Cow farts and Sunshine

COW FARTS AND SUNSHINE

Here are two non-problems, invented by government, media and politicized science. The story the media feeds us is that farm animals are creating a warming of the earth. So farm animals are naughty, bad things that harm the planet. The other nasty is the sun. Where once it was considered the giver of Life, now it is the embodiment of evil, trying to give you skin cancer every second you are outside under it. The messages are: don't think kindly of animals or farms, also view the sun as a menace.

The truth? To combat the scam that says methane emissions from farm animals are creating a warmer planet,  precious taxation dollars are being wasted spent on research into ways to reduce animal emissions. Vaccines are being developed to be fed to farm animals, to "reduce" the methane emitted by stock.
This, in 2008
"..research is now going on into whether a vaccine might stop cows and sheep passing wind..To this end, the genome, the exact genetic make-up, of microbes in the ruminants' stomachs has been mapped in a lab on the North Island."
ref: http://news.bbc.co.uk/…/from_our_own_correspond…/7646857.stm
Seven years on and they are still looking for it.
ref: http://www.stuff.co.nz/…/Paris-climate-talks-NZ-agricultura…

As usual, the deal is big business and money. When this vaccine sees the light of day, all farmers by regulation will be forced to administer it to stock. The vaccines are one arm of the pharmaceutical industry, that now, if you remember recent media stories, have so much power over governments that by law you cannot take your cancer-child away from a hospital to seek alternative treatment. If you do, the police will chase and charge you with parental neglect. That same charge will one day be faced by farmers who do not comply with their new methane-combating eco-regulation.

But hold the phone. If farting animals affected the earth, then farting and belching dinosaurs would have wiped out the planet millions of years ago. How come that never happened? And what about a whale, which with every belch emits 40 times the amount of methane as does just one cow? Why on earth are we trying to save the whales if they as a mega-methane species are threatening the planet the most? Simply because everybody knows but will not admit, it is phony science, driven by big business.

Suntan lotion is a similar story. We constantly get bombarded with advertising that boasts ever-more protective chemicals that are UV filters, that allow tanning but not burning, that last all day even while swimming. Ever thought what harm that might do to the body, to be covered in chemicals all day? It is why many are now realizing that many cases of skin cancer may caused, not by the sun, but by the lotions themselves.
ref: http://articles.mercola.com/…/new-study-shows-many-sunscree…
ref: http://www.doctoroz.com/…/your-sunscreen-might-be-poisoning…
Why are there no media articles about this? Because media protects big business, without which they could not function. Advertising provides media revenue. You will only read about that when the cows come home..er, sorry..the Heavy Methane Emitters.

Then what about ozone holes and skin cancer? Oh, that's right, they also forgot to tell you the truth about that. Actually the ozone depletion layers (referred to as a "hole") drift around over NZ and Australia in October, driven by remaining winter winds from Antarctica. That is why the media notes the size of the hole in late spring. Small unimportant point really, but the ozone hole is gone by December, when the NZ summer has not even yet started.
See "The "ozone hole" is usually gone by late November/early December"
ref: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/…/stratosphe…/polar/polar.shtml
This happens every single year. So it is not possible for ozone to play a part in our summer skin cancer figures. There is more about ozone here.

In fact ozone has nothing to do with skin cancer statistics. The location with highest skin cancer is Darwin, which is as far from either of the Poles as you could get. Darwin is on a west coast, and is largely dust-free because of westerlys, making the air clear and permitting stronger sunlight to carry through to the ground, not stopped by fine dust particles. NZ is similar, because most of NZ is on or near a west coast. Consequently NZ skies are also dust-free and permit stronger sunshine to cover the country. Compare to Brisbane, which has high daytime temperatures due to sunshine, but there is much accumulated dust on the east coast of Australia, blown across the continent by wind flows from the west. So skin cancer figures are low in Brisbane even though it is just as hot as anywhere in NZ. There is also a genetic factor, because Polynesian peoples have resistant skin and get lower sin cancer stats, whereas immigrants from cooler countries still have white skin that have less protective pigments.

Reality check. Doctors used to advise mothers to expose babies to more and more sunshine, but now doctors insist on pharmaceutical lotions. Once they pointed out the danger of Vitamin D deficiency that came from too little sun and the subsequent disease of rickets, but now we are told the danger is from any sun at all. What has changed? The sun is still the same one, the doctors are the same people and babies have the same skin. The only changes are in the mindset, the funding/grants, the trail to income from chemical products -and the alarmist brainwashing.

Coconut oil is still the cheapest and the best suntan protector. It is healthy for the skin and stops burning. It is chemical-free. We babyboomers used it all the time and we have been out in the NZ sun every summer. Apart from the odd cut-out bits, after at least 50 sunny summers most of us still do not have terminal skin cancer.
http://naturalsociety.com/ditch-toxic-sunscreen-use-coconu…/