Global Indigo

test post

Would you like to find out how to run your vehicle on Water and Double your Mileage while Reducing Global Warming ?

Welcome to a Cleaner Tomorrow !

Did you know that you can convert your car or truck to a water-burning vehicle (Water Hybrid) ?

This easy and affordable do-it-yourself conversion guide shows you step by step how to turn your vehicle into a Environment and Wallet friendly Water Hybrid.

• The conversion WILL NOT void your warranty because it is 100% reversible! It’s easy to install and remove.
• Enjoy IRS refunds owed to you by law for using green technology in your vehicle!
• Create your own water hybrid for under $150!
  
• Works with plain tap water . No need for distilled water or special water additives!
• Very simplified process. The steps are easy, and the materials are affordable.
• Works on gas or diesel powered cars, vans, trucks, and SUVs. ( Not tested on hybrids )
• Remove carbon deposits and prevent future carbon build up. That’s why many drivers report a smoother operation.
• Greatly enhance engine power and performance.

Clean up emissions that damage your health and the health of your family. When burned, the “Brown’s Gas” produced turns right back into water! No harmful chemicals are emitted from this system. Since your engine would take LESS gasoline and BURN IT MORE COMPLETELY, the overall effect is dramatic reduction in harmful emissions. You’ll be able to smell the difference.
This easy conversion guide will show you how to use electricity from your car’s battery to separate water into a gas called HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen) . HHO, also called Brown’s Gas or Hydroxy, burns smoothly and provides significant energy - while the end product is just H2O! HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the stability of water.

This conversion system will easily pay for itself within a month or two.

Once installed, it will save you an average of $110 per month for many years into the future!

That’s a savings of well over $1000 per year , every year, for a low one-time payment .
The math is real, and so are your savings!

Sounds Interesting ? Learn More !

Air Pollution

Despite growing support from the chemical industry and environmentalists for phasing out several highly toxic and long-lived substances, new compounds continue to be introduced into global commerce at a rapid rate. Because the health effects of such substances often become apparent only long after their introduction, Worldwatch research emphasizes avoiding the use of toxic chemicals. It shows how industry leaders, farmers, public health officials, and community members have adopted safe and economical alternatives to toxics, in the process realizing countless health and environmental benefits.

Green power is the solution to a cleaner, sustainable energy system. Renewable energy—power from the sun, wind, plants, and moving water—is a sustainable way to meet our energy needs and protect the environment and public health.

Wind energy converts the power available in moving air into electricity. Wind power does not produce emissions, generate solid waste, or use water.

Bioenergy is energy from trees and plants. This includes crops grown specifically for energy production and organic wastes (such as wood residues from paper mills and methane from landfills). Using bioenergy to generate electricity reduces global warming emissions if new plants are grown to replace those that are harvested.

Geothermal energy uses heat from inside the earth to make clean power.

Solar power captures the heat and light of the sun to generate electricity. Solar energy does not produce emissions, generate solid waste, or use water.

Hydroelectric power captures the energy in falling water. It does not produce emissions or solid waste, but can have a relatively low or high impact on the environment, depending on the site-specific factors such as maintenance of water flow and water quality, fish impacts, and other land use issues.

Why Buy Green Power?

Choosing green power could make a big difference for the environment because electricity generation is the largest industrial polluter in the country. Electricity generation currently produces:

About two-thirds of the annual U.S. emissions of sulfur dioxide, the main cause of acid rain and very small soot particles. These fine particles are believed to be responsible for the largest share of the 50,000-100,000 deaths caused by air pollution in the United States each year.

About 30 percent of the nitrogen oxide emissions, which stress forest ecosystems and combine with organic compounds in sunlight to form smog. High smog levels can also trigger heart and respiratory problems and contribute to air pollution deaths.

About 40 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions. This heat-trapping gas causes global warming, which may lead to increased droughts, flooding, disease, ecosystem disruption, and severe weather.

Toxic-metal emissions (such as mercury and lead) and nuclear waste.

  Individual choices can have an impact on global climate change. Reducing your family’s heat-trapping emissions does not mean forgoing modern conveniences; it means making smart choices and using energy-efficient products, which may require an additional investment up front, but often pay you back in energy savings within a couple of years.Since Americans’ per capita emissions of heat-trapping gases is 5.6 tons—more than double the amount of western Europeans—we can all make choices that will greatly reduce our families’ global warming impact.

1 The car you drive: the most important personal climate decision.
When you buy your next car, look for the one with the best fuel economy in its class. Each gallon of gas you use releases 25 pounds of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Better gas mileage not only reduces global warming, but will also save you thousands of dollars at the pump over the life of the vehicle. Compare the fuel economy of the cars you’re considering and look for new technologies like hybrid engines.

2 Choose clean power.

More than half the electricity in the United States comes from polluting coal-fired power plants. And power plants are the single largest source of heat-trapping gas. None of us can live without electricity, but in some states, you can switch to electricity companies that provide 50 to 100 percent renewable energy. (For more information go toGreen-e.org.)

3 Look for Energy Star.

When it comes time to replace appliances, look for the Energy Star label on new appliances (refrigerators, freezers, furnaces, air conditioners, and water heaters use the most energy). These items may cost a bit more initially, but the energy savings will pay back the extra investment within a couple of years. Household energy savings really can make a difference: If each household in the United States replaced its existing appliances with the most efficient models available, we would save $15 billion in energy costs and eliminate 175 million tons of heat-trapping gases.

4 Unplug a freezer.
One of the quickest ways to reduce your global warming impact is to unplug the extra refrigerator or freezer you rarely use (except when you need it for holidays and parties). This can reduce the typical family’s carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 10 percent.

5 Get a home energy audit.
Take advantage of the free home energy audits offered by many utilities. Simple measures, such as installing a programmable thermostat to replace your old dial unit or sealing and insulating heating and cooling ducts, can each reduce a typical family’s carbon dioxide emissions by about 5 percent.

6 Light bulbs matter.
If every family in the United States replaced one regular light bulb with an energy-saving model, we could reduce global warming pollution by more than 90 billion pounds, the same as taking 7.5 million cars off the road. So, replace your incandescent bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescents, which now come in all shapes and sizes. You’ll be doing your share to cut back on heat-trapping pollution and you’ll save money on your electric bills and light bulbs.

7 Think before you drive.
If you own more than one vehicle, use the less fuel-efficient one only when you can fill it with passengers. Driving a full minivan may be kinder to the environment than two midsize cars. Whenever possible, join a carpool or take mass transit.

8 Buy good wood.
When buying wood products, check for labels that indicate the source of the timber. Supporting forests that are managed in a sustainable fashion makes sense for biodiversity, and it may make sense for the climate too. Forests that are well managed are more likely to store carbon effectively because more trees are left standing and carbon-storing soils are less disturbed.

9 Plant a tree.
You can also make a difference in your own backyard. Get a group in your neighborhood together and contact your local arborist or urban forester about planting trees on private property and public land. In addition to storing carbon, trees planted in and around urban areas and residences can provide much-needed shade in the summer, reducing energy bills and fossil fuel use.

10 Let policymakers know you are concerned about global warming.
Our elected officials and business leaders need to hear from concerned citizens.Sign up for the Union of Concerned Scientists Action Network to ensure that policymakers get the timely, accurate information they need to make informed decisions about global warming solutions.

Excerpts from: The Food Revolution by John Robbins
“How your diet can help save your life and our world”

R.E. Waste from Animal Agriculture
“The contamination of the nations’ waterways from (pork) manure run-off is extremely serious. Twenty tons of (pork and other) livestock manure are produced for every household in the country. We have strict laws governing the disposal of human waste, but the regulations are lax, or often nonexistent, for animal waste.”
(Union of Concerned Scientists )

Amount of waste produced by North Carolina’s 7 million factory-raised hogs
(stored in open cesspools) compared to the amount produced
by the state’s 6.5 million people: 4 to 1

Relative concentration of pathogens in hog waste compared to human sewage: 10 to 100 times greater

Amount of waste produced by the 1,600 dairies in California’s Central Valley: More than the entire human population of Texas.

“(It’s a) myth that U.S. cattle produce large amounts of methane, a greenhouse” gas, thereby contributing significantly to possible global warming problems.” -
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

“Livestock account for 15 to 20 percent of (overall) global methane emissions.” -Worldwatch Institute.

R.E. Abuse of nature’s resources

“ The amount of water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a (Naval) destroyer.” (Newsweek)

Nearly half the water consumed in this country is used for livestock, mostly cattle.” (Audobon, 1999)

In Central America, cattle typically graze on land that was rainforest before being cut down and burned to be used for rangeland. According to the Rainforest Action Network, 55 square feet of tropical rainforest, an area the size of a small kitchen, are destroyed for the production of every fast-food burger made from rainforest beef.

“Imports of beef by the United States from southern Mexico and Central America during the past 25 years has been the major factor in the loss of about half of the tropical forests there- all for the sake of keeping the price of hamburger in the united States about a nickel less than it wood have been otherwise.”
(MacArthur Foundation Report)

Leading cause of species in the tropical rainforests being threatened or eliminated: Livestock grazing

Leading cause of species in the United States being threatened or eliminated
(according to the U.S. Congress General Accounting Office)

Livestock grazing

“Cattlemen graze livestock on more than half the land area of the United States… These lands provide habitat for many of the species listed as threatened of endangered. The cattle business is often affected adversely by the Endangered Species Act because regulations to protect species habitat restrict land uses and limit ranchers’ management options.”
(National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, explaining its opposition to the Endangered Species Act)

“Loss of species and climate change (exemplify how) current methods of rearing animals around the world take a large toll on nature. Overgrown and resource-intensive, animal agriculture is out of alignment with the Earth’s ecosystems.”
Worldwatch Institute

R.E. food-borne disease

“ The prevalence (of E. coli 0157:H7) is very low.“
(National Cattlemen’s Beef Association)

“A report by the United States Department of Agriculture estimates that 89 percent of U.S. beef ground into patties contains traces of the deadly E. coli strain.“
(Reuters News Service )

Although E. coli is primarily a problem in hamburger and other ground beef products, if there were a contest for the most frequently contaminated food product in the United States, chicken would stand an excellent chance of winning. A study by the University of Arizona found higher levels of coliform bacteria in the American kitchen then on the rim of the toilet. The bathroom is cleaner because people are not washing their chickens in the toilet.

Every year, more than 650,000 Americans are sickened form eating Salmonella-tainted eggs.

“We don’t want Congress to get carried away just because somebody somewhere happens to get sick. The problems with eggs and salmonella have been overblown.”
( Franklin Sharris, spokesperson for a leading U.S. egg company )

“Year after year the egg industry goes to (Congress) to try to turn back public health improvements. Eggs remain at the top of the list of foods that are causing food-borne outbreaks..”
( Center for Science in the Public Interest )

“I don’t understand what all the fuss. Meats are being irradiated to make them safer, to kill E. coli and other harmful bacteria. Consumers should be glad we’re doing it. This is an example of how the meat industry gets a bad rap for doing the right thing. If anything, the labels should say ‘treated to promote health.’ People should just relax and trust us to know what we’re doing. Believe me, irradiated foods are safe to eat.”
(Dominique Jenokins, CEO of a major U.S. meat company)

You might not want to eat a fast-food burger that had been “nuked”. But thanks to the cattlemen’s effort, you may already have. On February 22, 2000, the USDA legalized the irradiation of beef and other meat products. Three months later, grocery store chains began selling irradiated meat to consumers. And while a label disclosing that meat products have been irradiated is required when those products are sold in a store, labeling is not required for foods served by restaurants and school lunch programs. Without their knowledge, customers of McDonald’s and Burger King, and children eating in school cafeterias, may now be guinea pigs in an experiment with a technology that could be extremely dangerous.

Many previous technologies have proved to have adverse effects unexpected by their developers. DDT, for example, turned out to accumulate in fish and thin the shells of fish-eating birds like eagles and ospreys. And chlorofluorocarbons turned out to float into the upper atmosphere and destroy ozone, a chemical that shields the earth from dangerous radiation. What harmful effects might turn out to be associated with the use or release of genetically engineered organisms?

This is not an easy question. Being able to answer it depends on understanding complex biological and ecological systems. So far, scientists know of no generic harms associated with genetically engineered organisms. For example, it is not true that all genetically engineered foods are toxic or that all released engineered organisms are likely to proliferate in the environment. But specific engineered organisms may be harmful by virtue of the novel gene combinations they possess. This means that the risks of genetically engineered organisms must be assessed case by case and that these risks can differ greatly from one gene-organism combination to another.

So far, scientists have identified a number of ways in which genetically engineered organisms could potentially adversely impact both human health and the environment. Once the potential harms are identified, the question becomes how likely are they to occur. The answer to this question falls into the arena of risk assessment.

In addition to posing risks of harm that we can envision and attempt to assess, genetic engineering may also pose risks that we simply do not know enough to identify. The recognition of this possibility does not by itself justify stopping the technology, but does put a substantial burden on those who wish to go forward to demonstrate benefits.

Potential Harms to Health

Here are the some examples of the potential adverse effects of genetically engineered organisms may have on human health. Most of these examples are associated with the growth and consumption of genetically engineered crops. Different risks would be associated with genetically engineered animals and, like the risks associated with plants, would depend largely on the new traits introduced into the organism.
New Allergens in the Food Supply

Transgenic crops could bring new allergens into foods that sensitive individuals would not know to avoid. An example is transferring the gene for one of the many allergenic proteins found in milk into vegetables like carrots. Mothers who know to avoid giving their sensitive children milk would not know to avoid giving them transgenic carrots containing milk proteins. The problem is unique to genetic engineering because it alone can transfer proteins across species boundaries into completely unrelated organisms.

Genetic engineering routinely moves proteins into the food supply from organisms that have never been consumed as foods. Some of those proteins could be food allergens, since virtually all known food allergens are proteins. Recent research substantiates concerns about genetic engineering rendering previously safe foods allergenic. A study by scientists at the University of Nebraska shows that soybeans genetically engineered to contain Brazil-nut proteins cause reactions in individuals allergic to Brazil nuts.

Scientists have limited ability to predict whether a particular protein will be a food allergen, if consumed by humans. The only sure way to determine whether protein will be an allergen is through experience. Thus importing proteins, particularly from nonfood sources, is a gamble with respect to their allergenicity.
Antibiotic Resistance

Genetic engineering often uses genes for antibiotic resistance as “selectable markers.” Early in the engineering process, these markers help select cells that have taken up foreign genes. Although they have no further use, the genes continue to be expressed in plant tissues. Most genetically engineered plant foods carry fully functioning antibiotic-resistance genes.

The presence of antibiotic-resistance genes in foods could have two harmful effects. First, eating these foods could reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight disease when these antibiotics are taken with meals. Antibiotic-resistance genes produce enzymes that can degrade antibiotics. If a tomato with an antibiotic-resistance gene is eaten at the same time as an antibiotic, it could destroy the antibiotic in the stomach.

Second, the resistance genes could be transferred to human or animal pathogens, making them impervious to antibiotics. If transfer were to occur, it could aggravate the already serious health problem of antibiotic-resistant disease organisms. Although unmediated transfers of genetic material from plants to bacteria are highly unlikely, any possibility that they may occur requires careful scrutiny in light of the seriousness of antibiotic resistance.

In addition, the widespread presence of antibiotic-resistance genes in engineered food suggests that as the number of genetically engineered products grows, the effects of antibiotic resistance should be analyzed cumulatively across the food supply.
Production of New Toxins

Many organisms have the ability to produce toxic substances. For plants, such substances help to defend stationary organisms from the many predators in their environment. In some cases, plants contain inactive pathways leading to toxic substances. Addition of new genetic material through genetic engineering could reactivate these inactive pathways or otherwise increase the levels of toxic substances within the plants. This could happen, for example, if the on/off signals associated with the introduced gene were located on the genome in places where they could turn on the previously inactive genes.
Concentration of Toxic Metals

Some of the new genes being added to crops can remove heavy metals like mercury from the soil and concentrate them in the plant tissue. The purpose of creating such crops is to make possible the use of municipal sludge as fertilizer. Sludge contains useful plant nutrients, but often cannot be used as fertilizer because it is contaminated with toxic heavy metals. The idea is to engineer plants to remove and sequester those metals in inedible parts of plants. In a tomato, for example, the metals would be sequestered in the roots; in potatoes in the leaves. Turning on the genes in only some parts of the plants requires the use of genetic on/off switches that turn on only in specific tissues, like leaves.

Such products pose risks of contaminating foods with high levels of toxic metals if the on/off switches are not completely turned off in edible tissues. There are also environmental risks associated with the handling and disposal of the metal-contaminated parts of plants after harvesting.
Enhancement of the Environment for Toxic Fungi

Although for the most part health risks are the result of the genetic material newly added to organisms, it is also possible for the removal of genes and gene products to cause problems. For example, genetic engineering might be used to produce decaffeinated coffee beans by deleting or turning off genes associated with caffeine production. But caffeine helps protect coffee beans against fungi. Beans that are unable to produce caffeine might be coated with fungi, which can produce toxins. Fungal toxins, such as aflatoxin, are potent human toxins that can remain active through processes of food preparation.
Unknown Harms

As with any new technology, the full set of risks associated with genetic engineering have almost certainly not been identified. The ability to imagine what might go wrong with a technology is limited by the currently incomplete understanding of physiology, genetics, and nutrition.

Potential Environmental Harms

Increased Weediness One way of thinking generally about the environmental harm that genetically engineered plants might do is to consider that they might become weeds. Here, weeds means all plants in places where humans do not want them. The term covers everything from Johnson grass choking crops in fields to kudzu blanketing trees to melaleuca trees invading the Everglades. In each case, the plants are growing unaided by humans in places where they are having unwanted effects. In agriculture, weeds can severely inhibit crop yield. In unmanaged environments, like the Everglades, invading trees can displace natural flora and upset whole ecosystems.

Some weeds result from the accidental introduction of alien plants, but many were the result of purposeful introductions for agricultural and horticultural purposes. Some of the plants intentionally introduced into the United States that have become serious weeds are Johnson grass, multiflora rose, and kudzu. A new combination of traits produced as a result of genetic engineering might enable crops to thrive unaided in the environment in circumstances where they would then be considered new or worse weeds. One example would be a rice plant engineered to be salt-tolerant that escaped cultivation and invaded nearby marine estuaries.
Gene Transfer to Wild or Weedy Relatives

Novel genes placed in crops will not necessarily stay in agricultural fields. If relatives of the altered crops are growing near the field, the new gene can easily move via pollen into those plants. The new traits might confer on wild or weedy relatives of crop plants the ability to thrive in unwanted places, making them weeds as defined above. For example, a gene changing the oil composition of a crop might move into nearby weedy relatives in which the new oil composition would enable the seeds to survive the winter. Overwintering might allow the plant to become a weed or might intensify weedy properties it already possesses.
Change in Herbicide Use Patterns

Crops genetically engineered to be resistant to chemical herbicides are tightly linked to the use of particular chemical pesticides. Adoption of these crops could therefore lead to changes in the mix of chemical herbicides used across the country. To the extent that chemical herbicides differ in their environmental toxicity, these changing patterns could result in greater levels of environmental harm overall. In addition, widespread use of herbicide-tolerant crops could lead to the rapid evolution of resistance to herbicides in weeds, either as a result of increased exposure to the herbicide or as a result of the transfer of the herbicide trait to weedy relatives of crops. Again, since herbicides differ in their environmental harm, loss of some herbicides may be detrimental to the environment overall.
Squandering of Valuable Pest Susceptibility Genes

Many insects contain genes that render them susceptible to pesticides. Often these susceptibility genes predominate in natural populations of insects. These genes are a valuable natural resource because they allow pesticides to remain as effective pest-control tools. The more benign the pesticide, the more valuable the genes that make pests susceptible to it.

Certain genetically engineered crops threaten the continued susceptibility of pests to one of nature’s most valuable pesticides: the Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt toxin. These “Bt crops” are genetically engineered to contain a gene for the Bt toxin. Because the crops produce the toxin in most plant tissues throughout the life cycle of the plant, pests are constantly exposed to it. This continuous exposure selects for the rare resistance genes in the pest population and in time will render the Bt pesticide useless, unless specific measures are instituted to avoid the development of such resistance.
Poisoned Wildlife

Addition of foreign genes to plants could also have serious consequences for wildlife in a number of circumstances. For example, engineering crop plants, such as tobacco or rice, to produce plastics or pharmaceuticals could endanger mice or deer who consume crop debris left in the fields after harvesting. Fish that have been engineered to contain metal-sequestering proteins (such fish have been suggested as living pollution clean-up devices) could be harmful if consumed by other fish or raccoons.
Creation of New or Worse Viruses

One of the most common applications of genetic engineering is the production of virus-tolerant crops. Such crops are produced by engineering components of viruses into the plant genomes. For reasons not well understood, plants producing viral components on their own are resistant to subsequent infection by those viruses. Such plants, however, pose other risks of creating new or worse viruses through two mechanisms: recombination and transcapsidation.

Recombination can occur between the plant-produced viral genes and closely related genes of incoming viruses. Such recombination may produce viruses that can infect a wider range of hosts or that may be more virulent than the parent viruses.

Transcapsidation involves the encapsulation of the genetic material of one virus by the plant-produced viral proteins. Such hybrid viruses could transfer viral genetic material to a new host plant that it could not otherwise infect. Except in rare circumstances, this would be a one-time-only effect, because the viral genetic material carries no genes for the foreign proteins within which it was encapsulated and would not be able to produce a second generation of hybrid viruses.
Unknown Harms

As with human health risks, it is unlikely that all potential harms to the environment have been identified. Each of the potential harms above is an answer to the question, “Well, what might go wrong?” The answer to that question depends on how well scientists understand the organism and the environment into which it is released. At this point, biology and ecology are too poorly understood to be certain that question has been answered comprehensively.

Risk Assessment

Having identified a list of possible harms that might occur as a result of using or releasing genetically engineered organisms, the next question is how likely are any of these to occur? Like the original “brainstorming” of potential harms, the answer to this question depends greatly on how well the organisms and their interaction in the environment are understood. Risks must be assessed case by case as new applications of genetic engineering are introduced. In some circumstances, it is possible to assess risks with great confidence. For example, it is vanishingly unlikely that genetically engineered palm trees will thrive in the Arctic regardless of what genes have been added. But for many potential harms, the answers are far less certain.Risk assessments can be complicated. Because even rigorous assessments involve numerous assumptions and judgment calls, they are often controversial when they are used to support particular government decisions. For example, the approval of the first genetically engineered squash by the United States Department of Agriculture involved a controversial risk assessment.

Under the current US regulatory framework for biotechnology, some sort of risk assessment is routinely produced before decisions to allow commercialization of products under the Federal Plant Pest Act; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In the case of the Plant Pest Act, risk assessments are done according to the procedure specified by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under NEPA, risk assessments could lead to full-blown environmental impact statements, but so far all evaluations of engineered agricultural organisms have led to the legal conclusion that no environmental impact statement is needed.

For the most part, risk assessments are done by scientists and policymakers in the relevant agencies (USDA or EPA) with information provided by the companies seeking the approvals. The public often has a brief opportunity to review and comment on the risk assessments.

There is no standard set of questions that risk assessments must answer because of the great range of potential impacts of biotechnology products. A risk assessment for a microbial pesticide, for example, would be substantially different from a risk assessment for genetically engineered salmon. Like all efforts at risk evaluation, risk assessments done for regulation depend on the base of scientific knowledge for generation of list of possible harms to be assessed.