Earthworms could be used to extract toxic heavy metals, including cadmium and lead, from solid waste from domestic refuse collection and waste from vegetable and flower markets, according to researchers writing in the International Journal of Environment and Waste Management.

Swati Pattnaik and M. Vikram Reddy of the Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, at Pondicherry University, in Puducherry, India, explain how three species of earthworm, Eudrilus eugeniae, Eisenia fetida and Perionyx excavates can be used to assist in the composting of urban waste and to extract heavy metals, cadmium, copper, lead, manganese, zinc, prior to subsequent processing.

With rapid increases in urban populations particularly in the developing world, there is a growing problem of how to manage organic waste and to find alternatives to landfill disposal particularly for domestic food waste and that from vegetable markets.

According to the research team, it is an unfortunate fact of life that much of this waste is currently dumped on the outskirts of many towns and cities and is causing serious pollution, disease risk and general ecological harm.

It also represents a considerable wasted resource, whereas the organic matter might be exploited usefully in growing food crops.

The process of vermicomposting in this way allows such waste materials to be remediated and the compost used subsequently for use in growing human food without the risk of accumulating heavy metals in crops.

The team says that up to about three-quarters of the various heavy metals can be removed by the worms from solid waste.

The E. eugeniae species was the most effective worm at remediating solid waste and producing rich compost. The team’s tests on vermicomposting reveal that the heavy metal content of such waste can be reduced to levels significantly below the permissible safe limits.

The worms’ digestive system is apparently capable of detaching heavy metal ions from the complex aggregates between these ions and humic substances in the waste as it rots.

Various enzyme-driven process then seem to lead to assimilation of the metal ions by the worms so that they are locked up in the organism’s tissues rather than being released back into the compost as worm casts.

The separation of dead worms from compost is a relatively straightforward process allowing the heavy metal to be removed from the organic waste.

America’s largest bio-agriculture company and the biggest retailer in the country are joining forces, but a happy ending isn’t necessarily in sight. Walmart will soon be stocking their shelves with GMO corn made by Monsanto.

RT – America’s largest bio-agriculture company and the biggest retailer in the country are joining forces, but a happy ending isn’t necessarily in sight. Walmart will soon be stocking their shelves with GMO corn made by Monsanto.

Millions of Americans shop at Walmart, but that doesn’t mean that they all know what they’re getting as they check out in shopping centers across the country. The retail giant says they won’t advertise which of their products are made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, which could become a big problem very soon. Zack Kaldveer explains in an editorial published by the California Progress Report this month that Walmart will soon sell a special factory-made corn manufactured by Monsanto, which while it will allow most of Americans more easy access to affordable food, will also fill them with unknown insecticides: the very GMO crop Walmart will be selling has been genetically engineered to include chemicals right inside the corn.

Voters in California will decide later this year if retailers on the West Coast will be legally bound to correctly label all foodstuffs sold in shopping centers that are made from lab-alerted, genetically modified foods. Notwithstanding that ruling, one of the largest retailers in the world says that they won’t worry about advertising their GMO foods as the product of scientists in the meantime because, simply, they don’t see enough of a reason to do as such.

“After closely looking at both sides of the debate and collaborating with a number of respected food safety experts, we see no scientifically validated safety reasons to implement restrictions on this product,” company representative Dianna Gee tells the Chicago Tribune.

Critics of that stance say that the explanation is flawed, though. With GMOs still being a relatively new science and industry, the true safety of foods made in labs has not been thoroughly tested because the long-lasting effects have yet to be analyzed. That’s why people in California are rallying to pass Proposition 37, a legislation that will require that products sold in the state are labeled as GMOs if they fit the description.

“How would you ever know if there are adverse health effects?” Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at Consumers Union, the policy arm of Consumer Reports, adds to the Tribune. “There has been a doubling of food allergies in this country since 1996. Is it connected to genetically engineered foods? Who knows, when you have no labeling? That is a problem.”

Monsanto, one of the biggest biotech companies in the world, isn’t that okay with efforts to pass the bill, though. They have so far donated hundreds of millions of dollars towards a campaign established to stop the bill, No on 37. But in the latest incident to unfold in the saga, Monsanto isn’t exactly offering suggestions to come to a compromise either.

According to the New York Times, Monsantor Director of Corporate Communications Phil Angel said, ”Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

The FDA, on the other hand, disagrees. California Progress Report reveals that, on the record, the Food and Drug Administration insists, “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.”

Now unless the Proposition 37 passes, Walmart says that they will not go out of their way to inform their customers as to what exactly they are getting either, leaving millions of Americans to shop at the country’s most popular store without being aware of what risks are at hand.

Opponents of the effort to label foods insist that passing Prop 37 will leave America’s agriculture and food shopping economy in shambles because it will scare consumers, though.

“Prop. 37 leaves consumers with the incorrect impression that there is something wrong with GE crops, when that is not true,” No on 37 spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks tells the Associated Press.

Walmart agrees, and now plans on letting all GMOs go onto their shelves unlabeled at the 4,000 or so stores across this country. With Walmart growing from having 6 percent to a full quarter of nationwide grocery sales in just a decade and a half, though, a win for them can eventually mean a loss for anyone in America who is concerned with what’s going into their bodies.

“It’s an epic food fight between the pesticide companies and consumers who want to know what’s in their food,” Yes on 37 media director Stacy Malkan tells the Associated Press,

http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2012/08/21/walmart-sell-monsantos-unlabeled-insecticidelaced-gmo-corn-172051/

Here it is and the only evidence I have seen. I took this video Using a Cannon EOS60D 

Post-2012 Earth Changes A Global Climate Change Remote-Viewing Study Multiple Realities, Timelines, and Events

Introduction: We at The Farsight Institute         are currently engaged in a fascinating study using remote viewing to study climate       and planetary change between the years 2008 and 2013. The initial results appear dramatic on a global scale, and our research does indeed suggest that major global change is a possibility between now and 2013. However, web site visitors are reminded that this is research, not certitude. Remember what Albert Einstein once said, "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?" Web site visitors are encouraged to examine all of our results carefully, and learn with us as we complete this experiment in mid-2013. We will not fully understand these remote-viewing data until the experiment is completed at that time. Importantly, this experiment has no connection with the Mayan Calendar hysteria related to 21 December 2012. This is an experiment that ends on 1 June 2013, and the data will be fully evaluated only after that date. Also, note that these analyses are the product of the Chief Investigator for this project, Courtney Brown. Other investigators using other methods of analyses may analyze these data and come to different conclusions. HRVG and CRV methods of analysis in particular tend to be more nuanced than some of the analyses presented below.

How we obtain these results is a bit complicated, but it is worth the effort to understand our methods. The actual types of global change is discussed in the second part of the video presentation below, but the first part of this presentation is absolutely essential to understand how these results were obtained. Web site visitors should watch both parts of the video presentation. This presentation was given during the 29th Annual Meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration in Boulder, Colorado in June 2010.

This is the most carefully collected set of professional-grade remote-viewing data involving this time span that currently exists. This experiment is potentially one of the most significant experiments ever attempted using remote viewing as a data-collection platform.

Principal Investigator: Courtney Brown Remote Viewers: HRVG viewers led by Glenn Wheaton and CRV viewers led by Lyn Buchanan.

Initial Results:

This project describes change between the years 2008 and 2013 across nine geographical locations with a global spread. The locations are

1. Vaitupu, Tuvalu
2. Fort Jesus, Mombasa Kenya
3. Sydney Opera House, Sydney, Australia
4. Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania
5. United States Congress Building, Washington, D.C.
6. Malé International Airport, Malé, Maldives
7. KITV Building, Honolulu, Hawaii
8. The Vehicle Assembly Building at Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center, Merritt Island, Florida
9. Key West, Florida

In general, these remote-viewing data suggest the following types of physical changes across many of the above geographical locations by mid-2013:

1. Impacts from what appear to be large meteors leading to tsunamis and possible volcanism
2. Extensive and forceful flooding of coastal areas
3. Excessive solar radiation
4. Storms and other severe weather

In terms of the effects of these changes on humans, these data also suggest:

1. Massive self-organized relocation from coastal areas (refugees)
2. The breakdown of rescue or other notable governmental functioning
3. The breakdown of the food supply system
4. The breakdown of the vehicular transport system
5. Extensive loss of buildings near coasts

Oddly, these results largely parallel recent warnings being issued by NASA relating to the dangers of severe solar storms anticipated around the years 2012 and 2013 that would threaten the global long-term use of electricity. NASA is not currently explaining exactly why these unprecedented and severe storms are anticipated, but the warnings themselves could not be more clear. Meteor impacts are not included in the current set of NASA warnings.

For this project, all targets are assigned two timelines for the date 1 June 2013. This allows us to attempt to use remote viewing to describe alternative futures by specifying characteristics of future timelines. Web site visitors who are not familiar with our research into multiple realities might want to view this introductory video presentation on the subject.

The two 2013 timelines examined in this study are

Timeline A: 1 June 2013, 12 noon target local time, following the timeline in which the leadership of the mainstream global scientific establishment continues to ignore or deny (1) the reality of the remote-viewing phenomenon, and (2) the existence of life not originating from Earth. 

Timeline B: 1 June 2013, 12 noon target local time, following the timeline in which by the end of 2009 leaders of the mainstream global scientific establishment publicly recognize (1) the reality of the remote-viewing phenomenon, and (2) the existence of life not originating from Earth.

The results of this study do suggest that there is a difference between the two timelines. These data suggest that the impact of planetary change is less severe for Timeline B as compared with Timeline A. This suggests that having the mainstream scientific community openly acknowledge the reality of remote viewing and life (even microbial) not originating on Earth may help ameliorate the impact of severe planetary change, perhaps by giving people a greater chance to prepare for the changes. The Key West target was added late in the study to explore a timeline in which the scientific community recognizes the reality of remote viewing and the existence of extraterrestrial life by 2011.

Here are links to some of the data and analyses for the current project.

• Remote-viewing sessions for all targets and all dates
• Remote-viewing "Clarity Scores" for the 2008 targets, plus links to session evaluations
• The targets for this study

Speculation

Predicting any event on a single timeline may involve (1) using remote viewing to examine alternate timelines to check for unusual events, and (2) looking for clues in a given present to see if anything that is currently happening suggests that the future events perceived in the alternate timelines might be possible for our most likely future. Thus, if the above results are indeed correct for the two specified timelines (Timelines A and B), then it is natural to ask if the results are relevant for our most likely future timeline. Since it seems likely that major governments would be aware in advance of most near term global threats, then it also seems likely that they would take some actions that would reflect their anticipation of those events. These actions would likely not be explained to the masses to avoid panic. Below is a list of largely anomalous governmental actions that may indicate an awareness of a near term global threat that is suggested by these remote-viewing data. Again, these are only speculations, none of which "prove" anything. But considered collectively, they are exceptionally odd.

1. The U.S. Space Shuttle will launch its last mission in mid-2011. At that time, NASA is entirely abandoning its government-funded manned spaceflight program. Given the investment that the U.S. has made in launching humans into space since the 1960s, this is odd, especially since private efforts to launch humans into space are years away, and currently unproven. It is as if the government does not anticipate being able to launch humans into space in the near future for reasons not currently stated.
2. The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is being sealed in 2011. This will allow the world to restart agriculture given a global catastrophe. The United Nations formally inspected the facility, which might seem odd for a Norwegian project. The timing of this project seems like a strange coincidence.
3. U.S. and global debt. It is as if various governments are not expecting to have to pay back their debts, perhaps anticipating a global economic reset due to reasons not currently stated.
4. The devaluing of the U.S. dollar seems to be a trend that will stay. Moody, Standard and Poor, and Fitch have announced that they may be devaluing the rating of U.S. Treasury bonds (see NY Times article, 15 March 2010, as well as the editorial on 20 March 2010), and there have been discussions within the United Nations of the International Monetary Fund phasing out its dependency on the U.S. dollar. The governments seem to be acting as if the U.S. dollar will be replaced as the global currency.
5. Digging, digging is everywhere. The U.S. has no nuclear enemies, yet it is digging huge underground facilities in inhospitable regions difficult for the masses to reach. Why? On the other hand, the Chinese tend to think collectively, and China is digging extraordinary subway complexes under most of its major cities in a crash program that seems odd in terms of timing and scope. See, for example, the NY Times article by Keith Bradsher, 27 March 2009. Subways are, of course, conveniently located underground tunnels, and such tunnels could house millions of people in an emergency. Russia announced in 2011 that it is adding 5,000 new nuclear bomb shelters in Moscow, enabling it to protect all of Moscow's residents. The program is to be rushed so that it is finished in 2012. Why? Russia has no nuclear enemies. Russia's new subway systems have also been placed deeper than needed so that they can be used as deep emergency shelters. Again, why? Why all these preparations, and why the rush?
6. NASA is now predicting that the Sun may generate unprecedented solar storms for a lengthy period in 2012-13. We cannot accurately predict Earth's normal weather a week in advance, and it is by no means clear how NASA can do this with respect unprecedented weather on the Sun years in advance. They are saying that we are more dependent on vulnerable computer technology now. But we had similar dependencies in 2001 and 1990 when previous 11-year solar cycles hit. What is different about the current cycle? Some might suggest that NASA is acting as if it has some extra information that is not currently stated.

Project Overview for the 1 June 2008 and 1 June 2013 Experiments:

The remote viewers participating in this study have remote viewed various         geographically determined targets during two time periods: 1 June 2008         and 1 June 2013. This five-year gap will allow us to look for planetary         change that may occur over that period. We are also aware that popular         culture views the year 2012 as potentially significant, and some people         may be interested in following our results because of this. (No reason         scientific studies can't be fun!)

From our past research         we know that the future is probabilistic. (See also, the Multiple Universes Project.) If multiple realities emerge from every moment of now, then there is no single future timeline. Thus we hope that by specifying certain timeline conditions with our remote-viewing tasking, it is possible to perceive a specific future (for a specific timeline) correctly.         For this reason, our participating remote viewers have perceived the 2013 targets along two         separate timelines, with each timeline offering the potential for significant         differences in future events given specific possible actions taken by         the mainstream scientific community. Thus, we are hoping to discern what         the future looks like if the mainstream scientific community pursues one         policy as compared with a future in which the mainstream scientific community         pursues a different policy. In the former case, the policy is a continuation         of a current policy. In the latter case, the policy is an alternate policy         that might produce a significantly different future. We are attempting         to learn if the publication of information about two future timelines based on differences in current policies can change the future that our current now evolves into.

The various 2008 targets establish a baseline set of criteria by which         the accuracy of the remote-viewing results in general may be evaluated.         Thus, if the 1 June 2008 targets are perceived accurately by the remote         viewers participating in the study, then it is reasonable to assume that         the results for the future dates for those same targets will be comparably         accurate. Since each geographically determined target is evaluated three         times (once in 2008, and twice in 2013 — once for each future timeline),         there are three times as many total targets as there are geographically         determined targets in this study.

The remote-viewing sessions were conducted prior to the targets         being assigned to those sessions by a truly random process         (explained in "Experiment Details" below as well as in the video presentation that appears at the top of this page) that took place on Wednesday, 4 June 2008. It was not possible for a remote viewer (or anyone else) to know the         identity of a target at the time the target was being remote viewed since the remote-viewing sessions were conducted before 4 June 2008.         Thus, the targets are assigned in the future with respect to when the sessions were done, and the remote-viewing data         describe the future target assignments.

Important Links:

	Here is where you can find links to the remote-viewing sessions, all decrypted and organized for easy viewing.
	Here is where you can read about how the experiment was conducted. You can also see all of the support files that were used for this experiment.