Thursday, November 24, 2011

A New Method of Poisoning Us With Radiation: 'High Efficiency' Light Bulbs

Written by Thomas Corriher Wednesday, 09 June 2010 05:40


I have long been known by certain friends and my entire family as that "crazy" guy. The term was usually meant to describe me as being odd and unusual, rather than insane. Although, a few of those people may have suspected the latter from time to time. I'm okay with that, for being 'normal' is greatly overrated. I am considerably smarter than most people, so I have often taken refuge in the fact there there has always been a fine line between genius and insanity. Crazy like a fox, or crazy like a nut? I guess it's entirely a matter of perspective.

One of my episodes of "craziness" occurred during the presentation of my 7th grade science project. I was still in the public schools at that time, and the understanding of science by teachers and students alike was more than a little bit underwhelming. They knew that light was really fast, but their overall understanding seemed to stop shortly thereafter. When I began preaching to them about fluorescent lights emitting radioactive, electromagnetic fields that were guaranteed to increase a person's cancer risk: well, everyone's eyes seemed to glaze over as if I were speaking a foreign language. I vainly explained that if these lights operated at high voltages, and these voltages were pulsed at high frequencies, then radioactive energy would be emitted, and moreover, they were already known for producing the full band of light energy (some of which is destructive, too). It is how radio waves are made: frequency pulses. The higher the frequency, the more dangerous overall, but voltage and proximity matter, too, in regards to its dangerous ionizing effects upon the human body. They just looked at me as if I were the stupid one. They had those 'he's so special' looks on their faces, in most cases. Some had the 'he's so crazy' look. It was incomprehensible to them that I actually understood the topic that I had tried to lecture them about. Thus, I had the problem. I believe my teacher even failed me, while the dumbed-down science projects like "Do Plants Need Water?" were graded highly. It was the typical public school's act of rewarding only mediocrity. Shortly thereafter, by some freak of the cosmos, it was actually proven by multiple independent studies that electrically-produced electromagnetic energy (radiation) from fluorescent lights and power lines were indeed a danger to health. This was long before cell phones existed, and these were considered ground-breaking findings. Eventually, my being 'crazy' (thinking independently and having a willingness to challenge authority) got me sent to military school to get "straightened out". These traits would have been considered virtues in more noble times.

It is time for me to get crazy again, with a topic that has far more importance and significance than radiation from power lines and fluorescent lights. Please read the remainder of this article with care, for it is vitally important that all of us spread this message, and you should understand why, by the time you have completed your reading. I realize that few of our readers have backgrounds in electrical or electronics engineering, so I am going to attempt to explain some otherwise complex topics in plain English. This article will explain that there is a new generation of light bulbs that produce radiation in a more dangerous manner than we have ever seen before. Thus, I need to explain some very basic laws of electricity, so that readers may understand the dilemma that we all face. Please patiently wade through this information, because you need to know it and understand it. I promise you this on my honor.

Electricity really only exists in motion. Nothing happens without power transmission ("current"), and therefore, there is no real power without its movement. A disconnected battery is like a ship in a bottle. The ship is not really a sea vessel, because it never has the motion of floatation. Both these things have the potential to be more (a sea vessel or power supply), but they are both just paper weights until that time.

The 3 Core Types of Electrical Current (Don't Skip This)

There is D.C. (direct current). This is the steady state current: meaning that the voltage never changes while the current is flowing. This is the "cleanest" type of power. It may come from a filtered power supply, or a battery. D.C. power will usually produce a tiny magnetic field along its wires; but overall, it will not radiate energy or effect other devices with typical usage.

Next there is A.C. (alternating current). This is a current/voltage combination that is constantly changing, as if it were produced by a standard generator. It typically reverses itself (back flows) half of the time to show negative voltages and currents on equipment capable of measuring it. As alternating current cycles from its maximum positive to its maximum negative value, the time this takes in seconds is mathematically computed to produce the frequency calculation. In other words, frequency is a calculated measurement of how fast the voltage/current is changing. For instance, the standard frequency for power in the U.S. is 60 Hz.. This means that the power positively peaks and then drops to its greatest negative value exactly 60 times per second. Some readers may find it fascinating to know that this means the generators are rotating exactly 60 times per second too (60 R.P.S.).

Finally, there is pulsating D.C.. Pulsating direct current is a combination of D.C. and A.C.. The voltage and current with pulsating D.C. do not change in values, except for changing from a state of being fully on or fully off. It is as if someone is quickly turning a switch on and off, but there are no middle voltages, or negative voltages. On precision equipment, the on pulses usually appear as blocks called "square waves".

Why You Need To Know A Little Something About High Frequency Currents

You may be asking why would our readers need to know these things? That comes really soon, so be careful what you wish for. (Just kidding.) As I mentioned earlier, a new radiation threat is upon us all. In lieu of this, I must begin by emphasizing the 'radio' and 'radiant' roots for the word radiation. They ultimately are descriptions of the same phenomena: radiant energy in the form of electromagnetic waves of pulsating energy. So, how does the energy actually radiate itself outward? The truth is, we don't really understand that part. Physicists have pulled their hair out for decades over that question. What we do know is that when things vibrate at a nuclear level or have electrical current changes, then these changes of state ― these frequencies ― cause energy to be radiated outward at the same frequencies. This is how radio transmissions work. Radio transmissions merely mix the audio (voice) signal with an exact frequency that listening radios are "tuned" for, and viola! Or as my past electronics teachers would have said, in their fancy-smancy engineering terms: "It will have imparted intelligence upon the carrier wave". A good analogy of how frequencies operate is remembering the ripples from a time when you dropped a pebble into a small creek or pond. You may recall that the ripples were reflected from the banks at exactly the same rate and distance as the original waves that struck them. The whole point of this paragraph is to make clear that the very basis of radiant energy transmissions and all types of radiation on the entire electromagnetic spectrum boil down to one thing: frequencies. Frequencies determine how far the energy travels, how well it penetrates, and how it effects things. The ultra high frequencies of gamma (ie. nuclear) radiation will quickly destroy a person through burns, cancer, or otherwise; while the low 60 Hz. of standard American power has little effect in typical exposure. Frequency determines if the energy is radio, microwave, infrared light, visible light, x-rays, gamma, or ultraviolet. There is real power in frequencies. No pun intended. As a general rule, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous the energy is. Nuclear radiation is at a really high frequency, for example.

For years, we have heard about how incandescent bulbs are bad for the environment. This made way for a whole new industry of "green" bulbs, marketed to the growing portion of people who seek to address environmental concerns. However, they actually compromise people's health, and are ultimately more harmful to the environment.

Common Symptoms Resulting From Exposure To "Energy Efficient" Light Bulbs

* Dizziness
* Cluster headaches
* Migraines
* Seizures
* Fatigue
* Inability to concentrate
* Anxiety

There are lots of theories regarding how these bulbs can cause these effects, but they are speculative. Very little research has been done. Despite this, European countries are phasing out incandescent bulbs, and forcing the public to switch to the "energy efficient" alternative.

The new light bulbs stunningly emit two forms of radiation outside of the light spectrum: ultraviolet and radio frequency; and would you believe the F.D.A. is involved? The F.D.A. states that in addition to visible light (U.V.A.), these bulbs also emit U.V.B., and infrared radiation; but let's not forget those radio transmissions! These bulbs are also said to have a flicker rate of 100-120 cycles per second, which seems low considering the U.V.B. light that they produce, and of course, those radio transmissions. In any case, even a flicker rate as low as 100 hertz is more than enough to trigger severe episodes of epileptic seizures. Video games are well known to do the same at a mere 60 Hz. Judging from the multiple bands of radiation released, the flicker rate can be expected to be well beyond 120 hertz (including the light that we can't actually see), so just start adding zeros to get the point about how likely they are to trigger epileptic seizures. These bulbs have negative effects on people with lupus too, which is something that has baffled everyone so far. That's still not all. They are known to damage the skin too, and did we mention high frequency radiation? Watchdog organizations in the U.K. are clamoring about the issues mentioned above, and the fact that these bulbs also aggravate eczema and porphyria too.

Our staff has been doing this work long enough to spot the pattern. The radiation from these bulbs directly attacks the immune system, and furthermore damages the skin tissues enough to prevent the proper formation of vitamin D3. This will cause major cholesterol problems in time, and cripple the liver by preventing it from converting the cholesterol reserves inside the skin tissues (vitamin D2) into usable vitamin D3. This has the potential to cause or aggravate, not dozens, but hundreds of disease states. All that they had to do was shift the frequencies of otherwise benign light bulbs, and suddenly we have this mess. It is as if the whole mess with fluorescent light bulbs gave somebody inspiration for how to radiation poison us, while tricking us to beg for it, in order to "save the environment".

The Energy Efficient Scam

One of my first lessons while studying Electronics Engineering was that energy efficiency is effected more by heat than any other factor. That's why super conductors are always super cooled, and why your oven uses about 60 times more power than your television. Heat equals wasted power. That's written in stone. Amazingly, standard light bulbs manage to be extremely energy efficient, despite the heat that they produce, and despite the fact that their light comes from heated elements. In fact, they manage to waste less than 10% of the power applied. This is because the heat resists the current flow in the wire coil ― to the point of practically cutting off the current. You see, heat also increases resistance. This breaking effect upon a bulb's current gives standard incandescent light bulbs their overall high efficiency. My first engineering project was testing light bulbs with high-end testing equipment, to study this rare property. I remember our teacher gleefully laughing at us as we sat befuddled by the fact that all of our calculations for voltages, currents, and power usage just did not add up. He thought it was almost hysterical when we began testing the equipment itself. The exercise was meant to be a memorable lesson about how heat may dissipate (or conserve) power in such a way that electrical devices at least appear to bend the rules of physics. Another important lesson was that while theoretically incandescent light bulbs ought to be wasteful of energy, they actually increase their own resistance via heat to the point that very little of their energy is wasted. Take for example how long a standard flashlight will produce bright light with one or two small batteries. On the other hand, just try to power an oven with those same batteries for an exercise in futility. The whole thing was fascinating to the point that I knew this program of study was meant for me.

The new generation of bulbs is supposedly designed to save us from a problem that does not exist ― inefficient conventional bulbs, so this is where the story about them starts to reek like dead fish. The new bulbs, as you may have already noticed, do not produce a noticeable amount of heat. This is because the light from the new generation of bulbs is produced by injecting pulsating electricity (having a frequency) into a chemical gas to radiate light, as in radiation. Pay close attention to that frequency thing. By the types of radiation that the new bulbs emit, we know that they must operate at frequencies astronomically higher than the 120 hertz that they are said to, so somebody is certainly lying about them. What's more is that technically, there is no reason for the higher frequencies to be used. If a lower frequency produces the needed visible light, then why do these bulbs operate at unnecessary higher frequency bands too? These extra frequencies simply could not have been stepped up and oscillated (frequency generated) higher by accident, regardless of whether the oscillation is chemical or electronic. Doing such a thing can make even an experienced engineer's head spin, due to the overall technical difficulties in frequency tuning; especially on the high-end. Furthermore, are we expected to believe that none of the companies or regulators involved ever bothered to test these new light bulbs with an oscilloscope during the testing? What else could an engineer test a new light device with? A sound meter? It's absolutely ludicrous to believe that they do not know. Thus, the only explanation is that these bulbs produce harmful radiation by design. They are designed to produce dangerous ionizing radiation outside of the range of visible light, which is known to be extremely harmful (ie. deadly) to humans, and it is all justified to solve an "environmental problem" that doesn't even exist.

The proof is already before you to observe at your leisure ― how they interfere with radios, cordless phones, and R.F. remote controls. Can you smell it too? This writer is practically gasping for air.

It Gets Even Worse. Seriously.

This may be showing my age to some, but I had never heard of 'dirty electricity' when I was in college. It sounds like the super power for a comic book super villain, and in a way, it actually is. Guess what it involves? If you guessed frequencies, then great job. For those of you with some electronics training, it is similar to the topic of harmonics, but the rest of you need not worry about this point. Here's the quick and dirty about 'dirty electricity'. The new age bulbs do not just directly radiate radiation from themselves, which alone would be plenty bad and a reason for infamy. Believe it or not, these bulbs actually inject frequencies back into the buildings' electrical supply lines. This means that every wire in the building is also producing radiation too, like a spider web of giant antennas, and at even higher frequencies. Is there any reader out there who still believes the radiation poisoning is unintentional? All I can say is God bless Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, who cataloged these findings with empirical data about the frequency ranges for both the radiation coming from the bulbs, and the 'dirty electricity' radiation that pulses throughout entire buildings. She is credited for creating the following table. As you view the table below, just imagine if the new age bulbs had been using an equivalent power to that of the regular light bulbs that were being tested (60 watts instead of 15). It would be a fair comparison if both bulbs used the same power.




"The energy efficient compact fluorescent lights that are commercial available generate radio frequency radiation and ultraviolet radiation, they contain mercury - a known neurotoxin, and they are making some people ill. Instead of promoting these light bulbs governments around the world should be insisting that manufactures produces light bulbs that are electromagnetically clean and contain no toxic chemicals. Some of these are already available (CLED) but are too expensive for regular use. With a growing number of people developing electrohypersensitivity we have a serious emerging and newly identified health risk that is likely to get worse until regulations restricting our exposure to electromagnetic pollutants are enforced. Since everyone uses light bulbs and since the incandescent light bulbs are being phased out this is an area that requires immediate attention."

― Dr. Magda Havas

Prologue

It's ironic that people buy these bulbs to help the environment, because they emit mercury vapor when they break. In fact, they're so toxic that you're not supposed to put them in your regular garbage. They're household hazardous waste. If you break one in the house, you are supposed to open all of your windows and doors, and evacuate the house for at least 15 minutes to minimize your exposure to the poisonous mercury gas. Don't forget that mercury is a bio-accumulative toxin, so it remains in your body forever in ever growing amounts.

original source

anyways, if you are in Canada, there is still a month before the Canadian govt roll out a bill to use florescent bulbs, find a sale and store few boxes of clear bulbs before its too late. ;-)

Thursday, November 17, 2011

UKIP Nigel Farage - How dare you tell the Italian and Greek people what to do !!! Nov 201

Fantastic talk Nigel Farage!!

do they want to create another problem in time and space..

Scientists have plans to build a laser so powerful it could boil the fabric of space and, in doing so, possibly reveal extra-dimensions.

In today’s installment of potentially catastrophic science experiments, scientists have plans to create a giant laser that can emit a beam with an amount of energy equivalent to all of the power the Earth receives from the sun combined, reports Richard Gray in the Telegraph. It is believed such a laser will have the ability to rip apart the vacuum of space — literally boil the underlying fabric of the universe.

This veritable death ray won’t be used to further the aspirations of an evil genius — at least, that’s not its purpose. Instead, scientists hope to prove the existence of tiny bits of matter, pairs of molecules known as “ghost particles,” that are believed to hide in the vacuum of space, but have so far been undetectable by any other means. In addition, scientists hope the laser can help prove the existence of other dimensions.

“This laser will be 200 times more powerful than the most powerful lasers that currently exist,” said Professor John Collier, a leader of the project, and director of the UK’s Central Laser Facility. “At this kind of intensity we start to get into unexplored territory as it is an area of physics that we have never been before.”

Dubbed the Extreme Light Infrastructure Ultra-High Field laser, or ELI, the project is expected to be completed within the next 10 years, at a cost of about $1.6 billion. The location for the ELI laser has not yet been decided.

read more

Health Canada Orders Doctor to stop treatments with Ayahuasca

Yeh sure, give them manipulated pharma drugs that can create more problems..

Vancouver physician Gabor Maté – the subject of a recent CBC documentary on his use of the Amazonian plant medicine ayahuasca to treat addicts – has drawn the wrath of Health Canada. Facing threats of criminal prosecution if he didn’t stop immediately, Dr. Maté has complied, of course. But he has said he will seek an exemption to continue with his treatments.
More related to this story

* B.C. doctor agrees to stop using Amazonian plant to treat addictions
* Hallucinogens: New relief for traumatic stress?
* Sacred brews, secret muse

Putting aside for the moment all the legal and public policy issues that surround the use of a psychotropic medicine, we shouldn’t lose sight of the larger context. We have to ask ourselves how open we are as a society to other modes of healing – especially from cultures so far from our own.

Ayahuasca is a sacred shamanic medicine from the Amazon, used for centuries by indigenous and mestizo peoples to heal all manner of psychological and spiritual ills. It has, in the past few decades, found its way out of the Amazon into ceremonial use throughout the Western world. Used in the right context and guided by experienced practitioners, it is achieving impressive success in alleviating suffering from addictions, depression and several other psycho-spiritual afflictions.

We know that many of our most sophisticated medicines in the West have their origins in the indigenous knowledge of plants. We have no trouble with that.

In fact, pharmaceutical companies are always scouring the rain forests for new plant medicines that, with a genetic twist, they can turn into patented products. Nature’s cornucopia is vast, but it’s the knowledge of how to use these plant medicines that is the wisdom and strength of the indigenous shaman. It would be the height of arrogance and ignorance on our part not to recognize the scientific knowledge accumulated over millenniums from people who are not Western.

Ayahuasca is an astonishing brew made from two different plants that don’t even grow anywhere near one another. Its creation is a feat of extraordinary pharmacological inventiveness – especially when you consider there are more than 80,000 different plant species to choose from. The knowledge of how to use ayahuasca is passed down through apprentices, and some of these apprentices are now from the West. With the arrival of ayahuasca, the Western medicine cabinet has just expanded, and we shouldn’t lose the opportunity to learn more about its benefits.

read more at original post

Facebook Is Tracking Your Every Move on the Web; Here’s How to Stop It

Over the weekend, Dave Winer wrote an article at Scripting.com explaining how Facebook keeps track of where you are on the web after logging in, without your consent. Nik Cubrilovic dug a little deeper, and discovered that Facebook can still track where you are, even if you log out. Facebook, for its part, has denied the claims. Regardless of who you believe, here's how to protect yourself, and keep your browsing habits to yourself.

The whole issue has stirred up a lot of debate in privacy circles over the past few days. Here's what the fuss is about, and what you can do to protect your privacy if you're worried.

Facebook Is Tracking Your Every Move on the Web; Here's How to Stop It
The Issue: Facebook's Social Apps are Always Watching

For quite some time now, Facebook's user tracking hasn't been limited to your time on the site: any third-party web site or service that's connected to Facebook or that uses a Like button is sending over your information, without your explicit permission. However, Winer noticed something mostly overlooked in last week's Facebook changes: Facebook's new Open Graph-enabled social web apps all send information to Facebook and can post to your profile or share with your friends whether you want them to or not.

Essentially, by using these apps, just reading an article, listening to a song, or watching a video, you're sending information to Facebook which can then be automatically shared with your friends or added to your profile, and Facebook doesn't ask for your permission to do it. Winer's solution is to simply log out of Facebook when you're not using it, and avoid clicking Like buttons and tying other services on the web to your Facebook account if you can help it, and he urges Facebook to make its cookies expire, which they currently do not.

Facebook Is Tracking Your Every Move on the Web; Here's How to Stop It
Digging Deeper: Logging Out Isn't Enough

Nik Cubrilovic looked over Winer's piece, and discovered that logging out of Facebook, as Winer suggests, may deauthorize your browser from Facebook and its web applications, but it doesn't stop Facebook's cookies from sending information to Facebook about where you are and what you're doing there.

Writing at AppSpot, he discovered that Facebook's tracking cookies-which never expire, are only altered instead of deleted when a user logs out. This means that the tracking cookies still have your account number embedded in them and still know which user you are after you've logged out.

That also means that when you visit another site with Facebook-enabled social applications, from Like buttons to Open Graph apps, even though you're a logged out user, Facebook still knows you're there, and by "you," we mean specifically your account, not an anonymous Facebook user. Cubrilovic notes that the only way to really stop Facebook from knowing every site you visit and social application you use is to log out and summarily delete all Facebook cookies from your system.

Facebook Is Tracking Your Every Move on the Web; Here's How to Stop It
Why You Should Care

If you're the type of person who doesn't really use Facebook for anything you wouldn't normally consider public anyway, you should take note: everything you do on the web is fair game. If what Cubrilovic and Winer are saying is true, Facebook considers visiting a web site or service that's connected to Facebook the same thing as broadcasting it to your friends at worst, and permission for them to know you're there at best.

Facebook says that this has nothing to do with tracking movements, and that they have no desire to collect information about where you are on the web and what you're doing. They want to make sure that you can seamlessly log in at any time to Facebook and to sites and services that connect with it and share what you're doing.

In fact, a number of Facebook engineers have posted comments to Winer's original post and Cubrilovic's analysis pointing this out. There's also some excellent discussion in this comment thread at Hacker News about the issue as well. Essentially, they say this is a feature, not a problem, so if you have an issue with it, it's up to you to do something about it.
What Can I Do About It?

Whether or not Facebook is tracking your browsing even when you're logged out, if you don't want third-party sites to send data to Facebook, you have some options. You could scrub your system clean of all Facebook.com cookies every time you use Facebook, but a number of developers have already stepped up with browser extensions to block Facebook services on third-party sites. Here are a few:

* Facebook Privacy List for Adblock Plus is perfect for those of you who already have AdBlock Plus installed (get ABP for Chrome or Firefox). Just download the subscription and add it to AdBlock Plus to specifically block Facebook plugins and scripts all over the web—including the Like button-whenever you're not visiting Facebook directly.
* Facebook Disconnect for Chrome keeps Facebook from dropping those tracking cookies on your system in the first place, and disables them when you're finished using Facebook-enabled services. It's essentially an on/off switch for third-party access to Facebook servers, meaning you'll still be able to log in to Facebook and use the site normally, but when you're visiting another site or using another application, that site or service won't be able to use your information to communicate with Facebook.
* Facebook Is Tracking Your Every Move on the Web; Here's How to Stop It Disconnect for Chrome and Firefox is a new plugin from the developer behind Facebook Disconnect, but it doesn't stop with Facebook. Disconnect takes protection to a another level and blocks tracking cookies from Facebook, Google, Twitter, Digg, and Yahoo, and prevents all of those services from obtaining your browsing or search history from third party sites that you may visit. The app doesn't stop any of those services from working when you're visiting the specific sites, for you can still search at Google and use Google+, but Google's +1 button likely won't work on third party sites, for example. The extension also lets you see how many requests are blocked, in real time as they come in, and unblock select services if, for example, you really want to Like or +1 an article you read, or share it with friends.

Ultimately, the goal of all of these tools is to give you control over what you share with Facebook or any other social service, and what you post to your profile, as opposed to taking a backseat and allowing the service you're using to govern it for you. What's really at issue is exactly how deep Facebook has its fingers into your data, and how difficult they-and other social services-make it to opt out or control what's sent or transmitted. That's where extensions like these come in.

However you feel about it, Facebook likely won't change it in the near future. If you're concerned, you should to take steps to protect your privacy. As a number of commenters at Hacker News point out, it's not that there's anything inherently "good" or "evil" about what Facebook is doing-that would be oversimplifying an already complex topic. It's really an opt-in/opt-out issue.

What do you think of the assertions? Do you think Facebook has a vested interest in knowing as much about you and your browsing habits as possible, or is this much ado about nothing? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Update: Nic Cubrilovic has posted an update to his story after discussing the matter with Facebook engineers. They have agreed to make changes to the way their cookies are stored and handled so your account information is not present when you log out of Facebook.

However, while Facebook has changed its cookie-handling process, the cookies are still retained and not deleted after logout, and do not expire. They remove your account information when you log out, but they still contain some non-personal data about your browser and the system you're using. Nic still recommends you clear your Facebook cookies after every session, and we still suggest that if you're concerned, that you do the same, and try one of the extensions above, or Priv3 or Firefox to protect yourself.
You can reach Alan Henry, the author of this post, at alan@lifehacker.com, or better yet, follow him on Twitter or Google+.

original post

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Israeli, UK Media Report Increased Planning for Confrontation with Iran

Just as the United States is preparing to further unwind itself from its military entanglements in the wider Middle East--departing Iraq and transferring lead security responsibilities to Afghans by 2014--a new round of tension appears to be surfacing between Iran and Israel.

Reports in the Israeli press indicate that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are working to convince other members of Netanyahu's cabinet and Israeli security chiefs that Israel needs to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear program.

Netanyahu and Barak "are trying to muster a majority in the cabinet in favor of military action against Iran, a senior Israeli official has said," Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported Wednesday in a piece co-bylined by four reporters. The two officials "recently persuaded Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who previously objected to attacking Iran, to support such a move," according to the Ha'aretz acount, which has garnered an unusual degree of attention from western policymakers.
The Ha'aretz report followed a piece late last week by Israel's leading columnist, Nahum Barnea, on the front page of Israel's largest circulation daily Yediot Ahronoth, titled "Atomic Pressure." It begins: "Have the prime minister and defense minister settled on a decision, just between the two of them, to launch a military attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran?" The piece then continues:

"This question preoccupies many people in the defense establishment and high circles of government. It distresses foreign governments, which find it difficult to understand what is happening here: One the one hand, there are mounting rumors of an Israeli move that will change the face of the Middle East and possibly seal Israel's fate for generations to come; on the other hand, there is a total absence of any public debate. The issue of whether to attack Iran is at the bottom of the Israeli discourse."

In the bigger picture, the prospect that Israel might decide to carry out unilateral military action against Iran is not new. Israel has long harbored grave concerns about Iran's developing nuclear capacity--and Netanyahu has joined several preceding Israeli leaders in seeking to rally global opinion behind efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. What's striking, however, is that American diplomacy hands are paying exceptionally close attention to these latest reports.

Washington Middle East analysts note, among other things, that the timing of the reports is significant: Israel has lately found itself isolated in regional diplomatic debates in the wake of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings. What's more, these U.S. experts say, the fact that anxiety over Iran's nuclear ambitions has spread well beyond Israel proper to rival Arab states such as Saudi Arabia has become far more apparent in recent months. And diplomacy watchers in the States also note that the recent Israeli media reports appear to be sourced to members of the Israeli security establishment who apparently oppose such unilateral Israeli action against Iran--in large part on the grounds that such action would blindside Washington.

From Israel's perspective, it may feel "it has little to lose" from carrying out strikes on Iran, in terms of its regional standing, Marc Lynch, a Middle East expert at George Washington University, told Yahoo News Wednesday. "It sees its strategic position [amid the Arab awakening] as deteriorating. There is no peace process."
read the rest here

RUN FROM THE CURE- Hemp oil can heal Cancer



Copied from Youtube..
The following presentation of RUN FROM THE CURE: The Rick Simpson Story was made possible by Rick Simpson and video producer Christian Laurette... made for free to teach YOU how to heal yourself of disease and illness using cannabinoids.

Comments will be moderated to protect those who need this information. We are not asking anyone if it works, we are telling you it works; it is not a debate. Too many uneducated people coming to this channel to speak their mind on a life-saving plant they know nothing about and giving bad advice and in many cases making horrible remarks about the people who brought the information out to you.

http://phoenixtears.ca/

Wikileaks Julian Assange vs Facebook Mark Zuckerberg

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=f8eab4375c&view=att&th=133686e262ff515d&attid=0.1&disp=inline&zw

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Fascinating - underground shelter from a shipping container,

In time trailer

Studio Ghibli’s The Secret World of Arrietty Is on Its Way to America (With Trailer)


By Matt Blum
The latest Studio Ghibli animated feature to make it to America, The Secret World of Arrietty boasts the same beautiful and elegant craftsmanship expected of all the Japanese animation company’s films.
The Secret World of ArriettyIt won’t be out in U.S. theaters until Feb. 17, but I had the chance to see the version dubbed for American audiences a short time ago, and I loved it.
Written and supervised — but not actually directed — by the legendary Hayao Miyazaki, The Secret World of Arrietty has all the polish of a classic Miyazaki film, but is closer in plot and characterization to classic American animated films, which might boost its accessibility for U.S. audiences. Based somewhat loosely on Mary Norton’s classic The Borrowers children’s novels, the film may in fact seem somewhat familiar to American kids. See the trailer above.
I very much hope The Secret World of Arrietty will succeed, as it has the potential to become a classic of the genre. The dubbed voices of Amy Poehler, Will Arnett and Carol Burnett (among others) fade seamlessly into the film as though it had been made with them in mind.
The only thing I don’t love about the film is its title, which I’m afraid might not resonate with U.S. audiences because of the unfamiliar “Arrietty” (which is taken from the Borrowers, but still isn’t exactly a commonly heard name). Still, the movie has the weight of Disney’s marketing behind it, so let’s hope it finds the audience it deserves.
Original post

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows' Trailer

looking forward to this movie..