-
-
related tags:
- genetic pollution
- Bacteria
- valuation
- SQL
- epidemiology
- proxy
- Data Breach Law
- Vendors
- malware
- Mobile Devices
- Virus
- protocol
- Systems
- horizontal gene transfer
- Round Up Ready
- GMO Report
- Warning
- zero day attack
- online fraud
- Proteins
- pollination
- Intellectual Property rights
- sars
- Colony Collapse Disorder
- Diseases
- precautionary principle
- Trojans
- GM alfalfa
- Firewall
- transgenic contamination
- substantial equivalence
- system
- Computer Security
- Third Party
- collusion
- Kevin M. Nixon
- Food Safety
- Biodiversity
- influenza
- Infofiduciary
- Computer Virus
- Flu
- GMOs
- Trojan
- Theft
- Wireless
- Biotech
- Pesticides
- conficker
- Biopiracy
tagged w/ Viruses
-
The next generation of GMOs could be especially dangerous
Did a recent scientific study just change the way we should think about the safety of genetically modified foods? According to Ari Levaux at the Atlantic, the answer is a resounding yes.
The study in question, performed by researchers at China’s Nanjing University and published in the journal Cell Research, found that a form of genetic material — called microRNA — from conventional rice survived the human digestive process and proceeded to affect cholesterol function in humans.
Levaux argues that this new study “reveals a pathway by which genetically modified (GM) foods might influence human health” which should cause us to completely revisit the question of GM crops’ safety. And he’s right to be alarmed, just a little off on the reasoning.
Let’s take a closer look at how this study applies to current GM technology, shall we?
I would argue that several studies have already suggested that existing GM foods might present a health risk. For example, this study in The International Journal of Biological Sciences found evidence that Monsanto’s Bt corn causes organ damage in lab animals. Then there’s this one which showed that GM soybeans can alter mice on the cellular level — an indication that genetically modified material survives digestion and is active in animals that consume it.
Of course, advocates of genetically modified foods will observe that the phenomenon of genetic transfer through consumption applies to all plants and that GM foods are therefore “substantially equivalent” to non-GM foods. As Levaux explains at length, this concept of substantial equivalence has been used by the biotech industry as well as our government to push GM foods through safety testing with minimal scrutiny. What’s Monsanto’s defense of all this? On its website, the company claims:
There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods … DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard … So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks.
So the fact that the Chinese team found active genetic material going from plants to humans isn’t really new and doesn’t really change what we know about how existing genetically engineered crops might affect us.
But what is new — and what Levaux missed — is that the Chinese study happens to involve exactly the kind of genetic matrieral — microRNA — that biotech companies hope to use in their next generation of genetically modified foods.
Today’s GMOs are almost entirely based on adding new genes to crops like corn, soy, and cotton in order to alter the way the plants function. And even then new functions are mostly limited to making plants either able to tolerate herbicides or to produce their own. But if biotechnology companies are successful in their efforts, there may soon be genetically modified foods that use microRNA — simply put, snippets of RNA whose potency were only discovered around a decade ago — to target, and block the function of specific genes in pests.
Thus the news that plant microRNA can survive digestion and affect human systems brings into question the wisdom of pursuing this kind of technology in food.
As explained to me by Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists and expert in genetically modified foods, microRNA technology is an area that biotech companies are actively pursuing. Monsanto itself has a whole web page devoted to the technology, which they call RNA interference.
Gurian-Sherman notes that the Chinese study — though requiring confirmation and follow-up research — raises “an initial red flag.” It calls into question “any general statement that [microRNA] technology would be inherently safe,” he adds.
He observes that humans and insects share a surprising amount of DNA material — evolution favors reusing and recycling genes even among creatures as different as insects and humans. If this research bears out, then it’s entirely possible that microRNA meant to target a specific insect gene will also have an effect — possibly unpredictable — in humans. This is especially true because, for technology like this to work as a pesticide, the microRNA must be present in high levels in the plant, which makes it even more likely the genetic material will make it all the way into the human gut.
snip
UPDATE: Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union wrote to me after this post was published with an important point about the significance of the Chinese study. While he agreed that the main implications relate to the possible risk from microRNA-based GM foods, he also felt that this study did make a new and somewhat startling finding regarding how plant genetic material affects humans. As he put it, the study “showed that the miRNA not only survived digestion [in humans] but also was taken up and moved to other parts of the body where a specific impact was noted. The studies you cited — from Seralini’s lab and Malatesta’s lab — only show that GE crops can have an adverse effect on animals.”
more at the linkDid a recent scientific study just change the way we should think about the safety of... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 25 days ago
- |
- 17 comments
-
-
USDA deregulates two more GM seeds for Monsanto
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Thursday its decision to deregulate two Monsanto genetically engineered (GE) seed varieties: a corn variety engineered to resist drought conditions and an herbicide-resistant soybean engineered to produce more fatty acids than regular soybeans.
Regulators legalized the seeds after reviewing risk assessments, public comments and data provided by Monsanto.
Monsanto is planning "on-farm trials" of drought-tolerant corn, known as MON 87460, during the upcoming planting season "to give farmers experience with the product" and generate commercial data, according to a statement from the company.
The corn contains a protein gene from a bacterium that reportedly limits yield loss when corn plants are stressed by drought conditions.
Earlier this year, Truthout exposed a controversial program in five African countries that involves putting Monsanto drought-tolerant corn in the hands of farmers facing drought conditions. The program is part of an effort funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is working to establish a "Second Green Revolution" in Africa.
Critics say such efforts could replace traditional and sustainable farming methods with American-style industrial agriculture and prevent African governments from effectively regulating GE crops.
Last week, Truthout revealed that the USDA is taking steps to speed up the approval process for GE crops after industry groups put mounting pressure on top officials in recent years.
The USDA also announced a public comment period for two additional GE crop seeds, including another Monsanto soybean that is engineered to provide omega-3 fatty acids. Regulators have submitted favorable assessments of the seeds and are expected to approve them sometime next year. The public comment period on both products runs until February 27, 2012.
More at the linkThe United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced on Thursday its decision... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 month ago
- |
- 23 comments
-
-
Dennis Kucinich: protect our food supply from manufactured crises
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today announced commonsense legislation that would prohibit open-air cultivation of Genetically Engineered (GE) pharmaceutical and industrial crops, preventing biological contamination of our food supply. The bill would also establish a tracking system to regulate and ensure the safety of GE pharmaceutical and industrial crops.
“We must take steps to prevent genetically engineered organisms from being grown in a way that could do irreversible damage to our food supply. Under pressure from profit-minded industry, we have already allowed the spread of genetically modified crops into our agriculture at great cost to our economy and with unknown effects on our bodies,” said Kucinich.
The Department of Agriculture has allowed more than 300 outdoor field trials of plants—including feed crops including corn, soybeans, rice, safflower, barley, alfalfa, mustard greens, peas, sugarcane, tomatoes, and wheat—which are genetically engineered to produce experimental pharmaceuticals, industrial enzymes and novel proteins. Those GE substances are not intended to be incorporated into food or to be spread into the environment or our food supply. Yet there are examples of such contamination, with enormously destructive consequences.
“Many Americans are unaware that crops that are genetically engineered to produce experimental pharmaceutical drugs are being grown in this country in the open, allowing them to contaminate conventional crops without detection. We cannot rely on industry to prevent the unintended spread of genetically engineered organisms,” said Kucinich.
H.R. 3554, The Genetically Engineered Safety Act, which would prohibit the open-air cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) pharmaceutical and industrial crops. The bill would prohibit the use of common human food or animal feed as the host plant for a genetically engineered pharmaceutical or industrial chemical. H.R. 3554 would also establish a tracking system to regulate the growing, handling, transportation, and disposal of pharmaceutical and industrial crops protect native ecosystems and traditional farms from the unstudied dangers of growing GE organisms. The legislation is part of a package of bills introduced by Kucinich, which includes H.R. 3553, the GE Right to Know Act.
“We have taken few steps to ensure that our own genetic experiments are kept in check. This commonsense legislation would simply ensure that our experimentation with genetic engineering and cloning do not disrupt our traditional food supply. When you are talking about the safety and stability of the food supply, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure,” said Kucinich.
More at the linkCongressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today announced commonsense legislation that would... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 24 comments
-
-
Plasma could cure the common cold
Inhaling streams of electrically charged gas could provide a cure for the common cold,
research has shown. Scientists have discovered that a stream of matter known as cold
plasma can deactivate viruses similar to those that cause the common cold.
link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8933125/Plasma-could-cure-the-common-cold.htmlInhaling streams of electrically charged gas could provide a cure for the common cold,... more-
- aileenalmeda
- added this
- 2 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
GM Crops - Contamination without Representation
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops.
(SALEM, Ore.) - A public hearing is being held in Corvallis, Oregon this Thursday, November 17th to determine if Genetically Modified sugar beets will be deregulated in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the public comment period maybe just a local distraction giving way to full federal deregulation without any representation of organic and conventional crop farmers.
Let us not forget that the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture held a formal hearing on Genetically Modified (GM) Alfalfa on Jan 20, 2011.
The hearing corresponded with an open 30-day comment period, designed to provide relevant testimony with regard to deregulation of Genetically Modified Alfalfa.
The democratic process neglected to include a single organic or conventional farming representative. Throughout the two hour hearing various legislators publicly humiliated the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsak for even suggesting any compromise through talks with the organic and conventional communities. They all but ordered him to stand down his conversations with anyone but pro-GM enthusiasts (1:43:16).
Representatives left no seed unturned in honor of their allegiance to biotech crops and complete penetration into all foreign and domestic markets. In fact, Minnesota's Representative Collin Peterson referred to organic producers and consumers as "our opponents"[1](12:29).
Vilsak, even with his ties to Monsanto, was attempting negotiation with "so called Option 3" containing a minimal stop gap as an alternative to absolute contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa. In essence, planting barriers would have been implemented to maintain protective measures for the integrity of all seed varieties. Legislators blatantly mocked him and even pulled rank, saying that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have the authority to do anything but fully deregulate the crop without further ado. (35:38, 1:25:50, 1:29:15, 2:18:47)
It can be noted that Vilsak testified no less than three times that we were in the midst of the 30 day comment period, and in his opinion, the talks among all sides were providing necessary elements worthy of analysis for all agricultural markets concerned. (29:00, 1:44:00, 1:51:54)
The theme of the hearing centered around the economic burden of GM farmers if full deregulation didn’t go forth immediately (1:44:00). It was insisted by every representative that their loyalties were to the biotech community and that full deregulation was unquestionable without consideration for any form of barrier to protect other crops from cross contamination.
In regard to preservation of non GM crops, Texas Representative Michael Conaway begs the question, "how much of this is a definitional issue"? He questions organic standards and even insists that he "suspects that Genetically Engineered seeds will become the new organic". He blatantly suggests that legislative steps be considered to modify the language and thus re-define organic standards so that Genetically Modified crops can freely contaminate without restriction. He insists that it is merely a marketing issue and not an issue of health and safety. Conaway asks if we are just "hung up on the phrase organic, meaning something we grew ourselves in the backyard with whatever?"(2:33:00).
Concern was expressed by a number of speakers that GM crops are being promoted throughout the world as being no different than conventional crops, and if word got out that we established restrictive planting barriers, then it might be assumed that the GM crops were somehow different. That could put a damper on GM producers and their marketing potential. (30:45, 1:58:17, 2:18:47)
It was apparent, by the end of one sided discussion, that full deregulation and contamination remains unquestionable from the perspective of our democratic leaders. In other words, it is most notably a flagrant case of Contamination without Representation.
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops. Public comments are being heard on Thursday from 4 PM – 9 PM at LaSells Stewart Center Construction and Engineering Hall 875 Southwest 26th St., Corvallis, Oregon.
Please see the full length video of the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture forum on GM Alfalfa, Jan 20 2011.
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1269If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 8 comments
-
-
Roundup Ready Alfalfa Damages US Seed Industry
Phillip Geertson has spent the last 30 years farming and raising many diversified crops, and has been a partner in alfalfa breeding programs for 25 years. Alfalfa is a perennial plant, which makes it extremely vulnerable to contamination.
When Roundup Ready (hereafter "RR") alfalfa was first suggested I did not think that it would be developed and introduced because most alfalfa fields are never sprayed for weed control. And, if a chemical weed control was needed, there is a long list of off-patent low-cost herbicides that are effective if used properly.
Alfalfa hay is usually cut on a schedule of 24 to 30 days for each crop harvest. The entire plant above ground is removed along with any weeds. This frequent cutting and removal suppresses weed growth and will control, and sometimes even eliminate, persistent perennials and noxious weeds that Roundup will not control.
When alfalfa is properly fertilized and growing in appropriate soil conditions (correct Ph, well drained, etc.), alfalfa will outgrow and choke out most weeds. When alfalfa stands become weedy, non-thrifty, and otherwise poor performing it is usually because of poor fertility, insects, water logging, or winter damage. Weeds in an alfalfa forage field are a symptom of problems and simply spraying with Roundup to kill the weeds will not correct the underlying problem that is causing poor performance. A weedy alfalfa field should be plowed out, the soil conditions corrected, and then rotated to another crop that is not a host for alfalfa diseases, insects, or nematodes so that they die away. Afterwards, a new stand of alfalfa can be replanted.
Alfalfa is often planted with a companion crop of oats or other grasses in a spring seeding. The cover crop suppresses weeds and gives some protection to young alfalfa plants. An early summer cutting of the oats and new alfalfa plants produces valuable forage for horses, feeder cattle, and young dairy cattle. This practice, however, cannot be used with the RR technology because the Roundup will kill the oats or grass cover crop.
Forage fields of alfalfa are often planted with a companion perennial grass to produce forage that is an alfalfa-grass mix that is a superior feed for all classes of livestock. The grass component in the forage helps to balance the digestive process and gives a better balance of nutrients, so fewer supplements are required in high performance livestock. A grass mix forage is the best feed for horses and the grass in a dairy cow ration is very helpful in reducing laminitis in dairy cattle. Spraying an RR alfalfa field with Roundup will kill any companion grass.
The need for RR alfalfa is very limited; it only adds one more chemical to a long list of herbicides available.
From the standpoint of a conventional (non RR) alfalfa seed grower, the main problem with the introduction of RR alfalfa is the contamination of all alfalfa with the RR gene.
Alfalfa, a long-lived perennial, is cross pollinated by bees and other insects that fly long distances. Honey bees are known to fly ten miles, and wind gusts can pick up insects that have been pollinating alfalfa blossoms and gathering pollen and move them long distances.
Alfalfa sets and produces seed best if it is cross pollinated from another plant. If the pollen from an RR alfalfa plant fertilizes the flowers on a non-RR alfalfa plant, the seed on that non RR plant will contain the RR gene, and plants that grow from that seed will be roundup resistant. The RR gene will spread throughout the entire alfalfa population and would eventually make it impossible to raise conventional seed without some RR contamination and make it nearly impossible to breed and develop new varieties of alfalfa. This is not a good thing.
Conventional alfalfa contaminated with the RR gene will become a weed in the RR soybean, cotton, and sugar beet fields that cannot be removed.
Farmers that feel the RR technology is a valuable tool should and will avoid the introduction of any plant that is RR resistant . . . including alfalfa. The demand or acceptance of any conventional seed that has even a trace of RR contamination would be compromised, because a farmer who is growing other RR crops would not want his field contaminated with RR alfalfa.
Alfalfa is a native plant of Eurasia and grows as a feral plant throughout Europe. I have pictures of it growing along the Danube River in Austria, the Alps in Switzerland, and even in the median strip in front of the Nazi rally center in Nuremburg. It was introduced into North and South America, New Zealand, and Australia and other areas of the world where it now grows as a wild feral plant.
In a natural environment, the RR gene in alfalfa doesn't give it any survival advantage. In fact, early yield trials show that alfalfas with the RR gene are poor performers. In the environment created by human activity, however, we have given RR alfalfa a survival advantage. The worldwide use of glysosphate (the active ingredient in Roundup and other generic herbicides) will give alfalfa plants with the RR gene a survival advantage over conventional alfalfa. There is no wonder that the rest of the world does not want RR alfalfa seed and have prohibited the import of any alfalfa seed contaminated with even a trace of the RR gene.
The U.S. Alfalfa seed industry was the world's major producer of alfalfa seed. Historically, the U.S. alfalfa seed industry exported more than half of the alfalfa seed produced in the United States, but 2007 was the last time the USDA reported the size of the U.S. alfalfa seed exports. Why? Export data would be very useful in determining the amount of damage that was done to the U.S. alfalfa seed industry by the release of RR alfalfa into U.S. agriculture.
Alfalfa is the first important perennial plant to be genetically engineered and introduced into the environment that is cross pollinated by insects and that grows as a wild feral plant throughout the world. Putting a foreign gene that cannot be recalled into such an important crop without thoroughly analyzing its potential negative effects is, in my opinion, criminal. If Monsanto and/or other genetic engineering companies can get away with this introduction, then you can be sure that others will follow. Hundreds of other important plants will be subject to genetic mutation and if released into the environment could change the species forever. How does the Endangered Species Act come into play here?
Why was Monsanto given the right to introduce a gene into alfalfa plants without any published studies that prove beyond any doubt that it is safe, useful, and would not cause harm?
more at the linkPhillip Geertson has spent the last 30 years farming and raising many diversified... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 3 months ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Why Hackers Write Computer Viruses
Why do hackers hack? Why create a worm that sends out an email to everyone in your contact list, or a Trojan that deletes your term papers? Is it mischief, malice, money, or something else entirely?
This is the question that was on my mind when I met with Mikko Hypponen, a legendary computer security heavyweight who has been hunting viruses for 25 years—since Brain.a, the first PC computer virus.
From the plaza, I walked out to a seat by the water facing the San Francisco Bay. Hypponen was there, waiting for me. I sat down next to him. I felt like we needed code phrases.
"What makes this a New Orleans iced coffee," he asked, as he accepted his drink.
"It's the chicory," I replied.
"Did you know the Finns drink more coffee per capita than any other nation?"
"I did know that," I replied. "I know a lot about coffee."
Okay! I guess we had our code phrases after all.
Hypponen is the lead security researcher for F-Secure in Finland. His takedowns and diagnosis include some of the nastiest, biggest computer viruses out there: Sobig.F, Sasser, Storm Worm. PC World called him one of the 50 most important people on the Web. Hypponen was on his way to a black hat conference in Las Vegas.
We met at the Ferry Plaza in San Francisco, sitting by the pier as commuter boats came and went. I wanted to ask him about the long history of personal computer viruses, now in their 25th year, from the simple to Stuxnet, and the shifting motivations that inspire virus writers to act. We had an hour.
The Hobbyists
2011 is the 25th anniversary of the first PC virus. In September, 1986, two brothers from Lahore, Pakistan, Amjad Farooq Alvi and Basit Farooq Alvi, released Brain.a into the wild. Brain.a infected the boot section of computers running PC-DOS. Its authors claimed they were simply trying to target people who were infringing on their own software. But the virus spread wide across the world, and marked the beginning of the malware era in computing.
Late last year, Hypponen was going through his records at F-Secure. He found a box with the 100 first computer viruses, all on floppy disks. "These are probably from five years or more," says Hypponen, "now more than that are written in one hour."
He realized that the first of these, Brain, was approaching its birthday. He had a long history with it, having studied it when it was first unleashed. To mark the anniversary, he travelled to Lahore, Pakistan, in an attempt to track the Alvi brothers down. Amazingly, they still had a business at the same address they had listed in the original Brain.a virus code. So he knocked on the door. They answered.
"They wanted to demonstrate that the PC system was not as secure as Microsoft and IBM said it was," he explains. "They thought it was weak, and [wrote Brain] to demonstrate that."
The Alvi brothers were Unix guys. DOS seemed like a weaker system, and they thought they might be able to exploit it. They wanted to see if they could move code from one system to another, on its own. They wanted to see if it could be transmitted, like a virus.
It worked! Before long the brothers (who had helpfully included their phone number in the code) were getting calls from universities and businesses all over the world, wanting to know what it was.
Others began tinkering with Brain.a, releasing variants. And as time passed, more and more people began writing distinct viruses. These were for the most part, however, more of annoyances than real problems. They might mess up your system but they would not (for most people at least) ruin your life.
And then came email. And that was bad.
"It has changed completely now," says Hypponen. "It changed from hobbyists and old school hackers around 2002 or 2003 when the hobbyists realized they could make money."
The Criminals
By the turn of the century, spam was big business. But in order to send out a lot of spam, you needed a lot of computers. And to keep from getting caught, they shouldn't be your own. Enter botnets.
Viruses allowed spammers to capture and control users' computers remotely. They could use infected machines to ensnare other computers, sending out not just offers for herbal viagra, but phishing attacks and keystroke loggers that give them access to bank and financial data and personal information. By 2005, the point of malware writing had largely changed. Fuck proof of concept. Now it's for money.
There's also another reason that malware writers have surged: Microsoft Windows XP. That ancient system is, unbelievably, still the most widely used operating system on the planet. It's installed on more than 50 percent of all machines connected to the Internet, and it's very insecure.
"XP is the weakest of all systems," says Hypponen, " and it is installed on the most computers. Of course you will target that."
"The source of malware today is 99 percent criminal gangs, and that's a pretty nasty development," says Hypponen. "We didn't used to have to worry in the real world. But now there are organized criminal gangs, making millions from their attacks. When we shut down their operations, they know who we are."
It's not just a hypothetical fear. Ivan Eugene Kaspersky, who owns one of the world's leading anti-virus security labs, had his son Ivan snatched off the streets of Moscow earlier this year. Whether there was a revenge motivation, in addition to the ransom, is still unclear. But the fact remains that anti-virus guys are now effectively standing between the mob and big piles of money. Which is never a very safe place to be.
And if that wasn't bad enough, now there's a new, potentially deadlier, source of viruses: governments.
The Spies
"I have Stuxnet right here with me in my bag! Do you want it?"
He leans over and slaps his computer bag on the side. I decline. I know it's not, say, smallpox, but sitting next to the most sophisticated computer virus ever created is oddly worrisome.
Stuxnet upped the ante. It targeted only a certain programming environment, with a certain PLC, with a certain configuration, in a certain location—which turned out to be a nuclear plant in Iran. When it went active, it recorded the normal plant operations for a few days, and then began playing them back to monitors, like a closed circuit tv camera in a bank heist film, while in actuality it was modifying the speed centrifuges spun at, causing them to break apart, most likely in violent fashion. Stuxnet, for now at least, ended Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But where did it come from?
"It was done by your government!" The Finn doesn't have any proof of this, but like most security researchers, he takes it as accepted wisdom.
"I do believe that when in 2008, George W. Bush signed the [Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative] that the end result of that was Stuxnet."
Unlike most viruses, Stuxnet didn't spread over the Internet. Instead, it spreads from one machine to another on infected USB sticks. Which means that somehow, someone had to get an infected stick into physical contact with Iran's nuclear facility in Bushier.
"We don't know how it was originally planted, says Hypponen. "My guess is that they pick-pocketed workers, or broke into their homes and planted them."
Stuxnet has heralded a new era. Today's sophisticated malware attacks might now just target one machine in the entire world. An employee at a certain company could get a virus targeted just to that specific person. Governments, corporations, and extremist groups are already engaged in this. As Hypponen points out, Stuxnet had been in the wild for more than a year before anyone discovered it.
http://gizmodo.com/5827405/why-hackers-write-computer-virusesWhy do hackers hack? Why create a worm that sends out an email to everyone in your... more-
- lordsbassman
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Brain: Searching for the first PC virus in Pakistan
A 10-minute video reportage about Mikko Hypponen's trip to Lahore, Pakistan, to find the authors of the first PC virus "Brain". This is the first time Amjad Farooq Alvi and Basit Farooq Alvi have given a video interview about the virus, which spread around the world via floppy disks in 1986.A 10-minute video reportage about Mikko Hypponen's trip to Lahore, Pakistan, to... more-
- lordsbassman
- added this
- 6 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
What the USDA doesn't want you to know about antibiotics and factory farms
Here is a document the USDA doesn't want you to see. It's what the agency calls a "technical review"—nothing more than a USDA-contracted researcher's simple, blunt summary of recent academic findings on the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant infections and their link with factory animal farms. The topic is a serious one. A single antibiotic-resistant pathogen, MRSA—just one of many now circulating among Americans—now claims more lives each year than AIDS.
Back in June, the USDA put the review up on its National Agricultural Library website. Soon after, a Dow Jones story quoted a USDA official who declared it to be based on "reputed, scientific, peer-reviewed, and scholarly journals." She added that the report should not be seen as a "representation of the official position of USDA." That's fair enough—the review was designed to sum up the state of science on antibiotic resistance and factory farms, not the USDA's position on the matter.
But around the same time, the agency added an odd disclaimer to the top of the document: "This review has not been peer reviewed. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture." And last Friday, the document (original link) vanished without comment from the agency's website. The only way to see the document now is through the above-linked cached version supplied to me by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
What gives? Why is the USDA suppressing a review that assembles research from "reputed, scientific, peer-reviewed, and scholarly journals"?
To understand the USDA's quashing of a report it had earlier commissioned, published, and praised, you first have to understand a key aspect of industrial-scale meat production. You see, keeping animals alive and growing fast under cramped, unsanitary conditions is tricky business. One of the industry's tried-and-true tactics is low-level, daily doses of antibiotics. The practice helps keep infections down, at least in the short term, and, for reasons no one really understands, it pushes animals to fatten to slaughter weight faster.
Altogether, the US meat industry uses 29 million pounds of antibiotics every year. To put that number in perspective, consider that we humans in the United States—in all of our prescription fill-ups and hospital stays combined—use just over 7 million pounds per year. Thus the vast bulk of antibiotics consumed in this country, some 80 percent, goes to factory animal farms.
For years, scientists have worried that the industry's reliance on antibiotics was contributing to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. The European Union took action to curtail routine antibiotic use on farms in 2006 (taking Sweden's lead, which had banned the practice 20 years before).
But here in the United States, the regulatory approach has been completely laissez-faire—and the meat industry would like to keep it that way. The industry claims that even though antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been found both in confined animals and supermarket meat, there's simply no evidence that livestock strains are jumping to the human population.
Here is where we get back to that now-you-see-it, now-you-don't USDA research summary, which reads like a heavily footnoted rebuttal to the industry line. Assembled by Vaishali Dharmarha, a research assistant at the University of Maryland, the report summarizes research from 63 academic papers and government studies. Here are few of her findings:
• "Use and misuse of antimicrobial drugs in food animal production and human medicine is the main factor accelerating antimicrobial resistance."
• "[F]ood animals, when exposed to antimicrobial agents, may serve as a significant reservoir of resistant bacteria that can transmit to humans through the food supply."
• "Several studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella showed that [antibiotic resistance] in Salmonella strains was most likely due to the antimicrobial use in food animals, and that most infections caused by resistant strains are acquired from the consumption of contaminated food."
• "Farmers and farm workers may get exposed to resistant bacteria by handling animals, feed, and manure. These exposures are of significant concern to public health, as they can transfer the resistant bacteria to family and community members, particularly through person-to-person contacts."
• "Resistant bacteria can also spread from intensive food animal production area to outside boundaries through contact between food animals and animals in the external environment. Insects, flies, houseflies, rodents, and wild birds play an important role in this mode of transmission. They are particularly attracted to animal wastes and feed sources from where they carry the resistant bacteria to several locations outside the animal production facility."
Naturally, such assertions didn't please the meat industry—and the fact that they were backed up by dozens of peer-reviewed science papers no doubt only sharpened the sting.
More at the link.Here is a document the USDA doesn't want you to see. It's what the agency... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 7 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
How Flu Spreads On a Plane
Time...
How Flu Spreads on a Plane
By Bryan Walsh Thursday, June 16, 2011
Brian Stablyk / Photographer's Choice / Getty Images
As if the generally horrific experience of flying wasn't bad enough (maybe I'm just a little sour about the 90 minutes I spent on the tarmac at Newark last night), a new study [PDF] in Emerging Infectious Diseases shows that flying can make you as sick as you are miserable.
Australian researchers studied flu infections that spread aboard two large airliners during May 2009, at the height of the H1N1/A flu pandemic, and found a zone of infection around sick passengers. And — no surprise here — the closer you sit to someone who's sick, the better the chance you'll be coming down with the flu.
Sit within two rows of someone with flu-like symptoms, and your chance of getting ill increases by 3.6%. Sit within two seats of the sick passenger, and your chance of coming down with the flu goes up by 7.7% (and, I imagine, your chance of generally having a horrible flight increases by 100%).
Paul Kelly, one of the paper's authors and an epidemiologist at Australian National University, told LiveScience that the time spent aboard the plane played a role in the chance of infection as well:
"The closer you are to an infectious person, the higher your chances of becoming infected yourself," said study researcher Paul Kelly, an epidemiologist at Australian National University in Canberra. "This is especially the case on long-haul flights," those lasting more than four hours.
Kelly believes that governments should screen patients for flu symptoms and prevent them from flying — a practice that tends to spike during pandemics and other outbreaks, but usually wanes not long after. (From my experience, you'd need to be breaking out with bubonic plague before most U.S. airlines would take you off a flight.)
If you do end up near a sick person, Kelly suggests you ask to be moved — good luck with that — wear a cotton mask, or even suggest that you're [SIC] sick neighbor wears one. (It's considered common courtesy in Asia for those with flu-like illnesses to wear masks when venturing out in public.)
The results of the study have consequences for infectious disease control beyond stopping the sniffles. Modern airline travel allows us to move from one end of the globe to the other in less than a day, and that means we can bring our germs with us. In the case of the SARS outbreaks of 2003, the disease was almost always introduced into a new country via airline passengers. The next big infectious disease — which could be much more deadly than SARS or H1N1 — is out there somewhere, and it will almost certainly be riding a plane.
Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/16/its-true-flying-can-give-you-the-flu/#ixzz1PbjVa9VJTime... How Flu Spreads on a Plane By Bryan Walsh Thursday, June 16, 2011... more-
- EthicalVegan
- added this
- 8 months ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
UN puts off destroying last smallpox viruses
Health ministers from around the world agreed Tuesday to put off setting a deadline to destroy the last known stockpiles of the smallpox virus for three more years, rejecting a U.S. plan that had called for a five-year delay.
LINK : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110525/ap_on_hi_te/un_un_destroying_smallpox;_ylt=AsvmvLB8t7ZygI3Ge19ffRGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFiZWoyOXZoBHBvcwM1NARzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3dvcmxkBHNsawN1bnB1dHNvZmZkZXM-Health ministers from around the world agreed Tuesday to put off setting a deadline to... more-
- GoldenHeart
- added this
- 9 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
GMOS: Substantial equivalence: anything but substantial or equivalent
Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the impression that they signify fairness, safety and adequate disclosure to consumers regarding the products those words are attached to. However, regarding the marketing of transgenic foods specifically genetically modified organisms in our food that is anything but the case. I think it is crucial that consumers are aware of what is in their food and how it may affect them and their children in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies. This knowledge is essential as a preventative measure to maintaining health and also regarding informing consumers about any other effects what they buy may have on the enviroment. Therefore, in discussing substantial equivalence in regards to GMOs and the underlayer of collusion involved in pushing them into the world I think it important to begin at the beginning.
This is the standard definition of "substantial equivalence":
"Substantial equivalence is a concept developed by OECD in 1991 that maintains that a novel food should be considered the same as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food."
This concept was pushed in regards to GMOs by the FAO and the WHO in the early 1990s. Its intent was the stripping away of years of testing of so called "novel" foods which can be prohibitively expensive and time consuming and therefore would have affected the profits of companies like Monsanto that have a virtual stranglehold on the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and governments that have afforded them special treatment in allowing them to use this planet and its species as one huge science experiment. The residual effects of applying these two words to GMOs and in allowing them to be foisted upon the world with little to no adequate testing already negates the validity of applying the substantial equivalence label to them.
____
This is from a paper written in 1997:
John Fagan, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular Biology, Maharishi University of Management
"The concept of substantial equivalence has been used in Europe, North America, and elsewhere around the world as the basis of regulations designed to facilitate the rapid commercialization of genetically engineered foods. For instance, European Commission (EC) regulations concerning novel foods and food ingredients apply the concept of substantial equivalence to both the safety testing and to the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are spared from extensive safety testing on the assumption that they are no more dangerous than the corresponding non-genetically engineered food (1). Using similar arguments, genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are not required to be labeled as genetically engineered (2). The effect of these regulations has been to allow genetically engineered foods to enter the market place without sufficient testing to assure safety and without sufficient labeling to allow consumers to de cide for themselves whether or not to purchase and eat these novel foods. The health of the population of Europe is thus being placed at risk.
The fundamental inadequacies of this approach have been discussed previously. For instance, one article presented in the Proceedings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Workshop on Food Safety Evaluation (3), came to the following conclusions: (1) Because the concept of substantial equivalence has no dimensions, it cannot be used as a predictor of which novel foods will require substantial safety testing in animals. (2) Depending on the nature of the novel food, the usefulness of the concept of substantial equivalence in determining the necessity for extensive safety testing ranges from useful to negligible. (3) The number and range of safety tests required is best determined, not by the concept of substantial equivalence, but by the nature of the product under consideration.
At first glance the term substantially equivalent implies that two foods are equivalent in all characteristics that are of importance to the consumer-safety, nutrition, flavor, and texture. However, in actual practice the investigator compares only selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart. If that relatively restricted set of characteristics is not found to be significantly different in these two, the genetically engineered food is classified as substantially equivalent to the corresponding non-genetically engineered food and is required to be neither tested further nor labeled as genetically engineered.
The argument supporting this practice is that since most of the characteristics of a particular genetically engineered food are similar to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart, it must be the case that the genetically engineered food is substantially equivalent to its non-genetically engineered counterpart with respect to all characteristics relevant to the consumer. This is obviously a fallacious argument, and should not be used as the basis for avoiding more extensive testing and for avoiding the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Most critically, if characteristics important to food safety are not evaluated directly, the safety of consumers will be in jeopardy."
end of excerpt.
____
continued at the link.
Thank you for supporting this blog and for helping me get out this important information.Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 11 months ago
- |
- 7 comments
-
-
10 Common Ways Your PC Gets Infected with Viruses
If you’ve ever had a virus on your computer, you know how frustrating it can be to try and get it removed. how those nasty little things get into your PC any ways?
Link : http://www.dslservice-providers.com/blog/blog/2011/10-common-ways-your-pc-gets-infected-with-viruses.htmlIf you’ve ever had a virus on your computer, you know how frustrating it can be... more-
- AngelAlina
- added this
- 11 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
The first computer virus turns 40
Creeper the first computer virus turns 40 years old today.-
- techpig
- added this
- 11 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
If You Think Animal Welfare Has Nothing to Do With Your Health - Think Again
Big agriculture, whether farms of hundreds of thousands of closely packed chickens or largescale irrigation projects that create new homes for disease spreaders like the mosquito, offer unprecedented opportunities for the emergence of new illnesses.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/feb/11/animal-human-health-diseases-link-agriculture
Eliminating crowded, stressful confinement agriculture reduces the chance that diseases will jump from animals to humans with potentially devastating results. Also, by not applying antibiotics to animals that are sick from their environment in food factories, will give us tools to fight future diseases.Big agriculture, whether farms of hundreds of thousands of closely packed chickens or... more-
- localflavortv
- added this
- 11 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Zinc can be an 'effective treatment' for common colds
Taking zinc syrup, tablets or lozenges can lessen the severity and duration of the common cold, experts believe.A review of the available scientific evidence suggests taking zinc within a day of the onset of cold symptoms speeds recovery.
:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12462910Taking zinc syrup, tablets or lozenges can lessen the severity and duration of the... more-
- suzane
- added this
- 12 months ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
The Hacker News : Cyber Crime News and Security News
The Hackers News is an online Hacker News Organisation. We propagate news specifically related to information security threats, Hacking threads and issues from all over the world. Our research teams search and compile news from tens of thousands of sites to bring you the most relevant Cyber Hacking titles in one location. In addition to news, we host blogs and discussions, education videos, and Articles.
Official Website : http://www.thehackernews.com/
Facebook Page : http://www.facebook.com/thehackernews
Facebook Group : http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_103200526419802
Our Twitter : http://www.twitter.com/TheHackersNews
Email Updates : http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=TheHackersNews
Sms Alert Service: http://labs.google.co.in/smschannels/subscribe/HackersNews
hack, hacking, security breach, hacker, hackers, computer security, encryption, confidentiality, protected, breach, codebreakers, random number, PRN, transmitting sensitive data, banking records, personal information, unbreakable encryption, security of the data, code-breaking, hacking warnings, criminals, terrorists, encryption program, steganography, payload files, hidden data, quantum encryption, erasing magnetic storage, protecting sensitive data, fail-safe destruction, protect sensitive information, complete erasure, secret key, computer virus, viruses, worms, computer wormThe Hackers News is an online Hacker News Organisation. We propagate news specifically... more-
- TheHackerNews
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
-
Pesticide use and lobster deaths probed in Canadian waters
Parasites, pesticides, sick salmon and dead lobsters.
These four things have become an issue in Passamaquoddy Bay, and no one seems to be happy about it.
Not the salmon aquaculture operators, who are using pesticides to combat a damaging outbreak of sea lice at their fish pens in Passamaquoddy Bay and adjacent Cobscook Bay. Not environmentalists, who are concerned about the effect the pesticides might be having on surrounding marine life. And not lobster fishermen, who fear the use of pesticides has contributed to widespread lobster deaths in the past.
Officials in Canada are looking into the use of pesticides in and near Passamaquoddy Bay as part of separate investigations into the deaths of lobsters off Grand Manan Island in late 2009 and off Deer Island in early 2010. Both islands are located directly across the international border within easy eyesight of Maine.
Lobsters and sea lice, both crustaceans, are highly vulnerable to pesticides that salmon farm operators have been using and then disposing of in coastal waters, according to officials.
As part of the investigation, Environment Canada executed a search warrant in November at eight facilities in New Brunswick owned and operated by Cooke Aquaculture, a salmon aquaculture firm that also operates salmon farms in Maine. Cooke officials have said they are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.
According to media reports, cypermethrin, a pesticide that is licensed for use in Maine but banned in Canada, was detected on the dead lobsters found off the two Canadian islands.
In a Dec. 29 e-mail, Henry Lau, a spokesman for Environment Canada, declined to specifically verify whether cypermethrin was detected on the dead lobsters found a few miles away from Maine’s border. He wrote that the Canadian federal agency is investigating the lobster deaths under the authority of Canada’s Fisheries Act, which bans fish-harming substances from being deposited into fish-bearing waters.
“Cypermethrin is considered to be harmful to crustaceans including lobster and shrimp,” Lau wrote.
There have been no reports of dead lobsters or of other immediate ill effects in Maine from the use of pesticides in the two bays, but state and lobster industry officials in Maine are keeping tabs on the Environment Canada investigations and on the use of pesticides on both sides of the border to make sure Maine’s lobster indus-try, the largest commercial fishery in the state, and Maine’s marine environment are not harmed.
In 2009, the total statewide landings of lobster in Maine had an estimated cumulative value of $228 million, according to official Maine Department of Marine Resources statistics. Farmed salmon, the second most lucrative fishery in Maine, brought in $38.7 million in direct revenue to the state’s economy the same year. Official estimated financial values for the two fisheries in 2010 are not yet available.
Lobster and pesticides
The presence of pesticides in waters off the East Coast has been a concern for lobster fishermen since at least 1999, when the Long Island Sound lobster population plummeted after anti-mosquito pesticides were sprayed in the New York City area to fight the spread of West Nile virus. Long Island Sound fishermen later sued the pesticide manufacturers and then settled out of court for more than $16 million.
Patrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, said recently that lobstermen have good reason to be wary of pesticide use in or near coastal waters. If not used properly, she said, “a pesticide for salmon lice would be extremely dangerous to lobsters.”
McCarron said, however, that many aquaculture farmers in Maine have close connections to the lobster industry and take pains to avoid harming the marine environment. Still, the use of pesticides in salmon aquaculture operations needs to be very precise and tightly controlled, she said.
“It’s a fine line to make sure you use the proper amount,” McCarron said. “We have to find the right balance of sharing the ocean so industries can coexist.”
Jon Lewis, aquaculture environmental coordinator for DMR, said recently that besides monitoring the use of cypermethrin in state waters, Maine officials also have noted that a pesticide called AlphaMax, which contains the chemical deltamethrin, recently was used for the first time at salmon farms on the Canadian side of Pas-samaquoddy Bay. AlphaMax has not been licensed for use in Maine because no one has sought state approval to do so, he said.
But that has not prevented DMR officials from consulting with their Canadian counterparts about the toxicity and use of AlphaMax, Lewis said. DMR has not performed any studies or testing of deltamethrin on its own, he said.
According to Lewis, Canadian officials have told DMR that AlphaMax weakens and disperses in the water so that, 15 minutes after it has been released, it cannot be detected within 100 meters of the pens where it was used. With those results in mind, he added, testing for AlphaMax miles away on the American side of Passama-quoddy Bay would not appear to be a worthwhile use of DMR resources.
But Lewis said he understands why lobstermen might take an interest in the presence of pesticides in the ocean and in the dead-lobster investigations in New Brunswick.
“I don’t blame the lobstermen for being concerned,” Lewis said. “Obviously, it targets crustaceans.”
cont.Parasites, pesticides, sick salmon and dead lobsters. These four things have become... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 1 comment
-
-
Researchers Find "Alarming" Decline In Bumblebees
Four previously abundant species of bumblebee are close to disappearing in the United States, researchers reported Monday in a study confirming that the agriculturally important bees are being affected worldwide.
They documented a 96 percent decline in the numbers of the four species, and said their range had shrunk by as much as 87 percent. As with honeybees, a pathogen is partly involved, but the researchers also found evidence of inbreeding caused by habitat loss.
"We provide incontrovertible evidence that multiple Bombus species have experienced sharp population declines at the national level," the researchers reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, calling the findings "alarming."
"These are one of the most important pollinators of native plants," Sydney Cameron of the University of Illinois, Urbana, who led the study, said in a telephone interview.
In recent years, experts have documented a disappearance of bees in what is widely called colony collapse disorder, blamed on many factors including parasites, fungi, stress, pesticides and viruses. But most studies have focused on honeybees.
Bumblebees are also important pollinators, Cameron said, but are far less studied. Bumblebees pollinate tomatoes, blueberries and cranberries, she noted.
"The 50 species (of bumblebees) in the United States are traditionally associated with prairies and with high alpine vegetations," she added.
"Just as important -- they land on a flower and they have this behavior called buzz pollination that enables them to cause pollen to fly off the flower."
POLLINATING TOMATOES
This is the way to pollinate tomatoes, Cameron said -- although smaller bees can accomplish the same effect if enough cluster on a single flower.
Several reports have documented the disappearance of bumblebees in Europe and Asia, but no one had done a large national study in the Americas.
Cameron's team did a three-year study of 382 sites in 40 states and also looked at more than 73,000 museum records.
"We show that the relative abundance of four species have declined by up to 96 percent and that their surveyed geographic ranges have contracted by 23 percent to 87 percent," they wrote.
While no crops are in immediate danger, the results show that experts need to pay attention, Cameron said. Pollinators such as bees and bats often have specific tongue lengths and pollination behaviors that have evolved along with the species of plants they pollinate.
Bumblebees can fly in colder weather than other species, and are key to pollinating native species in the tundra and at high elevations, Cameron said.
Genetic tests show that the four affected bumblebee species are inbred and other tests implicate a parasite called Nosema bombi, Cameron said.
"This is a wake-up call that bumblebee species are declining not only in Europe, not only in Asia, but also in North America," she said.Four previously abundant species of bumblebee are close to disappearing in the United... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 61 comments
-
-
Vanishing Of The Bees
Honeybees have been mysteriously disappearing across the planet, literally vanishing from their hives.
Known as Colony Collapse Disorder, this phenomenon has brought beekeepers to crisis in an industry responsible for producing apples, broccoli, watermelon, onions, cherries and a hundred other fruits and vegetables. Commercial honeybee operations pollinate crops that make up one out of every three bites of food on our tables.
Vanishing of the Bees follows commercial beekeepers David Hackenberg and Dave Mendes as they strive to keep their bees healthy and fulfill pollination contracts across the U.S. The film explores the struggles they face as the two friends plead their case on Capital Hill and travel across the Pacific Ocean in the quest to protect their honeybees.
Filming across the US, in Europe, Australia and Asia, this documentary examines the alarming disappearance of honeybees and the greater meaning it holds about the relationship between mankind and mother earth. As scientists puzzle over the cause, organic beekeepers indicate alternative reasons for this tragic loss. Conflicting options abound and after years of research, a definitive answer has not been found to this harrowing mystery.Honeybees have been mysteriously disappearing across the planet, literally vanishing... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 1 year ago
- |
- 29 comments
-
