Polar bear expert barred by global warmists

source: UK Telegraph

Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views ‘are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.

According to the world’s leading expert on polar bears, their numbers are higher than they were 30 years ago

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN’s major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world’s leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week’s meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists’ agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week’s meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor’s, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”.

Dr Taylor was told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”. His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of “scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice”. But also check out Anthony Watt’s Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year’s recovery from its September 2007 low, this year’s ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

Open Letter To Senators Regarding S.604: Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009

Mr. __________,

I am writing today to ask that you co-sponsor S.604: Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009. This is a very important bill for ensuring oversight and accountability in the Federal Reserve, by allowing the GAO to perform an audit.

So-far, six of the seven representatives from our state have pledged their support for the House version of this bill, HR1207. The bill already has more than enough votes to pass in the House of Representatives. At the last count it had 237 votes.

This kind of legislation is very popular with the people of our state and the nation in general. We are ready to see some real changes in Washington D.C. and that means a real challenge to the unchecked power of the Fed.

In order to restore the reputation, both domestic and international, of our government and monetary system, it is essential that the public and the Congress be allowed to know what is going on at the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve Board has become a de-facto fourth branch of government, it is un-elected and in many ways more powerful than the Congress. There are also many Constitutional questions as to whether the Congress even has the authority to establish a central bank; though that is a topic for future legislation.

Most Americans feel very strongly, as do I, that it is time we took the first step, on our path to transparency. This means a complete Audit of the books and records of the Federal Reserve Bank.

Please join the cause of Liberty and co-sponsor this bill.

Thank You,
Chris Case

Largest Financial Smuggling Case In History Ignored by Media

Its interesting how the media will focus on the most trivial matters, such as a politician’s personal problems, or spin about how the economic improvement is “just around the corner.” In this situation, a couple of guys get caught smuggling $134.5 worth of bonds and you hear little to nothing in the press.

Most of you reading this have, at least a suspicion that something smells rotten in Denmark, when it comes to the integrity of the press during this day and age. Stories like this are confirmation of any suspicions you may have. This is a historic event, which we need to get to the bottom of and understand; because there is probably something important here that we need to know about.

Since the media is sweeping it under the rug, I suspect that the perpetrators may have been acting on the behalf of well connected individuals. Perhaps the media refuses to report real news altogether; opting instead to create a fantasy world, which acts as a sort of red herring. This keeps people from getting in the way of powerful individuals; since they wish to conduct their business undisturbed.

Personally, I think there is a little news that leaks in there, from time to time; but, for the most part, the world portrayed on television is a fantasy one used to control the behavior of those who watch. Accuracy and professionalism don’t really factor into the equation much anymore.

US government securities seized from Japanese nationals, not clear whether real or fake

Bonds worth US$ 134.5 billion are seized. This is the largest financial smuggling case in history. But are they real? Concern over ‘funny money’ or counterfeit securities is spreading in Asia. The international press is silent.

Milan (AsiaNews) – Italy’s financial police (Guardia italiana di Finanza) has seized US bonds worth US 134.5 billion from two Japanese nationals at Chiasso (40 km from Milan) on the border between Italy and Switzerland. They include 249 US Federal Reserve bonds worth US$ 500 million each, plus ten Kennedy bonds and other US government securities worth a billion dollar each.
Italian authorities have not yet determined whether they are real or fake, but if they are real the attempt to take them into Switzerland would be the largest financial smuggling operation in history; if they are fake, the matter would be even more mind-boggling because the quality of the counterfeit work is such that the fake bonds are undistinguishable from the real ones.

What caught the policemen’s attention were the billion dollar securities. Such a large denomination is not available in regular financial and banking markets. Only states handle such amounts of money.

The question now is who could or would counterfeit or smuggle these non-negotiable bonds.

In order to stop money laundering Italian law sets a ceiling of 10,000 euros per person for importing or exporting money without declaring it. The penalty for violating the law is 40 per cent of the money seized.

If the certificates were real, for Italy it would be like hitting the jackpot. The fine alone would amount to US$ 38 billion, five times the estimated cost of rebuilding quake-devastated Abruzzi region. It would help Italy’s eliminate its public deficit.

If the certificates are fakes the two Japanese nationals could get a very lengthy jail sentence for fraud.

As soon as the seizure was made the US Embassy in Rome was informed. Italian and US secret services were called in to assist the Italian financial police.

Some important international financial newspapers had already reported on the existence of ‘funny money’ circulating on parallel, i.e. unofficial, financial markets.

For AsiaNews a few points need considering:

1. When it comes to Italy the world press has tended to focus on Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi’s personal problems rather than on stories like the bonds smuggling affair which has been front page on Italian newspapers.

2. The fear of counterfeit bonds and securities has spread across Asia with the result that real securities are also considered with suspicion.

3. During the Second World War several countries at war printed and put in circulation perfectly counterfeit enemy money. It is also historically established that some central banks, like the Bank of Italy 65 years ago, issued the same securities twice (identical registered number and code). This way they could print more money with legal tender than they officially declared. The main difference though is that 65 years ago the world was involved in a bloody war, which is not the case today.

Key figures in global battle against illegal arms trade lost in Air France crash

ARGENTINA: Argentine campaigner Pablo Dreyfus and Swiss colleague Ronald Dreyer battled South American arms and drug traffickingFrom Andrew McLeod

source: Sunday Herald

AMID THE media frenzy and speculation over the disappearance of Air France’s ill-fated Flight 447, the loss of two of the world’s most prominent figures in the war on the illegal arms trade and international drug trafficking has been virtually overlooked.

Pablo Dreyfus, a 39-year-old Argentine who was travelling with his wife Ana Carolina Rodrigues aboard the doomed flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, had worked tirelessly with the Brazilian authorities to stem the flow of arms and ammunition that for years has fuelled the bloody turf wars waged by drug gangs in Rio’s sprawling favelas.

Also travelling with Dreyfus on the doomed flight was his friend and colleague Ronald Dreyer, a Swiss diplomat and co-ordinator of the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence who had worked with UN missions in El Salvador, Mozambique, Azerbaijan, Kosovo and Angola. Both men were consultants at the Small Arms Survey, an independent think tank based at Geneva’s Graduate Institute of International Studies. The Survey said on its website that Dryer had helped mobilise the support of more than 100 countries to the cause of disarmament and development.

Buenos Aires-born Dreyfus had been living in Rio since 2002, where he and his sociologist wife worked with the Brazilian NGO Viva Rio.

“Pablo will be remembered as a gentle and sensitive man with an upbeat sense of humour,” said the Small Arms Survey. “He displayed an intellectual curiosity and a determined work ethic that excited and enthused all who worked with him.”

According to the International Action Network on Small Arms Control (IANSA), Dreyfus’s work was instrumental in the introduction of landmark small arms legislation in Brazil in 2003. Under this legislation, an online link was created between army and police databases listing production, imports and exports of arms and ammunition in Brazil.

Dreyfus was an advocate of the stringent labelling of ammunition by weapons firms, arguing that by clearly identifying ammunition not only by its producer but also its purchaser, the likelihood of weapons being sourced by criminals from corrupt police or armed forces personnel is greatly reduced.

Though a Brazilian referendum on the right to bear arms was rejected in 2005, Viva Rio says the campaign should be considered a success because half a million weapons were voluntarily handed in to the authorities. Anti-gun activists put the referendum defeat down to fears criminals would circumvent the law and continue to gain access to small arms the usual way – through Paraguay and other bordering countries. This was not an irrational fear: until 2004, when Paraguay bowed to Brazilian pressure, even foreign tourists were allowed to purchase small arms simply by presenting a photocopy of their identity card. Dreyfus knew that many of the weapons from the so-called tri-border area between Brazil, Paraguay and Argentina were reaching Rio drug gangs.

When unidentified gunmen made off with a stash of hand grenades from an Argentine military garrison in 2006, Dreyfus deplored what he said was lax security at military depots across the world. “If a supermarket can keep control of the amount of peas it has in stock, surely a military organisation could and should be able to do the same with equal if not greater efficiency with its weapons,” he said. “The key words are logisitics, control, security.”

When Rio agents smashed a cell of drug traffickers who had sourced their weapons from the tri-border area, Dreyfus noted its leaders were prominent businessmen living in apartments in the plush Rio suburbs of Ipanema and São Corrado, “not in the favelas”.

In a recent report posted on the Brazilian website Comunidade Segura (Safe Community), Dreyfus noted that the Brazilian arms firm CBC (Companhia Brasileira de Cartuchos) had become one of the world’s biggest ammunition producers by purchasing Germany’s Metallwerk Elisenhutte Nassau (MEN) in 2007, and Sellier & Bellot (S&B) of the Czech Republic in March. This would not be particularly noteworthy but for the fact that CBC’s exports had tapered off in recent years due to legislation restricting exports to Paraguay, arms that often found their way back into Brazil and on to the Rio drug gangs – the “boomerang effect”, as Dreyfus called it. “The commercial export of weapons and ammunition from Brazil to the bordering countries stopped in 2001,” wrote Dreyfus. “CBC lost commercial markets in Latin America, but Brazil won in public security.”

However, manufacturers from other countries had moved in to fill the void, and before its purchase by CBC, S&B was already “one of the marks most currently apprehended” by Brazilian police. Dreyfus said that, in view of the fact the Czech Republic was bound by the EU Code of Conduct on weapons exports – which states that EU countries must “evaluate the existence of the risk that the armament can be diverted to undesirable final destinations”, CBC should “consider the risk that some of these exports end up, via diversions, feeding violence in Brazil”.

Though his focus was on Latin America, Dreyfus also advised the government of Mozambique and at the time of his death was preparing to do the same for the government of Angola, where stockpiles of weapons left over from the civil war continue to pose a security problem.

Dreyfus and Dreyer were on their way to Geneva to present the latest edition of the Small Arms Survey handbook, of which Dreyfus was a joint editor. It was to have been their latest step in their relentless fight against evil.

National debt at $545,668 per household

source: UPI.com

WASHINGTON, May 30 (UPI) — Federal debt last year amounted to a record $545,668 per U.S. household
— a 12-percent spike in just one year, government sources said.

The increase burdens each household with an additional $55,000 in national debt for just 2008, USA Today reported Saturday.

The increase can be pinned on the explosion of federal borrowing during the recession and an aging population that is driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security.

“We have a huge implicit mortgage on every household in America — except, unlike a real mortgage, it’s not backed up by a house,” said David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, the government’s chief auditor.

The federal government assumed $6.8 trillion in new debt last year, pushing its total debt to a record $63.8 trillion, USA Today reported.

The enormous burden has increased awareness of the government’s financial challenges, U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Tenn., said.

“More and more, people are worried about our fiscal future,” Cooper said.

The Wheels are Falling off the Wagon

For the last several decades, our civilization has steadily approached the point of no return.  This is the point which, when passed, we can no-longer salvage our lifestyle as we know it.  This means that we cannot simply steer ourselves out, as a society; but we must first endure a painful collapse in which millions will be ruined financially and lose everything they have.  Indeed many people will be absolutely shocked and dumbfounded when the very fabric of the society they are completely reliant on, comes apart suddenly, in a devastating wave of hyper-inflation.

There is no doubt in my mind that hyper-inflation is headed our way very soon.  The unprecedented level of money creation will not be wiped by deflation.  In point of fact, the circumstances we are now in are virtually identical to other situations throughout history, which have all resulted in hyper-inflation.

Basically the economy is in a deep slump, while governments are rapidly increasing the money supply with Quantitative Easing (a fancy academic term for creation of large amounts of money).  This formula has a long history of causing currency failure.

Indeed, the system has been abused to such an extent that they have little choice at this point; the only way to wipe out the massive public and private debt obligations is to shrink the size of the debt by debasing the currency.

In the process of dropping the value of the dollar, they are also wiping out the savings of many people and governments around the world.  Indeed most of the dollars in circulation are actually held overseas.  So this debasement of the currency is going to rob the savings of a great many people who trusted in the integrity of the US government.  I doubt this mistake will be made again; at least for a few generations.

This is precisely why the wealthiest and most successful families in the history of our civilization, will only hold their money in hard assets or quality companies which produce hard assets.  They learned through experience, that hard assets are the only way to preserve their family’s wealth, generation after generation, in situations where the currency has no convertability.

I find it truly interesting to observe the behavior of different types of people, as we head into this period in our history:

• There is a significant segment of our population that doesn’t want to know anything; they prefer to think that their lifestyle is untouchable.  They have everything they own in some mutual funds or money markets in their 401(k) or IRA.  Anything in regards to money is “better left to the professionals” despite the fact that these “professionals” are the ones who created the terminal situation which has robbed so many people of their life’s savings.
• Another portion of our population wishes to be blindly optimistic.  They celebrate the fact that the new President is an well-spoken intellectual who says and does much of what they always wanted their leader to say and do.  There seems to be little to no concern, amongst these pseudo-intellectuals, that nothing is being done to address the fundamental problems which plague our society.  Instead new bandages are being applied to mask the problems and “keep up appearances.”
• Finally, there is another portion of the population who have become thoroughly disgusted with the dis-ingenuous left-right paradigm.  They realize that both political parties are leading us down the primrose path, not into the land of milk and honey; but into the desert to die.  It is this segment of the population, which has chosen to rely on their own abilities; to adapt in whatever ways they are able.  To this group of individuals, the solutions to our problems are not top-down, as we are accustomed to; instead the solutions are implemented by each of us in our own lives.  The basic idea is to reduce and eliminate the dependency on this failed society; instead relying on their selves and the local community.  They don’t wish to wait and hope for someone or something outside of themselves to produce “change ™”; instead they fundamentally change the way they live their lives.

I prefer to identify with the third group, because I feel strongly that the first two groups are simply accomplishing nothing of substance. I believe in our power as individuals to produce what we need to live on this planet. Its not like we’re having to live on Mars or something inhospitable like that. This is a very fertile planet which is positively bursting with life and genetic diversity.

I often hear naysayers say that you must have 40 acres and significant financial resources to change your lifestyle; but I have seen examples of urban homesteaders who have been able to produce the majority of their food on small lots (less than 1/4 acre). Sure, they aren’t totally “off the grid” but producing one’s own food is a significant step in cutting costs and achieving sustainability.

We may as well start where we are at. If we are going to strive for something, we must strive for goals that we know we can achieve in a reasonable amount of time. If a significant segment of our population learned to decrease their dependency on this failed system, the benefits would be innumerable.

The Worst Case Scenario (Someone Has to Say It)

May 03, 2009 | SeekingAlpha.com

Since the economy began sliding downhill in late 2007, mainstream economic and market experts have consistently erred on the sunny side.

As late as June 2008, mainstream consensus held that the U.S. was heading for a “soft landing” and would avoid recession. Several months later, the slump was acknowledged to have started in January 2008, but we were supposed to see renewed growth by mid-2009, with unemployment peaking in the eight-to-nine percent range. A quick “shovel-ready” stimulus bag was supposed to set us back on the road to prosperity.

In January, recovery projections were pushed forward to late 2009. Today, the consensus is for a mid-2010 recovery, with unemployment peaking at just over 10 percent. Clearly, the mainstream has struggled to catch up to reality for well over one year. What are the chances that they finally have it right this time?

Moreover, the mainstream continues to see what is going on as a plain-vanilla recession that will be quelled with some on-the-fly monetary and fiscal tinkering. Washington, we are told, will pull us out of this slump—as soon as the masses can be enticed back to the shopping malls. Then things will return to how they were before. But what if the experts and politicians are wrong not only on their ever-changing recovery timeline, but also on the nature—nay, the very existence—of a recovery?

America’s reigning political-economic ideology has demonstrably failed. Given that its government is obviously fumbling along without a clue, its foreign and domestic credit is tapped out, and its 300 million people are discovering that their hopes for continuous material improvement will never be met, could the U.S. be headed the way of the USSR?

Instead of a recovery as the mainstream envisions it, what if America permanently bankrupts, impoverishes, and marginalizes itself? What if its cherished institutions fail across the board? For example, what happens when the police realize that their under-funded pension plans cannot support a decent retirement? Will they stay honest, or will they opt to survive by any means necessary? These are questions that the mainstream does not even begin to contemplate. read full article »

Open Letter to Congressman Griffith (D-AL) Regarding HR 875

Congressman Griffith,

I am writing to voice my opposition for HR 875, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009.

This bill unnecessarily encumbers small to medium sized farms with excessive regulatory demands, which may even put many community farms out of business.

The Federal Government is already too involved in agriculture.  We need to allow the free market to work, in order to serve us best.

Putting smaller community farms out of business with unnecessary legislation will not make our food supply any safer.  In fact it will make it more dangerous, because consumers will be even further separated from the source of their food.

If a farm is producing unsafe food, then let the legal system take care of them.  The farmers can be liable for the penalties that are already in place under existing laws; no new bureaucracy is necessary.

I hope you will consider this when voting on this bill.

Regards,
Chris Case

I am me, I am free: The Robots Guide to Freedom

David Icke | I Am Me, I Am Free: The Robots Guide to Freedom

Ask anyone and they will tell you that they want to be free. What does it mean to be truly free? Is it something that is bestowed upon us by some outside force such as the government?

Actually, true freedom issues from within our very being; we create the freedom or the lack thereof in every moment that we exist. With each passing breath we have a choice; we can be “an infinite consciousness capable of being and creating whatever it chooses” or we can be “an illusion imprisoned by its own perceived and programmed limitations.”

When you look out into the world, is it not obvious that there is a very real problem with people unnecessarily limiting themselves with their own perceived and programmed limitations? Might each of us, no matter how much we’ve worked on ourselves, benefit from some reflection on these concepts?

Chapter 1: The Bewildered Herd

by David Icke

So who the hell are you, then? What lies behind those eyes? When you look in the mirror, what do you see? Do you see the real you, or what you have been conditioned to believe is you? The two are so, so, different. One is an infinite consciousness capable of being and creating whatever it chooses, the other is an illusion imprisoned by its own perceived and programmed limitations.

Which of these “yous” is controlling your life? Infinity or limitation? Self love or self disdain? Freedom of thought or a prison of the mind?

Sadly for the overwhelming majority of people on this planet all but the privileged few – it is the conditioned mind which prevails. They live their lives within their programmed limitations of thought, view, and action. It is a world of I can’ts and I daren’ts and I mustn’ts; of I shoulds and I musts and I ought tos; a world of conforming to what someone else says they must be or should be. While the real them sees only solutions and opportunities to learn and evolve, the programmed them sees only problems and reasons not to do. They live life behind bars in a cell of their own making. The world itself reflects the sum total of these billions of individual prisons. The Earth has become a global Alcatraz, a spinning ball of control and imposition dictated by the few at the expense of the many. Freedom? Free-what? How do you spell that again? The human race has not been free for a very, very long time, well before recorded history. But the trick is to persuade us that we are free – then we won’t do anything about the walls that surround us and the warders at the door. Walls? What walls? You’re free! Warders? What warders? You’re free! read full article »

Why You Should Filter Your Own Water

Many are concerned about the quality of their drinking water, so they buy bottled water. Many will even pay $1-3 dollars a gallon for drinking water; even going so far as buying water which was shipped from overseas.

I once had a roommate who frequently drank the imported “gourmet” San Pellegrino mineral water. Every day he would drink two or three bottles of the stuff. Funny thing is, when the guy finally left, I cleaned up his huge mess and filled two large green city trash cans (the kinds that the garbage trucks pick up like small dumpsters). There must have been a few hundred of them, which probably cost around a thousand dollars.

Just crunching a few numbers reveals that, even spending a dollar or two a day, is enough to justify purchasing a filter. If that isn’t enough, much of the bottled water is comparable if not worse than the water coming out of the tap.

Now the kind of filter I’m talking about isn’t a “Britta” or “Pur” filter, I’m talking about a filter that gets out the junk that those filters can’t. The filter you need to get, if you really want to clean your water, is a “reverse osmosis” water filter. These reverse osmosis filters remove Fluoride, Chlorine, Lead, Sediment; it removes 99% of the contaminants from the water.

If you get a decently priced, high quality system, such as the 5-stage filters at freedrinkingwater.com, you can filter your water for about 2 cents a gallon. So if you were to use 3 gallons of bottled water a day @ $0.79/gal versus reverse-osmosis water at $0.02/gal, you essentially save $0.77/gal which amounts to an $843 per year savings.

Once you buy the filter, the only other purchases are the replacement filters; which need replacing about once annually, and cost about $40. Its not much of a cost for having all of the clean water you can use for a year; and it encourages you to drink water, since it is readily available.

Bottled Water Found Contaminated with Medications, Fertilizer, Disinfection Chemicals

Natural News

(NaturalNews) Bottled water across the country contains a wide variety of toxic substances, according to laboratory tests conducted by the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

“Our tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted,” the study authors write. “Given the industry’s refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified.”

Researchers conducted comprehensive tests at the renowned University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory on 10 leading bottled water brands, purchased from retailers in nine states and the District of Columbia (D.C.). A total of 38 toxic pollutants were detected altogether, with each brand containing an average of eight. Chemicals detected included fluoride, byproducts of chlorine-based disinfection, caffeine, pharmaceutical drugs, fertilizer residue, plasticizers, solvents, fuel propellants, arsenic, other minerals and heavy metals, and radioactive isotopes. Four brands also contained bacteria.

More than a third of the chemicals detected are not regulated by the bottled water industry. Voluntary industry standards regulate the following two-thirds, but water purchased in five states and in D.C. contained levels of some carcinogens in excess of even the industry’s standards.

“In other words, this bottled water was chemically indistinguishable from tap water,” the authors write. “But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose.”

Further analysis at the University of Missouri found that when applied to breast cancer cells, one brand of water led to a 78 percent increase in proliferation rate compared with untreated cells. The addition of estrogen-blocking chemicals noticeably reduced this effect.

“Though this result is considered a modest effect relative to the potency of some other industrial chemicals … the sheer volume of bottled water people consume elevates the health significance of the finding,” the researchers write.

The researchers were unable to determine if estrogen-mimics in the water came from the water itself or had leached out of the plastic bottle.

In accordance with standard scientific practice, the report does not name the brands tested. Exceptions were made for the brands Sam’s Choice (Wal-Mart) and Acadia (Giant), however, which contained toxin levels high enough to violate California law.

Samples of both brands tested positive for trihalomethanes, which have been linked to reproductive disorders and cancer. The chemicals form when water disinfectants react with pollution. The water also contained bromodichloromethane, a carcinogen regulated under California law. In response, EWG is preparing a lawsuit against Wal-Mart to require that Sam’s Choice water contain the legally required notice: “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”

Acadia-brand water is not sold in California.

Bottled water purchased from these brands also exceeded the bottled water industry’s voluntary standards.

“The bottled water industry boasts that its internal regulations are stricter than the FDA bottled water regulations,” the researchers write, “but voluntary standards that companies are failing to meet are of little use.”