I suspect these chemicals are coming from cloud seeding, which is causing rain in some areas but drought in others. There are some very weird things going on in skies everywhere, not to mention strange chemicals from above. That's why they are called chem trails. Factory farmers may contribute something to this but look up and carefully check your facts. They are poisoning the planet through the skies.
The earth is becoming a dunghill where disease is rife. Natural resources are being destroyed by unbridled industrialization, agriculture, pesticides, and toxic medicines. This is the path to increasing profits, monopolizing theft and spreading disease, which fuels the vicious cycle of destruction and the tyranny of corrupt elites. Large multinationals have subjugated institutions. Corrupt institutions have become traitors and enemies of the people in their criminal efforts to dismantle biodiversity and the planet's wealth.
The key findings from this review are that (1) MCCPs are toxic to the aquatic environment, and the available data suggest that they are also persistent; (2) available time trends for MCCPs in soil, biota, and most of the sediment cores show increasing time trends over the last years to decades; and (3) MCCP concentrations in sediment close to local sources exceed toxicity thresholds (i.e., the PNEC). Our study shows that overall, MCCPs are of growing concern, and regulatory actions should be considered seriously.
Global manufacturing and utilization of medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs) continue to rise due to the increasing regulation on short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs). Accumulating evidence reveals that MCCP levels in various environmental matrices and foodstuffs have surpassed SCCP levels. Importantly, MCCPs have been detected in multiple human biospecimens, including maternal and cord blood, breast milk, hair, and nails, suggesting unavoidable human exposure risks. However, existing studies investigating the toxicity of CPs have predominantly focused on SCCPs rather than MCCPs. The potential toxicological profiles of MCCPs including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and thyroid dysfunction, which were revealed in several early high-dose experimental studies, should be reassessed at environmentally relevant doses. Furthermore, potential sensitive toxicological endpoints such as lipid and glucose metabolism dysregulation should be investigated. Comprehensive toxicological studies of MCCPs at environmentally relevant doses are critically required to evaluate whether MCCPs represent safe alternatives to SCCPs and to provide novel toxicological parameters for recalibrating reference doses in human risk assessments.
Earlier article this week featured how important soil health is and with a focus on a whole system involving the soil, water, air and the many life forms all interacting with each other. As was pointed out how proper soil management holds water, captures elements. (An increase of 1% organic matter in the soil will allow an acre to hold another 20,000 gallons of water.) Just the Gut Speaking, but it would seem this would also mean as time goes on solid soil practices would hold the many pollutants where the microbes, fungi and all have shown the habit of breaking down many types of pollutants. Most likely capturing the Carbon out of such negatives, being as Carbon is the Staff of Life, the First Fertilizer, the Foundational Fertilizer. Then the plants can not only possibly rejigger the pollutants to be less offensive, but produce cleaner air. Biodynamic Farming is so much more than just one thing, just look at one thing. The reductionist method is just fine for finding, figuring out there is such a thing as (MCPPs,) but so far we've had a corruptive bug in the system putting $$$, Power and Control above Life itself. Yes, look at one thing, but enough research has not happened to keep such, and many offenders off and out of common use. Then once something is released there needs to be follow ups, short term, med, and long term affects and a foundation of not putting such stuff out in the first place or if later it is found to be harmful, the negatives don't show up until a later date, to put the focus on pulling it out and not use the excuse - Whoopsie, oh well, wadda ya gonna do- to Big to Fail.
Steve and Gui, one thing , word of mouth can make a change although slow. If we keep telling others, eventually we can make a change, problem is, can we make this change fast enough to save ourselves and the planet? I was lucky, had an oncologist who although she couldn't say do this, did agree to follow me with necessary bloodwork, x-rays during what she called my experiment. She stayed my friend and learned something new! And then after one long year, I was in remission! Nothing speaks louder than living truth! Others on Mercola have defeated breast cancer through organic, no sugar. We who have lived through cancer despite all their science that said we woud not need to continue telling our story until people listen and believe. Once I was told that nothing could be done, I would die in 3 months. If I had listened to their science, believed them I would have died in 2000. Instead I am alive 23 years later. I do believe we can make a change if we just have the will to do so and let the earth heal itself. It will take time, no quick fixes. I have seen land go from unproductive to yielding bountiful crops, just by eliminating toxins in unnatural fertilizers, pesticides/herbicides,allowing worms, fungi, etc. to help cleanse the soil of their toxins meant to destroy us using only that which God gave us. The Amish do it! And above all, no AI telling us what we should/must do, no robots doing it for us! David fought Goliath and won!
What scientists? Whompaid for the study? Where is the paper detailing methods, data collected, conclusions?
I live in Oklahoma, and it is weird here. I do not dispute the headline, but these days anything starting with a reference to unnamed "scientists" get assigned a low probabilty of veraciy score and a "clickbait" credibility score.
I suspect these chemicals are coming from cloud seeding, which is causing rain in some areas but drought in others. There are some very weird things going on in skies everywhere, not to mention strange chemicals from above. That's why they are called chem trails. Factory farmers may contribute something to this but look up and carefully check your facts. They are poisoning the planet through the skies.
The earth is becoming a dunghill where disease is rife. Natural resources are being destroyed by unbridled industrialization, agriculture, pesticides, and toxic medicines. This is the path to increasing profits, monopolizing theft and spreading disease, which fuels the vicious cycle of destruction and the tyranny of corrupt elites. Large multinationals have subjugated institutions. Corrupt institutions have become traitors and enemies of the people in their criminal efforts to dismantle biodiversity and the planet's wealth.
The key findings from this review are that (1) MCCPs are toxic to the aquatic environment, and the available data suggest that they are also persistent; (2) available time trends for MCCPs in soil, biota, and most of the sediment cores show increasing time trends over the last years to decades; and (3) MCCP concentrations in sediment close to local sources exceed toxicity thresholds (i.e., the PNEC). Our study shows that overall, MCCPs are of growing concern, and regulatory actions should be considered seriously.
Global manufacturing and utilization of medium-chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCPs) continue to rise due to the increasing regulation on short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs). Accumulating evidence reveals that MCCP levels in various environmental matrices and foodstuffs have surpassed SCCP levels. Importantly, MCCPs have been detected in multiple human biospecimens, including maternal and cord blood, breast milk, hair, and nails, suggesting unavoidable human exposure risks. However, existing studies investigating the toxicity of CPs have predominantly focused on SCCPs rather than MCCPs. The potential toxicological profiles of MCCPs including hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and thyroid dysfunction, which were revealed in several early high-dose experimental studies, should be reassessed at environmentally relevant doses. Furthermore, potential sensitive toxicological endpoints such as lipid and glucose metabolism dysregulation should be investigated. Comprehensive toxicological studies of MCCPs at environmentally relevant doses are critically required to evaluate whether MCCPs represent safe alternatives to SCCPs and to provide novel toxicological parameters for recalibrating reference doses in human risk assessments.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.7b06459 (2025).--
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-025-04106-z (2025).--
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-12/documents/dover_-_standard_review_risk_assessment_p-12-0282-0284_docket_0.pdf (2025).-
Earlier article this week featured how important soil health is and with a focus on a whole system involving the soil, water, air and the many life forms all interacting with each other. As was pointed out how proper soil management holds water, captures elements. (An increase of 1% organic matter in the soil will allow an acre to hold another 20,000 gallons of water.) Just the Gut Speaking, but it would seem this would also mean as time goes on solid soil practices would hold the many pollutants where the microbes, fungi and all have shown the habit of breaking down many types of pollutants. Most likely capturing the Carbon out of such negatives, being as Carbon is the Staff of Life, the First Fertilizer, the Foundational Fertilizer. Then the plants can not only possibly rejigger the pollutants to be less offensive, but produce cleaner air. Biodynamic Farming is so much more than just one thing, just look at one thing. The reductionist method is just fine for finding, figuring out there is such a thing as (MCPPs,) but so far we've had a corruptive bug in the system putting $$$, Power and Control above Life itself. Yes, look at one thing, but enough research has not happened to keep such, and many offenders off and out of common use. Then once something is released there needs to be follow ups, short term, med, and long term affects and a foundation of not putting such stuff out in the first place or if later it is found to be harmful, the negatives don't show up until a later date, to put the focus on pulling it out and not use the excuse - Whoopsie, oh well, wadda ya gonna do- to Big to Fail.
Steve and Gui, one thing , word of mouth can make a change although slow. If we keep telling others, eventually we can make a change, problem is, can we make this change fast enough to save ourselves and the planet? I was lucky, had an oncologist who although she couldn't say do this, did agree to follow me with necessary bloodwork, x-rays during what she called my experiment. She stayed my friend and learned something new! And then after one long year, I was in remission! Nothing speaks louder than living truth! Others on Mercola have defeated breast cancer through organic, no sugar. We who have lived through cancer despite all their science that said we woud not need to continue telling our story until people listen and believe. Once I was told that nothing could be done, I would die in 3 months. If I had listened to their science, believed them I would have died in 2000. Instead I am alive 23 years later. I do believe we can make a change if we just have the will to do so and let the earth heal itself. It will take time, no quick fixes. I have seen land go from unproductive to yielding bountiful crops, just by eliminating toxins in unnatural fertilizers, pesticides/herbicides,allowing worms, fungi, etc. to help cleanse the soil of their toxins meant to destroy us using only that which God gave us. The Amish do it! And above all, no AI telling us what we should/must do, no robots doing it for us! David fought Goliath and won!
What scientists? Whompaid for the study? Where is the paper detailing methods, data collected, conclusions?
I live in Oklahoma, and it is weird here. I do not dispute the headline, but these days anything starting with a reference to unnamed "scientists" get assigned a low probabilty of veraciy score and a "clickbait" credibility score.