“OUT OF THE BOTTOMLESS PIT”

by S.N.Strutt  © Oct  2014  

 (AVAILABLE as a paper-back and on KINDLE at AMAZON:-

UK    http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00Q7ARAXW

USA  http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00Q7ARAXW

Three types of genetically engineered potatoes have been approved by the U.S.

INTRODUCTION 13/03/17 by S.N.Strutt (Author of this website).

I wrote in great detail about this subject on 03/08/16.

Last year I wrote about how I believed that GENETICALLY ALTERED POTATOES, had given me INTERNAL BLEEDING in the past which had caused very severe ANEMIA and KIDNEY problems. (See below for full original articles)

Since I became aware of this, I have started only using ORGANIC POTATOES, and other vegetables and fruits, and I have stopped being ANAEMIC, and my KIDNES are recovering.

This latest article PROVES that THEY have already been introducing GENETICALLY ALTERED POTATOES for a very long time, and probably since 2001, according to research done by a famous doctor in Edinburgh, Scotland, with whom I have had direct communication.

You can read about it all here below, and how dangerous genetically altered potatoes are & WHY? It is apparently because of their very design,that GENETICALLY ALTERED POTATOES,  are in fact much more dangerous than other vegetables.

PLEASE READ BELOW AND SEE FOR YOURSELVES!

13/03/17

According to federal officials, these three types of genetically engineered potatoes are able to resist the pathogen that caused the Irish potato famine. Officials say that they are safe for the environment and safe to eat, yet there has not been enough testing for this claim to be proven.

 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration gave Idaho-based J.R. Simplot Co. permission to plant the potatoes this spring and sell them in the fall.

 The company claims that the potatoes contain only potato genes and that the resistance to late blight, the disease that caused the Irish potato famine, comes from an Argentine variety of potato that naturally produced a defense.

Changing the genetic code of foods presents ethical and health issues for many people, farmers, and companies alike.

These three new varieties of potato – the Russet Burbank, Ranger Russet, and Atlantic – have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. According to Simplot spokesman Doug Cole, the potatoes have the same taste, texture, and nutritional qualities as conventional potatoes.

The company said these GMO potatoes will have reduced bruising and black spots, enhanced storage capacity and a lower amount of the chemical that is a potential carcinogen.

Potatoes are the fourth staple crop in the world behind corn, rice, and wheat.

The Non-GMO Project, which opposes GMOs and verifies non-GMO food and products, said the new potatoes don’t qualify as non-GMO.

“There is a growing attempt on the part of biotechnology companies to distance themselves from the consumer rejection of GMOs by claiming that new types of genetic engineering … are not actually genetic engineering,” the Washington state-based group said in a statement.

Ariana Marisol is a contributing staff writer for REALfarmacy.com. She is an avid nature enthusiast, gardener, photographer, writer, hiker, dreamer, and lover of all things sustainable, wild, and free. Ariana strives to bring people closer to their true source, Mother Nature. She graduated The Evergreen State College with an undergraduate degree focusing on Sustainable Design and Environmental Science.

GMO'S

HAS MY OWN HEALTH BEEN AFFECTED DIRECTLY BY GMO VEGETABLES? © By S.N.Strutt  04/08/16 (Abbreviated version. Scroll down for complete report)

ABOUT 4 YEARS AGO, I WAS SUDDENLY ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL WITH VERY SEVERE ANAEMIA, FROM WHICH I ALMOST DIED.

I RECEIVED 4 BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND STAYED ONE WEEK IN HOSPITAL.

Many tests were done on me, including internal cameras looking at my stomach wall and intestines.

The doctors were trying to understand why I had severe anaemia (not usual for men), and I was told that I had lesions in my stomach.

The consultant doctor of the hospital told me that I was haemoraging internally, but that he did not know what was causing it.

TO THOSE WHO ARE STILL LISTENING CONCERNING GMO POTATOES, AND OTHER CROPS:-

I DON'T LIKE WHAT I AM DISCOVERING ABOUT MODERN POTATOES, TOMATOES & OTHER VEGETABLES, (WHICH WE THINK ARE OK), BUT ARE ACTUALLY GMO's!

THAT IS A REAL SHAME, BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS JUST LOVED POTATOES & TOMATOES!

I WILL NOW HAVE TO SCRAP MOST OF THE POTATOES THAT WE PLANTED THIS YEAR AS EVIDENCE IS NOW PROVING THAT CONTRARY TO MOST OFFICIAL STORIES, MANY OF THE POTATO PLANTS ARE IN FACT GENETICALLY ALTERED, AND IN PARTICULAR THE ONES WHOSE FLOWERS DON'T FALL OFF SO EASILY!

THESE LILAC & YELLOW POTATO FLOWERS IN THIS PHOTO, ARE IDENTICAL TO SOME OF THOSE IN OUR GARDEN, & MOST LIKELY ARE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED, WITHOUT FARMERS OR INDIVIDUAL GROWERS, EVEN KNOWING ABOUT IT. I AM GETTING RID OF OURS!

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING REVEALING REPORT BY THE SOIL ASSOCIATION IN THE UK & ESPECIALLY POINTS 5-7 ABOUT THE DANGERS OF GMO VEGETABLES & THE DAMAGE THEY DO TO THE GUT!

Briefing: Summary of the risks of GM potatoes

Soil Association (UK) briefing on GM potatoes
Fuente: http://www.soilassociation.org

Below is information on the risks of GM potatoes. This includes a summary from the report by the National Pollen Research Unit and other information on the risks of GM contamination of normal non-GM crops. Also evidence of health problems.

SUMMARY

- there would be no market for GM potatoes in the UK ·the major food retailers rejected GM potatoes in the US in 2002, including McDonalds, Burger King, McCain’s and Pringles. The British Retail Consortium has said UK supermarkets won’t be stocking GM potatoes.

- given that potatoes are a staple food, consumed fresh, and considered wholesome, there would be little or no desire to eat them ·any contamination would be much more serious as it would result in whole potatoes being GMOs, as opposed to some GM presence in a quantity of grain

- with potatoes, there is less direct risk of contamination of non-GM crops via cross-pollination than with GM grain and oilseed crops, as potatoes are tubers, not seeds

- however, there is still a risk of contamination from cross-pollination in later years via potato volunteers

- cross-pollination seems to be much greater when the GM and non-GM varieties are different and when the main pollinator is the pollen beetle, which travels far

- a study found the cross-pollination level was 31% at 1km from the GM crop

- blight resistant GM potato varieties pose much more of a risk of contamination as the flowering tops are less likely to be removed

- the NPRU has recommended a separation distance of 500m

- there are major health concerns, as two animal feeding trials, one funded by the UK Government, found GM potatoes cause lesions in the gut of animals

1. General

Potatoes are a staple food in the UK, and the fourth largest staple food in the world. Originally from South America, they have been grown in the UK for 300 years. Each person eats about 100kg per year, equivalent to 820 medium-sized potatoes. Potatoes are also used for industrial purposes, as a source of starch. The total area of potato production in the UK was 137,000t in 2005, of which 1,805t were organic (1.3% of the total area). Many varieties are grown in the UK.

2. Scientific evidence on the risks of contamination

The NPRU report on pollen dispersal reviewed the scientific literature on pollen transfer ("Pollen dispersal in the crops maize, oil seed rape, sugar beet and wheat", by Dr Treu and Prof. Emberlin, January 2000, commissioned by the Soil Association):

- the NPRU recommended a separation distance of 500m (in contrast with the proposal by Defra in August 2006 of no separation, their ‘co-existence’ paper)

- potatoes are an annual plant. The commercial crop is produced from ‘seed’ tubers, not true seeds. There are no sizeable seed producing areas in the UK.

- potatoes both self- and cross-pollinate. Cross-pollination rates are estimated to range from 0-20%

- cross-pollination is mainly by insects, mainly bumblebees - which tend to travel short distances, but can be by pollen beetles - which can fly far. The pollen beetle is “very common” in England

- ·potatoes pose a relatively low risk of cross-pollination because (i) potatoes are not grown from seeds but from tubers, which are clones of individuals of the desired variety, and (ii) the harvested crop is the tuber which is not affected by any cross-pollination

- however, potatoes produce volunteers, called ‘ground keepers’, and these pose a risk of GM contamination of non-GM crops in following years.

- importantly, the risk of cross-fertilisation is increased if (i) the GM and non-GM varieties are different but flower at the same time; (ii) if the varieties are blight resistant as the GM crop is more likely to be left flowering; or (iii) when the main pollinator is the pollen beetle, not bumblebees

- many varieties rarely produce berries as they are male sterile, but several modern varieties can produce very large numbers, each containing 400 seeds

- seed can survive seven years in southern England. When seeds grow, they mature into full potato plants, producing normal tubers, in the second year

- one study (Skogsmyr, 1994) found very high rates of cross-pollination between a GM variety (a version of Desiree) and a different non-GM variety (Stina), of 36% at 100m and 31% at 1km. This indicates that still considerable rates of cross-pollination would be occurring at greater distances. These high rates were attributed to the fact that higher levels of cross-pollination often occur between different varieties in outbreeding plants, and because the main pollinator in this case was probably the pollen beetle.

- two other studies found low levels of cross-pollination. It was assumed that this was partially because the main pollinator was bumblebees. In one study (McPartlan and Dale, 1994), the rates were 2% at 3m and 0.017% at 10m; the low rate was probably also because the GM and non-GM varieties were the same (Desiree). In the other (Tynan et al, 1990), the rate was 0.05% at 4.5m; a ‘wild type’ variety was used; the low rate of cross- pollination was probably also because the GM and non-GM varieties appeared to have a different flowering time.

- but these rates are probably considerable underestimates as these three studies were all only on a research plot scale, not using agricultural scale fields which would normally produce much higher rates of cross-pollination

- ‘relic’ potato plants from earlier crops can be found and persist on tips, waste grounds and fields

- potatoes are not interfertile with other crop or wild species

Defra has also considered the contamination risks from GM potato crops[1]:

- the main risk of GM potatoes is from cross-pollination of non-GM crops and GM volunteers appearing in later seasons: “the recipient plant will … produce GM hyrids, which means that GM volunteers may be created. It is
possible that over time there could be some limited GM transfer between farms via the development and persistence of GM volunteers.”

Comment
The NPRU says “the role of the pollen beetle in long distance distribution of potato pollen is in need of further research”. Further research into the significance of wind pollination in long range dispersal is also suggested.

3. Agricultural practices affecting the risk of GM contamination

- many different potato varieties are grown in the UK

- potatoes flower at similar times to the time when the tubers are being produced

- to prevent fungal ‘blight’ damage to the plant from affecting the growth of the potato tubers, farmers usually defoliate the plants, removing the flowering heads and green leaves (done with acids or, among organic farmers, mechanically or with flame-weeders). This is done at flowering or soon after. So, flowering is common, even if not present in most fields and generally only for short periods.

- after the defoliation, the crop is left for a few weeks to let the potato skins ‘set’

- however, the defoliation itself affects tuber growth, so farmers prefer to leave the green tops if they can. They are therefore more likely to leave the flowers if the varieties are blight resistant. This means that blight resistant GM varieties pose a higher risk of flowering presence, cross-pollinating and producing seed volunteers are usually controlled with herbicides but, according to Defra, “it is not possible to guarantee the complete elimination of volunteers”

- also, not every potato tuber will be removed from the ground

4. Organic potato production techniques

Organic farmers primarily control crop pests and disease with natural processes, including healthy soils, crop rotations and by encouraging natural predators. Blight in potatoes is one of the very few crop diseases where
such management techniques are not wholly effective, and instead late blight in organic farming is controlled by copper sprays. Copper is a naturally occurring element and many soils are deficient in it. The amounts used are
limited to 6kg/ha per year and it does not build up in the soil, due to the crop rotations. The copper is sprayed onto the plant’s leaves and does not end up in the potatoes, unlike the pesticides used in non-organic farming which
are found in a quarter of potatoes and may pose a risk to human health.

5. Development of GM potato varieties

The German chemicals group BASF has developed a blight resistant GM potato. It is currently trialling them in Germany, Netherlands and Sweden and has applied to Defra for approval to carry out two 1ha trials in the England in spring 2007 (one in Derbyshire and one in Cambridgeshire). After 3-4 years, they intend to seek permission to grow and sell the potatoes in Britain. The potatoes contain two genes from a wild Mexican potato.

According to BASF, the GM variety would reduce the number of fungicide sprays from about 15 per season to just a couple. These would be the first GM trials in the UK since the end of the farm-scale trails in 2003. BASF has also applied for EU approval for a potato that is rich in a type of starch used in the paper industry; it hopes for approval later this year.

GM potatoes are unnecessary and are unlikely to deliver significant environmental benefits. Only 1,300t of the 12,000t of pesticide used on potatoes in the UK are fungicides, so it seems that at most they could reduce
pesticide use by 10%.

Conventional breeding of existing varieties is making progress in developing blight resistant varieties. These are being developed and trialled for use in organic farming. Using old Hungarian varieties, Sarpo Mirea and Axona,
potato grower Dr David Shaw has developed blight resistant red varieties with a high dry content, suitable for chips and baking, and he is looking into a variety suitable for salads.

6.Commercial experience of GM potatoes

In the US, attempts at selling GM potatoes failed after being rejected by major food companies, including McDonald's, Burger King, McCain's and Pringles[2]. There are no GM potatoes sold in the US now. On the radio
programme, Farming Today, on 24 August 2005, Andrew Opie of the British Retail Consortium, representing supermarkets, said, “We won’t be stocking GM potatoes for the conceivable future ... The fact is people remain
suspicious of GM”. (Comment by Steve 05/08/16 Well a lot has changed since 2005 and GMO's are now extensively used and promoted in agriculture)

7. Health problems with GM potatoes

There is a major concern that GM potatoes pose a risk to human health. There are many serious concerns about GMOs in general, most of which would apply to GM potatoes. However, there is a particular concern with GM potatoes as for several years there has been evidence indicating that they could cause haemorrhages.

Feeding trials by two scientific teams found that GM potatoes cause lesions in the gut wall of rats and mice[3]. Both studies were published in scientific journals. One was a controlled UK Government funded study, peer reviewed
and published in the Lancet, the most respectable medical journal, in October 1999 (Ewen and Pusztai, 1999). The editor said the paper “deserved further scientific attention.”

HAS MY OWN HEALTH BEEN AFFECTED DIRECTLY BY GMO VEGETABLES?

 By S.N.Strutt  04/-8/16 (Full report version)

ABOUT 4 YEARS AGO, I WAS SUDDENLY ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL WITH VERY SEVERE ANAEMIA, FROM WHICH I ALMOST DIED.

I RECEIVED 4 BLOOD TRANSFUSIONS, AND STAYED ONE WEEK IN HOSPITAL.

Many tests were done on me, including internal cameras looking at my stomach wall and intestines.

The doctors were trying to understand why I had severe anaemia (not usual for men), and I was told that I had lesions in my stomach.

The consultant doctor of the hospital told me that I was haemoraging internally, but that he did not know what was causing it.

He stated that over time, it would cause severe blood loss and sever anaemia- CAUSE UNKNOWN.

Well, I have been treating my ANAEMIA naturally with natural IRON pills daily, but I know that the ROOT cause of my problem has not yet been fixed.

I get anaemia IF I don't take a lot of IRON pretty quickly.

After reading about GM vegetables, and my personal liking potatoes so much, I am wondering if it has been GMO potatoes and tomatoes which have caused my internal bleeding and resultant anaemia?!

The only way to find out for sure, is if I stop eating all non-organic potaoes and tomatoes and only eat ORGANIC for 6 months, and see if the ANAEMIA totally disappears.

WATCH THIS SPACE OVER THE NEXT 6 MONTHS AND I WILL GIVE MY ASSESSMENT ABOUT GMO VEGETABLES & THE PROBABLE SERIOUS DAMAGE DONE TO ME PERSONALLY.

The biotechnology industry reacted very aggressively and tried to mobilise the scientific community to undermine the credibility of the work.

However, no further work has been undertaken since which could in any way suggest that the finding was wrong. Moreover, the credibility of the findings is supported by the fact that similar effects have been found with GM tomatoes in two US feeding trials, which found that GM tomatoes cause lesions in the
gut wall of rats.[4]


GA, 24.8.2006, GM briefing 23

[1] “Consultation on proposals for managing the co-existence of GM, conventional and organic crops”, July 2006

[2] "GE crops - increasingly isolated awareness and rejection grow", Greenpeace International, briefing, March 2002

[3] Ewen and Pusztai, “Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine”, The Lancet, 354, 1353-1354, 1999; A. Pusztai, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food?” Nutr. Health, 16, 73-84; Fares, N.H. and El-Sayed, A.K., “Fine structural changes in the ileum of mice fed on endotoxin-treated potatoes and transgenic potatoes.” Natural Toxins, 6, 219-233, 1998.

[4] Unpublished studies carried out for Calgene and at the request of the FDA respectively, in early 1990s, in reviewed “Food safety – contaminants and toxins”, CABI Publishing, 2003.

WEB SOURCE:- (http://webs.chasque.net/~rapaluy1/transgenicos/Papa/GM_potatoes.html) The origin of the article was:- http://www.soilassociation.org 

(COMMENT by Steve 03/08/16.) When I tried to contact this website:- http://www.soilassociation.org    it was no longer available. I have no exact date for when the above article was written, but I suspect that it was written before 2009. From what I can gather so far, prior to 2013 there was a lot more information available about the DANGERS of GMO's

It would definitely seem that those in favour of GMO's are burying the information, like the above article.

You would almost think that it is being covered-up deliberately!

What is the real agenda behind all this GMO cover-up? 

(Steve: My e-mail is : strangetruths@outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk)

 OFFICIAL POSITION  CONCERNING GMO's?

SOURCE: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food)

Genetically modified foods or GM foods, also genetically engineered foods, are foods produced from organisms that have had changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering techniques allow for the introduction of new traits as well as greater control over traits than previous methods such as selective breeding and mutation breeding.[1]

Commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its unsuccessful Flavr Savr delayed-ripening tomato.[2][3] Most food modifications have primarily focused on cash crops in high demand by farmers such as soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil. Genetically modified crops have been engineered for resistance to pathogens and herbicides and for better nutrient profiles. GM livestock have been developed, although as of November 2013 none were on the market.[4]

There is a scientific consensus[5][6][7][8] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[9][10][11][12][13] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[14][15][16] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[17]

 UPDATE

31/07/16  by S.N.Strutt

PLEASE SEE MY ORIGINAL STORY ABOUT "STRANGE POTATO FRUITS" IN OUR GARDEN by scrolling down this page-Thanks.

From my observations in our own garden with so-called "Potato Fruits" which are so rare that one famer stated that her & her husband had not seen the phenomenon in 40 years of farming potatoes and tomatoes!!?

The so-called potato fruits in out garden are only growing on the non-organic potatoes, which we bought in the supermarket.

One person stated that when he tasted a "potato fruit" that it tasted of a tomato, but that it was very bitter, which one would expect now, knowing that it is in fact poisonous.

Why did it taste like a tomato, if it is only a so-called "potato fruit"?

Here are their exact words & the source of the information:-

"One other thing…  In case anyone is curious…  I did taste them.  I knew that the potato is a nightshade, so I only took a small bite.  Moderation is the key, right?  I found them to be quite similar in texture to a tomato, but they are VERY bitter. From now on, I think I’ll stick with the tomato!"- SOURCE:-(http://tinyfarmblog.com/potato-fruit/) 

OBSERVATION by Steve: 01/08/16

Today in taking a photo of the following cluster of 7 "potato fruits" on one potato plant in our garden, 3 of them easily fell off without any resistance. Obviously these "potato fruits are being rejected by nature because they are poisonous.

PHOTO:   7 potato fruits on a cluster on one of our potato plants (UPDATE 15/09/17: My own photos have been forcibly removed from this website w/o my permission !)

 The following photo is of a typical tomato plant and its tomatoes:-

PHOTO: Tomatoes from our garden-Steve 01/08/16

It has been stated that even just grafting a tomato with a potato is not a good idea, as the inherent poisons, sometimes associated with potatoes, when they are found green, could easily be transmitted to the tomatoes.

Those for grafting the tomato with the potato, are stating that the genetics of the tomato and potato are almost the same, and that the flowers are the same.

I beg to differ. The flowers are actually totally different from each other in shape, size and colour! See below:-

The purple flower is from the potato. The  yellow flower from a tomato. They are clearly not the same!

One gardener stated: "Usually, potato flowers just drop off"

WOW! See the purple flower from the potato in our garden in the photo above? Well it isn't rare anymore as very single potato plant next to it is covered in purple flowers.

I will add a photo of this later, as it very unusual, as the flowers are flourishing, and if pollinated, it will mean a lot more dangerous "potato fruits" in our small garden.YIKES! Our granddaughter is coming for a stay next month, so we had better be CAREFUL about those so-called "potato fruits".

CONCLUSIONS about the so-called "Potato Fruit" and the experimental TOMTATO.

..which was largely advertised in 2013 in the UK, but has since disappeared....

The information officially given about the very rare "potato fruit" being quite normal and caused by certain rare climatic conditions, and when the potato flower gets pollinated on a rare occasion, simply does not face the light of investigation.

The pollination of potato plants, like any other plants should produce more of the same i.e potatoes, and not some strange "potato fruits" or bitter and poisonous tomatoes!

I could be wrong, but it sounds more like a GMO experiment gone WRONG!

I will write more about this. I received a letter from a professor in genetics,to whom I reported the strange so-called "potato fruits", & who has encouraged me to tell the public about the fact & that in the USA today 70% of all of our food is now GMO. 

You can see the professor's letter to me from yesterday, if you scroll-down on this page.

GENETIC TAMPERING HAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN INVOLVED, & THOSE BEHIND IT ARE SIMPLY TRYING TO COVER THEIR TRACKS, & THE RESULT IS PROBABLY THAT WE PERMANENTLY HAVE POISONOUS SO-CALLED "POTATO FRUITS" WHICH ARE DANGEROUS ENOUGH TO KILL SOMEONE!

WATCH OUT IF YOU HAVE KIDS, THAT THEY DON'T PLAY WITH, OR EAT THE SO-CALLED "POTATO FRUITS" THEY CAN KILL YOU!

I WONDER WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO GREW THE TOMTATO BACK IN 2013? PLEASE LET ME KNOW!  

My e-mail is : strangetruths@outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk

PLEASE PASS ON THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO EVERYONE WHO CAN HANDLE IT!

TomTato, Tomato-Potato Plant, Now Available (VIDEO) 27/09/2013

We’re all about combining potatoes and tomatoes together when cooking — but the development of a new plant, the TomTato, has us a little weirded out. The TomTato, now available in the U.K., is a tomato and potato plant in one. Both the tomatoes and potatoes ripen at the same time.

Thompson & Morgan, the horticulture company behind the TomTato, says the the tomatoes are sweeter than most supermarket varieties. The TomTato is not genetically modified — it is a grafted plant, meaning that tissue from one plant is attached to tissue from another.

A different version called the Potato Tom, made by another company, is available in New Zealand starting in October.

The TomTato lasts only one season.

Correction: An earlier version of this article referred to the plant as a hybrid. It is technically a grafted plant, not a hybrid. SOURCE:- (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/tomtato_n_4003791.html)

COMMENTS by S.N.Strutt: 29/07/16

THAT VIDEO WAS FROM 2013.
BUT WHAT HAS HATCHED FROM THEIR HYBRID EXPERIMENTS, SINCE 2013?
I WILL INVESTIGATE MORE, AS IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, MIXING A TOMATO PLANT WITH A POTATO PLANT, MIGHT HAVE ALREADY CAUSED SOME SERIOUS PROBLEMS, AND SIDE EFFECTS BY 2016.
Here is one comment by a fellow gardener from 2013:- "DO NOT GRAFT TOMATO TO POTATO BECAUSE THE ALKLOID POISON TRANSFERS AND YOU WILL GET SICK IF NOT DEAD! LOOK IT UP." source:- (http://tinyfarmblog.com/potato-fruit/)

STEVE 30/07/16 :- I WILL KEEP YOU POSTED ON MY WEBSITE ABOUT THIS INTERESTING, IMPORTANT AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS MATTER.
WATCH OUT ABOUT POTATO FRUITS DEVELOPING IN YOUR GARDENS!
ESPECIALLY KEEP CHILDREN AWAY FROM THOSE SO-CALLED "POTATO FRUITS", WHICH ARE PROBABLY A VERY NEW DEVELOPMENT, AS THEY CAN KILL, AND ARE DEADLY POISONOUS!

Direct link:-http://www.outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk/421556550

UPDATE  28/07/16

Steve: My  wife and I, have planted potatoes for many years, and this is the first time that we have encountered what look like tomatoes growing on a potato plant, but we have been told today 28/07/16, by a friend, that these "tomatoes" seemingly growing on the potatoes, are in fact called a "potato fruit".
They are classified as being a rare phenomenon, and the fruits are in fact  POISONOUS.
My question would now be WHY does a potato have to produce a poisonous POTATO FRUIT,(which look like tomatoes) and only happen on  a rare ocassion, unless there is something WRONG with the soil, rain, air or climate?
Perhaps plants try to get rid of POISONS when there are too much of them in their immediate environment. I notice that the ORGANIC potatoes are NOT growing "potato fruits" only the ones from the supermarket.
WARNING:- "Potato fruits or berries, are a member of the poisonous nightshade family.  Potato berries should not be eaten. All green parts of the potato plant contain toxic glycoalkaloid compounds that can cause headaches, diarrhea, cramps, and in severe cases, coma and death.

Potato fruit

Here’s something I haven’t seen before in my, uh, six years of growing potatoes: green, tomato-like, walnut-sized potato fruit. Bob hadn’t seen ’em either, in 40 plus years of farming. I hit the web for education.

These are genuine fruit, but not that common. Usually, potato flowers just drop off. When fruit do form, they’re more likely found on certain varieties, like Yukon Gold. This year, there were fruit on just about every Chieftain plant, here and there on the Kennebec, and none that I noticed on the Yukon Gold…

Each fruit contains 300-500 seeds that don’t come true: planting them doesn’t result in the same potatoes as the parent plant, there’s lots of genetic variation. Potato breeders plant out thousands of seeds, check out the results, then keep replanting the most desirable potatoes for many years or so to get new commercial varieties—apparently, this is the way new potatoes are bred.

Meanwhile, it apparently only takes only two seasons and one generation to breed genetically stable new potatoes, so for the small farm or home garden, as opposed to the big potato breeder, this seems like a viable way to go. Harvest seed one season—you can hand-pollinate to cross two varieties—plant out the next and select your favorites. Those tubers should be stable and ready to go, you just have to build up a quantity, which takes another season, unless you need hardly any at all!

And, the fruit are poisonous, rich in solanine, not for eating (potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant and tobacco are all members of the “deadly nightshade” family, all prone to having toxic parts). Interesting!

Since they suddenly appeared this year on two varieties, I’d guess it was about the weather!

SOURCE:- (http://tinyfarmblog.com/potato-fruit/)

COMMENT SEND TO ME BY A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IN THE UK:- (28/07/16)

"About 3 years ago they released a cross spliced potato/tomato plant
spuds below ground tomatos above
and they were released for global public sale
the 2 plants ARE RELATED as solanum speciesso splicing one to other wasnt hard or requiring GM tech.
Having said that in the case that you are reporting: You might have managed the progeny doing what they didnt expect.
SCREWING WITH MOTHER NATURE CAN CAUSE VERY UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES!"

Genetically Engineered Foods

Genetically Engineered Potatoes

25/07/16

Arpad Pusztai, a genetic scientist working at the Rowett Research Institute in Scotland was very pro GE. In 1998, he set up a 3 year $1.6 million study to test the effects of genetically altered foods on rats, His study included rats feeding on three different types of potatoes as follows:

1) regular non-GE potatoes

2) Genetically altered potatoes (the potatoes were spliced with a snowdrop lectin) the lectin was believed to make the plant toxic to insects.

3) the third group of potatoes were regular potatoes mixed with the same lectin - but not genetically engineered lectin

Out of the three groups of rats, only the group feeding on GE potatoes suffered ill effects. In ten days all their organs reduced in weight, signaling a compromised immune system. Also they suffered from viral infections of the stomach lining.

Prior to his own research Dr. Pusztai was a proponent of GE; he fully expected his research to give GE a clean bill of health. After evaluating ten days of the much longer study, he went on a TV show and told of his research and misgivings. Within 48 hours, Dr. Pusztai was relieved of his long-standing post at the Rowett Research Institute, denied access to his research and put under a gag order. You may well ask, what could keep him from talking - why was he successfully gagged? Because the Institute also threatened to fire his research team. Now, of course, the Dr. has retrieved his research documents and is talking through lectures all over the world. This is only one of too few "independent research" studies that have been conducted and which suggest that GE food is dangerous to human health.

It is very difficult to get the truth out when the very institution that authorizes the research, because of not liking the results, tries to suppress it.

One of the facts of life in our times is that many Institutions which are supposed to conduct "independent research" are really beholden to the private industries which fund them. This has happened in our landgrant universities where these universities have contracted partnerships with private industry. How can we rely on research data to be made public when and if the results of that research may go against what the private industry partners are promoting? Honesty, integrity and transparency seem to get lost in these kinds of arrangements.

You can read more about Arpad Pusztai by putting his name into a Google search. There is also more information on my website: www.rawfoodinfo.com  both in the Articles section under Biotechnology and in the links section under Genetic Engineering.

In 1989 a genetically engineered batch of L-tryptophan* sold in the US by a Japanese company, Showa Denko, caused the death of dozens of people, and the permanent disability of 1500. 5000 people were affected. This only occurred with the genetically modified version, yet ALL L-tryptophan was taken off the market. The genetic engineering of L-tryptophan produced a toxin - an unexpected occurrence. Had there been testing done prior to this occurrence, the deaths and disabilities could have been avoided.

* L-tryptophan is a naturally occurring amino acid.

A very strong thread throughout your letter is the conviction that somehow people will starve around the world if GE is not allowed to proceed. Research available on yield, quite the opposite, shows that the yield is DECREASED in GE plants. A 2-year study out of the University of Nebraska on Round Up Ready soybeans, showed conclusively that yield was reduced. High yielding conventional soybeans produced 57.7 bushels per acre, while GE soybeans produced 52 bushels per acre, a substantial reduction. At the same time herbicide usage was increased. Genetically engineered Round Up Ready soybeans are engineered to resist herbicides. Specifically, the Round Up Ready Herbicide is also sold by Monsanto, the same company that is selling the GE seed. When these herbicides are applied, all surrounding plant life (weeds) and the attendant life that lives and feeds on these plants is killed. Only the target plant is allowed to live. In this sense GE is a culture of death and destruction. True organic agriculture understands and works with surrounding plant life (weeds). Weeds in cohabitation with target plants assist them in many beneficial ways; breaking up hardpans with their stronger root systems; bringing moisture up to the surface and recycling nutrients when applied as mulch, and also as a mulch, reducing water needs.

Researchers say that yield is reduced in GE plants because the alteration of the genome in a plant or organism causes a destabilization of the entire organism. The plant is not functioning at its optimum level, and yield is reduced. The same destabilization also causes a reduction of nutrient values.

So far all independent research substantiates this reduction in yield and nutrient values.

The biotechnology industry has launched a 250 million advertising campaign to convince the American people of the {dubious} benefits of GE. Probably your belief that we need these foods to feed the starving people in the world were garnered from PR input. Not all the money is spent on ads - some of it is spent in strategically placed propaganda which looks like science.

One thing that you can be sure of is that within the scientific community there is no agreement or consensus as to the safety of GE foods.

Two more points I will mention before I end. For those who choose to be a vegetarian, how can their choice be respected if we allow the splicing of animal and insect genes into plants and then do not tell them about it through labeling?

And lastly, in Nature's wondrous system, pollen goes forth through wind, insects and bees to fertilize and even spontaneously hybridize new plants with a plant's close relatives in the weedy community. This has been a form of evolution for plants. But in all the eons of our earth, Nature never, ever crossed a fish gene with a tomato or a rat gene into a broccolini plant because Nature has placed barriers, natural constraints, that do not allow this to happen. Now, all of a sudden, in what is surely an affront to the integrity of Nature, we are allowing the crossing of all kinds of organisms.

You finished your letter with the question of choice. You said that we have the same choice as the farmers who plant GE.

I choose to be an organic farmer. If my neighbor plants GE across the way from me, and our plants come to flower at the same time, my organic plants will be contaminated with his GE organisms. How does that give me the choice that I need to be organic? This has happened already and many organic farmers in the midwest can no longer call themselves organic through no fault of their own. GE technology is a form of trespass onto another's property and essentially denies them the right to harvest the plant of their choice. In the upside down world that we live in - farmers are being sued because they are growing GE plants (that they never planted) because of this contamination process. The Monsanto's and other biotech corporations are suing the farmers because they say the farmers stole their patented technology, when in reality the biotech corporation's GE technology has been the trespasser and stolen the farmer's land and denied him the right to grow the plant of his choice on his own land. An unhappy state of affairs.

I note that you are a gardener, so perhaps you understand the unfairness of this. GE plants, if they are to be grown at all, should be grown in contained environments - biospheres and such - so that their pollen cannot contaminate the entire countryside.

I hope that I have been able to give you at least some food for further thought and deliberation.

Respectfully,

Rhio
Rhio's Raw Energy
www.rawfoodinfo.com  

************************************************************

LETTER sent by S.N.Strutt 25/07/16

To Rhio
Rhio's Raw Energy
www.rawfoodinfo.com 

I just read the following very interesting article on your website:- http://www.all-creatures.org/cb/a-gefood-potato.html

I wanted to ask you about genetically altered POTATOES.

Why? Well today something odd happened in our garden.

Maybe it is nothing, but I would like to have a professional opinion, as to what we are dealing with, as I have never heard of such a thing before!

For years my wife and I, have planted tomatoes and potatoes and other vegetables like nearly every other gardener.

This year something is just NOT RIGHT!

In June we planted some potatoes that were bought at the ORGANIC FARM here in the UK. However, we also planted some of the naturally sprouting bags of potatoes that we had bought at LIDL. 

HERE IS THE STRANGE THING:-

Today when looking at the large coverage of potato plants, I noticed to my great surprise, that what looked like tomatoes were growing on the stems of the some of the potato plants. This is not something that I have ever heard of; and there is nothing on the web, that directly talks about such a possibility.

I have photographed the tomatoes which are growing of the potato plant, and put a real home grown tomato alongside it. They are NOT similar. The "tomato" growing on the potato plant has no seeds in it, and is darker in colour.

I have not yet checked whether the same potato plant that is growing tomatoes, is also growing potatoes underground, as it is too early normally for that, but I could check if it becomes necessary.

 What are we dealing with here?

It makes me want to only buy ORGANIC VEGETABLES both for planting and eating.

It would seem that GMO's have totally screwed up the vegetables and crops all around us here in Scotland and elsewhere.

It would be good to hear what you think on this matter.

Best Wishes,

Looking forward to hearing from you.

S.N.Strutt

E-mail:   strangetruths@outoffthebottomlesspit.co.uk

ANSWER from Rhio's Raw Energy
www.rawfoodinfo.com 30/07/16

Hi, Stephen:

Thanks for writing AND I certainly do hope you start writing about the dangers of these untested, unlabeled GMOs that are now in over 2/3rds of the foods on America's grocery store shelves.

 Though some time ago, you might find info on our web site of interest:

http://www.all-creatures.org/cb/a-grandmoms.html

 Gerry

I had the pleasure of speaking at a World Vegetarian Congress held at Edinburgh University several years ago.

 BACKGROUND INFORMATION about:Gerry Coffey, CAJA: Court Appointed Juvenile Advocate

Health Educator/Councilor/Global Media Liaison, IVU

M.O.W.W. Deputy Director: YOUTH LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE

Coffey Break: A Healthy Alternative: www.all-creatures.org/cb/

Recipient: Int'l. Vegetarian-of-the-Year-Award, Bangkok, Thailand, 

http://www.all-creatures.org/cb/images/Resume-GerryCoffey08-15-2012.pdf

"The day we stop learning we stop living."

*************************************************************

I left the following COMMENT on another website today:- (http://iceagenow.info/huge-huge-girder-placement-machine-video/#comment-352719) about STRANGE HYBRIDS: 27/07/16

GENETICALLY ALTERED CROPS

"Dear Robert,
Again on this occasion, what I am going to tell you, is not about GLOBAL COOLING, but it is definitely to do with GENETICALLY ALTERED CROPS.

Something very strange has just happened in our garden, which I have put on my website. I have already sent the information to a genetics expert here in Scotland, as what we are seeing in our garden should be impossible!
What is it? See on my website how that POTATOES that we planted in our garden 6 weeks ago, are growing some sort of strange TOMATOES, on stems hanging down on the stalks of the of the potatoes. I have never seen anything like this, and I know that many scientific people go on your website. If anyone can explain this strange phenomenon, how a planted potato can yield tomatoes, my wife and I would very much appreciate it.

Here is the LINK on my website:- http://www.outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk/421556550

E-mail: strangetruths@outofthebottomlesspit.co.uk

I will also post more photos of this strange phenomenom shortly.

If potatoes planted in the ground can yield tomatoes, what is next?

I bought those potatoes in LIDL, and would  normally have eaten them, but they were budding, so I put them in the ground, and 6 weeks later they have produced tomatoes of a strange kind!?

Has to be some sort of GMO abberation.

WHAT will GMO’S do next to our crops?"

THE ULTIMATE HYBRID WILL INVOLVE MAN HIMSELF (08/08/16)

(From my book “OUT OF THE BOTTOMLESS PIT”   DIRECT LINK TO THE SPECIAL VERSION OF MY BOOK IS :-http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00Q7ARAXW) 

INTRODUCTION      July 9th 2016    by S.N.Strutt

 Last month, (scroll down) on this website, I stated that I would investigate, if it was true that we used to have a lot more oxygen in our atmosphere in the past, and that "lack of OXYGEN" could possibly be the cause of many modern sicknesses or at the very least exacerbating the conditons?

Well I certainly found plenty of shocking evidence, that the OXYGEN LEVELS on our planet are decreasing at an alarming & dangerous rate, whilst foolish GLOBAL WARMISTS worry about insignificant CO2 (0.02% of the atmospheric gases, compared to 19+% Oxygen, which you will see is dangerously LOW!) See for yourselves in the following comprehensive article on the topic by expert Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising

Implications for Climate Change Policies

New research shows oxygen depletion in the atmosphere accelerating since 2003, coinciding with the biofuels boom; climate policies that focus exclusively on carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Threat of oxygen depletion

Mention climate change and everyone thinks of CO2 increasing in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect heating the earth, glaciers melting, rising sea levels, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and a host of other environmental catastrophes. Climate mitigating policies are almost all aimed at reducing CO2, by whatever means.

Within the past several years, however, scientists have found that oxygen (O2) in the atmosphere has been dropping, and at higher rates than just the amount that goes into the increase of CO2 from burning fossil fuels, some 2 to 4-times as much, and accelerating since 2002-2003 [1-3]. Simultaneously, oxygen levels in the world’s oceans have also been falling [4] (see Warming Oceans Starved of Oxygen, SiS 44).

It is becoming clear that getting rid of CO2 is not enough;

Oxygen has its own dynamic and the rapid decline in atmospheric O2 must also be addressed. Although there is much more O2 than CO2 in the atmosphere - 20.95 percent or 209 460 ppm of O2 compared with around 380 ppm of CO2 – humans, all mammals, birds, frogs, butterfly, bees, and other air-breathing life-forms depend on this high level of oxygen for their well being [5] Living with Oxygen (SiS 43).

In humans, failure of oxygen energy metabolism is the single most important risk factor for chronic diseases including cancer and death.

‘Oxygen deficiency’ is currently set at 19.5 percent in enclosed spaces for health and safety [6], below that, fainting and death may result.

The simultaneous decrease in ocean oxygen not only threatens the survival of aerobic marine organisms, but is symptomatic of the slow-down in the ocean’s thermohaline ‘conveyor belt’ circulation system that transports heat from the tropics to the poles,(THIS ITSELF COULD TRIGGER AN ICE-AGE) overturns surface layers of into the deep and vice versa, redistributing nutrients and gases for the ocean biosphere, and regulating rainfall and temperatures on the landmasses.

This dynamical system is highly nonlinear, and small changes could make it fail altogether, with disastrous runaway effects on the climate [7] (Global Warming & then the Big Freeze, SiS 20). More importantly, it could wipe out the ocean’s phytoplankton that’s ultimately responsible for splitting water to regenerate oxygen for the entire biosphere, on land and in the sea [4]. Global CO2 records go back more than 50 years [8], but O2 measurement in combination with CO2 goes back barely two decades [9], and is already giving important information on the size of the carbon sink in the ocean relative to the land. For one thing, O2 and CO2 have very different solubility in seawater; while 99 percent of the O2 remains in the atmosphere, 98 percent of the CO2 is in seawater.

Decrease in atmospheric O2 has been detected in stations around the world for the past decade, a consistent downward trend that has accelerated in recent years.

The largest fall in O2 was observed in the study of Swiss research team led by Francesco Valentino at University of Bern, for data collected at high altitude research stations in Switzerland and France

The researchers speculated that the large decrease in atmospheric oxygen since 2003 could have been the result of oxygen being taken up by the ocean, either due to a cooling of water in the North Atlantic, or water moving northwards from the tropic cooling, both of which would increase the water’s ability to take up more oxygen. However, it would require unrealistic cooling to account for the change in O2concentration. And all the indications are that the ocean waters have warmed since records began

O2 is decreasing faster than can be accounted for by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, the decrease is not uniform throughout the entire period; instead it is much steeper between 2002 and 2005 at both stations, and is not accompanied by any change in the trend of CO2 increase. This sharp acceleration in the downward trend of atmospheric O2 from 2002-2003 onwards in Ireland and The Netherlands is in accord with the findings in Switzerland and France [1]. And this cannot be explained by a realistic increase in fossil fuel use, or oxygen uptake by cooler ocean waters; if anything, oxygen level in the oceans has also been falling [4]. So where and what is this oxygen sink that is soaking up oxygen?

Thus, the expansion of agriculture and grazing during the 20th century has probably caused a decrease in the oxidative ratio of the plant biomass within these disturbed ecosystems. Using several simple models, the researchers showed that, indeed, small changes in Rab could lead to substantial decreases in atmospheric O2.  

Another research team has raised the possibility that reactive nitrogen produced in making artificial fertilizers for agriculture could also be tying up more oxygen in plant tissue, soil organic matter and oceans in the form of nitrates [13].

This includes wide-spread deforestation and replacement of woody vegetation with pastures and crops in the tropics, an increase in fire activity and tree mortality and increasing the abundance of deciduous tree species and herbaceous plants in the boreal (northern) regions. Globally, this includes an increase in invasive species and increased disturbance of agricultural soils by plowing and grazing during the 20th century.

Change in land use, and increased oxidation of nitrogen could explain the long term steady decline in atmospheric O2, and may well also account for the sharp acceleration of the downward trend since 2002 and 2003.

These years happen to coincide with record rates of deforestation. In Brazil, 10 000 square miles were lost mainly to pasture land, soybean plantations and illegal logging, a 40 percent rise over the previous year [14]. Massive deforestation has continued in the Amazon and elsewhere, spurred by the biofuels boom [15]; it is estimated that nearly 40 000 ha of the world’s forests are vanishing every day.

The crucial role of forests and phytoplankton [4] in oxygenating the earth shows how urgent it is to take oxygen accounting seriously in climate policies. Reductionist accounting for CO2 alone is insufficient, and even grossly misleading and dangerous.

A case in point is the proposal of the International Biochar Initiative (IBI). ‘Biochar’ is charcoal produced to be buried in the soil that IBI has been promoting worldwide over the past several years [16] as a means of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere to save the climate and enhance soil fertility. It involves planting fast growing tree and various other crops on hundreds of millions of hectares of ‘spare land’ mostly in developing countries, to be harvested and turned into charcoal in a process that could produce crude oil and gases as low grade fuels. There are many excellent arguments against this initiative [17], but the most decisive is that it will certainly further accelerate deforestation and destruction of other natural ecosystems (identified as ‘spare land’). In the process, it could precipitate an oxygen crisis from which we would never recover [18] (Beware the Biochar Initiative, SiS 44).

References

1. Valentino FL, Leuenberger M, Uglietti C and Staburm P. Measurements and trend analysis of O2, CO2 and D13C of CO2 from high altitude research station Junfgraujoch, Switzerlnd – a comparison with the observations from the remote site Puy de Dôme, France. Science of the Total Environment 2008, 203-10.

2. Sirignano C, Neubert REM, Jeijer HAJ and Rődenbeck C. Atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide observations from two European coastal stations 2000-2005: continental influence trend changes and APO climatology. Atmos Chem Phy Discuss 2008, 8, 20113-54.

3. Tohjima Y, Muai H, Machida T, Nojiri Y. Gas-chromatographic measurements of the atmospheric oxygen/nitrogen ratio at haterumna island and Cape Ochi-ishi, Japan. Geophys Res Lett 2003, 30, 1653, doi:10.1029/2003FLO17282

4. Joos F. Trends in Marine Dissolved Oxygen: Implications for Ocean Circulation Changes and the Carbon Budget. EOS 2003, 84, 197-204.

5. Stramma L, Johnson GC, Sprintal J and Mohrholz V. Expanding oxygen-minimum zones in the tropical oceans. Science 2008, 320, 655-8.

6. Ho MW. Living with oxygen. Science in Society 43 (in press).

7. Oxygen deficiency hazards (ODH) Manual 5064, Fermilab, Revised 05/2009,  http://www-esh.fnal.gov/FESHM/5000/5064.pdf

8. Ho MW. Global warming & then the big freeze. Science in Society 20, 28-29, 2003.

9. 50th anniversity of the global carbon dioxide record symposium and celebration, Kona, Hawaii, 28-30 November 2007, http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/background.html

10. Manning AC, Keelilng RF, Paplawsky WJ, Katz LE, McEvoy EM and Atwood CG. Atmospheric oxygen in the 1990s from a global flask sampling network: trends and variability pertaining to the carbon cycle. Draft 29 January 2003, http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publications/mip/manning.pdf

11. Battle M, Fletcher SM, Bender ML, Keeling RF, et al. Atmospheric potential oxygen: new observations and their implications for some atmospheric and oceanic models. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 2006, GB1010.

12. Randerson J T, Masiello C A, Still C J, Rahn T, Poorter H and Field C B. Is carbon within the global terrestrial biosphere becoming more oxidized? Implications for trends in atmospheric O2, Glob Change Biol  2006. 12, 260–71.

13. Ciais P, Manning A C, Reichstein M, Zaehle S, and Bopp L. Nitrification amplifies the decreasing trends of atmospheric oxygen and implies a larger land carbon uptake, Global Biogeochem Cy 2007, 21, GB2030, doi:10.1029/2006GB002799, 2007.

14. Rain Forest is losing ground faster in Amazon, photos show”, Tony Smith, The New York Times, 27 June 2003, http://www.mongabay.com/external/record_amazon_deforestation_2002.htm#1

15.  “Environment: Biofuels boom spurring deforestation”, Stephen Leahy, IPS, 21 May 2007, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37035

16. IBI Programs and Projects, International Biochar Initiative, accessed 3 August 2009, http://www.biochar-international.org/

17. Ernsting A and Rughani D. Climate geo-engineering with ‘carbon negative’ bioenergy, climate saviour or climate endgame? Biofuelwatch, November 2008, http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/cnbe/cnbe.html

18. Ho MW. Beware the Biochar Initiative. Science in Society 44 (to appear).

SOURCE:- (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php?comment=1)

RELATED:

According to the data Keeling has meticulously collected since 1989 the world is running out of breathable air—and the rate that it’s losing oxygen is now on the verge of accelerating

Scientists have painted a scenario that could account for mass extinctions from terrestrial oxygen depletion which would certainly lay the foundation for a rapid acceleration of oxygen depletion and the resulting mass death to follow—mass death on a planetary scale.(http://survivalacres.com/blog/oxygen-levels-are-dropping/)

THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE ALSO SHOWS HOW THAT IN THE FAR PAST WE HAD AT LEAST 50% MORE OXYGEN IN OUR ATMOSPHERE IF NOT MUCH MORE! Posted 13/07/16-Steve

The Pre-flood Atmosphere

There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere. Organisms grew larger and lived longer as a result.

Many creationists have attributed this to a water vapor canopy that was created by God on the second day, the “waters above the firmament” (Genesis 1:7). This theory holds that a “vast blanket of invisible water vapor, translucent to the light of the stars but productive of a marvelous greenhouse effect which maintained mild temperatures from pole to pole, thus preventing air-mass circulation and the resultant rainfall (Genesis 2:5). It would certainly have had the further effect of efficiently filtering harmful radiation from space, markedly reducing the rate of somatic mutations in living cells, and, as a consequence, drastically decreasing the rate of aging and death.”(Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism, 1984, p. 211.) Citing evidence of denser atmosphere in the past, Morris postulated that this vapor layer could have dramatically increased the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the early earth, again contributing to a healthier environment (like a natural hyperbaric chamber). Later the canopy would have collapsed in the form of rain (the “windows of heaven” in Genesis 7:11), contributing to the Flood water, and resulting in the dramatic drop-off in longevity after the deluge.

Genesis 9 tells how Noah planted a vineyard after the flood and became drunk from the fruit of it. This is an aberration in the life of this godly man. Some have suggested that Noah did not know his grape juice would ferment so quickly or so extensively in the post-flood atmosphere. Or perhaps the reduced atmospheric pressure made it harder for him to “hold his drink.” While this is only speculation, the removal of the vapor canopy could help explain this curious situation.

Some creationists emphasize other factors that may have caused the worldwide temperate conditions that existed before the Flood. They stress the evidence of far greater concentrations of carbon dioxide levels in the past and point out that the earth’s magnetic field was far stronger than today. This could have acted as the shield for cosmic radiation and produced the healthier environment. (Humphreys, Russel D., Starlight and Time, 1995, p. 63.) John Baumgardner of Los Alamos has suggested that the atmosphere surrounding the original earth was far thicker than it is today and that the exploding of the fountains of the great deep during the initial stages of the Genesis Flood stripped some of this atmosphere away. Certain Bible scholars cite the language of the Psalm 148:4 as evidence against a vapor canopy. If the canopy had collapsed during the flood, they reason, why does the Psalmist still reference the waters above the firmament?   But this poetic allusion could hark back to the original creation, or it could make reference to waters God expanded out into deep space as part of creation, or it could refer to some of the original water vapor (left over from the canopy) still in the outer reaches of our atmosphere.

It is interesting that scientists who would not subscribe to the water vapor canopy theory described above, have published articles that lend credence to portions of that theory. “Using evidence collected in South America and New Zealand, an international team of researchers has determined that climate changes – both warming and cooling patterns – during the late Pleistocene occurred rapidly and were global in scale. As giant iceberg armadas flooded the North Atlantic, alpine glaciers were simultaneously advancing across the Chilean Andes and Southern Alps of New Zealand. Thomas Lowell, associate professor of geology at the University of Cincinnati, and his colleagues published their findings in the September 15, 1995, issues of Science. …So, what did cause the climate changes? Lowell admits that he and his colleagues have no quick and easy answers. Possibly water vapors played a role. ‘A lot of water vapor in the atmosphere leads to a warmer climate,’ he states. ‘If there’s less vapor, temperatures become colder. Amounts of water vapor can change quickly, and the geological record indicates that climate changes could be very fast.'” (Anonymous, “Were Climate Changes Global During Ice Ages,” Geotimes,vol. 41, 1996, p.7, as cited in Morris, 1997, p. 305.) Additionally some scientists have been quite surprised to find water vapor in the freezing atmospheres of Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune and Saturn. (Dayton Daily News, April 8, 1998, p. 12A)

The water vapor canopy hypothesis would neatly explain yet another observed anomaly…too much water in Earth’s upper atmosphere. NASA satellites have confirmed far more hydroxyl in the hydrosphere than current models predict. The parent molecule of hydroxyl (OH) is water (H2O). Because ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks down water in Earth’s upper atmosphere into hydroxyl and hydrogen, a large amount of water must have previously existed. Some have proposed a constant influx of mini-comets as a source for the mysterious water, but that theory has been strongly criticized as unworkable. (Matthews, Robert, New Scientist, July, 1997, pp. 26-27.)

Another interesting feature of the early earth atmosphere was enhanced oxygen. The analysis of microscopic air bubbles trapped in fossilized tree resin gave Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey a glimpse into the ancient past. “The researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadrupole mass spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance. As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released, exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today.” Landis believes that the reduction in oxygen could have led to the dinosaur’s demise. (Discover, February, 1988, p. 12.)

Other studies of air bubbles in amber have found increased pressure as well as greater oxygen levels. “One implication is that the atmospheric pressure of the Earth would have been much greater during the Cretaceous era, when the bubbles formed in the resin. A dense atmosphere could also explain how the ungainly pterosaur, with its stubby body and wing span of up to 11 meters, could have stayed airborne, he said. The spread of angiosperms, flowering plants, during the Cretaceous era could have caused the high oxygen levels reported by Berner and Landis, scientists said last week.” (Anderson, Ian, “Dinosaurs Breathed Air Rich in Oxygen,” New Scientist, vol. 116, 1987, p. 25.) A Yale study published in the March 3, 2000 issue of Science independently confirmed the high levels of oxygen present in the earth’s distant past. Some have even suggested that without such an atmosphere the relatively small lung capacity in certain dinosaurs could not have supplied their massive tissue with the needed oxygen.

In October 2006 Science Daily publicized a study led by Arizona State University staff entitled “Giant Insects Might Reign If Only There Was More Oxygen In The Air.” The article claims, “The delicate lady bug in your garden could be frighteningly large if only there was a greater concentration of oxygen in the air, a new study concludes. The study adds support to the theory that some insects were much larger during the late Paleozoic period because they had a much richer oxygen supply, said the study’s lead author Alexander Kaiser. The Paleozoic period…was a time of huge and abundant plant life and rather large insects — dragonflies had two-and-a-half-foot wing spans, for example. The air’s oxygen content was 35% during this period, compared to the 21% we breathe now, Kaiser said.” This research concurs with the biblical model of the early earth. In 2010 researchers at Arizona State University presented the results of experiments raising insects in various levels of atmospheric oxygen. Ten out of twelve varieties of insects studied decreased in size with lower oxygen. Some, like dragonflies, grew faster and became bigger in an enriched oxygen atmosphere (Science Daily, October 30, 2010.).

Some object strongly to using the scriptures to gain scientific insight into the natural world. While the Bible is not a science text, there are several clear lines of evidence that the Bible is God’s Word. If God’s word is truly inspired, it speaks accurately to all areas of knowledge: historical, political/economic, sociological, and scientific.

SOURCE:- ( http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/early-earth/atmosphere/)

REFINED SUGAR CAN BE POISONOUS!

INTRODUCTION      June 6th 2016    by S.N.Strutt

This TOPIC TAB of HEALTH & NUTRITION is a massive TOPIC, and  we are only just getting started. I will be adding a lot of material to this TOPIC shortly, after my wife has finished her HYPERBARIC OXYGEN TREATMENT at the MS centre.

HERE IS THE WEBSITE FOR MS OXYGEN TREATMENT IN THE UK. It is a very interesing website and well worth visiting.

(https://www.hyperbaricoxygentherapy.org.uk/find-chamber)

Steve:-I intend in to investigate more, but I suspect that even the Oxygen content in our atmosphere, used to be a lot higher, and thus I think that in the past we would have had less problems with certain modern medical conditions such as skin afflictions, asthma and host of modern sicknesses and ailments.

I have been reading the amazing book  called "Oxygen & the Brain"  by Dr. Philip B James whilst going to the MS OXYGEN TREATMENT CENTRE,

One MS patient stated: “I personally believe that the real root cause of MS is SUGAR!”

Here is a definition by a doctor who is an expert on CANCER: “If I was to define CANCER it would be ‘When the OXYGEN absorbing ability of a cell is removed, and replaced with SUGAR, that has fermented’- “THAT IS CANCER!” We all know that CANCER FEEDS ON SUGAR!

Getting rid of the sugar, and the resultant ACIDOSIS, which causes cancer, and ALKALIZING the body through eating 70% organic fruit & vegetables, can stabilize and even eventually totally get rid of cancer, as happened to our 24 year old daughter last year (2015) who was diagnosed as having aggressive breast cancer.

She got totally healed by PRAYER & JUICING.

 (Recommended A best selling book: JUICING, FASTING, &DETOXING FOR LIFE, by Cherie Calbom, MS)

 The following is a very interesting dissertation about SUGAR from:-

Food or Poison? 

"DOCTORS HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TOO MUCH SWEET IN THE DIET IS THE MOST COMMON CAUSE OF ILLNESS amongst Europeans. Now when they talk about sweets they're not talking about natural sweets like figs, raisins, honey, blackstrap molasses and raw sugar. They're talking about refined sugar sweets, desserts, candies, soft drinks and so on.

                 THEY CLAIM THAT MOST OF THE DISEASES EUROPEANS HAVE CAN BE TRACED TO SUGAR AS THE MAIN CULPRIT and fat as the next. Now I think that's what the Bible means where it says, "lest your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting". (Luke 21:34.) They have traced a lot of heart failure and heart trouble straight back to too much fat and too much sugar.

Most diabetics, for example, suffer heart trouble. So in this note I said,

                THIS OBSESSION FOR SUGAR I BELIEVE  IS AN ABSOLUTE DEMONIC PERVERSION!

I think it is just as diabolical and demon-inspired as a craving for liquor or drugs or gambling or what have you! I believe it! It's an obsession with some people, it is something that they haven't got the will power to withstand if it's within reach.

                  MOST AMERICANS HAVE GROWN UP WITH THAT PERVERTED SWEET TOOTH so in order to stop the habit, just like me, you just have to keep it out of reach. If you don't have it in the house I won't eat it. I don't go to the store and buy myself some sugar.)

                 IT'S JUST LIKE A DRUNK OR AN ALCOHOLIC OR A DRUG ADDICT you've got to keep it out of reach if he hasn't got the will power to resist it. If it's where he can get at it then you'll have to take it away from him." (by D. B. Berg - written June 1977)

Comments