Through 20 years of research, Ivan Stein has created a detailed understanding of the timeline of events leading up to these these historic times. These events include: economic depression, world war III, food & water shortage, martial law, exponential conscious evolution, earth changes, geophysical and magnetic pole shift, passing galactic equator, and entering a new ice age.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a ubiquitous compound in plastics. First synthesized in 1891, the chemical has become a key building block of plastics from polycarbonate to polyester; in the U.S. alone more than 2.3 billion pounds (1.04 million metric tons) of the stuff is manufactured annually.
Since at least 1936 it has been known that BPA mimics estrogens, binding to the same receptors throughout the human body as natural female hormones. And tests have shown that the chemical can promote human breast cancer cell growth as well as decrease sperm count in rats, among other effects. These findings have raised questions about the potential health risks of BPA, especially in the wake of hosts of studies showing that it leaches from plastics and resins when they are exposed to hard use or high temperatures (as in microwaves or dishwashers).
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found traces of BPA in nearly all of the urine samples it collected in 2004 as part of an effort to gauge the prevalence of various chemicals in the human body. It appeared at levels ranging from 33 to 80 nanograms (a nanogram is one billionth of a gram) per kilogram of body weight in any given day, levels 1,000 times lower than the 50 micrograms (one millionth of a gram) per kilogram of bodyweight per day considered safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the European Union's (E.U.) European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
Studies suggest that BPA does not linger in the body for more than a few days because, once ingested, it is broken down into glucuronide, a waste product that is easily excreted. Yet, the CDC found glucuronide in most urine samples, suggesting constant exposure to it. "There is low-level exposure but regular low-level exposure," says chemist Steven Hentges, executive director of the polycarbonate / BPA global group of the American Chemistry Council. "It presumably is in our diet."
BPA is routinely used to line cans to prevent corrosion and food contamination; it also makes plastic cups and baby and other bottles transparent and shatterproof. When the polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins made from the chemical are exposed to hot liquids, BPA leaches out 55 times faster than it does under normal conditions, according to a new study by Scott Belcher, an endocrine biologist at the University of Cincinnati. "When we added boiling water [to bottles made from polycarbonate] and allowed it to cool, the rate [of leakage] was greatly increased," he says, to a level as high as 32 nanograms per hour.
A recent report in the journal Reproductive Toxicology found that humans must be exposed to levels of BPA at least 10 times what the EPA has deemed safe because of the amount of the chemical detected in tissue and blood samples. "If, as some evidence indicates, humans metabolize BPA more rapidly than rodents," wrote study author Laura Vandenberg, a developmental biologist at Tufts University in Boston, "then human daily exposure would have to be even higher to be sufficient to produce the levels observed in human serum."
The CDC data shows that 93 percent of 2,157 people between the ages of six and 85 tested had detectable levels of BPA's by-product in their urine. "Children had higher levels than adolescents and adolescents had higher levels than adults," says endocrinologist Retha Newbold of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who found that BPA impairs fertility in female mice. "In animals, BPA can cause permanent effects after very short periods of exposure. It doesn't have to remain in the body to have an effect."
But experts are split on the potential health hazards to humans. The Food and Drug Administration has approved its use and the EPA does not consider it cause for concern. One U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel agreed, but another team of government scientists last year found that the amount of BPA present in humans exceeds levels that have caused ill effects in animals. They also found that adults' ability to tolerate it does not preclude damaging effects in infants and children.
"It is the unborn baby and children that investigators are most worried about," Newbold says, noting that BPA was linked to increased breast and prostate cancer occurrences, altered menstrual cycles and diabetes in lab mice that were still developing.
Fred vom Saal, a reproductive biologist at the University of Missouri–Columbia, warns that babies likely face the "highest exposure" in human populations, because both baby bottles and infant formula cans likely leach BPA. "In animal studies, the levels that cause harm happen at 10 times below what is common in the U.S." says vom Saal, who also headed the NIH panel that concluded the chemical may pose risks to humans.
Amid growing concern, Rep. John Dingell (D–Mich.) chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has launched an investigation into BPA, sending letters last month to the FDA and seven manufacturers of infant products sold in the U.S. requesting information on any BPA safety tests as well as specific levels in the baby goods. The companies that make Similac, Earth's Best and Good Start have already responded, confirming that they coat the inside of their cans with BPA but that analyses did not detect it in the contents. They also emphasize that FDA has approved BPA for such use.
"Based on the studies reviewed by FDA, adverse effects occur in animals only at levels of BPA that are far higher orders of magnitude than those to which infants or adults are exposed," says FDA spokeswoman Stephanie Kwisnek. "Therefore, FDA sees no reason to ban or otherwise restrict the uses now authorized at this time."
FDA first approved BPA as a food container in 1963 because no ill effects from its use had been shown. When Congress passed a law—the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976—mandating that the EPA conduct or review safety studies on new chemicals before giving them the nod, compounds like BPA were already on the market. Therefore, they were not subject to the new rules nor required to undergo additional testing unless specific concerns had been raised (such as in the case of PCBs). "The science that exists today supports the safety of BPA," ACC's Hentges says, based largely on research his organization has funded.
But other studies since 1976 have shown that small doses (less than one part per billion) of estrogenlike chemicals, such as BPA, may be damaging. "In fetal mouse prostate you can stimulate receptors with estradiol at about two tenths of a part per trillion, and with BPA at a thousand times higher," vom Saal says. "That's still 10 times lower than what a six-year-old has." In other words, children six years of age were found to have higher levels of BPA's by-product glucuronide in their urine than did mice dosed with the chemical that later developed cancer and other health issues.
Further complicating the issue is the stew of other estrogen-mimicking chemicals to which humans are routinely exposed, from soy to antibacterial ingredients in some soaps. The effects of such chemical mixtures are not known but scientists say they may serve to enhance the ill effects of one another. "The assumption that natural estrogens are somehow immediately good for you and these chemicals are immediately bad," Belcher says, "is probably not a reasonable assumption to make."
The chemical industry argues that unless BPA is proved to have ill effects it should continue to be manufactured and used, because it is cheap, lightweight, shatterproof and offers other features that are hard to match. "There is no alternative for either of those materials [polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins] that would simply drop in where those materials are used,"Hentges says.
Not so, says vom Saal, who notes that there are plenty of other materials, such as polyethylene and polypropylene plastics, that would be fine substitutes in at least some applications. "There are a whole variety of different kinds of plastic materials and glass," he says. "They are all more stable than polycarbonate."
Concern over BPA is not confined only to the U.S. Japanese manufacturers began to use natural resin instead of BPA to line cans in 1997 after Japanese scientists showed that it was leaching out of baby bottles. A subsequent study there that measured levels in urine in 1999 found that they had dropped significantly.
A new E.U. law (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances, or REACH), which took effect last year, requires that chemicals, such as BPA, be proved safe. Currently, though, it continues to be used in Europe; the EFSA last year found no reason for alarm based on rodent studies. European scientists cited multigenerational rat studies as reassuring and noted that mouse studies may be flawed because the tiny rodent is more susceptible to estrogens.
For now, U.S. scientists with concerns about BPA recommend that anyone sharing those worries avoid using products made from it: Polycarbonate plastic is clear or colored and typically marked with a number 7 on the bottom, and canned foods such as soups can be purchased in cardboard cartons instead.
If canned goods or clear plastic bottles are a must, such containers should never be microwaved, used to store heated liquids or foods, or washed in hot water (either by hand or in much hotter dishwashers). "These are fantastic products and they work well … [but] based on my knowledge of the scientific data, there is reason for caution," Belcher says. "I have made a decision for myself not to use them."
Article from: http://trusted.md
Choose your water bottles very carefully in order to prevent chemicals in the plastic from leaching into your water.
Plastic water bottles are very convenient for carting water around when we are on the go, as they don't break if we drop them. However, it is worth paying attention to the type of plastic your water bottle is made of, to ensure that the chemicals in the plastic do not leach into the water. If you taste plastic, you are drinking it, so get yourself another bottle.
To be certain that you are choosing a bottle that does not leach, check the recycling symbol on your bottle. If it is a #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene), or a #4 LDPE (low density polyethylene), or a #5 PP (polypropylene), your bottle is fine. The type of plastic bottle in which water is usually sold is usually a #1, and is only recommended for one time use. Do not refill it. Better to use a reusable water bottle, and fill it with your own filtered water from home and keep these single-use bottles out of the landfill.
Unfortunately, those fabulous colourful hard plastic lexan bottles made with polycarbonate plastics and identified by the #7 recycling symbol, may leach BPA. Bisphenol A is a xenoestrogen, a known endocrine disruptor, meaning it disturbs the hormonal messaging in our bodies. Synthetic xenoestrogens are linked to breast cancer and uterine cancer in women, decreased testosterone levels in men, and are particularly devastating to babies and young children. BPA has even been linked to insulin resistance and Type 2 Diabetes. For more of the science on the effects of BPA on our endocrine system etc. see these studies: Environmental Health Perspectives Journal. Nalgene, the company that manufactures the lexan water bottles also makes #2 HDPE bottles in the same sizes and shapes, so we have a viable alternative. Order one at Nalgene.
Unfortunately, most plastic baby bottles and drinking cups are made with plastics containing Bisphenol A. In 2006 Europe banned all products made for children under age 3 containing BPA, and as of Dec. 2006 the city of San Franscisco followed suit. In March 2007 a billion-dollar class action suit was commenced against Gerber, Playtex, Evenflo, Avent, and Dr. Brown's in Los Angeles superior court for harm done to babies caused by drinking out of baby bottles and sippy cups containing BPA. So, to be certain that your baby is not exposed, use glass bottles. Check the recycling numbers on all your plastic food containers as well, and gradually move to storing all food in glass or ceramic.
Store water in glass, and out of direct sunlight.
Meaning...if you don’t buy or drink bottled water on March 22nd, you will not:
Here are various links to for glass bottles and biodegradable corn plastic cups.
Article from plasticbagfree.com
Morgan Hoesterey Message in the Waves
The most important thing to understand is there is no such thing as "away" when it comes to plastics. When people say "Oh just throw it away", where precisely is "away"?
Just because it's no longer in our home, in our work place or in our car does not mean its "away" it just means we no longer have to view on a daily basis and its somewhere else on this planet.
Out of sight out of mind, and not our problem!
Well remember we've only had plastic since the 1950's and it is anticipated that it lasts for at least 400 years, a lot of scientists now estimate that age at more like 1000.(MCS) New Scientist) (UNEP)
Meaning it's all still here, and this amount is growing at an alarming rate.
First off for the time-poor amongst you there are two short very informative films to watch. They are only a few minutes long, and all I hope is that before you leave this page you can at least just take a look at the first one.
Patagonia Oceans As Wilderness - Synthetic Seas
Plastic production uses 8% of all the world's oil production. (waste online) At the current rate the world produces 200 million tons of plastic a year. Less the 3.5% is recycled. (Algalita) (Greenpeace Ocean defenders) Or in other words, 96 % of all the worlds plastic is not recycled. (Greenpace ocean defenders) (Algalita)
The world plastic production is increasing at 3.5% per year. This means every twenty years the amount of plastic we produce doubles. (mindyfully.org) (eurotradeinfo)
The world produces over 200 million tonnes plastic annually. Around half of this is used for disposable items of packaging that are discarded within a year. This debris is accumulating in landfill and the problem is growing. (Thompson).
Excess packaging is not just bad for the environment its bad for your pocket. In studies carried out in 2007 it has been established that excess packaging costs the average UK family about GBP470 a year. (London.gov.uk) (BBCNews). The UK 2.8 million tonnes of plastic waste in the UK each year, this figure is rising by 2% each year.(newport.gov.uk)
The dawn of the plastic era was in 1950s. This was when we first started to use plastic for consumer goods on a mass scale.
What a lot of people don't know is plastics do not biodegrade, they photo degrade, breaking down into smaller and smaller toxic bits contaminating soil, waterways, oceans and entering the food web when ingested by animals.
Scientists estimate each plastic item could last in the environment anywhere between 400 to 1000 years.(New Scientist) (UNEP) In short, think of it this way since the 1950's almost every piece of plastic that we have ever made, used and thrown away is still here on this planet in one form or another, whether its in our homes, in landfill or in the environment; and it will be here for centuries to come.
Plasticizers are a group of chemicals that are added to plastic resins during the manufacturing process. As a general rule plasticizers soften the final plastic product increasing its flexibility. However because these plasticizers are an additive and not actually part of the plastics molecular structure its been established that traces of these chemicals can leach out when they come into contact with a product - for example food or drink.
It has also been established that some of these plasticizers are now known to be carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. (epa.gov) (ecologycenter) (sciencelinks) Take PVC for instance, which is commonly used to package foods and liquids, ubiquitous in children's toys and teethers.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recognized the chemical used to make PVC, vinyl chloride, is a known human carcinogen. However the European Union has only banned the use of DEHP (di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate) in PVC, the most widely used plasticizer in PVC children's toys. (Environmental Research Foundation)
Other plasticizers such bisphenol A (BPA) - a known hormone disrupter that when released into food and liquid acts like oestrogen - are still in use, but now being fazed out in the UK.
About four-fifths of all marine litter comes from land, swept by wind or washed by rain off highways and city streets, down streams and rivers, and out to sea. Also some is intentionally fly-tipped off cliffs and dumped off beaches once again going into the sea. (Only 20% comes from boats, it's a common misplaced blame to assume it's all from boats) (Algalita) (UNEP)
Nearly 90% of floating marine litter is plastic. Since the dawn of the plastic era it is estimate that 5% of all the world's post production plastic has entered the world's oceans. That is just over 100 million tons of plastic. (Algalita) (Greenpeace Ocean Defenders)
In June 2006 United Nations Environmental Programme report estimated that there are an average of 46,000 pieces of plastic debris floating on or near the surface of every square mile of ocean. However in the most concentrated areas this figure was reported to be at over 1 million pieces. (UNEP)
Worldwide, at least 143 marine species are known to have become entangled in marine debris (including almost all of the world's species of sea turtles) and at least 177 marine species (including 95% of all the worlds sea birds) have eaten plastic litter. (environment.gov.au 2004) (seabirds ref, Alterra/Save the North Sea/North Pacific University of Victoria BC,Canada)
Its estimated that over 10's of thousands of seabirds choke or get tangled in plastic debris (including domestic waste and disused fishing gear) and about 100,000 seals, sea lions, whales, dolphins, other marine mammals and sea turtles suffer the same fate.
UK beaches have on average 2000 pieces of litter for every kilometer. (MCS) However this average is only given to larger items. The number of plastic particles (small plastic pieces) on a beach in just one square foot can range from hundreds to thousands in some of the worst polluted area's. (Thompson) (Algalita)
Most importantly: People often ask, "What is the most concerning form of plastic marine debris?
Is it discarded fishing nets (ghost nets), plastic bags, or six-pack rings?"
The truth is it's everything plastic in the ocean. All plastic breaks down into particles. It does not dissolve; it just breaks into tiny pieces and stays there. At this size it is small enough to be ingested by every single organism in the world's oceans - animals as small as krill and salps (plankton feeders) right up to the great Blue Whale.
These particles known as oceanic microplastics are now so prolific in the oceans that they out-weigh plankton. In some large areas it is at a ratio of 30 to 1 (so 30 times more plastic than plankton) and the problem is growing fast.(Algalita) (Greenpeace Ocean Defenders) Oceanic microplastics mix with the plankton, and it's now known that a very heigh percentage of the worlds plankton feeders mistakenly inject it. Scientists now nickname vast surface areas of the world's oceans as "Plastic soup".
So in short, all throwaway plastic is a real threat and causing huge damage to the marine environment, it's not just plastic bags.
At first sight, you'd be forgiven for thinking this photo on the left was just a pretty mosaic. It's actually the stomach contents of one dead laysan albatross chick. Note the toothbrush in the centre right of frame, this gives you an idea of the scale. To give an example of how long plastic lasts in the ocean. In 2001 a piece of plastic found in an albatross stomach bore a serial number that was traced to a World War II seaplane shot down in 1944 (US Fish & Wildlife)
Latest Findings on the usual suspects, and hopefully by now you can see that plastic bags are just a tip of a much greater problem. One thing you will notice is it doesn't matter which beach in the world you walk along, when you find plastic marine debris all to often it's the same old usual suspects (objects).
The Ocean Conservancy has just published their report on debris collected on beaches around the USA. Never before in the United States have conservationists, scientists, and policy-makers had a comprehensive and accurate assessment of the types and sources of debris that are impacting the coastal areas. Ocean Conservancy released key findings from the National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, a five-year national study of trash in the ocean.
Ocean Conservancy's research was conducted under the direction of marine debris expert Seba Sheavly from 2001 to 2006 with the goal of setting a nationwide scientific baseline of the marine debris problem in the U.S. The findings of the report mirror the findings of debris in European marine waters. Plastic bags account for over ten percent of the debris found on US beaches. Plastic bottles account for 21% of all marine debris. Plastic straws are the most prolific debris item on US beaches amounting to 27.5% of all marine debris.
The Ocean Conservancy has just published their report on debris collected on beaches around the USA. Here is a basic table of their findings:
Ocean Conservancy also coordinated International Coastal Cleanup (ICC), which involves over 70 countries worldwide annually. The ICC provides a level balanced 'snapshot' of the amounts and sources of litter found on beaches around the world.
Marine plastic works much like a sponge and collects other hydrophobic chemicals (these are chemicals that don't mix well with water) that have entered the marine environment through use and disposal over the years. The group name for these chemicals is POP's (persistent organic pollutants) chemicals that take decades to breakdown, such as chlordane, PCB, DDT, and DDE to name a few, but heavy metals such as mercury, zinc and lead are also known to attach themselves to marine plastic. (Tokyo University) (Algalita)
Many of these nasties ( that are used as pesticides, insecticides, fire-retardants and herbicides) have now been outright banned in several countries including the UK because they are dangerous human health hazards, however they are still prevalent in the marine environment.
Scientists now know that the persistent organic pollutants (POP's) that have arisen in the environment from sources can attach to the surface area of plastic in the marine environment.
Studies have shown that animals in the marine environment are ingesting increasing amounts of plastic. A major research priority is to establish whether, upon ingestion, these plastics might transfer chemicals to the food chain.
If this proves to be the case, we may have even more cause for concern as the process of bio-accumulation has the potential to increase the concentration of persistent pollutants along the food chain.
You may remember how the toxic effects of the pesticide DDT were so heavily felt by birds, like the peregrine falcon, at the top of the food chain. Well, it's worth noting that human beings are at the top of the marine chain.. (Thompson)
Once again if all this science talks of persistent organic pollutants in the marine environment is bit much to take in, then please listen to this radio interview from Dr Roger Payne and his team.
Plastic bags consumed this year: www.reusablebags.com/
That averages out somewhere between 290-300 plastic bags used per person per year in the UK (Parliament.UK) (londoncouncils.gov.uk) Or another way at looking at it is we could be using upto one million bags per minute. On average we use each plastic bag for approximately 12 -20 minutes before disposing.
Some reports estimate that plastic bags can take over 400 years to degrade. (Parliament.NSW.gov.AU) (BBC news) An estimated 17 billion plastic bags are given away annually by United Kingdom supermarkets-enough plastic to cover an area the size of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and west Yorkshire combined. Note: this estimate don't state all retraders only supermarkets. (Parliament.UK) (London.gov.uk)cover an area the size of London, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and west Yorkshire combined. Note: this estimate don't state all retraders only supermarkets. (Parliament.UK) (London.gov.uk)
Most of them imported from Thailand, Malaysia and China. (So BBC news tell's us via the carrier bag consortium in the news report above) On average we only recycle 1 plastic bag in every 200 we use. (londoncouncils.gov.uk) Over the period 1994 - 2006, MCS Beachwatch litter surveys have recorded averages of between 29 - 46 bags per km surveyed. Since 1994 the average density of plastic bags found during Beachwatch has increased by 31.8% from 29.2 items/km to 38.5 items/km (MCS)
In 1995, high numbers of plastic bags (more than 70% of total litter) were reported in dredge samples from the continental shelf along the French and Spanish Atlantic Coast (Galgani et al, 1995). During a survey of floating marine debris conducted in the South East Pacific plastic bags far outnumbered other items at 47.6% of all items. (UNEP/GPA).
In the marine environment plastic bag litter is lethal, killing many species - including sea birds, whales, dolphins, seals, seal lions and turtles every year. (Planet Ark) (NSW.GOV.AU) Plastic bags can be mistaken for food and consumed by a wide range of marine species. Ingestion of litter such as plastic bags can cause physical damage and mechanical blockage of the oesophagus and digestive system, resulting in a false sensation of fullness or satiation, as the litter may remain in the stomach. This can lead to internal infections, starvation and death. (MCS) (environment.gov.au) (plasticdebris.org)
These bags are a particular hazard to species such as sea turtles, toothed whales and albatross that consume jellyfish or squid, as these prey species resemble plastic bags when floating in the water column. (MSC) (UNEP) (Albatross research from DLNR 2007)
Plastic bags have been recorded as a cause of entanglement in marine animals. Entanglement can restrict movement, leading to starvation, drowning or suffocation. (MSC) (UNEP) Once an animals dies from either entanglement or plastic ingestion, their bodies decompose and the plastic is released back into the environment where it can kill again. (MCS)(Planet Ark) (NOAA)
A Minke Whale washed up dead on the Normandy coast. Cause of death? - The animals' stomach was full of plastic bags, and throw-away plastic packaging. Some of the bags could be identified as coming from British high street shops.(MCS)
Notice on this page I've talked about the deaths of marine animals as estimates. Scientists and marine vets are in agreement that it is very hard to put an exact figure on how many animals die as a result of plastic pollution as they are only able to record the animals that wash ashore or strand. However what they do know is that beached animals make up only a tiny fraction of the animals that die out at sea. (OlryDLNR) (Brainard,NOAA) (Klavitter,USFWS)
Anyone born before the 1940's will belong to the very last generation to remember walking a beach and not seeing plastic marine debris. Anyone born after the 1950's and for at least the next 450 years into the future will have to put up with our generation's ever growing plastic marine pollution and the huge damage it's causing. (Moore) Now in my humble opinion I hardly think that is fair and I want to try to help limit that damage, I really hope you agree?
If we are going to try to curb this pollution then we have to start with ourselves and the way we as individuals live our day to day lives. I know you've probably heard this all before but have a little faith and by just making the smallest changes you can make an impact and a difference. It's the old environmental mantra "be part of the solution, not the problem"
Be Plastic bag free and help your community become plastic bag free, here are the how to's, the FAQ's and a simple guide to follow.
If you live near the coast and want to get hands on, you can sign up to adopt and clean a local beach with our dear friends at the MCS (Marine Conservation Society).
While you're down on the beach why not take part in a global study. Learn about mermaid's tears (plastic pellets) and help an international team of scientists plot toxic ocean pollutants.
No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do so little." - Edmund Burke
Story of Stuff, Full Version; How Things Work, About Stuff
From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world. It'll teach you something, it'll make you laugh, and it just may change the way you look at all the stuff in your life forever.
Island Locations: The most obvious risk to living on an island is the basic fact that islands are the exposed top portion of submerged mountains. The relative risk is related to the probability of a geographic pole shift or any other cosmic or geological event that could create shifts in Earth’s crust, massive earthquakes, or movement of fault lines and tectonic plates. Any one of these events would likely result in the movement of large amounts of water around the world.
We’ve all seen the consequences of such events in our lifetime with the earthquakes followed by tsunamis in Sumatra in 2004 and Japan in 2011. Click here for an interactive view of the before and after images from the 2011 tsunami in Japan.
Before and after images from Samatra tsunami in 2004
Before and after images from Japan tsunami in 2011
The greatest risk is the fact that islands are the tops of submerged mountains that are either part of an entire mountain range or a volcanic ridge. In either case, islands are positioned directly on or near major fault lines in the Earth’s crust. The sudden movement of these underwater fault lines or tectonic plates creates shock waves which are then transferred from the rock vibrations into water vibrations or waves called tsunamis.
Besides the destruction from tsunamis experienced in our lifetime, there are numerous references to ancient events from the forces of water. When Columbus visited the islands in the Bahamas, he wrote that every culture had a similar story about a time when the oceans wiped out virtually all life on the islands. Of course, we must also consider that some people must have survived to pass these stories down through history. We also have references in the Bible and many other ancient scriptures about a great flood that reached virtually every continent. You could also speculate that such events account for why there is little or no trace of ancient civilizations ever existing on Easter Island, the UK, or any other island for that matter.
Many in the scientific community might dispute the historic existence of global flood events in past history; however, others have concluded that such events have occurred in our past. A recent book entitled “CATACLYSM!: Compelling Evidence of a Catastrophic Event in 9500 B.C.” contains scientific evidence of such an event. This book combines geological and archeological research to support their finding of a global cataclysm event about 12,000 years ago which ravaged the planet with the destructive force of shifting in Earth’s crust and from water. The authors of this book also concluded that a majority of human and animal life was eradicated in this event.
By now, it should be no surprise to anyone that Earth’s magnetic poles are moving and that the affects of such a shift are relatively unknown. Many people may also be aware that magnetic pole shifts have occurred in Earth’s past history. Likewise, it’s also true that the geographic poles have been located in different positions around the planet. This is evident by observing entire regions and continents that have been transformed from tropical to frozen and visa versa. In fact, it is common knowledge that the North Pole has moved from the Northern U.S. into Northern Canada and could be why Mammoth's and Rhino's have been found frozen in Russia with fresh grass still in their mouths.
What most theorists and scientists don’t generally agree on is whether magnetic pole shifts and geographic pole shifts are related or occur in close proximity to one another, how long they take to occur, and how far they move. From a position of probability, there is no proof that a geological pole shift will occur through the coming events; however, the probability of Earth being influenced by some external force has real scientific backing. If such an event were to occur, it is very likely to result in massive shifts in Earth’s crust and possibly catastrophic movement of mountains, mountain ranges, volcanoes, and islands.
From a prophetic point of view, the predicted events are similar to those that have been passed on through history. The great heat that scorches the Earth, massive die off of life, great earthquakes, and great floods. In fact, if you believe at all in the Bible prophecy, known as “Revelations”, then the simple statement that “all mountains and island will be moved” may be all the explanation that is needed. If you believe in a physical pole shift, then you must also believe in the corresponding shift in Earth's crust. This means that any mountain range (also know as islands) will be thrust either upwards or downwards as they are on the exact fault lines where these movements occur. This is also how entire continents or portions of continents could theoretically be either submerged into the ocean or pushed upward from the bottom of the oceans.
The speed of such events is also relevant to the potential risks. Depending on how fast the potential events occur will affect all of the possible consequences. If it occurs slowly over a hundred or thousand years, then risk of tsunamis may not be a issue for anyone except those living in coastal areas. Although scientific evidence indicates past events have occurred rapidly and the resulting tsunamis wiped out most everything across the entire planet, there is no way to know for sure what will happen this time.
If continents such as Atlantis and Lemuria really existed, you can get a picture of just how severe the shifting of Earth’s crust and continents may be. Even if you don’t believe in Lemuria or Atlantis, one must consider the fact that there are ancient cities under every ocean on the planet. And although most people may be unaware of these underwater cities, the reality is that they exist and were above water at some time in our past. This may also explain why most ancient maps depict islands and land masses that are not visible today.
The potential for upward and downward movement in the coming events should be considered with equal sincerity as those that have been proven to occur in the past. The resulting tsunamis from such movement present a serious risk to any islands and coastal regions.
If you consider the speeds (up to 500mph) and forces (wall of water 50-100 meters high) of a tsunami created by massive shifts in Earth’s crust, it’s easy to see how the risk from such events is unimaginable. The physics of hydrodynamics (the study of motion of liquids) is far too complex to describe here with any meaning, however, the only real question s are how far inland and how high a tsunami might climb a mountain in its path?
There are those that would like to believe a tsunami will flow around an island rather than flow over the top. Those who are familiar with hydrodynamics know that although some water may be deflected around the peak of the mountain, the majority of the force will move in a straight line up the mountainside and depending on the terrain, may move through and possibly over the island. Of course, combining the possibility of extreme upward and downward movement with the potential for massive tsunamis represents a very high risk to island life.
The most important factor when making any decisions is learning how to balance our intellectual knowledge with our intuition. Basing any decision on one without the other is only utilizing part of your consciousness. By understanding the physical possibilities of these times and combining that with the spiritual possibilities of these times, anyone can make an informed decision about choosing a location. This means that it is important to gain knowledge and wisdom about Earth’s history and your inner self before making any decision.
Those who make decisions without putting in this effort may explain why so few people survived the previous cataclysmic events. Here is an example: Only after the extensive research to create this “Where Will It Be Safe?” document, did it become obvious that the highest risk locations are in mountainous regions. This was an unexpected observation. Realizing that islands are simply the tops of mountains may be enough for some people to draw the same conclusion; however, we hope this write-up provides any additional information necessary to make an informed decision about choosing your location.
For more information on the risks for mountainous regions, please refer to our write up on Mountain Locations.
Mountain Locations: When considering a mountainous location, it’s easy to imagine a nicely wooded area with open fields and valleys, adequate fresh water from rivers, stream, or lakes; fertile land for planting and grazing, wildlife and natural vegetation for easy harvesting, and reasonable protection from the elements. The criteria for considering a mountainous region would include: altitude, weather and temperatures, vegetation, wildlife, resources such as wood and water, and possibly remoteness.
What people don’t often realize is that mountainous regions include tremendous risks if any of the possible cosmic or Earth events do occur. In fact, mountainous regions contain the highest risks of any location besides low lying areas in close proximity to the ocean or large bodies of water.
Why? To consider the risks, let’s first consider that mountains are created because they are directly on or near major fault lines in Earth’s crust. Such locations are also exactly where the magma under the crust is able to find openings which we know as volcanoes.
In school, we were all taught that most mountain ranges were created by fault lines moving in slight amounts over long periods of time. Further that minor earthquakes caused movement in these fault lines which translated into upward or downward movement of the mountains in a few millimeters per year over periods of millions of years. Of course, this is what we were taught, however, the geological and physical evidence speaks quite differently.
How many people know that you can find sea shells on many mountain tops and even entire layers of oceanic fossils in some mountainous areas? How many people are aware of the evidence that some mountain ranges have moved up or down 3,000 to 9,000 meters (10,000 to 26,000 ft) in a single cataclysmic event? Although many in the scientific community might continue to dispute that such events have occurred in Earth’s past, the geological evidence speaks for itself.
A recent book entitled “CATACLYSM!: Compelling Evidence of a Catastrophic Event in 9500 B.C.” contains scientific proof of such an event. This book combines geological and archeological research to support their finding of a global cataclysm event about 12,000 years ago which ravaged the planet with the destructive force of shifting in Earth’s crust and from water. The authors of this book have drawn on the previous research of numerous geologist and carbon dating to conclude that some mountain regions below the ocean were recently at above sea level and many that were at sea level are now towering over our landscapes.
In other words, the story we were told in school that mountains move up or down a few millimeters per year over periods of millions of years is not the whole truth and may be a complete fabrication.
If the foundation of this research is to consider whether mountainous regions are high risk locations considering the possible Earth and cosmic events, then the possibility that they could be thrust upwards or downwards, in the order of 10,000 to 26,000 feet, instantly must rank right up there with the extinction of the dinosaurs! Is such an event the foundation for the “Great Earthquake” from the Bible and other prophecy?
Now let’s consider some of the other natural risks. Besides earthquakes, additional risks to mountainous regions include: volcanoes, fire, flash floods, as well as mud and rock slides.
Of all these potential risks, volcanoes are probably the easiest to eliminate when choosing a mountainous location. Why? Because most volcanoes are well documented or even highly visible with the naked eye. In this case, some simple research and observation can eliminate any risk from being too close to a volcanic region. The only problem is that virtually all mountain regions are highly susceptible to volcanic activity due to the nature of how they are created from a weakness in the crust called fault lines. Even if you do not find active volcanoes, many mountainous regions are known for their “hot springs” which are the result of magma in close proximity to the surface (i.e. volcanic activity).
If you look around the world today you will see evidence of massive rock slides on virtually every mountain region on the planet. Evidence of mud and rock slides is so dramatic that you can even see them from space. Just go to Google Earth and zoom in on any mountain range in the world.
When you visit some of these locations in person, you can instantly become awed by the amount of energy that would be required to create such slides which supports the evidence of cataclysmic events that have moved entire mountain ranges. In some cases, the terrain is steep enough and the rocks small enough to imagine how a slight earthquake could have caused the slide. However, in many cases, it’s obvious by the size of the rocks and vastness of the slides that they must have been created by much greater events than just your average earthquake.
In most mountainous regions, we have not witnessed anything on the scale that must have occurred to create the existing slides and formations. Probably the greatest example of such cataclysmic events is what happened in the mountains of China in May 2003. The below satellite image is a before and after from the 7.9 magnitude earthquake that struck the mountain region of China in May of 2003. In these images, red is vegetation and brown is either dirt, mud, or rock. As you can see from these images, the earthquake caused massive mud and rock slides in the mountain regions, destroying crops, forests, villages, and killing over 70,000 people.
This event in China was the result of heavy rains which saturated the soils and then a 7.9 magnitude earthquake which caused the saturated soils to experience liquefaction and eventually slide. Such events bring to light the next topic of discussion which is rain, soil saturation, and liquefaction.
Rain and soils saturation is the root cause of all mudslides and probably most rock slides in the world. Liquefaction can occur simply as a result of heavy rains even without an earthquake as seen in this September 2010 video of a mudslide in a remote village in Italy.
Liquefaction caused by heavy rain in Italy, Sept 2010
Liquefaction can also occur in low elevation areas as well which can be seen in the following videos from the March 2011 earthquake induced liquefaction in Japan and from the February 2011 earthquake induced liquefaction in Christchurch, New Zealand.
Liquefaction caused by Earthquake in Japan, Mar 2011, 9.0 earthquake
Liquefaction example in Christchurch, New Zealand, Feb 2011, 6.3 earthquake
In other words, liquefaction does not require an earthquake to occur; however, the combination of elevation, rain, and earthquakes creates a formula for disaster and the greatest risk to mountainous regions.
If this evidence is not enough, now imagine the possibility of solar storms, volcanic ash, or other cosmic forces that create the perfect situation for heavy rainfall. With the potential conditions that have been predicted for these coming times and events, experiencing rainy conditions beyond anything we have seen in modern history is a very real possibility.
There is also evidence that such heavy rains have occurred in ancient history if you consider references in the Bible to be possible. In the time of Noah and the Great Flood as referenced in the Bible, it was written that Earth experienced a rain that lasted for 40 days and 40 nights. Although difficult, at best, to imagine such a torrential downpour, it is not unrealistic when considering the possible cosmic and Earth events that could occur during these times.
We are already seeing unusual weather patterns affecting the entire planet as the weather appears to be flipping and changing dramatically in many regions. Some might say this is the result of El Nina, El Nino, cyclical solar activity, and even possibly as a result of the magnetic pole movement. Whatever the rational, these ongoing events are often reported to be within some statistical probability, but what happens when events occur that are outside of all scientific and statistical understanding? These are exactly the events that can not be predicted, but only speculated.
Now imagine the possibility of an event that causes the Sun to release excessive solar radiation beyond something ever recorded in history. Then imagine how solar radiation affects our weather by drawing moisture from the oceans which are deposited as rain on the landscape. Although less likely, any volcanic activity can also cause heavy ash clouds to form which, in turn, are known to be a catalyst for creating rain storms.
In other words, the potential to experience periods of 40 days and 40 nights of rain are very real. Such an event would saturate all soils beyond anything that scientist and geologists could imagine. The subsoil saturation and liquefaction from such an event would be beyond imagination and cause massive mudslides and flash flooding of all ravines, canyons, and mountainous valleys. To give a perspective on the potential for devastating conditions, just imagine any of the known liquefaction videos or events in recorded history, magnified about 400 times.
The 7.9 earthquake in China on May 2003 and the resulting mudslides is only an example and pales in comparison to the possible devastation that would occur from 40 days and 40 nights of continuous rain. Even without an earthquake, such an event would cause entire mountainsides to liquefy and slide. By adding the motion from even a small earthquake would create an exponentially more devastating event. However, when speaking about a potential earthquake or earthquakes with magnitudes beyond our imagination, the risk to mountainous regions becomes exponentially worse.
The concept of a Great Earthquake, as referenced in many ancient scriptures including the Bible, is not unrealistic. We’ve already mentioned how there is scientific evidence of a global cataclysm event about 12,000 years ago which ravaged the planet with the destructive force of shifting in Earth’s crust. This research and evidence prove that some mountain ranges where thrust upwards or downwards 10,000 to 26,000 feet in a cataclysmic event of very short duration. Such an event is likely the foundation for the “Great Earthquake” as written in Biblical prophecy?
It doesn’t take much to imagine the disastrous consequences of life in the mountains if Earth experiences liquefaction of the soil combined with earthquakes in events that are far beyond our comprehension.
Last, but not least in the risk assessment for mountainous regions is the risk from fire. Even today, under relatively normal conditions, fire is one of the greatest risks to any mountain habitat and lifestyle. Why? Because unless you have vast amounts of water and the ability to move that water, fire pretty much burns through everything until it is extinguished. It doesn’t help that wooded terrain, better known as forests; provide the perfect fuel for any fire. Statistics show that on average, fire destroys about 5% of worldwide forests annually. This may not sound like a lot unless you happen to be living within that 5% region.
It’s been predicted and prophesized that Earth could experience a period of extreme solar activity. Such events have been described in ancient scriptures as they reference a time when the Sun became so hot that people had to jump into lakes and rivers to stay cool. These scriptures also state that the waters in the rivers and lakes boiled and those people did not survive.
We already know that some cosmic event is already acting on our Sun and every planet in our solar system. The ice core sample data from the Antarctic reveals a clear pattern of hot and cold cycles of Earth while scientists have proven these temperature pattern are directly related to solar output and not the burning of fossil fuels.
Scientists have proven the Sun is going through changes today that they have never witnessed before. In October 2008, NASA scientists warned that the heliosphere, the protective shield of energy that surrounds our solar system, has weakened by 25 per cent over the past decade and is now at it lowest level since the space race began 50 years ago. This means that, since 2008, Earth is being bombarded with at least 25% more cosmic radiation from the galaxy.
What happens if a cosmic event occurs that causes our Sun to heat up or reduces Earth’s protection from solar radiation? Predictions and prophecy of the potential cosmic events indicate that Earth may very well experience a period of intense heat coming from the Sun. Some indications are that our Sun could become 20% to 30% hotter for a short period of time.
Of course this is all speculation and this information is not being provided as proof. Instead, it is being provided as a BIG “what if”. What if the Sun got 20% to 30% hotter through the coming events? What if there were no firefighters available to stop a forest fire? What if the heat was so intense that every forest caught on fire? What if you had created a mountain habitat and the forest was on fire? How would you survive if most or all of your resources were burned up in a devastating fire?
The answers to these questions are not so difficult are they? If you are living in the mountains and the forest catches on fire, you run! You run and if necessary, you leave everything behind that you can not carry. The question you must ask yourself is whether such a location provides and environment with long-term sustainability.
Now let’s summarize why mountainous regions provide the greatest risks of any location on the planet.
Only after the extensive research to create this “Where Will It Be Safe?” document, did it become obvious that the highest risk locations are in mountainous regions.
The information contain herein is for those who may want to consider the risks of certain areas during this unusual and unpredictable time in history. Many who read this may not believe in the potential cosmic or Earth events. They may not believe that any major or cataclysmic events are coming in our near or distant future. They may not believe that our climate is going to change dramatically or that we may experience extreme solar activity and weather changes. And they may not believe in the potential for massive earthquakes beyond our comprehension.
The most important factor when making any decisions is learning how to balance our intellectual knowledge with our intuition. Basing any decision on one without the other is only utilizing part of your consciousness. By understanding the physical possibilities of these times and combining that with the spiritual possibilities of these times, anyone can make an informed decision about choosing a location. This means that it is important to gain knowledge and wisdom about Earth’s history and your inner self before making any decision. Those who make decisions without putting in this effort may explain why so few people survived the previous cataclysmic events.
For more information on the risks of an island (top of mountain) location, please refer to our write up on Island Locations.