthermore, there a possibility that these changes may be passed-on to future generations.

The wheat genes involved are called SEI. They have extensive similarities with the human GBE gene, which controls glycogen storage. If the GBE gene is defective, it leads to certain death from liver cirrhosis at a very young age. Another defect in the gene results in adult polyglucosan body disease (APBD) in adults over age 40, causing cognitive impairment, pyramidal quadriplegia, peripheral neuropathy, and neurogenic bladder.

Dr. Heinemann investigated and found that sections of the two genes, SEI and GBE, are a perfect match. Because CSIRO is saying that the specific SEI sequence that's modified is classified confidential information, we cannot know for certain what harm might be done to humans. However, it's obvious that shutting down a section of the GBE gene holds the potential of death—yet, Heinemann showed that it's not only possible, it's likely!

Lack of Adequate Risk Assessment

Judy Carman focused more on the lack of appropriate or adequate risk assessment for the modified wheat. She is very concerned that no consideration was given to checking for:

• Whether there are adverse effects on animals or humans who eat it.
• Whether there is any uptake of dsRNA in animals or humans who eat it.
• Silencing of genes in animals or people.
• Silencing of the branching enzyme.
• Toxic effects, such as damage to the liver, kidneys, or any other organ.
• Increase in reproductive problems.
• Whether dsRNA changes are inherited.
• Increased risk of cancer.
• Increased risk of wheat allergies

She is very concerned that the oversight agency, the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), and CSIRO "appear not to be looking for any adverse effects in people, but intend to go directly to look for any benefits." She concludes:

It appears that neither organisation has appreciated or properly safety assessed this wheat in the light of the fact that the dsRNA produced in these GM wheat varieties may survive digestion, enter the tissues of the body and silence a gene or genes in the recipient. It also appears that neither organisation has "joined the dots" to appreciate that, of all the genes that could be silenced, the most likely one is a similar branching enzyme in animals and people and that silencing it could seriously impair or even kill those that eat it.

The Australian government appears to have become nothing more than another Agribusiness corporate entity. They're using the people's money to fund a massive profit-making venture in genetic engineering without any consideration for the potential harm that may be done to either the environment or the welfare of the people. Not only are they willing to risk mass deaths from products they're hoping to put on the market, they also seem to have no concern for whether they might be doing permanent damage to generations that follow.

---

Resources

1. Scientists: New GMO wheat may 'silence' vital human genes
2. Evaluation of risks from creation of novel RNA molecules in genetically engineered wheat plants and recommendations for risk assessment
3. Expert Scientific Opinion on CSIRO GM Wheat Varieties
4. CSIRO SEI/SEII SHRNA GM WHEAT FOR PRODUCING GRAINS WITH A LOWER 
   CONTENT OF BRANCHED STARCH MOLECULES, Appraisal of statements by Prof Jack Heinemann and Assoc Prof Judy Carman
5. The GMOs, nature and effect of the genetic modification
6. GBE Antibodies

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gm-wheat-may-damage-human-genetics-permanently

Plant-Based Diets Can Remedy Chronic Diseases

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 63 percent of the deaths that occurred in 2008 were attributed to non-communicable chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, certain cancers, Type 2 diabetes and obesity -- for which poor diets are contributing factors. Yet people that live in societies that eat healthy, plant-based diets rarely fall victim to these ailments. Research studies have long indicated that a high consumption of plant foods is associated with lower incidents of chronic disease. In the October issue of Food Technology magazine, Senior Writer/Editor Toni Tarver discusses recent discoveries in nutritional genomics that explain how plant-based diets are effective at warding off disease.

The article indicates that bioactive compounds in plant foods play a role in controlling genetic and other biological factors that lead to chronic disease. For example, antioxidants in plant foods counter free radicals that can cause chronic inflammation and damage cells. And other plant compounds help control a gene linked to cardiovascular disease and plaque buildup in arteries and the genes and other cellular components responsible for forming and sustaining tumors.

William W. Li, M.D., President and Medical Director of the Angiogenesis Foundation in Cambridge, Mass., says that all consumers should look at their diets as if food is the medicine necessary to maintain healthy, disease-free lives. "Prevention is always better than a cure," said Li. Foods that may help prevent cancer and other chronic diseases include artichokes, black pepper, cinnamon, garlic, lentils, olives, pumpkin, rosemary, thyme, watercress, and more. For a more comprehensive list of medicinal foods, read "The Chronic Disease Food Remedy" in the October 2012 issue of Food Technology.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121017131546.htm

'270 Minutes of Silence': Obama and Romney 'Climate Change Silence' Deafening, say Environmental Groups

Following three nationally televised debates—two presidential and one vice presidential—environmental groups and climate campaigners are voicing indignation that none of the major two parties candidates have yet mentioned the subject of global warming or climate change.

"Corporate polluters have bought the silence of our elected leaders, so it's time for us to take the lead."—Jamie Henn, 350.org

"Not one word," wrote Jamie Henn, from the climate action group 350.org, late Wednesday. "After 270 minutes of Presidential and Vice Presidential debates, no one has mentioned climate change or global warming."

He continued: "That's after the country broke 17,000 heat records this summer, drought smothered half of the nation's corn crop, and millions of acres of the American west went up in smoke."

Following the latest debate between Obama and Romney on Tuesday, Friends of the Earth spokeperson Erich Pica noted that for all the talk about energy policy, neither candidate broached the subject of how fossil fuels contributed to global warming. “Both candidates vied to restate their commitment to more dirty oil, gas and coal production while ignoring the contradiction between an ‘all of the above’ energy program and reducing emissions of climate disrupting gases.”

The young voter's climate action group Energy Action Coalition, under the banner "Break Climate Silence," has been campaigning for Obama and Romney to address the issue, and had this video produced with hopes of applying direct pressure to the campaigns:

"After two nationally televised debates," the group said in a statement, "President Obama and Mitt Romeny remain silent on the climate crisis. This week is a critical to push this issue so that it will be brought up in the final debate next Monday."

As a report in The Hill also noted, following Tuesday's debate, Chris Hayes of MSNBC, during the network’s post-debate analysis, compared the silence on climate change during the energy portion of the debate to "discussing smoking without discussing cancer."

And Elizabeth Kolbert, at The New Yorker, adds:

Obama deserves credit for at least mentioning the need to control energy demand—rather than just supply—something that Romney never even alluded to. The President should also be commended for stressing the need to develop alternative—which is to say carbon-free—energy sources, which he called key to “the jobs of the future.” But aside from the potential for job creation, the President could never quite bring himself to discuss why it might not be a good idea to burn every gallon—or cubic foot—of fossil fuels we could conceivably bring to the earth’s surface. In the midst of what will almost certainly be the warmest year on record, climate change has become to the Obama Administration the Great Unmentionable, or, as the blogger Joe Romm has put it, The-Threat-That-Must-Not-Be Named.

The problem with the sort of energy debate we saw on Tuesday is not just that it’s fatuous, though it certainly is that. The problem is that you can’t solve a problem if you don’t even acknowledge it exists. The true challenge facing the next President is not how to bring down gas prices, which may or may not come down as a result of global trends. It’s how to move beyond the tired arguments of the past and act as if the future matters.

350.org's Henn announced his group's plan for a post-election 20-city national tour, beginning on Novemebr 7th and called the 'Do The Math' Tour, which will feature 350 co-founder Bill McKibben, author Naomi Klein, Desmond Tutu and others. The intention will be to educate on the dangers of climate change, the dominance of the fossil fuel industry on national energy policy, and to continue their efforts to build a mass climate movement in the US and internationally.

"The warning signs can’t be ignored, but our politicians have gone silent," he said. "The reason couldn’t be more obvious: the fossil fuel industry has spent over $150 million dollars on this election already, with more on the way. Corporate polluters have bought the silence of our elected leaders, so it's time for us to take the lead."