New Neurological Disease Found in Pig Processing Plant Workers

We now have a new horrible disease brought by the same insane meat-raising industry that brought Mad Cow Disease and Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, both implicated from the brains of sheep and cattle. It's known by two terms, Progressive Inflammatory Neuropathy and Immune Polyradiculoneuropathy (IPR). Neither is really a name, but more of a description. They indicate that the disease involves inflammation of the spinal cord, has multiple neurological symptoms, gets worse, and affects the immune system.Symptoms are remarkably similar to multiple sclerosis and arachnoiditis. They include pain, especially in the legs, weakness, fatigue, and sensory disturbances.All of the victims are employees in pork slaughtering plants. They harvest pig brains by blowing them out of the heads with compressed-air guns. Yes, harvest is the term used. It's believed that aerosolized pig brains, which are breathed in by the workers, are the cause.At this point, there is no explanation of what it is in pig's brains that cause such symptoms. In Mad Cow Disease, the cause is likely prions, which are protein particles that have no material associated with cell nuclei. There is no known treatment for prion-caused diseases, and they are consistently degenerative and fatal.

The Brief History of IPR

IPR's history is very short, going back, at most, to 2004. The first possible case was seen then, but was identified only as having symptoms of neurological damage, as the patient wisely* refused to have cerebrospinal fluid tapped for further testing.The disease came to light just last year, in September 2007, when the nursing staff of an Austin, Minnesota pork processing facility and a Spanish interpreter reported 12 cases to a family physician, who in turn contacted neurologist Dr. Lachance of the Mayo Clinic. Since then, a total of 18 cases have been confirmed.All IPR's victims have a previously unknown antibody, which indicates that the disease is caused by an infectious agent in the pig's brains. Most, if not all, of the subjects have thickened spinal nerve roots. Protein levels in their cerebrospinal fluid are elevated, which is typical of meningitis and other neurological disorders involving inflammation.A significant point that seems not to be discussed by the allopathic medical system is that no one knows how long it takes to develop symptoms of IPR. In the case of Creutzfeldt-Jakob, it can take decades. Thus, we have no idea how many people have been affected, nor do we know whether the disease is transmissible from human-to-human once it has crossed the species barrier from pig to human.

IPR Prognosis

To this point, allopathic medicine is painting a positive picture for IPR's victims, saying that all of its victims have either improved or stabilized. In saying this, they fail to point out that they've received suppressive treatments, most notably methylprednisolone, which carries extremely serious risks, including diabetes, hypercortisolism (another name for Cushing's syndrome, which leads to heart attacks), psychoses, and a host of other serious disorders. They do note that victims who are "less severely affected" (as described by Medscape) are treated with pain relievers and gabapentin, another drug with potentially severe effects.What is not noted is that symptoms like those described in IPR victims indicate permanent, and usually degenerative, debility and pain. The allopathic medical system can provide only palliative care for such patients, care that carries its own range of severe risks.The bottom line for the patients is that the outlook cannot be good. For those who have been exposed to the same conditions, hundreds or thousands of workers, no one knows the likelihood of them developing IPR. The rest of us have no way of knowing whether the disease can be transmitted from human to human.

Conclusion

Once again, the evils of agribusiness, which sees crops as nothing but potential profits, not as food, and animals as products, not as feeling beings, are coming back to haunt us. We are now losing our bees and bats. People have been falling ill from terrible diseases transmitted by the victims of our animal exploitation. The masses of humans in so-called advanced societies, like our own, are suffering from malnutrition and obesity as the result of mass production in both food growing and processing.If diseases like IPR, Immune Polyradiculoneuropathy, are to be ended, then the only solution is to humanize our food system.

The Sun Isn't the Cause of Earth's Sudden Climate Change, Conclude Scientists

Changes in solar output cannot be the cause of recent global warming trends, according to a study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A.The study was spurred in part by "The Great Global Warming Swindle," the TV documentary that featured a hypothesis that increased solar radiation may be causing global warming."All the graphs they showed stopped in 1980, and I knew why -- because things diverged after that," said researcher Mike Lockwood of the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory in the United Kingdom. "[But] you can't just ignore bits of data that you don't like."According to the cosmic ray hypothesis, increased solar radiation leads to a more powerful magnetic field, which blocks cosmic rays from reaching Earth. Because cosmic rays provide particles around which water vapor condenses to form clouds, a decrease in cosmic rays would thus lead to a drop in cloud cover. This means that more solar radiation would strike Earth, leading to warming.But the current study showed that solar radiation has actually decreased, not increased, in the last 20 years. This same period corresponds to a rate of warming equal to or even greater than that of the rest of the century."This paper reinforces the fact that the warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr. Piers Forster, a professor at Leeds University and a significant contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."I do think there is a cosmic ray effect on cloud cover," Lockwood said. "It works in clean maritime air where there isn't much else for water vapor to condense around. It might even have had a significant effect on pre-industrial climate, but you cannot apply it to what we're seeing now, because we're in a completely different

Excess Ozone Chokes Plants, Accelerates Global Warming

The chemical known as ozone may be making a much more significant contribution to global warming than scientists had previously thought, according to a new study published in the journal Nature."Ozone could be twice as important as we previously thought as a driver of climate change," said study co-author Peter Cox.Ozone occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, but is produced in the lower atmosphere when sunlight strikes industrial pollutants such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides.Scientists have long known that ozone is a greenhouse gas, trapping radiation within the atmosphere and leading to rising global temperatures. But the new study suggests that ozone may have a much more significant climate impact by adversely affecting plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.According to the researchers, high concentrations of ozone and carbon dioxide damage plants' ability to engage in photosynthesis. This weakens the plants, causing their stomata (pores in the leaves) to close. In turn, this reduces that amount of carbon dioxide or ozone that the plants are able to absorb.Because of this complex interaction, scientists previously did not know how significant of an effect ozone pollution had on plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. To answer the question, researchers designed two computer models to test how plants would be affected by ozone if they had either high or low sensitivity. They then used these models to estimate the predicted effect of ozone on plants' ability to filter out carbon dioxide using projected ozone levels from 1900 to 2100.Under the high-sensitivity model, plants' ability to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere was reduced by 23 percent. Even under the low-sensitivity model, it was reduced by 14 percent."Calculations of the efficiency of land ecosystems to take up carbon would be less efficient than we thought previously," Cox said. "The indirect effect is of a similar magnitude, or even larger, than the direct effect. Arguably, we have been looking in the wrong place for the key impacts of ozone."

Fluorescent lights release toxic mercury directly into the environment

There is an international campaign to ban the incandescent bulb in favor of alternative sources of lighting, most notably fluorescents. Unfortunately, fluorescents contain noxious chemicals including argon and mercury that are contaminating the environment, specifically through their accumulation in landfill waste. IN an effort to fight the effects of global warming and save precious energy, federal and state governments are attempting to find the best way to dispose of or recycle fluorescent light bulbs. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), approximately 800 million fluorescent lamps are disposed of every year. It only takes a single gram of mercury to contaminate a two-acre pond and cause potential ecological damage through water pollution. Therefore, 800 million lamps produce enough mercury to contaminate about 20 million acres of water.When the bulbs break, mercury can contaminate the environmet, including soils, people and animals in the surrounding the area. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can severely harm the human nervous system through either ingestion, inhalation or skin absorption. It is a highly toxic heavy metal that acts as a cumulative poison similar to lead or DDT. Exposure presents the greatest hazard for infants, children and pregnant mothers. Physical symptoms may include an inability to coordinate body movement, an impairment of hearing, vision and speech, skin rashes and kidney damage. When the bulbs are recycled, a special hazardous waste company generally carries out the process of collecting the unbroken bulbs, crushing them and capturing both the remaining mercury gas and the spent mercury solids. These companies then ship the mercury-bearing waste, using an EPA-permitted hazardous waste transporter, to an EPA-approved hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility.But most compact fluorescent lights simply end up in landfill and are not recycled at all. That's because most consumers simply throw them in the trash rather than recycling them.Changes are being made slowly to lower the amount of mercury we may be potentially exposed to. Low energy light bulbs called compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) contain 4-15mg of mercury compared to normal fluorescent lights, which contain approximately 20 mg of the toxic metal."The compact fluorescent light bulb is a product people can use to positively influence the environment to…prevent mercury emissions as well as greenhouse gas emissions. And it's something that we can do now -- and it's extremely important that we do it," said Wendy Reed, the manager of the EPA's Energy Star program. "And the positive message is, if you recycle them, if you dispose of them properly, then they're doing a world of good." The trouble is, of course, that the vast majority of consumers don't recycle them or dispose of them properly, and so fluorescent lights have become a significant source of mercury pollution.

Regulations regarding fluorescent lights

All fluorescent light bulbs are supposed to be disposed of properly, which means recycling these products instead of throwing them in the trash. But these rules are never enforced. There isn't a single recorded case of a person being arrested or fined for throwing a fluorescent light bulb in the trash.Ultimately, it becomes the responsibility of the consumer to find certified waste recycling centers or utilize special hazardous waste collection days in order to dispose of broken or dead fluorescent bulbs. The bulbs cannot be incinerated because they could become much more dangerous if the mercury becomes distributed through the air in smoke that may be inhaled. Most consumers, unfortunately, have no idea that such bulbs are supposed to be disposed of through "hazardous waste collection days" or certified waste recycling centers. Have you ever heard of these? Do you have any idea about where such centers might be in your community? If you don't, you're not alone: Nobody does!And what about the potential dangers that exist in the transporting of broken fluorescent light bulbs to these recycling centers? Imagine bulbs breaking against one another and mercury vapor escaping into the small space inside a car. Anyone inside the car will potentially be inhaling mercury vapor. Until it's made convenient to the consumer, the consistent recycling of fluorescent lighting by our citizens is little more than a pipe dream -- wishful thinking on the part of the EPA and fluorescent light manufacturers who really don't want to take responsibility for all the mercury they're putting into the environment."I share your frustration that there isn't a national infrastructure for the proper recycling of this product," says Reed. "EPA is actively engaged with trying to find a solution that works for these retailers around recycling the product, because it's really, really important. ...The only retailer I know of that is recycling is IKEA. We are working with Wal-Mart on it; we are making some progress. But no commitments have been made on the part of Wal-Mart."

Compact fluorescents contain mercury, too

As an alternative to normal fluorescent lighting, compact fluorescent light bulbs have gained much popularity over the past couple years because they contain less mercury than standard fluorescent lighting. However, it is impossible to have fluorescent lighting without mercury, according to industry engineers. Obviously, recycling is not going to be enough. A mercury-free alternative must be found.According to John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America: "The problem with the bulbs is that they'll break before they get to the landfill. They'll break in containers, or they'll break in a dumpster or they'll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens."Fluorescent light bulbs are considered universal waste and as such, are subject to the Universal Waste Rule of 2000, a U.S. environmental law that encourages the recycling of mercury-containing materials by allowing products such as fluorescent bulbs to be exempt from certain hazardous waste requirements.Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark have stated they intend to eventually eliminate mercury use completely, and plan on researching alternatives to fluorescent lighting such as LED technology. General Electric has been manufacturing compact and regular fluorescent lights for over 20 years, but now admits that the accumulation of mercury could pose a problem for the environment and human health."Given what we anticipate to be the significant increase in the use of these products, we are now beginning to look at, and shortly we'll be discussing with legislators, possibly a national solution here," said Earl Jones, a senior counsel for General Electric.The solution, of course is LED lights, which contain no mercury and are significantly more energy efficient than both incandescent lights and fluorescent lights. That's why I launched a new company earlier this year, EcoLEDs.com (www.EcoLEDs.com), which provides mercury-free LED lights to businesses and consumers. Right now, LED lights are very expensive to purchase up front, but they pay for themselves in about two years thanks to the savings in electricity (and they keep on working for 50,000 hours...).There's no doubt that LED lights are the future of lighting, and the sooner we all switch to LED lights, the more quickly we'll stop poisoning our homes, communities and nations with the unsafe disposal of mercury from fluorescent lights.Spread the word: Fluorescent lights are toxic to life on planet earth. If you care about the health of your family and your planet, don't buy light bulbs made with mercury.