safe (12)

How Pet Food is Killing Your Dog


Feb. 3, 2014

Would you feed your family a meal made with condemned beef? Or spray the children’s tea with rancid fat collected from a deep-fat fryer? Or serve biscuits made with empty grain hulls swept from a factory floor?

Because that’s what we do to our dogs.

The unpalatable truth is that if you give your dog processed dog food – dried, tinned or in a pouch – you may be feeding them substances that cause them serious, possibly fatal, harm.

In a Channel 5 documentary this week, I am one of a number of canine nutrition experts who accuse the big dog food manufacturers of knowingly shortening the lives of millions of dogs a year.

The big businesses selling us processed dog food use ingredients unsuitable for human consumption – and unsuitable, in my view, for canine consumption.

They make vast profits from something that would otherwise be thrown away. It is a consumer scandal waiting to happen.

We all know there is a connection between our diet and health. The same applies to dogs, and every other species on the planet. But what is the best, most biologically appropriate diet for dogs?

The diet your dog should be eating is that of a grey wolf in the wild. If you dissect a dog and a grey wolf you’ll find that their digestive systems are identical. The two animals are essentially the same species and so closely related that they can interbreed.

Grey wolves live on prey such as deer, rabbits and mice, and eat everything including the bones, from which they get about a third of their nutrition. They also eat fruit and vegetables.

In short, their diet consists of raw meat, raw bones and raw herbage. This, then, is the diet that allows dogs to achieve optimum health and longevity.

Only recently have dog food manufacturers persuaded us otherwise. I believe nine out of ten visits to the vet are caused by dogs being fed the wrong diet.

The quality of ingredients in most dog food is appallingly low, often including meat that has gone off.

But the worst thing is that it has been cooked and it contains a great deal of grain. The cooking kills off important enzymes – chemicals responsible for thousands of vital metabolic processes – in the food, and alters its structure, making it hard for the dog to digest.

Standards: The quality of ingredients in most dog food is appallingly low, often including meat that’s gone off

Grain changes the pH (acidity) balance in the dog’s stomach, also causing health problems. When dogs eat grain almost all goes in one end and out the other.

In short, processed dog food has the same effect on dogs as junk food has on humans.

Manufacturers will tell you the canine digestive system has changed over time to be able to derive benefit from grain, but processed dog food came into existence 153 years ago and has been popular only since the end of World War II.

Palaeontologists believe it takes, on average, 100,000 years for a species to adapt to a new diet. Dogs have five types of teeth, but none suitable for grinding food.

Humans have digestive enzymes in our saliva and we need to chew our food before we swallow it to give those enzymes a chance to start breaking down the food.

Dogs can’t chew this way because they are unable to move their jaws from side to side. All their digestive processes take place in their stomachs.


‘Mulch’: Dried dog food has to be coated in fat so that animals will eat it

You may think your dog gulps his or her food because they are greedy, but they are just trying to get it to where all the digestive action occurs as fast as possible.

If you believe TV commercials, advertisements and labels, processed food is the only safe thing to feed a dog. It contains nothing but ‘natural goodness’, has been ‘scientifically formulated’ and is endorsed by experts.

But a good way to understand the dog food industry is to study its history. Modern dog food was invented by James Spratt, who launched the first complete dog food – a biscuit made of wheat meal, vegetables and animal blood – in England in 1860.

Mill owners saw its potential as a way of selling their unwanted by-products (basically floor sweepings) and low-cost meat off-cuts at a much higher price than they’d otherwise achieve.

From day one, dog food producers made extravagant claims for their products and paid vets for endorsements. Little has changed in more than 150 years.

There is considerable British and European legislation controlling the manufacture of dog food, but this quote, taken from the guidance given to pet food manufacturers, demonstrates how little the government cares about the dogs themselves: ‘For pets, the main part of the risk assessment when setting maximum permitted levels for undesirable substances will generally be the extent to which the animal can tolerate them.’

In other words, it is legal to use ‘undesirable substances’ in dog food if they don’t do the animal immediate harm.

Another disturbing quote from the same guide refers to: ‘The material of animal origin used by the pet food industry comprises those parts of animals which are either deemed surplus to human consumption or are not normally consumed by people in the UK.’

This lets manufacturers make their food from by-products such as hooves, tails, testicles, ears and so on.



Wolfish: Dogs’ digestive systems are closely related to those of grey wolves, and they benefit most from a similar diet, including raw meat


Natural diet: Oily fish such as sardines, left, can help improve dogs’ health.

- See more at:

Read more…

According to Sheldan, there are no safe locations.  If this is true, then physically preparing is a waste of time and what we should all be preparing for is ascension.  I am presenting this viewpoint for your consideration.  You have to go with your own intuition as to what the truth is. 

Read more…


If you are familiar with the ZetaTalk trench shelter, please read this first blog as it talks about the deficiencies inherent in that design.


These next blogs are culminations of group efforts and cover as many scenarios as we could think of and modifications that could make the shallow trench shelter a more secure shelter. 

A Plastic Tunnel -- A Way To Avoid Electrocution by Ground Electricity

Another Idea For A Trench Shelter


The issue of radiation (solar or nuclear) was raised and this blog talks about it and how to protect yourself:

Yet More About The Inadequacies Of Shallow Trench Shelters


This was my original version of a enhanced shallow trench shelter, with a ferro-cement dome:
My Idea Of A Trench Shelter 
(Sorry, the link to the sunlife site still works but the information is no longer available.  You can look around for another site with plans to build a ROUND dome--don't go geodesic, it is reported there are high divorce rates associated with it, thus it seems to amplify bad vibes.)


Other options:

Mini blast & fallout shelter-good for tornadoes, storage, etc.

Earthbag Structures

Resistant to earthquakes, flooding, severe weather

Ferro-Cement Structures

Extremely strong.

DuPont's Kevlar Bunkers

Tornado Safe Room

Pet Shelters

Mini Noah's Ark Shelters


Read more…

FEMA Grants For Safe Rooms

If you live in a manufactured home park, FEMA can give money to build a shelter.  There are qualifications, such as there have to be at least 20 units there, etc.  Probably not enough time left to do this, but if things do drag on into next year, this could help.

An older article, but gives some parameters:


Read more…

Mark, a moderator from poleshift.ning and staunch ZetaTalk devotee, posed this question:  


here's another example of ZT being the source of your material Cheryl. or do you claim that you came up with the idea of a shallow trench covered with a metal or sod-covered roof?


His original question and my original response is located at:

Of course, Mark, I don't claim to have come up with the concept of a trench shelter covered with a metal or sod roof, but neither is the concept original with Troubled Times/Zetatalk. Trench shelters have been used in many wars because they are relatively quick to construct and provide protection.  This article is based on source materials dating back to French military operations in 1914-1918.  See  For your convenience, here are some relevant quotes: 

This article is about: "The subject of French army shelters and dugouts (along with trench construction in general)...."

The materials used to construct trench shelters: "The primary materials used in shelter construction in the French army were logs or wood poles, rocks and dirt. To a lesser degree, planks, sandbags, corrugated sheets of metal, steel rails and iron sheets were used."

Trenches for higher ranking officers is then discussed before coming to the lesser quality trenches for the common man's, the foot soldiers', trench shelters: "Last on the pecking order were the foot-soldiers. The conditions of their shelters varied, but in general they proved woefully inadequate for most of the war. Improvements only started coming about in the fall of 1917 to meet the demands of rebellious, discontent soldiers. Materials used in the construction of the foot-soldiers' shelter normally included sticks, wattles, gabions, and sheets of corrugated metal. To a lesser degree, sandbags, small logs, and planks might be employed. Universally, these shelters were dark, dank, filthy, vermin-infested holes or shacks that brought misery to every soldier."

How sturdy are trench shelters? "Inclement conditions such as heavy rains and mud, often lead to the shelters collapsing."

On sod/metal roofs: "Alternately, a section of covered trench could be used as shelter, consisting of a simple roof of light logs or poles laid across the top of the trench, covered over with a layer of sandbags or earth up to a foot thick. However, abundant examples exist of less reinforced covered trenches that consisted only of a layer of light logs or a panel of corrugated metal straddling the trench."

On the subject of sod (contrasted to just plain dirt): "Shelters for soldiers in the rear were often just as inadequate and miserable as those up at the front.... A crossbeam pole rested between these, which supported the roof of poles or light logs, covered over with hay, straw and/or sod."

Now, imagine lying in a shallow trench with such a roof with winds and rain at the high end of this demonstration:  How safe would you really be?

This is a fascinating article which everyone should read in its entirety for more ideas on how to build a trench shelter, plans that have been field tested.

Prof. McCanney says a lot of water will be coming in during the passage, lots of hydrocarbons mixed in (meaning polluted water), and ancient texts and geologic records confirm the same. As the French learned from experience, trench shelters turn into mud and collapse. So, Mark, the solution Zetatalk proposes not only did not originate with them, but is being disseminated as a solution, when in fact it is neither a solution, nor is it safe in the context of the extremes that will be generated by the object following behind Comet Elenin. Because I care about people, I am going to great lengths to try and make the trench shelter concept safer and healthier, as well as more comfortable as well as possible.

Also, please pause to consider that if you had posted at poleshift.ning what you posted here, except praising this ning, you would have been banned from poleshift.ning in a heartbeat.  But you weren't.  You were able to enjoy freedom of speech, which this ning promotes.  It's such a more pleasant atmosphere here.  And, look, you learned something.  Why?  Because you were able to ask questions, even though in a bit of an aggressive manner.  Education is important here.  What if we had just banned you.  You wouldn't have learned that your solution (if you are electing the trench shelter option) is fatally defective.  Think of all the people who will be relying on the ZT solution.  Most are going to die when their shelters disintegrate into a puddle of mud.  Now do you understand why I analyze?  Banning questions is just deflection because the material does not stand up under scrutiny. 

Think about it, Mark.  You are one of the few that has come here and can see we are not what she says we are.  Did you know I have run an earthchanges website and yahoogroup since 2003 (and continue to do so)?  I don't need any help.  I was sent to help Gerard.  Did you know Nancy and I were Gerard's first admins?  When I came on board in early January 2010, the membership was under 300; when I left, it was over 1,600?  I know Nancy drew a lot of attention because of her longevity on the internet, but did you know that during the time I was there that I referred over 700 members of my yahoogroup to poleshift.ning?  Did they tell you that poleshift ning's rules were written by me, in concert with discussions with Nancy and Gerard?  And why do you think Nancy bemoaned the loss of all my blogs?  They were substantial.  Did you know Nancy encouraged any poleshift ning member to commit theft by recovering one of my blogs and downloading two others without my permission and that they lost three copyright infringement claims because of their theft?  Who's copying whom?  I have documentation for all of this.  And do I sound crazy, post-nervous-breakdown, weak, and all the false ZT she's proclaimed on me.  Not hardly.  I've been here almost every day since I left poleshift.ning.  If you didn't know any of this, then you are only getting one side of the picture. 


UPDATE 6/30/2011:  Also realize that rolling would be caused by slip faults, which create a sideways motion and may not be the only type of earthquake.  I lived through the Northridge Earthquake, five miles from epicenter, and it was a thruster, which creates an up and down motion--a more violent earthquake--which causes your body to fly up into the air and then gravity brings you back down, and this would be a repetitive motion, thus more potential for damage.  Mountain building is a thruster-type earthquake.  The power at play would be like throwing a rag doll into the air and letting it land where it will, but with much more mass and breakable objects in the human body than a rag doll.  A better analogy would be throwing a carton of eggs into the air and see how many don't break after it lands a few times.

UPDATE 8/28/3011:  See for information on how to construct a pole-covered trench that would shield from radiation.

Read more…

Tornado Safe Room

This looks like a possibility.  It is above ground and can take a lot of stress.  It could also be put into a trench to get it closer to surface level.  The only question is how will it react in an earthquake, being rectangular.  Doug, would it work, or would something circular, like a culvert, be better so it could roll a bit?

Read more…

if might be prudent to stock up on powdered milk, butter, sour cream powder, and eggs NOW while non-contaminated supplies are still available, as well as lay in as much water as you can store.  You can use tap water.  If your city has already been hit, check out how to clean it of radiation:

Remember, it takes 20-something gallons of milk to make a pound of butter, thus butter will have a higher concentration of radiation.  You can buy it powdered (still in stock at or you can buy it fresh in the store and can it yourself.  Recipe is at  In the alternative, if you don't use butter, stock up on extra virgin olive oil.  It has a very long shelf life.

Note: is currently backordered on both milk and eggs.  However, if they are backordering it, they expect to get more in.  Get in line NOW, because as Fukushima continues to spew the line is going to get longer and eventually the new supplies will be contaminated.

I have used for over seven years.  They consistently have the best overall price, ship quickly (except for backlogs, but those do come once they get the products), are very quick to follow up on problems (they once misdelivered my order to someone else and they quickly replaced it), and I think they are a good, ethical outfit.

Read more…

From the Nuclear War Survival Skills by Cresson Kearney, available for free download at  


° Filtering

Filtering through earth removes essentially all of the fallout particles and more of the dissolved radioactive material than does boiling-water distillation, a generally impractical purification method that does not eliminate dangerous radioactive iodines. Earth filters are also more effective in removing radioactive iodines than are ordinary ion-exchange water softeners or charcoal filters. In areas of heavy fallout, about 99% of the radioactivity in water could be removed by filtering it through ordinary earth. 73

Fig. 8.11. Expedient filter to remove radioactivity from water. ORNL
DWG 77-18431 (Illustration)
nw073.jpg  (see online at


To make the simple, effective filter shown in Fig. 8.11, the only materials needed are those found in and around the home. This expedient filter can be built easily by proceeding as follows:

1. Perforate the bottom of a 5-gallon can, a large bucket, a watertight wastebasket, or a similar container with about a dozen nail holes. Punch the holes from the bottom upward, staying within about 2 inches of the center.

2. Place a layer about 1 inches thick of washed pebbles or small stones on the bottom of the can. If pebbles are not available, twisted coat-hanger wires or small sticks can be used.

3. Cover the pebbles with one thickness of terrycloth towel, burlap sackcloth, or other quite porous cloth. Cut the cloth in a roughly circular shape about 3 inches larger than the diameter of the can.

4. Take soil containing some clay almost any soil will do from at least 4 inches below the surface of the ground. (Nearly all fallout particles remain near the surface except after deposition on sand or gravel.)

5. Pulverize the soil, then gently press it in layers over the cloth that covers the pebbles, so that the cloth is held snugly against the sides of the can. Do not use pure clay (not porous enough) or sand (too porous). The soil in the can should be 6 to 7 inches thick.

6. Completely cover the surface of the soil layer with one thickness of fabric as porous as a bath towel. This is to keep the soil from being eroded as water is poured into the filtering can. The cloth also will remove some of the particles from the water. A dozen small stones placed on the cloth near its edges will secure it adequately.

7. Support the filter can on rods or sticks placed across the top of a container that is larger in diameter than the filter can. (A dishpan will do.)

The contaminated water should be poured into the filter can, preferably after allowing it to settle as described below. The filtered water should be disinfected by one of the previously described methods.

If the 6 or 7 inches of filtering soil is a sandy clay loam, the filter initially will deliver about 6 quarts of clear water per hour. (If the filtration rate is faster than about 1 quart in 10 minutes, remove the upper fabric and recompress the soil.) After several hours, the rate will be reduced to about 2 quarts per hour.

When the filtering rate becomes too slow, it can be increased by removing and rinsing the surface fabric, removing about 1 inch of soil, and then replacing the fabric. The life of a filter is extended and its efficiency increased if muddy water is first allowed to settle for several hours in a separate container, as described below. After about 50 quarts have been filtered, rebuild the filter by replacing the used soil with fresh soil.

Settling is one of the easiest methods to remove most fallout particles from water. Furthermore, if the water to be used is muddy or murky, settling it
before filtering will extend the life of the filter. The procedure is as follows:

° Settling

1. Fill a bucket or other deep container three quarters full of the contaminated water.

2. Dig pulverized clay or clayey soil from a depth of four or more inches below ground surface, and stir it into the water. Use about a 1-inch depth of dry clay or dry clayey soil for every 4-inch depth of water. Stir until practically all the clay particles are suspended in the water.

Book Page: 74

3. Let the clay settle for at least 6 hours. The settling clay particles will carry most of the suspended fallout particles to the bottom and cover them.

4. Carefully dip out or siphon the clear water, and disinfect it.

° Settling and Filtering

Although dissolved radioactive material usually is only a minor danger in fallout-contaminated water, it is safest to filter even the clear water produced by settling, if an earth filter is available. Finally as always the water should be disinfected.


Read more…

The current severe weather in the northern hemisphere provoked this question.

Where is a safe location if a significant portion of the northern hemisphere is buried under snow and ice?  Have we been misled that there is such an animal?  Have we ever been advised to prepare for heavy snow and ice in addition to a safe location (traditionally meaning safe from rising seas, large bodies of water, mountain building, extraordinary earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.)?  Did NZT miss some important factors to consider in determining a safe location?

Further, will a trench covered with a metal roof and sod keep us from drowning in heavy rains or keep us from freezing to death if a mini ice age does indeed blanket the northern hemisphere during the passage?

ZT hasn't talked about the Gulf Stream slowing/stopping, yet the phenomena has been known since at least 2005.  There was a recent mention that it wouldn't be a source of problems, yet look at the winter the UK/Europe is having...predicted to be the coldest in a 1,000 years, when another mini ice age occurred. 

And all the "lowlands" expected to flood?  How do they flood if they are frozen before the passage?  I understand that water could wash over them, but my point is that the data was presented as something people would have to plan for and evacuate from.  However, now it looks like they will need to evacuate because of the deep freeze.  In other words, NZT did not see climate change/freezing temperatures coming.  She didn't see the Gulf Stream slowing/stopping as significant and brushed it off.  And she was blindsided, proving again that she is not getting her information from intelligent extraterrestrials.

We need to rethink our safe locations and factor in protection from the elements as well.

And check out this link to see if a several-hundred-feet-in-elevation is really high enough if you are anywhere near large bodies of water. 

UPDATE:  06/21/2011:  Terral Croft has a map in his latest video, 7-7-11 Warning, that shows areas, such as the Appalachians and East Coast, in extreme danger zones, contrary to the Safe Locations document published by ZetaTalk.  Please examine Terral's map and decide if you need to alter your plans.  I am in the Appalachians, touted by ZetaTalk as being a safe area.  I don't buy the Zeta "water will dilute radiation" theory and think Terral's map makes more sense.  Of course, that is just my opinion.  You need to see the map: and decide for yourself.

Read more…

Is A Several Hundred Foot Elevation High Enough?

Hey, have you heard about a rogue planet in our inner solar system called Planet X? It's a brown dwarf star, said to be 4 times the size of Earth and 23 times its mass. It's heavily magnetic and in the not-too-distant future it will be passing Earth. It's the source of escalating Earth know, bigger and more frequent earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and bizarre weather, just to name a few. Many of us are preparing for this event and the purpose of this talk is on preparation. Today's topic is safe distances from bodies of water.

Over the past 7 years or so, I've researched many sources about this incoming planet and recently read a review of Erich von Däniken's newest book, Twilight of the Gods, and noted an interesting comment. The reviewer says, "Erich von Däniken speaks of the Bolivian archaeological site of Tiahuanaco and the platforms at Puma Punku, both located some 13,000 feet above sea level.... Despite the altitude, the Bolivian sites show strong evidence of flooding." Could the flooding have been caused by rising sea levels or tsunamis caused by a prior passage of Planet X, such as we saw in the movie 2012?

While von Däniken speculates that the huge stones which pave those locations could have been used as a dam, consider the Noahic flood, which is said to have occurred during a previous Planet X passage. Noah's ark is said to have come to rest on top of a mountain as the waters receded. This mountain historically is believed to be Mt. Ararat in Turkey, which has two peaks: Greater Ararat (the tallest peak in Turkey with an elevation of 5,137 m/16,854 ft) and Lesser Ararat (which has an elevation of 3,896 m/12,782 ft). That's over two miles above sea level, folks! Now factor in that some sources are indicating that the upcoming passage of the dark star is going to be worse than previous passages! Yikes!

Another source indicates that the Appalachian Mountains show signs of having been on the sea bed in it past history--

"The Appalachians are old. A look at rocks exposed in today's Appalachian mountains reveals elongate belts of folded and thrust faulted marine sedimentary rocks, volcanic rocks and slivers of ancient ocean floor."

But how do we know for sure what a safe elevation will be? Well, one way to find out is to observe what those in the know are doing. For instance, the U.S. Gov't is moving its base of operations to the high peaks of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. It has been said that U.S. Navy personnel in the know are relocating to the Ozark Mountains. Those should give you ideas of safe elevations.


Okay, so one example I gave of flooding at high altitudes might have been a dam breaking and another example was a tale of a flood of Biblical proportions. But, are there any other historical records that speak of how high the water rose?

At this link,, in the Update: The Eltanin Impact, 2.15 mya, it is stated: "The evidence of the effects of large tsunamis, in terms of relocated rocks, is found widely. The most extreme example being in Hawaii where unconsolidated coral is found at 326 metres above sea level." That's nearly 1,000 feet above sea level! Thus, you need to get away from coastlines. How far? From what I have read, it would be prudent to be at least 200-300 miles from any coastline and well above 1,000' in elevation.

That's today's tip for those who are preparing to survive the coming passage of Planet X. Forewarned is forearmed. Planet X is survivable if you prepare, not just physically, but mentally and spiritually as well.




Read more…

Blog Topics by Tags

Monthly Archives