The Liberty Beacon

The Liberty Beacon

What's Hot…



By: Barbara H. Peterson

This is not a sci-fi fantasy, it is real. Our personal DNA and the DNA of just about every living organism on the planet is being changed in ways that we cannot even imagine through the process of horizontal or lateral gene transfer, courtesy of the biotechnology industry and geo-engineering programs.

Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genetic material from one organism to another organism that is not its offspring; this is most common among bacteria.

Horizontal gene transfer is used in laboratory-based genetic engineering, and also occurs naturally, within the confines of nature. When nature is in charge, certain things simply do not happen such as a tomato crossing with a fish. In the laboratory, using artificial horizontal gene transfer, anything goes.

Genetic engineering involves designing artificial constructs to cross species barriers and to invade genomes. In other words, it enhances horizontal gene transfer – the direct transfer of genetic material to unrelated species. The artificial constructs or transgenic DNA typically contain genetic material from bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases as well as antibiotic resistance genes that make infectious diseases untreatable.

The results of these experiments are inherently unstable, and are being unleashed with no oversight into our food supply, and onto the world’s agricultural stage.

…genetic engineering in the laboratory is crude, imprecise and invasive. The rogue genes inserted into a genome to make a GMO could land anywhere; typically in a rearranged or defective form, scrambling and mutating the host genome, and tend to move or rearrange further once inserted. Transgene instability is a big problem, and has been so right from the beginning. There is fresh evidence that GM crops grown commercially for years have rearranged [15, 16] (MON810 Genome Rearranged Again. Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and Ineligible for Protection, SiS 38). This is a real opportunity to challenge the validity of all biotech patents. Another key issue is safety. Transgene instability means that the original transgenic line has turned into something else, and even if it had been assessed as ‘safe’, this is no longer the case.

Lab-based horizontal gene transfer is completely foreign-to-nature. It creates genetic mutations arising from the unnatural melding of species that should never cross to begin with. Using an artificial process, genetic information is passed from one species to another that would not normally occur. Bacteria then horizontally transfer this unnatural genetic information to other bacteria and organisms. One place where this transfer occurs regularly is in the soil.

Studies of horizontal gene exchange in soil microcosms are important from several points of view. Firstly, the increasing interest in the possible spread of GMOs (genetically modified microorganisms) and antibiotic resistance traits has prompted researchers to study genetic interactions between bacteria in a number of different habitats. Secondly, horizontal gene transfer in soil may play a role in the evolution of new bacterial traits.

And what happens when GMO mutations are let loose on our farmland? Does the horizontal gene transfer issue miraculously disappear? The Monsantos of the world would have you think so. Think again. The laws of nature are not suspended just because Monsanto says so.

(click image to enlarge)

Once GMOs are unleashed in the environment, there is absolutely nothing to stop the natural occurrence of horizontal gene transfer to non-GMO organisms, especially considering GMOs’ increased tendency to do so. And what this process produces is anyone’s guess. There is a reason for the limits nature places on this type of thing, and we’ve long since past those limits.

So, we are faced with the ever-increasing genetic pollution of almost all organisms on planet earth from GMOs, and if that isn’t enough, the horizontal gene transfer process, which is spreading these mutations far and wide throughout a host of divergent species, is being helped along by the pollutants being released into our atmosphere by geo-engineering programs.

How is this possible?

…heat shock and pollutants such as heavy metals can favor horizontal gene transfer; and the presence of antibiotics can increase the frequency of horizontal gene transfer 10 to 10 000 fold.

What are the ingredients of the aerosols typically seen in geo-engineering programs? You guessed it – heavy metals such as barium.

…And just what are the conditions imposed by these geo-engineering programs? You guessed it again – abiotic stresses such as heat shock.

…And just what is abundantly used specifically for genetic engineering? Bacteria that carry antibiotic resistance genes. Therefore, more and stronger antibiotics are being used, which increases – you guessed it once again – horizontal gene transfer.

…And it just so happens that Monsanto has a patent covering abiotic stress caused by these geo-engineering pollutants, which includes heat and drought, for everything from apples to zucchini.

Shall we continue adding more fuel to the already out of control fire? The biotechnology industry along with the U.S. government seems to think so.

Can you see where this is heading?

Monsanto’s genetic mutations are already susceptible to horizontal gene transfer. Combine this with geo-engineering aerosols, which facilitate this transfer ability, and you have the basic ingredients for what can be referred to as a genetic soup sandwich.

Frogs with five legs? Cows with no tails? We will be seeing more of them. We will also be seeing more unknown diseases, untreatable by traditional medical standards.

The acquisition of foreign DNA by horizontal transfer from unrelated organisms is a major source of variation leading to new strains of bacterial pathogens.

Get ready, as we are in for one helluva ride, folks! Hold onto your DNA just as hard as you can by avoiding anything GMO, and spread the word. This is not something that can be ignored for long, as mutations, genetic disorders and abnormalities, as well as health issues can only increase with the rampant spread of transgenic organisms (GMOs), and humans are not exempt. It’s time to put up the stop sign at your own front door and just say NO to GMOs!


TLB recommends you visit for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article HERE


It looks the same—the bread, pies, sodas, even corn on the cob. So much of what we eat every day looks just like it did 20 years ago. But something profoundly different has happened without our knowledge or consent. And according to leading doctors, what we don’t know is already hurting us big time.

What are GMOs?

GMO stands for “Genetically Modified Organism”. Sometimes the initials “GM” are used, which stands for “Genetically Modified”.

Genetic engineering is very different from normal breeding because it involves taking genes from a completely different species and inserting them into the DNA of another species of plant or even of an animal.


For the first time in history, bacteria, plants and animals can all be mixed up together. For example, right now the DNA of bacteria is put into food plants.

The two primary reasons why plants are genetically engineered are to allow them to:

  • Drink poison, or
  • Produce poison

The poison drinkers are inserted with genes from bacteria that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of herbicides. The main poison is GMOs is glyphosate, the poison that is in Roundup. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal, and farmers can then use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide than would normally be possible without the plants dying.

The poison producers are called Bt crops. Inserted genes from the a bacteria produce a pesticide (poison) in every cell of the plant. What kills insects, kills us. This is a pesticide which is INSIDE the plant. You cannot wash it off!

More than 70% of the foods on supermarket shelves contain GM foods. Get a magnifying glass and read the list of ingredients. Unless the following words are organic, do not eat it.

  • Corn

  • Soy

  • Canola (Rapeseed. This is toxic and should not be eaten in any case)

  • Cotton seed (This is toxic and should not be eaten in any case)

  • Sugar (beet sugar is GMO. Cane sugar so far is okay)

  • Hawaiian papaya

  • Zucchini & crook neck squash

Other countries have or import GMO rice and potato.

But it gets worse. Since we now have genetically modified alfalfa, and alfalfa, corn and soy are fed to animals, unless it’s organic, you must not eat:

  • Dairy

  • Meat

  • Eggs

  • Farm-raised fish or seafood

Glyphosate has even been found in the bodies of dairy cows in Denmark, because Europe imports GMO feed! So you know it has to be in the milk.

This is why we no longer eat out anywhere. Since no restaurant uses organic, gmo-free food, or gives you a full list of ingredients, you are bound to be eating poison in virtually every restaurant, fastfood joint and school canteen.

Organic food is meant to be free of GMOs.  But we are starting to find out that even this is not a guarantee.  It’s way too easy to sneak in.  There have been so far at least two instances discovered where GMOs were found in so-called ‘organic’ food.  In each case, this discovery was not made by organizations that should protect you, like the FDA.  They were made by independent bodies.  Baby food is one.  Which is really scary.  The only food a baby should have is breastmilk and, when ready for solids, homemade baby food (cook it, strain it, freeze in icecube trays) and reverse osmosis water.

Kashi ‘organic’ cereal is another.  The Cornucopia Institute found that Kashi has high levels of GMOs in it’s ‘organic’ cereal.  You may be less surprised at this once you realize that Kashi is not owned by nature-lovers, but by Kellogg’s.

Animals Fed GMO Corn for Two Years Grow MASSIVE TUMORS

In the first long-term study of GMOs, rats fed a lifelong diet of one of genetically modified corn grew tumors and had multiple organ damage, of the liver and kidneys.

Corn is meant to be nutritious. It is not meant to do this -


ANIMALS FED GMOs Have Sterile Grandchildren

When Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) were first created, some people knew they were very bad.  But no one really knew just how bad they are.  We know that now.  Basically, not only are they killing people, because they are so highly toxic, they are also doing something VERY DIFFERENT TO NORMAL FOOD, that in the longer term they will wipe out the human race if not eradicated completely.  Because animals fed GMOs do not have great grand children.  NO other toxic food does that!  This is proof that we are dealing with something completely different.  And evil.  Here is some evidence of this:

Concerning the experiment carried out jointly by the National Association for Gene Security and the Institute of Ecological and Evolutional Problems, Dr. Alexei Surov had this to say.

“We selected several groups of hamsters, kept them in pairs in cells and gave them ordinary food as always,” says Alexei Surov.

“We did not add anything for one group but the other was fed with soya that contained no GM components, while the third group with some content of Genetically Modified Organisms and the fourth one with increased amount of GMO.  We monitored their behavior and how they gain weight and when they give birth to their cubs.  Originally, everything went smoothly.  However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before.  These pairs’ growth rate was slower and they reached their sexual maturity more slowly.  When we got some of their cubs we formed the new pairs of the third generation.  We failed to get cubs from these pairs, which were fed with GM foodstuffs.  It was proved that these pairs lost their ability to give birth to their cubs,” Dr. Alexei Surov said.

Another surprise was discovered by scientists in hamsters of the third generation. Hair grew in the mouth of the animals that took part in the experiment.

GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed one of the most dangerous problems from GM foods.  The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.  This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.

Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

Please, get this information to all your family and friends!

By the way, I muscle tested to find out if there was any product that could undo the damage to the intestinal bacteria that GMOs. I have no way of knowing if this is correct or not, but I got that monolaurin (from coconut) may help. It’s been reported to help to heal Lyme’s disease.

GMOS destroy Organs

If GMOs did nothing, then organs of animals fed GMOs should look exactly the same as normal. But they look radically different, as you can see from this photo:


If you that still does not convince you that it is deadly serious that you become obsessive about getting GMOs out of your diet, here’s another pic that proves that GMOs seriously alter the whole body. This photo is a comparison of rat testicles:


People are dying at very early ages, and you know from seeing these pictures of totally changed organs, that GMOs are a major, if not THE major cause, behind it. You won’t hear about this in the media, because the power of Monsanto goes nearly everywhere. The following are just a few examples that I have collected:

My 40 year old female cousin died of breast cancer tonight…

Her parents raised her on a healthy diet, totally healthy. They took supplements, had a garden, went to church, didn’t drink or smoke EVER…and then one day she finds a lump.

She decided to treat it using natural methods like Vitamin C treatments, oxygenation, hydrogen peroxide, changing the body to alkaline, all under the supervision of natural healers and doctors…but she was also getting chemo treatments.

She ate an organic diet and cleansed weekly to flush the poison from her body and kept her immune system boosted to fight off infection. She was totally informed about modern day, alternative, cancer treatments and what she was doing to beat it.

A week and a half ago she was admitted into the hospital with severe pain from fluid gathering around her heart and lungs(the tumor area). Doctors drained her chest and tested the fluid and found it to be full of cancer cells, all of the sudden it spread, it had taken over.

A week and a half ago she was a beautiful, youthful 40 year old woman and today she is dead.

She looked 80 years old when I say her earlier today at the hospital. From 40 to 80 in a week and a half….What the —- is going on around here people?!

(Note: All you have to do is look again at the pictures of the tumors on the rats, and change to the organs from GMOs, and you will know).

On another post I read about a lady who walked into her boyfriend’s house, and found him dead in the middle of the living room. He was only 40 years old.

A lady I talked with in the line at the post office said that 5 people, all close to her and most of them under 50, had all died in the last month.

Another poster said that 6 people close to them, none of them particularly old, had all died within several months of each other.

Something is causing this. Vaccines are part of the cause, but GMOs are obviously deadly. The lamestream media will not tell you that GMOs are killing people. I urge you to totally get GMOs and all other toxins out of your life.

GMOs need to be banned totally, not just labelled. They kill. And the pollen from GMO plants goes everywhere, and is infecting non-GMO plants.

The dangers of GMOs is just one of the 55 chapters in the book that I spent 2 years writing- You’re not Fat, You’re Toxic – to help you save you and your family. If you don’t want to buy it, I encourage you to ask the library to obtain a copy:

Your not fat Your toxic

(click on above text to find out more)

TLB recommends you visit for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article HERE


By: Claire Robinson

Control animals fed GMOs and pesticides makes industry GM canola safety study worthless

Who would have expected that toxicology would become a rich reservoir of farce and irony? Yet that is exactly what has happened in the area of GMO toxicity testing, thanks to double standards that mean studies finding harm are judged very differently to those finding safety.

The latest episode in the farce is a GMO industry safety study designed to test the effects in rats fed a GMO canola compared with rats fed non-GM canola. Unfortunately, the test animals were fed GMOs and pesticides and control animals were also fed – er – GMOs and pesticides. Unsurprisingly, the study found no effect from feeding the GM food under test and concluded that it was safe. In spite of its poor design, the study could be used to gain regulatory approval for the GM Roundup-tolerant canola under test.

The study (Delaney and colleagues, 2014) was published in April this year by employees of the biotech and agrochemical giant DuPont in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Readers will recall that in November 2013 the editor of this same journal, A. Wallace Hayes, forcibly retracted the long-term rat feeding study by the team of Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. Séralini’s study found toxic effects in rats fed doses of NK603 GM maize and Roundup deemed safe by regulators. Hayes claimed he retracted the paper on the grounds of the “inconclusive” nature of the tumour and mortality findings in treated groups of rats. He blamed the alleged inconclusiveness on the relatively low number of rats used and the strain of rat, the Sprague-Dawley, which he claimed was unusually prone to tumours.

Hayes’s rationale for retracting the paper – inconclusiveness – was widely derided by scientists. Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand pointed out that if this standard were applied consistently, this would result in a huge number of important studies being retracted, including two pioneering papers by James Watson and Francis Crick describing the structure of DNA and how it might replicate, which at the time of publication were inconclusive.

Now Séralini’s team has hit back at the FCT editor’s accusations in an analysis of the DuPont study. The analysis, published in FCT as a letter to the editor, exposes as worthless the DuPont authors’ claims of safety for the GM canola variety tested.

Séralini’s team analysed the laboratory rodent diet used in the DuPont experiment, which was obtained from a well-known company called Purina. They obtained the same type of feed from Purina and found that it was contaminated with 18% of Roundup-tolerant maize NK603 and 14.9% of GM Bt maize MON810. They also found that the feed contained residues of glyphosate and AMPA (the main metabolite of glyphosate). So although the control rats weren’t eating the GM canola under test, they were eating other GMOs with the same glyphosate-tolerant trait, as well as residues of the pesticide that the GMOs are grown with. In plain English, the study did not compare rats fed a GM diet with rats fed a non-GM diet, but rats fed one type of GMO plus pesticides with rats fed similar GMOs plus pesticides.

Séralini and colleagues state, “the uncontrolled presence of pesticide residues and other GMOs make the study inconclusive”. They add that according to the criteria of the FCT editor Hayes, the study should be retracted.

Séralini’s team, in contrast, did control for GMOs and pesticides in the diets used for their chronic toxicity study. So their study accurately tested for the effects of GM NK603 maize and Roundup herbicide – and the effects of organ damage and hormonal disruption found in the treated rats were real.

Spurious control groups

The DuPont researchers made their study even more inconclusive by restricting it to a 3-month timespan too short to show long-term health effects. They also added spurious control groups of animals fed a variety of irrelevant “reference” diets. This practice, common in the GMO industry’s studies on its own products, has the effect of drowning out any statistical differences in the GM-fed group in the resulting “data noise”. Many industry studies with a similar poor design have been published in FCT and were not retracted.

FCT editor Hayes based his verdict of the “inconclusive” nature of the tumor and mortality findings in the Séralini paper on the relatively small number of rats used and the supposedly tumour-prone nature of the Sprague-Dawley strain. Yet the DuPont authors concluded on safety over a shorter period of time, measuring a smaller number of health effects, and using a comparably small number of rats (12 per sex per group compared with Séralini’s 10) of the same Sprague-Dawley strain.

There is further irony in the fact that we are not allowed to suspect that DuPont’s reassuring findings on its own GMO might be a false negative, where a toxic effect exists but is missed because of poor experimental design. But conversely we are expected to believe that Séralini’s findings, dramatic as they are, are all false positives and an artifact of the small number of rats used and the rat strain chosen – two factors which miraculously become acceptable in the DuPont study and many other industry studies.

To round off this GMO farce, the DuPont authors declare in their paper that “there are no conflicts of interest” – despite the fact that they are employees of the company that stands to profit from the market authorization of the GMO in question. And Bryan Delaney, the first author of the DuPont study, is also managing editor of FCT. That interest too goes undisclosed.

If these shenanigans weren’t putting public health at risk, we’d be rolling in the aisles.


TLB recommends you visit GMWATCH for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article HERE



Planet-earth 1

By TLB Contributor: Dane Wigington

There are still a great many people that can’t bring themselves to imagine that the mighty US military would have much if any concern with the state of global climate. Many that cannot even begin to believe that the same US military would be actively involved with ongoing climate modification “Manhattan Projects” (global geoengineering programs, SAG and SRM). The glaring reality is that climate change and the manipulation of the global climate system are top priorities for the US military.

All available data indicates that the US military has been experimenting with weather modification for over 60 years. Their interest and involvement with climate engineering is all about power and control. There is nothing benevolent in this equation in regard to the motives behind manipulating Earth’s life support systems though some sources will try to convince us otherwise.  A document drafted in 1966, recently located from the NASA archives, outlines the ongoing and expanding US weather modification programs at that time. These programs were well funded having budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars even then.

So what is the US military and its NATO allies doing to mitigate the risk of climate change? They are fully engaged in massively destructive global geoengineering programs. SRM (solar radiation management) and SAG (stratospheric aerosol geoengineering) are likely only a part of the lethal aircraft spraying programs going on above our heads day in and day out. Those in the military that carry out the climate engineering programs are being told they are doing something for the common good. This could not be further from the truth and it is imperative that our military brothers and sisters wake up to the fact that they are literally carrying out weather and biological warfare against their own countrymen.

The links below illustrate a few of the existing documents and articles regarding the US military and its urgent concern over the state of global climate. These links are of great relevance.






6 – Office of the Director of National Intelligence

7 – NY Times Article on threat of climate change to Pentagon

The damage being done by these completely unregulated and out of control climate modification programs (SRM, SAG, and other potential programs as of yet unknown) cannot be quantified.

Below are some of the known consequences of global geoengineering programs.

Completely disrupted global hydrological cycle (rain cycle)

Causes epic drought in some regions and cataclysmic floods in others

Loss of blue skies and direct sunlight, thus affecting photosynthesis

Greatly increased global drought overall

Greatly diminished crop yields

Decimated ozone layer, Northern and Southern hemispheres

Contaminated soils

Contaminated waters

Contaminated atmosphere and breathable air column

Unquantifiable negative impacts to all life forms

Increased dry lightning strikes creating record forest fires

Contributes to the triggering of climate feed back loops like methane hydrate and clathrate releases

If there was anything truly benevolent about the global spraying, why would there be so much effort to keep these programs hidden? Why would virtually every government agency aggressively deny their existence?

The military industrial complex is doing whatever it deems necessary to increase its power no matter what the cost to the planet or all life that exists here. Their past conduct makes this abundantly clear. The detonation of over 2000 nuclear bombs on Planet Earth should make this clear.We are not dealing with sanity in any sense of the word in regard to the runaway juggernaut that is the global power structure and its military industrial complex.

All things considered, global geoengineering is not a cure, but a curse so horrific that it quite literally puts life on Earth in the balance. It is up to all of us to bring this greatest untold issue to light and to a halt. Our lives, and our long term survival, literally depends on it. 

TLB recommends you visit GeoEnbineering Watch for more pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

Dr Huber

By Heather Callaghan

Previously, I’ve written about Dr. Don M. Huber who once sent a warning letter to the USDA about a new pathogen discovered in genetically modified crops, affecting cattle.

David Murphy of Food Democracy Now interviews Dr. Don M. Huber Professor Emeritus of Plant Pathology, Purdue University. In this segment, he talks about the components of Roundup and its effect on soil microbiota and nutrients.

From Democracy Now!, on Dr. Huber:

 For 50 years, he’s been a scientist studying plant diseases in the U.S. and around the world and spent 35 years at Purdue University as Professor Emeritus of plant pathology.

 He has a 41-year military career as a retired Colonel, evaluating natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks.

 He coordinates the “Emergent Diseases and Pathogens Committee” as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System under Homeland Security.

There are people (who lack the background of Huber, and in some cases have a vested interest in biotech/chemical companies) who like to ridicule Huber and people who publish what he says – especially in regards to the alleged new pathogen. They demand he release his findings to the whole of the scientific community. I do not know how open and available his findings are, but you can read his letter HERE.

It isn’t too out of bounds to have concerns about companies who produced chemicals like Agent Orange. Nor is the idea of an undiscovered pathogen outrageous when one considers the Epicyte gene that both Monsanto and DuPont (supposed competitors) patented for corn that is actually a living contraceptive – an infertility gene.

Jeffrey Smith of the Responsible Technology Institute, writes in his book, Seeds of Deception:

Many scientists are concerned that when humans and animals eat GM food, the ARM [Antibiotic Resistant Marker] genes will transfer into the bacteria found inside the digestive system. This process, whereby genes travel from one species to another, is called “horizontal gene transfer.” If the ARM gene moves between species it could result in new and dangerous antibiotic resistant diseases. The British Medical Association mentioned this serious risk as one of the reasons why they called for an immediate moratorium on genetically engineered foods.

I wrote about a similar gene transfer among plants. The weeds for which the GM plant was designed to withstand herbicide spraying against, actually absorbed genetic material from the GM plants and thereby became resistant to the herbicide. Usually, it is thought that this happens to “super weeds” through “survival of the fittest” whereby not all the weeds getting sprayed die and then become resistant to the spray, but in this example, it was proven that the weeds had obtained the genetic material of the GM crop. There’s a big difference there.

Full interview, posted 3 years ago by Democracy Now – always a great refresher course:

Dr. Huber’s Warning and Petition

H/T: Live Free Natural

Heather Callaghan is a natural health blogger and food freedom activist. You can see her work at and Like at Facebook.
TLB recommends you visit Natural Blaze for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:


By: Tracy Loew, Statesman Journal

Talk in the Oregon coast town of Bandon often turns to the approaching plume of sea-borne radiation from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant.

“We’ve been worried about it and worried about it,” said Zac Adams, owner of Bandon Designs construction company. “We’re really concerned about it affecting the fisheries, the wildlife, the tourism, and most importantly our health.”

In March 2011, a 9.0 magnitude earthquake hit off the coast of Japan, triggering a tsunami and knocking out power to cooling pumps at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant complex, causing meltdowns at three reactors.

Massive amounts of contaminated water were released to the sea and continue to build up at the plant.

The radiation is expected to hit the U.S. this year at very low levels that wouldn’t harm humans or the environment. But no federal agency is monitoring it.

So Adams joined a citizen-science project, crowd-sourcing funds in his community to test a sample of seawater that he will soon collect.

Four hours north, the Tillamook Estuaries Partnership has funded two collection sites, in Tillamook and Pacific City.

“Over the last year-and-a-half, it’s been an issue that’s been raising in prominence along the coastline,” said Lisa Phipps, executive director of the partnership. “In our area, there have been groups that have been coming together to talk about what is happening in the ocean.”

And fund-raising is underway for two more sites, in Newport and Winchester Bay.

Altogether about 30 sites, from Alaska to Baja, Calif., have been funded, said Ken Buesseler, a chemical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution who put together the project, called “How Radioactive is Our Ocean?”

It uses crowd-sourced money and volunteers to collect water samples along the Pacific Coast, then ship them to Buesseler in Massachusetts to be analyzed on an $80,000 instrument.

Each sample costs $550 to $600, depending on location.

“I really hope everybody gets together so we can fund Woods Hole to do more of these,” Adams said. “There’s a big black hole where information should be.”

Buesseler is looking for increased levels of Cesium-137, which already is in all oceans from previous nuclear testing and accidents; and for Cesium-134, a “fingerprint” of Fukushima.

Because of its short, two-year half-life, any Cesium-134 could only have come from the plant, he said.

So far, Buesseler said, no samples have indicated that the plume has reached the West Coast.

Buesseler posts results on the project’s website. They show Cesium-134 and increased levels of Cesium-137 off the coast of Japan and across the ocean.

“We know it’s out there,” Buesseler said. “We’ve seen it more than halfway across the Pacific.”

Northwest of Hawaii, for example, Buesseler has found Cesium-134 at concentrations as high as 3.8 becquerels per cubic meter.

But to put that in context, he said, the U.S. drinking water limit is 7,400 of those units.

“Every additional radiation exposure causes additional risks for cancer,” he said. “But when the numbers are in the one to 10 range, that’s a very small additional risk.”

That’s the range that is expected to hit our shores, with lower levels coming first.

“As the contamination arrives, we expect the concentrations to go up over the next two years,” Buesseler said.

Buesseler launched the project in frustration after discovering that federal officials weren’t doing any testing.

The Oregon Health Authority takes quarterly samples of surf and sand at three locations, but is not looking for cesium-134, the “fingerprint” of radiation from Fukushima. Its most recent samples, taken May 15, detected no cesium-137.

“There’s a dismissive argument that well, the levels are pretty low, so why bother,” Buesseler said. “The counter to that is it’s good to confirm low numbers. You build public confidence. And we can use the data to model ocean currents for the next time.”

What next time? Well, Buesseler said, there are currently 1,000 tanks of radioactive water on the Fukushima site, containing the more persistent isotope strontium-90. If a major earthquake were to hit the site, that water would be released to the sea.

“We would see it in three years,” he said. “That’s reason enough to be improving our models.”, (503) 399-6779 or follow at

Super Weed

By: Rani Molla

“Super weeds” are becoming increasingly common.

Texas cotton growers are petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency to let them use propazine, an alternative herbicide to Monsanto’s glysophate, which is currently used,  to combat a “super weed” that has developed resistance to it. According to the Weed Science Society of America, these herbicide-resistant weeds were first reported in the 1950s — soon after farmers began using the first major synthetic herbicides — and are on the rise.

It’s a case of typical evolutionary processes: A farmer sprays her field with an herbicide, most of the weeds die, a few that are best adapted for the herbicide will live on and reproduce. After repeated herbicide use, these super weeds can actually come to dominate the weed population. Weeds have evolved to be resistant to herbicide after herbicide, starting with synthetic auxins, then triazines, then ACCase inhibitors, then ALS inhibitors and now glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, according to Director of the International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds Ian Heap, who helps run, the central repository for scientifically backed, peer-reviewed herbicide-resistance cases.


The increase in super weeds is troubling for everyone. Farmers worry they’ll lose their crops while environmentalists worry about these various toxic herbicides leaching into groundwater. From the article:

“Pigweed is a really serious problem for farmers,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety. “But propazine is not the solution. We need to have farm practices that don’t create resistant weeds in the first place, so we don’t have to resort to toxic herbicides to treat them.”

U.S. farmers have had some success in controlling pigweed using a growing arsenal of herbicides, but Texas’s proposal underscores the challenge farmers face in keeping the weed from strangling their crops.

“Weed resistance is of utmost concern for us,” said Ned Meister, director of regulatory activities for the Texas Farm Bureau. “The purpose of the request is to put another tool in the toolbox for farmers to address weeds that are resistant to other chemicals.”

Continue reading article here

Monsantotagged 2


Monsanto, Crimes?

Strong words they are.  Something very peculiar that I must report.  I have traveled all over this great country of ours (the USA) attempting to find someone who could tell me anything positive about Monsanto.  I’m not the only one.  If I did find someone, I had only later come to find out that they were indirectly on the Monsanto payroll.

Despite this voluntary and objective conviction, all the reporting and following of Monsanto leads me to do a reality check once a year.  The writing below was produced in the 1990′s and it’s strange to read.  Strange because the predictions in the writing of what’s to come have indeed happened.

I ask myself, “has Monsanto really committed any crimes?”
For example, so what if they’re methods for food production, among other things, result in the poisoning of human beings over their life span – you still get to live right?

I mean, that’s what petroleum makers do too right?  We drive vehicles powered by fossil fuel, it produces carbon dioxide and we breath that air.  Monsanto is no worse right?

If you see the logic here and can step away from that thinking for a moment, you may believe that you have lost your mind.   If so you are indeed correct… you have lost your mind.

To get us back on track, here is a list of Monsanto’s crimes (including factual references.) I never publish anything about anyone that is not factual – that would be slander.

Monsanto’s Corporate Crimes

Monsanto has an impressive history of committing corporate crime [100]. Highlights of  Monsanto crimes include:

BST or rBGH marketed by Monsanto as Posilac, is a genetically engineered hormone designed to make cows produce more milk. Large amounts of research indicate that BST use has serious implications for the health and welfare of dairy cattle, including making cows more prone to mastitis and sores [101].   Because of evidence that BST milk may cause breast cancer, colon cancer and prostate cancer in humans, it is banned in Europe. Monsanto is trying to overturn the ban [102].

Contaminating our food with GM crops
As the market leaders in GM crops it is Monsanto who have been largely responsible for contaminating the global food chain with GM crops. The long term health effects of eating GM crops are as yet unknown.  (fast forward to today – we now have an idea of the size and scope of what we DO NOT know.  It’s a mountain of unknowns.)

Contaminating our environment with GM crops
The long term effects of Monsanto’s GM crops on the environment are as yet unknown. (fast forward to today – the main ingredient in Roundup, “Glyphosate” has been banned in Brazil – and other countries will soon follow)  In areas where RoundUp Ready crops are being grown commercially, herbicide tolerance is being spread to neighboring crops and wild plants by cross pollination. Rather than reducing the amount of chemicals used in farming RoundUp Ready crops are locking farmers into a chemical dependent farming system [103].  Several scientific studies have suggested that the Bt technology utilized by Monsanto in their Bollgard, YieldGard and NewLeaf insect resistant crops may kill ‘non-pest’ insects such as the Monarch butterfly [104].

Developing world
Having encountered increasing opposition to GM technology in the developed global north, Monsanto have put more energy into pushing their products in the developing global south.  For example; the attempt by Monsanto/Mahyco to rush their Bt insect resistant cotton through the Indian government’s regulatory process and on to the market. The decision on allowing commercial growing of Bt cotton was postponed for a year in the face massive opposition from Indian farmers and NGOs all over the world [105].

Terminator Technology
Monsanto holds a patent for ‘terminator’ technology. Terminator technology involves the genetically engineering of plants to produce sterile seeds thus forcing farmers to buy new seed every year, rather than saving their own seed from year to year. Monsanto has said it will not use this technology but still holds the patents and may use it in future [106].  This is too close to “playing god” we think.

Monsanto despises anyone who knowingly or not, undermines their strategic goals with the world’s food supply. Where Monsanto’s Genetically Modified (GM) crops are being grown commercially, Monsanto has paid a small crowd of private investigators to check whether farmers are growing their GM crops without permission.  Monsanto has successfully sued a Canadian farmer named Percy Schmeiser for supposedly planting Canola without a license agreement.

Percy claimed that he has never planted GM crops on his land and that any GM crops on his land are a result of cross pollination from GM crops grown on neighboring farms. He launched a counter suit against Monsanto [107]. In 1997 2 TV journalists Steve Wilson and Jane Akre who had been making a documentary on the dangers of Monsanto’s BST were fired by their employers Fox TV.

Fox TV had come under pressure from Monsanto to change the content of the documentary, when Wilson and Akre refused to be muzzled they were sacked [108].

In 1998 Monsanto took out a wide ranging SLAPP (Stategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against activists from Genetix Snowball.  At the time Genetix Snowball were engaged in a campaign of accountable, non-violent direct action against GM crops. The injunction was designed to intimidate members of the public into not taking direct action against Monsanto’s UK GM field trials [109].

In 1998 the environmental journal the Ecologist was due to publish a special edition attacking Monsanto. However, the Ecologist’s printers – Penwells of Saltash, Cornwall, destroyed the 14,000 print run without notice fearing liable action from Monsanto [110].

Climate Change Co-option
Monsanto detected the potential for new markets for their GM products within the mechanisms of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change [111]. Since 1998 Monsanto has been one of the principle corporations attempting to hijack the UN climate change negotiations for its own ends. Monsanto claims that its products offer high-tech solutions in the battle to reduce CO2 emissions. Monsanto hopes to gain carbon credits in two ways.

1. Monsanto claims that wide spread use of RoundUp Ready crops will reduce the need for plowing thus; keeping large quantities of CO2 locked in the soil.

2. Monsanto hopes to be a major provider of GM trees for forestry ‘carbon sinks’ (large areas of forests planted to soak up CO2 emissions). Monsanto are close to commercializing RoundUp Ready trees and are rumored to be developing carbon absorbing trees and plants.


[106] for further information see “2001: A Seed Odyssey: Annual Update on Terminator and Traitor Technology Suicide Seeds: Not Dead Yet!” available online from RAFI
[107] see for more information
[108] see for more information
[109] see for more information
[110] to read the Ecologist Monsanto edition go to
Public Comments Propagated from “Monsanto Hired” media guns.

TLB recommends you visit WHO IS MONSANTO? for more great/pertinent articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:


By: Jon Rappoport

In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths, and he told me to be careful I was reading a correct copy of his piece. (You can find it—“Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” at

Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide)—because fluorine is very active and binds with all sorts of other substances. Therefore, there is extremely wide public exposure to fluorides.

I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, which was launched to build the first A-bomb.

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

So A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the T [uranium] is the causative factor.”

The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

But any records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

power outside the matrix

Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.

More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.

The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

In the film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, this character is fleshed out as some kind of far-right-wing fanatic. How odd that he and other military men in the movie are, in fact, ready and willing to start a nuclear war. Odd because, unknown to the Strangelove script writer, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the very program that created atomic bombs.

Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.

TLB recommends you visit Jon at his Blog for more gret/pertinent commentary, articles and information.

See featured article and read comments here:


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at





Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared at the BIO International Convention on Wednesday, June 25 and made comments that confirmed what most in the growing natural and organic food movement already know: she’s pro-GMO through and through (at least when it comes to other people), much like the other big money politicians from the two major political parties.

Clinton spoke for 65 minutes at the San Diego convention, a major event for the Biotech and GMO agricultural industries.

During the speech, she voiced her support for genetically modified organisms as noted in this article from the website The Times of San Diego.

“Maybe there’s a way of getting a representative group of actors at the table” to discuss how the federal government could help the Biotech industry with “insurance against risk,” she said.

Of course the federal government already produces huge subsidies for the commodity crops corn and soy, which are mostly GMO in the United States (over 90% each); many non-GMO farmers have say they’ve been forced to abandon growing these crops due to the cross contamination risk they pose and thus are not able to take advantage of such subsidies.

Clinton said that the “benefits” of GMOs should be better explained in order to counteract the massive grassroots tide against the lab-created crops, saying that “Frankensteinish” depictions should be met with a stronger, more positive spin from GMO companies. Already many companies including Monsanto have been stepping up the PR efforts, launching sites like GMO Answers in an attempt to change the narrative.

“There’s a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are,” on Biotech, she added, mentioning her efforts to support drought-resistant seeds as Secretary of State. She also discussed progress being made in California by the Biotech industry, despite the state’s many strong pro-organic and non-GMO foods communities.

But What About Hillary’s Own Dinner Table?

As noted in this article from 2009, Hillary Clinton has deep ties with the Biotech, GMO and agrochemical industries.

But at home, Hillary seems adamant about what she wants in her own garden and on her own dinner table as noted in this article.

“Not certified organic,” Walter Scheib, the White House’s executive chef from 1994 to 2005, said when asked about her own personal garden, perhaps poking fun at the fact that such a small garden can’t be certified by the USDA. “But everything was absolutely grown without pesticides and fertilizers. I guess it’s what these days we call ‘natural.’”

Political lines have nothing to do with it, either, as Scheib said in the article that both the Bush and Clinton families served virtually all local foods and “dined regularly on organic foods including wagyu and grass-fed beef.”

Of course this is just one isolated example but it’s well worth noting the many politicians who seem willing to vouch for Biotech while eating mostly organic at home, which is far more convenient for them than the average American.

While Hillary’s a big fan of Biotech and GMOs now, the question of whether or not she’ll make a place for them on her own dinner table remains unanswered.


Read article here:

TLB recommends you read more great/pertinent articles here:


  • Your support in the Liberty Beacon will be appreciated