"All the World's a Stage We Pass Through" – R. Ayana

Showing posts with label chemical poisoning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemical poisoning. Show all posts

Tuesday, 29 July 2014

New Pesticides Poison Everything: The New Silent Spring

New Pesticides Poison Everything
The New Silent Spring

http://www.theecologist.org/siteimage/scale/800/600/380491.png

Neonicotinoid insecticides are killing more than just bees - entire farmland ecosystems are being poisoned. Photo: honeybees (Apis mellifera) on wild fennel, Albany, California, by Jack Wolf via Flickr.

 

Neonicotinoids are poisoning entire farmland ecosystems

 

 

by Damian Carrington



“Far from protecting food production, the use of neonicotinoid insecticides is threatening the very infrastructure which enables it.”


The widespread use of neonicotinoid insecticides is causing a neurotoxic overload afflicting entire farm ecosystems from earthworms to bees, other pollinators and birds, writes Damian Carrington. A collapse in food production may inevitably follow.

The world's most widely used insecticides have contaminated the environment across the planet so pervasively that global food production is at risk, according to a comprehensive scientific assessment of the chemicals' impacts.

The researchers compare their impact with that reported in Silent Spring, the landmark 1962 book by Rachel Carson that revealed the decimation of birds and insects by the blanket use of DDT and other pesticides and led to the modern environmental movement.

Billions of dollars' worth of the potent and long-lasting neurotoxins are sold every year but regulations have failed to prevent the poisoning of almost all habitats, the international team of scientists concluded in the most detailed study yet.


Entire food chains contaminated

As a result, they say, creatures essential to global food production - from bees to earthworms - are likely to be suffering grave harm and the chemicals must be phased out.

The new assessment analysed the risks associated with neonicotinoids, a class of insecticides on which farmers spend $2.6bn (£1.53bn) a year. Neonicotinoids are applied routinely rather than in response to pest attacks but the scientists highlight the "striking" lack of evidence that this leads to increased crop yields.

"The evidence is very clear. We are witnessing a threat to the productivity of our natural and farmed environment equivalent to that posed by organophosphates or DDT", said Jean-Marc Bonmatin, of the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) in France, one of the 29 international researchers who conducted the four-year assessment.

"Far from protecting food production, the use of neonicotinoid insecticides is threatening the very infrastructure which enables it."


Silent Spring all over again

He said the chemicals imperilled food supplies by harming bees and other pollinators, which fertilise about three-quarters of the world's crops, and the organisms that create the healthy soils which the world's food requires in order to grow.

Professor Dave Goulson, at the University of Sussex, another member of the team, said: "It is astonishing we have learned so little. After Silent Spring revealed the unfortunate side-effects of those chemicals, there was a big backlash.

"But we seem to have gone back to exactly what we were doing in the 1950s. It is just history repeating itself. The pervasive nature of these chemicals mean they are found everywhere now.

"If all our soils are toxic, that should really worry us, as soil is crucial to food production."

The assessment, published on last week, cites the chemicals as a key factor in the decline of bees, alongside the loss of flower-rich habitats meadows and disease.

The insecticides harm bees' ability to navigate and learn, damage their immune systems and cut colony growth. In worms, which provide a critical role in aerating soil, exposure to the chemicals affects their ability to tunnel.

Dragonflies, which eat mosquitoes, and other creatures that live in water are also suffering, with some studies showing that ditchwater has become so contaminated it could be used directly as a lice-control pesticide.


Major declines in birds caused by neonicotinoids?

The report warned that loss of insects may be linked to major declines in the birds that feed on them, though it also notes that eating just a few insecticide-treated seeds would kill birds directly:

"Overall, a compelling body of evidence has accumulated that clearly demonstrates that the wide-scale use of these persistent, water-soluble chemicals is having widespread, chronic impacts upon global biodiversity and is likely to be having major negative effects on ecosystem services such as pollination that are vital to food security."

The report is being published as a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research and was funded by a charitable foundation run by the ethical bank Triodos.

The EU, opposed by the British government and the National Farmers Union, has already imposed a temporary three-year moratorium on the use of some neonicotinoids on some crops.

US president Barack Obama recently ordered an urgent assessment of the impact of neonicotinoids on bees. But the insecticides are used all over the world on crops, as well as flea treatments in cats and dogs and to protect timber from termites.


CPA: 'not a robust assessment'

However, the Crop Protection Association, which represents pesticide manufacturers, criticised the report. Nick von Westenholz, chief executive of the CPA, said:

"It is a selective review of existing studies which highlighted worst-case scenarios, largely produced under laboratory conditions. As such, the publication does not represent a robust assessment of the safety of systemic pesticides under realistic conditions of use."

"Importantly, they have failed or neglected to look at the broad benefits provided by this technology and the fact that by maximising yields from land already under cultivation, more wild spaces are preserved for biodiversity.

"The crop protection industry takes its responsibility towards pollinators seriously. We recognise the vital role pollinators play in global food production."

Yet every relevant peer-reviewed paper has been analysed.

The new report, called the Worldwide Integrated Assessment on Systemic Pesticides, analysed every peer-reviewed scientific paper on neonicotinoids and another insecticide called fipronil since they were first used in the mid-1990s.

These chemicals are different from other pesticides because, instead of being sprayed over crops, they are usually used to treat seeds. This means they are taken up by every part of the growing plant, including roots, leaves, pollen and nectar, providing multiple ways for other creatures to be exposed.

The scientists found that the use of the insecticides shows a "rapid increase" over the past decade and that the slow breakdown of the compounds and their ability to be washed off fields in water has led to "large-scale contamination".

The team states that current rules on use have failed to prevent dangerous levels building up in the environment.


Known and unknown unknowns

Almost as concerning as what is known about neonicotinoids is what is not known, the researchers said:

  • Most countries have no public data on the quantities or locations of the systemic pesticides being applied.

  • The testing demanded by regulators to date has not determined the long-term effect of sub-lethal doses.

  • Nor has it assessed the impact of the combined impact of the cocktail of many pesticides encountered in most fields.

  • The toxicity of neonicotinoids has only been established for very few of the species known to be exposed.


For example, just four of the 25,000 known species of bee have been assessed. There is virtually no data on effects on reptiles or mammals.





Damian Carrington is head of environment at The Guardian.

This article was originally published on The Guardian Environment
via The Ecologist @ http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2459001/neonicotinoids_are_poisoning_entire_farmland_ecosystems.html



Bird decline 'smoking gun' for pesticide's effects

 

 

Matt McGrath

StarlingStarlings like this one have been impacted by the use of a neonicotinoid chemical according to scientists


The widespread use of a type of insecticide that has been blamed for honeybee deaths is linked to a marked decline in bird numbers in Europe, a report says.

Imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid chemical, is widely used in agriculture to exterminate pests.

Dutch scientists say their data shows that the chemical is associated with a collapse in common bird species.

But manufacturers argue the evidence of these effects is not substantiated.

Imidacloprid is one of a number of neonicotinoid insecticides introduced in the 1990s as a more environmentally friendly way of dealing with crop pests.


What exactly are Neonicotinoids?

  • Neonicotinoid pesticides are new nicotine-like chemicals and act on the nervous systems of insects, with a lower threat to mammals and the environment than many older treatments

  • Pesticides made in this way are water-soluble, which means they can be applied to the soil and taken up by the whole plant. They are called "systemic", meaning they turn the plant itself into a poison factory, with toxins coming from roots, leaves, stems and pollen

  • Neonicotinoids are often applied as seed treatments, which means coating the seeds before planting

Neonicotinoids have been hugely successful, and now account for about 40% of the global pesticide market.

However, there have been growing concerns about their environmental impacts. A number of studies have linked them to the decline in honeybees.

“How much evidence do you need before you take action?”
-         Prof Dave Goulson University of Sussex


A recent, wide-ranging review of the scientific literature concluded that the chemicals were causing significant damage to a number of beneficial species.

Now, Dutch scientists have, for the first time, shown an association between the use of imidacloprid and a decline in common birds.

The researchers looked at 15 bird species that depend on insects as their main source of food. The Dutch have kept long-term records on the numbers and health of these warblers, swallows, starlings and thrushes.

The scientists were then able to compare this dataset to surface water quality measurements. They found that higher concentrations of imidacloprid in the water was "consistently associated" with declines in many of the monitored birds.


A farmer's perspective on neonics

George Ponsonby
George Ponsonby farms around 1,200 hectares of arable land in Gloucestershire.


At this time of the year he is about to harvest oilseed rape, which has been previously treated with neonicotinoids. He's environmentally aware: his fields have wide verges for birds and he puts out feed in the winter. He doesn't believe the science against neonicotinoids has been proven out in the field.

"If we knew we were decimating our bee population then we wouldn't do it," he told BBC News.

As a result of the EU moratorium, he will have to spray with older pesticides that he says "aren't as effective and are a lot more random".

The ban is a "step backwards" he argues. "We don't spray for fun; it's expensive."

Surveying a field of totally untreated kale, which has been decimated by the flea beetle, he says the same would most likely happen to the neighbouring oilseed rape field if neonicotinoids were not used.

"We will almost certainly lose yield: 10% probably, maybe as much as 20%."

"If the concentrations are higher than 20 nanogrammes per litre in the environment, we found a reduction of 3.5% in local populations," said one of the authors, Dr Hans de Kroon from Radboud University.

"In 10 years, it's a 35% reduction in the local population. It's really huge. It means the alarm bells are on straight away."

The scientists believe that the insecticides, which are mainly used to coat seeds, are leaching into the soil and water and accumulating over time. They argue that in some soil types, neonicotinoids can persist for two to three years.

They say this build-up is killing more insects than intended and this is having a significant impact on birds that eat them.

swallows
Scientists are unsure if eating contaminated prey is harming birds like these swallows


"They might be less able to produce their young, or grow their young," said lead author, Caspar Hallman, also from Radboud University.

"It might increase their mortality by food deprivation. We think this is the most likely mechanism."

The scientists still can't rule out the possibility that imidacloprid might be having an effect through other means. It is possible that birds are being exposed to the chemical through the prey that they consume or they are simply eating seeds coated in it.

As well as looking at pesticide concentrations, the researchers also looked at the possibility the decline in these species had started before the introduction of imidacloprid. They also examined the idea that changes in land use were responsible.

They ruled out both possibilities.

"I think that the information we have been able to provide is exactly the information that was missing in most studies," said Dr de Kroon.

"In that sense, this could be the definite 'smoking gun'. You now see the evidence getting more complete, around the effects of imidacloprid on the environment."

Bayer, the manufacturer of imidacloprid, rejects the findings of this new work, saying it does not prove a "causal link" between the chemical and the decline in birds.

"Neonicotinoids have gone through an extensive risk assessment, which has shown that they are safe to the environment when used responsibly according to the label instructions," said a spokesman.

"Birds living close to aquatic habitats - the species that one could expect to be affected most by concentrations of neonicotinoids in surface water - show no or negligible negative impact."

starling
Starlings were one of 15 common bird species assessed


Other observers, though, regard the Dutch study as breaking new ground in terms of understanding the impacts of neonicotinoids. They believe it is the first evidence of impacts on a much wider range of species than just bees.

"If insectivorous birds are declining because of these chemicals, then other things that eat insects are going to be, too," said Prof Dave Goulson from the University of Sussex, UK.

"We're also looking at bats and hedgehogs and shrews and fish and so on. There's not much left really. How much evidence do you need before you take action?"

The researchers argue that their work should inform the political debate about neonicotinoids.

The EU has instigated a two-year moratorium on the use of the chemicals on flowering crops. The UK was one of eight nations that opposed the ban.

Scientists in the field say the new research strengthens the argument for increasing restrictions on a wider range of crops and for domestic users.

Many oppose an outright ban but they are challenging manufacturers to provide evidence that the use of neonicotinoids boosts yields.

"We need to identify when they are important and restrict use to those sites; it's not difficult," said Prof Goulson.

"You need to do field trials, and try not using the neonicotinoid seed dressing.

"If you don't get a reduction in yield then stop using the bloody things; its not rocket science!"

The research is published in the journal Nature.

Follow Matt on Twitter @mattmcgrathbbc.


From BBC @ http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28216810


For more information about pesticides see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/pesticides
- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section


Hope you like this not for profit site -
It takes hours of work every day to maintain, write, edit, research, illustrate and publish this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest
Like what we do? Please give enough for a meal or drink if you can -  
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Please click below -




For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


And see




 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed


New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati


New Illuminations –Art(icles) by R. Ayana @ http://newilluminations.blogspot.com

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com


The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)



DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –
We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further! This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original (along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…


From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Saturday, 18 July 2009

Chemicals and (Y)our Health

Chemicals and (Y)our Health

 

 http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2002/Sexy-Baby-Phthalate-Poison.jpg


However careful you are about your health, your body is almost certainly home to troubling chemicals called phthalates. These are ubiquitous in modern life, found in plastic bottles, cosmetics, some toys, hair conditioners, and fragrances — and many scientists have linked them to everything from sexual deformities in babies to obesity and diabetes.

The problem is that phthalates suppress male hormones and sometimes mimic female hormones. As I’ve written before, chemicals called endocrine disruptors are believed to explain the proliferation of “intersex fish” — male fish that produce eggs — as well as sexual deformities in animals and humans. Phthalates (pronounced THAL-ates) are among the most common endocrine disruptors, and among the most difficult to avoid. They’re even in tap water, and levels soar in certain plastic water bottles.

They probably are not harmful to us adults, but it is another story for children. In girls, some research suggests that phthalates may cause early onset puberty. Most vulnerable of all, it seems, are male fetuses in the first trimester of pregnancy, just as they are differentiating their sex. At that stage, scholars believe, phthalates may “feminize” these boys.

“Commonly used phthalates may undervirilize humans,” concluded a study by the University of Rochester. The study, which was small, based its conclusion, in part, on measurements of “anogenital distance” — the distance between the anus and the genitals, which is typically twice as long for males as for females. Some scholars believe that shrinkage of this distance reflects “feminization” of male anatomy.
 
The researchers found that pregnant women with higher levels of phthalates delivered babies with a shorter anogenital distance. It’s possible this won’t cause any complications. But baby boys with shorter anogenital distance were more likely to have undescended testicles and less penile volume, and phthalates have been linked in humans to problems with sperm count and sperm quality. 

In China, researchers found that female rats given phthalates gave birth to males with a penis deformity called hypospadias (in which the urethra exits the side or base of the penis, not the tip). Many other animal studies around the world have found similar results.

Some endocrinologists refer to the “phthalate syndrome,” including hypospadias and undescended testicles. 
 
 http://cobbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/lady-fish.jpg

“Accumulating human epidemiological data point to a relationship between adverse fetal development and phthalate exposure,” concluded an article this spring in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism. Just last month, the Endocrine Society — composed of thousands of doctors in the field — issued a powerful warning that endocrine disruptors including phthalates are “a significant concern to public health.”

One of the conundrums for scientists and journalists alike is how to call prudent attention to murky and uncertain risks, without sensationalizing dangers that may not exist? Increasingly, endocrinologists are concluding that the mounting evidence is enough to raise alarms.

Indeed, there has also been a flurry of scientific articles questioning whether endocrine disruptors are tied to obesity, autism and allergies, although the evidence there is less firm than with genital abnormalities and depressed sperm count.

The American Chemistry Council argues that phthalates are not a problem, that they do not migrate out of products easily and that they quickly break down in the body. The chemical industry has noted an apparently reassuring study in the Journal of Urology finding that hypospadias does not seem to be increasing in New York State (although different studies showed increases both in the United States and in Denmark). 

James Yager, a professor of toxicology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, agrees that there are huge uncertainties but says that pregnant women and children should be cautious. “When my wife was pregnant, we worried about drinking or smoking,” Professor Yager said. Now, he said, he would be more focused on exposure to chemicals such as phthalates in baby bottles.

Dr. Theo Colborn, the founder of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, goes further. She tells researchers working with her to toss out plastic water bottles and use stainless steel instead. “I don’t have plastic food containers in my house,” she added. “I use glass.”

Certain phthalates have been banned from new toys sold in the United States, but kids continue to be exposed to these chemicals from the moment they are conceived. Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network says that the way regulators examine risks — studying the impact of one chemical at a time — is bankrupt, for we’re exposed to a cocktail of them daily. Regulation is so pathetic that there’s not even disclosure when products contain phthalates.

If terrorists were putting phthalates in our drinking water, we would be galvanized to defend ourselves and to spend billions of dollars to ensure our safety. But the risks are just as serious if we’re poisoning ourselves, and it’s time for the Obama administration and Congress to show leadership in this area.
•


Published: July 15, 2009




The author invites you to visit his blog, On the Ground and to also join him on Facebook, watch his YouTube videos and follow him on Twitter.

Past New York Times Coverage






http://www.appalachian-center.org/images/issues/fish_kill_poster.jpg

Images - http://www.mindfully.org/Health/2002/Sexy-Baby-Phthalate-Poison.jpg 
http://cobbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/lady-fish.jpg
http://www.appalachian-center.org/images/issues/fish_kill_poster.jpg


For further enlightening info enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

@  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com (or click on any tag at the far bottom of the page for direct references)

or @ http://newilluminati.blog-city.com  (this one only works with Firefox)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com





This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Friday, 9 May 2008

SOME CHEMICALS MORE HARMFUL THAN ANYONE EVER SUSPECTED


 SOME CHEMICALS MORE HARMFUL THAN
  ANYONE EVER SUSPECTED



By Peter Montague 
   
http://reusablebags.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c670d53ef014e86ce9910970d-320wi

New evidence is flooding in to suggest that many industrial chemicals are more dangerous than previously understood. During the 1990s, it came as a surprise that many industrial chemicals can interfere with the hormone systems of many species, including humans. Hormones are chemicals that circulate in the blood stream at very low levels (parts per billion, and in some cases parts per trillion), acting like switches, turning on and off bodily processes. From the moment of conception throughout the remainder of life, our growth, development and even many kinds of behavior are controlled by hormones.  

Now new evidence is piling up to show that some of these hormone-related changes can be passed from one generation to the next by a mechanism that remains poorly understood, called epigenetics.  

Until very recently scientists had thought that inherited traits always involved genetic mutations -- physical changes in the sequence of nucleotides that make up the DNA molecule itself. Now they know that there is a "second genetic code" that somehow influences the way genes operate, and that by some poorly-understood mechanism can be passed along to successive generations.  

Medical scientists hope to take advantage of the new science of epigenetics to manipulate the behavior of genes for beneficial purposes. But the dark side of this new understanding is that stress, smoking, and pollution can cause epigenetic changes -- including many serious diseases like cancer and kidney disease -- that apparently can be passed along to one's children and even grandchildren. For example, Dutch women who went hungry during World War II gave birth to small babies. These babies, in turn, gave birth to small babies even though they themselves had plenty to eat. "It changes the whole way we think about inheritance," says Dr. Moshe Szyf at McGill University in Toronto.  

Just last month [September 2006 – Ed] professor Michael Skinner at Washington State University in Spokane announced results of laboratory experiments showing that environmental pollution could permanently reprogram the genetic traits of a family line of rodents, creating a legacy of sickness. This research "highlights the long-term dangers from environmental pollution," professor Skinner said. Dr. Skinner showed that a single exposure to a toxic chemical in the womb could produce a sick litter of offspring, which in turn could produce its own sick offspring. "It's a new way to think about disease," Dr. Skinner said.  

"A human analogy would be if your grandmother was exposed to an environmental toxicant during mid-gestation, you may develop a disease state even though you never had direct exposure, and you may pass it on to your great-grandchildren," Skinner said.  
"It introduces the concept of responsibility into genetics," says Dr. Szyf. As a recent story in the Toronto Globe & Mail summarized, "Epigenetics may revolutionize medicine, said Dr. Szyf, and it also could change the way we think about daily decisions like whether or not to order fries with a meal, or to go for a walk or to stay in front of the television. You aren't eating and exercising for yourself, but for your lineage."  

On average, 1800 new chemicals are registered with the federal government each year and about 750 of these find their way into products, all with hardly any testing for health or environmental effects.  

Brominated flame retardants, phthalates, bisphenol-A, PFOA (related to the manufacture of Teflon) are the toxins that have gained our attention at the moment. By working overtime for 10 or 15 years in the traditional environmentalist way, we may be able to ban a half-dozen of them. But during that 10 or 15 years, the chemical industry (and the federal EPA) will have introduced somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000 new chemicals into commerce, almost entirely untested. This destructive merry-go-round is accelerating.  

Faced with evidence of harm, governments tend to respond initially by conducting "risk assessments" to show there is no problem. The main function of risk assessment is to make chemical problems disappear, almost like magic. As EPA's first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, reminded us, "We should remember that risk assessment data can be like the captured spy: If you torture it long enough, it will tell you anything you want to know."  

So the bad news about chemical contamination is steadily mounting, while the number of new chemicals is steadily increasing. As we have been reporting regularly in Rachel's Precaution Reporter, the European Union has responded to this situation by trying to enact a new law called REACH, which requires that chemicals be tested before they can be sold. As they say in Europe, "No data, no market." The U.S. and European chemical industries -- and the White House -- have been working overtime to subvert the European effort to enact REACH. But now it looks as though REACH -- in one form or other -- will become law soon. It will be binding on any corporations that want to sell chemicals in Europe, including firms based in the U.S. 


Table of Contents ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

From: Globe & Mail (Toronto, Ontario), Mar. 11, 2006 – via http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/ht061012.htm, Project Censored and NEXUS New Times Magazine

image - http://reusablebags.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c670d53ef014e86ce9910970d-320wi
For further enlightenment enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

@  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com (or click on any tag at the bottom of the page for direct references)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com





This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com