Transparency? Heck no! Shutting Down Cell Phones is for Your Safety

Technology is not inherently evil. However, dependency upon it and authoritarian control over it can certainly be seen as either ignorant or evil.

When one considers the desire of the Powers that Shouldn’t Be to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, it doesn’t take long to arrive at the conclusion that the freedom garnered by such wonderful inventions as the internet is very much a double edged sword. We have electronic fingerprints. We are monitored at every site. If we wish to not be monitored, we are “suspect” for being unlike the herd they would have us be. I guess it raises your position in the herd managing system for culling.

For myself, I will continue to be a criminal because I will continue to think unregulated thoughts. I will continue to try to “interface” with people in the real world about real topics. I will continue to be nonplussed by celebrities latest dalliances or legal kerfuffles.

If they turn off the cell phone, the internet, the cars, the lights, the amusement, so be it.

The revolution will not be televised.

And it won’t be tweeted, either:

Court mulls revealing secret government plan to cut cell phone service

Feds: SOP 303 mobile-phone kill-switch policy would endanger public if disclosed.

A federal appeals court is asking the Obama administration to explain why the government should be allowed to keep secret its plan to shutter mobile phone service during “critical emergencies.”

The Department of Homeland Security came up with the plan—known as Standing Operating Procedure 303—after cellular phones were used to detonate explosives targeting a London public transportation system.

SOP 303 is a powerful tool in the digital age, and it spells out a “unified voluntary process for the orderly shut-down and restoration of wireless services during critical emergencies such as the threat of radio-activated improvised explosive devices.”

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in February sided (PDF) with the government and ruled that the policy did not need to be disclosed under a Freedom of Information Act request from the Electronic Privacy Information Center. The court agreed with the government’s citation of a FOIA exemption that precludes disclosure if doing so “could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.”

EPIC asked the court to revisit its ruling, arguing that the decision, “if left in place, would create an untethered ‘national security’ exemption'” in FOIA law. On Friday, the court ordered (PDF) the government to respond—a move that suggests the appellate court might rehear the case.

EPIC originally asked for the document in 2011 in the wake of the shut down of mobile phone service in the San Francisco Bay Area subway system during a protest. The government withheld the information, EPIC sued and won, but the government then appealed and prevailed.

In its petition for rehearing, EPIC argued that the appellate court’s decision “created a catch-all provision that would allow federal agencies to routinely withhold records subject to disclosure where the agency merely asserts a speculative security risk.”

Under the direction of the so-called National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, SOP 303 allows for the shutting down of wireless networks “within a localized area, such as a tunnel or bridge, and within an entire metropolitan area.”

There have been no publicly disclosed instances when SOP 303 has been invoked, but the telecoms have agreed to shutter service when SOP 303 is invoked.

Local governments, however, have the power to shutter wireless service regardless of SOP 303.

The last known time mobile phone service was cut by a government agency was the San Francisco example from 2011. That’s when the Bay Area Rapid Transit System took heat for disabling service to quell a protest in four downtown San Francisco stations. The three-hour outage was done after BART cut service without the assistance of the telcos.

In the aftermath, BART produced a new policy that said service could only be cut off when “there is strong evidence of imminent unlawful activity that threatens the safety of district passengers, employees, and other members of the public.”

More Trouble For Round Up

Despite the fact that the website is called…Sustainable Pulse…(maybe they mean that in the non UN Agenda 21 way?) This is a good article regarding a recent study by scientists from several different nations on Round Up and bacterial resistance to antibiotics. We don’t need any more super bugs, do we?

New Study Shows Roundup Herbicide Causes Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria

Research lead by a team from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand has found that commonly used herbicides, including the world’s most used herbicide Roundup, can cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.

antibiotic resistant bacteria

Full Study:

Herbicides are used to kill plants. They can be tested for killing bacteria, too, as part of the process of reviewing their approval for use. However, they have never been tested for other effects on bacteria, University of Canterbury’s Professor Jack Heinemann says.

This is the first study of its kind in the world. While other substances such as aspirin have been shown to change bacteria’s tolerance to antibiotics herbicides have never been tested. The team at the University of Canterbury investigated what happens to species of disease-causing bacteria when they are exposed to common herbicides such as Roundup, Kamba and 2,4-D.

“We found that exposure to some very common herbicides can cause bacteria to change their response to antibiotics. They often become antibiotic resistant, but we also saw increased susceptibility or no effect. In most cases, we saw increased resistance even to important clinical antibiotics,” Professor Heinemann says.

“We were so surprised by what we were seeing. We wanted to be sure it wasn’t an artefact of conditions in our laboratory or some kind of contamination. So we enlisted a fellow researcher at Massey who conducted the same experiments but without knowing what she was adding to the bacteria. She got the same results.”

The effects found are relevant wherever people or animals are exposed to herbicides at the range of concentrations achieved where they are applied. This may include, for example, farm animals and pollinators in rural areas and potentially children and pets in urban areas. The effects were detectable only at herbicide concentrations that were above currently allowed residue levels on food.

Antibiotic resistance is a serious and growing problem for human and animal health. New antibiotics are hard to find and can take decades to become available. Effects of chemicals such as herbicides could conflict with measures taken to slow the spread of antibiotic resistance.

The research team included researchers from Mexico, Lincoln University and Massey University.

For further information contact Professor Jack Heinemann, School of Biological Sciences,

Monsanto Admits “Hubris”, but Still Beats the Same Drum

The article below is interesting. A Monsanto exec admits that they “never thought” about these aberrations of agriculture fit into the food chain, but he still holds to the disproven idea that GMO’s are necessary to feed a larger population. Answer: More smaller diversified farms with better access to market.

I guess it’s kind of good news, so I just wanted to share it with you!

Monsanto chief admits ‘hubris’ is to blame for public fears over GM

Monsanto CEO : ‘We never thought about our place in the food chain’

The American company that produced the world’s first genetically modified crop has admitted for the first time that its “hubris” in promoting the technology contributed to a consumer backlash against genetically modified food.

Speaking to The Independent, the chief executive of Monsanto conceded that the company had failed to appreciate public concerns over GM technology when it was introduced nearly 20 years ago.

And he also said that the company had suffered by making “the wrong call” when it failed to rebrand itself in the aftermath of the botched launch of GM in Europe.

But Hugh Grant claimed that unless public attitudes towards biotechnology changed it would be impossible to feed the world’s growing population and called for a more nuanced debate on the potential uses for GM technology in the developing world.

“There never had been a lot of trust in companies, particularly not big companies and certainly not big American companies,” he said.

There is no compelling evidence to suggest that genetically modified crops are any more harmful than conventionally grown food There is no compelling evidence to suggest that genetically modified crops are any more harmful than conventionally grown food (Getty)

“[But] we were so far removed from that supermarket shelf, that was never something we gave a lot of thought to. We never thought about our place in the food chain.”

“I think as an agricultural community in general – and Monsanto in particular – there is so much more to do to explain where food comes from and how it is produced and how much more we’re going to have to make.”

The Independent visited Monsanto to speak to its senior executives as part of a series on GM food.

Asked how the company had dealt with public concerns over the introduction of the first GM varieties 20 years ago, Mr Grant replied: “Hubris and naivety. They are sort of opposite sides of the same coin. We did really cool science and we worked within global regulatory requirements. From where we were the conversation with consumers was an abstract.”

But he claimed that companies like Monsanto would be needed if the world was to feed a growing population. “If you look at (farming) growth in the last 15 years, about 70 per cent came from new land cultivation. When you go from six to nine billion over the next 30/40 years there is no new land. Can you do it without biotech? I don’t think so.”

Monsanto’s research centre in Missouri Monsanto’s research centre in Missouri (Polaris)

Mr Grant hoped some form of consensus could be found between environmentalists and big biotech companies. “There is a middle ground in all this and if the shrill noise could die down my hope is there is an opportunity to engage in this. Maybe this is optimism but I think there is a chance that we are going to look back fondly and say, ‘God – some of those arguments. They were intellectually interesting but practically ridiculous’.”

Addressing European anti-GM activists who have long targeted Monsanto as the face of the biotech industry, Mr Grant said they had to explain how the world could be fed without such technologies. “I would say (to them), if you step back from your daily life – and Tesco or Waitrose or Sainsbury’s – and you think about your kids and your grandchildren, then if not this, then what? How are we going to crack this thing? If Monsanto and this entire industry did not exist then what would the alternative would look like.”

Mr Grant added that he was also frustrated that the anti-GM lobby had failed to adequately answer the question of how to feed more people with finite land without using new technology. “The thing that often frustrates me in the debate is that there is never an alternative… The other side of this is still pretty empty.”

Net Neutrality Rules Are Out

Net Neutrality Rules Are Out.

The rules for Net Neutrality are finally out. The doc is 400 pages and can be downloaded here:

At this point, we can now begin to have honest conversation about what these rules may mean for us as far as internet freedom, privacy, and security are concerned. Anyone opining about how horrific or wonderful they were before reading them was truly jumping the gun.

So, let’s actually read them and backtrack on what the terms mean, and then we can have a solid opinion as to whether they are going to be positive or negative for us common folk.

Food Freedom Bill Hearing in Missouri March 17th!

Missouri Rep. Mike Moon has put in the direct from farm food freedom bill again. It is scheduled for a hearing, one of the early steps in this process, on March 17th in Hearing Room 4 at 12:30pm.

You can get the text of the bill at this link.

As many as possibly can, should make it to Jefferson City to testify for this bill. We are at this unfortunate time in our lives where the most basic of human rights are deemed to be outside of a person’s own purview. Anyone who testifies against this bill can only think we are too dumb to know what we actually want to eat.

I will at least be writing up a testimony and sending it to Rep Moon. You can get to his Missouri House email address by clicking on this link and then clicking on his name.

Please spread this information far and wide. If people like freedom, they will like this bill!

Food Freedom In Court – Missouri

SHi friends!

I’m sorry for the late notice but I’m writing to let you know about a hearing being held tomorrow a.m. (Friday). This is a property rights issue, and I’m asking as many of you as possible to try to make it, to take notes and fill the courtroom. Here are the details:

On Friday, March 6th at 9:00 am at the Christian County Justice Center, we will have a hearing in our case against the Christian County Health Department Board. In 2012, they ordered us to stop delivering our milk to a set location in the county, insisting that we must deliver milk to our Christian County customers at their individual residences each week. They have used all sorts of liar/lawyer maneuvers to evade responsibility for the attempt to prevent people from choosing to consume nutritious food.

Last round, they refused (perjured themselves) to tell the court what experience they used for a basis in determining that milk is a health hazard, and the court, over our objection, allowed it. This time, they are claiming that the individual members of the board are not the correct defendants, only the board itself.  The problem with that is that last time they made no such claim, and we believe the law requires them to do so in the first round or not at all.

The most important thing for all of you to know is that the court will take note of a large turn out of people interested in the freedom to chose your own food!!!
Please try to attend, as promoting all of our freedom is ultimately the goal of this effort.

The address is 110 W. Elm St. in Ozark, MO.

Fluoride in Small Town’s Water Supplies

Here in the Ozarks, we have excellent water. We’re largely spoiled by having it so good. Some places  have a little more iron than is nice, and virtually everyone around here has a lot of calcium in their well, but for the most part, it is the best water straight out of a well that I’ve found anywhere in the country. But it looks like many of the small towns in this area are adding fluoride to the water and the residents don’t have any knowledge of it being added.

A lady I recently met writes a column on health for some papers in the area, and she was kind enough to include me in the loop to get this important information out there. If you live in an area that has rural water supplied, or in a small town, you might just want to have the water tested for fluoride yourself.

Here is the article by Marie Lasater of Texas County, Missouri.

Another Look at Fluoride

By Marie Lasater

In a previous discussion on toothpaste, we looked at the hazards of fluoride – dental fluorosis,
bone fractures, thyroid toxicity and negative effects on IQ in children, Switching to non-
fluoridated toothpaste is not enough, as an even more hazardous form of fluoride is being
added to our drinking water in some areas close to home.

The purported beneficial effects of fluoride on dental decay have largely been refuted. Fluoride
makes bones and teeth more brittle. Strong teeth in those of us who grew up on well water can
be attributed to the high amounts of calcium in the water, not naturally occurring fluoride,
which is occasionally found in small amounts, but not here in the Ozarks.

Although the American Dental Association continues to adamantly defend fluoride, at least 17
prominent organizations have withdrawn their support since 1990, including the American
Academy of Diabetes, the American Cancer Society, American Nurses Association, American
Psychiatric Association, National Kidney Foundation, and the Society of Toxicology.  The reversal
of these organizations in their former support of water fluoridation is in response to new
research, and to increased toxicity in the type of fluoride being added.

New studies have been published; including one from the New Jersey Department of Health
documents males under the age of 50 had 5 – 7 times the incidence of bone cancer in
fluoridated areas, with teen males ages 10-19 with highest levels.

Another study of cancer rates in the ten largest fluoridated US cities found 10% more cancer
deaths than the non-fluoridated cities, especially tumors of tongue, mouth, pharynx, esophagus,
stomach, colon, rectum, pancreas, larynx, bronchi and lungs.

Hip fractures in 2 Utah cities were compared: fluoridated Brigham City and non-fluoridated
Cedar City. Hip fracture rates were double in elderly men and women in the city with fluoridated

A study published in 2008 conducted over a 20 year period looked at effects of fluoride in
children. 16 different studies were included in the analysis, and found “Children who live in a
fluorosis area have five times higher odds of developing low IQ than those who live in a non-
fluorosis area.”

A 2011 article actually quantified the decrease in IQ as related to fluoride levels. Looking at
excreted fluoride in the urine, researchers found that each increase in 1 mg/L of urine fluoride
was associated with 0.59-point decrease in IQ, and concluded that even low levels of fluoride
exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health.

On the basis of new research, Hardy Limback, DDS, President of the Canadian Association for
Dental Research reversed his position on water fluoridation stating “children under 3 should
NEVER use fluoridated toothpaste and baby formula must never be made up using tap water.”

Fluorosilicic Acid

One thing that happened in 1989 and 1990 concerned the switch from fluoride to fluorosilicic
acid, which is gathered by removing the residues in smokestack scrubbers left behind from the
treatment of phosphate ores with sulfuric acid, and would be considered a toxic waste, if it
wasn’t added to our water supply. When the hurricanes hit Florida in 1989 – 1990, the supplies
of fluorosilicic acid were depleted in the holding tanks, so supplies were imported from countries
such as China, who likely thought that putting their hazardous waste in our drinking water was a
pretty good idea. Fluorosilicic acid contains variable amounts of lead, arsenic, and mercury,
which you will see identified on your annual water quality report.

What exactly is fluorosilicic acid? I spoke with a long-term employee of a local water system who
actually was the one to add it to the drinking supply. It comes in large barrels from a chemical
company, marked “Poison,” and has an acid pH similar to battery acid. Per first hand report, it is
corrosive to the pipes, especially close to the points where it is added. It gradually disperses, but
the homes closest to the treatment plant get the highest doses. Taxpayers actually pay for the
privilege of having China’s industrial waste added to their water, a cost of about $2.00 per
person per year, in addition to the significant cost of replacing pipes.
Filters do not work to remove fluoride, because of the small diameter of the fluoride ion. It can
only be removed by reverse osmosis or distillation.


The FDA designated fluoride “not generally recognized as safe” in 1985, and permitted no
fluoride to be added to food or dietary supplements. The Department of Health and Human
Services exempted fluoridated water from the ban, including water used to make food. Even the
World health Organization says fluoride levels should be around 0.7 mg/L, and in 2011 the
federal government adopted this standard. Unfortunately, fluoride levels in Houston, Missouri
are as high as 1.13 mg/L and 1.1 mg/L in Cabool as of their 2012 reports. Fluoride has been
added to Cabool’s water supply since March 1, 1962, and in 2013 they received an award from
the ADA for “50 Years of Water Fluoridation.” I saw the award first hand, but it was not
publicized. Fluoride was first added to the city water supply Houston, Mo in 2002 by a vote of
the City Council, following a comment period, creating a new ordinance.

How to Help
First, the town of Licking and all of Dent County do NOT have fluoridated water. The only towns
in Texas County adding fluoride are Cabool and Houston. Cabool’s addition of fluoride is
documented on the CDC webpage, but Houston is erroneously listed as having zero fluoride,
with none added. I called the CDC, and was told that they “hadn’t updated the website in a
while.” It must have been quite a while, as fluoride has been added for the past 13 years. I
challenged them to update their website, as this is false information for those searching on their
own. I pulled my own samples from the Houston water supply, confirming the presence of
significant levels of fluoride. I then contacted Missouri DNR who established  that the city of
Houston does indeed add fluoride, and directed me to the location of some obscure reports.

If you live in an area still adding fluoride to your water, contact your city council, or attend a
meeting, requesting that fluorosilicic acid be removed. When fluoride was added, no public vote
was required. Fluoride can be taken out the same way – by a vote of your city council. Dozens of
surrounding cities are removing fluoride from their water, including most recently Waynesville
and Bolivar, let’s not be the last.

Previous Older Entries


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 92 other followers