Jim writes: “Andrew Weaver the first Green MLA (MPP) in Canada being sworn in in the BC legislature on Thursday in Victoria!
Once sworn in, Andrew wasted no time in making his voice heard: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/andrew-weaver-first-green-mla-in-bc-history-sworn-in/article12390463/
Power to … who?! Stand Up, Speak Out! Marianne Williamson TedX Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHRE10ZiYjM
RELATED (Williamson):
UPDATE: I sent an email to Marianne to suggest that the role of the University needs to be addressed.
June 09, 2013: Received a reply – see the above posting What comes next?
2. 2004-10-24 Our greatest fear is of our own power (Poem by Marianne Williamson)
PLEASE HELP – add your weight to the Petition.
April 29 – we celebrated European ability to get “neo nics” (pesticides that kill bees) banned in Europe. (http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=8974)
Today, the ban is in serious jeopardy because of the manoeuvres of the chemical corporations.
If you have questions, see the links at the bottom.
If we as global citizens cannot make the ban on these 3 chemicals that kill bees REAL in Europe, there will be little chance of getting these poisons stopped in Canada.
Killing off the pollinators is extremely bad and costly policy.
Thank-you for your consideration, and please forward to others.
/Sandra
NOTE: I would not have chosen the wording “incredible scam”, but I suppose that’s what it is.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Right now in Brussels, an incredible scam is soon to take place that will harm bees, biodiversity… and all citizens who have been fighting for several years to ban bee killing pesticides in Europe and in every country in the world.
We must stop this action before it has dramatic consequences on the future of our farms and our food. PLEASE SIGN THE ENCLOSED EUROPEAN PETITION NOW AND PASS IT AROUND AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.
There is not one minute to lose!
After several years of relentless fighting from citizens and beekeepers, the European Commission has finally taken an official stand against three neonicotinoid pesticides which are extremely dangerous for bees (1).
Since Associations believed they had won, they had laid down their arms.
BUT …
In reality, the arrangement soon to be adopted by Brussels authorities is a disastrous compromise dictated by international agrochemical companies such as Bayer, Syngenta and such, which have been harshly lobbying for months in order to obtain such a result (2).
Their objective : to thwart the will of the european citizens and prevent a REAL ban on beekilling pesticides – against the specific advice from French and European Health Authorities (3)… IN ORDER TO HOLD ON TO THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF EUROS OF YEARLY PROFIT GAINED THROUGH THESE PRODUCTS BY THE COMPANIES PRODUCING THEM.
Those three pesticides will be officially banned for a trial period of two years at the end of which the sanitary authorities will decide whether the ban has had an effect on the slaughtering of the bees and if a definitive ban is to be ordered.
But this alleged interdiction cannot have any effect on the health of bees. BECAUSE THE THREE BEEKILLING PESTICIDES WILL BE BANNED ONLY A FEW MONTHS A YEAR AND WILL BE PROFUSELY USED THE REST OF THE TIME – on about 85% of grains and on a large portion of the crops of fruit , vegetable and aromatic herbs – thus widely poisoning the soil and water and later spreading to the so-called «untreated» farmland.
Several studies have shown that those ultra-toxic substances can still be present in the soil three years after a treatment has been done (4)AND THAT UNTREATED CROPS WHICH ARE PLANTED ANEW IN THE SAME SOIL SHOW TRACES OF NEONICOTINOIDES EVEN IN THEIR POLLEN… THAT BEES LATER COME TO COLLECT. (5)
A the end of the two-year trial test , the companies will be able to show that bees continue to be decimated in spite of the ban on their products and thus state that they are in no way responsible. They will have succeeded in using their products and hold on to their profits – for a very long time.
This diabolic plan can only bring an unprecedented environmental disaster.
It is still possible to prevent this disaster BUT ACTING QUICKLY IS URGENT. In a few days the European Commission will adopt the final version of the european rules concerning those three pesticides.
It is urgent to act before the Commission takes a stand, if we want to obtain A REAL BAN ON THOSE PESTICIDES. CLICK HERE NOW TO SIGN UP THE EUROPEAN PETITION AGAINST THE LOBBIES!
If we do not react now, this is what will happen in the next two years:
-Neonicotinoids will continue to be used on winter crops, thus deeply permeating soil and water.
– Untreated Spring and Summer crops will become infected by the remnants of those pesticides and will poison bees.
– Bee large-scale mortality will persist, despite the alleged ban on neonicotinoids.
Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer and all the agrochemical laboratories will be able to claim that their products have no effect on bee mortality and will obtain the complete rehabilitation of those products on the market.
And there will be nothing left for us but to weep!
WE MUST NIP THIS DISASTROUS PLAN IN THE BUD AND DEMAND FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION A STRAIGHTFORWARD BAN ON THOSE BEEKILLING PESTICIDES, AS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION IN FACT PRETENDS TO DO.
No more compromise, no more scheming…. If a two-year test is necessary to evaluate the real impact on pollinators of those pesticides, let us do it honestly, thoroughly!
According to INRA (the very official French Institue for Agronomical Research), farmers themselves would have nothing to lose from the test: pesticide consumption could be reduced by 30 to 40% without any reduction of their income – by simply getting back to rotating cultures that would quite effectively fight parasites while significantly reducing the use of chemical treatments(6).
Imagine, for France alone, there areover 20.000 tons of ultra-toxic substances which are unecessarily spread annually on our countryside!
The only ones suffering would be the agrochemical giant firms and their profits…But Nature is not concerned with profits!
SO PLEASE HELP POLLINIS IN CREATING A REAL SHOCK WAVE THROUGH ALL OF EUROPE TO COUNTER THE AGROCHEMICAL LOBBIES THAT ARE READY TO SACRIFICE YOUR HEALTH, YOUR FOOD AND EVEN NATURE IN THE YEARS TO COME SO AS TO HOLD ON TO THEIR IMMEDIATE PROFITS.
SIGN THIS PETITION AND SEND THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY AS POSSIBLE AROUND YOU.
In advance, thank you!
Nicolas LAARMAN
National Secretary of Pollinis
If you want to know more on the subject :
1. The text of the European Comission banning three neonicotinoids :
http://www.pollinis.org/IMG/doc/regulation_commission_europeenne_interdiction_3_neonicotinoides.doc
2. The excellent report from the Corporate Union Observatory :
http://corporateeurope.org/publications/pesticides-against-pollinators
Or, here online, a good short resume in french from the Journal de l’Environnement .
3. In early 2013, a report from the European Authority on Food Security (EFSA) confirmed that neonicotinoides represent a major risk for bees and pollinators.
4. Neonicotinoids stick to the environment. Half the clothianidine life has been measured by the American Agency for Health Protection.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-044309_2-Nov-10_b.pdf
See also the file published in 2010 by J.DeCant et M.Barrett in the review Environmental Protection (pp.1-99) : Environmental Fate et Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration of CLOTHIANIDIN for Use as a Seed Treatment on Mustard Seed (Oilseed and condiment) and Cotton.
5. Nenonicotinoids have a persistent polluting effect on environment in the larger sense. notably on pollen. Imidaclopride for instance can be absorbed by untreated cultures as late as two years after being first utilised and still be found in toxic quantities in the pollen and nectar of flowers that were never treated.
In 2002 and 2003, 69.1% of the pollen collected by the bees of 25 hives in five french departments, on plants either treated or untreated , were contaminated by imidacloprid, though a ban on the utilization of this neurotoxine on sunflowers has been imposed in january 1999.
6. ECOPHYTO R & D file of INRA : « Reduction of pesticides ».
http://institut.inra.fr/Missions/Eclairer-decisions/Etudes/Toutes-les-actualites/Ecophyto-R-D
Pollinis – Réseau des Conservatoires Abeilles et Pollinisateurs
Association Loi 1901 Conservatoire des Fermes et de la Nature
143 avenue Parmentier – 75010 Paris www.pollinis.org
| JOIN POLLINIS | ||
| Help us save the honeybees and biodiversity. We are exclusively financed by your contributions. We do not receive any government subsidies. Our team ensures that even the smallest contribution will be used efficiently. |
What do you think about this?
. . . But, … but honey! – – WE are eating the same GMO food (it’s just not labelled, we are kept in the dark).
In an earlier posting, I wanted a better idea of WHAT FOODS ON THE GROCERY SHELF have GMO ingredients? How much are we actually eating?
I stumbled on food lists for people that have allergies to soy and then one for allergies to canola oil – – those are two of the largest GM crops. If you are eating food with soy, canola, or corn you are almost assuredly eating GM plant material.
Which raises the obvious question:
If you remember the entomologist describing how the insect larvae is killed by the GM corn plant, and then read about Dr. Elaine Ingham’s work – – GMO plant material “ulcerates” the digestive system of animals,
If you’re smart enough to know that human beings are animals, not that much different from these other creatures, AND you have an idea of how much GM plant material is in the average diet of a North American, you might want to . . . I don’t know – – what does it make you feel like doing?
I want to help spread the word. Lots of people are doing the same which is inspiring. It should not be out of ignorance that we feed our families GM food products.
I updated the posting A closer look at GMO ingredients in store-bought food. It has the link to the Mercola article about Dr. Elaine Ingham’s work.
For the next international MAM in my community (March Against Monsanto October 12, 2013) there is already talk about the possibility of a “lead-up” evening where we discuss “How” GM food works. Too many people are not aware. They cannot make informed choices about what they are eating.
Click on
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/19/gmo-harms-food-production.aspx
Very good material. Among other things, Dr. Mercola discusses the work of Dr. Elaine Ingham.
Lynn supplied the link and writes:
No one actually spoke to the health impacts of GMO food and it seemed a bit vague why we are against GMO’s.
Perhaps we should have a pamphlet next time to hand out to people.
IMPORTANT NOTE:
Dr. Elaine Ingham says GMO plant material “ulcerates” the digestive system of animals. The entomologist in an earlier posting said GMO plant material “eats holes in” the digestive system of the larvae.
I updated the posting A closer look at GMO ingredients in store-bought food to draw out the parallel.
The common theme is compelling; people should be aware because WE ARE ANIMALS, too!
QUESTION:
When you get to the root of how GMO plants work, I’d say the answer is obvious. It’s the latter.
http://presidiosentinel.com/local-news/is-our-drinking-water-safe
Is Our Drinking Water Safe?
Patty Ducey-Brooks
Almost two years ago, against the wishes of the majority of San Diegans, our tap water began being treated with hydrofluosilicic acid (artificial fluoride), not calcium fluoride. What I have learned with the assistance of scientists with the EPA, dentists and chemists is that artificial fluoride is 35 times more toxic (lethal dose 150mg/kg as opposed to 5,000mg/kg) than calcium fluoride. It also binds to bones and tissues to a far greater degree than natural fluoride, thus causing myriad potential health disturbances.
To demonstrate how people can make a difference, this past month a broad coalition of Portlanders resoundingly rejected adding fluoridation chemicals to the city’s water supply. By a 61 percent to 39 percent margin, Portland voters agreed with the position of most western nations that there are safer, more effective, and less intrusive ways to promote oral health than adding a chemical linked to thyroid disease, IQ loss, and other ailments to the water supply.
Portland’s clean water campaign was spearheaded by Clean Water Portland (CWP), a broad coalition formed in August 2012 after a newspaper revealed secret ongoing fluoridation meetings with Portland City Council members that were illegally kept off the record. With virtually no public input, the City Council mandated fluoridation for the city on September 12. CWP then led an unprecedented effort that gathered over 40,000 signatures in less than 30 days to halt the mandate and force the referendum vote.
Additionally, this past month, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill that requires chemical companies to fully disclose all the chemicals they are dumping into Utah’s water along with the toxic fluoride which has been represented for more than 60 years across the U.S. as a means of preventing dental caries. The bill – H.B. 72 – is not designed to permanently stop water fluoridation or make a statement about whether fluoride’s rewards (its alleged property of preventing dental caries) outweighs its risks for causing various types of cancer, osteoporosis, MS and a host of other diseases. The bill is simply designed to force companies such as Thatcher and Mosaic Chemical to disclose exactly what is contained in the entire witches-brew batch of fluoridation chemicals being dumped in Utah’s drinking water.
The fluoridation companies came under intense scrutiny after Utah’s analysis of various spills and releases of the fluoridation chemicals revealed that in addition to fluoride, there were several other toxic chemicals far in excess of allowable limits for safe drinking water – chemicals that included aluminum, arsenic, lead, mercury and beryllium which, when mixed with fluoride, become especially active and dangerous to human health.
What does this mean for those of us in San Diego? It means it is time to bring this information to our new mayor, Mr. Filner, and our council members. It’s time they also ask the question that the governor of Utah poses, “What chemicals are you putting in our drinking water, and what harm can they create?
To learn more about this topic, visit San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water’s web site: www.sdsdw.org.
Grant writes:
Hi….you will like this one Sandra …. the people actually won one. Read the short page (at the side)…the facts are as bizarre as the dental amalgam issue.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Sandra:
The images of thousands of citizen activists in the video made the chills run up my spine! What a HUGE and successful effort – – against the million dollars that the industry and its supporters spent to force fluoridation of Portland’s water supply. Way to go Portland!!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Major Victory as Portland, Oregon Votes NO on Water Fluoridation
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
An earlier posting, also with good information: Fluoridation – At Any Cost, Dr. Hardy Limeback.
NOTE: this posting is not yet complete, I haven’t sent it around. Some of the info in it needs to be accessible, I will complete it when I’m able.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – —
We have work to do. Please blast this around the universe!
But ESPECIALLY, find:
= = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = =
CONSIDER:
The Alliance to Feed the Future has been formed, 50 industry groups. Monsanto is at the helm. It’s role is to create propaganda for the media, politicians, farmers and other citizens: GMO food is good for you and the Planet.
WHO often generates the material for the chemical/GMO industry? I am sorry to say, but here it is:
From the March Against Monsanto (MAM), May 25, 2013, Saskatoon SK:
– – – – – – – – – – – –
WHAT SUGGESTS THAT UNIVERSITiES WILL SERVE THE INTERESTS OF THE GMO CORPORATIONS (ALLIANCE TO FEED THE FUTURE)?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
WHAT’S AT STAKE?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
WHAT TO DO?
Make sure people at the University know
The Putin article spells out the situation with GMO/chem agriculture. It has to be stopped. It means speaking with the elephant in the room, the University.
There ain’t nobody who is going to do it for us!
One of the first things I want to do is track down Marianne Williamson. Her speech at the March Against Monsanto was just excellent. I’d like to add the Unversity connection to her radar screen. She doesn’t mention it. 2013-05-27 What comes next? March Against Monsanto. Marianne Williamson speaks.
UPDATE: Done! And a reply received. See the preceding link.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
HOW TO MOVE THE UNIVERSITIES
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
MARCH AGAINST MONSANTO (MAM), OCTOBER 12th, 2013, IN YOUR COMMUNITY
If there isn’t one, set one up. (how to)
If there is one, join it now and tell/invite all your friends.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
BE LIKE HUNGARY
2013-05-23 Hungary won’t tolerate GMO seeds, burns 1,000 acres of corn
Insist that the Government burn GMO crops that have not been approved. 2013-05-29 Monsanto’s GMO Wheat growing in Oregon. Not approved. USDA investigating.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
KNOW THE NAMES
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
OFFICIAL MAM WEBSITE
OFFICIAL MAM FACEBOOK GROUP
NOTE:
Dave writes:
“microleakage” refers to leakage that occurs between the tooth and the filling when these fillings get older. It isn’t referring to mercury gassing off. As micro-leakage occurs there is a greater risk of decay between the filling and tooth. These leakages are sometimes repaired by using composite to seal them over.
Also note the language: microleakage. It’s equivalent to the phrase “Depleted Uranium (DU)” to describe very radioactive, toxic material.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Hi Sandra……one of my customers / friends sent this to me. …
Grant,
Thanks for the info on this – very interesting to see some of the other material from IAOMT besides what you had told me. You can bet I will be doing more Internet research! I will be fwd’g this to my dentist too – no sure what kind of reaction that will have…
Interestingly enough, I found a fall newsletter from the University of SK Dental College with a reference to amalgam microleakage being investigated by two third year students, though I can’t seem to find any details. They both should be well established dentists now – wonder what they found out? It also makes you realize that the dental world darn well knows about this…
http://www.usask.ca/dentistry/alumni/pdf/Recall_Nov08.pdf
Ashley Fidyk & Marie Hawreluik (Supervisor: Dr. A. Koneru)
Pre-clinical Evaluation of Resin Sealing on
Amalgam Microleakage in Primary Class I Molars
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
NOTE (Sandra speaking): I entered “leakage” and did a “search” on the Newsletter, in order to find the reference to the “amalgam microleakage being investigated”.
http://dogwoodinitiative.org/blog/BC-Enbridge-recommendation
Lots of people, particularly eastern pundits, were surprised by B.C. Premier Clark’s decision to formally reject Enbridge’s oil tanker and pipeline proposal to ship Alberta crude oil through B.C. to China and other Asian markets.
We weren’t.
Why? Simply because its good politics.
I’ll explain.
Premier Clark has staked her political future on rapidly ramping up Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports from B.C. It was the centerpiece both of her jobs plan and the cash cow that would help her claw her way out of significant budget deficits.
Anything but a strong NO to Enbridge would have raised the ire of northern First Nations and communities – those whom she quickly needs to appease to fast track her LNG plans. Simply put, a YES to Enbridge would have – as UBC Prof George Hoberg recently said – unleashed a backlash of civil disobedience unprecedented in our province’s history, as well as potentially spurred a citizen initiative similar to the HST referendum, which could seriously derail her government’s priorities.
The second reason is that despite what some eastern pundits may claim, pro-oil tanker and pro-pipeline positions are politically toxic in B.C. What’s been lost in the myriad of opinion editorials claiming the tanker issue is what cost the NDP the election is the fact that Christy Clark campaigned on ‘Standing up for BC.’ Her ‘protect B.C. against Alberta and Ottawa’ rhetoric served her well in the elections campaign, insulating her from what was substantively a weaker policy position than the NDP.
Also lost in the media coverage so far is the fact that not one MLA was elected who had a pro-oil tanker or pro pipeline position:
MLA’s who opposed or raised serious concerns about oil tanker proposals = 85
MLA’s who supported oil tanker proposals = 0
Despite the rejection, backed by a thorough and compelling technical submission, there were aspects of the B.C. government’s news release that raise concerns. The repeated use of the phrase “as presented to the Joint Review Panel” to qualify their rejection raises the possibility of some post-review secret deal. These weasel words, combined with Minister Lake’s comments yesterday after a meeting in Alberta where he said he saw a “path to Yes,” raises questions about the possibility of further negotiations between Clark’s government, Alberta, Ottawa and Enbridge outside of public process.
It is true: Ottawa could still try pushing through an approval for Enbridge while relying on promises to make the project better after the review. However, the public process is now over, so this would mean any changes Enbridge might make to their proposal would presumably be evaluated behind closed doors. After the HST backlash, it would be political suicide for either Harper or Clark to make backroom changes to their position on such a controversial proposal.
Another problem with a backroom, post-review deal with Ottawa and Alberta is that it would completely undermine the JRP process as well as future review processes. Why would 1,161 people make oral presentations to the JRP or why would interveners waste countless hours reviewing testimony and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers if proposals can get revised and approved post-review through backroom negotiations? This approach would open up more legal and political risks than it would solve. Imagine what would happen to the upcoming regulatory review of the Kinder Morgan proposal if Victoria and Ottawa bring out the gaffers tape and approve Enbridge post review?
Another reason Clark’s opposition to Enbridge isn’t a surprise is that by all accounts she is a federal Liberal at heart. After the largest perceived election comeback in Canadian history, Clark is in a strong position to play hardball with Harper. Clark successfully cozied up to Tory-aligned interests to unify the so-called ‘Free Enterprise’ vote before and during the election, but insiders indicate it was always a forced marriage. Most of her closest advisors – including her ex-husband who’s rumoured to be on the short list as Justin Trudeau’s point man in B.C. – align with the Grits and not the Tories.
Given the massive opposition from across the political spectrum – Dogwood Initiative alone has more than 150,000 No Tankers supporters – and the federal Liberals long-standing opposition to the expansion of oil tankers in B.C. (going all the way back to Justin’s dad), the Liberal brand is enhanced by a firm NO position and a face-off with Harper.
In fact, polls suggest ‘Standing Strong Against Oil Tankers’ is perhaps the best issue in B.C. to differentiate Grits from the Tories and rebuild support for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Given the collapse of the provincial Conservatives, her unexpected comeback, her deep political ties to the Grits and her desire to fast track LNG, Clark’s decision to reject Enbridge as it stands makes a great deal of political sense.