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:
Josh Sigurdson breaks down the most recent technocratic news as Mike Miller, Chief Executive of The World Olympics Association announces he wishes to have microchips (or RFID chips) implanted in Olympic athletes. The type of microchipping he is suggesting actually monitors an athlete’s bloodstream and sends the information to the authorities in charge. The excuse is to expose athletes using performance enhancing drugs. Miller says, “we’re a nation of dog lovers, we’re prepared to chip our dogs and it doesn’t seem to harm them, so why aren’t we prepared to chip ourselves?” The excuse is always to stop crime or for convenience. It’s always rather “convenient” for the state and not so much for the individuals chipped like cattle and their every move watched by big brother. The Olympics is highly state subsidized, so they can’t even use the excuse of being a private company with voluntary employees. There have been employees and travellers chipped in Sweden. Employees chipped in the United States. Hobbyists chipping themselves to pay for things and unlock their doors. It’s nothing short of insanity. This is just PART of a far larger technocratic push towards a world order that we’ve detailed in countless past reports. This regards government artificial intelligence, a centrally planned cashless system which we’ve seen popping up with retina scans in India, facial recognition in Australia, the cashless push in China and the same goes for Sweden. Then we have the cultural brainwashing of “convenience” in order to control the masses. Don’t think this story stops here. It’ll only continue to get crazier. Interestingly, this is the same topic independent media reporters talked about in the 90s and were called crazy. Well 1984 is here folks. Stay tuned for more from WAM! Video edited by Josh Sigurdson
Source: Eco Liberty
Date: 19 October 2017
Author: Matthew Miller
I recently heard something on the radio talking about Countdown banning single use of plastic bag by 2018 in New Zealand. So decide write about plastic bags and what are the issues about them and what are the alternatives? For me I lay in the somewhere in the grey area because I thinking the alternatives to plastic shopping bags; why plastic should be banned?
Firstly let talk about what plastic bag do look like and what are they? Bags is something that you carry things in. Plastic bag is make out of Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) which have a recycle code 4 as well as petrochemical. Most Plastic Bag where design for single use for carrying goods from shops and may be used as a rubbish bag
The history of plastic bags: American and European patent applications relating to the production of plastic shopping bags can be found dating back to the early 1950s, but these refer to composite constructions with handles fixed to the bag in a secondary manufacturing process. The modern lightweight shopping bag is the invention of Swedish engineer Sten Gustaf Thulin. In the early 1960s, Thulin developed a method of forming a simple one-piece bag by folding, welding and die-cutting a flat tube of plastic for the packaging company Celloplast of Norrköping, Sweden. Thulin’s design produced a simple, strong bag with a high load-carrying capacity, and was patented worldwide by Celloplast in 1965.
Celloplast was a well-established producer of cellulose film and a pioneer in plastics processing. The company’s patent position gave it a virtual monopoly on plastic shopping bag production, and the company set up manufacturing plants across Europe and in the US. However, other companies saw the attraction of the bag, too, and the US petrochemicals group Mobil overturned Celloplast’s US patent in 1977.
The Dixie Bag Company of College Park, Georgia, owned and operated by Jack W. McBride, was one of the first companies to exploit this new opportunity to bring convenient products to all major shopping stores. The Dixie Bag Company, along with similar firms such as Houston Poly Bag and Capitol Poly, was instrumental in the manufacturing, marketing and perfecting of plastic bags in the 1980s. Kroger, a Cincinnati-based grocery chain, began to replace its paper shopping bags with plastic bags in 1982, and was soon followed by its rival, Safeway.
Without its plastic bag monopoly, Celloplast’s business went into decline, and the company was split up during the 1990s. The Norrköping site remains a plastics production site, however, and is now the headquarters of Miljösäck, a manufacturer of waste sacks manufactured from recycled polyethylene.
From the mid-1980s onwards, plastic bags became common for carrying daily groceries from the store to vehicles and homes throughout the developed world. As plastic bags increasingly replaced paper bags, and as other plastic materials and products replaced glass, metal, stone, timber and other materials, a packaging materials war erupted, with plastic shopping bags at the center of highly publicized disputes.
In 1992, Sonoco Products Company of Hartsville, SC patented the “self-opening polyethylene bag stack”. The main innovation of this redesign is that the removal of a bag from the rack opens the next bag in the stack. This team was headed by Wade D. Fletcher and Harry Wilfong.
Environmental Concerns with Plastic Bag: There is a lot environmental Concern with Plastic Bags but not just plastic bag but with non-biodegradable plastic materials which is made with petrochemicals. Even the mainstream news has admitted that plastic maybe a bigger threat than climate change which that the case because climate change is never issue because the sun is the main driver of climate change and don’t cause much damage to the marine life as non-biodegradable plastic would.
Because plastic bags are so durable, this makes them a concern for the environment. They will not break down easily and as a result may be harmful to wildlife. Each year millions of discarded plastic shopping bags end up as plastic waste litter in the environment when improperly disposed of. The same properties that have made plastic bags so commercially successful and ubiquitous—namely their low weight and resistance to degradation—have also contributed to their proliferation in the environment. Due to their durability, plastic bags can take centuries to decompose.
On land, plastic bags are one of the most prevalent types of litter in inhabited areas. Large buildups of plastic bags can clog drainage systems and contribute to flooding, as occurred in Bangladesh in 1988 and 1998 and almost annually in Manila. Littering is often a serious problem in developing countries, where trash collection infrastructure is less developed than in wealthier nations.
Plastic bags were found to constitute a significant portion of the floating marine debris in the waters around southern Chile in a study conducted between 2002 and 2005. If washed out to sea, plastic bags can be carried long distances by ocean currents, and can strangle marine animals.
What are alternatives?
Good news that there are alternatives to plastic bags and I list them below.
Paper Bags: Paper Bags are good alternatives to plastic shopping bags But trees are required to be cut down for paper that goes into making those shopping bag. But those papers bags are biodegradable and less damaging to the environment.
Cassava Starch: These bags are made with Cassava starch. They look like regular plastic shopping bags and they don’t contain any petrochemicals that makes the Low-density polyethylene (LDPE). The bags are biodegradable will make a great replacement for plastic bag. The video down below show that
Corn Starch: Similar to the bags that made with Cassava Starch, they also don’t contain any petrochemicals
Hemp: Hemp shopping bags are made with hemp wool as canvas which that came from the hemp plant. Hemp is environmentally friendly; hemp can be used to make many things including hemp plastic
Canvas bags: Canvas comes in many forms including cotton and hemp and you can use it for shopping or to carry things. They do last a long time and is better for the environment.
I have list the alternative and I hope that what you would need to know. For me I did have some Non-Woven Polypropylene (NWPP) shopping bag which I use for shopping and as an alternative to plastic bag and which can buy them in many supermarkets. Many countries or region in countries have banned or tax plastic and here image below
I understand why those countries have either banned or tax the used of plastic. Because of the environmental concerns like landfills, polluted waterways as well clogged up sewers, animals getting caught in plastics bags especially sea creatures. If a country banned want to ban plastic bag firstly they would want to promote an alternative to plastic bag like paper bags for example.
Here number of the countries that had banned plastic; Bangladesh, China, India, Taiwan, Macedonia, South Africa, Kenya, France, Italy, Australia (Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania and Australian Capital Territory) and many other countries. Problem with banning plastic bags, you only prohibited the use and manufacture of plastic bags; the problem is still there because plastic bags mount up in the landfill. But there a solution the pollution caused by plastic bag; is to turn back plastic bag into a form they were. Plastic bags are made low-density polyethylene (LDPE) Plastic which is made from non-renewables like oil or coal. Plastic be melted using pyrolysis to turn plastic into oil. You can found on youtube but I will a video down below
Usually I talk about setting up a pyrolysis that you can setup yourself. The person in the show I have shown you; he made his unit pyrolysis unit for what he had available in his own garage to convert plastic into fuel. This proves that it have something lying around in your garage you can make your own pyrolysis unit and start converting plastic into oil. If you thinking about making your own pyrolysis unit to your plastic waste into oil; it’s always pay to do your own research and willing to take responsibility for your own action and the willingness to learn from your own trials and errors.
Here a diagram on the left to show how converting plastic to oil using pyrolysis works. and show the Furnace & Reactor, Condenser unit and Liquid product collector. and give example how pyrolysis would be used to plastic into oil. For plastic into fuel firstly plastic have to be convert into oil and secondly the oil have to refined. The oil can be refined into kerosene, gasoline, diesel, and what oil can refined into.
Solution to our plastic pollution is to covert plastic back it’s form it was once was. Pyrolysis is one of the solution which can be with low or high tech. There might be other solution our plastic pollution.
Matthew Conclusion:For me I don’t pick sides; I think independently what I post on Eco Liberty and I why write and post article. I’, glad for what countdown is doing to phase out single use plastic bag and out supermarket in New Zealand and ones in countries across the world. Plastic bag ban only stop more plastic bag going to landfills. It’s won’t solve the plastic pollution because plastic takes a very longtime to breakdown. this video below shows that why plastic can last a very longtime.
The video prove that why banning plastic bag is not solution it may stop more plastic bag going the landfill but there are things that do contain materials plastic like bottles, containers, tanks, toys, etc. they also end up on landfills. There are countries that banned single use plastic bags or there are countries that are planning to ban single use plastic bags, and there are countries not planning to ban single use plastic bag or not anytime soon. either way there are solution to plastic pollution; like converting plastic into fuel or using worms or fungi that do eat plastic. Together we can clean the plastic pollution that is affecting the today environment that is affecting wildlife and our everyday life.