Tuesday 26 August 2014

Goodbye "Dicky"!

Oh I won't be the only one but that's pretty much the point, Richard Attenborough was "one of those people"! From a privileged background? To some extent but then so are our current administration but I don't think they would have made "Gandhi" do you (or even been capable of doing so despite combining what is left of their talents)? People like Attenborough leave a hole when they leave (knowing of-course that "nature abhors a vacuum"), that directs our attention to the issues which concerned them when they were alive, this is a legacy and Attenborough's is considerable; "Gandhi" and "Cry Freedom" are seminal works and reveal the true heart of the man, but of-course it is not merely the work itself which inspires but also the way by which it was accomplished, as a director he was determined and indomitable as an actor he was both powerful and subtle. One wonders what his parents were like (I hear he has a brother who has also been somewhat succesful in his field), one cannot put a price on good parenting and schooling (& as far as the latter is concerned why do we?), and their example must surely be (in many ways), as important as that of their off-spring. Nobody can claim to be perfect (as I am sure "Dicky" would be the first to admit), but the fundamentalists and dogmatists will always try to reduce to the absurd the achievements of those who don't live up to their (lowest of), standards. Tolerance and compassion do not (as Gandhi himself made very clear), reside solely in one people, one creed or one politics and if this realisation is at the core of his legacy (& that of his brother's), then the Attenboroughs have achieved something truly remarkable for it shall endure, I defy the monetarists and communists to achieve the same.  

Quote: "His father, who was principal of the local university college, instilled in his children the belief that not one minute of the day should be wasted.
It was a philosophy that Attenborough carried into his professional life astonishing colleagues with his tireless 20-hours-a-day energy.
A dedicated socialist, he was introduced to rebellious politics by his mother, who joined protest marches in the 1930s against Spain's General Franco and took in Basque refugees from the Spanish Civil War.
His parents also helped to co-ordinate the evacuation of Jewish children from Europe." Go to: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2733312/BREAKING-NEWS-Actor-film-director-Richard-Attenborough-dies-aged-90.html

and from the Media Lens Message Board..

Quote: "Comrade Dickie was a Grammar School boy...

Then a scholarship to RADA. His paternal grandad was a working class baker, his mother's side were the educationalists.

As usual the obits have undervalued his acting skills, as displayed in some cracking British films. I would suggest that the spivs he often played were closer to the spirit of the current shower in power and illustrate where their particular 'talents' lie.

It is a pity that the death of the British film industry meant that he never got to turn Trevor Griffith's Tom Paine script into a film" ...


"A man to be sorely missed.

He gave two outstanding film performances of course -- Pinkie in Brighton Rock (I think Greene said he he came nearest to portraying one of his characters than any other actor) and Christie in 10 Rillington Place. That slightly effeminate lisp he used was chilling and even in a brief clip they showed last night it sent shivers down the spine.

I've probably see that film at least 10 times and its powerful affect is never diminished, partly I suspect because it was filmed in the house itself, which adds a very macabre twist to it.

You gave us everything you had, Dickie. Thank you" Go to: http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1409082788.html

Monday 25 August 2014

Does Anyone Remember Chechnya?

The Chechen Republic? Anyone? Myopic isn't it? "Oh Mr.Putin oh what a lovely War!" You can search the right wing press (obviously -?-), and the left (not so obviously), but neither seem to be able to recall (or recognise the ongoing), situation between The Russians and The Chechens. The Left will rant on about Palestine without having any real solution to the problem but Chechnya is simply forgotten. Clinton abandoned them (a man notionally of "The Left" -in terms of U.S politics-), and that appears to be that as far as any criticism of the mafia-like oligarchy that still has its hands around the throats of The Russian people is concerned. Where is Glasnost? Perestroika? Where is Michael Gorbachev? "Oh they're bashing American involvement in Europe, TTIP and the NATO-ised federal state The EU has become so that's o.k" What an abrogation of responsibility (I guess we shouldn't be surprised though The Left in Britain have been "going round and round in circles" with regard to Palestine for over half a century)!  Today however "the scales" were lifted (from my eyes at least), as I finally realised just why it is that opinions like mine concerning the state of OH SO MANY things in modern Britain  (esp. "Austerity" and the direct attack on democracy it represents), both now and historically are bullied and brow-beaten into quiescence; the Stalinist b***tards which infest our "intelligentsia" (for want of a better word), are NOT SERVED by resolution, they like their right wing opponents (who at least are bit more more "up front" about their motives), profit from the continuation of conflict.

Thursday 21 August 2014

Do "Electro-Magnetic Pulse" Weapons Make Nuclear Weapons "Indispensable" for the Old Empires?

I missed this the first few times around, but then it stuck me like a thunderbolt; "nuclear weapons have not been "retired"!". If anything both strategically and tactically the necessity of knocking out your opponent's technology has attained pre-eminence and therefore the so-called "limited" use of nuclear weapons has become more not less likely on the 21st century "battlefield" (which of-course -Utilitarianism having more or less finished its work with us-, has now become "any d**n place we choose"). How has this been missed?! It is because (as with certain other major "bug-bears" such as the dangers represented by the use of incineration and wi-fi/mobile phones), the implications realised by such consciousness are for many too challenging to consider, but consider them we must and that urgently! 
 All nations with a substantial military expenditure are now concerned with the issues of both the production of and protection against "E.M.P" weapons and it is extremely unlikely that non-nuclear non-(immediately), lethal methods of producing E.M.Ps are not also being explored. What may or may not it be possible to produce using superconductors and nuclear reactors for instance?

Quote: "

Just a normal town...

... but out of nowhere a wave of chaos was to wash over that world. In a millisecond it was gone. There were no phones, no computers, no power, nothing. Yet nobody had died, no buildings razed to the ground. And then the blind panic set in. What's going on, asks Ian Sample
It sounds like the perfect weapon. Without fracturing a single brick or spilling a drop of blood, it could bring a city to its knees. The few scientists who are prepared to talk about it speak of a sea change in how wars will be fought. Even in peacetime, the same technology could bring mayhem to our daily lives. This weapon is so simple to make, scientists say, it wouldn't take a criminal genius to put one together and wreak havoc. Some believe attacks have started already, but because the weapon leaves no trace it's a suspicion that's hard to prove. The irony is that it's our love of technology itself that makes us so vulnerable.
This perfect weapon is the electromagnetic bomb, or e-bomb. The idea behind it is simple. Produce a high-power flash of radio waves or microwaves and it will fry any circuitry it hits. At lower powers, the effects are more subtle: it can throw electronic systems into chaos, often making them crash. In an age when electronics finds its way into just about everything bar food and bicycles, it is a sure way to cause mass disruption. Panic the financial markets and you could make a killing as billions are wiped off share values. You could freeze transport systems, bring down communications, destroy computer networks. It's swift, discreet and effective.
Right now, talk of the threat of these weapons is low-key, and many want it to stay that way. But in some circles, concern is mounting. Last month, James O'Bryon, the deputy director of Live Fire Test & Evaluation at the US Department of Defense flew to a conference in Scotland to address the issue. "What we're trying to do is look at what people might use if they wanted to do something damaging," he says. With good reason, this is about as much as O'Bryon is happy to divulge.
E-bombs may already be part of the military arsenal. According to some, these weapons were used during NATO's campaign against Serbia last year to knock out radar systems. So do they really exist? "Lots of people are doing lots of work to protect against this type of thing," says Daniel Nitsch of the German Army Scientific Institute for Protection Technology in Muster, Lower Saxony. "You can make your own guess."
Interest in electromagnetic weapons was triggered half a century ago, when the military were testing something a lot less subtle. "If you let a nuclear weapon off, you get a huge electromagnetic pulse," says Alan Phelps of the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. If this pulse hits electronic equipment, it can induce currents in the circuitry strong enough to frazzle the electronics. "It can destroy all computers and communications for miles," says Phelps.
But the military ran into problems when it came to finding out more about the effects of these pulses. How could they create this kind of powerful pulse without letting off nuclear bombs? Researchers everywhere took up the challenge.
The scientists knew that the key was to produce intense but short-lived pulses of electric current. Feeding these pulses into an antenna pumps out powerful electromagnetic waves with a broad range of frequencies. The broader the range, the higher the chance that something electrical will absorb them and burn out.
Researchers quickly realised the most damaging pulses are those that contain high frequencies. Microwaves in the gigahertz range can sneak into boxes of electronics through the slightest gap: vent holes, mounting slots or cracks in the metal casing. Once inside, they can do their worst by inducing currents in any components they hit. Lower radio frequencies, right down to a few megahertz, can be picked up by power leads or connectors. These act as antennas, sending signals straight to the heart of any electronic equipment they are connected to. If a computer cable picks up a powerful electromagnetic pulse, the resulting power surge may fry the computer chips.
To cook up high-frequency microwaves, scientists need electrical pulses that come and go in a flash--around 100 picoseconds, or one ten-billionth of a second. One way of doing this is to use a set-up called a Marx generator. This is essentially a bank of big capacitors that can be charged up together, then discharged one after the other to create a tidal wave of current. Channelling the current through a series of super-fast switches trims it down to a pulse of around 300 picoseconds. Pass this pulse into an antenna and it releases a blast of electromagnetic energy. Marx generators tend to be heavy, but they can be triggered repeatedly to fire a series of powerful pulses in quick succession.

Deadly burst

Marx generators are at the heart of an experimental weapons system being built for the US Air Force by Applied Physical Sciences, an electronics company in Whitewater, Kansas. "We're trying to put them on either unmanned aerial vehicles or just shells or missiles in an effort to make an electromagnetic minefield," says Jon Mayes of APS. "If something flies through it, it'll knock it out." It could also be used on a plane to burn out the controls of incoming missiles, says Mayes. Put it on the back of a military jet and if a missile locks onto the plane, the generator can release a pulse that scrambles the missile's electronics.
Marx generators have the advantage of being able to operate repeatedly. But to generate a seriously powerful, one-off pulse, you can't beat the oomph of old-fashioned explosives. The energy stored in a kilo or two of TNT can be turned into a huge pulse of microwaves using a device called a flux compressor. This uses the energy of an explosion to cram a current and its magnetic field into an ever-smaller volume. Sending this pulse into an antenna creates a deadly burst of radiowaves and microwaves.
Simplicity is one of the flux compressor's big attractions. Just take a metal tube, pack it with explosives, and stick a detonator in one end. Then fix the tube inside a cylinder of coiled wire, which has a wire antenna attached at the far end. Finally, pass a current through the coil to set up a magnetic field between the metal tube and the coil, and you're ready to go (Click on thumbnail graphic for diagram.).
  Setting off the detonator triggers the charge, sending an explosion racing along the tube at almost 6000 metres per second. If you could slow this down, you'd see that in the instant before the explosive pressure wave begins to shatter the device, the blast flares out the inner metal tube. The distorted metal makes contact with the coil, causing a short circuit that diverts the current--and the magnetic field it generates--into the undisturbed coil ahead of it. As the explosive front advances, the magnetic field is squeezed into a smaller and smaller volume. Compressing the field this way creates a huge rise in current in the coil ahead of the explosion, building a mega-amp pulse just 500 picoseconds wide. Finally, just before the whole weapon is destroyed in the blast, the current pulse flows into an antenna, which radiates its electromagnetic energy outwards. The whole process is over in less than a tenth of a millisecond, but for an instant it can spray out a terawatt of power.
Tom Schilling of TPL, an electronics company in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is working along similar lines with the microwave weapons he's developing for the US Air Force. "We're using explosive flux generators to generate the power, then sending that straight into an antenna," he says. "One of the systems we're looking at is a guided bomb that can be dropped off a plane. Targets would be things like command and control centres--we should be able to shut those down with little or no collateral damage." Schilling's company is also looking at putting flux compressors into air-to-air missiles. It's an appealing idea, as even a near miss could bring down a plane.
It certainly ought to be practical. As long ago as the late 1960s, scientists sent a pair of flux compressors into the upper atmosphere aboard a small rocket to generate power for an experiment to study the ionosphere. "You can build flux compressors smaller than a briefcase," says Ivor Smith, an electrical engineer at Loughborough University who has worked on these devices for years.
Perhaps the biggest benefit of these weapons is that they carry the tag "non-lethal". You could take out a city's communications systems without killing anyone or destroying any buildings. In addition to the obvious benefits for the inhabitants, this also avoids the sort of bad press back home that can fuel opposition to a war. But that doesn't make these weapons totally safe, especially if they're being used to mess up the electronics of aircraft. "If you're in an aeroplane that loses its ability to fly, it's going to be bad for you," points out James Benford of Microwave Sciences in Lafayette, California.
Another big plus for people thinking of using these weapons is that microwaves pass easily through the atmosphere. This means that you can set off your weapon and inflict damage without having to get close to your target. "People think in terms of a kilometre away," says Benford. According to some estimates, a flux compressor detonated at an altitude of few hundred metres could wipe out electronics over a 500-metre radius.
Electromagnetic weapons can be sneaky, too. You don't have to fry everything in sight. Instead you can hit just hard enough to make electronics crash--they call it a "soft kill" in the business--and then quietly do what you came to do without the enemy ever knowing you've even been there. "That could be useful in military applications when you just want to make [the opposition] lose his electronic memory for long enough to do your mission," Benford says. "You can deny you ever did anything," he adds. "There's no shrapnel, no burning wreckage, no smoking gun."

Did it work?

The downside is that it can sometimes be hard to tell when an electromagnetic weapon has done its job. This is compounded by the fact that unless you know exactly what kind of electronics you are attacking, and how well protected they are, it's hard to know how much damage a weapon will do. This unpredictability has been a major problem for the military as it tries to develop these weapons. "Military systems have to go through an enormous amount of development," says Benford. "The key thing is that it has to have a clearly demonstrated and robust effect."
Tests like this are close to the heart of Nigel Carter, who assesses aircraft for their sensitivity to microwaves at Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in Farnborough, Hampshire. Microwaves can easily leak between panels on the fuselage, he says. "You've also got an undercarriage with hatches that open, there's leakage through the cockpit, leakage through any doors."
To find out how bad that leakage is, Carter could simply put the plane in a field and fire away at it with microwaves. But he has to be careful. "If we go blatting away at a very high level at hundreds of frequencies, people in the nearest town get a bit upset because they can't watch TV any more," says Carter. "It's very unpopular."
To avoid annoying the neighbours, Carter beams very low-power microwaves at the plane. Sensors on board--linked by fibre optics to data recorders so they are immune to the microwaves--record the currents induced in the plane's electronics.
Knowing what currents are produced by weak microwaves, Carter calculates what kinds of currents are likely to be produced if the plane is hit by a more powerful pulse of microwaves. "You can then inject those currents directly into the electronics," he says. The results can be dramatic. "The sort of effects you might expect to get if it's not protected are instrumentation displaying wrong readings, displays blanking out and you could, in the worst case, get interference with your flight controls," he says.
The idea of weapons like these being used in warfare is disturbing enough, but what if criminals get their hands on them? According to Bill Radasky, an expert in electromagnetic interference with Metatech in Goleta, California, they may have already done so. A basic microwave weapon, he says, can be cobbled together with bits from an electrical store for just a few hundred dollars. Such a system would be small enough to fit in the back of a car and could crash a computer from 100 metres away.
Other systems are even easier to acquire. Some mail-order electronics outlets sell compact microwave sources that are designed to test the vulnerability of electronics. But they could just as easily be used in anger. "We've done experiments that show it's very easy to do," says Radasky. "We've damaged a lot of equipment with those little boxes." If some reports are to be believed, they're not the only ones.
Criminals may have already used microwave weapons, according to Bob Gardner who chairs the Electromagnetic Noise and Interference Commission of the International Union of Radio Science in Ghent, Belgium. Reports from Russia suggest that these devices have been used to disable bank security systems and to disrupt police communications. Another report suggests a London bank may also have been attacked. While these incidents are hard to prove, they're perfectly plausible. "If you're asking whether it's technologically reasonable that someone could do something like this," says Gardner, "then the answer is yes."
Gardner's claims are backed by Nitsch. He is investigating how vulnerable computers and networks are to powerful bursts of microwaves. Surprisingly, he has found that today's machines are far easier to crash than older models. He says computer manufacturers used to be more worried about electromagnetic interference, so they often put blocks of material inside to absorb stray signals, and ran strips of copper around the joins in the casing to keep microwaves out.
That modern computers have less protection is bad enough. But they are also more susceptible because they are more powerful. To push signals around faster, you must reduce the voltage to ensure that the extra current doesn't make the processor chips overheat. In the 1980s, most computers operated at 5 volts. Today's machines operate at nearer 2 volts, says Nitsch, making their signals easier to disrupt. Networks are particularly susceptible, he adds, because the hundreds of metres of cabling connecting their workstations can act as an efficient radiowave receiving antenna.

Secret attacks

So are businesses taking the threat seriously? Radasky knows of only one European company that has protected its control centre against microwave weapons. Gardner believes it will take a high-profile attack to raise awareness of the issue. But combine the lack of evidence left by microwaves with companies' reluctance to admit their systems have been breached and you'd expect attacks to go unreported.
The good news is that protection isn't too difficult if it's done at the design stage, says Carter. The first thing to do is make sure you've got well-constructed circuits. This means using strong signals that can easily be distinguished from the fuzz of noise generated by microwaves. "You also want to make sure your circuitry only responds at the frequency it's supposed to," he says. So if your computer is intended to respond to signals coming in at 500 megahertz, you want to make sure it won't also respond to signals at twice that frequency--the kind that could be induced by microwaves. Another step is to wire in filters that absorb large surges of current--much like those used to protect against glitches in the mains power supply following lightning strikes.
Regardless of whether these weapons have been used yet, they highlight the way our dependence on electronics could become our Achilles' heel. The next time your computer crashes, don't automatically blame Bill Gates. Just wander over to the window and look out for that unmarked van that sometimes parks across the street. Could there be someone inside sending a blast of microwaves your way" Go to: http://www.bilderberg.org/micwaves.htm#Just

Quote: "There are two possible classes of weapons that may be described as enhanced-EMP nuclear weapons.  One is based on commonly known physics, and I will describe it briefly below.  This first type, although never tested above ground, almost certainly exists now in the arsenals of several countries.
  The second type is often claimed to exist, often by very reliable sources, but virtually nothing has been made publicly known about this novel type of weapon.  This makes most of what can be said about this second type mostly speculative. What is written elsewhere on this site, including what is written below about the first type of enhanced EMP weapons, is based on known physics or on de-classified documents from military services or national laboratories.
We know about the first type of enhanced EMP weapons because the nuclear weapons tested before 1963, including those that caused significant EMP damage, may be considered to be suppressed-EMP weapons.  If one were trying to minimize the EMP from those weapons, particularly the E1 component, they could hardly have done a better job.  The E1 pulse arises from gamma rays, and from the effect of those gamma rays hitting the mid-stratosphere in the presence of a strong geomagnetic field.
If you wish to minimize the E1 component:
(1) Use a very thick and dense layer of chemical explosive around the nuclear material to trigger the reaction.
(2) Use a very thick and dense steel casing on the entire exterior of the weapon.
(3) Set off a very small fission explosion microseconds before the major (mostly fusion) thermonuclear explosion.
(4) Detonate the device where the geomagnetic field is relatively weak.
The numbers in parenthesis in the comments below refer to the numbered statements immediately above.
In above-ground nuclear testing, they did (1) because they had to with the technology that existed then. They did (2) because they were trying to maximize the explosive power of the weapon, so they had to have a thick steel casing that would hold things together for as many milliseconds as possible.  What little they knew then about EMP was mostly regarded as a nuisance.
They did (3) whenever they were testing thermonuclear weapons (also known as "hydrogen bombs") because it was the only way to trigger the second (thermonuclear) stage.  It didn't occur to anyone that this first fission explosion would ionize the upper half of the stratosphere, and minimize the EMP from high-altitude explosions.  Even if they had known this, it is very unlikely that they would have done more single-stage testing since (at that time) they still regarded EMP as mostly a nuisance (but something possibly useful for detecting nuclear explosions in another country).
For the most part, they did (4) because much of the U.S. testing was in the near-equatorial regions of the mid-Pacific.  (It was a convenient location for many reasons, and especially for doing tests of very large weapons.)  Actually, 3 of the first 6 high-altitude nuclear tests of the United States were done in the South Atlantic Anomaly, where the geomagnetic field is at its very lowest.  Although the majority of the United States tests were in Nevada, they were all smaller tests and none of them were done at high altitude.  Except for the those Nevada tests and the very first test (which was done in New Mexico), all of the other tests on the U.S. mainland were done underground (including a 5 megaton underground test in Alaska).
Soviet high-altitude testing was done at higher latitudes, including one 40 kiloton high-altitude nuclear test (the Thunder test) in 1961 high above Stalingrad (now Volgograd) that would surely have produced a large EMP.   This may be why the Soviets seemed to know about high-altitude EMP before the U.S. knew about its unusual intensity.   (Soviet scientists have released details about their 1962 nuclear EMP tests, but nothing about the EMP from their earlier tests.)
So the simplest way of making an enhanced-EMP weapon is simply not to do (1), (2), (3) or (4).  Simply using more modern materials to avoid (1) and (2), even if the casing has to be so thin that it sacrifices some of the explosive power of the weapon, could easily increase the number of gamma rays emitted from the weapon by a factor of 10.  A huge increase.
To avoid (3), use only a single stage weapon, not a two-stage thermonuclear.  To maximize the nuclear reaction, you probably would want to use a boosted fission method.  In other words, use some of the lithium deuteride that is generally used as the "thermonuclear" part of the weapon, but use it only within the concentric shells of the single-stage weapon in order to get as much of the fissionable material to fission as possible.  For the same reason, use a lot of precisely timed high-output neutron guns at the instant of detonation.
With some basic physics knowledge and our current knowledge of high-altitude EMP, a weapon could easily be made that generates dramatically more gamma radiation, and that is far more efficient in turning that gamma radiation into electromagnetic pulse.  In other words, any nuclear weapons state could easily create a weapon that would produce more than 25,000 volts per meter across the entire continental United States if it is detonated 250 miles (400 kilometers) above the approximate center of the continental United States.
In addition, there are ways to generate an even larger amount of gamma rays with a two-stage thermonuclear weapon using a well-shielded primary (fission) stage and a carefully designed secondary.  The design and deployment of an optimal weapon of this design is much more complicated than the single-stage weapon, but the knowledge necessary to design these more sophisicated weapons is becoming increasingly well known.  One cannot keep the laws of physics a secret.

Now, we will leave the realm of commonly known physics and enter an area that is somewhat speculative.  There have been many claims about the existence of what are called super-EMP nuclear weapons that can generate electric fields of 200,000 volts per meter.  The open scientific literature only describes the operation of first or second generation nuclear weapons which are capable of producing a maximum EMP field strength of about 50,000 volts per meter on the ground (slightly to the equatorial side of the detonation point).  Maximum field strengths near the horizon would be limited to about half of this value, or 25,000 volts per meter.  The reason that the maximum field strength is slightly to the equatorial side of the detonation point (in other words, south of the detonation in the northern hemisphere) is that this is where the high-energy Compton electrons start to move through the Earth's magnetic field at nearly a 90 degree angle.
Obtaining field strengths that are higher than this is difficult due to saturation effects that completely ionize the mid-stratosphere where the electromagnetic pulse is generated.  Basically, the process of generating the EMP in the middle of the stratosphere very quickly causes this region to become a fairly good electrical conductor, and therefore incapable of generating any additional EMP.
The E1 EMP from a nuclear weapon is generated from gamma rays emitted by the weapon within the first microsecond after the nuclear detonation.  One way of enhancing the EMP is simply to make sure that the weapon is constructed so that as much of the gamma radiation as possible escapes from the weapon and is radiated into the upper atmosphere in a wide area below the detonation.  This can be done as described in the first section above.  The (relatively) gamma-ray-transparent casing only needs to be on the lower side of the weapon.  The gamma radiation that is emitted upward into outer space is wasted." For full article go to: http://www.futurescience.com/emp/super-EMP.html

Quote: "
E-Bombing Civilization
There's a new weapon of mass destruction, one designed to destroy critical electronic infrastructure. It shorts out everything from office computers to traffic lights to pacemakers, crippling the machines that run a modern economy — not to mention those that run a modern hospital. Although not intended as an anti-personnel device, the side-effects that this weapon has upon human beings caught within its blast radius are devastating: those lucky enough to suffer a direct hit are more or less instantly vaporized. The less fortunate on the periphery of the blast, or those caught by a ricochet, suffer severe burns and damage to the internal organs, including the brain.
The weapon is the "e-bomb," or microwave bomb, and as you may have guessed, this new marvel of terror is brought to us by the same folks who gave the world the atomic bomb and weaponized anthrax. Yes, it's a creation of the United States federal government and its "defense" contractors. Victorino Matus writes about the e-bomb on the Weekly Standard's website; Matus cannot quite conceal his enthusiasm, but he does at least mention the humanitarian concerns about the device. Of course, he concludes by reiterating that the purpose of the bomb is actually to spare lives: to destroy electronics without also killing people. This is a humanitarian weapon.
Something here doesn't add up. Several news sources have reported that the e-bomb may see its first use in the attack on Iraq.That's understandable as far as it goes; Iraq is not really a stone age country, despite years of sanctions. It may still have enough electronics to make the bomb an effective weapon in the U.S. arsenal (although then again, it may not). But think about this in the long term. The real danger to the United States at present comes from terrorist organizations, not from "rogue states," which are only significant to the extent that they harbor and support terrorists. How do you use an "e-bomb" against al Qaeda? It's not a weapon of much use against people hiding in caves. Nor is it of any use in stopping a hijacked airplane — it could bring down an aircraft, of course, but so could a conventional missile, and the e-bomb would run the additional risk of shorting out any other electronics nearby, including other planes and systems on the ground. Even its usefulness against Iraq will be very limited. To put it bluntly, an anti-technology weapon is most useful against a target dependent on high technology. That doesn't mean Iraq, and it certainly doesn't mean Afghanistan or al Qaeda. It means countries like the United States.
By its very nature, the e-bomb poses more of a danger to the United States and other first world countries than it does to terrorists or rogue states. So why is the US developing this weapon? One explanation would be that the military-industrial bureaucracy is still fighting the last war. The e-bomb might work fine against the aircraft and mechanized infantry divisions of a large nation state such as the Soviet Union. It would be a useful weapon to deploy against cities as well, to scramble communications and handicap the economy. But this kind nation-to-nation warfare is not what America or the world currently faces. Even apart from al Qaeda, most of the fighting in the world today is within, not between, states. Outside of Africa, what warfare there still is between states typically now takes the form of the United States and its allies fighting a single, smaller foe of extremely limited conventional forces (Serbia, Iraq, etc.). In such engagements the e-bomb has limited practical value. It's a bunker-buster, and one of a highly specialized sort, in an age characterized by fewer and fewer bunkers. It might have applications in Iraq, but it would have had few indeed in Serbia — except, again, as a weapon for use against cities.
On the other hand, the e-bomb would be a very convenient weapon for anyone who wanted to attack America. There are ways to shield, or "harden," electronics against electromagnetic pulses, but microwaves are the most difficult radiation to harden against. No doubt some of the most highly sensitive military technology might be proofed against an e-bomb, but civilians would have little protection. In addition to hospitals and traffic lights, power grids, air traffic control systems, and telecommunications could all be crippled or destroyed. The loss of life and economic damage would be bad enough in Belgrade or Baghdad; in an American city it would be far worse. The microwave bomb really is a weapon of mass destruction, one particularly tuned to the weaknesses of a modern, computer-reliant city.
Will the government's development of this weapon come back to haunt us? In twenty years' time we may have President George P. Bush threatening war with Bhutan unless the Bhutanis can prove that they haven't been developing an e-bomb. Meanwhile our own military-industrial complex will be busily at work creating yet another weapon of mass destruction. It's happened before and now it's happening again." Go to: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy42.html

AND this is what's been happening to the "conventional" nuclear arsenal in the meantime...

Doesn't fill "one" with confidence does it ("America dropped an armed nuclear weapon on itself!")?

Tuesday 19 August 2014

The Philosophy of "The Loss Leader" (re: Nuclear Power, Incineration and Fracking)

It happens alot, one of its symptoms is "Greenwash" (a useful adjunct to the miasma of disinformation and news management for the unsustainable resource exploiting industries), however, its importance is most frequently overlooked. Take "Fukushima" for instance, in terms of the international safety profile of the nuclear industry it has, of-course, been disastrous yet the economic consequences have been massively underestimated. The "Powers that Be" ("P.t.B"s), are desperately trying to ameliorate the political consequences of the disaster but haven't a clue how to tackle the economic or environmental ones. Unfortunately (for it), if we were to remove the key log of nuclear power the old-order would be carried to its doom by fallen timber (because without nuclear weapons the old empires have no "presence"),  that's far from the whole story though for, in an even more profound sense, the notion that man may "subjugate" the atom underpins an entire philosophy of domination and exploitation that exists at both economically deterministic extremities of the socio/political continuum, therefore nuclear power will remain a necessary loss-leader for the most exploitative regimes.
 Municipal waste incinerator projects always run at a loss, they simply encourage people to accept the perpetuation of the brightly packaged (and lucrative -for some-), gewgaw culture whilst imagining that they are "cleaning up" their waste in an environmentally friendly way. Fracking and incineration are also both necessary loss leaders, neither are actually profitable in themselves; incineration provides an apparently benign end-user for the oil industry but fracking is truly, "the Plebs scrabbling in the Roman dirt beneath the emperor's balcony for debased currency"! As the most recent edition to the mutinous crew "Fracking" is actually (for most people who oppose it), the most transparently ludicrous of the three for it smacks of exactly the same desperation as that displayed by the citizens of Rome as they grovelled at the emperor's feet.

Saturday 16 August 2014

"Children have died after swallowing fluoride topically applied on their teeth" & "The Epidemiology of Deaths"

Quote: "
by: Yiamouyiannis, John, Ph.D. Dr. Yiamouyiannis received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Rhode Island and served his post-doctoral fellowship at the Western Reserve University School of Medicine. He then became editor at Chemical Abstracts Service, the world's largest chemical information center, where he first became aware of the health damaging effects of fluoride. He is the former science director of the National Health Federation; he is the executive director of Health Action and president of the Safe Water Foundation. He is a world-leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride and is responsible for ending the use of fluoride in many areas of the United States and abroad.
HARMFUL EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE Fluoride is used as an insecticide and a roach killer. Even at the level they use to fluoridate your public water supply, usually at the rate of about 1 part fluoride for every million parts of water (1 ppm) by weight, it causes severe problems. As little as one-tenth of an ounce of fluoride will cause death. It is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic. No one will die from drinking one glass of fluoridated water, but it is the long term chronic effects of drinking fluoridated water that affects health. Dental fluorosis is one of the earlier signs of fluoride poisoning, appearing in mild cases as a chalky area on the tooth, and in more advanced cases, teeth become yellow brown or black and the tips break off. Fluoride in the drinking water leads to fluoride levels in tissues and organs which damage enzymes. This results in a wide range of chronic diseases. Fluoride weakens the immune system and may cause allergic type reactions including dermatitis, eczema and hives. It causes birth defects and genetic damage. Fluoride is likely to aggravate kidney disease, diabetes and hypothyroidism. The amount consumed in drinking water has been shown to lower thyroid activity in humans. It also causes the breakdown of collagen which results in wrinkling of the skin and the weakening of ligaments, tendons and muscles. There are a number of ways that fluoride can be administered. The most insidious way is through the drinking water. Some of you have it in your mouthwashes, or in your toothpaste, or you may take a fluoride supplement which is dispensed in pills or drops.
FLUORIDE A BY-PRODUCT OF INDUSTRY Fluoride is an industrial waste product, a by-product of the aluminum industry and the phosphate fertilizer companies who have mountains of fluoride that is polluting the ground water. They have to get rid of it, and the old solution to pollution is dilution - just put it in the drinking water. People living in the vicinity of aluminum, phosphate, steel, clay, glass and enamel plants are exposed to high levels of fluoride in the air. For instance, the Hamilton area shows extremely high lung cancer rates that decrease as you get away from the downwind plume of the steel mills. If fluoride was left with the phosphate and sold to farmers, it would kill their crops. That is what originally happened when they used this high fluoride phosphate, and the farmers said they were going back to manure.
FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE Unless it says on the package does not contain fluoride, you are using fluoridated toothpaste. Fluoridated toothpaste contains 1,000 ppm fluoride. There is enough fluoride at 1,000 to 1,500 parts per million to kill a small child if they consume the entire tube. If a child consumes just part of it, it could result in either acute or chronic toxicity. A four to six year-old child will swallow 25 to 33% of the toothpaste they put on their toothbrush. Don't let them put it in their mouth unless when they swallow it, it is good for them. People ask me where they can get non-fluoridated toothpaste. They have many brands of non-fluoridated toothpaste in health food stores, so pick up your toothpaste there, and make sure it doesn't have fluoride, because some health food stores have a couple of brands of fluoride toothpaste. Not everything in a health food store is safe. Always read the labels. Pepsodent toothpaste also doesn't have fluoride. If you want something inexpensive, use baking soda and sea salt, but make sure you dissolve the salt crystals in water before you brush your teeth; otherwise the salt crystals will score the enamel.
GUM DAMAGE Fluoride actually causes gum damage at the concentrations used in fluoridated toothpaste at 1,000 ppm. Fluoride poisons enzyme activity and slows down the ability of the gums to repair themselves. If you brush your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, you will suffer gum damage.
FLUORIDE GELS AND SOLUTIONS Some schools have weekly fluoride mouth-rinse programs in which the children swish fluoride solutions around in their mouths. The fluoride comes in a sugar size packet, and on the outside of the packet it says fatal if swallowed. If your child is in any of these programs at school, get them out of it. We have testimonials one after the other of children who come home with a stomach ache because they had actually accidentally swallowed part of it, and children do accidentally swallow. Fluoride treatments at the dentist's office are equally hazardous. In the typical fluoride treatment, 10,000 parts per million fluoride, which comes in a flavoured gel to make it taste good, is left on the teeth for about five minutes. Then the child spits it out, though invariable he swallows some. The child cannot rinse, eat or drink for at least half an hour afterward. Children have died after swallowing fluoride topically applied on their teeth. In one well publicized case, the dental hygienist neglected to tell the child to wash his mouth out and spit out the solution. The child began vomiting and sweating and died the same day. Over 6% of children receiving fluoride treatments at the dental office suffer gastrointestinal distress such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain either immediately or within one hour after treatment. According to scientists at the U.S. Public Health Service, topical fluoride is practically ineffective in reducing tooth decay, and damages gum tissue. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "the high concentrations of some products (gels, mouthwash, tablets, toothpaste, etc.) may be neither biologically desirable nor clinically necessary".
FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS Tablets and drops are another means of administering fluoride. The Canadian Dental Association has admitted in the last couple of years that children under the age of three should not be given fluoride supplements. And yet dental practitioners and pediatricians who haven't kept up to date are still giving fluoride supplements to young children. I advise against fluoride supplements for anyone.
ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The addition of fluoride to the public water supply is the most insidious way of chronically poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the world. Dr. Dean Burk was former chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, and has co-authored studies with many Nobel prize winners including Otto Warburton, and he is the co-author of the most cited paper in the entire field of biochemistry - the Lineweaver-Burk Enzyme Kinetics. In the 1970s, Dean Burk and I conducted a number of studies which linked fluoride and cancer. There was already scientific evidence from the 1950s that fluoride was causing cancer, and a 1963 study by Driscowitz and Norton showed that increased fluoride concentrations in the media of experimental animals increased tumour incidence from 12% at the lowest concentrations up to 100%. Taylor and Taylor published a study in 1965 at the University of Texas in all the mainline medical journals showing that 1 ppm or even 0.5 ppm increased tumour growth rate by 25%. These studies bothered me and around 1975 I found that we had enough data to compare the cancer death rate before and after fluoridation of fluoridated communities and compare them to non-fluoridated communities. Based on millions of subjects, the study showed a 5 to 10% increase in cancer death rate within three to five years after fluoridation was put into the water after correcting for various demographic factors like age, race and sex. All the variables were controlled. We followed this by a series of other studies. In 1977 we had full blown Congressional Hearings, and Congress stated: "We can no longer assure the American public that fluoride does not cause cancer". Dean Burk and other well-known scientists were there, and on the opposing side was the American Dental Association. Ten years later, Proctor and Gamble, makers of Crest toothpaste found that fluoride was causing precarcinogenic changes in cells.
HOW FLUORIDE AFFECTS THE DNA REPAIR MECHANISM Epidemiological evidence shows that fluoride causes cancer. It does this in several ways. It can actually cause the original lesion. In each one of our cells we have genetic material called DNA, and this DNA is double stranded, it has a helix shape and these two strands of DNA are held together by semi strong bonds called hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen bonds also hold proteins together. Fluoride goes in and breaks those hydrogen bonds, and consequently destabilizes DNA. It can't cause a lesion in the DNA itself, but if it is in a site of the cell that regulates cell growth, it will cause uncontrolled cell growth. A few minor modifications will give you first a tumour, and secondly an invasive tumour or cancer. So fluoride has the ability to actually cause the cancer. We have a marvelous system of repair and rejuvenation. Even if we go out in the sun, even if we have a lesion by fluoride itself, we have what is called a DNA repair enzyme system. So any lesion caused by the sun or ultra-violet light will be repaired. The DNA repair enzyme system will cut off the ends and use the complementary strand to repair itself and make intact genetic material. The unfortunate thing is that one part per million fluoride, the amount of fluoride that they use in the public water system, depresses the DNA repair system by 50%. So they have attacked us on the first defense of damage to our genetic material. Since people can get cancer from so many different causes, fluoride is just increasing our chances of getting cancer.
THE IMMUNE SYSTEM Even if the cancer cell starts dividing and invading surrounding tissues, if our immune system is strong enough, it will kill those cancer cells without any remedies, without chemotherapy, without anything and will destroy the occasional cancer that maybe all of us have had at one time or another. Once in a while cancer breaks through when the immune system is low or the DNA repair enzyme system is down, and we will get cancer. Fluoride causes the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and then inhibits our immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only one part per million. How does it do that? Our immune system is composed of white blood cells including phagocyte cells that are carried in the blood system. If there is an infection or cancer or some foreign agent, these phagocytes will go to that area and start engulfing and destroying this bad agent whether it is a cancer cell or a bacterium or virus. It engulfs it in a little pocket called a lysosome which squirts enzymes and breaks down the bad agent into little pieces. They have other things called peroxisomes which burn that agent with free radicals and either destroy it or use it for building new and healthy cells. These phagocytes will actually eat up bacteria or viruses, and toxic substances are just thrown off. Studies from the University of Glasgow show that fluoride inhibits these white blood cells. Fluoride at levels below one part per million causes a chronic release of these free radicals from the white blood cell out into the blood stream where it starts slowly damaging your body by increasing free radicals. This is one of the reasons why we call fluoride the ageing factor.
NON-FLUORIDATED WATER Industrial quality reverse osmosis water brings the total dissolved solids down to less that one part per million for all the pollutants that might be in there. Distilled water will remove 99% of the fluoride all of the time. I also recommend a pre-charcoal filter on a distiller to remove volatiles so that you are not getting noxious gases in your home. These are worse when you inhale them than when you drink them, because they go right into your blood stream and into your lungs. You can buy your water at the supermarket, but quite frankly you don't know what the quality of the water is. You must take care that the fluoride concentration is less than 0.2 ppm. Some spring waters like Vichy (which contains 8 ppm) are notoriously high in fluoride. Avoid beverages such as soft drinks, beer and fruit juices from concentrate that have been bottled in fluoridated areas. Teas, even brewed in fluoride-free water will contain about 1.2 to 2.4 ppm fluoride. Some people drink 8 to 15 cups of tea a day, and these amounts are large enough to cause dental fluorosis and other harmful effects.
MINERALS IN WATER If you want to get minerals, you must get them in the proper balanced ratio. Calcium, magnesium, phosphorus and other minerals must be in a ratio that is acceptable to a living organism. Get your minerals from healthy living organisms like vegetables, grains, nuts and seeds, and if you are not a vegetarian, like meats, bones or bonemeal. Beet greens are at the top of the list as a mineral supplement. I don't recommend milk or dairy as a calcium source; cow's milk has a very different constitution than human milk.
DETOXIFICATION If you stop taking fluoride, your body will get rid of it eventually. The fluoride that gets stuck in your bones gets stuck there for life pretty much, but that is not necessarily bad. Where fluoride has adverse effects is in the soft tissues. If you take over 200 mg of vitamin C per day that is all you really need for removing fluoride. In three to six months you should have about 99% of it out which is good enough.
GOOD DIET, NOT FLUORIDE, IS NECESSARY FOR HEALTHY TEETH Many primitive societies whose drinking water contains negligible amounts of fluoride go through life without tooth decay because they eat very little sugar and other refined carbohydrates.
DOES FLUORIDE REDUCE TOOTH DECAY? Numerous attempts have been made to show that the amount of fluoride used to fluoridate public water systems reduces tooth decay under laboratory conditions. Still no laboratory study has ever shown that this amount of fluoride is effective in reducing tooth decay. Further, there are no epidemiological studies on humans showing that fluoridation reduces tooth decay that meet the minimum requirements of scientific objectivity such as the double blind design.
* * *
You may contact Dr. Yiamouyiannis at 614-548-5340. His book Fluoride: The Aging Factor contains references to studies and information cited in this article. His other book, High Performance Health is also available.

sidebar Shopping CartContact UsLinksMembershipTotal Health ConventionAudiosVideosBooksArticlesWho We AreHome  " Go to: http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823


Quote: "

Fluoride is Poison

The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
A large study was conducted in New Zealand. There, the New Zealand National Health Service plan examined the teeth of every child in key age groups, and found that the teeth of children in non-fluoridated cities were slightly better than those in the fluoridated cities. (Colquhoun, J. "Child Dental Health Differences in New Zealand", Community Healthy Services, XI 85-90, 1987).
In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former Director of Toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, published research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occurred and the behavior patterns of the animals were adversely effected. Offspring of pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed permanent effects to the brain which were seen as hyperactivity (ADD-like symptoms). Young animals and adult animals given fluoride experienced the opposite effect -- hypoactivity or sluggishness. The toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was subsequently confirmed by previously classified government research. Two new epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride's neurotoxic effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to higher levels of fluoride have lower IQs.
Source: Holistic Medicine

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin, a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but as yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.
Fluoride Action Network
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland do not fluoridate their water.

Fluoride Kills Healthy Enzymes

Did you know that there is an enzyme in saliva that remineralizes soft spots in teeth using calcium in food?

This enzyme is killed by fluoride and it cannot work even in the absence of fluoride if the teeth are covered by glycerin, a major component of toothpaste.
Note that the fluoride and clorine in water and the bromine in food aggravate an existing widespread iodine deficiency in the U.S.
See http://www.helpmythyroid.com.
However, after decades of water fluoridation, virtually all Americans consume fluoridated food and/or water. Yet, 'dental spending outpaces economic growth, continuing a trend,' reports the American Dental Association.(11)

New York State is 70% fluoridated but two very populous counties, Nassau and Suffolk (Long Island) are totally fluoridation free. In New York State 18.3%, lost 6 or more teeth due to decay or gum disease(13a) while only 16.2% of Long Islanders did.(13b)

New York City is 100% fluoridated, yet 20.9% of Brooklyn(14a) and 19.9% of Queens(14b) residents lost six or more teeth, more than non-fluoridated Long Island and partially fluoridated New York State.

Past news releases show that New York City poor children have more tooth decay than the national average.(15a,b)

Actually, dental crises appear in many fluoridated cities. (See: Cavity Crises In Fluoridated Cities http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg5.php3)

Fluoride Doesn't Stop Cavities

"George W. Heard, D.D.S.
Box 346
Hereford, Texas

March 15, 1954

Mr. Roby C. Day
112 Lewis St.
San Diego, Calif.

Dear Mr. Day,
Hereford, Texas has been called the town without a toothache. This is not true. But the phrase has been used effectively by the people interested in marketing "sodium fluoride" all over the country.
I have practiced dentistry here for years. The native population of Hereford and Deaf Smith County have remarkably good teeth. The incidence of caries or tooth decay was very low. I finally succeeded in getting some members of the dental profession to come to Hereford to find the cause of the exellent dental health of our people.
After considerable research, it was suggested that the relatively high content of natural fluorine in our water supply was responsible. I accepted this conclusion for a time. The people who had great quantities of sodium fluoride and sodium silico fluoride as by-products of the aluminum and fertilizer industries decided that when these by-products were added to city water supplies, they would produce the same type of dental health which existed here with the natural fluorine. They widely publicized "the town without a toothache." They are, I believe, still doing it.
As the years went by I continued to study the local situation. I observed that, as the town grew and more people began to live on processed foods, such as canned goods, white flour products, soft drinks, etc., tooth decay increased. This increase of decay occurred even though they were drinking the same fluorinated water we had always been drinking. I am now fully convinced that good natural food is the preventive of dental caries as well as other diseases.
I believe that fluorine does in a mild way retard caries, but I also believe that the damage it does is far greater than any good it may appear to accomplish. It even makes the teeth so brittle and crumbly they can be treated only with difficulty, if at all.
The dental investigators who came to our County some fifteen years ago did, in my opinion, make a serious mistake when they gave to fluorine the credit for our good teeth, and overlooked the quality of food grown in our rich, well mineralized soil. Every person I found who had no dental caries consumed much milk.
Why use a poison, when correct food will maintain our bodies free from diseases and tooth decay? It is hellish and un-American to put poison in city water supplies and force citizens to drink it.
I sincerely hope that at least some of your dentists are co-operating with you in getting the real truth about tooth decay over to your citizens.
If I can further assist you, please call on me.
Cordially yours,
George W. Heard "" Go to: http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823

Quote: "Consider the well known scenario of the swift bone-breakage of the recently retired, many of these cases occur to those who seem insulted by their experience; "Why?" they ask, "Has this occurred to me? I have taken care of my own health all my life (including me teeth)!". That's the problem; "including your teeth", if one has been assiduously cleansing one's teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride all your life the fluoride will have bio-accumulated in your skeletal system (the maximum absorption level being around 70%), and compromised your bone-strength and density to such an extent that a break in early retirement becomes far more likely." Go to: "Wicked Leeks!" http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/wicked-leeks.html

I am a victim of pre-pubescent dental clinical fluoride treatment myself (my story is sad, long and ongoing). These articles hint that there may be even higher costs to the patient/victim but don't make the connections (as "we" the victims don't anymore), however I can talk from my experience as-well and this has lead me to the conclusion that fluoride is a "whole system" disruptor and can be responsible for ailments as diverse as; fracturing, kidney failure/dysfunction, behavioural problems/brain damage, depression and suicide.
 What I have not seen however (or been able to find so far on-line), are the statistics, the epidemiological evidence which will prove (I now have no doubt), that many of the "victims" of clinical fluoride treatment are no longer with us. For one thing the behavioural changes induced by fluoride treatment are of such an uncontrollable and self-destructive nature that the patient may perish due to some apparently "self-induced" accident superficially unrelated to any dental treatment they may have received a decade or so before. Therefore it is necessary to examine the medical records of all of those patients who received clinical fluoride treatment as children and compare the statistics for the incidences of accidental "premature" deaths (esp. "self-induced" -not necessarily suicide at all but the suicide statistics MUST be examined as-well-), and serious injuries within the treated group with those for the same demographic within the wider population. I call here on The International Society of Doctors for the Environment and The World Health Organisation to "pull their fingers out" and examine the evidence and make their findings known as quickly as humanly possible (not to do so is tantamount to colluding in mass murder)!

sidebar Shopping CartContact UsLinksMembershipTotal Health ConventionAudiosVideosBooksArticlesWho We AreHome

Tuesday 5 August 2014

"The Great Dragon" Incineration (what you "need-to-know")...

Quote; "Why is it that our local councils can only afford to collect our recyclable and non-recycled goods separately on a fortnightly basis?
The answer is that the government invests half the waste management budget in municipal waste incineration.
Government investment in the incinerator option meant that the current Unitary Authority of Southampton was presented with a 'fait accompli', before the dissolution of the former Hampshire County Council and therefore before a Southampton area majority against the decision could become effective in council. A process in which certain media institutions in the city colluded.
Everywhere incinerators scrounge oil based wastes from the waste stream. In N.Ireland a member of The Environment Committee in the national government, who had made his name in the waste management business, was exposed as flogging non-sorted waste from his recycling plant to the municipal waste incinerator in Liverpool!
The national government invests half our money in recycling (really?), and half in incineration. Unfortunately one represents a sustainable technology the other does not (think about it, oil is consumed it is never re-used in the incineration process).
No one has so far stood to account for the Liverpool Incinerator's actions, again why?
(Materials Reclamation Facility known as "Murph", never buy a used anything from this Irishman!)
The oxymoron that is "An Unsustainable Economy" will surely be understood as such by any generations we may be fortunate enough to be the antecedents of.
Also, I too was in favour of waste incineration when the idea was first mooted in the early '80s, however logical analysis shows (as it does with the Nuclear Power/CO2 production debate), that the philosophy that informs the idea is (unfortunately), redundant." Go to: https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/whats-that-coming-over-hill.html

Quote: "Is incineration safe?

    This is an issue I have followed for 25 years. The issue that peaked my interest was the incredible fact that simply by burning household trash we make the most toxic substances that we have ever been able to make in a chemical laboratory: polyhalogenated dibenzo para dioxins and furans (PCDDs, PCDFs, PBDDs, PBDFs etc) called "dioxins" for short. There are literally thousands of these substances. There is no question that over 25 years the industry has got better at capturing these pollutants but we are still hostage as to how well the plants are designed and operated, monitored and the regulations enforced. In addition to this, incineration releases many toxic metals from otherwise fairly stable matrices. At worst these metals (lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium etc) go into the air, at best they are captured in the fly ash in the air pollution control devices (APC). But it is a truism to state that the better the APC the more toxic the ash becomes. Where is this ash going to go? In Germany and Switzerland the fly ash is put into nylon bags and deposited in salt mines. In Japan a number of the incinerators vitrify the ash, making it into a glass-like material, but that takes a huge amount of energy away from the system. Do you know where the ash is going in this proposal?

    For every four tons of trash burned you get at least one ton of ash: 90% is called bottom ash (that is the ash collected under the furnace) and 10% is the very toxic fly ash.

    The formidable issue of nanoparticles.

    There is nothing new about nanoparticles, which are particle of less than one micron in diameter. They are produced in any high temperature combustion which includes vehicles, coal-fired power stations, industrial boilers etc. What is new is nanotechnology where these particles, which have very unusual properties, are being used in many commercial products from shaving cream to tennis rackets. This has raised the question of whether they have any negative health effects. That question has given rise to a new discipline called nanotoxicology. It turns out that these particles have exquisite biological properties which are very worrying. They are so tiny that they can cross the lung membrane and enter the bloodstream. Once there they can enter every tissue in the body including the brain. The problem with incineration is twofold: a) because every object in commerce is likely to end up in an incinerator any toxic element used in these products is likely to end up in the nanoparticles. The nanoparticles from incinerators are the most dangerous of any common source. b) There are NO regulations in the world for the monitoring nanoparticles from incinerators. In most countries the particles regulated are 10 microns and above.In some countries they regulate particles at 2.5 microns. But neither standard comes close to monitoring nanoparticles. We are flying blind on this crucial issue.

    I have attached a very important paper on this issue from Dr. Vyvyan Howard from Northern Ireland. I know Vyvyan very well and he is one of the brightest people I have ever met. He co-authored a book on nanoparticles in 1999. The attached paper was delivered in 2009 in a hearing on an incinerator proposed for Ireland. It is the most up to date review of the issue of nanoparticles and incineration available. Before any new incinerator is built in India, or anywhere else for that matter, government officials (or the public) should force the project director to produce a scientific response to the key questions posed in this paper. If they cannot do so, then clearly building such a plant is taking a reckless gamble with the public's health. Moreover, if we return to the opening of this statement, such a gamble cannot be justified on either economic or environmental grounds, both local and global." Go to: http://www.no-burn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century

    Quote: "Since the publication of this report, important new data has
    been published strengthening the evidence that fine particulate
    pollution plays an important role in both cardiovascular and
    cerebrovascular mortality (see section 3.1) and demonstrating that
    the danger is greater than previously realised. More data has also
    been released on the dangers to health of ultrafine particulates
    and about the risks of other pollutants released from incinerators
    (see section 3.4). With each publication the hazards of incineration
    are becoming more obvious and more difficult to ignore.
    In the light of this data and the discussion provoked by our
    report, we have extended several sections. In particular, the
    section on alternative waste technologies (section 8) has been
    extensively revised and enlarged." Go to: http://www.bsem.org.uk/uploads/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf
    Quote: ""The ever-increasing number of damaged babies being born around incinerators should be taken as a strong warning that the ‘experts’ and their friendly politicians are deliberately playing down overwhelming evidence of serious harm to suit industry’s financial interests, and, as it has been shown many times before, in many cases, their own."
    Even the most modern incinerators produce a deadly cocktail of chemicals, heavy metals and fine particulates. The chimney stacks of municipal waste incinerators typically discharge: aluminium, antimony, arsenic, beryllium, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, thallium, tin, titanium, tungsten, uranium, vanadium, zinc and zirconium; carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans, PCBs, PAHs, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapour, volatile organic compounds and particulate matter.

    Below is some further information about just two of these - dioxins and PM2.5 particles.
    Incinerators are one of the main sources of dioxins (see BBC report). The first disease associated with dioxins was the extreme skin disease chloracne. It causes acne like pustules to form across the body and can last for several years. Most concerns now lie with the potential of dioxins to cause cancer, but they are also suspected of affecting reproductive health, lowering sperm counts, causing behavioural problems and increasing the incidence of diabetes. There is a growing body of research indicating that dioxins can cause such diseases. The monitoring of dioxins is wholly inadequate.

    Fine Particles - PM2.5s (references at foot of page)
    According to a statement by the European Commission in October, 370,000 people die prematurely each year in Europe as a result of air pollution, 350,000 of them because of PM2.5 particles, i.e. particles that are less than 2.5 micrometers in size (Ref 1). Most of the particles emitted by incinerators are PM2.5s (Ref 2, page 9).
    Reports from Greenpeace (Ref 3, page 11) and the British Society of Ecological Medicine (Ref 2, page 9) state that incinerator filters only remove 5-30% of PM2.5s from emissions. The monitoring of PM2.5s is as inadequate as the monitoring of dioxins.

    Even now the government backed Health Protection Agency dismisses the effect of fine particulates from incinerators, pointing to figures from Defra from 2006 indicating that waste incineration contributed only 0.3% of the national emissions of air pollution particulates PM10, compared to 27% for traffic and 25% for industry (see article from 3 Sep 09).

    However, Dr Vyvyan Howard's Statement of Evidence to the Ringaskiddy incinerator inquiry in Ireland, dated June 2009, explains that the ultrafine particulates from incinerators are particularly dangerous because they carry a range of toxins including dioxins, PCBs and metals (see Dr Howard's report, 'Particulate Emissions and Health').

    EurActiv.com Web Portal - Article on air quality standards
    The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators, 2005, The British Society for Ecological Medicine
    Incineration and Human Health, Greenpeace, 2001, (PDF document, 400kb)
    World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines, Executive Summary
    Environmental Statement, Sita - in PDF format - Scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the link to ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT VOL. 2 : (SECTIONS 8 - 15).

    Breaches of emission limits

    The safety record of even the most modern incinerators is patchy at best. For example the DERL energy-from-waste incinerator in Dundee was built in 2000. SEPA reports that in November 2007 the plant was in breach of emission limits for particulates, dioxins, furans and metals.[1] The following year it failed an Operator Performance Assessment by breaching limits for dioxins and furans.[2] Both of these breaches occurred in spite of the installation of £1.2m of new clean up technology in 2004.[3] For a full list of emission breaches since 2006, click here.

    Some might say that a couple of emission breaches over a two-year period doesn’t sound too serious. The problem is that operators only have to measure dioxins twice a year, as stipulated by s5.6 of Scottish Government guidelines on incineration.[4] Therefore the problem could have been going on for months before the inspection. Equally, previous measurements may have been taken on a day when things just happened to be a little better than normal. Dr Jeremy Thompson of the British Society for Ecological Medicine states that at the very least there ought to be continual measurements of dioxins.

    [1] SEPA, East Region Board Meeting, 25 April 2008, s2.3.4.

    [2] SEPA, Operator Performance Assessment 2008.

    [3] Rob Edwards, Revealed: pollution failures, Sunday Herald, 30 May 2004.

    [4] Scottish Government Guidelines on incineration, s5.6" Go to: http://www.teag.org.uk/toxicemissions.htm

    Quote: "Recycling in Europe is in danger. Excessive incineration capacity in some countries is causing that recyclable waste ends up being burned and that some other increase their waste shipments losing incentives to recycle.

    Today English waste is shipped to the Netherlands, Italian waste to Germany, Norwegian waste to Sweden... Nobody knows exactly how much waste is being shipped across European borders for incineration. What we do know is that recycling could be radically improved and citizens are paying huge sums for the construction and operation of plants that burn resources that we should be sharing with future generations.

    The European Union is contradicting itself. Every year Europeans burn more and more waste (69,5 million tons of waste between 2007 and 2010) while the EU has pledged to phase out incineration of recyclable waste by 2020. Yet, several new plants are being planned and/or are under construction now. It makes no sense to build new incinerators when countries such as Germany, Denmark, United Kingdom, Holland and Sweden have more incineration capacity than trash to burn.

    Our throw-away lifestyle is trashing our future, and incinerators are a good example of unsustainability. Investment needs to go into redesign, reduce, reuse and recycle activities - not to plants that waste valuable resources.

    Please ask the Environment Commissioner to change the legal and economic incentives necessary to redirect the funds that now go to incineration." Go to: https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/STOP_BUILDING_WASTE_INCINERATORS_IN_EUROPE/?aHmhNhb

     Having campaigned extensively on this myself with "Communities Against Toxins Southampton" and made presentations on the subject of incinerator waste dumping, recycling labeling and policy I would advise the reader that in all cases of the above the actual situation is much worse than the picture one may have garnered from these already heavily critical articles.

    There is no "safe" level of exposure, like plutonium these highly active particles are genotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic at any exposure level above zero!

    (see if I can dig up the seminal interview on that will let you know when I've found it).

More on WiFi, Cell Phones and other Threats to our Bio-Magnetic Fields....

Quote: "Conference Highlights: Discussion of Key Evidence that EMFs Negatively Impact Children, Fetuses and Fertility

The panel presented a wide range of scientific evidence that electromagnetic radiation of the kind emitted by portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, Bluetooth earpieces, towers, antennas, smart boards, smart meters, Google glass, and other wireless devices, is adversely affecting people across the globe, and especially children. This radiation may be ‘non-thermal’, but has clear and indisputable biological and health effects. Based on the DNA effects alone, there should be no delay in acting to protect the human species.

DNA is being damaged, and natural repair processes impaired, in this unnatural 24/7 bath of radiation. Children are especially vulnerable to DNA effects due to rapid growth and development of cells, as well as a longer lifetime of exposure. All frequencies react similarly with DNA, whether higher frequency or lower frequency. Some effects occur faster, some occur slower, but the effects are happening all the same. Cancer is believed to result from changes in DNA. DNA’s coil of coil structure makes it exquisitely sensitive to EMF, more than other tissue in the body. The long-term impact for our species is of great concern as there is no evidence our bodies can adapt to these unnatural frequencies.

An increasing number of people listen, learn and think better in electromagnetically clean environments. The audience was asked to turn off their cell phones and wireless devices for this reason.

Cell phones, tablets and other wireless devices also have batteries that emit lower frequency forms of radiation—and these, too, along with RF and microwaves, have consequences, such as increased risk for childhood asthma and obesity when exposed in utero, and increased risk of miscarriage.

Impacts of electromagnetic fields on children*:

→ Research shows radiation emitted by cell phones and WiFi impacts children’s development in utero, their cognitive function, attention, memory, perception, learning capacity, energy, emotions and social skills.

→ There is also diminished reaction time, decreased motor function, increased distraction, hyperactivity, and inability to focus on complex and long-term tasks.

→ Cellular devices can lead to a heightened sense of anxiety in children, to isolation, and feelings of psychological and physical dependency.

→ There are now 9 types of cancer linked to cell phone use:

1. Glioma (Brain Cancer)
2. Acoustic Neuroma (tumor on acoustic nerve)
3. Meningioma (tumor of the meninges)
4. Salivary Gland cancer (parotid gland in cheek)
5. Eye Cancer
6. Testicular Cancer
7. Leukemia
8. Thyroid Cancer
9. Breast Cancer

→ There is a direct relationship between duration of cell phone use and sperm count decline. Sperm count is reduced by half in men who carry cell phones in their pants pockets for four hours per day. The motility of the sperm is also impaired. The testicular barrier, that protects sperm, is the most sensitive of tissues in the body, and is 100x more absorbent. Besides sperm count and function, the mitochondrial DNA of sperm are damaged 3x more if exposed to cell phone radiation.

→ DNA mutations have been linked more to damage on the male side, in research from Iceland, the assumption being that male sperm is more vulnerable than female eggs, which are more protected, being deeper in the body.

Mutations increase with the age of the father, and more autism and schizophrenia increase with the age of the father.

→ WiFi in homes depletes melatonin and leads to poor sleep quality and difficulty falling asleep.

→ Use of wireless devices after lights out has been associated with children’s mental health risks and suicide.

→ Some of the most profound effects in children from in utero EMF exposure are emotional and behavioral.

→ Online time, particularly multi-tasking in young children, has been linked with a chronically distracted view of the world preventing learning critical social, emotional and relational skills.

→ There is imbalanced development of the right and left hemispheres of the brain, resulting in children having impaired ability to remember basic things, to use handwriting or to feel empathy. There is a physiological as well as psychological addiction that is taking place.

Think about what it would be like to have an entire generation that has not developed the capacity for empathy.”

—Devra Lee Davis, PhD MPH, Environmental Health Trust

→ Children are beginning to show signs of dementia, where they cannot remember basic things, a global phenomenon now being called Digital Dementia, believed to potentially be irreversible. There are hundreds of digital detox camps in China and S. Korea; the first U.S. camp opened in Northern California this year.

→ Dr. Taylor summarized his recent study at Yale University: A standard cell phone with a SAR rating of 1.6W/kg was placed atop the cages of pregnant mice for the duration of their pregnancy. Their offspring showed hyperactivity, diminished memory, apathy, impulsiveness, and other behaviors, compared to unexposed controls, mirroring children with ADHD. The severity of the effect depended on the length of exposure.

→ Dr. Taylor said the incidence of ADHD in the U.S. is on the rise (3-5% of school aged children or 2mm children have ADHD) and the growth parallels the increased use of cell phones.

→ Besides observing behaviors in the mice, the Yale researchers also measured electrical activity in the brain of the exposed and unexposed mice. They found the mice that had been exposed briefly in utero had changes to the electrical signaling processes in the brain as adults. Note, the mice had only been exposed during pregnancy, not subsequently, but the brain function was “permanently altered”.

There appears to have been a dose-response relationship, where the longer the mice had been exposed per day during the study the greater the changes in brain function. Continuous exposure throughout pregnancy was much more dangerous than briefer exposures.

→ Dr. Taylor reminded the audience that while we don’t think of ourselves as being on the cell phone 24 hours a day, the cell phone is still emitting radiation 24/7 and impacting us if it is turned on and near us, day or night. “It’s not talking on the phone that matters, it’s any time the phone is turned on”, he said. Every 900 milliseconds, whether you are using the phone or not, your cell phone has a spike in radiation because it is looking for a signal from the tower, according to Dr. Davis.

Researchers at UCLA found that children of mothers who used cell phones most frequently during pregnancy showed nearly a two-fold increase in behavioral and emotional problems and hyperactivity by the time they reached school age. Dr. Hugh Taylor stated:

When you combine data like this—studies that show there is in fact an association in humans, with our studies in animals—it is clearly cause and effect.”

→ Wi-Fi in schools is an ‘enormous problem’. Some schools install massive, industrial strength routers right next to where children sit. Symptoms reported by children who sit near Wi-Fi routers include nausea, headaches, blurred vision, and poor sleep. The Israeli Health Ministry issued a report recommending against Wi-Fi in schools because there is simply no information about the long-term effects of this type of chronic exposure.

→ Russians caused the same EHS symptoms in the U.S. Embassy in cold war. Symptoms of electrohypersensitivity in Wi-Fi environments—of fatigue, irritability, concentration difficulty—are the same symptoms experienced by US Embassy personnel in Moscow in the cold war, that came to be known as microwave syndrome (or radiowave sickness).

→ There are reports of children dropping dead in Canada, or needing to wear pacemakers, after Wi-Fi installation in their schools.

→ Dr. Blank presented a simple study done by Danish high school girls wanting to study biological effects of WiFi. They took cress cells and exposed half to WiFi for 12 days. At left are the unexposed and exposed cress cells. The effects of WiFi on this plant were made clear.

→ Turkish scientists recently discovered that mice exposed to cell phone radiation produced offspring with smaller brains, and more brain, liver, and eye damage. The Turkish government is launching a major campaign to raise awareness about cell phone radiation safety specifically geared towards pregnant women and young men interested in fathering healthy children.

→ Prenatal exposure results in fewer cells in the hippocampus of the brain, the area we need for thinking, reasoning, judgment and significantly impairs the development of neurons in the brain.

→ There is also irreversible DNA damage occurring from these devices, which effects the functioning of the child’s body, and the quality of the genes they then pass on to future generations. Human cells, like all matter, are made up of charged particles, and these particles respond to EMFs. DNA has many different lengths and responds differently to various radiation frequencies—like different length antennas—and many effects are irreversible. DNA damage and mutations can cause cancer and other illnesses, but it can take years to detect symptoms.

The range of frequencies used today can cause damage to DNA, at levels that are currently being used.”

—Martin Blank, PhD, Special Lecturer and Retired Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University

Fetal effects from cellphone and wireless include faster heart rates, genetic changes, altered brain development, and increased behavioral and emotional problems after birth.

The strongest evidence for EMF effects are the science showing the connection between cell phone use and brain cancer (Hardell 2008, Kundi 2008), according to Dr. Carpenter. The latency period between cell phone use and brain cancer is thought to be 20 to 30 years. Brain cancer rates are double for people who’ve been using cell phones for 10 years or more, appearing on the side of the head where they hold their phones, and risks are 5x greater for children using cell phones under the age of 20 than those over the age of 50.

→ Because children’s nervous systems are still developing, synapses and myelin are being laid down continuously. For the body to create proteins, it must have correct DNA coding. EMFs break DNA apart, resulting in bad coding and mutations that result in poor brain function. Teenagers and children using cell phones before the myelination process is completed in the 20s are unknowingly causing a “whopping impact” on their brains.

→ There is some evidence that DNA mutations resulting from radiofrequency signals are part of what’s driving today’s increased autism and schizophrenia rates. The evidence was summarized in December in the landmark BioInitiative Report 2012 by Harvard Professor, Dr. Martha Herbert, MD who runs the Transcend Research Lab at Mass General.

Dr Herbert stated:

EMF/RFR from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.”

“Powerful industrial entities have a vested interest in leading the public to believe that EMF/RFR, which we cannot see, taste or touch, is harmless, but this is not true.”

Radio towers, not just cell towers, are also a factor. Based on 50 years of data, the closer a child lives to a radio tower, the higher his or her risk for developing cancer. The standard for “safe” power density remains 1,000 times too high. A 6x risk of cancer is still considered ‘safe’, according to Dr. Martin Blank.

Politics of EMF Science

No more research is needed in order to say with certainly that these effects are real, and there is sufficient cause to take action now to protect adults and children. While more research will always be desirable to better understand certain connections, and to continue looking at the long-term trends with epidemiology, all members of the panel agreed there is sufficient scientific evidence today on which to take precautionary steps to minimize this radiation in our lives.

Regulatory bodies have allowed a trillion dollar wireless industry to emerge without pre-market health testing or post-market health surveillance.

A whole generation of people has been unaware of the risks of wireless radiation, and have not been taking precautions. This is why public health officials are so concerned. There is already evidence that exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess leads to disease. And exposures have grown dramatically in the last few years.

Our grandchildren and children are “being used as lab rats in an experiment with no controls….that’s what we are doing with cell phone and wireless radiation with our children today.”—Devra Davis, PhD, MPH. Environmental Health Trust

Scientists who expose the truth about the risks from electromagnetic fields are often intimidated and attacked, and their careers jeopardized. Industry-associated science is also designed to underestimate risks, thereby refuting the independent science and ‘Manufacturing Doubt’. Esteemed scientists who publish widely sometimes find it hard to publish on this topic.

Just as Bill Moyers recently described was the case with suppression of evidence about lead (“The Toxic Politics of Science) the wireless industry behaves as if risks from cell phones and wireless devices and infrastructure is ‘a PR problem, not a public health problem’.

The FCC has inadequate exposure guidelines. US standards for radiofrequency/microwave exposure are based on an outdated, erroneous assumption that EMFs have no biological effects unless they cause tissue heating, like a high powered microwave oven heating your potato. Science has disproven this myth. The exposure guidelines fail to protect about 97 percent of the population, most especially children.

The cell phone standards we use today for the 6.5 billion cell phones in the world were set 17 years ago and have never been updated, despite the fact that the users and uses of cell phones are very different now. And they’ve never been tested for their safety around children…We’re in the midst of a huge experiment on ourselves and on our children”
—Devra Lee Davis, PhD, MPH, cancer epidemiologist and toxicologist, President of Environmental Health Trust, and author of Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family
Lower power towers and devices are possible, though power levels are being continually increased. Cell phones and cell towers can be made safer, by using far less power. Also, many towers emit far more radiation than they claim.

Many countries are issuing advisories: Australia advises limiting children’s exposure to cell phones; Belgium has banned sales of cell phones for use by children under age 7; Turkey has banned ads targeting sales to children. The French National Assembly has banned WiFi in schools. Italy had a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a man who claimed his tumor was from cell phone use. A region of India, Rajasthan, has banned cell towers near schools, and won a court battle to defeat industries opposition. Standards in the Eastern block are 1,000 times stricter.

“It may take some sort of catastrophe to get people’s attention.”—Frank Clegg, former president of Microsoft Canada and founder of Canadians 4 Safe Technology, a member of the audience who later joined the panel to share his perspective.

Several panel members compared the current situation where the health risks of cell phone and wireless radiation are being downplayed, and the science suppressed or manipulated, to other well-known public health scandals driven by commercial interests, such as tobacco, lead, asbestos, DDT, Bisphenyl A, silica, vinyl chloride, PCBs, GMOs, pesticides in food, fracking, the neionicotinoid chemicals impacting bees." Go to: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/summary-and-audio/