Thursday, August 02, 2007

RE: Cassini Spacecraft to Fly Through Moon's Geyser

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Planet Pride
Date: Aug 1, 2007 6:55 PM

Cassini Spacecraft to Fly Through Moon's Geyser

By Dave Mosher
Staff Writer
posted: 01 August 2007
02:41 pm ET

The Cassini spacecraft will perform its closest flyby ever of Saturn's ice-spewing moon Enceladus early next year, moving directly into its icy polar geyser for a deep-space shower.

Cassini's third flyby of Enceladus (en-SELL-ah-dus), set for March 2008, will swing it within 19 miles (30 kilometers) of the saturnian moon-almost six times closer than the spacecraft's closest pass to it in 2005. The tight trajectory will move Cassini directly into the icy geyser at the moon's southern pole, said NASA official James Green during a teleconference today.

An unprocessed image of Enceladus taken on April 24, 2007. Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

"Cassini was never designed to fly this close, but we've just got to get in that plume and look at that material and see what it is and where it's coming from," said Green, director of NASA's Planetary Division in Washington, D.C.

Scientists think the geyser is 90 percent fine water-ice crystals, but suspect ammonia and methane gas are present as well.

An artist illustration showing plumes of water vapor and other gases escape at high velocity from the surface of Saturn's moon Enceladus. Credit: NASA/JPL

Although the flyby isn't without risk, Alan Stern, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington, D.C., said Cassini should fare well.

"It's very exciting because it's something Cassini wasn't designed to do but should be able to do safely," Stern said.

If the planned flyby is approved within a few months, Stern explained that the spacecraft's more delicate instruments will be pointed away from the icy spray before entering the plume, leaving particle analyzers to sniff out its composition.

Enceladus spraying icy material from its southern pole against the massive backdrop of Saturn. Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

Green said NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is currently analyzing the geyser's risk to Cassini and will submit a formal assessment before the end of the year.
"We want to be able to safely do science [with Cassini], but push the limit," Green said.




RE: 33 Congress Members for Impeachment

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Patriots Speak Out ®©™
Date: Aug 1, 2007 6:22 PM

Original Content at

August 1, 2007

33 Congress Members for Impeachment

By David Swanson

I ran into Congressman Donald Payne Tuesday evening and asked him if he would sign on to cosponsor H Res 333, articles of impeachment against Vice President Dick Cheney. He said yes immediately and brought his legislative director in on the conversation. They both said yes, as a matter of course, as if all they'd been waiting for was someone to ask them. Now, I know that's not quite the case, and that citizens of New Jersey have been lobbying Payne and other New Jersey Congress Members intensely. Still, it makes me wonder how many Congress Members might back impeachment if people just got to them, face-to-face, and asked.

Well, here's your chance to find out. Congress is taking the next month off. Congress Members will be in their districts. They'll be near your house. They have offices near your house. Now is the time to ask them to cosponsor H Res 333 or introduce their own articles of impeachment against Cheney. If they agree to cosponsor H Res 333, you should contact Congressman Dennis Kucinich's office and let him know. If they do not agree, you should make a bunch of big posters that say "Honk to Impeach" and stand on the street corner in front of your Congress Member's office. Or you should sit in their office, read the Constitution out loud, and refuse to leave. August is your time to make your message clear. 54% of Americans want Cheney impeached, and 40% do not. See how many of that 54% you can bring with you to your representative's office.

If we add Congressman Payne's name to the official list of cosponsors of H Res 333, including the original sponsor, Kucinich, we get a total of 16 principled men and women standing for the impeachment of Dick Cheney. They are: Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Keith Ellison, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee, Albert Wynn, William Lacy Clay, Dennis Kucinich, Yvette Clarke, Jim McDermott, Jim Moran, Bob Filner, Sam Farr, Robert Brady, and Donald Payne.

Meanwhile, two Congress Members have recently said that they support the impeachment of Cheney and Bush, but have not yet signed onto any bills: Jesse Jackson Jr., and Maurice Hinchey. While they should be asked immediately to put their signatures where their mouths are, we can go ahead and include them in our count of Congress Members for impeachment, bringing the total to 18.

On Tuesday, Congressman Jay Inslee introduced or announced he would soon introduce a bill to impeach Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Inslee says he has 15 cosponsors, including himself. Neither Inslee nor anyone else I can find provides a full list of those 15 names, but 11 of them are: Jay Inslee, Xavier Becerra, Michael Arcuri, Ben Chandler, Dennis Moore, Bruce Braley, Tom Udall, Earl Blumenauer, Peter DeFazio, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen. Of those 11, only one, Hank Johnson, is already on our list of impeachment supporters. Assuming that he is the only one of the 15 already on our list, we can add 14 to 18 and reach a total of 32 Congress Members now backing the impeachment of either Cheney or Gonzales or both.

Bringing the grand total to 33 is none other than the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who said on Tuesday that if she were not the Speaker she would probably be backing impeachment. Word to the wise: other congress members should do as she would do, not as she advises.

It is likely that most or all of the supporters of H Res 333 will sign onto Inslee's bill, assuming – again – that somebody asks them. And supporters of Inslee's bill can now be added to the list of priority Members to lobby to sign onto H Res 333. Of special note is freshman Congressman Steve Cohen because he serves on the House Judiciary Committee. With the addition of his name, there are now four members of the Judiciary Committee on our list of 33, two for impeaching Cheney, one for impeaching Gonzales, and one for impeaching both of them.

Congressman Payne is an interesting addition as well. Payne holds the same seat in Congress that was once held by Peter Rodino, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee who led the passage of articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon.

In addition to Inslee's cosponsors, it's possible to create a list of priority Members to be lobbied on impeaching Cheney. By combining the lists of those who seem most likely to sign on (primarily those who cosponsored H Res 635 in the last Congress) with those on the Judiciary Committee who seem most likely to sign on, we arrive at this list:

John Hall, Maurice Hinchey, Jesse Jackson Jr., Diane Watson, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Lewis, Steve Cohen, Neil Abercrombie, Tammy Baldwin, Lois Capps, Michael Capuano, Danny Davis, Chaka Fattah, Michael Honda, Carolyn Maloney, Betty McCullom, Gwen Moore, James Oberstar, John Olver, Steven Rothman, Hilda Solis, Pete Stark, John Tierney, Nydia Velazquez, David Wu, Bill Delahunt, Bobby Scott, Artur Davis, Mel Watt, Luis Gutierrez, Zoe Lofgren, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Jerrold Nadler, John Conyers.

These are not people who have suggested or even hinted that they are willing to step up and support the Constitution. But they are the most likely and most important to do so.

Any Congress Members afraid that the media will pillory them for calling Cheney a liar should watch this video from Tuesday in which Cheney lies to CNN and, much more remarkably, CNN suggests that Cheney lied:

Any Congress Member still unwilling to get behind impeaching Cheney, should at the very least sign on for the impeachment of an Attorney General who openly lies to Congress.

Authors Website:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


RE: Executive Order Unconstitional?

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: § Lori §
Date: Aug 1, 2007 6:27 PM

From: Wayne
Date: Aug 1, 2007 8:23 PM

============== FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ==============

America First Party
1630 A 30th Street #111
Boulder, Colorado 80301

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Recent Executive Order Violates 5th Amendment "Due Process" Rights

Boulder, CO - The America First Party expresses alarm at the
recent executive order "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who
Stabilization Efforts in Iraq," which decrees sweeping power to deprive
persons of property, without notice, and without the constitutionally
required "due process of law."

Under this order, an American who unknowingly gives a contribution to a
group fronting for combatants in Iraq, but with the sincere intention
providing only humanitarian relief, can have his entire worldly assets
seized without recourse to a hearing or appeal. If a lawyer then
him with pro-bono legal services, then he can also have his assets
If the original victim then continues to work for a living, according
to the
order, anyone who receives his services is equally exposed to the risk
losing control over all their assets.

The order allows the Treasury Secretary broad discretion to freeze
assets of
individuals who have not been charged with crimes, by making subjective
judgments about them. It allows him to judge an individual or entity
pose a significant risk of committing" an "act or acts of violence"
"threaten the peace or stability of Iraq." In other cases, the
may also judge persons to have "materially assisted, sponsored, or
financial, material, logistical, or technical support for ... acts of
violence." Property of all such persons is then "blocked, and may not
transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in." Not
mentioned in the order is any provision for return of properties, or
for due
process by which affected parties can appeal the administration's

AFP National Chairman Jonathan Hill stated: "The Executive Order, and
Carter era law which President Bush uses to justify his actions, also
impacts people who would go to the assistance of affected parties by
providing funds, goods, or services to them, or even persons who might
unwittingly receive payments, goods, or services from the targeted
Here again, the order makes no due process provision."

A people are not free when they live in fear of an abusive government.
Therefore, the America First Party takes a strong stand against the
rise of
government powers and laws that allow for the people to be penalized in
fines and property seizures without due process of law -- a 5th
right of all people under U.S. jurisdiction.

Jonathan Hill, National Chairman 1-866-SOS-USA1, ext 4
John Schweingrouber, Press Secretary, 1-866-SOS-USA1, ext. 2


Labels: , , ,


RE: 300 Towns, Cities, States Oppose Iraq Occupation

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Man Common
Date: Aug 2, 2007 9:18 AM

300 Towns, Cities, States Oppose Iraq Occupation

by David Swanson; August 02, 2007

John Cavanagh of the Institute for Policy Studies opened an event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. Cavanagh announced that with the recent addition of Santa Fe, N.M., a total of exactly 300 towns, cities, and states have passed resolutions against the occupation of Iraq. These governments, he said, represent about 50% of the people in the United States.

Karen Dolan, the director of Cities for Peace, explained the project. Arrayed behind her were dozens of men and women holding signs with the names of their cities and states.

Next to speak was an Alderman from Chicago, Joe Moore, who has led the passage of anti-war resolutions in Chicago. He recalled being in this same room 4.5 years ago with representatives of 160 cities and towns opposing the invasion of Iraq. Then, as is planned today, they marched from here to the White House to present their resolutions and make their case to the president. Needless to say, he didn't listen.

Moore listed the familiar costs of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, costs in lives and money. Moore said that the people of Chicago have spent over 2/3 of Chicago's annual city budget on occupying Iraq. His numbers came from the National Priorities Project:

"We are the elected officials closest to the American people," Moore said of himself and the others legislators who have passed 300 resolutions. "This demand represents the will of the American people...

Let's bring our brave men and women home."

Mayor Lois Frankel of West Palm Beach, Fla., said that Americans have a history of sacrificing for war, but that this is The War for Nothing - there is no reason to sacrifice. She mentioned an elderly couple in West Palm Beach who wait for a federal program called Meals on Wheels. She described a single working mother who is on a waiting list for public housing along with 900 others in West Palm Beach, which has spent $122 million on occupying Iraq. Frankel said she plans to ask Congress members today: If a Katrina hits West Palm Beach, will the National Guard be in Florida, or will it be in Baghdad?

In 17 states one or both chambers have passed resolutions against the occupation of Iraq. Four have passed public referenda as well (MA, WI, IL, VT).

Michael Fisher, a state representative in Vermont said he is proud that Vermont has passed resolutions in both houses and a public referendum, as well as passing resolutions in 57 towns. This occupation is placing a very heavy burden on rural America. The Vermont Senate has also passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, a step taken by over 80 towns and cities. Fisher said he has met with constituents whose son or daughter died in Iraq who ask why the United States is still in Iraq. "I don't have an answer for them," he said.

Steve Burns of Wisconsin said 42 towns and villages have passed anti-war resolutions, in addition to the public state-wide initiative. Burns said that six towns in Wisconsin that voted to elect Bush have voted in public referenda for immediate withdrawal. "The people of Wisconsin are far ahead of the people in Washington who claim to represent them. People in Wisconsin want a withdrawal that begins immediately, is quick, and is complete. And what we hear from Washington is a withdrawal that is eventual, slow, and partial. When will they catch up with the people they claim to represent?" Burns also spoke about the family of one Wisconsin soldier who died in Iraq, a young man who turned against the war and planned to speak out against it when he returned. He never did.

City Council Member Vic DeLuca of Maplewood, N.J., a representative small city, described the human and financial costs they've faced. The Mayor of Maplewood was also in the room, along with numerous other local officials from around the country. He said they are cutting fire and school services while paying for a war. If the federal government provided the money for educating the disabled that it is legally required to provide, DeLuca said, it would mean millions of badly needed dollars.

The local officials and activists took questions. The first question was why Congress doesn't just refuse to bring up any more bills to fund the war rather then trying to pass a bill and override a veto. Michael Lees of Vermont fielded the question and said that was exactly what Congress should be urged to do. At 2 p.m.

on Tuesday a number of these local officials planned to testify before Congress.

David Crowley of Cincinnati fielded a question about other cutbacks cities are facing. He blamed severe cuts in emergency personnel on the cost of occupying Iraq.

Marjorie Decker from Cambridge, Mass., said her city government has had quite a few employees deployed to Iraq. She expects many of them to need a great deal of health care when they return.

Several other local officials from various states spoke to this question, each describing a different area of



RE: we're the United States of Alzheimer's

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Pamela for Truth
Date: Aug 2, 2007 12:31 PM

The Real News:

Labels: , ,


RE: U.S. Dept. Of Defense: CENTCOM Team Engages "Bloggers"

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Aug 2, 2007 12:21 PM

American Forces Press Service

CENTCOM Team Engages 'Bloggers'

By Capt. Steve Alvarez, USA
American Forces Press Service

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., March 2, 2006 – The widespread use of Web logs, or "blogs," by online writers has proliferated information on topics as varied as the authors.
Blogs, in essence, are online journals or forums for their authors, known as "bloggers."

Public affairs officials here said thousands of blogs are created each day, and they estimate that more than 21 million blogs are posted on the World Wide Web today.
Blogs sometimes include information -- accurate and otherwise -- about the U.S. military's global war on terror. U.S. Central Command officials here took notice and created a team to engage these writers and their electronic information forums.
"The main interest is to drive their readers to our site," Army Reserve Maj. Richard J. McNorton said. McNorton is CENTCOM's chief of engagement operations.
Anyone who wants a virtual voice can create a blog and share information with the online world. The ease with which bloggers spread information is what public affairs officials at CENTCOM saw when they created the blog team.
McNorton said the team contacts bloggers to inform the writers about any given topic that may have been posted on their site. This outreach effort enables the team to offer complete information to bloggers by inviting them to visit CENTCOM's Web site for news releases, data or imagery.
The team engages bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information. They extend a friendly invitation to all bloggers to visit the command's Web site.
Many bloggers appreciate the team's contact, blog team officials said, and most post CENTCOM's Web site as a link on their blog sites. This, McNorton said, has a "viral effect" that drives Internet news consumers to CENTCOM's Web site.
"Now (online readers) have the opportunity to read positive stories. At least the public can go there and see the whole story. The public wants to hear these good stories," he said, adding that the news stories the military generates are "very factual."
From his desk at CENTCOM headquarters here, Army Reserve Spc. Claude Flowers of the 304th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment from Kent, Wash., fights in the global war on terrorism daily in his own way. It is an effort, officials here said, that is making a big difference in the communications arena in the online world.
The team's motto is "Engage," and Flowers and others work with more than 250 bloggers to try to disseminate news about the good work being done by U.S. forces in the global war on terror. The effort, officials here said, has reached more than 17 million online readers.
"We were given the mission to do electronic media engagement," Flowers said. "The idea was put forth that so many people are getting their news from online sources that we would be remiss if we neglected that audience."
Flowers is one of three people who read blogs and try to drive Internet readers to the CENTCOM Web site, where readers can learn more about operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
"We needed to do something to make people aware of the fact that we had this clearinghouse of photos and information," Flowers said. "We can get the whole story out there. We let them know we have a Web site."
Flowers said the Web site is filled with informative facts, figures, imagery, data and information that readers can digest before a third party processes and presents the information for them through other media.
"Certainly anyone is welcome to use the material on the Web site," Flowers said. "So far, the reception has been tremendous."
Team members said they have contacted a full spectrum of bloggers. In one instance, a blogger was writing about the opening of a water treatment plant in Iraq. The writer was presenting the information as a positive milestone for the U.S. military in Iraq, but the information was not complete. The team contacted the writer and offered information via the CENTCOM Web site, and more information was added to the blog to make the article more accurate.
In another blog contact, the team wrote a blogger who had written untrue information about U.S. military tactics. The blogger stated that the U.S. military routinely used children in Iraq and Afghanistan as human shields during their operations by using candy to entice and lure kids near them. The team posted a comment on the writer's blog stating that the U.S. military did not use human shield tactics and explained the full circumstances of the incident where Iraqi children died in 2004 when insurgents attacked U.S. forces in Baghdad.
Most blogs ordinarily have a feature that enables readers to contact the writer or allows readers to post comments. When the team "reaches out" to a blogger, the team members do not conceal their identity. They fully disclose that they are public affairs personnel and identify themselves accordingly. And, McNorton said, they are there to correct information, no more.
"We don't go in there and get into a debate," he said. And officials here are quick to point out that they are not policing Web sites. They are simply offering bloggers the opportunity to get raw information directly from the source.
Flowers said that many military personnel have also become bloggers during their deployments as a way to keep friends and family informed on their activities in the war. Here too, the team members don't police content, but if they do discover an operational security violation, they contact the blogger's command to point out the security violation.
"(Operational security) for a Web site is no different than OPSEC for a letter," Flowers said. "You shouldn't publish anything you don't want everyone to read," he said, adding that the enemy uses open sources of information to wage war on coalition forces.
But, he said, "The power of military blogs is that they're a letter home from servicemen and women that the entire world can read," Flowers said.
All bloggers have their niche audience, Flowers said. Some are faith-based, others are military community members, and yet others are involved in mustering humanitarian aid for people in Iraq or Afghanistan. But while the reasons for their blogs differ, most bloggers consistently offer the same comment to Flowers and his team.
"Repeatedly we hear from people, 'I never would have heard this story in the mainstream media,'" Flowers said. "People really are interested in what soldiers are doing. Blogs are individual statements. They're the voice of individuals. They're a way of understanding this war on a very human level."
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The author wrote a daily blog for hometown online newspaper Orlando Sentinel as part of his official duties during his yearlong deployment to Iraq in 2004-2005. CENTCOM officials said his blog, the first official U.S. military war blog published by a daily newspaper, helped in conceptualizing the blog team.)

Related Sites:
U.S. Central Command

Labels: , , ,


RE: RE: Pepsi Forced to Admit It's Bottling Tap Water

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Kachina
Date: Aug 2, 2007 1:48 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: a total betty
Date: Aug 2, 2007 9:28 AM

ENKI - Free Dome Records
The Man Common

Pepsi Forced to Admit It's Bottling Tap Water

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Posted on August 2, 2007, Printed on August 2, 2007

AMY GOODMAN: The soft drink giant Pepsi has been forced to make an embarrassing admission: Its bestselling Aquafina bottled water is nothing more than tap water. Last week, Pepsi agreed to change the labels of Aquafina to indicate the water comes from a public water source. Pepsi agreed to change its label under pressure from the advocacy group Corporate Accountability International, which has been leading an increasingly successful campaign against bottled water.

In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom recently banned city departments from using city money to buy any kind of bottled water. In New York, local residents are being urged to drink tap water. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has passed a resolution that highlighted the importance of municipal water and called for more scrutiny of the impact of bottled water on city waste.

The environmental impact of the country's obsession with bottled water has been staggering. Each day an estimated 60 million plastic water bottles are thrown away. Most are not recycled. The Pacific Institute has estimated 20 million barrels of oil are used each year to make the plastic for water bottles.

Economically, it makes sense to stop buying bottled water as well. The Arizona Daily Star recently examined the cost difference between bottled water and water from the city's municipal supply. A half-liter of Pepsi's Aquafina at a Tucson convenience store costs $1.39. The bottle contains purified water from the Tucson water supply. From the tap, you can pour over 6.4 gallons for a penny. That makes the bottled stuff about 7,000 times more expensive, even though Aquafina is using the same water source.

Gigi Kellett of Corporate Accountability International joins us in Boston, the group spearheading the Think Outside the Bottle campaign. We're also joined by freelance writer Michael Blanding. Last year he wrote an article for called "The Bottled Water Lie." We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

I want to begin with Gigi Kellett. Talk about Pepsi's admission.

GIGI KELLETT: Well, after a couple of years of our Think Outside the Bottle campaign, we have been asking of the bottled water corporations to come clean about where they get their water, what is the source of the water that they're bottling, because most people don't know that Pepsi's Aquafina, Coke's Dasani, come from our public water systems. And so, after thousands of phone calls, thousands of public comments submitted to the corporation, and us taking these demands directly to the corporation's annual shareholder meeting this year, Pepsi last week made the announcement that it would reveal that it gets its water from our public water systems.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, where exactly does Pepsi get it? Which public water supply?

GIGI KELLETT: Well, that is the issue that we're really looking at next, is what cities are they bottling the water in. You know, here in Massachusetts, it's coming from Ayre, Mass. So we want to make sure that on those bottles it says: "Public water source: Ayre, Massachusetts." That way, people know exactly what they're getting when they're buying that Aquafina bottled water.

AMY GOODMAN: Ayre being the name of a town in Massachusetts.

GIGI KELLETT: Ayre is the name of a town, right. Exactly.

AMY GOODMAN: And what happens to the town? They have their public water supply, and they have the plant for Pepsi?

GIGI KELLETT: That's right. We want to make sure that -- you know, Pepsi has certainly taken a lead on this for the bottled water industry, and we want to make sure that Coke and Nestle also follow suit. One of the things that we're finding as we're talking to people about this issue on the street is that they don't know where the water is coming from. And the bottled water corporations have spent tens of millions of dollars on ads that make people think that bottled water is somehow better, cleaner, safer than our public water systems. And in reality, we know that that's not true. And so, we want to make sure that we're increasing our people's confidence in their public water systems once again and knowing that we need to be investing in our public systems.

AMY GOODMAN: Gigi, can you go further on who owns what? You mention Nestle. What does Nestle own?

GIGI KELLETT: Nestle owns several dozen brands of bottled water. The bottled water brand they source from our public water systems is called Nestle Pure Life. They also own Poland Spring, Ozarka, Arrowhead. The list goes on. And regionally, it's distributed across the country. And then we also have Coca-Cola, which bottles Dasani water, and, of course, Pepsi with Aquafina.

AMY GOODMAN: And when it comes to being tap water, what is the difference between plain tap water and distilled water from these public sources.

GIGI KELLETT: Well, there's very little difference. You know, our public water systems go through a very rigorous testing and monitoring system and is tested by the Environmental Protection Agency. So we want to make sure that people know that our public water systems are much better regulated than these bottled water brands, which don't have to go through the same rigorous type of process.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Gigi Kellett, associate campaigns director of Corporate Accountability International. Michael Blanding, a freelance writer, has written the piece "The Bottled Water Lie." Michael, what is the lie?

MICHAEL BLANDING: Well, there are actually several lies, I think, that the bottled water companies perpetrate, but I think the main one is exactly what Gigi said, that this image bolstered by, you know, millions and millions of dollars of advertising that bottled water is somehow better for you, it tastes better, it's more pure. And in many cases, that's simply not true. People are paying enormous premiums for bottled water and don't even realize the fact that in many cases not only does tap water taste the same, but that it's actually more tightly regulated and actually healthier for you. There have been, you know, several cases of bottled water that's actually been contaminated and found to contain hazardous chemicals. And tap water, there's actually a rigorous testing and monitoring of the water supply that actually in many cases makes it healthier.

AMY GOODMAN: When we come back from break, I want to talk about some of those cases of contamination, but also talk about the community struggles that are working to take back their water supply. Our guests are Michael Blanding, who wrote "The Bottled Water Lie," and Gigi Kellett of C

Labels: , , , , ,

eXTReMe Tracker