CPT763 : CELL-PHONE BRAIN DAMAGE IN 10 MINUTES : Now Boarding!

Only ten minutes on a mobile could trigger cancer, scientists believe.
By DAVID DERBYSHIRE

It only takes ten minutes on the phone to trigger dangerous brain chemical changes, scientists say
Mobile phones can take as little as ten minutes to trigger changes in the brain associated with cancer, scientists claimed yesterday.
They found even low levels of radiation from handsets interfere with the way brain cells divide. Cell division encourages the growth of tumours.
Although the researchers did not come up with evidence that mobile phone signals are harmful, the findings suggest they could be.
Several major studies have also found no link between mobile use and brain tumours, nor a dramatic rise in cancer rates.
But campaigners insist the discovery undermines official advice that the devices are safe.
The guidance is based on the assumption that the phones emit too little radiation to heat the brain dangerously.
However, the new study by the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel suggests "nonthermal" radiation could pose a risk.
The Israeli scientists exposed human and rat cells in a laboratory to low-level radiation at 875 megahertz - a similar frequency to the one used in many mobile phones.
Although the radiation was far weaker than emissions from a typical handset, it began to switch on a chemical signal inside the cells within ten minutes, the researchers report in the Biochemical Journal.
The chemical signals they detected were involved in the division of cells.
The researchers say the reaction was not caused by heating and claim they have found a separate way in which mobile phones could damage health.
Dr Rony Seger, a co-author of the study, told the magazine New Scientist: "The significance lies in showing cells do react to cellphone radiation in a non-thermal way."
Although changes in the chemical pathway seen by the Israeli scientists have been linked to several cancers, the researchers say there was no sign of a cancer-causing effect.
Dr Simon Arthur, a health expert at Dundee University, said the effect was 'unlikely to cause cancer'.
Dr Dariusz Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Helsinki, said: "If cell-phone radiation cannot induce biological effects then there will never be any health effects.
"On the other hand if we can show this radiation is able to induce biological effects then we have a different story."
A major review of mobile phone safety is due to be published by the Health Protection Agency next month.
The agency's last major report, in 2004, found no evidence mobiles were a serious health risk. It did, however, caution against excessive use, especially by the young.
Dr Michael Clark, a spokesman for the agency, said: "Because of findings like this that pop up from time to time, a precautionary approach is justified."
Graham Philips, of campaign group Powerwatch, said: "Safety guidelines assume health effects from mobiles can only occur when significant heating of body tissue occurs.
"This study shows biological changes in response to low-level mobile phone radiation - something that could potentially have implications for health.
"Further research is required, however guidance based purely on thermal effects is clearly out of date."


HYPERJACKED FROM THE CRYPTNET BECAUSE YOU FORCE ME TO SHOVE THIS INTO YOUR FACEHOLES. PEOPLE!



-------------------------------------------
I CAN SEE THE HORROR-MOVIE ADAPTATION NOW! HOSPITALS ARE OVERRUN BY HUMANS MUTATING INTO GIANT TUMOROIDS (humans responsible for their own demise because they didn't think about their actions - gone mutant).
CELL TOWERS ARE LIKE BATCAVES TO THESE NOW-LURKING ZOMBIE PEOPLE AS THE NEED FOR MORE RADIATION GROWS - SO DOES THE HORROR! EITHER PICK UP A CELL PHONE NOW AND STAY ON HOLD, OR BECOME FOOD FOR THE SHEEP HERD OF PEOPLE THAT THIS PLANET HAS CREATED AND CONTROLLED. YOU ALL SUCK AND MY CANCER WILL AVENGE YOU! THAT IS MY FUTURE CANCER - AND YOUR EVERLASTING NEED TO HAVE THINGS AND USE RADIOWAVES AND SPEAK IN ELECTRICAL THOUGHTS AND NUCLEAR RHETORIC.
THIS POSTSCRIPT IS A LOST ARK COMMENT ON BEING FORCED INTO A STALL WITH A GROUP OF HUMANS WHO CANNOT SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES FROM PLANET EARTH BECAUSE THEIR HEADS ARE LODGED UP THEIR ASSES ON THE WAY TO THE BANK!
ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR CONTROLLED LIVES (or is that lies?).

CPT762 : GLASSIFICATION OF THE MOON'S SURFACE

- THE LOCALIZED GLASSIFICATION OF THE MOON'S SURFACE-
(ARK theory 2007)

In order to avoid the dirty, hazardous and powdery regolith that covers the surface of the moon, a mission must be made first to send up giant land-surface melting rods (electrodes - already used on earth to glassify toxic dirt sites 20 feet deep).
Then sections of Moon - an acre at a time - are rigged with these rods, which take several weeks to melt the entire local surface into a glass slab that holds all the toxic, dusty and caustic elements in. After cooling we can have flat landing surfaces that are clean and solid. Human spacesuits won't get dirty, craft parts and sensitive scientific instruments can be placed in these areas free of dust - and the lack of a lunar wind would create zones of regolith-free habitable acreage. The human colonists will be safer and the surface will be easier to work on. Permanent anchors can be fused into the heated glass to hold future Private or Governmental (Bigelow/NASA/Virgin Galactic/Space-X) project habitat modules.

Piece by piece a permanent colony can be created on top of this glassified surface. It makes a lot of sense to eliminate the main problem with moon habitation - the dusty regolith - aside from avoiding meteor impacts. Engineering missions around this solid homebase is the only way to ensure a stable foundation on such an inhospitable terrain.
Another benefit to heat-melting the Moon's surface is that useful oxygen can be extracted from it during this process.
Meteorites already generate enough heat to melt dust particles. This melting and freezing welds particles together into glassy fragments. An indicator of what can be replicated, and similar to the result of a nuclear blast in a dessert - the glassification of earth - but long term heating is used instead to reliably create customized safe work surfaces.
The idea is to replicate nature on a massive scale and use it for infrastructure while eliminating the localized threat of toxic particulate matter.
Toxic-to-human elements radon-222 and polonium-210 have already been detected in lunar orbit. On several Apollo missions, enhanced levels of radon-222 and polonium-210 emissions were observed as part of the regolith.

Glassification of the surface of the moon, like making glass on Earth, is an existing technology that eliminates the greatest hurdles to man operating on the moon. Robots can come and go (permanently), but stability of a communal human nature requires thinking about their lives 100 to 200 years down the road. We can't make mistakes now!

DARPA grant anyone? Let's do this.


- A fully original and custom theory by Alan Karalian 2007.
CONTACT FOR VENTILATION: logixlab@yahoo.com

CPT761 : DYING OF THIRST : Quit It Childish Planet...

THE NEW PUBLIC ENEMY #1 : BOTTLED WATER

It's a hugely beneficial liquid in a slim cylinder of plastic, but for US environmentalists, it is the new public enemy number one: bottled water.
With US bottled water sales growing nearly 10 percent annually -- and the trash from tossed containers climbing just as quickly -- calls for Americans to go back to drinking tap water have surged since the beginning of summer.
"This country has some of the best public water supplies in the world," the New York Times said in an editorial earlier this month.
"Instead of consuming four billion gallons (15 billion liters) of water a year in individual-sized bottles, we need to start thinking about what all those bottles are doing to the planet's health."
As was pointed out at World Water Week in Stockholm on Monday, US personal consumption per capita, including water from all sources, hits 400 liters (106 gallons) each day -- compared to 10 liters (2.6 gallons) a person in developing countries.
And US consumers are drinking more bottled water by the day. According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, growth in bottled water sales last year was 9.7 percent, making the total market worth about 11 billion dollars.
Bottled water in the United States does not mean mineral water, even if Americans grumble more and more about paying a high price to drink water with little to distinguish it.
At the end of July beverage giant PepsiCo was forced by public pressure to explain on its Aquafina bottled water that the contents inside come from ... the tap.
Pepsi's response "is an important first step," said Gigi Kellett, director of the "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign.
"Concerns about the bottled water industry, and increasing corporate control of water, are growing across the country," she said.
From mineral springs or from public pipes, water once in a bottle is expensive. The New York Times estimated that for some consumers the bill could hit 1,400 dollars a year -- for an amount that, taken from a home faucet, might cost less than half a dollar.
And it is not always better.

"Bottled water sold in the United States is not necessarily cleaner or safer than most tap water, according to a four-year scientific study," the National Resources Defense Council recently reported. It also said regulation has not guaranteed more pure water in bottles.
Another point of attack is the packaging waste, which Earth Policy Institute tied to an issue of US security policy: oil imports.
According to the institute, it costs the United States 1.5 million barrels of oil a year to produce the plastic bottles used for water.
And if one adds the energy required to transport it -- especially premium water imported all the way from France, Italy and even the Fiji islands -- the negative impact on the environment rises quickly.
The anti-bottled water campaign has gotten political support: the mayor of San Francisco has stopped supplying water in containers to his staff, telling them to drink what comes out of the faucet.
And New York has launched a campaign to persuade its inhabitants to stick to public sources to quench their thirst.
Feeling they were at the center of the target, bottled water producers went on the defense last week, in part arguing that bottled water helps liberate consumers from calorie-heavy sweet sodas.
"The bottled water industry has recently been the target of misguided and confusing criticism by activist groups and a handful of mayors who have presented misinformation and subjective criticism as facts," the International Bottled Water Association said.
Association president Joseph Doss said they were being unfairly singled out.
"If the debate is about the impact of plastic packaging on the environment, a narrow focus on bottled water spotlights only a small portion of the packaged beverage category and an even smaller sliver of the universe of packaged products," he said.
"Any efforts to reduce the resources necessary to produce and distribute packaged goods -- and increase recycling rates -- must focus on all packaging," he said.


AN EXCLUSIVE CRYPTICON HYPER-JACK FOR YOUR BRAINPAN, FROM OUR LOGICAL COMPUTATIONS VIA THE BREITBART INFORMATION MESSAGING SYSTEM. BRAWNDO TO TAKEOVER THE WATER SUPPLY SOON...