Archive for the ‘The Environment’ Category

Sun Fires Off Biggest Solar Flares of the Year

Tuesday, May 14th, 2013

by Barb Adams


Show host,Amerika Now


The sun fired off two huge X-class solar flares on Sunday and Monday, and NASA is reporting they are the most powerful eruptions to date this year.

The sun fired off two huge X-class solar flares on Sunday and Monday, and NASA is reporting they are the most powerful eruptions to date this year.
On Sunday, a huge X1.7-class solar flare erupted from the surface of the sun, followed by an even more powerful blast less than 24 hours later on Monday, according to LiveScience.com. To date, both of these eruptions are the strongest ones seen yet in 2013, and may signal an increase in solar activity.
According to NASA, the X2.8-class flare on Monday is the “strongest solar eruption of 2013.” The sun is in its active phase of the current 11-year solar cycle (Solar Cycle 24) which began in 2008 and is predicted to peak this year.
SEE VIDEO: http://www.space.com/21119-major-fireworks-on-sun-two-x-flares-on-same-day-video.html
Sunday’s flare occurred at 0217 UT Sunday night, and was followed by another X2.8-class eruption on Monday at 1605 UT. X-class solar flares are the most powerful types of solar eruptions and, when aimed towards Earth, are capable of interfering with satellites in orbit and communication infrastructures on the ground. Strong solar eruptions are also capable of causing radiation storms which affect and intensify aurora displays (northern and southern lights).
The coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that often accompany solar flares can spawn geomagnetic storms which may cause widespread damage. In 1989, a powerful solar storm caused a blackout in Quebec which left more than 6 million people in the dark and cold for more than nine hours and caused approximately $2 billion dollars in damages.
The flare on Sunday unleashed a coronal mass ejection (CME) composed of charged particles and plasma. Although the CME was not aimed directly at Earth, it was still strong enough to cause an hour-long high-frequency radio blackout according to NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center.
The eruptions came from an active sunspot on the far side of the sun which is not facing the Earth. Astronomer Tony Phillips of Spaceweather.com notes, however, that “Soon, in a few days, it will turn toward Earth, emerging into view over the sun’s eastern limb.” He also noted that “NASA’s infrared Spitzer Space Telescope and Deep Impact/Epoxi spacecraft may be in the line of fire of the solar flare.”
The sunspot responsible for the current huge eruptions of X-class solar flares has now been active for a week, previously firing off a “number of medium-strength M-class solar flares.” Indications are that as it turns toward Earth, more solar eruptions are to be expected, and scientists predict more activity from the sun over the coming months.


Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Mid-April Tragedies: History Repeats

Friday, April 19th, 2013

Barb Adams,

Show host,Amerika Now

What is it about mid-April (April 15-20) that seems to lend itself to tragic events, from Wednesday evening’s deadly fertilizer plant blast in Texas to mass bombings and shootings?.


On Wednesday evening, the West Fertilizer Company, about 20 miles north of Waco, exploded with a deadly fury that many witnesses in the area compared to the Oklahoma City bombing. The Texas plant made materials (ammonium nitrate) similar to those used in the Oklahoma City attack.

The blast in Texas occurred just days after Monday’s bombings at the Boston Marathon. Oddly, there was a similar incident that occurred 10 days after the September 11 attacks in 2001 when an explosion rocked an ammonium nitrate plant in Toulouse, France, killing 31 and injuring 2,000. Coincidence?

Although no connection was ever made between the 9/11 attacks and the explosion at the ammonium nitrate plant in France, it’s often been said that “history repeats itself.” While the nation and the cities of West, Texas, and Boston, Massachusetts, struggle to find answers and regain composure after these recent tragedies, another phenomenon rears its head—mid-April (15-20) appears to be linked historically to tragedy.

Undoubtedly both the Boston Marathon bombings (April 15) and Texas fertilizer plant explosion (April 17) will go down in history as tragic events to remember. April 15 now joins September 11 and December 7 as a “day of infamy” in U.S. history. But looking more deeply into history, they appear to be the tip of the iceberg in regards to mid-April tragic events.

On April 15, 1912, at 2:27 am, the RMS Titanic sank off the coast of Newfoundland, killing more than 1,500 people. The sinking of the Titanic remains one of the deadliest peacetime maritime disasters in modern history.

On April 16, 1947, a massive explosion and fire fueled by 2,300 tons of ammonium nitrate (three hundred times more powerful than the Oklahoma City bombing) killed at least 600 and injured thousands of people in Texas City, Texas. Known as the Texas City Disaster, it remains the nation’s deadliest industrial incident.

April 16 is also a day of infamy for another reason. On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho shot 32 students and faculty to death at Virginia Tech University before committing suicide. The Virginia Tech Massacre remains the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history.

Although April 17 is not associated directly with any mass shootings or disasters, April 17, 1961, remains an infamous day all the same. On that date, 1,400 Cuban paramilitaries, financed and trained by the CIA, attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro at the Bay of Pigs. Their failure resulted in the strengthening of Castro and led to his proclaiming his intention to adopt socialism, bolstering his ties with the Soviet Union. That series of events eventually led to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

Mother Nature also has a predilection for mid-April. April 17, 2011, saw the end of a three-day historic tornado outbreak across the southern U.S. That outbreak still ranks as one of the largest in U.S. history, with 178 confirmed tornadoes over three days in 16 states, killing dozens of people and injuring hundreds more.

But tornado outbreaks in mid-April aren’t the only natural disasters to make history. One of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history occurred at 5:12 am on April 18, 1906, when a magnitude 7.8 earthquake shook San Francisco. The earthquake flattened 80 percent of the city of San Francisco, killed approximately 3,000 people, and sparked fires that burned throughout the city for several days. The resulting death toll from both the earthquake and subsequent fires remains the greatest loss of life from a natural disaster in California’s history.

More recently, a suicide bomber killed 63 people at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, on April 18, 1983. At the time, it was the deadliest attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission, and is considered the beginning of anti-U.S. attacks by Islamist militants

As destructive a day as April 18 has been, April 19 is one of infamy. On April 19, 1993, the Branch Davidian Compound outside Waco, Texas, burned to the ground after a 50-day standoff with government officials. Seventy-six men, women and children were killed, including the Branch’s leader, David Koresh.

As horrific as the Waco event was, April 19 will always be remembered for the Oklahoma City bombing at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995. Just after 9 a.m. Central time, a truck containing ammonium nitrate was detonated in front of the building, killing 168 people, including 19 children, and injuring another 680. Timothy McVeigh was arrested and eventually executed for the bombing.

April 20 holds a special place in history for several reasons. On April 20, 1889, Adolf Hitler was born. Hitler would be responsible for the mass murders of more than six million Jews along with millions of others during World War II. His birthdate would also serve as “inspiration” for another heinous act committed on April 20, 1999. On that date, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, both seniors at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, entered the school and opened fire. In the ensuing massacre, 12 students and one teacher lay dead, with two dozen others injured. Both Harris and Klebold committed suicide.

Finally, three years ago on April 20, 2010, the worst oil spill in U.S. history occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. Known as the Deepwater Horizon incident, an explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20 killed 11 workers and started an oil spill that lasted for months, devastating the Gulf and Gulf Coast.

Maybe it’s all just coincidence, or maybe there’s more to it. Whatever the reason, mid-April seems forever linked to tragedy.

Barb Adams, Amerika Now (www.radioamerikanow.com)


Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Barb Adams:Should Hunters Boycott Colorado?

Friday, March 29th, 2013

Barb Adams

GCN Live.com

Colorado is facing a backlash from hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts in response to recent gun legislation, which includes a ban on high-capacity magazines and universal background checks.

Earlier this month, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law bills that ban high-capacity magazines that hold more than 15 rounds as well as magazine extensions for shotguns that are more than 28 inches in length.  The laws were in response to mass shootings that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, last year.  The Aurora theater shooting last July was the third mass shooting in Colorado since 1999.

Although the ban on high-capacity magazines does not affect most hunters, many hunters are joining a boycott against Colorado to show their displeasure about more gun restrictions being placed upon law-abiding citizens.  They believe these new gun laws are just the beginning of more restrictions to come, and feel something needs to be done to send a message to legislators.

One of the biggest names to boycott Colorado is Michael Bane, a producer with The Outdoor Channel and host of four popular shows on that channel including “Gun Stories,” the channel’s most popular show.  According to an article in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Bane said that “he will no longer film his four shows in Colorado.”  And Bane isn’t alone.

According to the Gazette, “Gun and hunting websites and forums are full of talk of boycotting the state, and hunting outfitters say people have begun cancelling trips here.”  

Chris Jurney, a hunting guide who is also Vice President of the Colorado Outfitters Association, says he expects more repercussions.  “There’s a united front of sportsmen that are tired of having their freedoms and liberties and fundamental rights taken away from them.  That kind of unity among sportsmen is going to be big and unfortunately for those of us who live here, we’re going to suffer the consequences of this misguided legislation.”

Hunting in Colorado is a year-round activity, and Colorado is the second most traveled-to state in the nation for hunting activities according to a 2012 report by Buckmasters.  Out-of-state hunters reportedly accounted for 15 percent of all hunting licenses in the state last year, and they spent a significant amount of money on license fees, guides, gas, hotels, restaurants, and other related industries. 

Larger cities along the Front Range of Colorado probably won’t feel the effects of the boycott directly, but mountain and rural towns will be hit hard.  In an interview with the Gazette, Jeff Lepp, owner of Specialty Sports in Colorado Springs, said “Small mountain towns and rural towns in this state are going to lose a lot of money because you’re not going to see the number of out-of-state hunters coming here. Other states are going to see a growth.”

So will the boycott have the desired result that those involved hope it will have, or will the impact be more far-reaching and damaging?  Hunting and fishing have major impacts on every state in the country, and the amount of monies spent on these activities and related industries as well as the jobs and taxes created can be significant.  So, too, can the losses of these monies, jobs, and taxes. 

Colorado-based Magpul Industries has announced it will be leaving Colorado and along with it, “the $85 million it would have generated for Colorado next year.”  Magpul is considered “one of the country’s largest producers of magazines and other firearms accessories for gun enthusiasts, law enforcement, and the military.” 

“The economic impact that sportsmen have on state economies should be a wake-up call to state governments to welcome and encourage hunting and fishing in their state,” said Jeff Crane, President of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, in an interview with Buckmasters. 

While Colorado encourages hunting and welcomes hunters, the new gun legislation sends a different message.  So, too, does the boycott by hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts.  Unfortunately, the people of Colorado are caught in both sides’ crosshairs. 


Earlier this month, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper signed into law bills that ban high-capacity magazines that hold more than 15 rounds as well as magazine extensions for shotguns that are more than 28 inches in length.  The laws were in response to mass shootings that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado, last year.  The Aurora theater shooting last July was the third mass shooting in Colorado since 1999.

Although the ban on high-capacity magazines does not affect most hunters, many hunters are joining a boycott against Colorado to show their displeasure about more gun restrictions being placed upon law-abiding citizens.  They believe these new gun laws are just the beginning of more restrictions to come, and feel something needs to be done to send a message to legislators.

One of the biggest names to boycott Colorado is Michael Bane, a producer with The Outdoor Channel and host of four popular shows on that channel including “Gun Stories,” the channel’s most popular show.  According to an article in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Bane said that “he will no longer film his four shows in Colorado.”  And Bane isn’t alone.

According to the Gazette, “Gun and hunting websites and forums are full of talk of boycotting the state, and hunting outfitters say people have begun cancelling trips here.”  

Chris Jurney, a hunting guide who is also Vice President of the Colorado Outfitters Association, says he expects more repercussions.  “There’s a united front of sportsmen that are tired of having their freedoms and liberties and fundamental rights taken away from them.  That kind of unity among sportsmen is going to be big and unfortunately for those of us who live here, we’re going to suffer the consequences of this misguided legislation.”

Hunting in Colorado is a year-round activity, and Colorado is the second most traveled-to state in the nation for hunting activities according to a 2012 report by Buckmasters.  Out-of-state hunters reportedly accounted for 15 percent of all hunting licenses in the state last year, and they spent a significant amount of money on license fees, guides, gas, hotels, restaurants, and other related industries. 

Larger cities along the Front Range of Colorado probably won’t feel the effects of the boycott directly, but mountain and rural towns will be hit hard.  In an interview with the Gazette, Jeff Lepp, owner of Specialty Sports in Colorado Springs, said “Small mountain towns and rural towns in this state are going to lose a lot of money because you’re not going to see the number of out-of-state hunters coming here. Other states are going to see a growth.”

So will the boycott have the desired result that those involved hope it will have, or will the impact be more far-reaching and damaging?  Hunting and fishing have major impacts on every state in the country, and the amount of monies spent on these activities and related industries as well as the jobs and taxes created can be significant.  So, too, can the losses of these monies, jobs, and taxes. 

Colorado-based Magpul Industries has announced it will be leaving Colorado and along with it, “the $85 million it would have generated for Colorado next year.”  Magpul is considered “one of the country’s largest producers of magazines and other firearms accessories for gun enthusiasts, law enforcement, and the military.” 

“The economic impact that sportsmen have on state economies should be a wake-up call to state governments to welcome and encourage hunting and fishing in their state,” said Jeff Crane, President of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, in an interview with Buckmasters. 

While Colorado encourages hunting and welcomes hunters, the new gun legislation sends a different message.  So, too, does the boycott by hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts.  Unfortunately, the people of Colorado are caught in both sides’ crosshairs.

talk radio host 

 

 

Barb Adams is the host of Amerika Now talk radio show, which airs on GCN Saturdays 10:00p-1:00am Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

Barb Adams: De-extinction: Should We Bring Extinct Species Back to Life?

Friday, March 22nd, 2013

Barb Adams
GCN Live.com

Advances in molecular biology are allowing scientists to “challenge extinction” by creating a new field of biology called “de-extinction;” but should we bring extinct species back to life?.

In 1914, the last passenger pigeon died and was shipped to the Smithsonian Institution for preservation. Throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, passenger pigeons were the most numerous of all birds in the U.S., numbering in the tens of millions, but hunting and habitat destruction decimated the species, leading to its extinction in 1914.

Today, scientists are working on a way to resurrect the passenger pigeon and other extinct species using a new form of molecular biology called de-extinction. Using DNA retrieved from extinct species, scientists are now exploring projects which would “de-extinct” formerly extinct species and bring them back to life once again. Possible de-extinction species include the Woolly mammoth, Tasmanian tiger, Dodo bird, Gastric-brooding frog, Pyrenean ibex, Carolina parakeet, Moa, Woolly rhinoceros, and Saber-toothed tiger.

The first-ever public conference exploring the revival of extinct species was held in Washington D.C. last week, hosted by The National Geographic Society in conjunction with TEDxDeExtinction and Project Revive & Restore. Project Revive & Restore is currently working with de-extinction scientists around the world to select species for “revival” based on criteria such as practicality and desirability.

The first project in the U.S. involves the resurrection of the passenger pigeon using DNA from museum specimens such as “Martha,” the very last passenger pigeon, on display at the Smithsonian. The passenger pigeon was chosen for its “iconic status and its relative practicality” according to Revive & Restore’s website. Additionally, “its DNA has already been sequenced,” allowing the “miracle of resurrection” to begin. According to Revive & Restore, “the work will proceed by stages over the coming months.”

Ben Novak, a passenger pigeon and ancient DNA expert, is currently working full-time with Revive & Restore to “refine the sequencing of passenger pigeon DNA” as well as return the passenger pigeon back to life. Using DNA from extinct passenger pigeons and comparing it to the passenger pigeon’s closest living relatives, band-tailed and rock pigeons, Novak and other scientists working on the project will “begin the process of converting viable band-tailed DNA into viable passenger pigeon DNA.” Scientists will use that DNA to create live passenger pigeons. Those birds will then be bred to create more birds, which will eventually be returned to the wild.

But will these “new” passenger pigeons truly be passenger pigeons? As Novak says, “If it looks like a passenger pigeon and behaves like a passenger pigeon, is it a passenger pigeon or does it have to be an exact duplicate of the genomes?”

Just one of the many questions now being raised in the field of de-extinction. But beyond the feasibility and logistics of reviving extinct species, probably the biggest question being raised concerning de-extinction involves ethics—are we “playing God” by resurrecting extinct species?

Scientists are divided on de-extinction. Some believe humans were already playing God when they drove certain species to extinction through hunting or other human-related actions. Still others believe we should leave well enough alone; that endangered species and extinct species are just part of the natural process.

Carl Zimmer, an award-winning science writer and author of 13 books dealing with evolution and related topics, believes that “the rate at which species are going extinct” is continuing to increase “due to us—to our hunting, logging, and other actions that leave species struggling to hold on to existence.” He believes that if we continue along these lines of action, “we could jack the extinction rate to levels that life has achieved only five times in the past half billion years.”

In addition, Zimmer says that because “the whole conservation movement is organized around the proposition that biodiversity is something worth saving—that when a species goes extinct, it can leave a hole and its ecosystem may suffer—we lose the opportunity to investigate its biology and discover some fascinating piece of natural history or even find a valuable molecule for curing infections or sequencing DNA.”

So is de-extinction a “tool for slowing or reversing this trend?” According to Zimmer, “that’s a good question. But one thing’s for sure. We’re not playing God. We’re coming to terms with our own powers, as well as the unexpected results of our actions.”

Other scientists are concerned, however, that putting enormous sums of research monies into de-extinction will take away from normal conservation efforts. Additionally, they are concerned that de-extinction could cause a laissez-faire attitude towards threatened and endangered species, which may actually increase extinction rates.

So should we bring back species that could potentially threaten us or upset entire ecosystems, and if we do bring them back, what will we do with them? Will we literally create Jurassic Parks around the world to hold them? Efforts are already underway in Siberia to create a Pleistocene Park, as well as in the Netherlands (Oostvaardersplassen) and Hawaii (Makauwahi Cave). And if some of these resurrected species are returned to a “natural state,” how will they affect the balance of current ecosystems?

Too many questions without answers. The bioethics of de-extinction must be carefully considered before proceeding with these projects. As Marilyn Renfree of the University of Melbourne said, “the reasonable response by scientists eager to know about these extinct species should be not to produce such an animal back to life, but learn more about the species from its genetic makeup.”

There was a reason these species went extinct. Let’s not rush to resurrect them without considering all the possible consequences or we just might be the next species to become extinct.


talk radio hostBarb Adams is the host of Amerika Now talk radio show, which airs on GCN Saturdays 10:00p-1:00am Central Time. Listen to the show On Demand.

Like GCN Live on Facebook and follow on Twitter for more great news, opinions, and announcements from GCN Live’s hosts and staff.

So Why Are We Still Drinking Fluoride, Again?

Wednesday, March 13th, 2013

Anthony Gucciardi
GCN Live.com
March 13, 2013

We know that over 20 studies, many of which come from prestigious organizations like Harvard and are published in federal government journals, have told us how sodium fluoride is crushing our IQ. We know that a major head at the National Cancer Institute revealed decades ago that fluoride was causing ‘cancer waves’ in the United States.

So, remind me again, why are we still drinking fluoride in our ‘clean’ tap water around the entire world?

As it turns out, it’s because Harvard and federal government journalists must all be wackjob conspiracy theorists! The peer-reviewed research warning that fluoride can cause permanent damage to unborn babies by affecting their neurological development is all a big conspiracy theory to the mainstream media. The sodium fluoride that is literally assaulting the brain in mega-high doses of 5,000 PPM in ‘prescription fluoride’ toothpaste being dished out by dentists who say their childhood patients are ‘deficient’ in the IQ-destroyer is perfectly safe in their eyes.

When analyzing the Harvard research, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, a component of the United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, we find quite a few concerning details. The study makes it explicitly clear how damaging sodium fluoride can be, with writers explaining:

“The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas.”

The EPA had similar statements, demonstrating how fluoride displays ”evidence of developmental neurotoxicity” and can damage unborn babies. We read:

”Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature.

Let’s go even further back to the research of Dr. Dean Burke, head scientist at the National Cancer Institute and author of over 250 scientific articles. Back in 1977, the decorated scientist spoke out against fluoride and brought it to the attention of the National Cancer Institute. At that time, Burke found that sodium fluoride was fueling the development of cancer cells and tumor growth — at the average level of 1 PPM. He estimated that around 10,000 had died from the fluoride-induced cancer from that level.

As I detail in the video below, now we see levels as high as 5,000 PPM in toothpaste, 500,000% higher than the water fluoridation levels Burke was examining:

I guess no one told the media that even the United States government called for lower fluoride levels after a mountain of research accumulated regarding these links. They must be conspiracy theorists too.

The fact is that the fluoride debate hits a brick wall thanks to the rhetoric the mainstream media and laughable ‘skeptics’ use by throwing around terms like ‘conspiracy theory’ to discredit any real debate. In fact, it’s actually working against them. Right now we have so many conscious citizens realizing that they don’t want to consume the tainted tap that it’s really considered outlandish in many areas to drink from the tap without at least a fluoride-removing filter of some kind. A lot has changed as more information comes out.

We’ve seen a push for fluoride bans around the world, from Australia’s Queensland to regions within Florida. And the movement has been heating up.

But still, how could we possibly allow this fluoridation to go on for as long as it has? Even if there was only some research indicating an issue, isn’t it enough to begin withdrawing it from the water — or at least enough to conduct more independent research? I think any reasonable person would agree the answer is yes.

It’s time to accelerate this issue from a tired debate of ‘conspiracy’ theory name-calling to a topical issue we can generate a victory for. We’ve done it for GMOs; we’ve done it for high-fructose corn syrup; we’ve done it for BPA. It’s time to blast this information into the stratosphere and demand action.

 

This post originally appeared at Natural Society