Morgellons, nanotechnology dangers 1
Posted by lahar9jhadav on April 25, 2007
Note – This is the most generally complete, current profile of Morgellons as we perceive and define it based on clinical lab data and extremely advanced research being done by a small group of heroic, brilliant private sector scientists and physicians. – Jeff Rense
Morgellons Disease – April 2007
A communicable nanotechnology invasion of human tissues in the form of self-assembling, self-replicating nanotubes, nanowires, nanoarrays with sensors, and other nano configurations, some carrying genetically-altered and spliced DNA/RNA. These nano machines thrive in extreme alkaline ph conditions and use the body’s bio-electric energy and other (unidentified) elements for power. (People should *not* strive for an acidic ph – they should work for a normal pH of 7.5 +/-). There is some evidence these tiny machines possess their own internal batteries. They are also believed to be able to receive specific tuned microwave, EMF and ELF signals and information. To what end is not known. The symptoms vary from open skin lesions from which colored or plain fibers emerge, which do not scab normally, heal extremely slowly and never become bacterially-infected — to brain fog, fatigue and depression, etc. It is also established that Morgellons nano machines are commonly found in all body fluids, orifices and often even hair follicles, and are believed to routinely achieve total body systemic penetration. It is reported by nearly all afflicted that Morgellons nano machines seem to have some kind of hive or ‘group intelligence.’ Communicability appears to be possible/probable through shedding of the fibers by the infected and through all normal bacterial or viral vectors. Some fibers have been shown to withstand temperatures in excess of 1400 F, routine sterilization for Morgellons nano machines in all reusable medical/dental medical equipment and instruments is moot. There is also strong evidence linking Chemtrail aerosol fibers to Morgellons fibers although proof of transmission through aerial spraying remains anecdotal.
see the latest research here
N e o g r u d g i n g l y s t r i p s o f f h i s T-s h i r t.
TRINITY: Lie back.
Trinity sets the device over Neo’s stomach its three corners resting on the points of his pelvis and sternum.
She then guides a mounted cylindrical probe into his navel and squeezes a hand pump a few times to form a tight seal.
NEO: What is this thing?
TRINITY: We think you’re bugged. Try to relax.
She turns a dial and the machine bears down on Neo’s midsection, the cylinder sucking hard at his stomach.
Neo screams, squinting in pain as Trinity watches the needle on a pressure gauge climb steadily.
TRINITY: Come on, come on…
The machine quivers as the pressure builds higher and higher until something finally rockets wetly out of Neo’s stomach through the machine’s coils.
TRINITY: Got it.
Trinity shuts off the compressor, Neo cradling his stomach.
NEO: Got what? My spleen?
Trinity lifts a glass cage at the end of the tubing. Inside the small fluke-like bug flips and squirms, its tendrils flapping against the clear walls. She unrolls the window and dumps it out.
It hits the pavement with a metallic tink, reverted back into a common wire tap, as the car disappears down the street.
from The Matrix
download the script here
“21st-century technologies – robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology – pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once – but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control….while replication in a computer or a computer network can be a nuisance, at worst it disables a machine or takes down a network or network service. Uncontrolled self-replication in these newer technologies runs a much greater risk: a risk of substantial damage in the physical world.”
Bill Joy, Sun Microsystems
Amid growing evidence that some of the tiniest materials ever engineered pose potentially big health, safety and environmental risks, momentum is building in the US Congress, environmental circles and in the industry itself to beef up federal oversight of the new nanomaterials, which are already showing up in dozens of consumer products. A report in the Washington Post, however, says it remains unresolved who should pay for the additional safety studies that everyone agrees are needed. Nanomaterials are already being integrated into a wide range of products, including sports equipment, computers, food wrappings, stain-resistant fabrics and an array of cosmetics and sunscreens. The particles can pose health risks to workers where they are made and may cause health or environmental problems as discarded products break down in landfills. According to Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council: ‘I think it’s absolutely necessary that we have enforceable regulations and that we don’t put these materials in commercial products unless we know they can be used safely over the full life cycle of the product.’ At a House Science Committee hearing on 17 November, environmental and industry representatives alike said federal spending on environmental, health and safety implications should be about 10 to 20 per cent of the government’s nanotech development budget for 2006. In the UK, the TUC has called for a precautionary approach to nanomaterial use.
Nanotechnology Regulation Needed, Critics Say
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 5, 2005; A08
Amid growing evidence that some of the tiniest materials ever engineered pose potentially big environmental, health and safety risks, momentum is building in Congress, environmental circles and in the industry itself to beef up federal oversight of the new materials, which are already showing up in dozens of consumer products.
But large gaps in scientists’ understanding of the materials are slowing the development of a regulatory scheme. Equally unresolved is who should pay for the additional safety studies that everyone agrees are needed.
At issue are “nanomaterials,” made of intricately engineered particles and fibers as small as 1/80,000th the diameter of a human hair. At that scale the laws of chemistry and physics bend, giving familiar substances novel chemical, electrical and physical properties.
Nanomaterials are already being integrated into a wide range of products, including sports equipment, computers, food wrappings, stain-resistant fabrics and an array of cosmetics and sunscreens — a market expected to exceed $1 trillion a year within a decade. Preliminary studies suggest that most of these products do not pose significant risks in their bulk form or embedded in the kinds of products that so far use them.
But the same cannot be said of the particles themselves, which can pose health risks to workers where they are made and may cause health or environmental problems as discarded products break down in landfills.
Lab animal studies have already shown that some carbon nanospheres and nanotubes behave differently than conventional ultrafine particles, causing fatal inflammation in the lungs of rodents, organ damage in fish and death in ecologically important aquatic organisms and soil-dwelling bacteria.
An estimated 700 types of nanomaterials are being manufactured at about 800 facilities in this country alone, prompting several federal agencies to focus seriously on nano safety. Yet no agency has developed safety rules specific to nanomaterials. And the approach being taken by the Environmental Protection Agency, arguably the furthest along of any regulatory body, is already facing criticism by some as inadequate.
In documents that are now being finalized for public comment, the agency calls for a “stewardship program” that would be voluntary. Manufacturers would be asked to alert officials about nanoproducts they are making and to provide information about environmental or health risks they have uncovered. But they would not be required to make such reports or to do special studies.
Although the agency may at some point feel the need to impose stricter controls, the voluntary approach has the advantage that it can be implemented more quickly, said Charles Auer, director of the EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. He added that the agency is not sure it understands enough about the new materials to know how best to regulate them.
“This way we can develop something, gain experience and learn more about what we’re dealing with,” Auer said.
Others, including scientist Jennifer Sass of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which recently withdrew from an EPA advisory group out of frustration with the direction the agency was going, call that approach toothless.
“I think it’s absolutely necessary that we have enforceable regulations and that we don’t put these materials in commercial products unless we know they can be used safely over the full life cycle of the product,” Sass said.
The most recent batch of published scientific studies on nanomaterials have not been reassuring. In the past few months:
Researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology found that nanoparticles of aluminum oxide stunt the growth of roots on several crops — including soybeans and corn, mainstays of U.S. agriculture.
Japanese researchers found that a kind of nanosphere that some want to use to deliver drugs or vaccines into the body is a potent stimulator of immune-reaction genes, perhaps explaining fatal inflammatory responses seen in animals exposed to nanomaterials.
And a California team working with laboratory-grown cells showed that carbon nanotubes specifically activate “cell suicide genes.”
“Cell growth was retarded, and there was a doubling of cell deaths,” said study leader Fanqing Frank Chen of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Chen said factory exposures should be “a big concern,” and added that many nanospheres are very stable and not likely to break down in the environment.
Congress has begun to take note. At a House Science Committee hearing Nov. 17, environmental and industry representatives alike said federal spending on environmental, health and safety implications of nanotechnology should be $100 million to $200 million a year, or about 10 percent to 20 percent of the government’s $1.1 billion nanotech development budget for fiscal 2006.
By contrast, the government is slated to spend $39 million this year on research whose “primary purpose” is to investigate those issues, said Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. He said that figure is “probably appropriate,” given the overall federal investment and the modest number of products on the market.
But David Rejeski of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, which last week released a new inventory of U.S. nano research, said federal spending on studies truly devoted to environmental and health concerns is actually only $6 million, with some topics still completely unaddressed.
Some nanospheres, for example, are extremely slippery, “like the nano version of banana peels,” said Rejeski, director of the center’s foresight and governance project. With slips and falls a major cause of workplace injury, he said, this is the kind of thing that deserves attention but can be easily overlooked, given the lack of an overarching national nanotechnology research strategy — something he and others are calling for.
Also at issue is whether industry is footing a big enough share of the safety research bill. A few large companies, including DuPont, have significant programs in place. But much of the nanotechnology sector involves small businesses that are in no position to study the impacts of their products, raising concerns that answers will come too late.
“The limited data now available are flashing yellow lights that we should not ignore,” said Richard Denison, a scientist at Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that is collaborating with the EPA and DuPont on nano safety issues.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
An overview of the emerging field of nanotoxicology:
- G. Oberdorster et al. (2005).Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles. Environmental Health Perspectives.
Nanoparticles, and even micro-sized particles, may penetrate skin when it is flexed:
- S. Tinkle et al. (2003). Skin as a Route of Exposure and Sensitization in Chronic Beryllium Disease. Environmental Health Perspectives. 111(9):1202-1208.
Inhaled nanoparticles may travel to the brain along the olfactory nerve:
- G. Oberdörster et al. (2004). Translocation of Inhaled Ultrafine Particles to the Brain. Inhalation Toxicology. Vol 16(6-7):437-445.
Inhaled nanoparticles may enter the bloodstream from the lungs:
- W. Kreyling et al. (2002). Translocation of ultrafine insoluble iridium particles from lung epithelium to extrapulmonary organis is size dependent but very low. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 65:1513-1530.
- G. Oberdörster et al. (2002). Extrapulmonary translocation of ultrafine carbon particles following whole-body inhalation exposure of rats. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 65:1531–1543.
Carbon nanoparticles cause brain damage to fish:
- E. Oberdörster (2004). Manufactured nanomaterials induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environmental Health Perspectives. 112(10):1058-1062.
Even low levels of exposure to some nanoparticles is toxic to human liver cells:
- C. Sayes et al. (2004). The differential cytotoxicity of water-soluble fullerenes. Nanoletters 4:1881-1887.
Nanosized titanium dioxide in sunscreens is found to catalyse DNA damage in skin cells:
- R. Dunford et al. (1997). Chemical oxidation and DNA damage catalysed by inorganic sunscreen ingredients. FEBS Letters 418:87-90.
Unpublished research has raised further alarm bells:
Natural Resources Defense Council has released an indepth fact sheet analysing nanotoxicity’s risks for human health and the environment, and critiquing the inadequate research and regulatory responses to date http://www.nrdc.org/health/science/nano.asp
Dr Gregor Wolbring’s Bioethics and Disability website features a large nanotechnology section with extensive links to nanotechnology journals, conference papers, websites, events and other useful resources http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/nanotechnology.html
Dr Wolbring also has a new “Nanofood” section in his bi-weekly web column “The Choice is Yours” http://www.innovationwatch.com/commentary_choiceisyours.htm
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology is particularly interested in longer-term nanotechnology, and the potential for atomically precise molecular manufacturing. Their website has many useful articles, studies and discussions http://www.crnano.org/
Workers Health International News, Hazards Magazine covers a wide range of issues relating to worker health – including workplace exposure to nanoparticles. http://www.hazards.org/
UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering issued a detailed report into nanotechnology in late 2004. The report identified a wide range of serious questions about the need for regulation of nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/
Swiss Re global reinsurance has made a number of statements raising concerns over nanoparticles in relation to possible future insurance claims. http://www.swissre.com/
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.