Birke Baehr -”What’s Wrong With Our Food System? And How Can We Make A Difference?”

Eleven-year-old Birke Baehr spoke on the food system at the TEDx Next Generation event in Ashville:

“A while back, I wanted to be an NFL football player, but I’ve decided that I want to be an organic farmer instead. That way, I can have a greater impact on the world.

“I want you to know that we can all make a difference by making different choices, by buying our food directly from local farmers or neighbors we know in real life. Some people say that organic and local food is more expensive, but is it really? With all these things I’ve been learning about the food system, it seems to me that we can either pay the farmer or pay the hospital. I know definitely which one I would choose.”

The Story of Bottled Water, released on March 22, 2010 (World Water Day) employs the Story of Stuff style to tell the story of manufactured demand—how you get Americans to buy more than half a billion bottles of water every week when it already flows from the tap. Over five minutes, the film explores the bottled water industrys attacks on tap water and its use of seductive, environmental-themed advertising to cover up the mountains of plastic waste it produces.

The film concludes with a call to take back the tap, not only by making a personal commitment to avoid bottled water, but by supporting investments in clean, available tap water for all

Our production partners on the bottled water film include five leading sustainability groups: Corporate Accountability International, Environmental Working Group, Food & Water Watch, Pacific Institute, and Polaris Institute.

See also: http://storyofbottledwater.org

And, for all you fact checkers out there, http://storyofstuff.org/pdfs/StoryOfB…

“If the winner of the election were to be decided by the ads, we’d be ruled by GetUp” (Karl Quinn, Entertainment Editor, The Age).¹ Have you seen our latest election ad on climate change?

Dear Glenn,

In 2007 Australia held what was widely called “the world’s first climate change election.” We all know what happened – the Australian people demonstrated a powerful community consensus on taking strong action to reduce carbon pollution.

That’s why it is so surprising that what Labor announced yesterday involved no emissions trading scheme for at least 3 years, no promise to turn back rising pollution in the next 3 years and no price on pollution. Even the pledge to rid the country of dirty coal power depends on carbon capture and storage technology that may not exist for 20 or 30 years, if ever.

But Julia Gillard did say that she’s open to delivering more on climate change and with Tony Abbott’s climate policy in shambles we must take this opportunity to convince her to deliver more to reduce carbon pollution.

We’re running out of time to solve climate change and reduce our rising carbon pollution – and we can’t settle for policies that don’t even veer close to the kind of strong action the science demands. Now is the time to step up our climate change ad campaign:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/StopRisingPollution

We know that going to an election simply with yesterday’s weak climate announcement would be untenable. That’s why just minutes ago Julia Gillard announced another part of her plan: an incentive scheme to get old dirty cars off the road. We know the Government will be announcing their policy in stages, gauging the public reaction every step of the way.

This gives us an opportunity. These next 4 weeks offer us the most important moment we have to influence the climate policies of the major parties. We know they never listen to us, the people, as intently as they do during an election campaign.

A credible climate policy must include a price on carbon, real renewable energy investments and a nation building energy efficiency program. These are the most effective and efficient ways to drive back rising levels of pollution. The Coalition have ruled out a real response to climate change. The Labor party is still holding back. The Greens are keen, but they can’t make policy without the government of the day onside.

The word out of Canberra is that our popular climate ad has started to make an impact on the public and politicians. You can show Labor what a credible climate policy looks like by donating to get this ad on the air:

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/StopRisingPollution

There is still time for Labor to take a serious climate policy to the election–one that stops the rise of carbon pollution in the next 3 years.

In these last few weeks before the election, let’s show them what climate leadership looks like.

Thank you for your commitment,
The GetUp Team

PS – After Kevin Rudd delayed action on climate change, his approval ratings plummeted and he lost the prime ministership. Julia Gillard has a chance to chart a new course–keep this ad on the air to show her the way.

¹ Karl Quinn (in online video clip), ‘Slogans, promises, furphies and sins: election gamesmanship in full spin’, The Age, 22 July 2010.

Source: NaturalNews

If you`re living in the U.S., particularly within a thousand miles of the Gulf, you need to detoxify your body now. Here`s why: Crude oil is packed with a toxic chemical called benzene. Even in small amounts, benzene is associated with leukemia, Hodgkin`s Lymphoma and other serious blood and immune system diseases. The EPA`s “safe level” for benzene is 4 ppb (parts per billion) and benzene is being found in Gulf air at levels of 3,000 ppb. Crude oil is being smelled hundreds of miles away, and make no mistake, if you can smell oil, you`re breathing highly toxic benzene.

With the oil, numerous toxic gases are also gushing from earth and gases that everyone near the Gulf is being exposed to include hydrogen sulfide and methylene chloride. The EPA`s allowable limit for hydrogen sulfide is 5-10 ppb (parts per billion), but on May 3rd air levels of 1,192 ppb were recorded. A former oil company CEO says these levels pose serious, even fatal, risks to adults and unborn children. Hydrogen sulfide acts like carbon monoxide and cyanide gases – it inhibits cellular respiration and oxygen uptake, and causes cellular suffocation. As for methylene chloride, the body changes it to carbon monoxide – and it`s known to cause liver damage, skin damage and cancer. The EPA`s safe level for methylene chloride is 61 ppb – and it`s being found in the air at levels of 3,000 ppb.

Most people know that the chemical dispersant BP is using is highly toxic. It`s so toxic that the EPA ordered BP to use a different and less toxic dispersant – an order which BP ignored. Currently, over a million gallons of these toxic chemicals have been dumped into our oceans. With the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the same dispersant caused serious respiratory, liver, nervous system, kidney and blood damage in people – and reports that clean up crews in the Gulf are falling ill are plenty. On the manufacturer`s label, it says that no toxicity testing has been done, but these chemicals being used in enormous and uncontained quantities are obviously very toxic.

All of this sounds bad, and it is, but here`s the kicker: as part of the earth`s interconnected ecosystem, rain water comes from the oceans. So, it shouldn`t be a surprise that scientists are predicting severe destruction across the U.S. from toxic rains – and it appears the first cases are being reported about 400 miles from the Gulf. In fact, hundreds of acres of Tennessee farm land are at risk.

The crops have small, raindrop-sized burn marks on them and while the mainstream media is reporting crop damage, they haven`t yet made the connection between the toxic, chemical-ridden rains and the potential crop failure. It`s being reported that these raindrop-sized burn marks are affecting everything in sight, and no plant is immune. Dead birds are also being found nearby. These crops may fail and if they do survive, it`s likely they`ll be toxic to consume because plants being watered with toxic chemicals will absorb those chemicals into their cells.

So, what can you do? Detoxify your body now and continue to do so regularly in the months and years to come. These chemicals in the air – and likely soon in the drinking water and in crops that do survive – present a very real danger inside our bodies. Thankfully, there are methods to remove these chemicals – but it`s up to you to take the steps to do so.

More:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q…
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/…
http://www.prisonplanet.com/may-lev…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGxG…
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/05/toxi…
http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-myste…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit

Source: NaturalNews

It’s well-established that exposure to ionizing radiation can trigger mutations and other genetic damage and cause normal cells to become malignant. So it seems amazing how mainstream medicine frequently dismisses the idea that medical imaging tests from mammograms to CT scans could play much of a role in causing breast cancer. Take this example from the web site for Cornell University’s Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors:

In answer to the question “Is ionizing radiation a cause of breast cancer?”, the Cornell experts say “Yes” and note “.. female breast tissue is highly susceptible to radiation effects.” But then they pooh-pooh the possible hazard from mammography x-rays saying the risk …”should not be a factor in individual decisions to undergo this procedure. The same is true for most diagnostic x-ray procedures.”

If that’s not confusing enough, they turn around and state: “Nonetheless, unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided and continued vigilance is required to ensure that the benefits associated with specific procedures outweigh the future risks.”

Why radiation causes breast cancer

Common sense suggests there is plenty of reason to be worried about radiation causing breast cancer. And now there’s a new reason to be concerned. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have discovered that radiation exposure can alter cells’ microenvironment (the environment surrounding cells). And that greatly raises the odds future cells will become cancerous.

The reason is that signals from a cell’s microenvironment, altered by radiation exposure, can cause a cell’s phenotype (made up of all its biochemical and physical characteristics) to change by regulating or de-regulating the way a cell uses its genes. The result can be a cell that not only becomes pre-cancerous but that passes this pre-malignant condition on to future cells.

“Our work shows that radiation can change the microenvironment of breast cells, and this in turn can allow the growth of abnormal cells with a long-lived phenotype that have a much greater potential to be cancerous,” Paul Yaswen, a cell biologist and breast cancer research specialist with Berkeley Lab’s Life Sciences Division, said in a statement to the press.

“Many in the cancer research community, especially radiobiologists, have been slow to acknowledge and incorporate in their work the idea that cells in human tissues are not independent entities, but are highly communicative with each other and with their microenvironment,” he added.

For their study, Yaswen and his research teams used human mammary epithelial cells (HMECs), the cells that line breast ducts, where most breast cancers start. When placed in a culture dish, the vast majority of HMECs display a phenotype that allows them to divide between five and 20 times until they become what is known as senescent, or unable to divide. However, there are also some variants of these cells which have a phenotype that allows them to continue dividing for many weeks in culture. Known as a vHMEC phenotype, this type of breast cell arises spontaneously and is more susceptible to malignancy because it lacks a tumor-suppressing protein dubbed p16.

To find out what radiation exposure does to the cellular environment and how it could impact the future of cell behavior, the Berkeley Lab scientists grew sets of HMECs from normal breast tissue in culture dishes for about a week. Then they zapped each set with a single treatment of a low-to-moderate dose of radiation and compared the irradiated cells to sets of breast cells that had not been irradiated.

The results, just published in the on-line journal Breast Cancer Research, showed that four to six weeks after the radiation exposure, the normal breast cancer cells had stopped dividing far earlier than they would have normally — and this premature cell senescence had accelerated the outgrowth of vHMECS.

“However, by getting normal cells to prematurely age and stop dividing, the radiation exposure created space for epigenetically altered cells that would otherwise have been filled by normal cells. In other words, the radiation promoted the growth of pre-cancerous cells by making the environment that surrounded the cells more hospitable to their continued growth,” Yaswen explained in the press statement.

The researchers pointed out that the levels of radiation used in their experiments were not as much as a woman would be exposed to during a single routine mammogram but were comparable to those a woman could receive during a CT scans or radiotherapy “and could represent sources of concern.”

Of course, women are often pushed to get annual mammograms, raising their overall radiation exposure through the years. And, as NaturalNews has reported, previous research has already provided compelling evidence linking mammography to breast cancer.

For example, a report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s Archives of Internal Medicine found that the start of screening mammography programs throughout Europe has been associated with increased incidence of breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html). And a Johns Hopkins study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute concluded radiation exposure from mammograms could trigger malignancies in women at risk for genetic breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/025560_c…).

For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/…
http://envirocancer.cornell.edu/fac…

Source: Natural News

Most people are familiar with type-1 diabetes and type-2 diabetes, but did you know researchers have discovered a third type of diabetes? Type-3 diabetes, as they are calling it, affects people who are extra sensitive to electrical devices that emit “dirty” electricity.

Type-3 diabetics actually experience spikes in blood sugar and an increased heart rate when exposed to electrical pollution (”electropollution”) from things like computers, televisions, cordless and mobile phones, and even compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Dr. Magda Havas, a PhD from Trent University in Canada, recently published the results of a study she conducted on the relationship between electromagnetic fields and diabetes in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. In it, she explains how she and her team came to discover this about why electropollution is so dangerous for many people.

Blood sugar goes haywire

One of the most interesting finding in her study was that electro-sensitive people whose blood sugar decreases when they go for a walk outdoors actually experience an increase in blood sugar when walking on a treadmill.

Treadmills, you see, are electrical devices that emit electrical pollution. But interestingly, even the physical exertion of walking on the treadmill did not make up for the blood sugar spiking effect of the EMFs emitted by the treadmills. Despite the exercise, in other words, type-3 diabetics experienced significant spikes in blood sugar when walking on the treadmill.

Dirty electricity is bad for everyone, but it is especially bad for people who are type-3 diabetics. And Dr. Havas explains in her study that even having an electrical device plugged into the wall near someone who is type-3 diabetic can cause them problems.

We have to rethink environmental influences of modern living

I find this research fascinating, not only because it proves that electromagnetic waves impact blood sugar and heart rate, but because there could be thousands, if not millions, of diabetics who may be suffering from a diabetes misdiagnosis right now.

The reason I’m bringing this up is because a 54 year-old pre-diabetic man who participated in the study was found to experience serious blood sugar spikes only when he was working in an urban environment around power lines or on his computer. When he was out camping away from the city, his blood sugar was just fine.

The man tested his blood sugar every morning in different situations and his levels were always higher when electrical fields were nearby. On one of the mornings, he forgot to test himself prior to beginning work on the computer. His blood sugar levels were higher than normal, registering around 205 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL). But after stepping away from the computer for only ten minutes, his levels dropped nearly 20 mg/dL.

The degree to which electromagnetic pollution affects the body is clearly quite astonishing, and this study illustrates that. But it makes you wonder how many people have diabetes simply because of EMF pollution (and not solely due to their diet or lack of exercise, as we have been taught).

High EMFs gave this woman diabetes

Take the case of the 80 year-old woman whose house tested high for EMF pollution. Prior to installing a system of filters around her house designed to reduce “electro-smog” levels, her blood sugar was high and she was using insulin each day in order to balance her blood sugar levels. After installing the filters (which reduced EMF pollution by roughly 98 percent), the woman’s blood sugar levels dropped by 33 percent and her insulin requirements plunged a whopping 75 percent!

This idea that reducing the electropollution of your house could drastically reduce a patient’s need for insulin has never even registered in conventional (mainstream) medicine. Yet it could be a crucial understanding for tens of millions of diabetics around the world.

The study mentioned here classifies the type of diabetes caused by electromagnetic pollution as type-3 diabetes. While those with type-1 or type-2 diabetes can also have type-3, the data seems to indicate that a person can also exclusively have type-3 without any overlay of the other two types. In other words, their diabetes may be solely due to electromagnetic pollution.

And since pre-diabetics can be pushed over the edge by EMF pollution, there is no telling how many people actually have type-3 rather than type-2 diabetes.

If you ask most mainstream medical “professionals”, they will deny that type-3 diabetes even exists. According to most of them, the idea that electromagnetic pollution contributes to disease is some sort of whacked out conspiracy theory. But there’s more to the study that you need to know…

Wireless signals interfere with the heart

For one portion of the study, Dr. Havas had patients lie down on a bed with a cordless phone placed two feet away from their heads. The phone was plugged into the wall, but for each testing session, the electricity was either on or off.

Neither the patient nor the doctor administering the test was aware of whether or not the phone was live or dead during each session. (This is what is known as a double-blind study, the type most respected in clinical trials).

At the completion of that part of the study, researchers observed that EMF-sensitive patients experienced significant increases in their heart rates during the sessions when the phone was being powered and emitting radio signals. When it was turned off, these same patients returned back to their normal heart rates almost instantaneously.

Why is this important? First of all, a double-blind study is the litmus test used in the medical profession to verify that a study is legitimate. Since nobody involved knew when the power was on or off, the results are completely unbiased and hold a lot more sway than if it had been conducted a different way.

Secondly, it illustrates that EMF pollution really does speed up the heart rates of certain people. And since a rapid pulse is one of the many symptoms of diabetes, it seems reasonable to suspect that EMF pollution could be a fundamental cause of diabetic symptoms for a significant portion of the diabetic population.

This makes you wonder about the harm caused by mammograms, CT scans and other medical scanning technologies that blast the body with electromagnetic radiation, doesn’t it?

Electromagnetic radiation leads to many diseases, including cancer

Our bodies are constantly barraged by electromagnetic radiation from numerous electronic sources, and most people don’t think twice about this high level of exposure (probably because many don’t even realize it’s there), but the truth is that all this EMF pollution is leading to widespread illness.

Most of the recent research on EMF pollution has focused on cell phones, which makes sense because people take their cell phones with them everywhere they go and when they use them, they often hold them right next to their skulls. Cell phone radiation is probably one of the most dangerous EMF polluters because the devices remain in very close contact with the body for long periods of time.

A 2008 study published in New Scientist revealed that cell phone radiation causes human cell proteins to improperly express themselves. Similar studies also found that the radiation damages living DNA, creates leakages in the blood-brain barrier, and increases estrogen and adrenaline levels, disrupting hormone balance.

According to one statistic from a 2008 study, adults who use a cell phone over the course of a decade increase their chances of developing brain cancer by 40 percent. Even worse, a Swedish study found that people who start using a cell phone before the age of 20 increase their risk of developing a brain tumor by 500 percent!

Mainstream science holds conflicting views (as usual)

Of course, many in the medical establishment simply deny that electro-smog has anything to do with health or disease. And it doesn’t matter how many studies are conducted on the matter; many continue to insist that there is not enough evidence that EMFs cause any harm.

Not everyone feels this way, of course, but sadly most of today’s experts seem unable (or unwilling) to put two and two together and make the connection between electromagnetic pollution and disease.

There are many contributors to disease in our environment. EMFs represent just one. But to deny that electromagnetic pollution is harmful is quite narrow minded. Dr. Havas’ study provides more than enough evidence that at least some people are suffering because of the electrical devices that surround them.

Our world, of course, is full of electromagnetic devices — and some of them may surprise you. A typical hair dryer, for example, emits an explosion of electromagnetic radiation that’s usually aimed right at the skull. Typical office environments shower employees with electropollution from fluorescent lighting, and even exercise gyms can subject visitors to a dense field of electromagnetic pollution (from all the electronic exercise machines).

It all gives credence to the idea of getting into nature more often, doesn’t it? If you’re sensitive to electropollution, the farther away you get from the city, the better you’ll feel. No wonder most people innately gravitate to such natural environments like forests, lakes and ocean beaches.

So, does all this research mean we should all get rid of our phones and computers and return to the pre-information age? You could always join an Amish community. They’re remarkably healthy, and part of that may be due to their lack of electropollution.

But for mainstream people, a more practical solution is to install some EMF filters around your home.

Some solutions for electromagnetic pollution

As mentioned in the study, home EMF filters are one of the best ways to reduce or eliminate the stray electrical signals that plague your house. These filters will capture electrical “noise” from things like televisions, computers and phones, and return it back into the line or into the ground. These can be connected to the outlets where these devices are plugged in.

Keeping Wi-Fi devices like cell phones and wireless routers away from your body as much as possible is another good idea. If you have a wireless router at home, place it away from areas where people sleep or spend a lot of time. Even having it just a few feet farther away can make a big difference in a reduction of the electropollution exposure from it.

When charging your cell phone, plug it in across the room from you. Especially at night when you are sleeping, it is best to turn off as many electrical devices as possible and to keep them away from your bed when sleeping. And beware of electric blankets: They produce a very strong electromagnetic field.

Try to use the speakerphone as much as possible when talking on the phone, or use an “air-tube” device that stops the signal short before it reaches your head. Never walk around with an idle bluetooth attached to your head, because these devices deliver a steady stream of EMF radiation directly into your head. I would recommend not using one at all, but if you do use one, take it off when not in use.

It’s also a good idea to keep your phone in your pocket or purse only when necessary, and to keep it away from your body at all other times. Cell phones are intermittently communicating with network towers, so the closer they are to our bodies, the more radiation we are exposed to. So if you’re not going to be using it for a while, just turn it off.

Finally, it is crucial to maintain a healthy diet and get plenty of outdoor exercise. Eating lots of nutrient-rich foods, drinking plenty of clean water, and minimizing intake of toxic preservatives, food additives, and refined sugars will do wonders to build a strong and vibrant neurological system that will resist some of the impact of electromagnetic pollution.

The reason I mention outdoor exercise is because, just like in the study, certain indoor exercise equipment like treadmills can actually cause more harm than good (for certain people). So go outside and take a walk or a jog. The sunshine will boost your vitamin D levels and the fresh air will help rejuvenate your system. (Just be sure to stay away from the power lines.)

Source: NaturalNews

What’s clear about the BP oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is that the independent journalists are doing a better job of asking the really tough questions than the mainstream media. Sure, CNN, Fox and others are bringing some attention to the matter, and they’ve done some solid reporting on it, but they haven’t yet found a way to ask the deeper questions like why the U.S. government seems to be colluding with BP to cover up the truth about the spill.

Just the other day, I found an article entitled, “16 Burning Questions About The Gulf Of Mexico Oil Spill” on the TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com site (http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/…). It was a really insightful collection of important questions, so I’ve repeated them below. The author of these questions wasn’t mentioned on the page, so I regret I cannot properly attribute the list, but I do think they’re worth reviewing, so I’ve included my own commentary and an extra question below.

Here are the 16 questions:

#1) Barack Obama has authorized the deployment of more than 17,000 National Guard members along the Gulf coast to be used “as needed” by state governors. So what are all of these National Guard troops going to be doing exactly? Are the troops going to be used to stop the oil or to control the public?

Continue Reading on: NaturalNews

Last month, something remarkable occurred.

A US government panel stood up and pointed out the link between environmental toxins and cancer.

Wow… what were they thinking? (smirk & tongue firmly in cheek)

I have been saying this for years. How come it took so long for them to learn that the “earth is not flat?”

In a comprehensive, 240-page report, the President’s Cancer Panel declared that Americans are being “bombarded” with cancer-causing chemicals, and that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated.”

When a mainstream government entity breaks ranks with the traditional medical establishment to report that environment chemicals are threatening our health, it is a truly astonishing event – and a warning we should all heed.

While this report comes from a US government panel, environmental toxins are a global issue. And, according to the World Health Organization, deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue rising, to an estimated 12 million in 2030.

Download and read the whole report (PDF)

Executive Summary

Despite overall decreases in incidence and mortality, cancer continues to shatter and steal the lives of Americans. Approximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons.

Public and governmental awareness of environmental influences on cancer risk and other health issues has increased substantially in recent years as scientific and health care communities, policymakers, and individuals strive to understand and ameliorate the causes and toll of human disease. A growing body of research documents myriad established and suspected environmental factors linked to genetic, immune, and endocrine dysfunction that can lead to cancer and other diseases.

Between September 2008 and January 2009, the President’s Cancer Panel (the Panel) convened four meetings to assess the state of environmental cancer research, policy, and programs addressing known and potential effects of environmental exposures on cancer. The Panel received testimony from 45 invited experts from academia, government, industry, the environmental and cancer advocacy communities, and the public.

This report summarizes the Panel’s findings and conclusions based on the testimony received and additional information gathering. The Panel’s recommendations delineate concrete actions that governments; industry; the research, health care, and advocacy communities; and individuals can take to reduce cancer risk related to environmental contaminants, excess radiation, and other harmful exposures.

Download and read the whole report (PDF)

Scientists from the California Institute of Technology (CIT) have developed a new solar cell technology that they say absorbs up to 96 percent of “incident” light. Experimental tests revealed that the new cells operate at around a 90 percent quantum efficiency rate. Because they are made of plastic, they could significantly reduce the overall cost of photovoltaic cells as well.

Solar cells have long been a favorite of people trying to reduce or eliminate their energy bills. Many businesses have incorporated the technology as well because it is clean, renewable, and helps to reduce costs. Yet throughout its history, the relatively expensive up-front costs of obtaining photovoltaic cells has deterred many from investing in the technology. Researchers hope that their breakthrough new technology will change that.

The new cells consist of tiny silicon wires that measure a mere 1 micron in diameter. These wires are embedded into plastic plates where they convert light into electricity at an exceptional rate of efficiency. Any light that is leftover bounces around inside the wire matrix until it finds another wire that can absorb it. When all is said and done, nearly all the light is captured and converted into electricity.

The beauty of the new cell technology is that only two percent of the cell is composed of semiconductors, which are the most expensive component. The other 98 percent is made from inexpensive plastic, which translates into significantly lower prices for consumers as opposed to former solar cell technologies.

Though roughly the same thickness as conventional solar cells, the new cells contain far less silicon. The team is currently working on expanding the voltage capacity and size of the cells in order to manufacture large, flexible sheets that can be manufactured inexpensively using “roll-to-roll” fabrication equipment.

The team has yet to release any side-by-side comparisons of the new cells versus the old cells, but as the technology is refined, researchers will likely conduct the necessary experiments to gain this data and make it available to the public.

Solar technology has been gaining popularity for years, especially as advancements have made adopting the technology more affordable. Solar energy generation is quickly becoming a viable, mainstream way of generating energy and helping people to eliminate their energy bills and live “off the grid”. Some people have even been able to generate so much energy that they sell the extra back to their local energy companies.

Sources for this story include:
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle….
NaturalNews

About the video:
Benjamin Fulford investigates a mysterious plasma weapon seen prior to the Niigata earthquake in July 2007 and Red, White & Blue HAARP lights near the epicenter prior to the recent quake in China. Taiwan satellites measured a 50% drop in ionospheric energy above the Sichuan epicenter on the day before the quake. Both earthquakes targeted nuclear military facilities… coincidence or war crime?

This is a great little video that gives a more detailed breakdown in just a few minutes about how they’re targetting the people to get what they want. People, we need to find greater and more powerful ways to fight their disgusting criminal activities that are targetting us. I believe the ones to have the greatest impact on them would have to come from any honorable politicians (if they exist besides Ron Paul), the military at any rank and designation and some powerful corporate influences (again, if there’s any honorable ones that exist).

It goes beyond a couple internet sites and forums, but it helps to reach the right people. Please, if you’re reading this or other sources, spread that fact to any family and friends you know how they can help to stop this. The time is now. We need these people to get a conscience back and stand up against these atrocities and stop taking part in them.