Europe to End Sales of Incandescent Bulbs Tomorrow

Bulbs will be substituted by toxic fluorescent light bulbs filled with mercury.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | AUGUST 31, 2012

The European Union (EU) will officially stop the sale of the traditional incandescent bulbs, whose creation is credited to Thomas Edison. The move is supposed to be a step towards an improvement in performance and savings, however, it is not as simple as that. As The Real Agenda has reported before, the compact fluorescent light bulbs have been found to emit dangerous radiation on top of containing mercury, a strong developmental neurotoxin that damages the liver, brain, kidneys and central nervous system.

Infants and young children are more vulnerable to mercury’s toxicity. There are no safe levels of exposure neither to the radiation not to the mercury. Even low levels of exposure are responsible for causing a number of health problems. The demonstrated effects include impaired motor functioning, cognitive ability and emotional problems. More exposure to both the radiation and the mercury, likely results in more serious health problems.

But despite the proven threats to human health, countries like the United States, Brazil and whole regions such as the EU have established deadlines for the production and sale of the reliable incandescent bulbs. In the EU, the sale of the bulbs will end on September 1 — tomorrow. “They’ve had a great importance, have been a stable light source in the last hundred years,” said Santiago Erice, Philips lighting expert.

Thanks to this first reliable light source, humanity became independent of the sun and could lengthen their workdays and nightfall, which meant a significant increase in productivity and further development. Incandescent bulbs led lighting systems were installed on streets lamps, increasing safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic. They were also very important for hospitals, libraries, cafes and of course, homes.

The appearance of more efficient light sources paved the way for questions to be put forth about the incandescent bulbs’ efficiency, but no one seemed to care about  the safety of the new compact fluorescent bulbs. As in many other aspects of life, the economic benefits were put before the health of consumers, and just as it happened with the depletion of the ozone layer and the supposedly more efficient home appliances, big business imposed its will. Governments were lobbied enough to not only accept the use of the compact bulbs, but also to put an end to the production and sale of incandescent ones, instead of letting the market take care of the choice.

With LED bulbs’ hefty prices and little practicality, consumers are now literally obligated to purchase the more toxic compact fluorescent ones. While the cost of an incandescent bulb remains at about $ 1 on average, a compact halogen is around $ 7 — depending on the type — and modern LED lamps up to $ 50. The LED is seen as the natural successor to the incandescent, not only for its energy efficiency, but also for its multiple applications (the new screens of televisions, for example), but its cost makes puts it at an unreachable price for millions of people around the world.

So-called Environmental organizations such as WWF and Friends of the Earth welcomed the withdrawal of incandescent bulbs, which they say, will generate less waste due to the longer duration of other bulbs. Not a surprise here as both the WWF and Friends of the Earth are heavily financed by the corporations that sought the end of the incandescent bulb and the adoption of the toxic compact fluorescent bulb.

The withdrawal of incandescent bulbs has increased concerns about the negative health effects that fluorescent bulbs will have on consumers. In the case of Europe, it seems like there is no turning back. Tomorrow they will say farewell to the incandescent and hello to the disease causing compact fluorescent bulb.

US Government: Humans are National Security Threat to Oceans and our Planet

SUSANNE POSEL | OCCUPY CORPORATISM | JUNE 13, 2012

A new study published in Nature Climate Change, asserts that the warming of the world’s oceans have everything to do with the effects of man. This scientific research has climate change alarmists excited over a new way to direct man-made climate change into the social meme.

According to the study, “We have identified a human-induced fingerprint in observed estimates of upper-ocean warming on multidecadal timescales.”
Computer model data from research from Australia, Japan, India and the US proves that the temperature of the oceans and its variable fluctuations are not a natural occurrence. Causational information fabricated by suppositional computer models from the world’s major oceans compared to climate alarmist’s computer models shows that there is an excess of man-made influence.

The international team of researchers used for this study attributed only archrival computer models and assumed simulations and compared them to the supposed effects of fossil fuel emissions during the last century.

The report states that ‘When the global mean changes are included” the “anthropogenic fingerprint” is of 1% which is an insignificant level. Yet, this statistic is being blown out of proportion to create frenzy over the earth’s victimization at the hands of humans.

Peter Gleckler, climate change alarmist scientist from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) stated: “Although we performed a series of tests to account for the impact of various uncertainties, we found no evidence that simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas can be explained by natural climate variability alone. Humans have played a dominant role.”

The LLNL is a pseudo-outreach of the government; a national security laboratory that proposes deterrents to national security by using science and technology in the name of national interest.

Their methods of interest include:

• Bio-Security
• Counterterrorism
• Defense
• Energy
• Intelligence
• Nonproliferation
• Science & Technology
• Weapons & Complex Integration

The LLNL is a private sector corporation employed by the US government to act as a research agency used in promotion of the climate change alarmists to coerce national support for the lie that man-made climate change is a real national security threat.

The LLNL is dedicated to “strengthening the United States’ security through development and application of world-class science and technology to”:

• Enhance the nation’s defense
• Reduce the global threat from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction
• And respond with vision, quality, integrity and technical excellence to scientific issues of national importance

The US government owns LLNL while allowing them to function as owner operated. They receive the majority of their funding from the NNSA Office of Defense Programs for nuclear weapons stockpile stewardship activities.

Support for national security and homeland security work also comes from the NNSA Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation , the Department of Homeland Security , various Department of Defense sponsors, and other federal agencies who sponsor activities, such as:

• Office of Environmental Management
• NASA
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission
• National Institutes of Health
• EPA
• Various state of California agencies and industry

Last month, Leon Panetta, Defense Secretary stated that climate change was a matter of national security.

Panetta spoke to the Environmental Defense Fund, ““The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security. Rising sea levels, severe droughts, the melting of the polar caps, the more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”

George Soros’ disinfo corporation, Media Matters (MM), supports President Obama’s global warming assertions and his war on affordable, clean energy. They claim that “climate change poses a serious threat to our national security, and that transitioning to alternative energy will enhance military effectiveness.”

MM collected “15 military leaders” that have agreed to assist Obama in pushing the lie of man-made climate change by saying that they believe it is a threat to national security.

Even Rajendra Pachauri , chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC) retorts that if a successful action is not taken to stop climate change, it will become a national and international security threat.

Pachauri said: “If the impact of climate change is going to make regions of violence poorer, then they really provide a level of fertility for inciting disaffection, resentment against the prosperous world. That’s an indirect effect that can create the conditions for terrorism.”

Recommendations to the US were: “We’re likely to have problems with respect to water supplies in the US. We have to tell the people of the US. that this is something intimately connected with their present and their future. The cost of inaction is going to be far higher than action. And the cost of action is really not all that high. The US has made all kinds of sacrifices in the past and has always come out on top.”

The oceans are a big issue now that the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio+20 is being held this month. Many activists are clamoring for the UN to put the ocean at the forefront of their concerns.

Scientists at Yale University have put out a paper concerning the acidification of the oceans. Through decrying biodiversity preservation, Carl Safina, marine biologist and president of the Blue Ocean Institute, claim that the additional CO2 produced by man is making the ocean more acidic and this is vastly altering marine life.

The result they predict is forced extinction of many marine species over the next several decades.

Gleckler contends that “multi-model” ensembles gave them decades of data that reflects “natural climate vulnerability.” However, while ignoring real world observations and solely base their conclusion from computer models, the alarmist team was able to “detect attribution of a human-caused climate change signal.”

The movement toward reversing climate change has more to do with over-reaching governmental and international control, and less to do with mitigation of the actual problem. While the US government, various globalist schools and the UN fear-monger the need for rules, regulations and controls over the people and sovereign nations, they fail to answer the problem with solutions.

They simply continue to brow-beat the idea that man is responsible for the condition of the planet and their usurpation of control over the world’s population will stop the effects of global warming.

Iran may move its nuclear enrichment plants

Associated Press
December 14, 2011

Iran may move its uranium enrichment facilities to safer locations if this becomes necessary, a senior military commander said Wednesday, reflecting Iran’s worries about a possible military strike against the sites at the center of Tehran’s standoff with the West.

Both the U.S. and Israel have not ruled out a military option against Iran’s controversial nuclear program, which the West suspects is aimed at making atomic weapons. Iran denies the charge, saying the program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes needed to treat cancer patients.

Gholam Reza Jalali, who commands an anti-sabotage unit in the powerful Revolutionary Guard, said the vulnerability of Iran’s nuclear facilities from a possible strike is “already minimal” but that the move still may go through for their better protection.

“If conditions require, we will move (our) uranium enrichment facilities to safer locations,” Jalali was quoted by the semi-official Mehr news agency as saying.

Iran’s main uranium enrichment site in Natanz in central Iran is built partly underground while the long-secret Fordo facility was built deep inside a mountain as a precaution from aerial attacks. Jalili said the existing infrastructure has already been “a kind of deterrent” against attacks.

“Our vulnerability in the nuclear field is minimal,” Jalali claimed. “If Americans and Israelis were able to attack and harm our nuclear facilities, they would have definitely done so by now.”

Jalali’s unit was set up on an order from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and is tasked with reducing the possibility and minimizing damage from potential military action against Iran.

Natanz is of key concern since it is the country’s main enrichment site and the location of the bulk of its centrifuges _ machines that are used for enriching uranium in a technology that can produce either fuel for power plants or fissile material for a nuclear warhead.

Natanz computers have been the target of a cyber attack in 2009 and experts there have had to battle a powerful computer worm known as Stuxnet, which has the ability to send centrifuges spinning out of control.

Iran acknowledged Stuxnet affected a limited number of centrifuges at Natanz but said its scientists discovered and neutralized the malware before it could cause serious damage.

Jalali did not elaborate on possible sites for the relocation of nuclear facilities but such an effort would be hugely complicated and would require places able to store the technology safely.

In August, Iran announced it was moving some of its centrifuges to Fordo, just north of the holy city of Qom, because that site offered better protection from possible airstrikes but did not later elaborate on the move or say whether the centrifuges came from Natanz.

Tokyo-based Nomura: Oil prices may hit $220 a barrel

By Matt Egan
Fox Business
February 23, 2011

If the turmoil paralyzing parts of the Middle East and North Africa brings oil production in Libya and Algeria to a standstill, it could cause crude oil to explode to $220 a barrel, derailing the global economic recovery.

According to a new report from Tokyo-based Nomura, a simultaneous production halt from embattled Libya and neighboring Algeria would reduce OPEC spare capacity to 2.1 million barrels a day and may cause crude to spike from about $97 a barrel today to $220 a barrel.

“The closest comparison is the 1990-1991 Gulf War,” the Nomura analysts, led by Michael Lo, wrote, saying crude prices leaped 70% in seven months when OPEC’s spare capacity was cut to just 1.8 million barrels a day during that conflict with oil-rich Iraq.

While the $220 figure may sound high, Nomura said it could be an underestimate as speculative oil traders who were not around during the Gulf War may exaggerate the surge during an oil production halt.

The turmoil in Algeria hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention, but that government is also believed to be very vulnerable and recent protests have led the government there to lift its state of emergency.

The report comes as Wall Street has grown increasingly fearful the violence slamming Libya, Africa’s third-largest oil producer, will eat into the global economic recovery.

Even though the global economy has strengthened considerably in recent months, it’s clear $220 oil prices would seriously hurt growth, putting a huge burden on cash-strapped consumers and businesses, especially transportation companies like shipping giant FedEx (FDX: 89.25, 0.00, 0.00%), airliner JetBlue (JBLU: 5.70, 0.00, 0.00%) and cruise operator Carnival (CCL: 42.06, 0.00, 0.00%).

Crude’s expiring March contract spiked 8.5% — its biggest one-day gain since April 2009 — to a 2 1/2-year high of $93.57 on Tuesday in response to the turmoil in Libya. The surge in oil prices sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbling 178 points, its steepest decline since November.

With no resolution in sight, crude continued its gains on Wednesday, with the commodity’s April contract jumping $2.16 a barrel, or 2.30%, to $97.58. Brent crude continues to vault ahead of crude, surging another $3.92 a barrel, or 3.71%, to $109.70.

According to Bloomberg data, Libya pumped 1.59 million barrels of crude a day last month, while Algeria pumped 1.25 million barrels a day.

The markets have been pricing in the possibility the crisis in Libya will break out into an all-out civil war as longtime Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi has refused to step down. In a televised speech on Tuesday, he said, “I will fight to the last drop of my blood.”

Citing a source close to the al-Qaddafi regime, Time Magazine reported late Tuesday the leader has ordered security services to start sabotaging oil facilities. The forces plan to blow up several oil pipelines, cutting off flow to Mediterranean ports, the report said.

According to Italian authorities, the death toll during the political unrest in Libya may have jumped to about 1,000.

Oil on its way to $200 a barrel

  • Crude climbed up to $110 today due to what experts say is the effects of Libyan and Middle East unrest.
  • Oil insider Lindsey Williams says it´s just the beginning. “Unrest and oil prices will completely collapse U.S. Dollar in 2012.”
  • Oil companies will open massive U.S. reserves to cope with lack of oil for local consumption.

Reuters
February 23, 2011

Oil futures rallied above $110 a barrel on Wednesday, posting the biggest three-day percentage gain in a year, as the escalating violence in Libya could further reduce its production.

Between 300,000 and 400,000 barrels per day of Libyan output — up to 25 percent — has been shut down, according to Reuters calculations, marking the first cut in oil supplies related to the recent wave of anti-government unrest in North Africa and the Middle East.

After Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi vowed in a defiant speech on Tuesday that he would not step down, promising severe punishment to his detractors, analysts fear that long-lasting supply disruptions or even permanent damage lies ahead for the OPEC member’s oil industry.

Traders were intently watching what top OPEC exporter Saudi Arabia will do, even as its oil minister has reiterated assurances the kingdom and other OPEC members would be ready to act should a supply shortfall develop.

“I don’t think Libya alone will take us to $150 a barrel, but, if unrest spreads in the Gulf countries, we could easily get there. That is why it is imperative the Saudis release some extra barrels into the market now to calm the situation, rather than simply trying to talk the price down,” said Edward Meir, an analyst at MF Global in New York.

In London, ICE Brent crude for April delivery gained $4.01, or 3.8 percent, at $109.79 a barrel. Earlier, it touched a session high of $110.35, the highest since September 2, 2008, when prices hit $110.45.

In three days, the Brent contract has surged nearly $8, or 7.8 percent, the biggest three-day percentage advance since February 2010.

In New York, the new front-month, April crude rose $2.48, or 2.6 percent, to $97.90 a barrel. It earlier reached $98.07, the highest intraday price since October 2, 2008, when prices hit $100.37.

Since resuming trading on Tuesday, following a long holiday weekend, U.S. crude has advanced nearly $12, or nearly 14 percent, the biggest two-day percentage gain since January 2009.

Brent’s premium against U.S. crude widened to as much as $12.84, after posting $10.36 at the close on Tuesday.

Traders were gearing up for U.S. weekly inventory data, the first of which will be released by the industry group American Petroleum Institute later Wednesday at 4:30 p.m. EST.

A Reuters poll forecast that U.S. crude stockpiles rose 1.3 million barrels last week, while distillate inventories fell 1.4 million barrels and gasoline supplies rose 400,000 barrels.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain-Lain

Partner Links