There has been a plethora of evidence to prove the whole thing is a hoax, for anyone willing to actually see it and accept it. This has ranged from faking warming data, to pretending that climate change is “settled science,” to hiding the real motives behind the hoax. In fact, hoaxers have even changed the entire narrative; once upon a time it wasn’t global warming that was going to destroy all life, it was global cooling.

Now, there is even mathematical evidence proving the great climate lie. Infowars reporter Millie Weaver recently interviewed Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a conservative British politician and inventor of mathematical puzzle “Eternity,” who said there is a breaking discovery that will prove the entire climate change scare is based on faulty mathematics. This seems logical, given that the vast majority of claims that the earth is warming and that modern industry is the cause are primarily based on incorrect computer models.

At a conference in Phoenix called, “Global Warming: An Inconvenient Lie,” Monckton discussed in depth a mathematical discovery made by he and his team and that their findings have since been submitted for the proper academic peer review. (RELATED: Follow the real science about climate change at ClimateScienceNews.com)

‘I knew there was an error’

The team of international scientists has “discovered a major, significant, substantial error in the way in which the computer models calculate how much warming they would predict should be happening.” He said if the error is taken away, “there is no longer any climate problem.” And while there will indeed be “one or two Celsius of warming” and a doubling of CO² concentration “but you won’t get much more than that.”

The notion being pushed by Left-wing control freaks in global government that our planet is warming at an alarming, unstoppable rate, is completely bogus, and it always has been. Monckton and his team have demonstrated it mathematically, and no matter how many more times alarmist hoaxer Al Gore claims all of the ice caps are going to disappear “soon,” it just isn’t true. (But the sheeple will believe almost anything. Follow more sheeple news at Sheeple.news)

Monckton said he has known that the modeling error existed and that he had been trying to find it for about a decade. “But I didn’t know what the error was,” he told Weaver. “I just knew they’d made a mistake.” He also says he knew that because he is “a classical mathematician,” which is based on the findings of Menaechmus of Alopeconnesus (380-320 BC).

As further reported by The New American, Monckton—a climate realist and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher—showed during his conference presentation that the so-called “red flags” of climate change based largely on United Nations data were nearly all wrong. Because of this and other problems associated with the UN, he then proposed that both Britain and the U.S. leave the UN, even though Monckton has been a regular at UN “climate” summits around the world, to expose their fraud and mock their phony findings and made-up data. He even dropped into one such event held in South Africa with a parachute.

Tired of seeing bad policy made on phony narratives

Monckton’s instincts were spot-on, as noted by an earlier report from The Daily Caller noting that 95 percent of climate models predicting rising temperatures have been wrong.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former scientist for NASA, says climate models relied on by the federal government (which has been all-in pushing this hoax under President Obama) to create actual policies “have failed miserably.” So not only is the science incorrect, but actual government policies are being based on these failed models. (Stay informed on real science at Scientific.news)

Spencer said he examined 90 climate models and compared them to real surface temperatures and satellite temperature data; he found more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trends since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

On his blog, Spencer wrote that he had grown tired of well-used and oft-cited statements since the 1950s that “most warming” is “human-caused,” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming” (a lie), neither of which led to any demonstrable conclusion that proved the claims. He said such statements also should not have led government policymakers to conclude that “we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more people to death for the greater good.” And yet, that’s exactly the direction all of the policy is going.

Sources:

BigGovernment.news

NaturalNews.com

Newsbusters.org

DailyCaller.com

Taking advantage of a little-known law passed by former President Theodore Roosevelt back in 1906, Obama has officially declared 1.5 million acres of U.S. land, most of which is located in the state of Utah, as “national monuments.” By doing this, said land will be closed of to any sort of human expansion, including for development, farming, or energy use.

Reports indicate that the 1.3 million acres of land in Utah has been declared as the “Bears Ears Monument” in honor of Native American tribes and other conservationist groups that claim it to be sacred. Obama has also claimed another 300,000 acres of land in Clark County, Nevada, declaring it to be the “Gold Butte National Monument” for many of the same reasons.

Despite bipartisan opposition from Utah’s state legislature, which vehemently opposed this unprecedented land grab, Obama went through it anyway, presumably to stifle potential efforts by the incoming administration to utilize these geographical locales for domestic energy production — even when doing so would help decrease U.S. dependence on foreign oil and other forms of energy.

“It’s one of the biggest land grabs in the history of the United States, and it was done as this midnight monument in the waning hours of the Obama administration,” said Utah congressman Jason Chaffetz during a recent interview with Fox News.

Will a Trump administration be able to restore control of land back to states? House Republicans are hopeful

There have been many instances during Obama’s eight years in the Oval Office when the controversial president decided to seize land for federal purposes. Since his first inauguration, Obama has collectively seized more than half a billion acres of land and water in the federal interest, utilizing the so-called “Antiquities Act of 1906,” the law that allowed him to do so, a whopping 29 times.

In 2016 alone, Obama claimed more than 260 million acres as federally-protected space, including a 100-million-acre piece of land in Alaska that’s roughly equivalent in size to the entire state of New Mexico. Obama has also utilized the Antiquities Act of 1906 more times than any other president since it first became law, his executive land grabs accounting for some 20 percent of all such land grabs combined.

“In the eight years he’s been in office, President Obama has seized more than 553 million acres of land and water (roughly 865,000 square miles) and placed it under federal ownership and control — enough square mileage to cover the entire state of Texas more than three times over,” writes Brittany Hughes for MRCTV.com.

“In fact, the self-aggrandizing conservationist-in-chief has placed more land and coastal areas under federal control than any other president in history, shutting off millions of miles of land to energy production or human settlement, along with shifting it outside the scope of local and state jurisdictions.”

House Republicans are already moving forward with trying to reverse these land grabs and restore control of the seized lands back to state and local jurisdictions. But this may not be possible, some reports indicate, as such reversals may not be lawful. At the same time, Obama’s use of the Antiquities Act of 1906 to seize land for non-emergency political purposes may, in and of itself, not have been lawful in the first place.

Sources for this article include:

MRCTV.org

NationalReview.com

A federal lawsuit filed by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) led to the release of documents confirming details of the planned “Protective Action Guides” (PAGs) to be implemented, which include the new radically higher maximum allowable radiation levels.

PEER has accused the EPA of jeopardizing public health in favor of public relations.

From a PEER press release dated December 22, 2016:

“Following Japan’s Fukushima meltdown in 2011, EPA’s claims that no radioactivity could reach the U.S. at levels of concern were contradicted by its own rainwater measurements showing contamination from Fukushima throughout the U.S. well above Safe Drinking Water Act limits. In reaction, EPA prepared new limits 1000s of times higher than even the Fukushima rainwater because ‘EPA experienced major difficulties conveying to the public that the detected levels…were not of immediate concern for public health.’”

EPA kept details of new guidelines a secret

Although the EPA released its proposed PAGs for public comment, it conveniently neglected to include “all but four of the 110 radionuclides covered, and refused to reveal how much they were above Safe Drinking Water Act limits.”

Only after the PEER lawsuit forced the EPA to release the pertinent documents did it become clear how much the levels were to be increased. Even so, more than 60,000 people had already left comments in opposition of the proposed guidelines on the agency’s website.

Current drinking water radiation limits are defined under the Safe Drinking Water Act, established in the 1970s.

The documents obtained by PEER revealed that the EPA plans to raise maximum allowable limits of iodine-131, cobalt-60 and calcium-45 to more than 10,000 times the levels allowed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Others would be hundreds or thousands of times higher under the new guidelines.

The agency’s justification for withholding the new proposed limits from the public until after the proposal had been adopted was that it wanted to “avoid confusion.”

The EPA deliberately hid the details not only from the public, but also from some of its own staff, according to PEER:

“The documents also reveal that EPA’s radiation division even hid the new concentrations from other divisions of EPA that were critical of the proposal, requiring repeated efforts to get them to even be disclosed internally.”

Even the George W. Bush administration’s attempt to introduce higher limits – a plan that was ultimately withdrawn – was modest in comparison to the levels proposed under the Obama EPA.

On December 1, outgoing EPA administrator Gina McCarthy gave final approval to all of the proposed PAGs – except for the drinking water standards. It’s unclear at this point whether she will actually approve the water section before leaving office, or whether she will leave the issue to the next administration to deal with.

Voice your opposition (before it’s too late)

There appears to be a good chance McCarthy will approve the rest of the PAGs before the changing of the guard, and there is still time to make your opposition to the proposals known.

It’s important to understand that higher allowable radiation limits will take pressure off the nuclear and fracking industries as well, which may be the real motivation for the establishment of the new guidelines – with Fukushima merely serving as an excuse to do so.

“The Dr. Strangelove wing of EPA does not want this information shared with many of its own experts, let alone the public,” said PEER executive director Jeff Ruch. “This is a matter of public health that should be promulgated in broad daylight rather than slimed through in the witching hours of a departing administration.”

If you would like to voice your opposition to the EPA plan, click here.

Sources:

PEER.org

CommitteeToBridgeTheGap.org

PSR.org

Longtime readers of Natural News will recall the Gold King Mine spill in Colorado in August 2015, which saw more than 3 million gallons of contaminated water rife with mining chemicals and heavy metals leach into surrounding major waterways and tributaries. This disaster was created by a contracting crew working on behalf of the EPA.

It took legal action and over a year in court to force the agency to pony up for the damage caused by the spill. But as usual, the EPA continues to skirt is obligation to repay all the monies owed to interested parties as well as clean up after itself, like the agency would require any private company to do.

One of the injured and aggrieved parties is the Native American Navajo Nation, which is accusing the Obama administration of refusing to clean up the damage caused by the EPA, the Mexico Star is reporting.

The August 2015 spill saw contaminated water from the mine spill into the nearby Animas River, then leach into the San Juan River, which flows through about 200 miles of Navajo territory. In addition to tainting Navajo lands, the spill also tainted waterways in three states: Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

Other states joining in suit against EPA

After being exposed to the air, iron sulfide in the contaminated water formed a sulfuric acid, which turned the water a bright mustard-orange color.

“The Navajo Nation’s water supply has been severely compromised as a result of the spill,” said Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch. “Tragically, we won’t know the full extent of the impacts the heavy metals released in the spill will have on our people for some time because those impacts generally only become observable in the long term.”

She added that the Navajo government has already spent millions of dollars responding to the crisis, adding that just to mitigate the damage to the nation’s water supply—and “not to mention long-term health needs and other impacts”—it is expected to cost in excess of $100 million to secure alternative water supplies, more water treatment and monitor the water well into the future.

But none of that matters much to Obama’s EPA.

Earlier in December, Navajo Nation attorneys submitted a claim to the agency for more than $160 million, in order to cover costs that the nation has spent in the aftermath of the spill. The amount requested also factored in cost estimates of long-term medical care, as well as monitoring of soil, groundwater, crops and livestock on Navajo Nation lands. In addition, the amount requested would also cover expected costs for the building and operation of an alternative water supply, as well as treatment systems for areas affected by the spill.

And while the EPA has already admitted responsibility for the spill, it has rejected all but  $602,000 of those claims on the grounds that, on Aug. 19—two weeks after the spill—the agency tested the waters in the San Juan River and allegedly found metal concentrations had gone back to “pre-event” levels.

‘Native lives don’t matter’

That, of course, says nothing about the long-term damage done to groundwater, soil and other natural resources. The immediate traces of heavy metals from the spill were gone, so as far as the EPA is concerned, that’s the end of it.

“The EPA’s evaluation of costs is consistent with the agency’s legal authorities and the requirements under the Superfund,” an EPA spokesperson told VOA, as cited by the Mexico Star. “The agency can only reimburse documented and allowable incurred response costs submitted by government partners.”

In May, New Mexico also filed suit against the EPA, alleging injuries from the spill, as well as the state of Colorado. Utah is also considering a suit against EPA.

Branch said that Navajo Nation plans to appeal the EPA’s rejection of its claims before the early January 2017 filing deadline. She also expressed her disappointment in President Obama.

“The Obama administration’s response has reinforced the message that Native lives don’t matter,” Branch said. “And the EPA has focused their energy on minimizing potential legal liability to themselves, rather than ensuring cleanup and protection of the environment.”

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

BigGovernment.news

NaturalNews.com

MexicoStar.com

The Associated Press reports that a pair of longstanding mineral rights leases that are crucial to a proposed large underground copper-nickel mine that will be located upstream from the pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness located in the northeastern portion of Minnesota will not be renewed, a pair of federal agencies have announced recently, though the company said it would press ahead anyway.

The Interior Department and the Agriculture Department both refused to sign off on the leases, and announced other methods to protect the pristine waters from additional mining projects in the future. The Twin Metals project, the AP notes, is a $2.8 billion development.

It’s possible that the incoming administration of President-elect Trump could reverse the decision, and it’s likely one that is currently being watched by the new administration. But Trump has made clear in recent interviews he has an open mind about environmental concerns, so to suggest that a reversal is going to be automatic is irresponsible because it’s not based on any evidence. Trump is a businessman, not a serial polluter.

‘Broad concerns from thousands of public comments’

That said, the president-elect’s nomination to become the next head of Interior, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., is an advocate for increased mining on federal lands, the AP noted.

In a joint statement, both federal agencies said that there were “broad concerns from thousands of public comments and input about potential impacts of mining on the wilderness area’s watershed, fish and wildlife, and the nearly $45 million recreation economy” in the region.

Twin Metals Minnesota had filed suit against the government in September to force a renewal of its leases. The company has vowed to continue examining and pursuing legal options. The lawsuit, for now, is pending, but the company issued a statement noting that, if the federal decision stands, it “will have a devastating impact on the future economy of the Iron Range and all of Northeast Minnesota, eliminating the promise of thousands of good-paying jobs and billions of dollars in investment in the region.”

Environmental groups who had been fighting the mining development for years cheered the decision. Like many area residents they, too, are concerned about irreversible environmental damage and heavy metals contamination.

The national chairperson of the Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, Beck Rom, told the AP she thinks the decision will kill the project, and that it could be legally challenging for the Trump administration to undo the decision (that’s naïve; federal agencies answer to the president and if he wants the decision reversed, it will be). However, she vowed that opponents would continue to fight the project.

“We’re going to continue to make our case to policymakers and the American public to raise awareness of this issue,” she said, adding that “by no means is our work done.”

‘Totally contrary to what’s in law right now’

Frank Ongaro, the executive director of the trade group Mining Minnesota, turned the issue political, saying the bureaucracies’ decision is “a perfect example of why Democrats lost rural America.”

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the federal agencies will take a two-year “time out” to evaluate the project’s potential impact on the environment while engaging the public about whether or not any future mining should be permitted on land adjacent to Boundary Waters. USDA runs the U.S. Forest Service, which is responsible for the wilderness regions near the location where Twin Metals wants to open its mine.

As reported by Fox affiliate KQDS in Minnesota, there are mixed feelings about the decision in nearby Ely, MN. The town’s mayor, Chuck Novak, said the renewal denial is “totally contrary to what’s in law right now. There’s a zone around the Boundary Waters to protect it.”

But even Gov. Mark Dayton expressed environmental concerns about the project, and that’s even knowing that his state and some of its residents would benefit economically from the development.

Sources:

NWITimes.com

Breitbart.com

Fox21online.com

EPAWatch.org

In August 2015, the Animas River in the southern part of Colorado and northern New Mexico was turned a grotesque shade of yellow-orange after a contracting crew working for the EPA accidentally released some 3 million gallons of toxic water filled with mining byproducts into the water. It was the largest environmental disaster of the year, but thus far it appears as though the agency has managed to shirk its responsibility for the massive spill.

But now, because of the inaction of the Obama administration and the EPA itself, three states and a number of Native American tribes have filed suit in federal court seeking to force the agency to do something it should have done voluntarily: Pay for the clean-up, just like it forces private companies and individuals to do when they pollute.

As reported by Inside Sources and Natural News, the Navajo Tribe filed suit under Federal Tort claims seeking more than $160 million in damages. The tribe’s reservation runs adjacent to the river and suffered when the toxic heavy metals contained in the contaminated water from the Gold King Mine near Silverton, CO., were released during a botched EPA ‘cleanup’ project.

Spending money they don’t have—and can’t get back

“In particular, it has impaired our ability to maintain the cultural, ceremonial and spiritual practices that undergird the Navajo way of life,” said Navajo Nation Attorney General Ethel Branch, in a press release, as cited by the Farmington Daily Times. “Through this claim and our corresponding lawsuit, we are demanding that the U.S. government finally provide the Navajo Nation relief.”

The Navajo Tribe is not alone, by a long shot. It is one of several communities that are seeking relief from the Obama administration to help pay for the costs of cleaning up the EPA’s massive spill and detoxifying drinking water during the period of contamination.

Earlier in December, the agency did agree to pay $4.5 million to state, local and tribal governments to help cover the emergency response costs that were tied to the spill. But agency officials denied some $20.4 million more in additional requests for past and future expenses that would not have been if the spill hadn’t occurred. That decision affected two Native American tribes and more than a dozen state and local agencies.

In recent days a pair of Colorado lawmakers pressured the EPA to pay the remainder of the claims, noting that a piece of legislation passed earlier in the month removed any legal obstacles that the agency cited as reasons for the denial.

But most definitely many of the costs that were denied should certainly have been paid, such as the $250,000 spent by the Navajo Nation to haul in drinking water to replace supplies that had been taken from the San Juan River downstream from the spill. The agency said it would only pay for the transport of water through early September 2015, just a few weeks after the spill, arguing by then that water was no longer contaminated.

Why does it take a lawsuit to get the EPA to do the right thing?

In addition, Inside Sources reported, the agency has refused any and all expenses incurred after October 31, 2015, when it shuttered its incident command center. Nevertheless, area communities argue that cleanup costs and observational testing continued beyond that date.

Besides, the cleanup and treatment of water are just a sample of what it costs to mitigate such spills. The potentially harmful yellow waters halted watersports of all kinds and most tourism to the area, robbing communities of revenue. And as cities in the area, like Durango, CO., stopped pumping drinking water from the river, residential wells nearby suffered contamination as well. In a bid to stop the contamination from spreading even further, area farmers stopped using river water for irrigation of crops.

None of those lost revenues have been paid by the EPA.

What is so maddening about all of this is that when individuals or small businesses or corporations screw up and harm the environment—or just violate some inane agency rule—the EPA is all over them like a cheap suit. But when the agency is at fault and should make good on its mistake, it takes an expensive series of lawsuits just to be compensated for monies that communities and companies would not have spent, were it not for the EPA’s malpractice.

Maybe that will all change under President Trump.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

InsideSources.com

NaturalNews.com

Daily-Times.com

The individuals charged this week face multiple charges including false pretenses, conspiracy to commit false pretenses, misconduct in office, and willful neglect of duty in office, all of which are felonies with the exception of the willful neglect count. If found guilty in a court of law under the more serious felony charges, the four officials could wind up in jail for up to 20 years and could be hit with thousands of dollars in fines.

To date, Schuette has filed a total of 43 criminal charges in the Flint water contamination investigation. The first round of criminal charges from the AG’s office occurred in April and the second in July. Some of the previously charged officials have already entered in plea bargains, while other cases are on the docket for a court trial.

This all got started when, in an effort to save money in the financially strapped city located about 70 miles north of Detroit with a population of about 100,000, the Flint water supply in April 2014 was switched from Detroit’s Lake Huron (after a 50-year relationship) to the Flint River by order of the state, as Natural News previously reported.

“The more corrosive river water caused lead to leach from city pipes into the drinking water,” Reuters noted about what developed into a public health crisis.

Residents began noticing that the water had a different smell and taste and was brown in color. City and state officials insisted that the water was safe, however, even though Virginia Tech researchers determined that it contained dangerous lead levels. In October 2015, the city reverted back to getting its water from Lake Huron.

A class action lawsuit brought by several Flint families alleges that locals suffered lead poisoning and other medical conditions and that the state Department of Environmental Quality failed to treat Flint River water with an inexpensive anti-corrosive agent that federal law requires.

Two of those criminally charged this week were state-appointed emergency managers allegedly overseeing the switch to the Flint River for the city’s drinking water.

“Prosecutors allege that the emergency managers conspired with two Flint employees…to enter into a contract under false pretenses that bound the city to use the river for its drinking water, even though the local water plant was in no condition to properly deliver safe water to residents. Even after the officials were told repeatedly that the Flint water department wasn’t ready to make the switch in 2014 and that the city should keep getting its water from Detroit, investigators say [the emergency managers] pushed the change forward in a bid to save money. The decision ultimately exposed children and other residents to lead-tainted water and resulted in the death of a dozen people from Legionnaire’s disease,” the Washington Post explained.

“The crisis in Flint was a casualty of arrogance, disdain and a failure of management.  An absence of accountability. We will proceed to deliver justice and hold those accountable who broke the law,” Schuette, who also separately suing two water engineering firms in civil court for alleged professional negligence and fraud, declared.

Although Flint resumed piping in its water from Detroit as well as its citizens receiving bottled water, the results of this failure of multiple levels of government could be irreversible. Especially with children, toxicity could result in lower IQs, developmental delays, and learning difficulties, apparently some of the known symptoms of lead poisoning.

Sources:

TheAntiMedia.org

Reuters.com

Michigan.gov

Do you really know the chemicals and GMO ingredients, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) probably EVEN doesn’t know many of them due to Monsanto’s probable unreported and/or hidden ‘science’ not surrendered as part of the ‘approval’ process for either glyphosate, Roundup® and Roundup Ready seeds for soy, corn, canola, alfalfa, cotton, and sorghum—with wheat under development!

(Article by Catherine J Frompovich, republished from NaturalBlaze.com)

It’s bad enough that numerous crops are “staged” with glyphosate spraying several days before harvest, which impregnates them with glyphosate residues, and that could be a contributing factor and reason for “gluten intolerance.”  Genetically modifying wheat is NOT a good idea, since wheat is the western world’s grain, similar to rice being the eastern world’s grain.  And “Golden Rice” hasn’t been accepted very well either.

Monsanto’s lobbyist, Patrick Moore, refuses to drink some Roundup® after proclaiming it won’t hurt you because, as he says, “I’m not an idiot!”  What does it tell you about that herbicide and, especially, Monsanto’s own lobbyist, who was promoting GMO Golden Rice, and their products?

Here’s an interesting article from the Harvard University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences website titled “Why Roundup Ready Crops Have Lost Their Allure”.  Still, corporate interests are pushing federal approval agencies to inundate the human and animal food chains with many more GMOs. [1]

EcoWatch produced the article “15 Health Problems Linked to Monsanto’s Roundup,” which include: ADHD, Alzheimer’s disease, Anencephaly (birth defects), Autism, Brain cancer, Cancer, Celiac disease and gluten intolerance, chronic Kidney disease, Colitis, Depression, Diabetes, Heart disease, Hypothyroidism, Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBS) and “Leaky Gut Syndrome”, Liver disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS), Multiple Sclerosis (MS), Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Parkinson disease, Pregnancy problems (infertility, miscarriages, stillbirths), Obesity, Reproductive problems, and Respiratory illnesses. [2]

There’s been a rather interesting rumor circulating around Monsanto and GMO foods for quite a while now and it is: In the Monsanto corporate dining room, only organically-grown foods must be served!  Can a whistleblower come forth to provide proof of that?  If that is factual, then that’s something not only the public must know, but all regulatory agencies dealing with approving their respective aspects of GMOs: the U.S. FDA, USDA and EPA!

In the meantime, Food Democracy NOW has a petition website going titled “Tell the EPA to Release ALL of Monsanto’s Hidden Data on Glyphosate and GMOs”.

I heartily recommend readers read and sign now.

Are you aware that “in 1985, the EPA’s own scientists declared glyphosate to be a Category C ‘possible human carcinogen’ after reviewing studies submitted by Monsanto during the original approval”?

However, there are photographs of two-year-old rats from GMO feed studies that resulted in massive tumors.  Monsanto’s studies presented for GMO approvals stopped at 90 DAYS, not the normal two-year-life-cycle of rats!

Relative to Monsanto’s 90-day study, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) stated,

“With respect to the detection of potential unintended effects in whole GM food and feed, it is unlikely that substances present in small amounts and with a low toxic potential will result in any observable (unintended) effects in a 90-day rodent feeding study, as they would be below the no-observed-effect-level and thus of unlikely impact to human health at normal intake levels.

Laboratory animal feeding studies of 90-days duration appear to be sufficient to pick up adverse effects of diverse compounds that would also give adverse effects after chronic exposure.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.1057/epdf (Pg. S-4)

However, “Seralini’s long-term study linking glyphosate to rat tumors was unfortunately retracted from the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology due to pressure from Monsanto lobbyists. The results of the study have since been republished in Environmental Sciences Europe.” [3]

Look what’s happened to food in Europe, which previously was relatively clean of GMOs!

In June 2015, EFSA issued a new guidance document on the information that companies need to provide when applying for renewed authorisation to import GM plants for food and feed into the European Union. The European Commission grants authorizations to place GM food and feed on the European market for a period of ten years. [4]

Could that impact your food shopping and buying practices regarding foods produced in Europe?  It certainly ought to affect what previously was considered GMO-free foods coming from European countries.

What do you think?  

Aren’t consumers entitled to know what’s in the food we are eating, e.g., GMOs and how that food was grown or produced/manufactured?

Shouldn’t there be “reverse advertising” on all food labels, e.g., no GMOs or GMO-free?

Shouldn’t the PLU identity number “8” be mandatory for all foods containing GMOs or grown as GMOs? [5]

Currently, the PLU identity number “9” identifies organically-grown food.

Won’t you please tell the EPA what you think about GMOs and sign the petition?  Thanks!

Read more at: NaturalBlaze.com

References:

[1] Harvard.edu

[2] EcoWatch.com

[3] GMO.news

[4] Elingreso.com

[5] EFSA.Europa.eu

In fact, the mine, called Atlanta Gold, is continuing to dump the dangerous heavy metal into a tributary of the larger river, even as it has been operating without a permit in a historic gold mining region southeast of Boise.

The Idaho Department of Lands ordered the mine to cease and desist in September after regulators inspected the site located off of Black Creek Road, where they discovered mining activity taking place without a reclamation pond or a bond, which is in direct violation of the Idaho Surface Mining Act.

In addition to those two requirements, the act also mandates that mining companies provide advance notice before exploration begins utilizing earth-moving equipment. The law also prescribes penalties for violators.

‘Their plan is incomplete’

“If (Atlanta Gold) does not immediately stop operations, this matter will be forwarded to the Attorney General’s Office,” said Derek Kraft, senior Department of Lands Resource specialist, in the desist order Sept. 23.

In its annual report, the mining company said that it had unearthed 8,000 tons of gold-bearing ore in 2015. The company filed its notice of exploration in July of that year, but in his letter Kraft said that digging up that much material amounted to actual mining, not simple exploration.

The company, which is based in Boise, ceased its operations in September and has yet to move any ore offsite, the paper reported, quoting Atlanta Gold CEO Ernie Simmons. He noted that he gave the state regulatory agency the information it required for the reclamation plan, which showed how acid rock that had been mined at the site would not pollute water in the area.

When in contact with water, that kind of rock can leach heavy metals.

However, Idaho Department of Lands officials stated that they don’t currently have enough data to approve the reclamation plan or set the appropriate bond.

“Their plan is incomplete,” Sharla Arledge, a spokesperson for the state agency, told the paper.

Kraft noted that the waste dump and other dirt and rock piles he found on site were not located where the draft reclamation plan indicated they would be. The paper noted that regulators found about 13,000 cubic yards of ore piled up and some 10,000 cubic feet of other material that was removed to get to the ore still on site.

This latest incident with regulators for Atlanta Gold comes as The Idaho Conservation League and the Northwest Environmental Defense Center have gone back to court seeking a judge’s order finding the company in contempt of court.

If the mining company doesn’t clean up its arsenic, taxpayers will have to do it

U.S. Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams, with the District of Idaho, ordered Atlanta Gold in 2012 to lower its discharging of arsenic and iron into Montezuma Creek, located 35 miles east of Idaho City, and to pay $2 million in fines for hundreds of violations under the federal Clean Water Act. The creek is a tributary of the Middle Fork of the Boise River, which joins other bodies of water above Lucky Peak Dam and is a source of drinking water for many Treasure Valley communities.

In their most recent filing, the two environmental organizations claim that Atlanta Gold has engaged in more than 500 new violations of the Clean Water Act, while showing that the company has not paid its court-ordered fine.

In a response to the filing, the company said it had made some payments but that it cannot pay anymore at the present time because its only revenue is coming from loans, investors and royalties on future income, which still does not cover the cost of operation.

“The financial condition of (Atlanta Gold) is grim,” company attorney Michelle Points said in the company’s response to the environmentalists’ call for contempt. “There continues to be significant doubt that (Atlanta Gold) will be able to continue as a going concern if certain investment opportunities do not come to fruition.”

Still, the company should be made to stop leaching arsenic into water that other people drink. If it fails to do so or cannot do so financially, that bill will fall to federal taxpayers, the paper said.

Sources:

IdahoStatesman.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

EPAWatch.org

Pruitt has not minced words when it comes to his feelings about Obama’s EPA, choosing instead to voice his criticisms openly, and has sued the federal agency several times over the years. Pruitt has filed lawsuits against the EPA for their water regulations and their contentious climate-control regulations for power plants. Having questioned the human role in climate change, and the existence of climate change entirely, Pruitt is perhaps the radical Left’s worst nightmare for anything environment-related.

Elected as Attorney General in 2010, Pruitt has primarily been focusing on returning regulatory power to the states, and reducing the power of the federal government. Seems reasonable, given that the entire point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was actually to limit the power of the federal government. Many people seem to have gotten this confused with the notion that these documents are somehow intended to limit the power of the people in this country – which is simply incorrect, and is a testament to the crumbling of our educational system.

Pruitt has indeed been fighting for a just cause, even if the Left can’t grasp the concept and instead turns to dramatic headlines and the worn-out “climate-denier” and “anti-science” rhetoric. Regardless of the drivel they spew, the fact remains that many people will be quite pleased with Pruitt as head of the EPA, and feel that he will do a great job cleaning up the bloated and self-aggrandizing federal agency.

The primary focus of the EPA administrator is simply to implement and administer the environmental laws that are passed by Congress, and, as The Hill writer Benjamin Zycher explains, “to limit agency actions to those authorized in actual provisions of the laws promulgated by the representatives of the people and of the states.” The regulations used to bring those laws to life must also be consistent with the laws and the Constitution.

Pursuing policies to satiate the political preferences of special interest groups is certainly not in the job description. It was not too long ago that two watchdog organizations, the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute (E&E Legal) and Free Market Environmental Law Clinic (FMELC), wrote a letter to the EPA inspector general to request an investigation on collusive deals in 2014. You see, the EPA had allowed two big industry players – the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and The Sierra Club – to actually help write regulatory policy for the war on coal.

At the time, E&E Legal’s attorney Chris Horner commented, “EPA’s hostility toward transparency is now well established.”

Regardless of whether it is the fossil fuel industry, environmentalists or any other group, it is emphatically not the job of the EPA to create policies for appeasement. As Zycher notes, only Congress is responsible for managing and balancing such conflicting demands. The goal of the EPA administrator is not, in fact, to”save the planet.”

While the Left may say that Pruitt is an “opponent of the EPA,” the truth is that he merely opposes EPA overreach. More specifically, he opposes the EPA’s regulatory efforts that are not supported by Congress. The EPA is not supposed to use its power to advance its own personal ideologies or to increase its own power; these are the kinds of actions that Pruitt reportedly stands against.

Zycher posits that Pruitt is likely to put an end to the games the EPA has grown to love to play, especially the cost/benefit analyses they use to justify their often ridiculous regulations. Hopefully, Pruitt sees that the EPA has grown into nothing more than a special interest group with too much power and too little integrity.

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

TheHill.com

NewsMax.com