Here is your Mother Earth Cherish the natural resources For your children And your children’s children Do not let selfish men Or greedy interest’s Skin you Earth of its beauty It’s riches or its romance Monday, April 22 Earth Day 2013
Friday, May 31, 2013
ACUARIOS WELLNESS CENTER: Hydroelectric Energy kundalini
ACUARIOS WELLNESS CENTER: Hydroelectric Energy kundalini: Hydroelectric Energy Since raised kundalini means an activation of the sympathetic nervous system the demand for energy generation goes u...
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
sustainable effort to manage the fish.
The Saudi Arabia of Sashimi
Eight tiny Pacific island nations banded together to fight pirates and change the rules of the sea.
In the ice-cold cargo hold of a pirate tuna vessel in the Pacific, I have somehow lost my shoe. Frozen tuna fins slice my unshod foot as I fumble around on all fours, reaching into the gigantic, frigid pile.
I had boarded the pirate ship Heng Xing 1 with the crew of a Greenpeace vessel, theEsperanza, which is helping the island nation of Palau patrol the ocean. We caught theHeng Xing 1 and two other ships on the high seas laundering tuna. Illegally moving tuna from one boat to another hides the fish's origins, making it impossible to know who caught it and where. The tuna itself is mainly skipjack, the kind in cans that America eats at a rate of 2 1/2 pounds per person per year.
Farah Obaidullah, the Greenpeace expedition leader, stands nearby with one leg jauntily propped on a pile of frozen fish as her crew speedily documents the plunder. They take a lot of flash pictures, and I use each burst to look around, making sure I'm at least retaining the rest of my clothing as I flail about in tuna. For Obaidullah and Earl Benhart, Palau's marine officer on board, it's a typical day in the struggle to protect the world’s last healthy tuna populations from the perils of the lawless sea.
Advertisement
Tuna is the oil of the Western and Central Pacific, with the region’s stock worth $5.5 billion. As unregulated fishing collapses tuna stocks elsewhere and global demand for tuna grows, the value of the fish here continues to climb. One Pacific bluefin recently sold in Japan for $1.76 million, and over the past four years, the cost of licenses to fish tuna in this region shot from $400 per day to $6,000. High prices and healthy stocks are a huge magnet for pirate fishers who flock to this part of the Pacific. In 2010, Palau recorded about 850 pirate fishing vessels plundering its waters. Keeping the fishing regulated and the pirate fishers at bay is a massive and economically critical job.
To do it, Palau and seven of its Pacific neighbors, collectively called the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, are going to extraordinary lengths to protect their tuna economy, taking on not only the high-seas mayhem but also distant fishing powers who want more and more fish. And if the PNA’s revolutionary methods catch on, they could have far-reaching repercussions not only for the beleaguered tuna but also for the health of our oceans.
Palau is a string of emerald islands jutting up from the kind of impossibly clear waters that beckon from posters on corporate walls. It's one of the world's premiere dive sites, so tourists abound, but Palau has only around 20,000 inhabitants. When I asked locals how to reach their president, they gave me directions to his house.
President Thomas Remengesau Jr. greets me in a tracksuit and aviator glasses, looking more like the guy who should protect the president than the president himself. He leads me to his backyard, and we sit in the shade near his pet alligator and parrots. He leans back in his chair and asks me to call him Tommy.
So I ask Tommy how this tuna revolution started.
"Well, first," he says, "everybody had to realize that the whole issue was a game of divide-and-conquer."
For a long time, he tells me, Pacific island states were losing out to distant-water fishing powers like the United States, the European Union countries, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The island states, by and large, don’t have their own fishing fleets or canning facilities; instead, they make money by leasing the right to fish their waters to rich countries with big boats. Until the PNA came together, powerful fishing nations simply played one island-state off the other to get the lowest-priced lease. This was obviously bad for the Pacific states, but it was also bad for tuna, since there was no real, orchestrated effort to sustainable manage the fish. This, by the way, is how things generally go around the world for commercial fishing.
Remengesau takes a long sip of water. "So it became evident that we needed to really take stock of our resources and that there's strength in numbers. That it would be a move in the right direction to begin to address the problem together," he says.
The first move came 10 years after the eight nations—Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, Palau, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, and Tuvalu—formed the PNA. In 1992, they signed an agreement stating that they'd work collectively to manage their tuna stocks and limit fishing in their waters. This was a really big deal. Once the PNA decided to act as a block, they suddenly had nearly half of the world’s skipjack tuna—America's favorite fish—and nearly one-third of the world's total tuna inside their joint territorial waters. They became the Saudi Arabia of sashimi.
I had boarded the pirate ship Heng Xing 1 with the crew of a Greenpeace vessel, theEsperanza, which is helping the island nation of Palau patrol the ocean. We caught theHeng Xing 1 and two other ships on the high seas laundering tuna. Illegally moving tuna from one boat to another hides the fish's origins, making it impossible to know who caught it and where. The tuna itself is mainly skipjack, the kind in cans that America eats at a rate of 2 1/2 pounds per person per year.
Farah Obaidullah, the Greenpeace expedition leader, stands nearby with one leg jauntily propped on a pile of frozen fish as her crew speedily documents the plunder. They take a lot of flash pictures, and I use each burst to look around, making sure I'm at least retaining the rest of my clothing as I flail about in tuna. For Obaidullah and Earl Benhart, Palau's marine officer on board, it's a typical day in the struggle to protect the world’s last healthy tuna populations from the perils of the lawless sea.
Advertisement
Tuna is the oil of the Western and Central Pacific, with the region’s stock worth $5.5 billion. As unregulated fishing collapses tuna stocks elsewhere and global demand for tuna grows, the value of the fish here continues to climb. One Pacific bluefin recently sold in Japan for $1.76 million, and over the past four years, the cost of licenses to fish tuna in this region shot from $400 per day to $6,000. High prices and healthy stocks are a huge magnet for pirate fishers who flock to this part of the Pacific. In 2010, Palau recorded about 850 pirate fishing vessels plundering its waters. Keeping the fishing regulated and the pirate fishers at bay is a massive and economically critical job.
To do it, Palau and seven of its Pacific neighbors, collectively called the Parties to the Nauru Agreement, are going to extraordinary lengths to protect their tuna economy, taking on not only the high-seas mayhem but also distant fishing powers who want more and more fish. And if the PNA’s revolutionary methods catch on, they could have far-reaching repercussions not only for the beleaguered tuna but also for the health of our oceans.
Palau is a string of emerald islands jutting up from the kind of impossibly clear waters that beckon from posters on corporate walls. It's one of the world's premiere dive sites, so tourists abound, but Palau has only around 20,000 inhabitants. When I asked locals how to reach their president, they gave me directions to his house.
President Thomas Remengesau Jr. greets me in a tracksuit and aviator glasses, looking more like the guy who should protect the president than the president himself. He leads me to his backyard, and we sit in the shade near his pet alligator and parrots. He leans back in his chair and asks me to call him Tommy.
So I ask Tommy how this tuna revolution started.
"Well, first," he says, "everybody had to realize that the whole issue was a game of divide-and-conquer."
For a long time, he tells me, Pacific island states were losing out to distant-water fishing powers like the United States, the European Union countries, Taiwan, and the Philippines. The island states, by and large, don’t have their own fishing fleets or canning facilities; instead, they make money by leasing the right to fish their waters to rich countries with big boats. Until the PNA came together, powerful fishing nations simply played one island-state off the other to get the lowest-priced lease. This was obviously bad for the Pacific states, but it was also bad for tuna, since there was no real, orchestrated effort to sustainable manage the fish. This, by the way, is how things generally go around the world for commercial fishing.
Remengesau takes a long sip of water. "So it became evident that we needed to really take stock of our resources and that there's strength in numbers. That it would be a move in the right direction to begin to address the problem together," he says.
The first move came 10 years after the eight nations—Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, Palau, the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea, and Tuvalu—formed the PNA. In 1992, they signed an agreement stating that they'd work collectively to manage their tuna stocks and limit fishing in their waters. This was a really big deal. Once the PNA decided to act as a block, they suddenly had nearly half of the world’s skipjack tuna—America's favorite fish—and nearly one-third of the world's total tuna inside their joint territorial waters. They became the Saudi Arabia of sashimi.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Gaia
Was the goddess or personification of Earth in ancient Greek religion, one of the Greek primordial deities. Gaia was the great mother of all: the heavenly gods, the Titans and the Giants were born from her union with Uranus (the sky), while the sea-gods were born from her union with Pontus (the sea). Her equivalent in the Roman pantheon was Terra.
Saturday, March 30, 2013
cbs news obama mansato outrage
Critics slam Obama for "protecting" Monsanto
There's no love lost between Washington and the American public, it seems, five days after Congress for the first time in years managed to handle a budget-related issue without reaching the brink of crisis.Protesters have descended on Pennsylvania Avenue outside the White House this week, enraged at a potentially health-hazardous provision they allege lawmakers inserted surreptitiously into a continuing resolution (CR) that will fund the government through the remainder of the fiscal year. The bill sailed through the Capitol on Friday; President Obama signed it into law on Tuesday.
Opponents have termed the language in question the "Monsanto Protection Act," a nod to the major agricultural biotech corporation and other like firms geared at producing genetically modified organisms (GMO) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds and crops. The provision protects genetically modified seeds from litigation suits over health risks posed by the crops' consumption.
Food safety advocacy groups like Food Democracy Now, which collected more than 250,000 signatures on a petition calling for the president to veto the CR, argue not enough studies have been conducted into the possible health risks of GMO and GE seeds. Eliminating judicial power to halt the selling or planting of them essentially cuts off their course to ensuring consumer safety should health risks emerge.
Seeking a "balance" to the newly minted law, Food Democracy Now has shifted its tactics to encouraging supporters to sign and send letters to Mr. Obama, chiding him for signing the legislation despite that refusal to do so would have expired the federal budget and triggered a government-wide shutdown this week.
Part of the template for the letter reads: "In an effort to balance this violation of our basic rights, I am urging you as President to issue an Executive Order to require the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, something that you promised farmers while on the campaign trail in 2007. It is urgent that the U.S. government rectify the 20 year old politically engineered loophole and allow for open and transparent labeling of genetically engineered foods," the letter continues, "a basic right that citizens in 62 others countries already enjoy."
Other groups have aimed their ire toward the more worthy target, criticizing Congress for slipping the language into a must-pass bill without review by the Agricultural or Judiciary Committees. The International Business Times reports that the Center for Food Safety is putting in the hot seat Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., chairwoman for the Senate Appropriations Committee, for not giving the amendment a proper hearing. According to Salon, many members of Congress who voted to approve the bill were unaware the language existed.
"In this hidden backroom deal, Sen. Mikulski turned her back on consumer, environmental and farmer protection in favor of corporate welfare for biotech companies such as Monsanto," Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, said in a statement, according to IBT. "This abuse of power is not the kind of leadership the public has come to expect from Sen. Mikulski or the Democrat Majority in the Senate."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57576835/critics-slam-obama-for-protecting-monsanto/?tag=socsh
Friday, March 29, 2013
One of may reasons
This is one of the many reason's Monsanto has to go BYE Bye
http://acuarios-foundation.blogspot.com/2013/03/take-care-of-this-planet.html
http://acuarios-foundation.blogspot.com/2013/03/take-care-of-this-planet.html
.jpg)
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Monsanto bill 933
Opponents of genetically modified organisms in food, or GMOs, rail against provision that would limit the courts’ ability to stop food producer Monsanto from growing crops later deemed potentially hazardous
The Farmer Assurance Provision, a rider slipped into spending bill HR 933, is being blasted as the 'Monsanto Protection Act.' Although it would remain in effect for only six months, activists fear the precedent it sets.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack testifies on Capitol Hill on March 5. Activists are upset that the department would be required to ignore court rulings under the provision.
Who’s more powerful, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified crops or the U.S. government?
Last week, Congress passed HR 933, a short-term resolution to avoid a government shutdown. Tucked away in the bill, however, was a rider that had little to do with the fiscal challenges facing the country.
Dubbed the Farmer Assurance Provision, section 735 of the resolution would seem to place the commercial concerns of Monsanto, the world’s largest producer of genetically modified crops and seeds, above the authority of U.S. judicial system.
In effect, the provision, which opponents call the Monsanto Protection Act, would limit the ability of judges to stop Monsanto or the farmers it sells genetically modified seeds from growing or harvesting those crops even if courts find evidence of potential health risks.
“This dangerous provision, the Monsanto Protection Act, strips judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer and farmer rights and the environment, while opening up the floodgates for the planting of new untested genetically engineered crops, endangering farmers, citizens and the environment,” the group Food Democracy Now said on its website.
Food Democracy Now and several other groups are now petitioning President Obama, demanding that he not sign HR 933 into law.
Public health lawyer Michele Simon, another opponent of genetically modified organisms, also decried the provision.
CRISTIAN BAITG/GETTY IMAGES
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill, defended it. “What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it. But it is only a one-year protection in that bill.”
“Without any hearings on the matter, the Senate included language that would require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to essentially ignore any court ruling that would otherwise halt the planting of new genetically-engineered crops,” Simon wrote on her blog.
One of the rider’s biggest supporters was Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who worked with Monsanto to craft the language in the bill.
“What it says is if you plant a crop that is legal to plant when you plant it, you get to harvest it,” Blunt told Politico. “But it is only a one-year protection in that bill.”
Opposing the inclusion of the rider was Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.), who told Politico that the deal worked out with Monsanto was simply bad policy.
“These provisions are giveaways, pure and simple, and will be a boon worth millions of dollars to a handful of the biggest corporations in this country,” Tester said.
The bill now awaits Obama’s signature. If passed, the rider will only remain in effect for six months, but the precedent it sets is what has many food safety experts worried.
Seattle attorney Bill Marler, who has successfully sued corporations on behalf of the victims of foodborne illness, sees the purported upending of constitutional principles as the biggest problem with the rider.
“I think any time you tweak with the ability of the public to seek redress from the courts, you create a huge risk,” Marler told the Daily News.
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
TCDD, Dioxin AGENT ORANGE
.jpg)
The Issue That Wont Go Away
"TCDD (dioxin) has been shown to be extremely toxic to a number of
animal species. Mortality does not occur immediately.it appears that
the animals' environment suddenly becomes toxic to them."
Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, 1996
From 1962 to 1970, the US military sprayed 72 million liters of
herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, in Vietnam. Over one million
Vietnamese were exposed to the spraying, as well as over 100,000
Americans and allied troops. Dr. James Clary, a scientist at the
Chemical Weapons Branch, Eglin Air Force Base, who designed the
herbicide spray tank and wrote a 1979 report on Operation Ranch Hand
(the name of the spraying program), told Senator Daschle in 1988,
"When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the
1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin
contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the 'military'
formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the 'civilian'
version due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However,
because the material was to be used on the 'enemy,' none of us were
overly concerned. We never considered a scenario in which our own
personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide."
quoted by Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, 1990
What Did We Know About Dioxin, and When Did We Know It?
The first reported industrial dioxin poisoning occurred in Nitro, West
Virginia in 1949. The exposed workers complained of rash, nausea,
headaches, muscle aches, fatigue and emotional instability. A 1953
accident elsewhere resulted in peripheral neuropathies.
A 1969 report commissioned by the USDA found Agent Orange showed a
"significant potential to increase birth defects." The same year, the
NIH confirmed that it caused malformations and stillbirths in mice. In
1970, the US Surgeon General warned it might be hazardous to "our
health." The same day, the Secretaries of the Departments of
Agriculture, the Interior, and HEW jointly announced the suspension of
its use around lakes, recreation areas, homes and crops intended for
human consumption. DOD simultaneously announced its suspension of all
uses of Agent Orange.
When dioxin contaminated material spread on a Missouri farm in 1971,
hundreds of birds, 11 cats, 4 dogs and 43 horses died.
In 1978 the EPA suspended spraying Agent Orange in national forests,
due to increases in miscarriages in women living near forests that had
been sprayed.
A 1979 study published in the JAMA by Bogen et al looked at 78 Vietnam
veterans who reported Agent Orange exposures. Eighty percent reported
extreme fatigue. Over 60% had peripheral neuropathies, 73% had
depression, and 8% had attempted suicide. Forty-five per cent reported
violent rages. Sudden lapses of memory were seen in 21%.
A 1981 study by Pazderova et al. found one half of 80 exposed workers
had metabolic disturbances, 23% peripheral neuropathies, and the
majority, psychiatric changes, primarily depression and fatigue.
In 1979, 47 railroad workers were exposed to PCBs including dioxin in
Missouri when cleaning up a spillage from a damaged tank car that had
been filled with these chemicals. All were followed medically for six
years. Their initial complaints included fatigue and muscle aches. Two
committed suicide. Careful evaluations at Rush-Presbyterian Hospital,
in Chicago, confirmed peripheral neuropathies (in 96%), depression
(69%), tremors (78%), abnormal fatigue (91%), and muscle aches or
cramp (51%). Half had cognitive problems, including problems with
attention and concentration (50%) and slowed reaction times.
These studies are all consistent with each other, and describe a very
significant, multi-system illness affecting all parts of the nervous
system, and causing fatigue and muscle aches. Some of the studies
documented additional organ dysfunction. This syndrome could be very
disabling.
What Did It Take to Forget What We Knew?
By 1983, 9170 veterans had filed claims for disabilities that they
said were caused by Agent Orange. The VA denied compensation to 7709,
saying that a facial rash was the only disease associated with
exposure.
Congress passed the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure
Compensation Standards Act of 1984 in response. It required the VA to
appoint a 'Veterans' Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards' to
review the literature on dioxin and submit recommendations to the head
of the VA.
According to Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, "The VA.directly contradicted its
own established practice, promulgating instead the more stringent
requirement that compensation depends on establishing a cause and
effect relationship," improperly denying the bulk of the claims.
Four groups of impartial scientists were asked by Zumwalt to review
the Advisory Committee transcripts. Their comments are telling, and
include the following:
"The work of the Advisory Committee.has little or no scientific
merit."
".an inadequate process is being used to evaluate scientific
publications for use in public policy."
".less than objective."
Unfortunately, the flawed scientific reviews didn't end with the VA
committee. The CDC was brought in to add weight to the bogus analysis
of dioxin's effects. After 4 years and $63 million in federal funds,
CDC concluded that an Agent Orange study could not be done based on
military records, and furthermore concluded, without data, that
veterans were never exposed to harmful doses of Agent Orange!
When the CDC's protocols were examined, however, it was found that
three changes had been made to its study in 1985, in an apparent
attempt to dilute any negative effect that might be found. Congress
learned in 1986 that administration officials, not scientists, had
forestalled CDC research on the effects of dioxin.
In 1990, Senator Daschle disclosed additional political interference
in the Air Force's Ranch Hand study of Agent Orange effects. A 1984
draft report's conclusion was substantially altered, and the study was
described as "reassuring."
The Ranch Hand study is still ongoing, despite new allegations of
fraudulent methodologies coming to light every few years. It will cost
taxpayers over $100 million.
Monsanto, a manufacturer of Agent Orange, was happy to duplicate the
methods of federally funded studies. By omitting five deaths in the
exposed group and putting four exposed workers in the control group,
they were able to hide a 65% higher death rate in the workers exposed
at the Nitro plant. Another study of workers exposed in 1953 at a BASF
plant was also shown to be falsified, as all the data had been
supplied by the BASF company.
Thanks to the efforts of Admiral Zumwalt, who as the commanding Navy
Admiral in Vietnam was responsible for some of the spraying, and whose
son died from lymphoma, probably as a result of dioxin exposure, many
more illnesses were finally linked to Agent Orange, and have been made
service-connectable over the past decade.
But Zumwalt did not succeed at clearing the air regarding dioxin's
actual toxicity, nor did he stop further scientific shenanigans
carried out by government and industry to hide the toxic effects of
other products, especially those to which our servicemen and women are
exposed.
In April 2000, the National Institute for Environmental Health
Sciences tried to release a report listing dioxin as a carcinogen, but
it was blocked by a lawsuit filed by an industry group. NIEHS had
tried to list dioxin as a carcinogen in 1991, but was not allowed to
do so then. John Bucher, deputy director of the NIEHS, says, "Dioxin
tends to increase the likelihood of all types of cancers" while
industry representatives continue to claim there is insufficient
evidence to link dioxin to health problems.
Ellen Silbergeld, a University of Maryland toxicologist, responded, "I
think the public should be mad as hell about the [dioxin review]
process and the way it's been abused."
Agent Orange: 2002
US and Vietnamese government scientists and international experts met
last week in Hanoi to discuss the effects of the "last significant
ghost" of the Vietnam War: Agent Orange.
Vietnam wants US help performing research and obtaining compensation.
It blames Agent Orange for tens of thousands of birth defects. The US
and Vietnam did sign an agreement during the meeting to carry out
joint research studies. But US ambassador Raymond Burghardt noted that
developing research studies "that are definitive and address the
underlying causes of disease in Vietnam" will be a "difficult task."
Reporting on the conference, Reuters pointed out, "Observers say
conclusive research could have far-reaching and expensive consequences
in terms of compensation claims for the US and Agent Orange makers,
Dow Chemical and Monsanto."
However, the US seems to think it has an ace in the hole. The US
embassy made clear, at the time of the conference, that "US-Vietnam
relations were normalized in 1995 after Vietnam dropped claims of war
reparations/compensation. At the time of normalization, neither
compensation nor reparations were granted or contemplated for the
future."
And, anyway, the US government has a fallback position. "Washington
argues there is no hard evidence showing the defoliant caused specific
illness," Reuters reported last week. And US government scientists
chimed in that any linkages to birth defects "would take many more
years to prove."
The well-documented story of dioxin and scientific perfidy provide a
guidepost for how to assess government-sponsored research, advisory
committees, and regulatory decisions that impact on the health effects
of toxic exposures, especially when the government may be liable for
damages.
"Those Who Cannot Remember the Past Are Condemned to Repeat It"
--George Santayana
Recommended Reading
Zumwalt ER. Report to the Secretary of the Department of Veterans'
Affairs on the association between adverse health effects and exposure
to Agent Orange. DVA Report, 1990.
Echobichon DJ. Toxic Effects of Pesticides, in Casarett and Doull's
Toxicology. Klaassen CD ed, McGraw-Hill, NY. 1996.
Klawans HL et al. Neurologic problems following exposure to TCDD,
dioxin. In Neurotoxins and their pharmacological implications, ed.
Jenner P, 1987. Raven Press, NY.
Welch, Craig. Dioxin debate growing hotter. Seattle Times May 29, 2000
Agent Orange help needed now, Vietnam Red Cross says. Reuters, March
5, 2002.
Brunnstrom, David. Hanoi meeting probes "last ghost" of Vietnam War.
Reuters, March 3, 2002.
LINK (c)
Bearss lime or Persian lime
Persian lime
In Persian, also known as Tahiti lime or Bearss lime named after John T. Bearss, who developed this seedless variety about 1895 in his nursery at Porterville, California, is a citrus fruit related to the standard lime. It has a uniquely fragrant, spicy aroma. The fruit is about 6 cm in diameter, often with slightly nipped ends, and is usually sold while green, although it yellows as it reaches full ripeness. It is also widely available dried, as it is often used this way in Persian cooking. It is larger, thicker-skinned, with less intense citrus aromatics than the key lime Citrus aurantifolia. The advantages of the Persian lime in commercial agriculture compared to the Key lime are the larger size, absence of seeds, hardiness, absence of thorns on the bushes, and longer fruit shelf life. They are less acidic than key limes and don't have the bitterness that lends to the key lime's unique flavor. Persian limes are commercialized primarily in six sizes, known as 110's, 150's, 175's, 200's, 230's and 250's. Once grown primarily in Florida in the U.S, it rose to prominence after Key lime orchards were wiped out there by a hurricane in 1926, according to the American Pomological Society;[citation needed] subsequently Persian lime orchards themselves were devastated by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Large numbers of Persian limes are grown, processed, and exported every year primarily from Mexico to the American, European and Asian markets. U.S. Persian lime imports from Mexico are handled mostly through McAllen, Texas.
Persian limes were first grown commercially in what is today southern , hence their name.
Persian limes were first grown commercially in what is today southern , hence their name.
BOYCOTT MONSANTO NOW
Obama signed the Monsanto Protection Act into law this afternoon! Join Food Democracy Now! in front of the White House tomorrow - Wednesday, March 27th - at noon to deliver over 250,000 comments to the President.
To add to the number of petitions and comments we deliver to Obama sign here: http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_the_monsanto_protection_act_seize_congress/
.jpg)
To add to the number of petitions and comments we deliver to Obama sign here: http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/stop_the_monsanto_protection_act_seize_congress/
.jpg)
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Kristen Allis Urffer
KristenOver many years I have worked with people in a very up close manner through teaching dance classes, yoga and meditation work. The healing work that I do has gone through many transformations dealing even deeper into people’s personal past experiences and personal issues. In many ways my choice of work is extremely selfish as I have found a way to do all that I love and need to do for my own wellness and to do it in my bare feet as well. To be involved with my students and give them the attention that they all need is to be open to their energy. So it is important to be as clear of my own worries as possible when I see them. This allows me to see more than just the obvious details that the naked eye will see. So many beings have passed in front of me over all of this time that I have become more perceptive of them, my compassion has heightened. This awareness has evolved into the love that keeps me strong for them, the mirror they need to transform and confidence needed to be their personal advocate. I am merely one soul, nothing more. It is the love and compassion within me that is strong. It has developed out of the need to survive and rise above loss and reclaim my ability to walk and talk in this body for as long as possible. Each one of us has something we must deal with and love makes all the difference.
When a person who is very ill comes in having been sent to me to bring yoga into their lives I feel a great responsibility to draw them into their own practice and not destroy their interest and hope. Often I hear stories of why people started to practice and stopped. These stories usually consist of how their instructor made them feel. Which of course has plenty to do with their own perceptions yet if they pick up on negative vibrations from the person they have come to confide in they are stunted in their practice. This upsets me because I know that it is just too easy to give up on something you need to do once confidence is lost. The intentions of the instructors who may have been too harsh in their choice of words or actions may not have been to scare someone off at all. The extenuating variables in all of our days are so wide that it is amazing that we ever find common ground to walk upon together. Therefore I feel that it is such a shame that people give up on what may help them just because they do not feel an instant connection. Not all of my instructors have been open and loving because that is life. Having to stick it out until learning from someone what they really have to offer is worth the wait. I have learned not to give up because I must not. I cannot. I have responsibilities that are more important than me. I have my daughter and my clients. How could I let them see me lose my confidence in them? We all have something that demands us to stay afloat. This is the way of Love. Those who are in deep physical turmoil often don’t come for my kind of help until their doctors say it is a terminal situation and offer only the possibility that yoga may help turn it all around. I see them. They have darkness around them in the affected areas through my vision. Instantly I see more than they wish me to see and begin to contemplate what I could do to ease their soul. It is always a painful reminder of my own desperation to survive.
One of my most recent situations with a client has brought me to my knees several times in prayer. The client is in stage 4 cancer. This is how I met her, at what most refer to as the end. She is an absolutely gorgeous woman who keeps a fine, healing soul within her. When she came to me I saw it, I saw that she is going through something with some form of cancer even though the naked eye would never detect that she has anything wrong with her at all. It was her eyes and openness to me that revealed her truth. We just hugged as I told her that I still see many years in front of her. She has been attending as many of my classes as possible and following every holistic measure she can to get well. Her body is in impeccable form. Many of the people who have come in a similar manner I have sent to talk with one man, Arnold Kauffman. He owns a little health food store and connecting restaurant in Lansdale Pennsylvania called “Arnold’s Way”. The reason I send them is because he has some very strong feelings and ideas about how to live and survive. As I have always found food to be just as powerful as a drug to heal and prefer healing with food over drugs I trust him to actually help guide those who seek his help. I must mention here that all of those whom I have sent to him over the years are still walking with their earthly feet. So I set up a time to take my client who transformed into my friend to go and consult with Arnold. It was time for the best possible inspiration and support I could offer her and I wanted to witness it myself, to be there for her advocacy.
I cannot express enough how charismatic and engaging she is, everyone is attracted to speak with her as if they know her heart is a safe place to be. When we walked in Arnold recognized her right away from her years of performing as a singer. This was perfect, as the love fest commenced we began to get to the center of our purpose. Arnold began to speak of what we know cancer needs to thrive and what kills cancer by cutting off that flow. Things like meat, grains and dairy help keep cancer alive and in his eyes help to create it where it may not have come before. The consumption of 13-20 pieces of fruit a day help keeps cancer and all other illnesses away. His advice was given with what page to look every question up in the books behind me so it was a study session for both of us. He is so full of useful information that is a lot to compute when we has been taught through society things about food consumption that are totally the opposite of what he is saying. The most important aspect of food consumption he said was love. Eat only what has grown from a tree or bush he claims as they are filled with love and it will carry on into you so your belly will be filled only with love. That Love is the key to health and healing. I had to agree knowing that it is the realizations of the love in my life that have reached me when my heart has stopped and my body was gone from me. Yes, love pulls us to stay alive whether it is romantic love, love for a child or a pet. Love is an ingredient in our lives and in our food that must be honored and not ignored. One of the most interesting things that he left us with is so simple that we laughed yet I myself have been attempting to follow. That is the rebounder. You know the little mini trampoline that stands on its side unused in your basement. Yes, this is a great tool for your wellness and I still haven’t gotten on it without laughing which increases the white blood cells. When you jump up and down on it for a few minutes every day you are forcing the cells in your body to reproduce and therefore demanding the cancer to be expelled. To put cancer out of your body in a noninvasive way through what you eat and jumping on a rebounder sounds really good to me and to the beautiful soul who I brought to Arnold.
We both left there having bought a copy of Arnold’s book “The Way of Arnold, Experiencing Your Full Potential While Turning Back The Clock With Every Loving Raw Moment”. Please read if you know you need to address health issues and keep your mind open to the amazing love you possess that can bring you back to your life and health. It is your LOVE that I believe in. Live it, eat it and be strong in your love…For it exists within you already and it is so becoming on you.. May you see it.
Kristen
GMO,CANCER
GMO'S and MONSANTO MUST BE STOPPED AT ANY COST
CANCER REPORTS OF STOMACH AND INTESTINES ARE INCREASING AT A ALARMING RATE MY COUSIN AT 48 YEARS OLD WAS DIAGNOSED THIS WEEK WITH EXTREME CANCER OF STOMACH.COLON,INTESTINE
HERE NAME WAS LORI ELLIFSON I WILL FOLLOW UP MORE ABOUT HER DIET AND PROGRESS
BLESSINGS AND LOVE LORI
OUR EARTH MOTHER IS NOT HAPPY
CANCER REPORTS OF STOMACH AND INTESTINES ARE INCREASING AT A ALARMING RATE MY COUSIN AT 48 YEARS OLD WAS DIAGNOSED THIS WEEK WITH EXTREME CANCER OF STOMACH.COLON,INTESTINE
HERE NAME WAS LORI ELLIFSON I WILL FOLLOW UP MORE ABOUT HER DIET AND PROGRESS
BLESSINGS AND LOVE LORI
OUR EARTH MOTHER IS NOT HAPPY
Monday, March 25, 2013
California's fisheries comeback
California's fisheries appear to be on the comeback
By the Los Angeles Times editorial board
March 25, 2013
After years of depletion, California's fish populations appear to be bouncing back. A study this month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that hauls by fishing boats, which had been down as a result of years of over fishing, have been growing, along with earnings. The agency credits catch limits that were mandated by law in 1996 and slowly implemented over the next 15 years.
A February report by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that of 44 severely depleted stocks of fish nationwide that were under federal oversight, 48% had rebounded to target levels and an additional 16% had shown significant progress a total of nearly two-thirds.
There's even more encouraging news. A preliminary study by California marine scientists indicates that the populations and average physical size of several key species of fish have grown in the six years since the state established a patchwork of marine reserves off the central coast; in many of these areas, no fishing is allowed. There now are similar protected areas all along the coast.
These findings are preliminary and somewhat mixed. Not all sea life is doing better, in this state or elsewhere, and restrictions on fishing have been particularly hard for small commercial businesses. But overall, this is the most optimistic news on the subject in a long time, a promising sign that the ocean's environmental health will be intact, that the future of the threatened recreational and commercial fishing industries will be robust and that consumers won't need to rely on farmed seafood. Previous restrictions on fishing such as limited seasons or requirements that fish under a certain size had to be tossed back proved counterproductive in some ways. Fishing crews frantically brought in as much catch as possible during open season. Laws attempting to ensure that juvenile fish weren't caught led fishing operations to take the largest specimens out of the gene pool, so that some species began maturing to smaller sizes.
In contrast, catch limits and marine reserves appear to have yielded remarkable results in a very short time. Catch limits, when they are imposed and enforced correctly, stop over fishing and give stocks a chance to recover. In many of the cases in which populations have not rebounded, part of the problem was that limits were set so loosely at first that over fishing still occurred. California's marine protected areas, modeled on successful reserves in other countries, took things a step further by protecting the health of entire coastal ecosystems and acting as fish nurseries so that young fish had a better chance of surviving to maturity.
In addition, the international convention on endangered species, with 177 member nations and organizations, voted this month to sharply restrict over fishing of five species of shark. Tens of millions of sharks are killed each year for their fins, which fetch a high price for the Chinese delicacy of shark fin soup. In recent years, researchers have found that large sharks play an integral part in the balance of ocean life by keeping in check the population of mid-level predators that eat scallops, clams and other commercially valuable sea life.
Of course, restrictions have been hard on people who depend on the oceans' resources for their living. Some fishermen have gone out of business, and if the restrictions on fins from the five affected shark species is effective, more will lose their jobs, at least temporarily. Yet the fishing industry was already in grave danger, and on a much larger scale, before strong measures were adopted to restore the ocean environment. A healthier ocean provides more jobs and food.
Later this year, Congress will consider re authorization of the law that mandated protection of the nation's fisheries. The two previous renewals, in 1996 and 2006, contained amendments that strengthened the law and created the catch limits credited with restoring many fish populations.
But this year, some Republicans are calling for changes that would weaken the law, including loosening catch limits on the most depleted stocks of fish, such as cod in the Northeast.
It would be a mistake to keep fish populations at imperiled levels. Congress should not waver from the long-term goal of healthy fisheries along all of the nation's coasts.
March 25, 2013
After years of depletion, California's fish populations appear to be bouncing back. A study this month by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that hauls by fishing boats, which had been down as a result of years of over fishing, have been growing, along with earnings. The agency credits catch limits that were mandated by law in 1996 and slowly implemented over the next 15 years.
A February report by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that of 44 severely depleted stocks of fish nationwide that were under federal oversight, 48% had rebounded to target levels and an additional 16% had shown significant progress a total of nearly two-thirds.
There's even more encouraging news. A preliminary study by California marine scientists indicates that the populations and average physical size of several key species of fish have grown in the six years since the state established a patchwork of marine reserves off the central coast; in many of these areas, no fishing is allowed. There now are similar protected areas all along the coast.
These findings are preliminary and somewhat mixed. Not all sea life is doing better, in this state or elsewhere, and restrictions on fishing have been particularly hard for small commercial businesses. But overall, this is the most optimistic news on the subject in a long time, a promising sign that the ocean's environmental health will be intact, that the future of the threatened recreational and commercial fishing industries will be robust and that consumers won't need to rely on farmed seafood. Previous restrictions on fishing such as limited seasons or requirements that fish under a certain size had to be tossed back proved counterproductive in some ways. Fishing crews frantically brought in as much catch as possible during open season. Laws attempting to ensure that juvenile fish weren't caught led fishing operations to take the largest specimens out of the gene pool, so that some species began maturing to smaller sizes.
In contrast, catch limits and marine reserves appear to have yielded remarkable results in a very short time. Catch limits, when they are imposed and enforced correctly, stop over fishing and give stocks a chance to recover. In many of the cases in which populations have not rebounded, part of the problem was that limits were set so loosely at first that over fishing still occurred. California's marine protected areas, modeled on successful reserves in other countries, took things a step further by protecting the health of entire coastal ecosystems and acting as fish nurseries so that young fish had a better chance of surviving to maturity.
In addition, the international convention on endangered species, with 177 member nations and organizations, voted this month to sharply restrict over fishing of five species of shark. Tens of millions of sharks are killed each year for their fins, which fetch a high price for the Chinese delicacy of shark fin soup. In recent years, researchers have found that large sharks play an integral part in the balance of ocean life by keeping in check the population of mid-level predators that eat scallops, clams and other commercially valuable sea life.
Of course, restrictions have been hard on people who depend on the oceans' resources for their living. Some fishermen have gone out of business, and if the restrictions on fins from the five affected shark species is effective, more will lose their jobs, at least temporarily. Yet the fishing industry was already in grave danger, and on a much larger scale, before strong measures were adopted to restore the ocean environment. A healthier ocean provides more jobs and food.
Later this year, Congress will consider re authorization of the law that mandated protection of the nation's fisheries. The two previous renewals, in 1996 and 2006, contained amendments that strengthened the law and created the catch limits credited with restoring many fish populations.
But this year, some Republicans are calling for changes that would weaken the law, including loosening catch limits on the most depleted stocks of fish, such as cod in the Northeast.
It would be a mistake to keep fish populations at imperiled levels. Congress should not waver from the long-term goal of healthy fisheries along all of the nation's coasts.
Australian Pelicans
Australian Pelicans #birds#wildlifephotographyplus.google.com/u/0/1063676511… twitter.com/_Acuarios/stat…
— Acuarios Foundation (@_Acuarios) March 26, 2013
Squid
Giant squid, which can grow to an astounding 43 feet long, have equally extraordinary DNA
Little is known about giant squid, which can live some 3,300 feet below the surface. Mostly we know about them from fantasy adventure books, like “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” and images of them dead, with their long tentacles dangling far beyond the picture frame. Giant squid are rarely captured alive, with most found stranded on beaches or seen floating dead on the water’s surface. Unfortunately, some are also retrieved by fisheries as by-catch
Giant squid might also be more plentiful than previously thought. But the lack of genetic diversity could make this species more vulnerable to human impact. Back in the day, fishermen rarely encountered the deep-dwelling squid. Now, with modern trawling equipment and huge fishing operations, the squid are more likely to become by-catch.
Pollution and climate change could also hurt the squid, as could loss of their food sources. They are thought to primarily feed on deep sea fish and other, smaller types of squid
More squid images
Little is known about giant squid, which can live some 3,300 feet below the surface. Mostly we know about them from fantasy adventure books, like “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” and images of them dead, with their long tentacles dangling far beyond the picture frame. Giant squid are rarely captured alive, with most found stranded on beaches or seen floating dead on the water’s surface. Unfortunately, some are also retrieved by fisheries as by-catch
Giant squid might also be more plentiful than previously thought. But the lack of genetic diversity could make this species more vulnerable to human impact. Back in the day, fishermen rarely encountered the deep-dwelling squid. Now, with modern trawling equipment and huge fishing operations, the squid are more likely to become by-catch.
Pollution and climate change could also hurt the squid, as could loss of their food sources. They are thought to primarily feed on deep sea fish and other, smaller types of squid
More squid images
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)