FDA Urges Pregnant Women to Consume More Mercury-Laced Seafood

Washington Post, Lyndsey Layton

The Food and Drug Administration is urging the government to amend its advisory that women and children should limit how much fish they eat, saying that the benefits of seafood outweigh the health risks and that most people should eat more fish, even if it contains mercury.

If approved by the White House, the FDA’s position would reverse the government’s current policy that certain groups — women of childbearing years, pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants and children — can be harmed by the mercury in fish and should limit their consumption.

The FDA’s recommendations have alarmed scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, who in internal memos criticized them as “scientifically flawed and inadequate” and said they fell short of the “scientific rigor routinely demonstrated by EPA.”

The FDA sent its draft report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, to the White House Office of Management and Budget as part of the FDA’s effort to update the existing health advisory. The report argued that nutrients in fish, including omega-3 fatty acids, selenium and other minerals could boost a child’s IQ by three points.

The greatest benefits, the FDA report said, would come from eating more than 12 ounces of fish a week, which is the current limit advised for pregnant women, women of childbearing age, nursing mothers and young children.

FDA spokesman Michael Herndon declined to discuss the draft report. “As a science-based regulatory agency we periodically and routinely review and analyze scientific evidence about health effects of FDA-regulated products,” he wrote in an e-mail. “We do not comment on draft reports that are undergoing internal review.”

Benjamin H. Grumbles, the EPA’s assistant administrator for water, said, “EPA is working closely with other agencies in the scientific review of this report to better understand the risks and benefits of fish consumption.”

The FDA and the EPA both play a role in protecting the public from mercury contamination. The EPA investigates and regulates mercury and other contaminants in recreationally caught fish, while the FDA regulates mercury in seafood sold in markets and restaurants. States rely on the federal agencies in issuing their own advisories.

In 2004, the two agencies issued their first joint advisory, suggesting that women of childbearing age, pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants and children stop eating four species of fish considered especially high in mercury: swordfish, shark, tilefish and king mackerel. At the same time, the government advised limiting consumption of other mercury-contaminated fish.

Mercury can damage the neurological development of fetuses and infants. Recent studies have suggested that mercury may also pose a health risk for adults, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

The two agencies are supposed to work together to regularly review the advisory, but EPA sources said the FDA went ahead with its own proposal earlier this year, not consulting the EPA until the document was nearly finished.

The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy organization, wrote yesterday to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson and urged him to fight the FDA’s recommendations.

“This is an astonishing, irresponsible document,” said Richard Wiles, the environmental group’s executive director. “It’s a commentary on how low FDA has sunk as an agency. It was once a fierce protector of America’s health, and now it’s nothing more than a patsy for polluters.”

Kathryn Mahaffey, who was the EPA’s top mercury scientist until she left the agency in August to become a lecturer at George Washington University School of Public Health, said the FDA used an “oversimplified approach” that could increase the public’s exposure to mercury.

But Gavin Gibbons, a spokesman for the National Fisheries Institute, applauded the FDA’s efforts. “This is a science-based approach,” he said. “And you start to see a picture emerge that shows the clear benefits of eating seafood outweigh the risks of a trace amount of mercury in fish.”

A lawless outcome to a lawless war

If Bush pardons himself, it would be a stunning challenge to America’s self-image as the upholder of law and freedom

Martin Kettle – guardian.co.uk

Is George Bush preparing to give himself a presidential pardon? On first hearing, the idea sounds utterly incredible and outrageous. How can the head of a state in which respect for the law remains an active part of the national DNA even contemplate such an arbitrary and shameless act of apparent lawlessness? Amnesties and pardons of this kind are the stock-in-trade of tinpot dictators, not constitutional leaders. And yet …

A Bush pardon would be a sensational final act to the most divisive presidency in modern America. But he certainly has the power to grant it. Article 2 section 2 of the US constitution gives the president the power to grant reprieves and pardons. The US courts have traditionally interpreted this power widely, to include amnesties, conditional pardons and blanket pardons. And all presidents have used the power – Harry Truman’s 1,913 pardons is the postwar record.

And these final weeks of a presidency have become, by convention, the pardoning season. Compared with Truman, Bill Clinton was a light pardoner. He awarded just 396 of them in his eight years as president. But as many as 218 of Clinton’s pardons were issued during his final month in office in 2001 – beneficiaries included his brother Roger Clinton and his longtime Arkansas politicial ally Susan MacDougall. This settling of accounts could be the pattern which Bush is about to follow.

As of now, Bush has issued just 157 presidential pardons in nearly eight years in the White House. They have covered crimes from the manufacture of untaxed whiskey to the sale of migratory bird parts. Most of the Bush pardons involve drugs, gambling and frauds. But Bush has not issued a pardon since March 24 – when the beneficiary was a South Dakota native American called Lonnie Two Eagle who was pardoned for an assault on a reservation. But in just under seven weeks Bush’s power to pardon will expire.

Not even Richard Nixon pardoned himself. It fell to his hapless successor Gerald Ford to announce, a month after Nixon’s resignation in August 1974, that it was time to draw the line. Nixon had been at the centre of “an American tragedy in which we all have played a part”, Ford announced in a broadcast. “It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must.”

But can Bush rely on Barack Obama to be so magnanimous? And can Obama be relied on to grant the wide-ranging executive pardons to the whole range of Bush administration officials that the outgoing White House may wish to protect? Maybe – but no, in the end, I don’t think so either. Magnanimity is all very well when it comes to your defeated Democratic opponents. But it is a whole other ballgame when the petitioner is the outgoing president himself.

Be clear that this issue is without question in Bush’s rapidly diminishing intray. Be clear too that Bush is fully prepared to protect his political allies and hitmen. He has, after all, made his own stance clear by using his powers to commute Dick Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby’s prison sentence for obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame affair in 2007. So, if the matter is on Bush’s agenda then it is also, in some way, on Obama’s too.

The possibility of a Bush pardon is not a conspiracy theorist’s fantasy. It is a real and present political possibility – and Americans are beginning to wake up to it. This week, Human Rights Watch and eight other organisations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, and the Open Society Policy Centre, wrote a public letter urging Bush not to issue a preemptive pardon of past or present officials implicated in torture or other abuses related to the “war on terror”. The groups pointed out that formal legal investigations into US torture, rendition and other abuses have so far been only patchy – a reflection of the Bush administration’s determination over several years to handle detainees outside the legal process. There is a very serious possibility that dozens of cases will make their way through the US courts in the coming months and years – and it is therefore possible that hundreds of administration officials will ultimately be forced to answer for their conduct.

I do not know for certain that Bush is considering a comprehensive pre-emptive pardon for officials right through to his own Oval Office. Nor do I know for certain that the matter has been discussed with the Obama team. But common sense says these things must be taking place in some form or other. It says, moreover, that Bush and Obama may have a common interest in such an outcome. Bush wants it because it protects him and his lieutenants. Obama may want it too, because he wants a clean slate and does not want to have his presidency blighted by the legal cleaning-up operation that might ensue.

If that analysis is correct, then prepare for an unprecedented act of self-pardon by Bush that extends to dozens – perhaps hundreds – of civilian and military officials. It would be a stunning challenge to America’s self-image as the upholder of law and freedom in the world. It would be a lawless outcome to a lawless war. For Bush, it would be a climactic act of the untramelled presidential authority that he and Cheney have so determinedly forged. It would send waves of outrage through America and the world. And yet, for Obama, it might nevertheless be the cleaner outcome.

NASA Mars photo leaked – wood found on mars!

Thecrit.com

Someone at NASA released a photo that they shouldn’t have, a picture of a piece of timber the size of a railroad tie, a photo that could get someone killed. There is no mistaking that the object in the print (right) is a piece of wood. NASA claims that Mars is a desert planet with no life at all. NASA lies, repeatedly.

Where would a piece of timber this size come from? There are vast forests on Mars, ones that are kept from the public. This piece of wood looks like it floated to its present location, being partially sunk in the soil. The ground around it is very interesting. Notice the flat rock formation of the soil and the crevices in between them. Does this look familiar? It appears to be the bed of a dried up pond. There had to be a significant amount of water in this area, water high enough to lift that railroad tie sized piece of timber and float is perhaps several miles. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter showed that vast regions of the Red Planet have been altered by floods. This dried pond effect should come as no surprise.

This flood had to have happened within the past thirty or forty years because the wood is intact, though this is judging the rate of decay by Earth standards. Some may say that Mars did have water on it long ago and that it even had an atmosphere, which is true, but a piece of timber isn’t going to survive for thousands of years.

Both of the Viking Orbiters filmed vast forests on Mars, though no subsequent probe to the Red Planet has shot a single frame of film showing a tree. This was by design. The Viking photographs show more than just a few trees but rather thousands upon thousand of them. These trees appear to be much larger than Earth trees, having a leaf and branch system that is unique to Mars. The foliage spans much wider than a similar plants on Earth do, rising to who knows what heights. The spacing between them could be the result of the dying Martian atmosphere. Dense forests more than likely filled large areas of Mars back in the days when it had a breathable environment. There were undoubtedly several species of trees, and different varieties of underbrush, which are now extinct.

The Flood destroyed the Garden of Eden and other ancient worlds that God wanted destroyed such as Atlantis. The Ancient Egyptians spoke of a time that existed before Egypt. The Sphinx clearly shows signs of water erosion, which shows that it existed before the Flood and well before modern archeologists claim that it did. The same wiping out strategy was applied to worlds beyond the Earth. Mars has an ancient world that was destroyed, one with a face and a pyramid. So it isn’t so hard to believe that the moon did as well.

Many claim that the moon isn’t a moon at all but an alien object that was placed in Earth orbit. Some have called it Luna. They claim that the moon was not mentioned in the Biblical story of creation, but it was. The moon was referred to as “the lesser light that rules the night” in Genesis 1:16. The moon stopped in the sky in Joshua 10:30 but this had nothing to do with the alien presence there.

The aliens live on the surface of the moon, but this is in no way saying that there isn’t an alien presence inside the moon as well. If you take some time to use your photo editor with high-resolution photos of the moon, it won’t take you long to find these structures. NASA will suggest that you created this or that it is really part of a crater. Stop and ask yourself one question, if the moon really is as NASA claims that it is, then why are some photos classified and unavailable to the public while others are inked and blurred?

One of the most famous examples of this is the Apollo 16 “Earth rise” photo in which “the Earth” is rising over the moon. NASA says that the object in the picture is the Earth and few people question it. If you think for yourself, and look with an open mind, you will clearly see that this is a UFO. This is another craft off to the left, which NASA doesn’t even attempt to explain away.

The fact that trees can survive in such an atmosphere, and with much less water than Earth trees do, reveals their unique structure while offering hope for an increasingly polluted Earth. Since the Martian atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide, these plants would have to thrive on it in a way much superior to Earth trees. They may give off oxygen, though I am using terrestrial vegetation for comparison, but they could give off another gas, one even toxic to humans. Seeding or drafting these trees in bulk could bring breathable air back to the Red Planet. If Mars was so altered by water, then where did all that water go? Some of it went into the soil, much of it is frozen at the poles, and a good percentage of it went into a lake. NASA didn’t need to spend all that money on the Phoenix Mission in order to search for water on Mars. All they had to do was look at their old photographs.

The only way that piece of timber got to where it was is by way of flood, and the only way that it separated from the tree that it was once a part of was by high and rapidly flowing water. Based on the findings of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, that piece of wood could’ve floated for some distance before coming to its final resting place.

The lake, although frozen, Mars having a mean surface temperature of -46 degrees C, must contain more than just water. There has to be some amebas and other single celled organisms in these waters. There are most likely fossils of Martian fish and perhaps even Martian animals. On Earth, old lake beds are a prime location in which to find dinosaur fossils. Why would Mars be any different?

If you examine the lake carefully, especially toward the right angle, you will notice two indentations. One is large and shallow while the other one, which is located near the right edge of the lake, is small but much deeper. These are due to the lake shifting as the result of temperature fluctuations.

NASA can keep telling its lies but the photos have slipped out and what a story they tell. NASA thought that the Opportunity Rover took a picture of the area in front of it, but did they honestly expect us to forget about the railroad sized piece of timber in the foreground? It’s time for NASA to come clean with the public. It’s time that they land one of those rovers in Cydonia, the Inca city, or in one of forests.

Image sources:
The high resolution picture, which this might have come from is at:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040524a/site_B115_navcam_180_cyl_L-B118R1.jpg
The object is on the left hand side of the montage.
More photos:
Navigation Camera :: Sol 115 (27 images) – Text Only version
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/opportunity_n115.html
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/115/1N138388241EFF2700P1994R0M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/115/1N138388278EFF2700P1994L0M1.HTML
It can be seen in Navigation Photo Sol 118
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/119/1N138745027EFF2809P1987R0M1.HTML
Tom Arbino has his own UFO forum: www.ufo-secret-files.net
References:
www.livescience.com/space/080716-mars-water.html
www.marsdaily.com/reports/Frozen_Water_Confirmed_On_Mars_999.html