Total de visualizações de página

quarta-feira, 24 de fevereiro de 2016

STUPID ACTION AGAINST NATURE AND HUMAN BEINGS IN NAME OF 'SECURITY OPERATIONS OF ISRAEL'

War crime? Israel destroys Gaza crops with aerial herbicide spraying

As report in 

Gaza farmers have lost 187 hectares of crops to aerial spraying of herbicides by Israel hundreds of meters within the territory's borders. The action, carried out in the name of 'security', further undermines Gaza's ability to feed itself and may permanently deprive farmers of their livelihoods. It may also represent a war crime under the 1977 Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.


Palestinian farmers in the Gaza Strip have reported that Israeli military planes had sprayed their land with herbicides on three days last December.

The spraying, conducted by crop-dusting aircraft, covered areas up to 200 meters west of the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel.

Moreover, due to the prevailing winds at the time of the spraying, extensive damage was also caused to crops and farmland a further 200 meters further inside the Gaza Strip.

Crops affected include wheat, barley, zucchini, aubergine, fava beans, peas, green pepper, parsley, watermelon, cabbage, spinach and bitter vetch, grown as fodder for sheep. An area of 187 hectares of crops is reported as being destroyed or damaged.

The spraying has had a devastating effect on the farmers by imposing on them total or near total loss of farm income, leaving many of them deep in debt for the cost of agricultural inputs.

As well as suffering the immediate loss of crops and income, some of the farmers may now be forced out of agriculture altogether, unwilling to repeat the risk of losing their crops again.

The spraying extended from the center of the Gaza Strip to the south, from areas to the east of al-Bureij Refugee Camp to land east of Khuza'ah. This action was undertaken despite the fact that in 2014, the military informed Palestinians that they could farm land up to 100 meters from the fence.

It is not known what herbicide was used. In their testimonies (shown in full below) farmers speak of a "white substance " and a "thick substance" being sprayed by a yellow-colored airplane that left "white stains " on leaves that spread rapidly through the plants causing them to wilt and "burn" in the hot sunshine

[The wlhole report in the link on top]

terça-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2016

...AND THE FIRST BEST PLACE FOR WILD LIFE WILL BE A TARGET FOR OIL EXPLOITATION: YASUNI (EQUADOR)

Look at the oil spilled in the world's 2nd 'Best for WildlifeDecades of exploration and exploitation has led to severe contamination in the Pacaya Samiria National Reserve in Peru’s Amazon

Reproduced from THE GUARDIAN

Walk into one of the many tour agencies in Iquitos, the biggest city in Peru’s Amazon, and you’ll hear many wonderful things about the Pacaya Samiria National Reserve. “Best place to see animals in their natural habitat,” one guide says. “An abundance of parrots, paiche and monkeys, and all kinds of bird species,” cries another. 

“Pacaya-Samiria”, as it’s dubbed, extends for just over two million hectares and is the second largest of Peru’s 170 “protected natural areas.” In 2015 USA Today’s travel website 10Best voted it the world’s second “Best Place for Wildlife”, losing out to Ecuador’s Galapagos Islands. “Located near the Amazon headwaters in Peru,” 10Best stated, “the reserve is home to some of the biggest wildlife populations in the Amazon.”

This sense of Pacaya-Samiria’s uniqueness is shared by many - in Iquitos, in Peru’s government, across civil society and internationally, especially since it has been declared a “Ramsar site” and “Wetland of International Importance.” Years before he became the country’s first Environment minister, Antonio Brack Egg, now deceased, called it “one of the most important areas for the reproduction of hydro-biological species in the Amazon” and said it protected various species of flora and fauna at risk of extinction, like giant otters, manatees and monkeys. 

Indeed, according to a book co-published in 2014 by the Iquitos-based Fundamazonia, Pacaya-Samiria has 965 plant species, 102 mammal species, 527 bird species, 69 reptile species, 67 amphibian species and 269 fish species, and is “in the epicentre of wild fruit consumption in the Amazon.” Richard Bodmer, Fundamazonia’s president and one of the book’s co-authors, told the Guardian that, in addition to its “very rich aquatic bird species mixed with very rich forest bird species”, as well as its “very high diversity in animal species”, Pacaya-Samiria is “by far the largest fisheries reproduction area in western Amazonia”:

It’s a flooded forest because it is at the confluence of the two major rivers that form the Amazon: the Maranon and the Ucayali. In the flooded season, the fish go into Pacaya-Samiria where there are a lot of food resources - all the debris left on the forest floor, all the fruits which have fallen and all the insects which are hanging onto the trees and leaves. That leads to reproduction. Basically, Pacaya-Samiria becomes an inland sea of 20,000 square kilometres - the largest flooded forest in western Amazonia - full of fish food. When the water goes down, the fish leave and go into the Maranon, Ucayali and Amazon. They move down and out of the reserve as it becomes drier. The whole fisheries of this section of western Amazonia to a large extent depends on Pacaya-Samiria.

No doubt about it, Pacaya-Samiria is a special place, but that only makes this question all the more important to ask: What about the oil operations taking place there? What about the parts of the reserve the tourists and wildlife watchers don’t see? PUINAMUDT, a collective of indigenous federations in Peru’s northern Amazon, states that there are “true lakes of oil, [river] banks abandoned to crude, clots of oil in the water, black roots and sediments, toxic hydrocarbon emissions, and surface water iridescent with oil. The shadow of irresponsible and unpunished oil operations hangs over the entire area.”

Don’t be misled by Pacaya-Samiria’s “protected natural area” status. Oil companies have been there for decades. Operations are currently in the north-central part of the reserve which forms part of a concession called Lot 8, one of the top four most productive oil concessions in the country. In the 1970s it was Peru’s own Petroperu working there, but since 1996 it has been Pluspetrol, initially leading a consortium but since 2003 partnered by the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).
Contamination and other negative impacts have been reported for decades - by state institutions, by indigenous organisations, by NGOs. Yet complaints and calls for clean-up, improved infrastructure and better practices have gone almost totally unheard. For many years, from the 1970s-onwards, toxic production waters were dumped into the reserve’s rivers and the River Maranon itself, and the pipelines in the reserve are decades-old, rusty, corroded and leaky, according to reports and local people.

Read the entire report in the link: 
http://gu.com/p/4fmgn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

domingo, 14 de fevereiro de 2016

THE CROP-LIVESTOCK-FOREST INTEGRATION SYSTEM OF 'EMBRAPA' - BRAZIL

http://youtu.be/Rqwr4grkY7Y


Access the link above for watching the video (subtitles in English) and see how productivity of 'cerrado', in the central region of Brazil, could be much higher than current values. Thirty millions hectares (only in cerrado biome) are currently degraded. One hundred millions hectares in Brazil, as a whole.



The system is: agriculturally efficient, economically viable, socially just (with good jobs) and environmentally correct.

'EMBRAPA 
The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA - PortugueseEmpresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária) is a state-owned researchcorporation affiliated with the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture. Since its inception on April 26, 1973, it has been devoted to developing technologies, knowledge and technical-scientific information aimed at Brazilian agriculture, including livestock.

quarta-feira, 10 de fevereiro de 2016

WIPE MOSQUITOES OFF OUR PLANET: PROS AND AGAINST!

Why don’t we wipe mosquitoes off the face of the Earth?

Reproduced from THECONVERSATION
https://theconversation.com/profiles/mike-jeffries-144685



A blood-sucking, disease-spreading, whining creature is always going to be a hard sell, even to nature lovers. And the dreaded mosquito is now the prime suspect behind the sudden arrival and explosive spread of Zika virus in Central and South America. Zika is transmitted by a mosquito vector Aedes aegypti, a pan-global tropical species already well known for spreading diseases such as yellow and dengue fever.

There are only around 3,500 species of mosquito, which is modest for a family of insects – but their impact on human health and welfare is catastrophic. Female Anopheles mosquitoes carry the parasite that causes up to 500m cases of malaria a year while the Asian Tiger Mosquito, Ades albopictus, spreads dengue fever and the chikugunya virus. Mosquitoes have been ready vectors for emergent diseases such as West Nile virusand now Zika.

Mosquitoes are credited with causing more misery and loss to humanity than any other organism (with the obvious exception of ourselves). Mosquitoes are unlovely creatures, all twitchy legged and whining, their larvae infesting miasmas and dismal swamps. And under the right conditions they are mobile and expansionist pioneers, perfectly at home in the disrupted habitats we create.

Which begs the question: what good do they do – and if we could wipe them from the face of the Earth should we?

As pointed out by ecologist Sarah Fang, the consensus is that mosquitoes do not do any unique or particular good that would be missed. If you judge them according to ecologist Charles Elton’s gentle but evocative idea of each creature having a niche – much as every English village has a cast of characters who have their place such as butcher, baker and policeman – then mosquitoes seem to have no special purpose on the face of it. So one wouldn’t miss them, surely?

Mozzie lovers could argue…

Arguments in favour of mosquitoes fall into two broad categories. First that their sheer numbers are an essential link in some food webs, notably the Arctic tundras where, for a few brief weeks in summer they hatch in extraordinary numbers, creating visible clouds of adults and a very rich food supply to migratory birds that have come north to exploit this bounty.

Fang also suggests that the mosquitoes’ assaults may be ferocious enough to divert the migration lines of caribou with possible consequences at a landscape scale as the herds’ grazing and trampling shift location. In an unusually exact link between mosquitoes and their predators, a study of foraging Little Forest Bats, Vespadelus vultuernus, in eastern Australia revealed a very heavy reliance on adults of the mosquito Aedes vigilax. So, that Little Forest Bats need mossies may be as good a case as mosquitoes can muster.

Juvenile mosquitoes are also important in some freshwater foodwebs, including as prey to specialists such as the mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis or in the tiny pools of water held in the leaf bases of pitcher plants and bromeliads high in the rainforest canopy. In among the canopy trees a miniature fauna of vividly coloured poison dart frogs and crabs thrive in the bromeliad pools, called phytotelmata, feeding off the bodies of drowned juvenile mosquitoes. But despite poison dart frogs and bats having their own fan club among ecologists and nature enthusiasts, they are unlikely to sway the majority of people in favour of mosquitoes.

The second argument is that mosquitoes have a more general role providing ecosystem services such as pollination by adults or driving the release of nutrients as their young feed on organic detritus. But although mosquitoes can act as pollinators for orchids and golden rods, among other plants, they don’t have a monopoly – they are not especially suited to this role and there are plenty of other pollinators to take their place.

While the decline of the honey bee is a prominent example of an ecosystem service at peril, mosquitoes are just another one of the many pollination bit-part players, an unloved understudy that can be written out of the part. Their significance has always been to menace.

… but then again

As the Portuguese explorer João de Barras said of the tropics:

God has placed a striking angel with a flaming sword of deadly fevers, who prevents us from penetrating into the interior to the springs of this garden.

So there seems no great reason to defend mosquitoes. Their destruction would lift a terrible curse from humanity. Except for one nagging doubt …

All that warm, nutritious blood suddenly available. There are plenty of other midges and mites, black flies and fleas out there just waiting for the opportunity to step in. Be careful what you wish for.



sábado, 6 de fevereiro de 2016

IF IT IS TRUE! IT'S A FRIGHTENING THING!!! ZIKA VIRUS INCREASED ITS VIRULENCE BECAUSE OF VIRUS'S MOSQUITO VECTOR ENGINEERING.

Pandora's box: how GM mosquitos could have caused Brazil's microcephaly disaster



In Brazil's microcephaly epidemic, one vital question remains unanswered: how did the Zika virus suddenly learn how to disrupt the development of human embryos? The answer may lie in a sequence of 'jumping DNA' used to engineer the virus's mosquito vector - and released into the wild four years ago in the precise area of Brazil where the microcephaly crisis is most acute.

These 'promiscuous' transposons have found special favour with genetic engineers, whose goal is to create 'universal' systems for transferring genes into any and every species on earth. Almost none of the geneticists has considered the hazards involved.

Since August 2015, a large number of babies in Northeast Brazil have been born with very small heads, a condition known as microcephaly, and with other serious malformations. 4,180 suspected cases have been reported.

Epidemiologists have found a convincing correlation between the incidence of the natal deformities and maternal infections with the Zika virus, first discovered in Uganda's Zika Valley in 1947, which normally produces non-serious illness.

The correlation has been evidenced through the geographical distrubution of Zika infections and the wave of deformities. Zika virus has also been detected in the amniotic fluids and other tissues of the affected babies and their mothers.

This latter finding was recently reported by AS Oliveira Melo et al in a scientific paperpublished in the journal Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which noted evidence of intra-uterine infection. They also warn:


"As with other intrauterine infections, it is possible that the reported cases of microcephaly represent only the more severely affected children and that newborns with less severe disease, affecting not only the brain but also other organs, have not yet been diagnosed."

The Brazilian Health Minister, Marcelo Castro, says he has "100% certainty" that there is a link between Zika and microcephaly. His view is supported by the medical community worldwide, including by the US Center for Disease Control.

Oliveira Melo et al draw attention to a mystery that lies at the heart of the affair: "It is difficult to explain why there have been no fetal cases of Zika virus infection reported until now but this may be due to the underreporting of cases, possible early acquisition of immunity in endemic areas or due to the rarity of the disease until now.

"As genomic changes in the virus have been reported, the possibility of a new, more virulent, strain needs to be considered. Until more cases are diagnosed and histopathological proof is obtained, the possibility of other etiologies cannot be ruled out."

And this is the key question: how - if indeed Zika really is the problem, as appears likely - did this relatively innocuous virus acquire the ability to produce these terrible malformations in unborn human babies?

Oxitec's GM mosquitoes

An excellent article by Claire Bernish published last week on AntiMedia draws attention to an interesting aspect of the matter which has escaped mainstream media attention: the correlation between the incidence of Zika and the area of release of genetically modified Aedes aegypti mosquitos engineered for male insterility (see maps, above right).

The purpose of the release was to see if it controlled population of the mosquitos, which are the vector of Dengue fever, a potentially lethal disease. The same species also transmits the Zika virus.

The releases took in 2011 and 2012 in the Itaberaba suburb of the city of Juazeiro, Bahia, Northeast Brazil, about 500 km west of the coastal city of Recife. The experiment was written up in July 2015 in the journal PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases in a paper titled 'Suppression of a Field Population of Aedes aegypti in Brazil by Sustained Release of Transgenic Male Mosquitoes' by Danilo O. Carvalho et al.

An initial 'rangefinder of 30,000 GM mosquitos per week took place between 19th May and 29th June 2011, followed by a much larger release of 540,000 per week in early 2012, ending on 11th February.

At the end of it the scientists claimed "effective control of a wild population of Ae. aegypti by sustained releases of OX513A male Ae. aegypti. We diminished Ae. aegypti population by 95% (95% CI: 92.2%-97.5%) based on adult trap data and 78% (95% CI: 70.5%-84.8%) based on ovitrap indices compared to the adjacent no-release control area."

So what's to worry about?

    The idea of the Oxitec mosquitoes is simple enough: the males produce non-viable offspring which all die. So the GM mosqitoes are 'self-extinguishing' and the altered genes cannot survive in the wild population. All very clever, and nothing to worry about!

    But in fact, it's not so simple. In 2010 geneticist Ricarda Steinbrecher wrote to the biosafety regulator in Malaysia - also considering a release of the Oxitec mosquitoes - with a number of safety concerns, pointing out the 2007 finding by Phuc et al that 3-4% of the first generation mosquitos actually survive.

    The genetic engineering method employed by Oxitec allows the popular antibiotic tetracycline to be used to repress the lethality during breeding. But as a side-effect, the lethality is also reduced by the presence of tetracycline in the environment; and as Bernish points out, Brazil is among the world's biggest users of anti-microbials including tetracycline in its commercial farming sector:

    "As a study by the American Society of Agronomy, et. al., explained, 'It is estimated that approximately 75% of antibiotics are not absorbed by animals and are excreted in waste.' One of the antibiotics (or antimicrobials) specifically named in that report for its environmental persistence is tetracycline.

    In fact, as a confidential internal Oxitec document divulged in 2012, that survival rate could be as high as 15% - even with low levels of tetracycline present. 'Even small amounts of tetracycline can repress' the engineered lethality. Indeed, that 15% survival rate was described by Oxitec."

    She then quotes the leaked Oxitec paper: "After a lot of testing and comparing experimental design, it was found that [researchers] had used a cat food to feed the [OX513A] larvae and this cat food contained chicken. It is known that tetracycline is routinely used to prevent infections in chickens, especially in the cheap, mass produced, chicken used for animal food. The chicken is heat-treated before being used, but this does not remove all the tetracycline. This meant that a small amount of tetracycline was being added from the food to the larvae and repressing the [designed] lethal system."

    So in other words, there is every possibility for Oxitec's modified genes to persist in wild populations of Aedes aegypti mosquitos, especially in the environmental presence of tetracycline which is widely present in sewage, septic tanks, contaminated water sources and farm runoff.

    'Promiscuous' jumping genes

    On the face of it, there is no obvious way in which the spread of Oxitec's GM mosquitos into the wild could have anything to do with Brazil's wave of microcephaly. Is there?

    Actually, yes. The problem may arise from the use of the 'transposon' ('jumping' sequence of DNA used in the genetic engineering process to introduce the new genes into the target organism). There are several such DNA sequences in use, and one of the most popular is known as known as piggyBac.

    As a 2001 review article by Dr Mae Wan Ho shows, piggyBac is notoriously active, inserting itself into genes way beyond its intended target: "These 'promiscuous' transposons have found special favour with genetic engineers, whose goal is to create 'universal' systems for transferring genes into any and every species on earth. Almost none of the geneticists has considered the hazards involved ...

    "It would seem obvious that integrated transposon vectors may easily jump out again, to another site in the same genome, or to the genome of unrelated species. There are already signs of that in the transposon, piggyBac, used in the GM bollworms to be released by the USDA this summer.

    The piggyBac transposon was discovered in cell cultures of the moth Trichopulsia, the cabbage looper, where it caused high rates of mutations in the baculovirus infecting the cells by jumping into its genes ... This transposon was later found to be active in a wide range of species, including the fruitfly Drosophila, the mosquito transmitting yellow fever, Aedes aegypti, the medfly, Ceratitis capitata, and the original host, the cabbage looper.

    "The piggyBac vector gave high frequencies of transpositions, 37 times higher than mariner and nearly four times higher than Hirmar."

    In a later 2014 report Dr Mae Wan Ho returned to the theme with additional detail and fresh scientific evidence (please refer to her original article for references): "The piggyBac transposon was discovered in cell cultures of the moth Trichopulsia, the cabbage looper, where it caused high rates of mutations in the baculovirus infecting the cells by jumping into its genes ...

    "There is also evidence that the disabled piggyBac vector carrying the transgene, even when stripped down to the bare minimum of the border repeats, was nevertheless able to replicate and spread, because the transposase enzyme enabling the piggyBac inserts to move can be provided by transposons present in all genomes.

    "The main reason initially for using transposons as vectors in insect control was precisely because they can spread the transgenes rapidly by 'non-Mendelian' means within a population, i.e., by replicating copies and jumping into genomes, thereby 'driving' the trait through the insect population. However, the scientists involved neglected the fact that the transposons could also jump into the genomes of the mammalian hosts including human beings ...

    "In spite of instability and resulting genotoxicity, the piggyBac transposon has been used extensively also in human gene therapy. Several human cell lines have been transformed, even primary human T cells using piggyBac. These findings leave us little doubt that the transposon-borne transgenes in the transgenic mosquito can transfer horizontally to human cells. The piggyBac transposon was found to induce genome wide insertionmutations disrupting many gene functions."

    Has the GM nightmare finally come true?

    So down to the key question: was the Oxitec's GM Aedes aegypti male-sterile mosquito released in Juazeiro engineered with the piggyBac transposon? Yes, it was. And that creates a highly significant possibility: that Oxitec's release of its GM mosquitos led directly to the development of Brazil's microcephaly epidemic through the following mechanism:

    1. Many of the millions of Oxitec GM mosquitos released in Juazeiro in 2011/2012 survive, assisted, but not dependent on, the presence of tetracycline in the environment.

    2. These mosquitos interbreed with with the wild population and their novel genes become widespread.

    3. The promiscuous piggyBac transposon now present in the local Aedes aegyptipopulation takes the opportunity to jump into the Zika virus, probably on numerous occasions.

    4. In the process certain mutated strains of Zika acquire a selective advantage, making them more virulent and giving them an enhanced ability to enter and disrupt human DNA.

    5. One way in which this manifests is by disrupting a key stage in the development of human embryos in the womb, causing microcephaly and the other reported deformations. Note that as Melo Oliveira et al warn, there are almost certainly other manifestations that have not yet been detected.

    6. It may be that the piggyBac transposon has itself entered the DNA of babies exposed in utero to the modified Zika virus. Indeed, this may form part of the mechanism by which embryonic development is disrupted.

    In the latter case, one implication is that the action of the gene could be blocked by giving pregnant women tetracycline in order to block its activity. The chances of success are probably low, but it has to be worth trying.

    No further releases of GM insects!

    While I am certainly not claiming that this is what actually took place, it is at least a credible hypothesis, and moreover a highly testable one. Nothing would be easier for genetic engineers than to test amniotic fluids, babies' blood, wild Aedes mosquitos and the Zika virus itself for the presence of the piggyBac transposon, using well established and highly sensitive PCR (polymerase chain reaction) techniques.

    [See Author's notes 1 & 2, below. Recent Zika genome snapshots examined as a result of this article are, in fact, free of the piggyBac transposon.]

    If this proves to be the case, those urging caution on the release of GMOs generally, and transgenic insects bearing promiscuous transposons in particular, will have been proved right on all counts.

    But most important, such experiments, and any deployment of similar GM insects, must be immediately halted until the possibilities outlined above can be safely ruled out. There are plans, for example, to release similarly modified Anopheles mosquitos as an anti-malarial measure.

    There are also calls for even more of the Oxitec Aedes aegypti mosquitos to be released in order to halt the transmission of the Zika virus. If that were to take place, it could give rise to numerous new mutations of the virus with the potential to cause even more damage to the human genome, that we can, at this stage, only guess at.