Look like Russia is putting people’s health above technology after Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection are calling for the release of new EMF hazard warning signs for wireless users of mobile phones and other EMF sources.
The article from Radiation Research say that”
The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection are calling for the release of new EMF hazard warning signs for wireless users of mobile phones and other EMF sources, following the release of a published paper by Professor Oleg Grigoriev and ex-deputy minister of communication, Dr Prof Yuri Zubarev. The paper was published in September, 2019 in the oldest Russian journal of communication industry.
The EM Radiation Research Trust would like to thank Professor Oleg Grigoriev for providing this important information and call on Government officials to follow this example. The public should be alerted and hazard warning signs should be made mandatory for the safety of users to allow the public to make informed decisions.
Professor Oleg Grigoriev is the Chairman for the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection,
Dr.Sc. (radiobiology), Ph.D. (radiobiology & hygiene of non-ionazing radiation)
Laureate of Prize of the Russian Federation Government (for science and technology)
Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
Member, Scientific Consul for Radiobiology of Russian Academy of Science
Member, IAC of the WHO EMF project
The world needs to take note and follow this example. See attached paper and warning signs.
Eco Liberty Conclusion: I like to see other countries including mine to follow suit when come EMF safety and why pregnant woman and children should not use wireless devices due to the hazards of EMF radiation
17 July 2019
BY CNN WIRE
Elon Musk wants to insert Bluetooth-enabled implants into your brain, claiming the devices could enable telepathy and repair motor function in people with injuries.
The chip features a USB-C port, the same adapter used by Apple’s Macbooks, and connects via Bluebooth to a small computer worn over the ear and to a smartphone, Musk said.
“If you’re going to stick something in a brain, you want it not to be large,” Musk said, playing up the device’s diminutive size.
Neuralink, a startup founded by Musk, says the devices can be used by those seeking a memory boost or by stroke victims, cancer patients, quadriplegics or others with congenital defects.
The company says up to 10 units can be placed in a patient’s brain. The chips will connect to an iPhone app that the user can control.
The devices will be installed by a robot built by the startup. Musk said the robot, when operated by a surgeon, will drill 2 millimeter holes in a person’s skull. The chip part of the device will plug the hole in the patient’s skull.
“The interface to the chip is wireless, so you have no wires poking out of your head. That’s very important,” Musk added.
Trials could start before the end of2020, Musk said, likening the procedure to Lasik eye correction surgery, which requires local anesthetic.
Musk has said this latest project is an attempt to use artificial intelligence (AI) to have a positive effect on humanity. He has previously tried to draw attention to AI’s potential to harm humans.
He has invested some $100 million in San Francisco-based Neuralink, according to the New York Times.
Musk’s plan to develop human computer implants comes on the heels of similar efforts by Google and Facebook. But critics aren’t so sure customers should trust tech companies with data ported directly from the brain.
“The idea of entrusting big enterprise with our brain data should create a certain level discomfort for society,” said Daniel Newman, principal analyst at Futurum Research and co-author of the book Human/Machine.
“There is no evidence that we should trust or be comfortable with moving in this direction,” he added.
While the technology could help those with some type of brain injury or trauma, “Gathering data from raw brain activity could put people in great risk, and could be used to influence, manipulate and exploit them,” Frederike Kaltheuner of Privacy International told CNN Business. “Who has access to this data? Is this data shared with third parties? People need to be in full control over their data.”
The tech industry is coming under heightened scrutiny over how it handles data.
France fined Google parent company Alphabet in January for violating EU online privacy rules. Facebook reportedly faces a major fine in the United States over its own data privacy violations.
Tesla has also suffered data leaks. In 2018, researchers at security firm RedLock said Tesla’s cloud storage was breached to mine cryptocurrency.
Tesla has also suffered data leaks. In 2018, researchers at security firm RedLock said Tesla’s cloud storage was breached to mine cryptocurrency.
Before I explain how radiation can affect plant-life, I must first explain what exactly radiation is, and how it is able to affect matter. Radiation comes from many places, from the Sun, to things man makes like cell phones and TV’s. Radiation is not always dangerous. Radiation can become very dangerous depending on what kind of radiation it is, and how long something is exposed to it. Radiation has two types, non-ionizing, which is mostly harmless, and ionizing. This high-energy, ionizing radiation can lead to serious problems within an organism. Radiation energy is transferred by particles or waves . While non-ionizing radiation is relatively low-energy, ionizing radiation is so high in energy it can break chemical bonds. This means it can change the charge of an atom that interacts with it. At high levels, this can even damage and destroy the nucleus of an atom, directly affecting an organism’s DNA. Once DNA is tampered with, an organism can develop dangerous mutations. http://large.stanford.edu/courses/201… Tomatoes And Gamma Rays https://images.fineartamerica.com/ima… Peas Exposed To WiFi https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content… Could Astronaut Crops Survive Space Radiation? https://www.space.com/11142-chernobyl… Effects of sparsely and densely ionizing radiation on plants https://www.researchgate.net/publicat… Cosmic ionizing radiation effects in plant seeds after short and long duration exposure flights https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1… The Good Stuff Is Below! Effects of ionizing radiation on non-human biota (Full Paper) http://www.bvsabr.be/js/tinymce/plugi… EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION ON TERRESTRIAL PLANTS AND ANIMALS: A WORKSHOP REPORT http://large.stanford.edu/courses/201… Cosmic Radiation Makes Trees Grow Faster https://science.slashdot.org/story/09… Cosmic pattern to UK tree growth http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_… THE EFFECT OF COSMIC RADIATION ON PLANT ACTIVITY ByA. A. Shnakhov F.O.I.A. Declassified CIA Content https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltex…
30 November 2018
Meat could soon be raised in Petri dishes instead of on farms. In a meeting missed by the media earlier this month, the FDA and USDA discussed what to call it.
Soon, we won’t need animals to eat “meat,” or at least not much of them… just their stem cells.
Earlier this month, the FDA and USDA met to discuss how to regulate — and what to call — “meat” grown in laboratories, rather than on farms.
“Clean meat,” “in vitro meat,” “artificial meat” and even “alt-meat” have all been suggested by industry leaders, anxious to brand their new product as a “humane” and “environmentally-friendly” alternative to factory farming.
The “real” meat industry prefers less-appetizing terms, like “cultured tissue.”
“Production of cell-cultured meat involves retrieving a live animal’s adult muscle stem cells and setting them in a nutrient-rich liquid,” the Washington Post reports.
The clusters of multiplying cells grow around a “scaffold,” which helps the tissue take on a desired shape — nuggets or patties, for example.
“The result is a product that looks and tastes like meat because it’s made from animal cells, rather than plant-based products.”
Until now, the FDA (F00d and Drug Administration) was expected to regulate the up-and-coming cell-cultured food products, but in a recent meeting with the USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) the two agencies decided they would jointly monitor the technology.
In a Nov.16 press release, the agencies announced that the FDA would oversee “cell collection, cell banks, and cell growth and differentiation,” while the USDA will oversee the production and labeling of the poultry and livestock products.
The statement noted that the agencies have the statutory authority to approve lab-grown meat without the need for our elected representatives to to get involved.
Because cultured meat doesn’t require many animals to provide potentially vast amounts of “meat,” proponentsargue it would eliminate many of the environmental impacts and ethical issues associated with factory farming.
Some environmental groups and animal rights advocates support lab-grown meat because it would consume fewer natural resources, avoid slaughter and eliminate the use of growth hormones.
The American Meat Science Association worries that lab-grown protein is not as safe or nutritious as traditional meat.
Tyson and Cargill are the top two investors in lab-grown animal protein technology so far.
We’re likely still three or four years away from seeing cell-cultured products on shelves.
My Conclusion: Look like Lab grown meat will soon be available in your supermarket in USA. The FDA say “it’s fine, it’s safe” what they’re not telling you; that it may not contain any nutrition.
Matthew Miller as a blogger for I say “no” to fake meat that is lab grown; but say “yes” to real meat that is organic and from grass fed livestock.
People if you happen find a Lab Grown meat in your local supermarket; take a photo of it and sent it to my email so I can analyze it.
I know that animals in factory farm are horrify treated and they pump animals with growth hormones and pharmaceutical, therefore making the meat in the animal unhealthy for human consumption because they way the animals in treated the meat will be tough and harder for human body to digest. Meat from the animal raise on pasture and had a best life out there before slaughter as long the animal is killed humanely the meat is is soft and healthier; easy for the human body to digest.
That why I will only eat meat that is real comes form an animals that has been raised on pasture that killed humanly.
24 February 2018
I’m for alternative energy and alternative energy but only the one that work. Hydroelectric was the first form of electricity that didn’t rely on fossils fuels. Hydroelectric is the most reliable renewable energy that is available because as long water is flowing into the turbines electricity will be produce continuous. Just one I might make one those small hydroelectric generators and try it myself.
18 February 2018
(Natural News) The world’s first biofuel flight between the U.S. and Australia was achieved with great success by the teams behind it — Qantas and Agricoma Biosciences rejoiced publicly as they both announced the completion of their historic flight. However, while the benefits of switching from conventional fossil fuels to biofuels for cross-country flights might be clear enough for everyone, there is still the matter of coming to terms with the present-day trade-offs.
That is, the use of biofuels, such as the blended fuel type derived from brassica carinata that powered the Qantas QF96 flight from Los Angeles to Melbourne, requires an entirely different set of materials and methods to produce. Qantas may be planning to have regular biofuel-based flights by 2020, but some people think that this is a horrible idea.
Last year, an analysis spearheaded by the organizations BirdLife and Transport and Environment called for an end to the use of biofuels that were based on food. As the main argument of the analysis goes, the use of food-based biofuels has caused — or undoubtedly will cause — increases in global food prices. Not to mention, it can also damage the environment.
While it’s true that the use of biofuels to power plane flights results in reduced greenhouse gas emissions, it’s also known to be quite expensive. Biofuel is said to cost more than twice the price of conventionally produced jet fuel, making it far too expensive for pretty much any airline to use in regular operations. According to a new report that did the math on the biofuel used in the latest flight announced by Qantas, things are a little bit more complicated than you might think.
To complete the 15-hour trans-Pacific flight between the U.S. and Australia, the Qantas QF96 plane needed to use 24,000 liters of biofuel blend. Based on Qantas estimations, the plane was able to save them around 18,000 kilograms in carbon emissions during its flight. However — and this is the most important part — it did so while relying on fuel that took up a total of 150 acres of land to grow. That’s more than three times the size of Vatican City.
Of course, part of the work being done by experts from both Qantas and Agrisoma involves improving their current methods to achieve better yields and therefore manage to increase cost-efficiency and productivity. But that may be a ways away.
According to Alison Webster, the Chief Executive Officer of Qantas International, the focus right now should be on the fact that the use of biofuel delivers the same results as using conventional fossil fuels but with a much less harmful impact on the environment. “The aircraft is more fuel efficient and generates fewer greenhouse emissions than similarly sized-aircraft,” he explained, “and today’s flight will see a further reduction on this route.”
Meanwhile, Steve Fabijanski, the Chief Executive Officer of Agrisoma, wants to emphasize the importance of their partnership with Australian farmers and how it will impact their work on biofuels in the future. “Biojet fuel made from Carinata delivers both oil for biofuel and protein for animal nutrition while also enhancing the soil its grown in,” said Fabijanski. “We are excited about the potential of the crop in Australia and look forward to working with local farmers and Qantas to develop a clean energy source for the local aviation industry.”
There’s absolutely no doubt that it’s a cleaner fuel option, but unless they manage to make a breakthrough that makes it possible to produce the amount of biofuel required for regular flights without compromising on good farmland, then this new fuel technology may not have a future after all.
Read more news stories about biofuel at Power.news.
7 February 2018
(Natural News) Not content with what nature has provided us, Microsoft founder Bill Gates would like to see a cow that can make more milk than European cows yet be able to withstand heat just as well as African cows. As part of this quest, he is now funding genetic research that aims to create what they consider “the perfect cow.”
It’s part of a $40 million investment Gates has made in the Edinburgh-based nonprofit Global Alliance for Livestock Veterinary Medicines. The funding will also be used for pursuits such as developing stronger crops and researching diseases that can devastate African farmers financially. To that end, scientists are trying to identify the specific genes that can make crops grow faster, resist disease better, offer more nutrition, and withstand extreme weather.
While U.K. International Development Secretary of State Penny Mordaunt applauded the effort when she announced the funding, not everyone is on board with the concept. Meat production requires around 15,000 liters of water per kilogram of beef, which is a very high amount given the widespread water access issues currently plaguing the world.
Moreover, livestock farming takes up almost a third of the land available on the surface of our planet. That land could be used for feeding people rather than animals. In addition, estimates show that if all the grains currently given to livestock were instead given to people, it would create enough food to sustain a further 3.5 billion individuals.
It is also interesting to note that the Gates Foundation pledged $300 million in December to support agriculture research that will allow low-income farmers in Africa and Asia to adapt to climate change. Meat production creates a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases per protein unit when compared to plants, contributing to the very problem Gates purportedly is hoping to solve with the genetically modified cows.
None of this is surprising coming from Bill Gates
Of course, this is the same Bill Gates whose foundation pushed young tribal girls in India to get risky HPV vaccines by calling them “well-being” shots. Five of the girls passed away shortly after getting the shots. The tribes reported that the girls who were injected experienced adverse events for days and even months after getting the shots. The young girls were essentially used like guinea pigs for trialing vaccines under the disguise of being given healthcare, and there was no informed consent.
We shouldn’t be surprised by any of this; Gates has already made his depopulation intentions clear on more than one occasion. Here he is, in his own words, during a 2010 TED Talk in California: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
In case you wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and pass it off as poor wording, he repeated the sentiment in a 2011 CNN interview, telling Dr. Sanjay Gupta: “The benefits [of vaccines] are there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing population growth.”
Sources for this article include: