EPA Is REALLY Trying To Depopulate America

[Mrs. Sharon B. Hodge]

EPA Is REALLY Trying To Depopulate America

EPA DEA FDA AMA USDA They are all carrying out the UN Agenda 21 UNCED Global 2000 DEPOPULATION agenda - They wont stop until billions of you wasteful eaters are DEAD!



***********************************************************************
Bush EPA Plans For Dramatically Relaxing Radiation Protection
Before Leaving Office
***********************************************************************


http://www. committeetobridgethegap. org/radiation. html

Oct, 30 2008– Plans to greatly increase permissible public exposures from a wide range of events resulting in release of radioactivity were condemned today by scores of organizations and individuals in a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.
http://www. committeetobridgethegap. org/pdf/EPAAdministratorJohnso... A detailed report by Committee to Bridge the Gap reveals, radionuclide by radionuclide, the astronomical concentrations of radioactive contamination in drinking water proposed, which are orders of magnitude higher than EPA's longstanding drinking water limits

The internal confidential EPA draft can be read here. Previous correspondence criticizing the Dept.
of Homeland Security's "Dirty Bomb" Protective Action Guides - Relaxed Cleanup Standards can be viewed here and here

For more information, contact Dan Hirsch at 831-336-8003 or email: [e-mail]











Mike Malloy - Your Tap Water Goes Boom - Another Bush bastard at the EPA has allowed something nasty to creep into your tap water www. novamradio. com


Aug 5, 2008 An earlier 12 News report focused on a chemical called perchlorate, a main ingredient in rocket fuel, which has seeped into the food and water supply in some places

*************************************************
EPA Won't Remove Rocket Fuel From Water
*************************************************

Agency Says Health Risks Are Low, Critics Say EPA Is Protecting The Pentagon From Liability

CBS
WASHINGTON, Sept 22, 2008

(CBS/AP) The Environmental Protection Agency has decided there is no need to rid drinking water of a toxic rocket fuel ingredient that has fouled public water supplies around the United States

EPA reached the conclusion in a draft regulatory document not yet made public but reviewed Monday by The Associated Press

The ingredient, perchlorate, has been found in at least 395 sites in 35 states at levels some scientists say could interfere with thyroid function and pose developmental health risks, particularly for babies and fetuses

The EPA document says that mandating a cleanup level for perchlorate would not result in a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public-water systems"

The conclusion, which caps years of dispute over the issue, was denounced by Democrats and environmentalists who accused EPA of caving in to pressure from the Pentagon

"This is a widespread contamination problem, and to see the Bush EPA just walk away is shocking," said Sen.
Barbara Boxer, a Democrat who chairs the Senate's environment committee

Lenny Siegel, director of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight in Mountain View, Calif.
, added: "This is an unconscionable decision not based upon science or law but on concern that a more stringent standard could cost the government significantly"

The Defense Department used perchlorate for decades in testing missiles and rockets, and most perchlorate contamination is the result of defense and aerospace activities, congressional investigators said last year

The Pentagon could face liability if EPA set a national drinking water standard that forced water agencies around the country to undertake costly cleanup efforts.
Defense officials have spent years questioning EPA's conclusions about the risks posed by perchlorate

The Pentagon objected strongly Monday to the suggestion that it sought to influence EPA's decision

"We have not intervened in any way in EPA's determination not to regulate perchlorate.
If you read their determination, that's based on criteria in the Safe Drinking Water Act," Paul Yaroschak, Pentagon deputy director for emerging contaminants, said in an interview

Yaroschak said the Pentagon has been working for years to clean up perchlorate at its facilities.
He also contended that the Pentagon was not the source of as much perchlorate contamination as once believed, noting that it also comes from fireworks, road flares and fertilizer

Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, said in a statement that "science, not the politics of fear in an election year, will drive our final decision"

"We know perchlorate in drinking water presents some degree of risk, and we're committed to working with states and scientists to ensure public health is protected and meaningful opportunities for reducing risk are fully considered," Grumbles said

Grumbles said the EPA expected to seek comment and take final action before the end of the year.
The draft document was first reported Monday by the Washington Post

Perchlorate is particularly widespread in California and the Southwest, where it has been found in groundwater and in the Colorado River, a drinking-water source for 20 million people.
Its also has been found in lettuce and other foods

In absence of federal action, states have acted on their own. In 2007, California adopted a drinking water standard of 6 parts per billion.
Massachusetts has set a drinking water standard of 2 parts per billion


EPA - American lives are worththe holes dug from the ground



The Georgia Guidestones








Doomsday Vault Protects World's Seeds on "60 Minutes" March 29, 2008

"Doomsday Seed Vault" in the Arctic
Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Eugenicists and the GMO giants know something we don’t - Global Research December 4, 2007 gen atom becomes the sanitizing agent, a natural oxidant -- which kills bacteria and viruses, and neutralizes pesticides." Hmm... sure sounds a little safer than irradiation, not to mention cheaper and much more practical.
Oh, but wait -- then the nuclear industry wouldn't be able to use peoples' dinner plates to dispose of their radioactive materials

Take Action

So, what can consumers do about this food irradiation problem? Well, the best solution is, of course, to grow as many vegetables at home as possible. If that's not possible, buy vegetables directly at local farmers' markets. Even though food that has been irradiated is supposed to be labeled if it is bought as a separate item, don't count on it. Trust no one. Be very suspicious of imported fruits and vegetables.
Naturally, don't purchase any foods that contain the radura symbol

Beware of Pasteurized Food

Also, be very suspicious of any food that is "pasteurized." There is a big difference between food being irradiated and food being pasteurized, but some groups are pushing to be able to label irradiated food as pasteurized, according to a government document· In fact, Public Citizen reports that they have "filed false advertising complaints with the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission against two meat companies -- Omaha Steaks and Huisken Meats -- that have either used the phrase 'electronically pasteurized' or outright failed to mention in their advertising material that their products have been irradiated"

Consumers should also tell their local school boards that they don't want their children being served irradiated food, and provide information about how easy it is for companies to sneak things like irradiated spices into food service products. Consumers should also tell their local grocers that irradiated products are unacceptable and prepare fact sheets about irradiation to distribute at grocery stores and PTA meetings. Flyers can be placed on peoples' cars parked in shopping center parking lots. Consumers should certainly call the FDA and complain (1-888-INFO-FDA) constantly.
Don't forget to call and write to let lawmakers know about this, too

Bad Science at the FDA

The bottom line is that the FDA used only 7 studies to make their determination that irradiated food is "safe" to eat, according to Public Citizen. This is a complete joke (only it's not too funny), given that there have been over 400 studies. Of the 7 studies they used, only three were published in peer-reviewed journals. In two of the studies, the doses of radiation used were far below what is currently allowed by the FDA. (Better science than this can be seen in middle school science fair projects.
) Moreover, three of the studies used were written in French, and the FDA has no translations

Act Now

The time to act is now. Let the FDA know that there are much better ways to ensure the safety of the food supply other than irradiation. Allowing farmers to use human sewage for irrigation probably doesn't help matters much, either. It is common for the government to come up with solutions that try to solve an immediate problem (i.e. people getting sick from unsanitary food) without looking at the bigger picture which, in this case, is peoples' long-term health.
The intelligentsia of society needs to stand up and make their voices heard, because the great minds of our time clearly aren't working at the FDA



*****************************************************************
Food Irradiation: Not as Bad as It Can Get, But Pretty Close
*****************************************************************

http://www. healthfreedomusa. org/?p=916

Irradiated food is really bad stuff. Of course, it is not radioactive, but it is filled with disease-causing free radicals caused by the process of bombarding it with high energy radiation, the contents of dead organisms killed by the radiation, inactivated, worthless enzymes, and the bits and pieces of what is known in the legal trade as “filth”: insect parts, rat excrement, hairs, dead vermin, etc.
, which careful handling would eliminate or minimize

Food that is going to be irradiated, however, does not receive careful handling typically since it will be “sterilized” by the irradiation. If your food is not only irradiated, but genetically modified and stuffed with toxic chemicals, in other words, meets FDA, USDA and Codex standards, now THAT’s as bad as it gets. That’s fully weaponized, “loaded and locked” food.
Don’t go near the stuff
UGH!

Consumers do not want irradiated food. So the ever corporate-friendly agencies of the government, and of course, Codex Alimentarius, take the crafty step of not telling us whether food is irradiated or not if they can get away without doing so.
Once food is processed, it does not have to have the familiar “radura”, the radiation symbol, which the law previously required

Now that fresh lettuce, spinach and other greens are defined as a “health hazard” by a berserk FDA, they, too, will be irradiated before we can eat them.
All of them, unless consumed locally or grown by you or your friends

What does that tell you? Eat locally.
Grow your own food

Print bumper stickers that say “Grow or Glow” and tell people what that means. Get good at “4 foot square” gardening, or growing on your patio or balcony. Organize window box growing for your community or community gardens. You ARE in control of what goes into your body. If you are not, get yourself organized and get into that position. Meet with your neighbors to make this happen for all of you.
You and your neighbors are something else besides neighbors: you are CONSUMERS

Consumers are very powerful when they take the time and effort to be.
Since your food is being weaponized against you and your family (!) GET organized

Email Kathy Greene, [e-mail], the Community Organization Coordinator of the Natural Solutions Foundation and let us help you get your neighbors motivated and activated. We have an excellent eBook on Community Organizing that we will send you if you ask.
Just put “Organizing” in the subject line

Consumer organizations perform valuable services. Not only can they be watchdogs and whistleblowers, they can provide significant information to other consumers, government officials and agencies, university decision makers and the people who attend and shape policy at national and international meetings.
According to our West African sources, in that part of the world, consumers organizations who become upset about an issue can literally bring down a government

Of course, what that takes is a strong sense of ownership: this is MY body, this is MY environment, this is MY child, this is MY body.
And the people living right next store to me, and across town, and across the country care about what happens to me, and to themselves, too

If companies and governments are lying to me, or poisoning me or corrupting my food, or my field or my child’s body, or keeping deadly secrets of putting me in harm’s way for your own good, we, the Consumers, should, can, will, say “NO!” to what is bad and “YES!” to what is good for us

Up with consumers and consumerism, I say

The diametrical opposite to consumerism, of course, is “corporatism”. What is good for corporations, which is generally what governments decide is good for them since so much money is involved, is very often exactly NOT what is good for people, for consumers, for you, for me. And, oh, by the way, it may not be at all good for the environment.
In fact, when their decisions and actions are good for the consumer or the environment, that is the cause for press releases and hoopla
It’s up to us

The Organic Consumers organization has published a very useful compendium called “WHAT’S WRONG WITH FOOD IRRADIATION, http://www. organicconsumers. org/Irrad/irradfact. cfm Although food irradiation is presented by government and industry, and, of course, by the ever corporate-friendly FDA and USDA, as benign and helpful, it is neither.
Read below and see why irradiation, sometimes misleadingly called “Cold Sterilization” or “Cold Pasturization” is neither

And then start eating and growing organic!

Check it out and take control of your health by taking control of what you eat!

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr Rima
Rima E Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www. HealthFreedomUSA. org
www. GlobalHealthFreedom. org
www. NaturalSolutionsFoundation. org
www. Organics4U. org
www. NaturalSolutionsMedia. tv
www. NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace. org

********************************
What’s Wrong With Irradiated Food?
Irradiation damages the quality of food
********************************

• Irradiation damages food by breaking up molecules and creating free radicals.
The free radicals kill some bacteria, but they also bounce around in the food, damage vitamins and enzymes, and combine with existing chemicals (like pesticides) in the food to form new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products (URPs)
• Some of these URPs are known toxins (benzene, formaldehyde, lipid peroxides) and some are unique to irradiated foods. Scientists have not studied the long-term effect of these new chemicals in our diet.
Therefore, we cannot assume they are safe
• Irradiated foods can lose 5%-80% of many vitamins (A, C, E, K and B complex).
The amount of loss depends on the dose of irradiation and the length of storage time
• Most of the food in the American diet is already approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for irradiation: beef, pork, lamb, poultry, wheat, wheat flour, vegetables, fruits, shell eggs, seeds for sprouting, spices, herb teas. (Dairy is already pasteurized). A food industry petition currently before the FDA asks for approval for luncheon meats, salad bar items, sprouts, fresh juices and frozen foods.
Another petition before the USDA asks for approval for imported fruits and vegetables
• Irradiation damages the natural digestive enzymes found in raw foods.
This means the body has to work harder to digest them
• If unlabeled, raw foods that have been irradiated look like fresh foods, but nutritionally they are like cooked foods, with decreased vitamins and enzymes.
The FDA allows these foods to be labeled “fresh”
• Irradiated fats tend to become rancid
• When high-energy electron beams are used, trace amounts of radioactivity may be created in the food

Science has not proved that a long-term diet of irradiated foods is safe for human health

• The longest human feeding study was 15 weeks.
No one knows the long-term effects of a life-long diet that includes foods which will be frequently irradiated, such as meat, chicken, vegetables, fruits, salads, sprouts and juices
• There are no studies on the effects of feeding babies or children diets containing irradiated foods, except a very small and controversial study from India that showed health effects
• Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage.
Some possible causes are: irradiation-induced vitamin deficiencies, the inactivity of enzymes in the food, DNA damage, and toxic radiolytic products in the food
• The FDA based its approval of irradiation for poultry on only 5 of 441 animal-feeding studies. Marcia van Gemert, Ph.D., the toxicologist who chaired the FDA committee that approved irradiation, later said, “These studies reviewed in the 1982 literature from the FDA were not adequate by 1982 standards, and are even less accurate by 1993 standards to evaluate the safety of any product, especially a food product such as irradiated food.
” The 5 studies are not a good basis for approval of irradiation for humans, because they showed health effects on the animals or were conducted using irradiation at lower energies than those the FDA eventually approved
• The FDA based its approval of irradiation for fruits and vegetables on a theoretical calculation of the amount of URPs in the diet from one 7.5 oz. serving/day of irradiated food.
Considering the different kinds of foods approved for irradiation, this quantity is too small and the calculation is irrelevant
• Even with current labeling requirements, people cannot avoid eating irradiated food.
That means there is no control group, and epidemiologists will never be able to determine if irradiated food has any health effects
• Science is always changing. The science of today is not the science of tomorrow.
The science we have today is not adequate to prove the long-term safety of food irradiation

Irradiation covers up problems that the meat and poultry industry should solve

• Irradiation covers up the increased fecal contamination that results from speeded up slaughter and decreased federal inspection, both of which allow meat and poultry to be produced more cheaply. Prodded by the industry, the USDA has allowed a transfer of inspection to company inspectors.
Where government inspectors remain, they are not allowed to condemn meat and poultry now that they condemned 20 years ago
• Because of this deregulation (continued under President Clinton, a protégé of Tyson Foods), the meat and poultry industry has recently lost money and suffered bad publicity from food-poisoning lawsuits and expensive product recalls. Irradiation is a “magic bullet” that will enable them to say that the product was “clean” when it left the packing plant.
(Irradiation, however, does not sterilize food, and any bacteria that remain can grow to toxic proportions if the food is not properly stored and handled)
• In 2000, seven meat industry associations submitted a petition to USDA to redefine key regulations relating to contamination.
If accepted by USDA, this petition would permit unlimited fecal contamination during production, as long as irradiation was used afterward

Labeling is necessary to inform people so they can choose to avoid irradiated foods

• Because irradiated foods have not been proven safe for human health in the long term, prominent, conspicuous and truthful labels are necessary for all irradiated foods. Consumers should be able to easily determine if their food has been irradiated.
Labels should also be required for irradiated ingredients of compound foods, and for restaurant and institutional foods
• Because irradiation can deplete vitamins, labels should state the amount of vitamin loss after irradiation, especially for fresh foods that are usually eaten fresh.
Consumers have the right to know if they are buying nutritionally impaired foods
• Current US labels are not sufficient to enable consumers to avoid irradiated food. Foods are labeled only to the first purchaser. Irradiated spices, herb teas and supplement ingredients, foods that are served in restaurants, schools, etc., or receive further processing, do not bear consumer labels. Consumer labels are required only for foods sold whole (like a piece of fruit) or irradiated in the package (like chicken breasts). The text with the declaration of irradiation can be as small as the type face on the ingredient label.
The US Department of Agriculture requirements have one difference: irradiated meat or poultry that is part of another food (like a tv dinner) must be disclosed on the label
• The US Food and Drug Administration is currently rewriting the regulation for minimum labeling, and will release it for public comment by early 2002 [now long past - REL]. They may eliminate all required text labels.
If they do retain the labels, Congress has told them to use a “friendly” euphemism instead of “irradiation” [Hence "cold sterilization" or "cold Pasteurization" and similar inaccurate terms on foods which must be labeled, a small minority of foods which are consumed after irradiation -REL]

Electron-beam irradiation today means nuclear irradiation tomorrow

• The source of the irradiation is not listed on the label
• The original sponsor of food irradiation in the US was the Department of Energy, which wanted to create a favorable image of nuclear power as well as dispose of radioactive waste. These goals have not changed.
Cobalt-60, which is used for irradiation, must be manufactured in a nuclear reactor
• Many foods cannot be irradiated using electron beams. E-beams only penetrate 1-1.5 inches on each side, and are suitable only for flat, evenly sized foods like patties.
Large fruits, foods in boxes, and irregularly shaped foods must be irradiated using x-rays or gamma rays from nuclear materials
• Countries that lack a cheap and reliable source of electricity for e-beams use nuclear materials. Opening U.S.
markets to irradiated food encourages the spread of nuclear irradiation worldwide

[Codex Alimentarius supports the universal irradiation of all foods moving through international trade except those which have been fully processed to an end product like roasted coffee.
The USDA requires all fruits and vegetables (with very few limited exceptions) to be irradiated before they are imported into the United States -REL]

Irradiation using radioactive materials is an environmental hazard

• The more nuclear irradiators, the more likelihood of a serious accident in transport, operation or disposal of the nuclear materials
• Food irradiation facilities have already contaminated the environment. For example, in the state of Georgia in 1988, radioactive water escaped from an irradiation facility. The taxpayers were stuck with $47 million in cleanup costs. Radioactivity was tracked into cars and homes.
In Hawaii in 1967 and New Jersey in 1982, radioactive water was flushed into the public sewer system
• Numerous worker exposures have occurred in food irradiation facilities worldwide

Irradiation doesn’t provide clean food

• Because irradiation doesn’t kill all the bacteria in a food, the ones that survive are by definition radiation-resistant. These bacteria will multiply and eventually work their way back to the ‘animal factories’. Soon thereafter, the bacteria that contaminate the meat will no longer be killed by currently approved doses of irradiation.
The technology will no longer be usable, while stronger bacteria contaminate our food supply
• People may become more careless about sanitation if irradiation is widely used. Irradiation doesn’t kill all the bacteria in a food.
In a few hours at room temperature, the bacteria remaining in meat or poultry after irradiation can multiply to the level existing before irradiation
• Some bacteria, like the one that causes botulism, as well as viruses and prions (which are believed to cause Mad Cow Disease) are not killed by current doses of irradiation
• Irradiation encourages food producers to cut corners on sanitation, because they can ‘clean up’ the food just before it is shipped

Irradiation does nothing to change the way food is grown and produced

• Irradiated foods can have longer shelf lives than nonirradiated foods, which means they can be shipped further while appearing ‘fresh.’ Food grown by giant farms far away may last longer than non-irradiated, locally grown food, even if it is inferior in nutrition and taste.
Thus, irradiation encourages centralization and hurts small farmers
• The use of pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and other agri-chemicals, as well as pollution and energy use, are not affected.
Irradiation is applied by the packer after harvest or slaughter
• Some so-called Free-market economists say irradiation is ‘efficient’: it provides the cheapest possible food for the least possible risk. But these economists are not concerned about the impaired nutritional quality of the food. They are not considering the environmental effects of large-scale corporate farming, the social costs of centralization of agriculture and loss of family farms, the replacement of unionized, impartial government inspectors with company inspectors , the potential long-term damage to human health, and the possibility of irradiation-resistant super-bacteria.
All of these developments should be (but are not) considered when regulators and public health officials evaluate the benefits of food irradiation

In a truly free market, consumers would have access to truthful and not misleading information about all their food choices and could decide for themselves what risks to take. Honest companies would be free to truthfully tell that their products are organic, non-GMO, non-toxic, non-irradiated. Free people are free to choose risks… or to reject them.
Slaves, of course, have to take whatever sh-t is dolled out to them