USHE Power Point Presentation
Page 22
Home | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10 | Page 11 | Page 12 | Page 13 | Page 14 | Page 15 | Page 16 | Page 17 | Page 18 | Page 19 | Page 20 | Page 21 | Page 22 | Page 23 | Page 24 | Page 25 | Page 26 | Page 27 | Page 28 | Page 29 | Page 30 | Page 31 | Page 32 | Page 33 | Page 34 | Hurricane Rita Follow Up Articles | Hurricane Scalar Waves Detected | Page 35 | Page 36 | Page 37 | Page 38 | Page 39 | Page 40 | Page 41 | Page 42 | Page 43 | Ormus 1 Study | Ormus 1 Continued | Ormus 2 Study | Frankinsense and Myrth Study | Spikenard Study | Ascension Day Attunement | Clustered Hexagonal Water Study | Hurricane Alberto | Page 44 | Page 45

We Continue Consumer Experiments with Clustering Water. CLustering water with the first preset began in 2001 with Miracle 6. Today we have advanced the interfaces and presets for vasious types of water. You will notice even animals are more drawn to living water which many people call clustered water.

With great respect to Dr Emoto and his research Dr Rev Wedewer developed these standards and best practices. It was in these statements below that Dr Rev Wedewer first was inspired to presue clustering body water.

His mission - to raise the level of awareness concerning water, and to heal the earth’s water includes a recognition of the fact that we are mostly water. Re-establishing the perfect geometry in our “water bodies” is one step towards that goal.

Clustering or structuring bodies of water like lakes, rivers, a bath tub, a watering unit, sprinkler systems, a swimming pool, drinking water, or even body water you are bringing yourself and the living things around you closer to a state of innate vitality.

You take water charged with everything from the beginning of time clearing and cleansing it then bringing it back to a state of living water. Watch animals as they drink it you will find that any animal will drink it faster then water not clustered. Try it sometime, offer them two bowls. Then stand back and allow them to choose. Now if an animal prefers living clustered water, shouldn't we?

To summarize in a 24 hour period of drinking properly structured or clustered water you should notice:

  • a new level of joy and wholeness---awakening the inner child
  • Increased creativity
  • Enhanced olfactory and taste
  • Increased balance, harmony, peace and security
  • Greater sense of flow and connection
  • Enhanced right/left brain communication
  • Improved mental health
  • Increased energy

Page21.jpg

 
Drinking Water Standards Do Not Adequately Protect Public Health
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets enforceable standards for allowable levels of pesticides in drinking water, and requires water utilities to monitor for these contaminants. Standards are set as a two part process. First, the EPA sets a non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), based purely on health considerations. These MCLGs are set at levels "at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur, and which allows an adequate margin of safety." The agency then sets enforceable standards, known as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), which are based upon the MCLGs, but are usually adjusted to ensure that they are technically and financially feasible. For a number of reasons, standards for the herbicides commonly found in drinking water -- atrazine, cyanazine, acetochlor, alachlor, and metolachlor -- fail to adequately protect public health.
Drinking water standards allow excessive cancer risks.
Because of an outdated methodology used to set drinking water standards for these chemicals, they allow 10 to 30 times greater cancer risks than EPA's Office of Pesticides allows for the same pesticides in food. Thus, even when pesticide contamination levels are within EPA's drinking water standards, they may still pose cancer risks that exceed the federal governments "negligible" (See Note 1.) risk standard by a factor of 10 or more.
Standards do not take the risk of exposure to multiple pesticides or pesticide metabolites into account.
Water supplies are often contaminated by multiple pesticides, and this study shows that a single glass from the tap can contain up to nine pesticides or metabolites. In the case of the triazine herbicides -- which, according to EPA all act by the same toxicological mechanism -- multiple exposures can significantly increase health risks. Unfortunately, the standard setting process makes the unrealistic assumption that we are always exposed to pesticides in isolation, never more than one at a time.
Standards fail to protect children.
After a five-year study, the National Academy of Sciences concluded in 1993 that because of differences in physiology children are usually at greater risk from pesticides than adults. On top of this, they are exposed to higher amounts of pesticides relative to their size. For example, infants drink more than twice as much water per unit of body weight than adults, meaning that they receive more than twice the exposure to toxic agents in drinking water. Since the release of the NAS study, no drinking water standard has been set or adjusted specifically to protect infants or young children.
Safe Drinking Water Act monitoring requirements are inadequate.
The Act only requires water utilities to test their water once every three months for these herbicides (and many other contaminants). This quarterly monitoring is an ineffective measure of contamination for seasonal contaminants like the herbicides found in this study, which have peak runoff periods in the spring and summer. Under the current quarterly monitoring scheme, water utilities are able to avoid peak contamination periods during May, June, and July. As a result, utilities that are performing all required testing often significantly underestimate the levels of these herbicides in their drinking water.
Enforceable standards do not even exist for some pesticides.
EPA has set enforceable drinking water standards (MCLs) for three of the pesticides of primary concern: atrazine, alachlor and simazine. For the three other major herbicide contaminants, cyanazine, metolachlor, and acetochlor, EPA has yet to set enforceable drinking water standards. (See Note 2.) Instead, the EPA has issued non-enforceable Lifetime Health Advisories (LHAs). Consequently, water utilities are not required to test their water for these pesticides, and if they do test they are not required to inform their customers if the chemicals are found at levels that exceed federal health advisories.
Congressional Action To Weaken the Law
Just as EPA has begun to address some of the important shortcomings of the current standard setting process, and ensure that public health is protected, Congress is acting in numerous ways to derail these efforts and weaken current law. As this report goes to press, there are ongoing efforts in Congress to:
Weaken pesticide law, making it more difficult for EPA to keep triazine herbicides from contaminating tap water.
On June 19 the House Agriculture Committee passed HR 1627, a sweeping rollback of current pesticide laws supported by the pesticide and agriculture industry, as well as sellers of fruit and vegetables. Among other setbacks, this bill would make it far more difficult for the EPA to restrict or ban the use of any pesticide in order to protect public health.
Weaken the Safe Drinking Water Act, making it more difficult for EPA to set adequate health standards and ensure that affected water utilities are testing their water for herbicide contamination.
Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) has circulated draft legislation supported by water utilities that will relax health standards and monitoring requirements for chemicals in drinking water, including these herbicides. Representative Thomas Bliley (R-VA) the chairman of the House Commerce Committee, is expected to introduce similar legislation to weaken the Safe Drinking Water Act in the House of Representatives.
Defund EPA's Special Review of the triazines.
The non-binding resolution accompanying the May budget approved by the House Budge committee specifically cites the EPA review of atrazine as a "Federal Mandate that Warrants Elimination or Reform." And Representative David McIntosh (R-IN), has included the triazine special review on a list of regulations that need to be "captured or stopped," by possible actions in the House of Representatives.
The FY 1996 appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives would delay or undermine much of EPA's ability to remove weed killers from tap water.
The bill cuts the EPA budget by one-third, effectively short-circuiting the Agency's ability to set and enforce standards for pesticides in drinking water, or to continue the special regulatory review of the triazine herbicides. The bill eliminates a $1.8 billion revolving fund set up specifically to help smaller communities treat contaminated drinking water as it abolishes the EPA's monitoring program and holds up $100 million in grants given to states and communities used to minimize water pollution by runoff such as herbicides.
Conclusions
Federal Drinking Water Monitoring Requirements are Fundamentally Flawed.
Federal drinking water monitoring requirements provide regulators and public health officials with a fundamentally distorted picture of contamination levels in water. Extended periods of exposure above federal standards are not identified by federal monitoring requirements, nor are peak exposures that may exceed these standards by 10-fold to 30-fold or more.
Within the peak contamination period extended and repeated exposure to weed killers at levels above federal health standards is common in the cities we studied. Federal monitoring requirements, in contrast, treat all seasons the same and mandate only one sample during each quarter of the year, including the three month heavy contamination period. Even this lone sample can be taken before herbicides are applied and while contamination levels are low, or after pesticides have been largely flushed downstream.
On top of this, there is no monitoring requirement for so-called "unregulated contaminants" such as cyanazine, even though cyanazine was found at levels exceeding federal health advisories more often than any other herbicide.
These failings are particularly disturbing because federal drinking water standards do not incorporate safety factors to protect the public from extended periods of exposure above the MCL or LHA. The standards also do not consider the risks of exposure to multiple herbicides simultaneously, and they do not explicitly take into account the special risks to children. Finally, EPA's standard-setting methodology does not adequately protect the public from cancer risks.
Conventional Water Treatment Does Not Remove Weed Killers.
Following the release of Tap Water Blues, many water utilities claimed that the water treatment techniques they were using were able to adequately remove herbicides from contaminated source water. This is not the case.
All of the water tested in this study was treated tap water. In most cases, utilities are using only conventional water treatment -- chlorination and sand filtration -- which does nothing to reduce weed killer levels in water delivered to the community.
In a few communities, including Springfield, IL, and Kansas City, MO, water utilities are spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars using powdered activated carbon (PAC) in an attempt to reduce the levels of atrazine. While PAC can be used to reduce contamination levels of individual weed killers, it is not a solution to the problem. Springfield, Illinois, which utilizes vast amounts of PAC, still had the second highest cyanazine concentration of any city that was tested. PAC reacts differently with different chemicals, and its effectiveness in treating complex mixtures of contaminants in tap water is unproven.
In Bowling Green, the water utility uses a holding tank that they claim helps to reduce herbicide concentrations. In fact, the holding tank had just the opposite effect. By holding highly contaminated water in the tank, Bowling Green water authorities actually increased the levels of atrazine and cyanazine from below federal health standards on May 15, to levels three times higher than federal health standards by June 26th.
The only technology that can adequately remove pesticides once they have contaminated water supplies is the more expensive Granular Activated Carbon. Instead of costly technical fixes to the problem, the pollution prevention approach of restricting pesticide use is the most efficient and effective means of ensuring the safety of water supplies.
Recommendations
Parents in the most contaminated communities should seriously consider alternatives to tap water for infant formula, reconstituted juices or drinks for their infants and children from May 1 through August 30. The most contaminated cities identified in this study include:
Danville, Decatur, Granite City and Springfield, Illinois
Columbus and Bowling Green, Ohio
Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, Indiana
Kansas City, Kansas
Jefferson City, Missouri
Omaha, Nebraska
New Orleans, Louisiana
All of these cities had average contamination levels that exceeded at least one federal health standard for the study period, with the exception of New Orleans, LA, which did not exceed any individual health standard for the period but had a combined triazine average contamination level above the atrazine MCL of 3 parts per billion.
The EPA should require daily monitoring for triazine herbicides with inexpensive immunoassay tests for all surface-water-supplied drinking water systems in the corn belt. The monitoring cost is about $1,500 per city; less than 10 cents per person in a city of 20,000.
The EPA should phase out the use of the triazine herbicides by September 1996.
Congress must strengthen federal pesticide and drinking water laws so that they explicitly protect infants and children from acute and chronic effects of these contaminants.
Absent Congressional action, the EPA should move to set pesticide and drinking water standards to protect infants and children.
When setting drinking water standards to protect infants and children the EPA must strictly follow the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences Report, Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. At a minimum the EPA must specifically account for contamination of tap water with many different pesticides and metabolites. The agency (1) must explicitly account for additive or synergistic risks that may result from pesticides that act via a similar toxic mechanism or cause a similar toxic effect, (2) it must specifically account for any increased sensitivity or risk associated with infant or childhood exposure to these mixtures of compounds, and (3) it must consider all routes of exposure to the pesticides that a infant or child might encounter.

NEXT

www.ushesanctuary.com        www.miracle6.org