What If One "Solution" is Causing the Next Problem?

This is not a lengthy article, because I am not going to pound anyone with links. To be honest, that was my intention to begin with, but I've learned an avalanche of links is not necessary to think. People research what concerns them, and regardless of the attempt not to, we all tend to present our personal bias on a topic in which we are passionate. Destroying my grandchildren's food is a passionate topic for me. I take great issue, also against any entity being so arrogant as to say they can do better than our Creator! So with that being said, I'm simply going to raise a few questions, offer the latest hope that Monsanto will have to wait a little while. I will share the fact that one of our Supreme Court Justices used to be on Monsanto's legal team, and so far he's not chosen to recuse himself. My hope is that he left Monsanto in disgust . . .

GMO self-herbiciding, self-pesticiding plants could be causing super bugs, just like all of our anti-bacterial soap in the sewer system. Do we realize what we are actually doing, here? And with all the antibiotics actually weakening the human immune system, we are literally setting ourselves up for plagues, and creating pestilence! This topic was mentioned briefly on the new series, "Before It Was Headlines It Was Prophecy," in which we are literally diminishing our own health with diet and "health care."

I couldn't help but spend a few moments on the possible recessive results of this genetics playground we now call food. If the DNA of scorpions engineered with cabbage actually serves as a pesticide against caterpillars, then I believe the recessive results may be what would be termed "unintended consequences . . ." I learned early in genetics class that a recessive trait is always part of the equation of chance in the field of genetics. For instance, what happens, when caterpillars develop an immunity to this new pesticide idea, just like super-bugs have developed a resistance to antibacterial soap? Will caterpillars become poisonous or will we have to raise the level of scorpion toxins in cabbage? What if scorpion DNA is no longer toxic enough for pests? What's next? Now I'm no scientist, but if I can think of these questions, surely the smart guys in the labs with doctorates and big funding, can wrap their minds around this.

Regardless of the possible down side or next step of the plan, it doesn't sound like anything I'd choose to deal with, but could very literally become reality. Everything we've attempted to enhance has had these so called "unintended consequences." Well, I'm not casting stones, but by now, wouldn't wisdom tell us to pay attention because there will be some part of the plan that produces results we don't like! If unintended consequences continue to happen, isn't ignoring that fact intentional?
<

Remember the Old Saying

"It must be in the water," used to be a sort of joke when there were a number of women in the "same circle of influence," expecting. Of course, the comment was made in jest, but I've come to understand there is often unspoken truth in wit. Obviously, women aren't getting pregnant drinking water, but the truth is; there is plenty in the public water system to affect our health and that of our children. First, water treatment plants are not called water purifying centers for a reason. The water isn't purified, it's merely treated with chemicals and determined to be "safe" for human consumption. Few people in this country actually drink pure water. Most are drinking a combination of clear uncarbonated chemicals we call "water." As well as the chemicals added for treatment, many "undesirable components" remain in the water that is treated.

I remember a few years back when my alarm came on, listening to the morning news that proudly broadcasted the space station could actually process urine and make it drinkable. I sat straight up in bed and said, they've been doing that for years on earth! So, the international space station has a "water" treatment plant. After hearing that news, I set out to research the subject more fully. Interestingly, water treatment plants aren't even required to check for pharmaceuticals present in the water. What have people been told for years to do with old prescriptions? That's right, flush them.
WARNING: I'm going to get graphic here.

All households on the public water system share their local water supply, both incoming and outgoing. That means, all the water that goes down the drain, regardless of where in the house, showers, sinks, toilets, washers, etc. all go into the water treatment plant to be treated and returned back to the river. Now, so all the faucets produce running water, "the powers that be" control the incoming public water supply as well. Let me tell you where it comes from. Public drinking water comes from that same river, the treated sewage just went into. What I find fascinating, in a sickening sort of way, is the fact that water can be tested for certain drugs and there is a notable presence, albeit fractional and we're told minuscule, therefore; acceptable. Those pharmaceuticals got into the water and maintained their chemical composure through the acceptable treatment method, yet we continue to not question that fact.

There are studies that indicate our water that is turned back into the river is harming the fish and wildlife in the water. We then turn around and take that same water that is harming the wildlife there, add more chemicals and send it back out through the pipes to be available at the turn of a handle on a faucet. The same water that is reported to be harming fish, is treated with more chemicals for our consumption and that of our children.

There is a lot of publicity and questions being raised about vaccinations causing problems for children, and I am not an advocate of vaccines at all, but I can't help but wonder what the public water supply could be causing. Just the additional fluoride is enough to make me question the current amounts in relationship to current health issues in the general population. There are so many more chemicals added to "treat our water" to make it safe to drink. Many people report water from the tap to smell of chlorine. We all do know the bleach bottle is marked with a poison warning and label.

I have to list the ingredients of the products I sell in my company, none of which are recommended for human consumption. I list the ingredients for products made for topical use only! Soap, fragrances, oils and ointments all have labels containing their ingredients. I do make and sell lip balm, natural breath freshener, and fluoride free tooth paste, and while none of them are recommended to be consumed, on the labels, is a list of the ingredients. Now, as we all make our coffee, juice from concentrate for our kids, have we ever read the label of what we're actually adding when we "just add water" from the public water system? We read ingredients on packages at the grocery store. We check labels for sugar and salt. We check for preservatives and ask what "natural flavorings" are. We taste something, and ask, "What's in this?"

As I share my journalistic "hissy" about genetically modified foods, I'd like to insist that the public water system be required to offer proper labeling. I'd like to know what our children are drinking!
We've redefined yet another old cliche and it no longer has the joking context it once held. In all of our health issues and maladies, having nothing to do with procreation, perhaps it "is in the water." It would seem, upon serious research the more accurate comment regarding our water supply is not "it must be in the water," but rather, "What, exactly, is in our water?"