LOOK at what our weapons have done to the innocent in our sick wars!
A Detailed Look At The Effects Of DU
16 March 2009
24 February 2009
Mobile Phones: Tomorrow Will Be Too Late
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/Pratical_Health_France_Dr_Paul_Dupont_Mobile_phones_15042008_Add_WHO_Repacholi.pdf
See also:
EMF-Omega-News 14. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5515485/
EMF-Omega-News 21. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5531617/
In spite of the dithering by the Ministry of Health and the delaying tactics of the phone operating companies, it is now becoming clear that the mobile phone is a virulent pathogen with damaging effects that we are only vaguely aware of. Recently it was scientifically proved that there is a connection between certain types of tumour and the intensive use of a mobile phone. Most in evidence are cases of acoustic neurinoma, a tumour that develops on the acoustic nerve, as well as malignant brain tumours. According to this study the risk is multiplied by two or more on the side where the phone is held. Are the health authorities worried about these results? Not in the least since, according to the official experts, the risk concerns only "intensive" phone users, and, as they add with a certain touch of cynicism, nothing proves that using a mobile phone always causes a tumour to develop. They are right, but when we know that a tumour usually takes 15-20 years to develop, it would seem logical to conclude that the appearance of tumours after 4-5 years in these intensive phone users is a sure sign of a health catastrophe to come in 10 years' time. 10 years! For those who have children, it's nothing, but for the people that sell telephones it must seem a long way off. The worst thing in this situation is that it is the younger generation that is the most in danger. It is children and teenagers who use mobile phones the most. And it is at precisely this age that the brain is the most exposed: in a child's brain almost two thirds of it are affected by the radiation while in the adult it reaches only one third of the brain, which is already far too much! Even more worrying, the radiation increases in intensity as reception becomes more difficult. So when you use the phone in a train or a car, or when you are in a zone with weaker coverage and the phone has to keep searching for new signals, the intensity of the microwaves is considerably higher. And with every day that passes we find more electromagnetic radiation in our daily surroundings: TV screens and computer monitors, cordless phones and wi-fi systems. All of which is horrifying. All this radiation is non-ionising, that's to say it is capable of upsetting the function of our cells, particularly in our DNA, and the functioning of our glands. Among these it is the pineal, the source of the sleep hormone and of the resistance to cancer, that is the most easily disturbed. We could weep over this tragedy that awaits us, which everyone sees coming and which nobody is doing anything about. But wait - there are millions of mobile phones in use nowadays. . And one day, for lack of the will to face up to this problem, we will inevitably be faced with a terrible choice: your mobile or your life! At that point we will have to give up this magic tool, resign ourselves to taking a step backwards, draw a line through all that it has brought us - will we dare? . It's at that moment that we'll see if humanity still has a will to live or not.
- Dr Paul Dupont
- Dr Paul Dupont
EMF-Omega-News 14. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5515485/
EMF-Omega-News 21. February 2009
http://omega.twoday.net/stories/5531617/
The Future Is Here, and It's Ugly; A Spreading Techno-blight of Wires, Cables and Towers Sparks a Revolt
More than 73,000 cell phone towers with heights of at least 200 feet are scattered across the American landscape, according to the Federal Communications Commission. But that does not include myriad other cellular transmitters and receivers, called cell sites, that are placed on lower towers or on poles and buildings. Some experts estimate that more than 100,000 cell sites are now in place. Ted Kreines, a consultant in Tiburon, Calif., who advises local governments on doing business with telecommunications companies, said that the growth of such technology is just beginning. He estimated that as many as one million cell sites would be installed by the time technology companies reached their desired capacity for wireless data and voice transmissions. Utility poles and wires are even more common. According to the F.C.C., more than 180 million telephone cables stretch across the country. The country has more than three million miles of overhead power lines, according to the Edison Electric Institute, an association of utility companies.
Warning Against Adverse Health Effects from the Operation of Digital Broadcast Television Stations (DVB-T)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/12548638/Warning-Against-Adverse-Health-Effects-From-the-Operation-of-Digital-Broadcast
In the US, digital broadcast television is scheduled to start operating on February 17, 2009. We write to you today because we wish to save you from the significant negative health consequences that have occurred here in Germany.In Germany, analog broadcast television stations have gradually been switching to digital broadcast signals since 2003. This switchover first took place in metropolitan areas. In those areas, however, the RF exposures in public places as well as at home continued to increase at the same time. As a result, the continuing declining health status of children, adolescents, and adults in urban areas could not be attributed to any single cause. On May 20, 2006, two digital broadcast television stations went on the air in the Hessian Rhoenarea (Heidelstein, Kreuzberg), which until recently had enjoyed rather low mobile phone radiation exposure levels. Within a radius of more than 20 km, the following symptoms that occurred abruptly were reported: constant headaches, pressure in the head, drowsiness, sleep problems, inability to think clearly,forgetfulness, nervous tensions, irritability, tightness in the chest, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, depressive mood, total apathy, loss of empathy, burning skin, inner burning, leg weakness, pain in the limbs, stabbing pain in various organs, weight increase. Birds had fled the area. Cats had turned phlegmatic and hardly ever went into the garden. One child committed suicide; a second child tried doing it. Over time the same unbearable symptoms showed up in other locations-most recently in Bamberg and Aschaffenburg on November 25, 2008. Physicians accompanied affected people to areas where there was no DVB-T reception (valleys, behind mountain ranges) and witnessed how these people became symptom-free only after a short period of time. (...) In Germany, DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial) uses Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex Modulation. The fundamental principle of this type of modulation works by spreading
the information across several thousand carrier frequencies directly adjacent to each other. A channel is 7.8 MHz wide. The amplitude also changes constantly. (...) In Germany, we see strong evidence of a direct temporal association between the start-up of terrestrial digital broadcast television and the occurrence of severe health symptoms. (...) Satellites and cable provide the US population with television services. By contrast, the risk associated with terrestrial digital broadcast television transmitters is unacceptable. We, therefore, ask you, dear Mr. President, who has the wellbeing of his citizens at heart, to stop the scheduled introduction of this new technology in the United States of America and to save the people from the negative health consequences that have occurred in our country. (Signed by 3 German physicians)
In the US, digital broadcast television is scheduled to start operating on February 17, 2009. We write to you today because we wish to save you from the significant negative health consequences that have occurred here in Germany.In Germany, analog broadcast television stations have gradually been switching to digital broadcast signals since 2003. This switchover first took place in metropolitan areas. In those areas, however, the RF exposures in public places as well as at home continued to increase at the same time. As a result, the continuing declining health status of children, adolescents, and adults in urban areas could not be attributed to any single cause. On May 20, 2006, two digital broadcast television stations went on the air in the Hessian Rhoenarea (Heidelstein, Kreuzberg), which until recently had enjoyed rather low mobile phone radiation exposure levels. Within a radius of more than 20 km, the following symptoms that occurred abruptly were reported: constant headaches, pressure in the head, drowsiness, sleep problems, inability to think clearly,forgetfulness, nervous tensions, irritability, tightness in the chest, rapid heartbeat, shortness of breath, depressive mood, total apathy, loss of empathy, burning skin, inner burning, leg weakness, pain in the limbs, stabbing pain in various organs, weight increase. Birds had fled the area. Cats had turned phlegmatic and hardly ever went into the garden. One child committed suicide; a second child tried doing it. Over time the same unbearable symptoms showed up in other locations-most recently in Bamberg and Aschaffenburg on November 25, 2008. Physicians accompanied affected people to areas where there was no DVB-T reception (valleys, behind mountain ranges) and witnessed how these people became symptom-free only after a short period of time. (...) In Germany, DVB-T (Digital Video Broadcasting Terrestrial) uses Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex Modulation. The fundamental principle of this type of modulation works by spreading
the information across several thousand carrier frequencies directly adjacent to each other. A channel is 7.8 MHz wide. The amplitude also changes constantly. (...) In Germany, we see strong evidence of a direct temporal association between the start-up of terrestrial digital broadcast television and the occurrence of severe health symptoms. (...) Satellites and cable provide the US population with television services. By contrast, the risk associated with terrestrial digital broadcast television transmitters is unacceptable. We, therefore, ask you, dear Mr. President, who has the wellbeing of his citizens at heart, to stop the scheduled introduction of this new technology in the United States of America and to save the people from the negative health consequences that have occurred in our country. (Signed by 3 German physicians)
20 February 2009
Global Nuclear Genocide of Indigenous - government liquidation strategy? It won't work!
MNN. Feb. 19, 2009. A sickening picture is shaping up. The evidence continues to mount like a smelly compost heap, except it has no organic value and it’s a serious threat to the generations to come. Who doesn’t know that radiation is deadly? Government and the nuclear industry keep lying to us! They deny the grisly effects such as cancer, birth defects and many environmental illnesses caused by radioactive toxins in our air, land and water.
The nuclear industry seized on the “peak oil” and “global warming” crisis which they created and turned it to their advantage. They call nuclear a “green”, “clean”, “renewable” resource because they can reuse the deadly waste to make nuclear weapons. They lump it under with wind and solar. The theme of the Canadian Nuclear Association CNA convention and trade show from February 25 to 27 at the Westin in Ottawa is “the reality of renaissance”. [Is that crazy or what?] Yes, they rely on our ignorance and naivety. Their philosophy is, “There’s a sucker born every minute” and let’s melt them down!
These transnational corporate psychopaths are anti-life. They want to build dozens of nuclear reactors all over the world in Indigenous communities along and dump the nuclear waste for us to “manage”!! We live in remote areas far from any place they would want to even visit. If the radiation doesn’t kill us, they can make nuclear weapons to finish us off. We are in the way for their attempted reckless pillage and plunder of Mother Earth.
These multinational thugs are fomenting war in the volatile tribal areas between India and Pakistan. Both countries are already armed with nuclear weapons. To make money and depopulate Asia both sides are being armed by the same interests. Canada is one.
India doesn’t produce uranium. They lease it from Russia. The highly radioactive and toxic spent fuel is sent back to Russia. If Canada sells more CANDU reactors to India, they want to supply the uranium fuel and then bring back the nuclear waste to make nuclear weapons. (See endnotes for profiteers).
Meanwhile, Canada helps set up private organizations as government fronts like CNA (Canadian Nuclear Association), NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) and CAP (Congress of Aboriginal People) and OMAA (Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association). The latter two are so-called “aboriginal” organizations. NWMO and CNA are funding the Assembly of First Nations, another government set up, and CAP to talk us into managing and storing nuclear fuel waste on our territories. Meetings have gone on for years to get Elders and “leaders” on side. Canada has even sent in Mother Joan Holmes to turn non-natives into “Indians” who can then sign away our inherent rights. Nuclear salesmen are courting “Aboriginal partners” to sign away our birthright and existence.
So-called 34-year old “aboriginal”, Patrick “Fabio-Wannabe” Brazeau, was recently appointed Senator by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen “Ford-Modelling-Agent” Harper. What was this all about? Brazeau’s rap sheet looks like the antithesis of anything anyone would want in the Senate. He was rewarded for fronting the phony CAP to try to destroy Indigenous nations and sovereignty.
CAP has arrangements with NRC (Natural Resources Canada) and NWMO to consider nuclear waste management on or near our communities. Brazeau proposed, “... the 633 native communities in Canada be reduced to between 60 and 80. The 10 Algonquin reserves in Quebec and Ontario, for example, would become one. Same for the Cree. The Mohawk. And so on”. The guy didn’t consult any of us or visit any of our communities. Now, if he has any sense, he’d be afraid to come. He wants to redirect the flow of nearly $10 billion in federal funding for “aboriginal” programs and services in Canada. He thinks we wont need it because we are going to liquidated. So he wants the money to go to the many “aboriginal” that he and Mother Jones have created.
NWMO wants to store nuclear waste in Indigenous communities in the Canadian Shield. Sites in NAN (Nishnaabe Aski Nation) in northern Ontario appear to be the most likely. Ben Cheechoo and other Indigenous started out defying the government and defending our people, culture and sovereignty. They were gradually worn down to accept this senseless destructive agenda that threatens all of the future generations on the whole earth. The FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council of Germany) was instrumental in Cheechoo’s conversion through agents like Russell Diabo and David Nahwehgabow. FSC is a private UN backed organization that is designed to issue permits allowing multinational companies to cut down old growth forests on Indigenous lands worldwide. It’s completely illegal!
A telling example of these “courtships” with the Indigenous is the recent attempted seduction of the Navaho. Areva, the French nuclear power company, took the council on a recent trip to Paris. Areva “owns” uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan. They want the Navaho to put a nuclear reactor and to do more uranium mining in their territory in the U.S. southwest.
The Navaho know about the devastation of uranium tailings. Most want nothing to do with nuclear development. The same is true of the Ojibwe, Cree and Metis who have been targeted in northern Canada. Nishnaabe are fully aware of and suffering from the ongoing poisoning at Blind River and the tons of nuclear waste at Elliot Lake.
Nuclear promoters like AECL (Atomic Energy Canada Ltd) and CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) will coo soothingly, in their brushed suits, carefully coiffed hair [if they have any] and manicured hands, “There’s no risk”. (See endnotes) They lie while people are slowly dying horrible deaths in communities like Chalk River and Port Hope near nuclear facilities.
How do we stop this madness? We all need the facts about these dirty deals and sinister schemes. We have to closely watch and loudly object to those people the government sets up to “represent” us.
We all have to drastically cut back on our materialistic lifestyle. Every household could be generating enough clean energy to power their own grid. We Indigenous understand this basic and practical way of taking only what we need and leaving little or no footprint.
The elders are concerned about the future based on our traditional knowledge. The youth are concerned with living with the legacy of nuclear waste disposal. Women are concerned with protecting the clean and safe water for all people and the environment as this is our traditional role. [See notes and links below].
Iakoha’ko:wa & MNN Staff Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com kittoh@storm.ca katenies20@yahoo.com kahentinetha2@yahoo.com Note: Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to “MNN Mohawk Nation News”, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Go to MNN “Canada” category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois
Notes, Sources and Contacts
In “Eaglefeather News” of Saskatchewan www.brucepower.com. Very misleading article. With all the sun, wind and low population, why would anyone want a nuclear reactor there?
Re CNSC and AECL: MNN spoke with Marc Drolet. Why is it the leaking NRU reactor still going? Marc passed the buck to AECL. CNSC told Parliamentarians on Feb 5 that there was no risk. He called it "concentration". The levels permitted in Canada is 100 times that allowed in Europe. He disagreed. We emailed him the link for Ace Hoffman's book. Later he email: "I suggest you formulate more precise questions to receive comments from our scientists. You mention tritium; and its long-term impact on infants and export-control issues related to some states that may want to use nuclear technology to less than peaceful ends. He said, “Our experts provide answers in plain English”. Marc Drolet, Public Affairs and Media Relations, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ottawa, Canada K1P 5S9, 613-947-0442, Blackberry 613-808-3134, Fax 613-992-2915
Sean Cotnam of AECL said: the reactor was running today and had been shut down last week for regular maintenance. When would it be shut down permanently? "It won't be shut down for a long time, ma'am". He said the information from the Uof Toronto professor saying that Canada's tritium level is 100 times that of Europe was incorrect. He said it is only 70 times that of Europe and 10 times that of the US!!! He is completely safe living on the Ottawa River and was not worried about his young children.
India and Pakistan each have about 30 nuclear warheads and have reached the brink of nuclear war before. India is buying plenty of military hardware. Pakistan is the #1 top recipient of US military aid in the world, receiving about $3.6 billion [New American Century] since 2006. They also receive aid from the World Bank to build dams and other infrastructure.
<http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_weapons_war_2008_0>
US Predator UAV's armed with Hellfire missiles have killed dozens of people in cross border forays into Pakistan from Afghanistan.
Profiteers in the global nuclear industry include: WorleyParsons Canada Ltd. Nuclear Energy, (905) 940-4770 8133 Warden Avenue, Markham, ON L8G 1B3 http://www.worleyparsons.com/GlobalPresence/Pages/default.aspx
Offices worldwide, including 4 in China and one in Canada. 28,000 employees in engineering and construction. Biggest in China. Ready to build "nuclear parks" deep in the mire of Athabasca oil sands. Their profits are up 50% over last year. OTHER SUCKS: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL),Organization of CANDU Industries, CAMECO Corporation, SNC Lavalin Nuclear, Bechtel, Canada China Power Inc., Areva of France, Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, Power Workers Union, GE-Hitachi, Hitachi, Comstock, Fox Constructors, Wardrop, The Society, AMEC, L-3Com, RCM Technologies, B&W, Black & McDonald, Power Train, Nuvia, NWMO, Hydro-Quebec, HSL, Aecon, Amidyne, CUSW, Industrial AUdit, McMaster University, UOIT (University of Ontario Industry Technology), IML, BPR, SWI.
* Canadian Nuclear Association Conference and Trade Show, February 25 -27, Westin Hotel, Ottawa.
http://www.cna.ca/english/index.asp Canadian Nuclear Association, 130 Albert Street, Suite 1610 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4, 613-237-4262 Fax: 613-237-0989
Contacts: http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/concon/concon-eng.php
Lisa Raitt, NR Min; MP Halton, (613) 996-2007 MINO/MINO Lisa.Raitt@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
(613) 996-7046 Fax: (613) 992-0851 EMail: Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca DM Deputy Minister Doyle, Cassie J. since June, 2006; (613) 992-3280 DMO/DMO CassieJ.Doyle@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca [also on board of directors at AECL]
Serge Dupont, Associate Deputy Minister, Natural Resources Canada (613) 996-9753 DMO/DMO Serge.Dupont@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
Min. Health Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Constituency: Nunavut, Telephone: (613) 992-2848 Fax: (613) 996-9764, Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca www.leonaaglukkaq.ca/EN/5215/
HEALTH [WHAT A CONTRADICTION]! Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Minister Health since December 2004. Deputy Minister Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada from July 1998 to December 2004. 1993 to 1996 Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Economic and Regional Development Policy, Privy Council Office. Deputy Minister's Office - Health Canada, Brooke Claxton Building, Tunney's Pasture, Postal Locator: 0906C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > K1A 0K9 Fax: (613) 952-1154 dm_sm@hc-sc.gc.ca
CRITICS OF AECL: Geoff Regan ReganG@parl.gc.ca, (613) 996-3085 Fax: (613) 996-6988,
John Gerretsen MPP Minister of the Environment <jgerretsen.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>,
George Smitherman MPP Energy & Infr. <gsmitherman.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>
CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC Chalk River Laboratories Site, Building 432 Chalk River, ON K0J 1J0, Telephone: 613-584-7743 Fax: 613-584-9077, interventions@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca; EA@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Marc Drolet, Public relations, 613 947-0442 <info@cnsc-ccsn.bc.ca>
AECL Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario Canada K0J 1J0, Phone: (613) 584-3311, Bill Pilkington, VP, talks to media Ext.#44429 (Sarah), Hugh MacDiarmid, Pres & CEO, Ext.#37330 (Helene)
Glenna Carr, Chair Board of Directors Ext.#37506 (Kimberly), Sean Cotnam, Public relations direct line: 613 584-8291
http://www.aecl.ca/Contact/Make_a_request_for_information.htm
http://www.aecl.ca/site3.aspx Public Requests for Information Toll free: 1-866-513-AECL (2325)
Media Enquiries Toll free: 1-866-886-2325 Community Enquiries Toll free: 1-800-364-6989
Some Canadian politicians including senators: NOTE: No email or photo is available for "Senator Brazeau". 613-947-4231 Fax: 613-947-4228, He is current Member of the following Senate committee(s): Aboriginal Peoples, Human Rights.
http://www.nan.on.ca/article/nan-staff-163.asp
NAN. sbeardy@nan.on.ca, twaboose@nan.on.ca, roseanne@nan.on.ca, afiddler@nan.on.ca, dfletcher@nan.on.ca, dkiecman@nan.on.ca, jshewaybick@nan.on.ca, fmckenzie@nan.on.ca, bnothing@nan.on.ca, gsmith@nan.on.ca, jhunter@nan.on.ca, acrozier@nan.on.ca, mheintzman@nan.on.ca, jnelson@nan.on.ca, ibeardy@nan.on.ca, pdesmoul@nan.on.ca, jforneri@nan.on.ca, pfayrick@nan.on.ca, jthompson@nan.on.ca, eachneep@nan.on.ca, nan@nan.on.ca, caudet@nan.on.ca, twilson@nan.on.ca, rmetlin@nan.on.ca, bmaloney@nan.on.ca, mgoodchild@nan.on.ca, wcaruk@nan.on.ca, lwabasse@nan.on.ca, sperrault@nan.on.ca, sbarkman@nan.on.ca, sbrown@nan.on.ca, cfox@nan.on.ca, cmackay@nan.on.ca, sachneep@nan.on.ca, bmainville@nan.on.ca, klcheechoo@nan.on.ca, amurphy@nan.on.ca, wtrylins@nan.on.ca, jcheechoo@nan.on.ca, gmedicin@nan.on.ca, kadcock@nan.on.ca, lbaxter@nan.on.ca, dsimon@nan.on.ca, csimard@nan.on.ca, ehanson@nan.on.ca, jalto@nan.on.ca, bwheesk@nan.on.ca, rmamakwa@nan.on.ca, dfrenett@nan.on.ca, blouttit@nan.on.ca, lhunter@nan.on.ca, jwheesk@nan.on.ca, bencheechoo@nan.on.ca, msault@nan.on.ca, ljeffries@nan.on.ca, staylor@nan.on.ca, lbiggeorge@nan.on.ca,
OTTAWA DOUCHE BAGS: Reid.S@parl.gc.ca, Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca, Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca, Day.S@parl.gc.ca,VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca, McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, ReganG@parl.gc.ca, Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca, Easter.W@parl.gc.ca, Szabo.P@parl.gc.ca, Baird.J@parl.gc.ca, Clement.T@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca, donna.dillman@greenparty.ca, Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca, Sorenson.K@parl.gc.ca, Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca, FAAE@parl.gc.ca, Patry.B@parl.gc.ca, ThibaLo@parl.gc.ca, ChongM@parl.gc.ca, TrostB@parl.gc.ca, BigraB@parl.gc.ca, CardiS@parl.gc.ca, LafraM@parl.gc.ca, CulleN@parl.gc.ca, GallaC@parl.gc.ca, HawnL@parl.gc.ca, McTeaD@parl.gc.ca, AlghaO@parl.gc.ca, AnderDa@parl.gc.ca, BevinD@parl.gc.ca, DebelC@parl.gc.ca, OuellCh@parl.gc.ca, CrowdJ@parl.gc.ca, ChowO@parl.gc.ca, LunnG@parl.gc.ca, BerniM@parl.gc.ca, StrahC@parl.gc.ca, MilliP@parl.gc.ca, Hill.J@parl.gc.ca, MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca, Kramp.D@parl.gc.ca, Brown.G@parl.gc.ca, DelMastro.D@parl.gc.ca, Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca, Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca, DionS@parl.gc.ca, Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca, OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca, Atamaa1@parl.gc.ca, blackd@parl.gc.ca,Black.D@parl.gc.ca, Ambrose.R@parl.gc.ca, Toews.V@parl.gc.ca, Blackburn.J@parl.gc.ca, Paradis.C@parl.gc.ca, Moore.J@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, Barbot.V@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, BlackJ@parl.gc.ca,
dmcquinty.mpp@liberal.ola.org, john.bennett@greenparty.ca, randy@ruralrevolution.com, info@randyhillier.com, holland.m@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, john.yakabuskico@pc.ola.org, jim.wilsonco@pc.ola.org, tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org, hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca, pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca, gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org, dramsay.mpp@liberal.ola.org, gilles@gillesbisson.com, mbryant.mpp@liberal.ola.org, leader@greenparty.ca, info@greenparty.ca, rlm@xplornet.com, lorraine.rekmans@greenparty.ca, jwarnock@ontarioeast.net, doherty@kos.net, hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca, norm.sterlingco@pc.ola.org, president@lisamacleod.ca, ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca, joyce.savoline@pc.ola.org, dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org, tabunsp-qp@ndp.on.ca, laurie.scott@pc.ola.org, robert.runcimanco@pc.ola.org, brad.duguid@liberal.ola.org, rbartolucci.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, toby.barrett@pc.ola.org, donna.cansfield@liberal.ola.org, michael.gravelle@liberal.ola.org, dave.levac@liberal.ola.org, garfield.dunlop@pc.ola.org, gilles.bisson@ndp.ola.org, jeff.leal@liberal.ola.org, brad.duguid@liberal.ola.org; norm.miller@pc.ola.org; peter.kormos@ndp.ola.org; Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca, brianmitchell@conservative.ca, brucemclaughlin@conservative.ca, ceciltaylor@conservative.ca, DonPlett@conservative.ca, gilleslavoie@conservative.ca, gordelliott@conservative.ca, jeanleblanc@conservative.ca, karajohnson@conservative.ca, liamobrien@conservative.ca, loisbrown@conservative.ca, mennofroese@conservative.ca, michaelmacdonald@conservative.ca, rayleitch@conservative.ca, richardciano@conservative.ca, sammagnus@conservative.ca, stephanedesilets@conservative.ca, susanmcarthur@conservative.ca, victormarciano@conservative.ca, ericw@kingstongreens.ca, morganw@kingstongreens.ca, Julian.P@parl.gc.ca, GreenLight1@kingstongreens.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, carsts@sen.parl.gc.ca, rattel@sen.parl.gc.ca, cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, lachah@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca; CassieJ.Doyle@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca; Lisa.Raitt@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca; Serge.Dupont@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca; Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca; Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca; dm_sm@hc-sc.gc.ca
MNN. Feb. 19, 2009. A sickening picture is shaping up. The evidence continues to mount like a smelly compost heap, except it has no organic value and it’s a serious threat to the generations to come. Who doesn’t know that radiation is deadly? Government and the nuclear industry keep lying to us! They deny the grisly effects such as cancer, birth defects and many environmental illnesses caused by radioactive toxins in our air, land and water.
The nuclear industry seized on the “peak oil” and “global warming” crisis which they created and turned it to their advantage. They call nuclear a “green”, “clean”, “renewable” resource because they can reuse the deadly waste to make nuclear weapons. They lump it under with wind and solar. The theme of the Canadian Nuclear Association CNA convention and trade show from February 25 to 27 at the Westin in Ottawa is “the reality of renaissance”. [Is that crazy or what?] Yes, they rely on our ignorance and naivety. Their philosophy is, “There’s a sucker born every minute” and let’s melt them down!
These transnational corporate psychopaths are anti-life. They want to build dozens of nuclear reactors all over the world in Indigenous communities along and dump the nuclear waste for us to “manage”!! We live in remote areas far from any place they would want to even visit. If the radiation doesn’t kill us, they can make nuclear weapons to finish us off. We are in the way for their attempted reckless pillage and plunder of Mother Earth.
These multinational thugs are fomenting war in the volatile tribal areas between India and Pakistan. Both countries are already armed with nuclear weapons. To make money and depopulate Asia both sides are being armed by the same interests. Canada is one.
India doesn’t produce uranium. They lease it from Russia. The highly radioactive and toxic spent fuel is sent back to Russia. If Canada sells more CANDU reactors to India, they want to supply the uranium fuel and then bring back the nuclear waste to make nuclear weapons. (See endnotes for profiteers).
Meanwhile, Canada helps set up private organizations as government fronts like CNA (Canadian Nuclear Association), NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) and CAP (Congress of Aboriginal People) and OMAA (Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association). The latter two are so-called “aboriginal” organizations. NWMO and CNA are funding the Assembly of First Nations, another government set up, and CAP to talk us into managing and storing nuclear fuel waste on our territories. Meetings have gone on for years to get Elders and “leaders” on side. Canada has even sent in Mother Joan Holmes to turn non-natives into “Indians” who can then sign away our inherent rights. Nuclear salesmen are courting “Aboriginal partners” to sign away our birthright and existence.
So-called 34-year old “aboriginal”, Patrick “Fabio-Wannabe” Brazeau, was recently appointed Senator by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen “Ford-Modelling-Agent” Harper. What was this all about? Brazeau’s rap sheet looks like the antithesis of anything anyone would want in the Senate. He was rewarded for fronting the phony CAP to try to destroy Indigenous nations and sovereignty.
CAP has arrangements with NRC (Natural Resources Canada) and NWMO to consider nuclear waste management on or near our communities. Brazeau proposed, “... the 633 native communities in Canada be reduced to between 60 and 80. The 10 Algonquin reserves in Quebec and Ontario, for example, would become one. Same for the Cree. The Mohawk. And so on”. The guy didn’t consult any of us or visit any of our communities. Now, if he has any sense, he’d be afraid to come. He wants to redirect the flow of nearly $10 billion in federal funding for “aboriginal” programs and services in Canada. He thinks we wont need it because we are going to liquidated. So he wants the money to go to the many “aboriginal” that he and Mother Jones have created.
NWMO wants to store nuclear waste in Indigenous communities in the Canadian Shield. Sites in NAN (Nishnaabe Aski Nation) in northern Ontario appear to be the most likely. Ben Cheechoo and other Indigenous started out defying the government and defending our people, culture and sovereignty. They were gradually worn down to accept this senseless destructive agenda that threatens all of the future generations on the whole earth. The FSC (Forestry Stewardship Council of Germany) was instrumental in Cheechoo’s conversion through agents like Russell Diabo and David Nahwehgabow. FSC is a private UN backed organization that is designed to issue permits allowing multinational companies to cut down old growth forests on Indigenous lands worldwide. It’s completely illegal!
A telling example of these “courtships” with the Indigenous is the recent attempted seduction of the Navaho. Areva, the French nuclear power company, took the council on a recent trip to Paris. Areva “owns” uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan. They want the Navaho to put a nuclear reactor and to do more uranium mining in their territory in the U.S. southwest.
The Navaho know about the devastation of uranium tailings. Most want nothing to do with nuclear development. The same is true of the Ojibwe, Cree and Metis who have been targeted in northern Canada. Nishnaabe are fully aware of and suffering from the ongoing poisoning at Blind River and the tons of nuclear waste at Elliot Lake.
Nuclear promoters like AECL (Atomic Energy Canada Ltd) and CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) will coo soothingly, in their brushed suits, carefully coiffed hair [if they have any] and manicured hands, “There’s no risk”. (See endnotes) They lie while people are slowly dying horrible deaths in communities like Chalk River and Port Hope near nuclear facilities.
How do we stop this madness? We all need the facts about these dirty deals and sinister schemes. We have to closely watch and loudly object to those people the government sets up to “represent” us.
We all have to drastically cut back on our materialistic lifestyle. Every household could be generating enough clean energy to power their own grid. We Indigenous understand this basic and practical way of taking only what we need and leaving little or no footprint.
The elders are concerned about the future based on our traditional knowledge. The youth are concerned with living with the legacy of nuclear waste disposal. Women are concerned with protecting the clean and safe water for all people and the environment as this is our traditional role. [See notes and links below].
Iakoha’ko:wa & MNN Staff Mohawk Nation News www.mohawknationnews.com kittoh@storm.ca katenies20@yahoo.com kahentinetha2@yahoo.com Note: Your financial help is needed and appreciated. Please send your donations to PayPal at www.mohawknationnews.com, or by check or money order to “MNN Mohawk Nation News”, Box 991, Kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0. Nia:wen thank you very much. Go to MNN “Canada” category for more stories; New MNN Books Available now! Purchase t-shirts, mugs and more at our CafePressStore http://www.cafepress.com/mohawknews; Subscribe to MNN for breaking news updates http://.mohawknationnews.com/news/subscription.php; Sign Women Title Holders petition! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Iroquois
Notes, Sources and Contacts
In “Eaglefeather News” of Saskatchewan www.brucepower.com. Very misleading article. With all the sun, wind and low population, why would anyone want a nuclear reactor there?
Re CNSC and AECL: MNN spoke with Marc Drolet. Why is it the leaking NRU reactor still going? Marc passed the buck to AECL. CNSC told Parliamentarians on Feb 5 that there was no risk. He called it "concentration". The levels permitted in Canada is 100 times that allowed in Europe. He disagreed. We emailed him the link for Ace Hoffman's book. Later he email: "I suggest you formulate more precise questions to receive comments from our scientists. You mention tritium; and its long-term impact on infants and export-control issues related to some states that may want to use nuclear technology to less than peaceful ends. He said, “Our experts provide answers in plain English”. Marc Drolet, Public Affairs and Media Relations, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ottawa, Canada K1P 5S9, 613-947-0442, Blackberry 613-808-3134, Fax 613-992-2915
Sean Cotnam of AECL said: the reactor was running today and had been shut down last week for regular maintenance. When would it be shut down permanently? "It won't be shut down for a long time, ma'am". He said the information from the Uof Toronto professor saying that Canada's tritium level is 100 times that of Europe was incorrect. He said it is only 70 times that of Europe and 10 times that of the US!!! He is completely safe living on the Ottawa River and was not worried about his young children.
India and Pakistan each have about 30 nuclear warheads and have reached the brink of nuclear war before. India is buying plenty of military hardware. Pakistan is the #1 top recipient of US military aid in the world, receiving about $3.6 billion [New American Century] since 2006. They also receive aid from the World Bank to build dams and other infrastructure.
<http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/u_s_weapons_war_2008_0>
US Predator UAV's armed with Hellfire missiles have killed dozens of people in cross border forays into Pakistan from Afghanistan.
Profiteers in the global nuclear industry include: WorleyParsons Canada Ltd. Nuclear Energy, (905) 940-4770 8133 Warden Avenue, Markham, ON L8G 1B3 http://www.worleyparsons.com/GlobalPresence/Pages/default.aspx
Offices worldwide, including 4 in China and one in Canada. 28,000 employees in engineering and construction. Biggest in China. Ready to build "nuclear parks" deep in the mire of Athabasca oil sands. Their profits are up 50% over last year. OTHER SUCKS: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL),Organization of CANDU Industries, CAMECO Corporation, SNC Lavalin Nuclear, Bechtel, Canada China Power Inc., Areva of France, Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power, Power Workers Union, GE-Hitachi, Hitachi, Comstock, Fox Constructors, Wardrop, The Society, AMEC, L-3Com, RCM Technologies, B&W, Black & McDonald, Power Train, Nuvia, NWMO, Hydro-Quebec, HSL, Aecon, Amidyne, CUSW, Industrial AUdit, McMaster University, UOIT (University of Ontario Industry Technology), IML, BPR, SWI.
* Canadian Nuclear Association Conference and Trade Show, February 25 -27, Westin Hotel, Ottawa.
http://www.cna.ca/english/index.asp Canadian Nuclear Association, 130 Albert Street, Suite 1610 Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4, 613-237-4262 Fax: 613-237-0989
Contacts: http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/com/concon/concon-eng.php
Lisa Raitt, NR Min; MP Halton, (613) 996-2007 MINO/MINO Lisa.Raitt@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
(613) 996-7046 Fax: (613) 992-0851 EMail: Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca DM Deputy Minister Doyle, Cassie J. since June, 2006; (613) 992-3280 DMO/DMO CassieJ.Doyle@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca [also on board of directors at AECL]
Serge Dupont, Associate Deputy Minister, Natural Resources Canada (613) 996-9753 DMO/DMO Serge.Dupont@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca
Min. Health Leona Aglukkaq Conservative Constituency: Nunavut, Telephone: (613) 992-2848 Fax: (613) 996-9764, Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca www.leonaaglukkaq.ca/EN/5215/
HEALTH [WHAT A CONTRADICTION]! Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Minister Health since December 2004. Deputy Minister Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada from July 1998 to December 2004. 1993 to 1996 Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Economic and Regional Development Policy, Privy Council Office. Deputy Minister's Office - Health Canada, Brooke Claxton Building, Tunney's Pasture, Postal Locator: 0906C, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada > K1A 0K9 Fax: (613) 952-1154 dm_sm@hc-sc.gc.ca
CRITICS OF AECL: Geoff Regan ReganG@parl.gc.ca, (613) 996-3085 Fax: (613) 996-6988,
John Gerretsen MPP Minister of the Environment <jgerretsen.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>,
George Smitherman MPP Energy & Infr. <gsmitherman.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>
CNSC Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNSC Chalk River Laboratories Site, Building 432 Chalk River, ON K0J 1J0, Telephone: 613-584-7743 Fax: 613-584-9077, interventions@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca; EA@cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca Marc Drolet, Public relations, 613 947-0442 <info@cnsc-ccsn.bc.ca>
AECL Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario Canada K0J 1J0, Phone: (613) 584-3311, Bill Pilkington, VP, talks to media Ext.#44429 (Sarah), Hugh MacDiarmid, Pres & CEO, Ext.#37330 (Helene)
Glenna Carr, Chair Board of Directors Ext.#37506 (Kimberly), Sean Cotnam, Public relations direct line: 613 584-8291
http://www.aecl.ca/Contact/Make_a_request_for_information.htm
http://www.aecl.ca/site3.aspx Public Requests for Information Toll free: 1-866-513-AECL (2325)
Media Enquiries Toll free: 1-866-886-2325 Community Enquiries Toll free: 1-800-364-6989
Some Canadian politicians including senators: NOTE: No email or photo is available for "Senator Brazeau". 613-947-4231 Fax: 613-947-4228, He is current Member of the following Senate committee(s): Aboriginal Peoples, Human Rights.
http://www.nan.on.ca/article/nan-staff-163.asp
NAN. sbeardy@nan.on.ca, twaboose@nan.on.ca, roseanne@nan.on.ca, afiddler@nan.on.ca, dfletcher@nan.on.ca, dkiecman@nan.on.ca, jshewaybick@nan.on.ca, fmckenzie@nan.on.ca, bnothing@nan.on.ca, gsmith@nan.on.ca, jhunter@nan.on.ca, acrozier@nan.on.ca, mheintzman@nan.on.ca, jnelson@nan.on.ca, ibeardy@nan.on.ca, pdesmoul@nan.on.ca, jforneri@nan.on.ca, pfayrick@nan.on.ca, jthompson@nan.on.ca, eachneep@nan.on.ca, nan@nan.on.ca, caudet@nan.on.ca, twilson@nan.on.ca, rmetlin@nan.on.ca, bmaloney@nan.on.ca, mgoodchild@nan.on.ca, wcaruk@nan.on.ca, lwabasse@nan.on.ca, sperrault@nan.on.ca, sbarkman@nan.on.ca, sbrown@nan.on.ca, cfox@nan.on.ca, cmackay@nan.on.ca, sachneep@nan.on.ca, bmainville@nan.on.ca, klcheechoo@nan.on.ca, amurphy@nan.on.ca, wtrylins@nan.on.ca, jcheechoo@nan.on.ca, gmedicin@nan.on.ca, kadcock@nan.on.ca, lbaxter@nan.on.ca, dsimon@nan.on.ca, csimard@nan.on.ca, ehanson@nan.on.ca, jalto@nan.on.ca, bwheesk@nan.on.ca, rmamakwa@nan.on.ca, dfrenett@nan.on.ca, blouttit@nan.on.ca, lhunter@nan.on.ca, jwheesk@nan.on.ca, bencheechoo@nan.on.ca, msault@nan.on.ca, ljeffries@nan.on.ca, staylor@nan.on.ca, lbiggeorge@nan.on.ca,
OTTAWA DOUCHE BAGS: Reid.S@parl.gc.ca, Harper.S@parl.gc.ca, Nicholson.R@parl.gc.ca, Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca, Day.S@parl.gc.ca,VanLoan.P@parl.gc.ca, McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, ReganG@parl.gc.ca, Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca, Easter.W@parl.gc.ca, Szabo.P@parl.gc.ca, Baird.J@parl.gc.ca, Clement.T@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca, donna.dillman@greenparty.ca, Cannon.L@parl.gc.ca, Sorenson.K@parl.gc.ca, Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca, FAAE@parl.gc.ca, Patry.B@parl.gc.ca, ThibaLo@parl.gc.ca, ChongM@parl.gc.ca, TrostB@parl.gc.ca, BigraB@parl.gc.ca, CardiS@parl.gc.ca, LafraM@parl.gc.ca, CulleN@parl.gc.ca, GallaC@parl.gc.ca, HawnL@parl.gc.ca, McTeaD@parl.gc.ca, AlghaO@parl.gc.ca, AnderDa@parl.gc.ca, BevinD@parl.gc.ca, DebelC@parl.gc.ca, OuellCh@parl.gc.ca, CrowdJ@parl.gc.ca, ChowO@parl.gc.ca, LunnG@parl.gc.ca, BerniM@parl.gc.ca, StrahC@parl.gc.ca, MilliP@parl.gc.ca, Hill.J@parl.gc.ca, MacKay.P@parl.gc.ca, Kramp.D@parl.gc.ca, Brown.G@parl.gc.ca, DelMastro.D@parl.gc.ca, Dewar.P@parl.gc.ca, Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca, DionS@parl.gc.ca, Comartin.J@parl.gc.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca, OConnor.G@parl.gc.ca, Atamaa1@parl.gc.ca, blackd@parl.gc.ca,Black.D@parl.gc.ca, Ambrose.R@parl.gc.ca, Toews.V@parl.gc.ca, Blackburn.J@parl.gc.ca, Paradis.C@parl.gc.ca, Moore.J@parl.gc.ca, Mulcair.T@parl.gc.ca, Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, Barbot.V@parl.gc.ca, Layton.J@parl.gc.ca, BlackJ@parl.gc.ca,
dmcquinty.mpp@liberal.ola.org, john.bennett@greenparty.ca, randy@ruralrevolution.com, info@randyhillier.com, holland.m@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, john.yakabuskico@pc.ola.org, jim.wilsonco@pc.ola.org, tim.hudakco@pc.ola.org, hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca, pkormos-qp@ndp.on.ca, gphillips.mpp@liberal.ola.org, dramsay.mpp@liberal.ola.org, gilles@gillesbisson.com, mbryant.mpp@liberal.ola.org, leader@greenparty.ca, info@greenparty.ca, rlm@xplornet.com, lorraine.rekmans@greenparty.ca, jwarnock@ontarioeast.net, doherty@kos.net, hhampton-qp@ndp.on.ca, norm.sterlingco@pc.ola.org, president@lisamacleod.ca, ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca, joyce.savoline@pc.ola.org, dzimmer.mpp@liberal.ola.org, tabunsp-qp@ndp.on.ca, laurie.scott@pc.ola.org, robert.runcimanco@pc.ola.org, brad.duguid@liberal.ola.org, rbartolucci.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org, toby.barrett@pc.ola.org, donna.cansfield@liberal.ola.org, michael.gravelle@liberal.ola.org, dave.levac@liberal.ola.org, garfield.dunlop@pc.ola.org, gilles.bisson@ndp.ola.org, jeff.leal@liberal.ola.org, brad.duguid@liberal.ola.org; norm.miller@pc.ola.org; peter.kormos@ndp.ola.org; Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca, brianmitchell@conservative.ca, brucemclaughlin@conservative.ca, ceciltaylor@conservative.ca, DonPlett@conservative.ca, gilleslavoie@conservative.ca, gordelliott@conservative.ca, jeanleblanc@conservative.ca, karajohnson@conservative.ca, liamobrien@conservative.ca, loisbrown@conservative.ca, mennofroese@conservative.ca, michaelmacdonald@conservative.ca, rayleitch@conservative.ca, richardciano@conservative.ca, sammagnus@conservative.ca, stephanedesilets@conservative.ca, susanmcarthur@conservative.ca, victormarciano@conservative.ca, ericw@kingstongreens.ca, morganw@kingstongreens.ca, Julian.P@parl.gc.ca, GreenLight1@kingstongreens.ca, andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca, bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca, carsts@sen.parl.gc.ca, rattel@sen.parl.gc.ca, cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca, zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca, tkachd@sen.parl.gc.ca, smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca, kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca, poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca, lachah@sen.parl.gc.ca, munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca, mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca; CassieJ.Doyle@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca; Lisa.Raitt@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca; Serge.Dupont@NRCan-RNCan.gc.ca; Raitt.L@parl.gc.ca; Aglukkaq.L@parl.gc.ca; dm_sm@hc-sc.gc.ca
24 September 2008
IS WI-FI PUTTING OUR
CHILDREN IN DANGER?
Adults may be safe, but what are the effects on youngsters exposed to radiation?
Tuesday September 16,2008
WITH wireless internet and mobile phones now in constant use in our schools and homes, TESSA THOMAS asks if youngsters are being exposed to hazardously high levels of radiation.
When Leah Homan is anywhere near a phone mast, her body alerts her – even before the mast comes into view.
“I get a sort of tingling and dizziness and sometimes a headache and then I know there’s one not far away.”
Leah, 12, is sensitive to the radiation from masts and other mobile telecommunications equipment. When she was two, a tumour was found around one of her kidneys. Fortunately it was discovered in time and removed.
Her mother Jackie feared that a phone mast close to their home in Sefton, Liverpool, may have been to blame, although this cannot be proven.
Even though Leah made a full recovery, as a toddler she was restless and later had difficulty sleeping and concentrating at primary school, where she needed extra help to compensate for her attention problems.
She still suffers intermittent insomnia, brain fog, headaches and the familiar tingling, which is worse when she’s near a computer and the wireless router is on.
In a world where most people are now close to a mobile mast or wi-fi network and live normal lives, such a reaction seems surprising. But more children are becoming sensitive to electromagnetic emissions from telecoms equipment.
And the number is set to increase inexorably, says pathologist Dr George Carlo of the Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington, who spoke at a recent Radiation Research Trust conference
Information carrying radio waves are everywhere – from wireless computers, cordless phones, mobile phones and masts. At least half of all primary schools and three-quarters of secondary schools in the UK now have wi-fi.
According to Dr Carlo, mobile telecommunications were launched without enough research to assess the risks to health and with little awareness of the extent to which children would be using the technology.
There are guidelines for safe exposure to emissions, implemented in the UK through the Health Protection Agency (HPA), but there are several problems. First, they take into account only the risk of damage caused by the body being heated up by the emissions. By contrast, the effects may be deep inside the tissue and cannot be felt.
Second, their upper “safe” limit is considerably higher than that in several other countries – 10 times as high as in Russia.
Also, the limits were based on the effect on a healthy adult of a half-hour exposure. Children not only spend much longer than anyone anticipated in front of laptops or with a mobile glued to their ear but have a different biological make-up that makes them more vulnerable.
“They have thinner skulls so the radio waves can penetrate more readily,” explains Dr Carlo. “A greater percentage of their bodies are water and they have a higher proportion of ions in their interstitial fluids, both of which increase absorption of radio waves. Also, their cells are dividing, making them more vulnerable to genetic damage.”
Symptoms include fatigue, sleep problems, tingling, neck pain, dizziness, headaches and nausea. Sceptics say there is no proof and these complaints could have many causes.
One study, reported in the British Medical Journal in 2006, concluded that electromagnetic sensitivity could be psychological. James Rubin and his team at the Institute of Psychiatry found that when people who said they were sensitive to radio waves were tested with real or sham waves, they were as likely to say that the dummy waves caused a headache.
“It doesn’t mean that their headaches were any less real but it did mean that they weren’t directly connected with the assumed cause,” says Rubin.
However, it is worth noting that the study was partly funded by mobile phone companies. A lot of the other symptoms of electromagnetic sensitivity – digestive problems, depression, memory loss – have a compound effect. This means that the longer the exposure goes on, the worse the problems are likely to get. “No one has any idea what chronic long-term exposure will do to children,” says Dr Carlo.
Some schools have decided against taking any risk and removed their wireless networks. The head of Ballinderry Primary School in Lisburn, Northern Ireland, Ian Thomson, announced recently that “the advantages of wi-fi seemed to be outweighed by the risks”, so he discontinued it.
What is worrying, says Dr Michael Kundi, head of environmental health at Vienna University, is that while children are more vulnerable than adults, there is no official threshold for emissions indoors – which is where youngsters are most often in the line of fire.
“Wi-fi may be limited in its power but that doesn’t mean it is safe for children. We have no evidence of that yet,” he says, adding that there are ways to configure networks in the classroom to limit emissions but few teachers know about them.
Although other countries – including Israel and Italy – are adopting lower exposure limits, the HPA says there is still insufficient evidence to issue separate guidelines for children.
23 September 2008
McGuinty faces major challenges: Star editorial
The Ontario Legislature resumes sitting today after a three-month recess. In the coming days, its order paper will be filled with earnest legislation like amendments to the Mining Act (to give First Nations more of a say in prospecting and mining on their traditional lands), a measure to limit toxic emissions by industries, and a ban on the use of hand-held cellphones by motorists.
There will also be an economic statement, likely in November, with some short-term fixes for the ailing provincial economy.
And in the daily question period in the Legislature, Premier Dalton McGuinty's government will come under attack for not doing enough to address the economic slump.
But McGuinty should be able to withstand the barrage, given the weakened state of the opposition, with one lame-duck leader (the NDP's Howard Hampton, who is stepping down next year) and the other on probation (the PC's John Tory, who was given a tepid endorsement by his party earlier this year).
Behind the scenes, however, McGuinty will be wrestling with two enormous decisions that will shape the province's future.
The first is whether to keep the budget balanced or to let it slide into deficit if, as expected, the current economic slump continues and significantly erodes the provincial revenue base.
The second is what kind of reactor to choose to replace the aging nuclear power plants at Pickering and Darlington.
On the deficit, even bank economists have said that, given the circumstances, it ought to be under consideration. But so far McGuinty has stuck doggedly to the goal of a balanced budget.
"Obviously if we anticipate that our revenues are going to slow down, as I've said many times in the past, we're going to have to do in government what families do at home," said McGuinty last week. "You've got to make some adjustments and you've got to make sure you're focusing on your priorities."
Thus, with one eye on the fiscal storm clouds, McGuinty has sought to dampen expectations of government assistance. He told municipalities last month not to expect instant relief from the downloading of provincial services onto their plates. And last week he suggested the timetable for his promise to reduce poverty will have to be stretched out.
So no new spending initiatives. But even existing spending – on schools, hospitals, roads, transit, courts, jails and so on – will come under pressure if the recession deepens and the treasury is further squeezed. It remains to be seen whether McGuinty's commitment to a balanced budget is sustainable in that circumstance.
As for the decision on a new nuclear reactor, in hot competition for the multi-billion-dollar contract are: Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), the homegrown company whose design is now in place in the province's power plants; French-owned Areva; and U.S.-based Westinghouse.
The McGuinty government would like to give the nod to AECL, which is owned by the federal government. But Ontario wants Ottawa to back up any sale with guarantees to cover cost overruns. So far, those guarantees have not been forthcoming, as Stephen Harper's government has wrestled with its own decision whether to keep AECL or sell it.
Both these decisions are due to be made next spring (the deficit in the annual provincial budget, the reactor likely in a separate announcement). The behind-the-scenes struggles that precede the decisions will be more ferocious – and hugely more significant – than the daily battles on the floor of the Legislature between the government and the opposition parties.
Comments
Comments
Major Challenge is getting rid of McGuinty
At what point will Ontarions ever get choices for good government? The current system is only about getting votes and not doing anything that benefits us. Mr. McGuinty was a reckless promiser in opposition and his party had even tried to get rid of him. He has been elected by playing the game (twice now) with no real strategic plan. You got wonder at a guy who now wants to use a web based petition when many such as tax payers association, support for parents of autistic children and even the small business association have used similar tactics with him with absolutely zero positive results. Can you say PR?
Posted by Ignorance is Bliss
don't bite the hand...
McGuinty never thought about how he's going to pay for all his massive increases in civil servants and their salaries. A strong public sector always requires a strong private sector. Someone has to pay the bills.
Posted by scamper
Grow up and govern
Have you received your property assessment yet? Lets see some real leadership and halt this annual insanity courtesy of MPAC. Mr. McGuinty road the coattails of fear in the '07 election on the religious schooling issue. It was a non starter. Mr. Tory could have OVERNIGHT turned this entire platform 180 degrees by promising a total revamp of this insane, bully pulpit tax grab. He didn't. Where were the NDP and Howard Hampton? If they raised this issue , they allowed it to be muted. The middle class is being fleeced and all the while wooed with empty promises in this campaign. WAKE UP
Posted by Steve Canyon
Really?
Sure, lets bring more competition to the provision of hydro power. Remember when Mr. Eaves let the rates for electricity float after full deregulation, and everyone hand to pay market price? The government had to step in again to prevent the public outcry from becoming riots in the streets. If we are already so incensed by the collusion of the oil conglomerates, how will it be when the electricity generators and distributors do the same thing? But by all means, Mr. Jones, lets have more competition.
Posted by sobersecondthought
Econimic denials and foolishness
McGullible was too busy boasting of irrelevant issues like banning smoking and pitbulls - the real easy stuff - how proactive. Mr Flaherty urged McG to start cutting taxes across the board, including the health tax. Instead, McG sulked and felt he was victimised - now, Ontario is in a recession and all he can do is give the doctors a big raise and shuffle the cabinet - liberals are all alike - why face reality when you can blame your foolhardyness on someone else.
Posted by freebel
Cost Over Runs
Let's end the old boys club once and for all. Ontario is shy on competition: there's very very little in hydro and very very very very little in education. This results in complacency, lack of accountability, mediocrity, and inefficiency. As Bob Rae said, " We can do better" Ontario would thrive with an injection of competition into it's highly protected socialized public work force.
Posted by Templeton Jones
No Short Term Fixes
The crisis in manufacturing has been brewing for a long time. Expect to see many more small companies in Ontario close. In the globalized economy, consolidation is a critical trend. Mass is king. Our cpompanies are typically one tenth the size of American companies. Guess who closes first when the market contracts?
Posted by Herschell Hollywood
06 August 2008
"A Matter of Integrity": Dr. Doug Rokke
"A Matter of Integrity"
| War must be considered obsolete. Officials refuse to comply with regulations. Citizens of the world must speak out. The human cost is increasing. Our leaders have abandoned our nation's and the world's citizens. |
A matter of integrity by Doug Rokke, PhD "YOU ARE GOING TO WAR" - those words echoed through my mind, bringing back memories of my Vietnam experiences, as I sat down in my physics research laboratory at the University of Illinois after receiving a telephone call from the Lieutenant Colonel I worked for in the Army Reserve during November 1990. I knew this would happen after Iraq invaded Kuwait during August 1990. I just did not know when my activation order would arrive. Anyway, on Thanksgiving Day 1990 I would be on my way to war again just as I was on Thanksgiving Day of 1969. Twenty-one years to the day after going to Vietnam for the 2nd time, I was going back to war. Today, I am a disabled and retired Army Reserve Medical Service Corps officer who specialized in nuclear medicine; and nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare operations (NBC); intelligence; medical operations; and emergency field medicine as a former enlisted combat medic. When Gulf War 1 started during August 1990, I was initially assigned to teach nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare (NBC) operations to 4th US Army personnel. I was finally ordered to active duty and sent to Saudi Arabia with the order "to bring them home alive". That was quite a contrast from my duties during Vietnam as a Bomb Navigation Hard-Hat on B-52's when my job was to ensure weapons systems were optimized to kill. Astonishingly I had deployed to South East Asia on Thanksgiving Day 1969 and then again for Gulf War 1 on Thanksgiving Day 1990. I was sent to Saudi Arabia as the theater health physicist assigned to the 12th Preventive Medicine (P.M.) Command professional staff. The 12th P.M. was in charge of all Preventive Medicine within the combat theater. Basically we were the public health department. I also was assigned to three special operations teams: Bauer's Raiders, the Depleted Uranium Assessment team, and the Captured Equipment team. Medicalcare for casualties delayed Today, 17 years since the completion of Desert Storm, with 1994 and 1999 combat actions in the Balkans, and with Gulf War 2 (Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom) ongoing, I am frustrated that the required medical care for "all" (combatants and noncombatants) casualties and environmental remediation of all contamination still is delayed, denied, or for many cases ineffective. As of May 2007 over 408,000 of our nations sons and daughters have applied for lifetime VA medical care and a pension as result of combat-military service related injuries, illnesses, and wounds (www.va.gov "May 2007 GWVIS report). Medical problems (ICD -9 diagnoses) that have been verified in over 300,000 DNBI casualties between FY 2002 and December 31, 2007 (Analysis of VA Health Care Utilization Among US Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Veterans; Operation Enduring Freedom; Operation Iraqi Freedom; VHA Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards; VA; January 2008) include: Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, Malignant Neoplasms, Benign Neoplasms, Diseases of Endocrine/Nutritional/Metabolic Systems, Diseases of Blood and Blood Forming Organs, Mental Disorders, Diseases of Nervous System/Sense Organs, Diseases of Circulatory, Disease of Respiratory System, Disease of Digestive System, Diseases of Genitourinary System, Diseases of Skin, Diseases of Musculoskeletal System/Connective System, Symptoms, Signs and Ill Defined Conditions, and Injury/Poisonings. An April 6, 2008 Army Times report written by Kelly Kennedy "Reservists confused about disability benefit eligibility" reveals that too many injured and ill warriors have been given administrative discharges and have not been told that they are eligible for medical disability. Sadly US Air Force Colonel Kenneth Cox verified that Department of Defense medical officials deliberately delayed and denied medical diagnosis of traumatic brain injury ("Colonel: Pentagon delayed brain injury exams"; By Gregg Zoroya - USA Today; Posted: Tuesday Mar 18, 2008 8:08:48 EDT ) Commanders were warned Since 1991 authors of numerous Department of Defense reports have stated that medical and tactical commanders were unaware of the probable NBC-E (WMD) exposures and never told about the adverse medical and environmental consequences of these exposures. They were told! They were warned! We recommended immediate and long-term medical care. We identified the probable threats and expected adverse health and environmental consequences in written messages and during courses we taught. These courses included the 3rd US Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) & 3rd US Army Central Command (Arcent) Medical Management Of Chemical And Biological Casualties Course (  http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/), the NBC-E Defense Refresher Course, the COMBAT LIFESAVER COURSE, and the Decontamination Procedures Course. We taught these courses to over 1200 persons assigned to individual units and those assigned to the theater command staff between December 1990 and February 1991. I gave the threat briefing specifically identifying the anticipated NBC-E exposures and taught the NBC-E Defense Refresher Course, the Combat Lifesaver Course, and Decontamination Procedures Course between December 1990 and February 25, 1991. We also discussed preventive medicine issues such as food and water borne illnesses, endemic diseases, and hazardous materials exposure issues. Therefore, most unit commanders, medical staff, specified individuals at all levels knew what to expect and how to respond to any given incident! Uranium munitions still being used Uranium munitions are still being used during ongoing combat actions causing air, water, soil, and food contamination with consequent adverse health effects even though the United Nations Sub-commission on Human Rights has ruled DU munitions are an illegal weapon. Recently uranium weapons contamination as a result of US Army operations has been confirmed at two locations in Hawaii after initial denials ( http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/08/ap_hawai). During the summer of 1991, the United States military had collected artillery, tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, conventional and unconventional munitions, trucks, etc. at Camp Doha in Kuwait. As result of carelessness this weapons depot caught fire with consequent catastrophic explosions resulting in death, injury, illness and extensive environmental contamination from depleted uranium, conventional explosives, and unconventional munitions. Recently the emirate of Kuwait required the United States Department of Defense to remove the contamination. Consequently, over 6,700 tons of contaminated soil sand and other residue was collected and has been shipped back to the United States for burial by American Ecology at Boise Idaho. When Bob Nichols, an investigative journalist, and I contacted American Ecology we found out that they had absolutely no knowledge of US Army Regulation 700-48, US Army PAM 700-48, US Army Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, and all of the medical orders dealing with depleted uranium contamination, environmental remediation procedures, safety, and medical care. They had never heard of US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines for dealing with mixed - hazardous waste such as radioactive materials and conventional explosives byproducts. (reference "Approaches for the Remediation of Federal Facility Sites Contaminated with Explosives or Radioactive Wastes", EPA/625/R-93/013, September 1993). The shipment across the ocean, unloading at Longview, Washington State port, transport by rail, and burial in Idaho endangers not only the residents of these areas but poses a significant agricultural threat through introduction of pests, microbes, etc. foreign to our nation. Contamination in our own backyard Sadly the known adverse health and environmental hazards from uranium weapons contamination are in our own backyard. The EPA has listed the former Nuclear Metals- Starmet uranium weapons manufacturing site in Concord Ma. On EPA's Superfund National Priority List because it poses a significant risk to public health and the environment. Consequently the community in which our nation was born on April 18, 1775 is now the location of America's own closed dirty bomb factory that will endanger the health and safety of the descendants of our original patriots- "the Minutemen". Unbelievably, US Department of Defense officials continue to refuse to comply with their own written directives requiring immediate medical care "Medical Management of Army Personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU)" Headquarters, US Army Medical Command 29 April 2004 and the previous directive "Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties", DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93 and still refuse to complete thorough environmental clean up as required by US Army Regulation 700-48, Logistics, "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities", Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 16 September 2002 and Department Of The Army Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278: Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, July 1996). Basically United States military personnel have illegally disposed of tons of solid radioactive waste in other nations then ignored the consequences. The primary US Army training manual: STP 21-1-SMCT: Soldiers Manual of Common Tasks states "NOTE: (Depleted uranium) Contamination will make food and water unsafe for consumption." [Task number: 031-503-1017 "RESPOND TO DEPLETED URANIUM/LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS (DULLRAM) HAZARDS"]. This acknowledgment indicates that uranium munitions should never be used because food and water contamination will affect all individuals for eternity. The critical fact is that the contaminated food and water can never be made safe for consumption. The toxicity of uranium munitions is also acknowledged by Army leaders. Assistant Army Secretary Walker, in a December 1992 memorandum ordered the Director of the US Army Environmental Policy Institute, AEPI, as mandated by the US Senate, to figure out how to reduce the toxicity of depleted uranium. The AEPI director stated in the final report that "No available technology can significantly change the inherent chemical and radiological toxicity of DU. These are intrinsic properties of uranium." (AEPI Executive Summary, June 1995). A internal Department of Defense briefing conducted by Colonel J. Edgar Wakayama also confirmed the known and serious adverse health and environmental effects ( link to www.traprockpeace.org) Concerns continue The continuing concerns regarding known adverse health and environmental effects of depleted uranium, confirmed inadequate preparation of military personnel, and preliminary findings of the AEPI study resulted in the creation of the US Army Depleted Uranium Project. On August 1, 1994 I was recalled to active duty as the Director of the US Army Depleted Uranium Project in response to congressional inquiries and the June 8, 1993 order from the Deputy Secretary of Defense to: 1. Provide adequate training for personnel who may come in contact with depleted uranium equipment. 2. Complete medical testing of personnel exposed to DU contamination during the Persian Gulf War. 3. Develop a plan for DU contaminated equipment recovery during future operations. The DU project and review of previous research reinforced our original 1991 conclusions and recommendations that: 1. All DU contamination must be physically removed and properly disposed of to prevent future exposures. 2. Specialized radiation detection devices that detect and measure alpha particles, beta articles, x-rays, and gamma rays emissions at appropriate levels from 20 dpm(cpm) up to 100,000 dpm (cpm) and from .1 mrem/ hour to 75 mrem/ hour must be acquired and distributed to all individuals or organizations responsible for medical care and environmental remediation activities involving depleted uranium / uranium 238 and other low level radioactive isotopes that may be present. Standard equipment will not detect contamination. 3. Medical care must be provided to all individuals who did or may have inhaled, ingested, or had wound contamination to detect mobile and sequestered internalized uranium contamination. 4. All individuals who enter, climb on, or work within 25 meters of any contaminated equipment or terrain must wear respiratory and skin protection. 5. Contaminated and damaged equipment or materials should not be recycled to manufacture new materials or equipment. Since 1991 numerous DOD and VA directives ( http://www.spidersmill.com/gwvrl/) based on the previous directives and then the findings and recommendations of the AEPI study and DU Project have required medical care and environmental clean up. However even though DOD, VA, and UN officials know what should be done, visual evidence, photographic and video tape evidence, on site radiological measurements, personal experience, and published reports verify that:1. Medical care has not been provided to all DU casualties. 2. Environmental remediation has not been completed. 3. Individuals are not wearing respiratory or skin protection. 4. Contaminated and damaged equipment and materials have been recycled to manufacture new products. 5. Training and education has only been partially implemented. 6. Contamination management procedures have not been distributed and implemented. The unceasing efforts by senior US Department of Defense, US Army, US Department of Energy, US Department of Veterans Affairs, British, Canadian, Australian, and United Nations officials to prevent acknowledgment of these problems and their refusal to accept responsibility must be stopped. Colonel Robert Cherry, US Army retired and formerly the Pentagon's Senior Radiation Protection officer, has sent out emails stating thatHe [Dr. Rokke] was not the director of the 'US Army depleted uranium project'. No such project with that name ever existed" This and other lies by senior Department of Defense officials are designed to sustain use of uranium munitions and avoid liability for adverse health and environmental effects by discrediting and destroying any of us who attempt to ensure DOD officials comply with their own existing medical care and environmental remediation requirements. Officials refuse to comply with regulations US, Israeli, Australian, Canadian, and British officials have arrogantly refused to comply with their own regulations, orders, and directives that require United States Department of Defense officials to provide prompt and effective medical care to "all" exposed individuals. Reference: Medical Management of Unusual Depleted Uranium Casualties, DOD, Pentagon, 10/14/93, Medical Management of Army personnel Exposed to Depleted Uranium (DU) Headquarters, US Army Medical Command 29 April 2004, and section 2-5 of US Army Regulation 700-48. Sadly after the Israeli use of uranium munitions during their combat actions in Lebanon Israeli officials must also provide medical care to all casualties and clean up all environmental contamination. United States Department of Defense officials simply refuse to clean up dispersed radioactive Contamination as required by Army Regulation- AR 700-48: "Management of Equipment Contaminated With Depleted Uranium or Radioactive Commodities" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., September 2002) and US Army Technical Bulletin- TB 9-1300-278: "Guidelines For Safe Response To Handling, Storage, And Transportation Accidents Involving Army Tank Munitions Or Armor Which Contain Depleted Uranium" (Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington, D.C., JULY 1996). Specifically section 2-4 of United States Army Regulation-AR 700-48 dated September 16, 2002 requires that: 1. "Military personnel 'identify, segregate, isolate, secure, and label all RCE' (radiologically contaminated equipment)." 2. "Procedures to minimize the spread of radioactivity will be implemented as soon as possible." 3. "Radioactive material and waste will not be locally disposed of through burial, submersion, incineration, destruction in place, or abandonment" and 4. "All equipment, to include captured or combat RCE, will be surveyed, packaged, retrograded, decontaminated and released IAW Technical Bulletin 9-1300-278, DA PAM 700-48" (Note: Maximum exposure limits are specified in Appendix F). Leaders conceal contamination lists DOD leaders are not showing the congressionally mandated depleted uranium training tapes to military personnel. These three video tapes: (1) "Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness", (2) "Contaminated and Damaged Equipment Management", and (3) "Operation of the AN/PDR 77 Radiac Set" are essential to understanding the hazards from the use of uranium weapons and management of uranium weapons contamination. DOD leaders must show these tapes to all military personnel involved in the use of uranium weapons and the consequent management of uranium contamination. The previous and current use of uranium weapons, the release of radioactive components in destroyed US and foreign military equipment, and releases of industrial, medical, research facility radioactive materials have resulted in unacceptable exposures. Therefore, decontamination must be completed as required by US Army Regulation 700-48 and should include releases of all radioactive materials resulting from military operations. Citizens of the world must speak up We can not continue to ignore the consequences of depleted uranium weapons use that include adverse health and environmental effects. No person or nation has the right to disperse tons of radioactive toxic waste throughout any other or their own nation then ignore adverse health and environmental effects. There is one question that US, British, and Australian officials refuse to answer. That is: What right do they have to willfully disperse radioactive materials into any nation then refuse to clean the contamination and refuse to provide medical care for all exposed individuals? Consequently, all citizens of the world must raise a unified voice to force the leaders of those nations that have used depleted uranium munitions to recognize the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care of all individuals exposed to uranium contamination and the thorough environmental remediation of all uranium contamination left as a result of combat and peacetime actions. My source of frustration is that today our warnings, requests for medical care, and requests for environmental remediation were and are still ignored! Why should I or anyone continue to try to obtain medical care and completion of environmental remediation when United States, British, Canadian., Australian, United Nations, and NATO officials do not care because they continue to deny what has occurred to avoid liability for economic and political reasons. Coalition forces applied technology during battle without considering the potential and expected adverse consequences of our actions. The United States shipped WMD agents including anthrax to Iraq, released toxic chemicals during combat actions, used depleted uranium munitions, and now our leaders ignore these facts in order to avoid liability. We have contaminated the earth! Our actions have resulted in and continue to cause serious adverse health and environmental effects! The personal cost for trying to finish my assigned mission and to make our leaders take care of the troops has been rejection, lost jobs, family turmoil, missing and probably destroyed medical and personnel records, and medical problems. I and hundreds of thousands of other warriors now receive delayed or inadequate medical care. We served our nation and thus earned optimal medical care for service-connected wounds, injuries, and illnesses. But instead, we have been abandoned! We have been raped! I now experience retaliation from Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs officials because I refused to comply with the March 1991 Los Alamos memorandum ( http://www.traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html) to ensure depleted uranium can always be used during US Department of Defense combat or peacetime actions because at the same time a memorandum from an officer at the Defense Nuclear Agency cited serious health effects. But I am not alone. Anyone who demands medical care and environmental remediation faces ongoing and blatant retaliation. War must be considered obsolete Today, war must be considered obsolete because we can not deal with either the adverse health or environmental consequences caused by destroying a nation's infrastructure thus releasing toxins that affect all combatants and noncombatants. We can not deal with the adverse health and environmental effects of the weapons we use to destroy the targets - a nation's infrastructure. The human cost of war is staggering. According to the May 2007 VA GWVIS report, at least 407,911 Gulf War 1, Balkans Conflict, Afghanistan, and Gulf War 2 US military combat veterans who are wounded, ill, or injured must fight for the medical care they earned while serving our nation. The most recent US Department of Veterans affairs casualty report: Analysis of VA Health Care Utilization Among US Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) Veterans; Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF); Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF); VHA Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards; January 2008 reveals that over 299,000 US combat veterans have serious medical problems related to toxic exposures that mirror the same medical problems diagnosed by Operation Desert Storm combat veterans. Sadly, medical care is still ineffective for both groups because the diagnosed medical problems are a result of deliberate United States actions or failure to act. For example, are reporting serious neurological problems. These problems are probably a function of both pesticide exposures, troops wearing flea collars, and uranium toxicity. But, those and other exposures are ignored. Although we have hundreds of thousands of US casualties the actual casualty count also includes hundreds of thousands of noncombatants, primarily children, woman, and the elderly of nations we attacked. Health problems are not limited to US warriors but affect all exposed individuals. World-wide estimates exceed 2 million casualties while over 1,000,000 of America's finest are wounded or ill, thousands have died, including too many of my friends. Consequently, as one of the individuals asked many times to clean up a mess, it is frustrating when United States Department of Defense and United States Department of Veterans Affairs officials do not implement the programs we developed to protect our earth and treat all casualties. The human cost is increasing Our nation's sons and daughters answered our nation's call that in too many cases included combat operations that were conducted without justification. Too many have died and continue to die while others who were injured, exposed to toxic compounds, and became sick have been abandoned by our Nation's leaders as has happened throughout history. Sadly the majority of casualties are classified as "disease and non-battle injuries" and are the direct result of our own actions or failures. The human cost is increasing because many got sick and died after they returned home and that number is still increasing at this time. Our leaders knew what happened and is happening! However, these same DOD, DA, VA leaders still keep denying what has occurred and will not implement the programs we designed to resolve the serious health and environmental issues. Numerous orders and military regulations specifying medical care for depleted uranium exposures have been ignored and continue to be ignored. These requirements always will be ignored. This is about avoiding liability for observed adverse health and environmental problems caused by combat and peacetime military actions. When political correctness and avoiding economic costs are used to determine what medical care is provided, to whom medical care is provided, when care is provided, and what environmental remediation is completed then we, warriors and civilians alike, lose. Our leaders have decided to ignore the problems hoping that they will just go away. Their objective is to avoid liability for adverse health and environmental consequences of their willful actions and war. Recently, the Department of Defense has instituted the "wounded warrior" program to begin resolution of the serious and lingering delay, denial of, and delivery of ineffective medical care to our nation's ill, wounded, and injured warriors. If our nation's leaders had not abandoned ill, injured, wounded, and deceased warriors resulting from Department of Defense actions since the early days of WW2 (atomic test veterans); Cold War (Project Shad); Vietnam War (Agent Orange); Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom (Depleted uranium, chemical agents, biological agents, immunizations, hazardous materials, pesticides, RF beam weapons, etc.) then we would not have the hidden and abandoned casualties that we have today with a staggering toll. Although the wounded warrior program staff are helping they still refuse to help resolve the fundamental problems - policy decisions to deny and delay prompt and effective medical care, retaliation efforts, and destruction-altering of records. Our leaders have abandoned our nation's and the world's citizens Our leaders have abandoned our nation's and the world's citizens and consequently I believe they are ignoring President Lincoln's immortal words spoken during his Gettysburg Address: "It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under GOD, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Today as a combat veteran and patriot; I pray that GOD will answer my and others call for intervention and thus guide our leaders to finally provide the necessary medical care to all casualties and to complete the environmental remediation required to restore our precious resources. I will never cease my efforts to do what is right for GOD and the citizens of the world because this has become "A MATTER OF INTEGRITY". Although I have been a "warrior in battle" today I must be a "warrior for peace". The three questions that each of us must ask are: 1. When will United States Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs officials acknowledge the adverse health and environmental effects of military operations then provide prompt and effective medical care to all military and civilian casualties? 2. When will they finally clean up all environmental contamination in order to mitigate future adverse health and environmental effects? 3. When will the citizens of the world demand an end to this nightmare and find a way to live together in peace?• Today, I am retired from the US Army Reserve with a 60% VA disability. My objectives throughout my military career were to research, write procedures, write education and training programs, teach, and evaluate programs to improve combat readiness, complete environmental remediation, and provide medical care for all casualties. I was assigned, accepted, and then completed various dangerous missions. These included: (1) planning, conducting, and evaluating military medical operations, (2) making sure everyone was prepared for expected use of weapons of mass destruction, (3)cleaning up the hazardous materials and uranium contamination, (4)developing the US Army environmental compliance and education programs, (5) serving as the Depleted Uranium Project Director, (6) serving as Director of the US Army's Edwin R. Bradley Radiological Laboratories, (7) developing, teaching, and evaluating civilian and military emergency WMD response programs, (8) researching and developing the US Department of Defense's environmental remediation and education program for Formerly Used Defense Sites. Doug Rokke © 2006, Current Concerns, www.currentconcerns.ch, Phone +41-44-350 65 50, Fax +41-44-350 65 51 |
homepage: http://www.mbtranslations.com
address: http://www.currentconcerns.ch
Tightrope: Are cellphones safe? Entrepreneurs need to know
By Gladys Edmunds for USA TODAY
When Ronald Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Centers, issued an advisory to the faculty and staff about the health risks from use of cellphones, I got worried.
Every entrepreneur I know uses a cellphone. In fact most of us have allowed cellphones to become our office away from the office. And we don't want to run the risk of sickness in the name of doing business. So, what do we do?
IN THE NEWS: Cancer institute warns of cellphone risks
FDA RESEARCH: Q&A on cellphone use
I called on a top physician that I personally know and use, Valerie Donaldson, an expert on anti-aging issues, to ask what she thought of Dr. Herberman's advisory and what we could do to protect ourselves.
She said that she agrees with Herberman's advisory. "I see the cellphone as the modern-day Trojan Horse," she said.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Internet | Oklahoma | Germany | Russia | Bibles | Gladys | Bluetooth | Trojan Horse | University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute
She continued with her example. "In the beginning of the Grecian Era, the Trojan Horse, while appearing to be a gift, in reality carried soldiers that invaded the city. The cellphone is today's Trojan Horse. It appears to be a wonderful gift, while inside lurks a dangerous enemy; invisible, harmful, electromagnetic radiation."
Dr. Donaldson went on to say that there are those who continue to deny the harmful effects of what's technically called electromagnetic field radiation (EMF), just as cigarette manufacturers denied the harmful effects of tobacco, while the literature is rich with research showing the contrary.
Feeling a need to bring some sort of answer to my many entrepreneurial colleagues and friends I asked her if she thought that Bluetooth technology was a safer bet. Her response was, "
There is research that shows Bluetooth devices may be as harmful as the cellphone itself — you now have a microwave transmitter living in your ear, right next to your brain. While the power level may be lower from the Bluetooth, it is constantly transmitting. It's like sticking your head into the microwave oven, but (hoping) it's OK, because you are setting the power level low."
She said that the safest thing is text messaging or using speaker phones. Neither of those things will work long-term for a business person. If I need to communicate right away with a client or vender and I am away from the office, I can't imagine sending a text over the cellphone. And speaker phones are fine when there is no one present but you. But, how often does that occur?
While I was visiting Donaldson her cellphone rang and she excused herself to take the call. I noticed that she didn't use her speaker phone. In addition she seemed pretty comfortable using her cell. When I mentioned this, she said that she had placed something called Delta Shields on her and all her family members' cellphones.
She showed me a hexagon shaped sticker about the size of a postage stamp on the back of her cellphone. She said that the Delta Shield was developed in Germany and research shows that it reduces the harmful effects of EMF waves by 93%.
She said that in her opinion the Delta Shield and a device from Russia, which is not yet widely available, are the best devices around. Donaldson, who is listed on Delta Shield's website as endorser of that product and whose office handles mail inquiries about it, said that she is not compensated from the sale of the device and that all proceeds go into research for more advanced versions of EMF wave protection. A disclaimer on the website notes that statements on it
"have not been evaluated by the FDA."
There are plenty of protection devices available in the marketplace. For other ideas, search for "EMF protection" in a Web search engine.
"I have been a physician for 26 years,"Donaldson said,
"and I like to think of myself as specializing in 'health care,' as distinct from sick care, and 'well-being,' as distinct from treating the patient and the symptoms to simply making the pain go away. My experience is, while the medical world may be early adaptors of leading-edge diagnostic systems, they are often late adaptors of preventive concepts and systems such as the Delta Shield. I have protected my family with this device, and I strongly urge my patients and friends to use it."
I decided not to wait around for 15 or 20 years to see if Dr. Herberman's advisory proves correct. Instead I ordered Delta Shields for me, my family and staff.
You can learn more about the protective device by visiting http://thedeltashield.com. And if you have any questions or just want to stop by to say thanks for the info to Donaldson you can find her at www.valeriedonaldsonmd.com.
Gladys Edmunds' Entrepreneurial Tightrope column appears Wednesdays. Click here for an index of her columns. As a single, teen-age mom, Gladys made money doing laundry, cooking dinners for taxi drivers and selling fire extinguishers and Bibles door-to-door. Today, Edmunds is founder of Edmunds Travel Consultants in Pittsburgh and author of There's No Business Like Your Own Business, a six-step guide to success published by Viking. Her website is www.gladysedmunds.com. You can e-mail her at gladys@gladysedmunds.com.
03 August 2008
Great Canadian anti-uranium mining links
- Association de Protection de l'Environnement des Hautes-Laurentides (Dossier Uranium)
- Bedford Mining Alert (Ontario)
- British Columbia Land Owner's Rights Group
- Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (Quebec)
- Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
- Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
- Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium - CCAMU (Eastern Ontario)
- Ecojustice Canada
- kNOw-Uranium.ORG - Working Together to Keep the Ottawa River Watershed Uranium Free
- MiningWatch Canada
- No Uranium Mine Near Sharbot Lake
- Nuclear Information Resource Centre
- Ottawa Coalition Against Mining Uranium (OCAMU)
- Ottawa Riverkeeper/Sentinelle Outaouais
- The Equity (Shawville Weekly News)
- The LowDown to Hull and Back News (Wakefield Weekly News)
- The Pembina Institute
- Uranium Free British Columbia
- Western Mining Action Network
- Wise Uranium Project
- Yellowhead Ecological Association (British Columbia)
15 July 2008
| July 15, 2008 | |
And we'll send you an autographed copy of the DVD - An Unreasonable Man. Autographed by Ralph Nader - the subject of this historic documentary. All around us are people who don't want Ralph to run this year. This movie is the perfect remedy. (Watch trailer here.) Buy this DVD. Show it to them, loan it to them, or just give it to them - but just make sure they see it. Young people will learn and older people will remember what it means to stand for something, to fight for something, and to believe that your efforts will make a difference. An Unreasonable Man is the movie that turns heads. Show it to people who like Ralph. Show it to people who don't like Ralph. Show it people who think Ralph should run. Show it to people who think Ralph should not run. But get your own autographed copy now. So you can show it to them all. (Or if you already have a copy, get one as a gift.) This limited offer is part of our ten day fundraiser. Our goal - raise $60,000 by July 20. To put Ralph on the ballot on 15 states by July 20. Over the last five days, we've raised over $30,000. So, we're halfway there. Now, let's push it past the finish line. Donate $100 or more by 12 midnight Sunday July 20, and we'll send you an autographed copy of this explosive documentary of Ralph's public life of citizen activism. (Only one DVD per donation of $100 or more. If you would like two copies, please donate twice. Three copies, donate three times. Remember - only one DVD per donation of $100 or more.) Don't miss out. Thank you. Together, we will make a difference. Onward The Nader Team PS: We invite your comments to the blog. Your contribution could be doubled. Public campaign financing may match your contribution total up to $250. | |
How radiation sick is America?
The Poisoning Of America By Radiation - Part 2
Submitted by SadInAmerica on 2008, June 2 - 3:03am.We can only guess how many Americans are in their graves today from microwave assault...
How radiation sick is America?
Since the wireless revolution began wave-nuking the U.S. in the 1990s, there have been no federally funded health studies to assess the cumulative effects of ever-increasing communications radiation on public health. There is no national database enabling citizens to study the location of transmitters in their areas. Local and state governments can offer no information on how much commercial wireless radiation is contaminating their populations. When trying to find out who owns a tower or which companies have transmitters on that tower, citizens usually hit a brick wall.
Dr. Carlo heads the only independent, post-market health surveillance registry in the nation where people can report radiation illness. 22 Dr. Carlo says the registry has heard from thousands of people who believe that their illnesses, including brain and eye cancers, are due to telecommunications radiation from both wireless phones and tower transmitters. In the last two years, the registry has seen an upsurge in reports as transmitters become ever more energetically dangerous in order to accommodate increased data flow for new, multi-media technologies.
We can only guess how many Americans are in their graves today from microwave assault. Arthur Firstenberg, who founded the Cellular Phone Task Force, wrote that, on November 14, 1996, New York City's first digital cellular provider activated thousands of PCS antennae newly erected on the rooftops of apartment buildings. Health authorities reported that a severe and lingering flu hit the city that same week. In response to its classified newspaper ad advising that radiation sickness is similar to flu, the Task Force heard back from hundreds of people who reported sudden onset symptoms synchronous to microwave startup"symptoms similar to stroke, heart attack and nervous breakdown.
Firstenberg then gathered statistics from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and analyzed weekly mortality statistics published for 122 U.S. cities. Each of dozens of cities recorded a 10-25 percent increase in mortality, lasting two to three months, beginning in the week during which that city's first digital cell phone network began commercial service. Cities with no cellular system start up in the same time period showed no abnormal increases in mortality. 23
Studies abroad
Recent health surveys in other nations confirm that people living close to wireless transmitters are in big trouble:
In 2002, French medical specialists found that people living close to cell towers suffered extreme sleep disruption, chronic fatigue, nausea, skin problems, irritability, brain disturbances and cardiovascular problems.24
German researchers found that people living within 1,200 feet of a transmitter site in the German city of Naila had a high rate of cancer and developed their tumors on average eight years earlier than the national average. Breast cancer topped the list.25
Spanish researchers found that people living within 1,000 feet of cellular antennas had statistically significant illness at an average power density of 0.11 to 0.19 microwatts /cm2, which is thousands of times less than allowed by international exposure standards.26
An Egyptian medical study found that people living near mobile phone base stations were at high risk for developing nerve and psychiatric problems, plus debilitating changes in neurobehavioral function. Exposed persons had significantly lower performance on tests for attention, short term auditory memory and problem solving.27
Researchers in Israel studied people in the town of Netanya who had lived near a cell tower for 3-7 years. They had a cancer rate four times higher than the control population. Breast cancer was most prevalent. 28
Europe in an uproar
A new European Union poll of more than 27,000 people across the continent reveals that 76 percent of respondents feel that they are being made ill by wireless transmitters.29 Seventy-one percent in the UK believe they suffer health effects from mast (cell tower) radiation. In April 2007, The London Times reported a startling number of cancer clusters in mast neighborhoods. One study in Warwickshire, found 31 cancers around a single street. 30 Some sick Brits send their blood to a lab in Germany, which uses state of the art methodology to confirm wireless radiation damage.
Radiation sickness is now so prevalent in Germany that 175 doctors have signed the Bramberger Appeal, a document calling the situation a "medical disaster." It asks the German government to initiate a national public health investigation. This appeal closely follows the Freiburger Appeal, signed by thousands of German doctors who say they are dealing with an epidemic of severe and chronic diseases among both old and young patients exposed to wireless microwave radiation. The head of the cancer registry in Berlin found that one urban area with cellular antennas had a breast cancer rate seven times the national average.31
Sweden was one of the first nations to go wireless. Swedish neuroscientist, Dr. Olle Johansson, with hundreds of published papers to his credit, says that a national epidemic of illness and disability was unleashed by the wireless revolution. Long periods of sick leave, attempted suicides and industrial accidents all increased simultaneously with introduction of mobile phone radiation. Ninety-nine percent of the Swedish population is now under duress of powerful third generation masts. Johansson reports that people are plagued with sleep disorders, chronic fatigue that does not respond to rest, difficulties with cognitive function and serious blood problems. Recurrent headaches and migraines are a "substantial public health problem," he says.32
Rooftop transmitters, which readily pass microwave radiation into structures, can be a death sentence. Across the world there are reports of cancer clusters and extreme illness in office buildings and multi-tenant dwellings where antennas are placed on rooftops directly over workers and tenants. In 2006, the top floors of a Melbourne University office building were closed after a brain tumor cluster drew media attention to the risks of communications transmitters on top of the building.33 Likewise, ABC's Brisbane television complex, topped with satellite dishes and radio antennas, was the site of a well-publicized breast cancer cluster among workers.34
Deadlier death rays
In the meantime, the radiation cowboys of America are having a good ol time because they know there's no sheriff in town. The commercial wireless industry is relentless in its drive to construct thousands of new transmitter sites in neighborhoods and schoolyards everywhere, while adding more powerful antennas at its older sites. Countless WiFi systems, both indoors and out, accommodate wireless laptop computers, personal digital assistants, WiFi-enabled phones, gaming devices, video cameras, even parking and utility meters. Hundreds of cities already have or are planning to fund WiFi networks, each consisting of thousands of small microwave transmitters bolted to buildings, street lamps, park benches and bus stops. Some networks are being buried under sidewalks. These access points or "nodes" blast carcinogenic energy at 2.4 to 5 gigahertz with virtually no warning signs about radiation exposure. WiFi radiation is unregulated by the FCC.
Sprint-Nextel and Clearwire are now rolling out in U.S. cities tower-mounted WiMAX transmitters providing wireless internet access "to die for." WiMAX is WiFi on steroids. Upon startup of WiMAX transmitters near the Swedish village of Gotene, the emergency room at the local hospital was flooded by calls from people overcome with pulmonary and cardiovascular symptoms.35
WiMAX radiation could one day be cranked up to a bone-incinerating 66 gigahertz.36 A single WiMAX tower could provide internet coverage for an area of 3,000 square miles, although coverage for 6-25 square miles is the norm now. Promoters say WiMAX may some day replace all cable and DSL broadband services and irradiate virtually all rural areas. Yet, not a single environmental or public health study has been required as the industry unleashes infrastructure for this savage new wireless technology from which no living flesh will escape.
The commercial ray-peddlers are not alone in their quest to make the U.S. a radiation wasteland. In August, 2007, Congress approved new Homeland Security legislation which funds a program to "promote communications compatibility between local, state and federal officials." We catch a glimpse of what this portends as the state of New York gears up to erect hundreds of new wireless installations for a "Statewide Wireless Network (SWN)." This system will blanket 97 percent of the state, allowing agencies at various government levels to communicate instantly while greatly adding to the fog of commercial wireless pollution.37 The New York Office for Technology says that the radiation power densities of the system will be within FCC limits. That assurance should give us the shivers.
Angela's story
Angela Flynn, a 43-year-old caregiver, lives in Santa Cruz, California. Last spring she took classes at a local church where wireless antennas were concealed in a chimney on the building. She recalls, "Every muscle in my body felt sore. And my joints were feeling creaky. My instructor mentioned how people at the women's center on church property had similar symptoms. During my sixth day I had a severe reaction. My short term memory was gone and I was disoriented and confused. When the instructor asked a question, I could not recall anything from the lecture."
At night, Angela could not sleep and she would lie awake, feeling her body buzz. She became hypersensitive to other sources of electromagnetic radiation. The symptoms became so bothersome that she canceled the rest of her course. Using a chart for calculating cumulative, non-ionizing, electromagnetic radiation exposure levels, she found that the classes "located only 100 feet from antennas in the building" had suffered the highest possible exposure during peak operation. "It took a month before I regained my health," she reports.
When Angela wrote letters to the church inquiring whether it was monitoring the health of the people exposed to antenna radiation, church officials were "unresponsive and dismissive." So Angela saw the light. She helped organize a community group to put pressure on county officials for answers. After hearing community testimony, officials directed the zoning department to create a comprehensive map of county transmitter sites and to put together a report on emissions testing.
Angela says, "We recently had a delay of an installation of a tower near a middle school. The superintendent has even come out against the tower and was instrumental in delaying the hearing on the site. He also arranged a school board meeting on the issue." Angela's efforts to share critical information with her community made a difference.
Conclusion
America must soon face its radiation cataclysm. The EMR Network says that millions of workers occupy worksites on a daily basis where operating antenna arrays are camouflaged and where no RF safety program is carried out. Thanks to shameless predatory advertising techniques, American youth are now literally addicted to "texting," watching TV and accessing the Internet on tiny wireless screens. These are the toys that keep cell towers and WiFi hot spots buzzing. A nation that requires compulsory mass irradiation to fuel its trivial entertainment needs is surely destined to have a sickly and short-lived population.
Right now, 11.7 million Americans have been diagnosed with cancer. Because humans can harbor cancer conditions for years before detection, additional millions of cancer victims are yet undiagnosed. The Journal of Oncology Practice predicts that, by 2020, there will be so many cancer cases in the U.S. that doctors may not be able to cope with their caseloads. The report concludes the nation could soon face a shortage of up to 4,000 cancer specialists.38
A recent CBS news series on the raging American cancer epidemic left viewers with the mindset that trainloads of federal cash must flow if we are to find the cancer answer. But a proven cancer initiator now inundates our cities, roadways, schools, offices and homes. Any environmental stressor that jackhammers human cells at millions to billions of cycles per second is a cancer factor. Any wave-pollution that breaks the DNA and causes pre-cancerous micronuclei in human blood is a cancer factor. Logic tells us that there will be no "answer to cancer" until we eliminate the cancer factors.
Wireless communications radiation is to America today what DDT, thalidomide, dioxin, benzene, Agent Orange and asbestos were yesterday. Historically, the truth about the public health menace of extreme toxins is never told until thousands sicken and die.
Dr. Robert Becker, noted for decades of research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation, has warned: "Even if we survive the chemical and atomic threats to our existence, there is the strong possibility that increasing electropollution could set in motion irreversible changes leading to our extinction before we are even aware of them. All life pulsates in time to the earth and our artificial fields cause abnormal reactions in all organismsThese energies are too dangerous to entrust forever to politicians, military leaders and their lapdog researchers." 39
Our mission to save the nation's health and restore sanity in the wireless age seems daunting. The wireless juggernaut is an aggressive, mean machine. Federal regulators are clearly compromised and incompetent to protect the public health. Uninformed consumers dearly love their magic digital toys and don't yet understand the connection between those toys and a national raging cancer epidemic that may consume us all.
Powerful economic interests have lied to us long enough. Americans deserve the facts. We need dialogue. Wireless radiation is a form of electronic trespass. America must decide whose rights are more important"idlers beaming death rays for piddling gibberish or the elderly with pacemakers who are made ill by cell phone and tower radiation wherever they go. Must we all prematurely perish so that wireless enthusiasts can capture cell phone photos and instantly send them for processing via carcinogen express? Must all neighborhoods become sick zones so that radiation addicts can receive recipes, ads and other frivolous text messages on their cell phone toys? Does a human being have the right to NOT be forcibly WiMAXED into a coffin, or do only wireless providers and their devotees have rights?
What can we do?
We can commit to join the growing radiation awareness movement and continue educating ourselves and others. We can employ digital and audio radiation detectors to help safeguard our personal health and to demonstrate the ceaseless brutality of ubiquitous wireless radiation which threatens the genetic integrity of future generations. We can promote emerging technologies that could make communications technologies safer.
We can demand that federal radiation exposure standards and setback requirements be updated to reflect the realities of modern science. Federal communications law must be rewritten so that local jurisdictions can regain their right to consider health and environment when reviewing wireless siting applications. We can insist that wireless emissions from transmitters be drastically reduced as they are in Austria and Russia. We can demand routine compliance testing at all transmitter sites. We can see to it that people who have been living and working near powerful transmitters be given opportunity to report their resulting illnesses in national surveys. Proper epidemiological studies must be conducted and their results published and broadly disseminated.
Each of us can break the seductive, but oppressive wireless habit ourselves. We can play no game, use no wireless Internet system, make no trivial phone call that necessitates enlarging America's dense forest of wireless transmitters. If no one buys WiMAX-enabled devices and related services, this dangerous system will fail.
Whenever possible, we can go back to the old-fashioned, corded phones and message machines which made yesteryear a far more healthy time. Cordless household and office phones emit powerful megahertz or gigahertz microwave radiation, causing damage to hearing, eyesight and brain function. DECT cordless phones irradiate a huge area even when not in use. We can encourage others to contact us by conventional land line phones only. Can we enjoy a leisurely conversation knowing that an irradiated caller risks disease and disability for mindless chatter? What good is wireless convenience if it means being ultimately tethered to a hospital bed? We can teach our children that health is more important than passing convenience and instant gratification.
According to OSHA, no environment should be deliberately made hazardous. Backed by current scientific knowledge, we can refuse to work or shop in an environment which endangers our health. We can demand that megahertz and gigahertz cordless phones, walkie talkie radios, WLAN and WiFi systems be removed from schools, offices, hospitals and any public place where people are grossly irradiated without their informed consent. Second hand smoke is bad; second hand radiation is worse.
We wish to thank the courageous radiation victims interviewed for this report who have generously revealed the details of their personal suffering in order to warn others. Following their example, we must continue undaunted in the moral quest to protect the national health and restore the world to sanity before it is too late.
Meters and resources
The Electrosmog Detector allows you to HEAR the intensity of RF/microwave pollution in your environment. Developed by British radiation expert Alasdair Phillips, this battery-operated device will quickly allow you to identify dangerous RF/microwave hotspots, even where transmitters are concealed, and take action to protect yourself. This meter is $99 (price includes shipping) and can be obtained from HEARING IS BELIEVING, Box 64 Hayden, Idaho 83835. E-mail: gzz@icehouse.net.
The Trifield Meter ($145), produced by Alpha Lab, is used mainly to measure the milligauss of electromagnetic fields coming from 60 hertz sources. Use this digital meter to make sure your living and working spaces are under 2 milligauss. Alpha Lab's Microwave Power Density Meter ($320) is a more sensitive digital microwave meter that will help you assess the kilohertz, megahertz and gigahertz radiation in our wireless environment. This easy-read meter measures microwave radiation in microwatts per cm2, allowing comparison of your readings to the power density used by the Russians to make our embassy staff sick. Remember, people inside the embassy reportedly received only about .01 microwatts per cm2. For more information, contact Alpha Lab Inc., 1280 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101; (800) 658-7030; www.trifield.com
Alan Broadband produces radiation detection devices with models ranging in price from $159 to $2,800. The $159 model, while not giving detailed readings, is an extremely sensitive and sturdy instrument that gives an accurate dial read on whether or not radiation is present and its relative intensity. It lets you know when you are being irradiated and serves as an excellent tool to illustrate exposure levels to others. For more information, contact Alan Broadband 93 Arch St., Redwood City, California 94062; (888) 369-9627; www.zapchecker.com
Books
Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001.
Cellular Telephone Russian Roulette, Robert C. Kane, Vantage Press, 2001.
Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard? The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council, Edited by B. Blake Levitt, 2000. Order from Barnes and Noble.
Websites
These websites provide excellent information on all aspects of health and other issues relating to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency/microwave radiation.
www.buergerwelle.com This excellent German (but in English) site features RF/microwave radiation news from all over the world. The science keeps pouring in and this is where to find it, along with lots of human interest.
www.cprnewsbureau.org This is an excellent source of up-to-date news on wireless issues.
www.emrnetwork.org This site has superb resources organized by professionals with expertise in all facets of our RF/microwave radiation problem.
www.safewireless.org This site features Dr. Carlo's Mobil Telephone Health Concerns Registry where people can report ill health effects from living near microwave transmitters or from the use of wireless devices. It also features great news reports.
www.microwavenews.com This is home to Microwave News, an excellent monthly publication. It offers cutting edge science reports, plus a great archive.
www.sageassociates.net This site provides valuable information on how to make homes and offices safer in the wireless age.
CAUTION: There are many devices on the market claiming to protect wireless users from radiation. These include: air tube headsets, ferrite bead clip-ons and an array of paste-ons advertised to cut down on thermal effects or deflect negative energy. Energy testing, kinesiology and meter readings indicate that these mitigation devices DO NOT adequately protect against the brutal force of near field microwave radiation. You can investigate the effectiveness of these devices by metering radiation levels while using them. If radiation pours from your "safe" headset, don't bank your life on it. If practiced in the art of kinesiology, you can also "muscle test" the effectiveness of the radiation mitigation device. The human body becomes very weak when irradiated with any man-made frequency, especially microwaves. If a protective device is really working, you will not detect muscle weakness when the body is near a transmitting wireless phone or gadget.
OUR BEST TIP: If you want a safe household phone, find an AT&T corded speaker phone 950, available at most large office supply stores. It emits no microwave radiation, holds up to heavy use, has a great digital display screen and allows hands-free conversation.
NOTES
1. Interview with Dr. Eckel was published by Schwabischen Post 12-07-06. Find this interview at www.heseproject.org . See "The Cell Nucleus is Mutating."
2. "Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation," a paper presented by Dr. Lai to the Mobile Phones and Health Symposium, October 25-28, 1998, University of Vienna. Also "DNA Damage and Cell Phone Radiation," www.rfsafe.com , 11-02-05.
3. Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, Dr. George Carlo and Martin Schram, Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2001, p.151.
4. "Mobile Telecommunications and Health"Summary of the ECOLOG study for T-Mobile, 2000," Find this summary at www.hese-project.org .
5. "Cell Phone Radiation Harms DNA, Study Claims," (Reuters) MSNBC, 12-04-04. Also "Mobile Phone Radiation Harms DNA," R. Moss, CPR News Bureau, 10-16-06.
6. "RF-Induced DNA Breaks Reported in China," Microwave News, 09-29-05. This report comes from the Zhejiang University School of Medicine.
7. "2.45 GHz radiofrequency fields alter gene expression in cultured human cells," Lee S. et al, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, PubMed 16107253.
8. "Health Social Services and Housing Sub-Panel Telephone Mast Review," a public discussion by Dr. George Carlo, 2-26-07. Find this excellent dissertation at www.safewireless.org
9. Few Americans know that cell phones have never been safety tested thanks to the FDA, which exempted cell phones from pre-market testing based on a "low power exclusion" rule.
10. "The American Cancer Society is Misleading the Public," Dr. George Carlo, 8-5-07. Find this statement at www.buergerwelle.com .
11. "Long-Term Mobile Phone Use Raises Brain Tumor Risk: Study," Reuters, 03-31-06. This research was conducted by the Swedish National Institute for Working Life whose scientists studied 905 people with malignant brain tumors to confirm a 240% increased risk of brain tumors after heavy mobile phone use.
12. "Cancer in Radar Technicians Exposed to RF/Microwave Radiation: Sentinel Episodes," Richter E. et al, Int. J. Occup Environ Health 6 (3):187-193, 2000.
13. "FCC Lives Large off Lobbyist Bribes," Capitol Hill Blue, 05-22-03, capitolhillblue.com
14. "Health Social Services and Housing Sub-Panel Telephone Mast Review," public discussion by Dr. George Carlo, 2-26-07. Find this excellent dissertation at www. safewireless.org .
15. See http://www.c-a-r-e.org/ for information about groups affected by Lookout Mountain broadcast antennas.
16. For an excellent chart comparing biological effects at power density levels and a list of international exposure standards, go to: "Radio Wave Packet," Arthur Firstenberg, Cellular Phone Task Force, Sept 2001; also find this power density list at: "Analysis of Health and Environmental Effects of Proposed San Francisco Earthlink WiFi Network, Magda Havas, Ph.D, Trent University, May 2007.
17. Quote from letter by Norbert Hankin, chief environmental scientist with EPA's Radiation Protection Division. This letter was received by EMR Network 7-16-02 and can be found at www.emrnetwork.org .
18. "Supreme Court Rebuffs Challenge to U.S. Tower Policy," Microwave News, Jan./Feb 2001; also EMR Network Petition For Inquiry To Consider Amendment of Parts 1 and 2 of the FCC's Rules Concerning the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, September 25, 2001. See also FCC order to deny application for review filed by the EMR Network, adopted July 28, 2003. These documents found at www.emrnetwork.org .
19. Hicks, Onnink, Barber, Pennington v. Horvath Communications, Cause No.71C01-0107-CP St. Joseph Circuit Court, St Joseph County, Indiana.
20. "Some Unexpected Health Hazards Associated with Cell Tower Siting," Bill P. Curry, PhD., Cell Towers: Wireless Convenience or Environmental Hazard? The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council, edited by B. Blake Levitt, 2000. See chapter 6.
21. Practical Guidelines to Protect Human Health Against Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted in Mobile Telephony, Summary June 2001, Miguel Muntane Condeminas, industrial engineer for Consulting Comunicacio i Disseny S.L, Barcelona,
22. See www.health-concerns.org and http://www.safewireless.org/ . These sites provide a pathway to access Dr. Carlo's Mobil Telephone Health Concerns Registry where people can report ill health effects from living near microwave transmitters or from the use of wireless devices.
23. "Electromagnetic Fields, (EMF) Killing Fields," Arthur Firstenberg, The Ecologist, v. 34, n. 5, 6-10-2004.
24. "Study of the health of people living in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations: I. influences of distance and sex," R. Santini et al, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées"laboratoire de biochimie-pharmacologie, 2002.
25. "Cancer Risks from Microwaves Confirmed," Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society press release, 5-24-07.
26. "The Microwave Syndrome"a preliminary study in Spain," Navarro E. et al, Biology and Medicine, 22 (2 &3) 161-169, 2003; also " The Microwave Syndrome"Further Aspects of a Spanish Study," Oberfeld G et al 2004, International Conference Proceedings, Kos, Greece 2004.
27. "Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations," Abdel-Rassoul et al, Neurotoxicology, 8-01-2006.
28. "Increase of Cancer Near Cell-Phone Transmitter Station," Wolf D. and Wolf, International Journal of Cancer Prevention 1-2, April 2004.
29. "Two in Three Believe Radiation from Phones Damaged their Health," Geoffrey Lean, 7-8-07 Independent on Sunday, U.K.
30. "Cancer Cluster at Phone Masts, " Times On Line, The Sunday Times, UK 4-22-07.
31. Report by Roland Stabenow, 9-21-06, head of cancer registry in Berlin.
32. "How Shall We Cope With the Increasing Amounts of Airborne Radiation?" Olle Johansson, Journal of the Australasian College of Environmental Medicine, Dec. 2006.
33. "Building Top Floors Closed After Brain Tumor Alert," Lisa Macnamara, The Australian, UK, 05-13-07. Read this report at www.rense.com.
34. "Cancer Strikes 12 Female Staffers," Tony Koch, Omega-News, 4-06-07.
35. "Swedes Hit Hard By WiMax, 6-12-06. This story says that the Swedish media reported that in the town of Gotene, the hospital emergency room was flooded with calls regarding headaches, difficulty breathing, blurry vision and heart problems upon WiMAX start-up. At least 5 people had to leave their homes.
36. "How WiMAX Works," E. Grabianowski and M. Brain, www.computer.howstuffworks.com .
37. "250-foot Tower Raises New Bellevue Fears, John Hopkins, Cheektowaga Times, 8-09-2007; See also "Congress Approves Homeland Security Bill," Spencer Hsu, Washington Post 08-07-07.
38. Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 3, No. 2, March 2007: 79-86.
39. Robert Becker, The Body Electric, 1986.
Amy Worthington - October 9, 2007 Global Research - posted in Idaho Observer - 2007-10-07 - Posted at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7025
05 July 2008
ME uranium to gooo to Ontario - o -o -o
Canada gets Saddam's uranium
BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press
July 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM EDT
BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press
July 5, 2008 at 2:21 PM EDT
The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.
The removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called “dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth “tens of millions of dollars.” A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
“We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity,” he said.
The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 13,500-kilometre trip to Montreal.
And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centre-piece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, UN inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the massive site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.
Yellowcake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like colour and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say.
Moving the yellowcake faced numerous hurdles.
Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellowcake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and within easy range of extremist factions, including some that Washington claims are aided by Iran. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact.
Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington.
An alternative plan took shape: shipping out the yellowcake on cargo planes. (oh, that's ludicrous! Really, REALLY dangerous. But Ontario MUST be made into the butthole of the world, no matter how dangerous THAT is .. )
But the yellowcake still needed a final destination. Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market, where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's currently selling for about half that. The Cameco deal was reached earlier this year, the official said.
At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellowcake from the Saddam-era containers — some leaking or weakened by corrosion — and reloading the material into about 3,500 secure barrels.
In April, truck convoys started moving the yellowcake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport, the official said. Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried in 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base.
On June 3, a U.S. ship left the island for Montreal, said the official, who declined to give further details about the operation.
The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.
Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.
The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.
Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.
But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive “hot zones” entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take “many years.”
The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.
A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.
A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
See my links on dumping of uranium in Ontario, on my blog lowlevelradiation.blogspot.com
and you may wish to consider the following:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Dera Ghazi KhanThe removal of 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.
What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine.
“Everyone is very happy to have this safely out of Iraq,”said a senior U.S. official who outlined the nearly three-month operation to The Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called “dirty bomb” — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.
The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium producer, Cameco Corp., in a transaction the official described as worth “tens of millions of dollars.” A Cameco spokesman, Lyle Krahn, declined to discuss the price, but said the yellowcake will be processed at facilities in Ontario for use in energy-producing reactors.
“We are pleased ... that we have taken (the yellowcake) from a volatile region into a stable area to produce clean electricity,” he said.
The deal culminated more than a year of intense diplomatic and military initiatives — kept hushed in fear of ambushes or attacks once the convoys were under way: first carrying 3,500 barrels by road to Baghdad, then on 37 military flights to the Indian Ocean atoll of Diego Garcia and finally aboard a U.S.-flagged ship for a 13,500-kilometre trip to Montreal.
And, in a symbolic way, the mission linked the current attempts to stabilize Iraq with some of the high-profile claims about Saddam's weapons capabilities in the buildup to the 2003 invasion.
Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger — and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims — led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration.
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centre-piece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.
Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, UN inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
U.S. and Iraqi forces have guarded the massive site — surrounded by huge sand berms — following a wave of looting after Saddam's fall that included villagers toting away yellowcake storage barrels for use as drinking water cisterns.
Yellowcake is obtained by using various solutions to leach out uranium from raw ore and can have a corn meal-like colour and consistency. It poses no severe risk if stored and sealed properly. But exposure carries well-documented health concerns associated with heavy metals such as damage to internal organs, experts say.
“The big problem comes with any inhalation of any of the yellowcake dust,”said Doug Brugge, a professor of public health issues at the Tufts University School of Medicine.
Moving the yellowcake faced numerous hurdles.
Diplomats and military leaders first weighed the idea of shipping the yellowcake overland to Kuwait's port on the Persian Gulf. Such a route, however, would pass through Iraq's Shiite heartland and within easy range of extremist factions, including some that Washington claims are aided by Iran. The ship also would need to clear the narrow Strait of Hormuz at the mouth of the Gulf, where U.S. and Iranian ships often come in close contact.
Kuwaiti authorities, too, were reluctant to open their borders to the shipment despite top-level lobbying from Washington.
An alternative plan took shape: shipping out the yellowcake on cargo planes. (oh, that's ludicrous! Really, REALLY dangerous. But Ontario MUST be made into the butthole of the world, no matter how dangerous THAT is .. )
But the yellowcake still needed a final destination. Iraqi government officials sought buyers on the commercial market, where uranium prices spiked at about $120 per pound last year. It's currently selling for about half that. The Cameco deal was reached earlier this year, the official said.
At that point, U.S.-led crews began removing the yellowcake from the Saddam-era containers — some leaking or weakened by corrosion — and reloading the material into about 3,500 secure barrels.
In April, truck convoys started moving the yellowcake from Tuwaitha to Baghdad's international airport, the official said. Then, for two weeks in May, it was ferried in 37 flights to Diego Garcia, a speck of British territory in the Indian Ocean where the U.S. military maintains a base.
On June 3, a U.S. ship left the island for Montreal, said the official, who declined to give further details about the operation.
The yellowcake wasn't the only dangerous item removed from Tuwaitha.
Earlier this year, the military withdrew four devices for controlled radiation exposure from the former nuclear complex. The lead-enclosed irradiation units, used to decontaminate food and other items, contain elements of high radioactivity that could potentially be used in a weapon, according to the official. Their Ottawa-based manufacturer, MDS Nordion, took them back for free, the official said.
The yellowcake was the last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts, but years of final cleanup is ahead for Tuwaitha and other smaller sites.
The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency plans to offer technical expertise.
Last month, a team of Iraqi nuclear experts completed training in the Ukrainian ghost town of Pripyat, which once housed the Chernobyl workers before the deadly meltdown in 1986, said an IAEA official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decontamination plan has not yet been publicly announced.
But the job ahead is enormous, complicated by digging out radioactive “hot zones” entombed in concrete during Saddam's rule, said the IAEA official. Last year, an IAEA safety expert, Dennis Reisenweaver, predicted the cleanup could take “many years.”
The yellowcake issue also is one of the many troubling footnotes of the war for Washington.
A CIA officer, Valerie Plame, claimed her identity was leaked to journalists to retaliate against her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who wrote that he had found no evidence to support assertions that Iraq tried to buy additional yellowcake from Niger.
A federal investigation led to the conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
See my links on dumping of uranium in Ontario, on my blog lowlevelradiation.blogspot.com
and you may wish to consider the following:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Beginning in 1972 the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission began geological surveys to find mineable deposits of uranium. Uranium deposits were found in several locations in Pakistan. The Atomic Energy Minerals Centre (AEMC) in Lahore was responsible for the exploration and mining operations. The Siwalik Hills, west of Dera Ghazi Khan, was indentified as the most promising location. Even this uranium ore is of relatively low grade, containing only a few kg of uranium per ton [compared to tens of kilograms in high-grade Canadian or Australian ore].
In 1996 Pakistan launched a five-year effort to locate new uranium resources. The $7 million effort included exploratory drilling, reconnaisance and radon track density surveys and mapping in the areas of north and south Nangar Nai, Khara-Murghan Zai and Pitek Sori Gorakh in the Dera Ghanzi Khan region.
The Pakisani uranium extraction plant, located in the same region, was designed by Pakistani chemical, mechanical and electrical engineers from AEMC and other PAEC centers with the assistance from other Pakistani industrial concerns which manufactured certain key components. Construction of the uranium yellow cake plant was completed in short order, and the first yellow cake, which is a concentrated form of uranium, was produced at the plant within 12 months of the start of construction.
Sources and Resources
- "How Pakistan Made Nuclear Fuel" by Munir Ahmad Khan, former chairperson of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission: Islamabad The Nation 7 February 1998, page 7 [Pakistan: Article on How Pakistan Made Nuclear Fuel : FBIS-NES-98-042 : 11 Feb 1998]
- [NB96.36-16] Pakistan: Uranium Institute News Briefing
29 June 2008
Conference on Disarmament Statements
CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS FROM AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, RUSSIA, SOUTH AFRICA, CANADA, FRANCE, SRI LANKA, CHINA AND NEW ZEALAND 
24 June 2008
States News Service
The following information was released by the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG):
The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements from Australia, Japan, the Russian Federation, South Africa, Canada, France, Sri Lanka, China and New Zealand on Presidential proposal CD/1840 to end the impasse in the Conference and on regional nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament efforts.
The incoming President of the Conference, Ambassador Christina Rocca of the United States, said it was unquestioned that CD/1840 was a compromise, and thus by definition, unable to meet anyone's goals perfectly, but it was well-suited to advance everyone's interests and to get the Conference back to work. If it was adopted, all would win much and lose a little. While the United States would continue to focus on CD/1840 as the desired outcome of this year's activities in the Conference, with the support of the P6, they proposed a series of informal meetings during the third part of the 2008 session of the Conference in late July and in August. The United States had asked the seven Coordinators to resume their roles and to chair the discussions. The full exchange of views in these renewed informal discussions would help refresh all the issues in Members' minds, would help advance consensus on CD/1840, and would help inform the Conference on its final report.
Australia informed the Conference of an announcement made by the Australian Prime Minister in a speech in Japan on the establishment of an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. In a joint statement with the Japanese Prime Minister, Australia and Japan had renewed their determination to strengthen the international disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation regime and to cooperate closely to achieve a successful outcome to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. The objective of the Commission was to enhance global efforts to strengthen the Non-Proliferation Treaty by paving the way for a successful Review Conference in 2010.
Japan said that, on 12 June, the Japanese Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia had released a joint statement to reaffirm the particular importance of the Japan-Australia relationship and to strengthen further the comprehensive and strategic partnership between the two countries. Both leaders had renewed their determination to strengthen the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Japan had also welcomed the Australian Prime Minister's proposal to establish an international commission on nuclear non-proliferation. On CD/1840, Japan believed it was a well-balanced compromise.
The Russian Federation said not everything in CD/1840 suited the Russian Federation and it was sure that all other delegations were not fully satisfied either. The Russian Federation wanted a stronger focus on prevention of an arms race in outer space which was a priority for the country. The Russian Federation was interested in having a negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation was prepared not to oppose it with the view of ensuring the quickest return of the Conference to work.
South Africa said the consensus rule in the Conference had often been mentioned as the main reason why the Conference had not been able to negotiate anything in the last couple of years. But was it not perhaps the misuse of the consensus rule, rather than the rule itself, that had created the problem. The consensus rule did not apply itself, it was the Members of the Conference that chose when and how to apply it. When it was used to block the commencement, not the finalization, of negotiations, one could perhaps understand why some referred to the "tyranny of consensus". South Africa did not believe that CD/1840 was perfect. However, it represented that which was possible and practical under the present circumstances. South Africa stood ready to join a consensus on CD/1840.
Canada, speaking also on behalf of the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), presented to the Conference the report on a conference entitled: "Security in Space: the Next Generation", that had taken place earlier this year. The conference had been the latest in a series of annual conferences held by UNIDIR on the issues of space security, the peaceful uses of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
France referred to the statement by the President of the French Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy, on 21 March in Cherbourg proposing an ambitious disarmament plan, saying that these transparency measures were unprecedented for a nuclear weapon State. The President of France proposed to invite international experts to come and witness the dismantling of the fissile material for weapons facilities in Pierrelatte and Marcoule. Today, France renewed this invitation, and a visit to these facilities would be organized on 16 September. All Member States were invited to send representatives.
Sri Lanka said CD/1840 was a good basis for discussion, Sri Lanka had no doubt about that. However, Sri Lanka wished to draw attention to some underlying structural anomalies which had to be addressed if this effort was to be successful. CD/1840 privileged one agenda item over others. This particular item elevated over the others involved certain Member States more than certain others. If those Member States felt that their fundamental national interests were at variance with the spirit of CD/1840, then it was not a question of a handful of holdouts. Those countries concerns had to be seriously engaged with. If it was the perception of these States that their core strategic interests were at stake, then the Conference had to do better. Doing better could mean looking afresh at the other agenda items.
China hoped that the relevant parties would continue to make efforts to further conduct a constructive dialogue and consultations so that they were able to narrow the differences and reach consensus on a programme of work which was acceptable to all. In general, China was ready to make joint efforts with all the relevant delegations to push forward progress in the Conference.
New Zealand supported the President's comment that moving forward to reach consensus on the basis of CD/1840 was the best basis for advancing the work in the Conference. As far as its national position was concerned, New Zealand would be happy to commence negotiations on any of the core items before the Conference. As a non nuclear weapon State and as a State which had taken strong positions on nuclear weapons, New Zealand particularly wished for the start of negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The reality was that no delegation here was in a position to begin serious negotiations on all the core issues before the Conference. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would contribute to nuclear disarmament. New Zealand would like to see the treaty deal with verification and existing stocks and would argue in the negotiations in favour of including verification and existing stocks.
According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Chile as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; appoint Japan as Coordinator to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations; appoint Canada as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with issues related to prevention of an arms race in outer space; appoint Senegal as Coordinator to preside over substantive discussions dealing with appropriate arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; and would request those Coordinators to present a report to the Conference on the progress of work before the conclusion of the session. The Conference would also decide to request the Coordinators for the agenda items previously appointed by the 2008 Presidents (i.e., new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems for such weapons, radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armament) to continue their work during the current session.
Draft Decision CD/1840 builds on an earlier proposal submitted by the 2007 P-6 (CD/2007/L.1), and its related documents CRP.5 and CRP.6, combining those three texts in a single document.
The Conference on Disarmament will hold a public plenary at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 June, to listen to a statement by Javier Solana, High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union. This will be the last public plenary of the second part of the 2008 session of the Conference. The third and last part of the 2008 session of the Conference will be held from 28 July to 12 September.
Statements
CHRISTINA ROCCA (United States), Incoming President of the Conference on Disarmament, said it was an honour to preside over the Conference. The common sense of purpose shown by all members of the Presidency, their joint aim in getting the Conference back to work, the genuine collegialitiy, was all impressive and gratifiying. It was a demonstration of how harmony could be created from disparate voices, given the will to do so. Some delegations had questioned the need for the differentiation among the key issues shown by CD/1840. It was unquestioned that CD/1840 was a compromise, and thus by definition, unable to meet anyone's goals perfectly, but it was well-suited to advance everyone's interests and to get the Conference back to work. If it was adopted, all would win much and lose a little.
read the rest of the press release here.
Here is the .pdf of the draft document
http://www.ipb.org/newsletters/Files/More%20from%20UN.pdf25 June 2008
Australia Radioactive house 'unfit to live in'
Source: ABC
The house is being labelled 'a radioactive waste dump'.
The house is being labelled 'a radioactive waste dump'.
The New South Wales Government is under pressure to compensate and apologise to residents living on radioactive land in Sydney's north.
A Sydney couple bought the waterfront property at Hunters Hill from the Health Department seven years ago.
Uranium processing was carried out on the site a century ago, and independent testing shows some soil samples are 350 times more radioactive than what is considered safe.
The Government has carried out its own tests in the past and has repeatedly said the site is not dangerous.
But the property's owners are using the new results to press the Government to buyback the property and pay compensation.
The lawyer representing the owners, Nicholas Brunton, says the Government can expect an approach today.
"The Government's declined to even do any more further testing of the site, they believe it's within safe levels," he said.
"We want to show them the report, we'll be doing that today, and then we want to sit down and negotiate an acceptable outcome in a fair and equitable manner."
Mr Brunton says the results show the site is totally unfit for human habitation.
"It was a much more comprehensive survey," he said.
"The Government only took a brief one-day screening survey, which they admit is not a comprehensive risk assessment.
"Soil samples indicate radiation above normal background levels of up to 350 to 400 times, so the results are far more significant."
'Appalling injustice'
A woman whose parents both died of cancer while living near the old uranium smelter says it is time the Health Department ended the cover-up.
Katie McGrath, who lived near the property in Hunter's Hill in the 1970s, says she is not surprised independent testing has uncovered dangerous levels of radiation.
Ms McGrath says the truth has been withheld from residents.
"We'll never get our childhood back or the lives that we might have lived, but we do owe it to our parents to bring to light the appalling injustice that has occurred here," she said.
"It's time this cover-up was ended and we received a formal apology from the Department of Health, and it's also time they raised the issue of compensation to all the residents affected."
Radioactive 'hotspots'
The Health Department bought two other radioactive blocks on the same street in the late 1970s.
Local Liberal MP Michael Richardson says it should also buyback the couple's property.
"Number 11 is really where the hotspots were," he said.
"They reckon in the 1980s they took radioactive material from number 11 and dumped it on numbers seven and nine, but clearly they didn't get it all or anything like it all.
"We always suspected that number 11 would be highly radioactive and these tests have actually borne that out."
An Upper House inquiry into the risks for residents starts next week.
The ABC has been told no-one from the Health Department is available to comment on the issue.
http://www.bigpond.com/news/national/content/20080625/2285313.asp
A Sydney couple bought the waterfront property at Hunters Hill from the Health Department seven years ago.
Uranium processing was carried out on the site a century ago, and independent testing shows some soil samples are 350 times more radioactive than what is considered safe.
The Government has carried out its own tests in the past and has repeatedly said the site is not dangerous.
But the property's owners are using the new results to press the Government to buyback the property and pay compensation.
The lawyer representing the owners, Nicholas Brunton, says the Government can expect an approach today.
"The Government's declined to even do any more further testing of the site, they believe it's within safe levels," he said.
"We want to show them the report, we'll be doing that today, and then we want to sit down and negotiate an acceptable outcome in a fair and equitable manner."
Mr Brunton says the results show the site is totally unfit for human habitation.
"It was a much more comprehensive survey," he said.
"The Government only took a brief one-day screening survey, which they admit is not a comprehensive risk assessment.
"Soil samples indicate radiation above normal background levels of up to 350 to 400 times, so the results are far more significant."
'Appalling injustice'
A woman whose parents both died of cancer while living near the old uranium smelter says it is time the Health Department ended the cover-up.
Katie McGrath, who lived near the property in Hunter's Hill in the 1970s, says she is not surprised independent testing has uncovered dangerous levels of radiation.
Ms McGrath says the truth has been withheld from residents.
"We'll never get our childhood back or the lives that we might have lived, but we do owe it to our parents to bring to light the appalling injustice that has occurred here," she said.
"It's time this cover-up was ended and we received a formal apology from the Department of Health, and it's also time they raised the issue of compensation to all the residents affected."
Radioactive 'hotspots'
The Health Department bought two other radioactive blocks on the same street in the late 1970s.
Local Liberal MP Michael Richardson says it should also buyback the couple's property.
"Number 11 is really where the hotspots were," he said.
"They reckon in the 1980s they took radioactive material from number 11 and dumped it on numbers seven and nine, but clearly they didn't get it all or anything like it all.
"We always suspected that number 11 would be highly radioactive and these tests have actually borne that out."
An Upper House inquiry into the risks for residents starts next week.
The ABC has been told no-one from the Health Department is available to comment on the issue.
http://www.bigpond.com/news/national/content/20080625/2285313.asp
14 June 2008
Books of Note: Collateral Damage: America's War against Iraqi Civilians
Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian on “Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians”
In their new book, journalists Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian bring us the voices of fifty American combat veterans of the Iraq War and their understanding of the US occupation and why Iraqis are so opposed to it. [includes rush transcript]
Guests:
Chris Hedges, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and Senior Fellow at the Nation Institute. He was the former Middle East Bureau Chief of the New York Times. He is the author of several books, including War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning and American Fascists. His latest book is Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.
Laila Al-Arian, Freelance journalist who has written for several publications including USA Today, The Nation magazine, HuffingtonPost.com, and the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. She is the co-author of Collateral Damage: America’s War Against Iraqi Civilians.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/10/chris_hedges_and_laila_al_arian
and the SPP energy greenwash awards go to...
Yesterday the "Making the Lakes Great" conference conclusions was posted on the H2O list by Dr. Gail Krantzberg, Director of the McMaster Univ. Dofasco Centre for Engineering and Public Policy, under the subject heading, "energy options to protect Great Lakes waters".
Here were the presentations, including the Canadian Nuclear Assoc., US Dept. of Energy, Suncor, Acelor Mittal, Hydro One.
http://www.energy2100.ca/Presentations.html
check out the merged US-Canadian flags on slide 3 of
http://www.energy2100.ca/pdf/Energy2100_Scott%20Minos_U.S.%20Perspectives%20on%20Sustainable%20Energy.pdf
the rest of that slideshow is also instructive, eg. slides 21 and 22, and 55 (arms, and happy face nuke towers- seriously) !!!
or how about the rebranding of James Lovelock, author of "The Gaia Hypothesis" as nuclear advocate on slide 9 at:
http://www.energy2100.ca/pdf/Energy2100_Murray%20Elstons_Canada%92s%20Nuclear%20Industry%20-%20Preparing%20For%20The%20Future.pdf
And the conference conclusions, translated, mean a US-Canada integrated power grid, based on primarily carbon sequestered tar sands and coal sources, and nukes, with some wind, sun, and geothermal thrown in for PR. The dirty sources are to be heavily subsidized by government, with high consumer pricing supposedly for energy and water 'conservation' (of course while industry gets bulk reduced rates, and while shareholders make record gains). Measured by an integrated metred system with data collation, analysis, and all policy formulation to be carried out by a new 'government' structure, no doubt to be a P3 as other new federal and Ontario infrastructure boards are, heavily embedded with the same players that gathered at this conference.
We can do better.
Dust off the better studies sitting on the shelf that show there's enough wind and sun on the planet to fuel 6X our current use, and conserve by getting rid of dirty industries, with transition programs for unionized workers to build the renewables, rather than mainly the nonrenewables and nukes. Do all of the above with public power, not the exorbitant costs of privatized P3 power. Eliminate speculation, and pull self-governance from industry heads and investors. Roll-back NAFTA and put a moratorium on further entrenching of the SPP, TILMA, and bilateral deals.
Do not use 'renewable energy' to mean building more hydro dams and canals to channel more Hudson Bay Basin water down to the Great Lakes, killing what's left of our wild north for the sake of profiteers who don't have the smarts and humility to shift gears.
And above all, read beyond 'green' headlines to expose and reject policy which would entrench the problems.
Thanks to all activists for your work for real change, inspite of the kind of nonsense noted here, tossed from various quarters.
Our words and actions, of critique and substantive alternatives, are the change we want to see.
Leigh Thompson
Here were the presentations, including the Canadian Nuclear Assoc., US Dept. of Energy, Suncor, Acelor Mittal, Hydro One.
http://www.energy2100.ca/Presentations.html
check out the merged US-Canadian flags on slide 3 of
http://www.energy2100.ca/pdf/Energy2100_Scott%20Minos_U.S.%20Perspectives%20on%20Sustainable%20Energy.pdf
the rest of that slideshow is also instructive, eg. slides 21 and 22, and 55 (arms, and happy face nuke towers- seriously) !!!
or how about the rebranding of James Lovelock, author of "The Gaia Hypothesis" as nuclear advocate on slide 9 at:
http://www.energy2100.ca/pdf/Energy2100_Murray%20Elstons_Canada%92s%20Nuclear%20Industry%20-%20Preparing%20For%20The%20Future.pdf
And the conference conclusions, translated, mean a US-Canada integrated power grid, based on primarily carbon sequestered tar sands and coal sources, and nukes, with some wind, sun, and geothermal thrown in for PR. The dirty sources are to be heavily subsidized by government, with high consumer pricing supposedly for energy and water 'conservation' (of course while industry gets bulk reduced rates, and while shareholders make record gains). Measured by an integrated metred system with data collation, analysis, and all policy formulation to be carried out by a new 'government' structure, no doubt to be a P3 as other new federal and Ontario infrastructure boards are, heavily embedded with the same players that gathered at this conference.
We can do better.
Dust off the better studies sitting on the shelf that show there's enough wind and sun on the planet to fuel 6X our current use, and conserve by getting rid of dirty industries, with transition programs for unionized workers to build the renewables, rather than mainly the nonrenewables and nukes. Do all of the above with public power, not the exorbitant costs of privatized P3 power. Eliminate speculation, and pull self-governance from industry heads and investors. Roll-back NAFTA and put a moratorium on further entrenching of the SPP, TILMA, and bilateral deals.
Do not use 'renewable energy' to mean building more hydro dams and canals to channel more Hudson Bay Basin water down to the Great Lakes, killing what's left of our wild north for the sake of profiteers who don't have the smarts and humility to shift gears.
And above all, read beyond 'green' headlines to expose and reject policy which would entrench the problems.
Thanks to all activists for your work for real change, inspite of the kind of nonsense noted here, tossed from various quarters.
Our words and actions, of critique and substantive alternatives, are the change we want to see.
Leigh Thompson
12 June 2008
Experts Revive Debate Over Cellphones and Cancer
What do brain surgeons know about cellphone safety that the rest of us don’t?
Last week, three prominent neurosurgeons told the CNN interviewer Larry King that they did not hold cellphones next to their ears. “I think the safe practice,” said Dr. Keith Black, a surgeon at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, “is to use an earpiece so you keep the microwave antenna away from your brain.”
Dr. Vini Khurana, an associate professor of neurosurgery at the Australian National University who is an outspoken critic of cellphones, said: “I use it on the speaker-phone mode. I do not hold it to my ear.” And CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, a neurosurgeon at Emory University Hospital, said that like Dr. Black he used an earpiece.
Along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s recent diagnosis of a glioma, a type of tumor that critics have long associated with cellphone use, the doctors’ remarks have helped reignite a long-simmering debate about cellphones and cancer.
That supposed link has been largely dismissed by many experts, including the American Cancer Society. The theory that cellphones cause brain tumors “defies credulity,” said Dr. Eugene Flamm, chairman of neurosurgery at Montefiore Medical Center.
According to the Food and Drug Administration, three large epidemiology studies since 2000 have shown no harmful effects. CTIA — the Wireless Association, the leading industry trade group, said in a statement, “The overwhelming majority of studies that have been published in scientific journals around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk.”
The F.D.A. notes, however, that the average period of phone use in the studies it cites was about three years, so the research doesn’t answer questions about long-term exposures. Critics say many studies are flawed for that reason, and also because they do not distinguish between casual and heavy use.
Cellphones emit non-ionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancer. There is no known biological mechanism to explain how non-ionizing radiation might lead to cancer.
But researchers who have raised concerns say that just because science can’t explain the mechanism doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Concerns have focused on the heat generated by cellphones and the fact that the radio frequencies are absorbed mostly by the head and neck. In recent studies that suggest a risk, the tumors tend to occur on the same side of the head where the patient typically holds the phone.
Like most research on the subject, the studies are observational, showing only an association between cellphone use and cancer, not a causal relationship. The most important of these studies is called Interphone, a vast research effort in 13 countries, including Canada, Israel and several in Europe.
Some of the research suggests a link between cellphone use and three types of tumors: glioma; cancer of the parotid, a salivary gland near the ear; and acoustic neuroma, a tumor that essentially occurs where the ear meets the brain. All these cancers are rare, so even if cellphone use does increase risk, the risk is still very low.
Last year, The American Journal of Epidemiology published data from Israel finding a 58 percent higher risk of parotid gland tumors among heavy cellphone users. Also last year, a Swedish analysis of 16 studies in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine showed a doubling of risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma after 10 years of heavy cellphone use.
“What we’re seeing is suggestions in epidemiological studies that have looked at people using phones for 10 or more years,” says Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an industry publication that tracks the research. “There are some very disconcerting findings that suggest a problem, although it’s much too early to reach a conclusive view.”
Some doctors say the real concern is not older cellphone users, who began using phones as adults, but children who are beginning to use phones today and face a lifetime of exposure.
“More and more kids are using cellphones,” said Dr. Paul J. Rosch, clinical professor of medicine and psychiatry at New York Medical College. “They may be much more affected. Their brains are growing rapidly, and their skulls are thinner.”
For people who are concerned about any possible risk, a simple solution is to use a headset. Of course, that option isn’t always convenient, and some critics have raised worries about wireless devices like the Bluetooth that essentially place a transmitter in the ear.
The fear is that even if the individual risk of using a cellphone is low, with three billion users worldwide, even a minuscule risk would translate into a major public health concern.
“We cannot say with any certainty that cellphones are either safe or not safe,” Dr. Black said on CNN. “My concern is that with the widespread use of cellphones, the worst scenario would be that we get the definitive study 10 years from now, and we find out there is a correlation.”
June 11, 2008, 3:31 pm
How Much Radiation Does Your Phone Emit?
Cellphones emit varying levels of radiation, depending on make and model. (Lisa Poole/Associated Press)The technology news site CNET has compiled two interesting lists showing which cellphones give off the most and the least radiation.
In publishing the information, CNET editors note the data aren’t meant to imply that cellphone radiation poses a risk, nor is it meant to say that the phones are safe. As I recently reported in my Well column last week, the data on cellphone safety is mixed, although a few recent international studies have suggested a link with three types of brain tumors. The Food and Drug Administration also says there’s not enough information to determine conclusively whether cellphones are safe or unsafe.
The charts focus on the specific absorption rate, or SAR, of a cellphone, which is a way of measuring the quantity of radio frequency energy that is absorbed by the body, according to CNET.
For a phone to pass F.C.C. certification, that phone’s maximum SAR level must be less than 1.6 W/kg (watts per kilogram). In Europe, the level is capped at 2 W/kg, while Canada allows a maximum of 1.6 W/kg. The SAR level listed in our charts represents the highest SAR level with the phone next to the ear as tested by the F.C.C. Keep in mind that it is possible for the SAR level to vary between different transmission bands and that different testing bodies can obtain different results. Also, it’s possible for results to vary between different editions of the same phone (such as a handset that’s offered by multiple carriers).
Four Motorola phones top the list, with the V195s putting out the maximum 1.6 W/kg. The popular BlackBerry Curve 8330 rounds out the No. 5 spot. To see the full top 10 list, click here.
The list of lowest-radiation cellphones includes the LG KG800 and the Motorola Razr V3x, which put out 0.135 W/kg and 0.14 W/kg, respectively. To see all the lowest radiation phones, click here.
If you don’t see your phone on the list, the site includes lists of cellphones by brand name. My iPhone was listed under “other” brands, but I was interested to learn that its SAR number is 0.974.
08 June 2008
On cellphone radiation
New Radiation Scare from Mobile Phones - video
Are you a journalist? Media hotline - TV / radio /press
"Growing evidence that mobile phone radiation affects living tissues - health risks? "
Video comment by Dr Patrick Dixon on research showing possible health risks from heavy exposure to mobile phone radiation. Risks probably very small in normal use.
WAIT FOR PAGE TO LOAD - PRESS PLAY - MAY NEED TO PRESS AGAIN AND WAIT
Video comment by Dr Patrick Dixon on research showing possible health risks from heavy exposure to mobile phone radiation. Risks probably very small in normal use.
WAIT FOR PAGE TO LOAD - PRESS PLAY - MAY NEED TO PRESS AGAIN AND WAIT
2.5 times risk of brain tumours from phone radiation in humans? Early Alzheimers disease from destroyed brain cells? Reports showing no health risk at all? Each month we see more reports about mobile phone radiation effects - but what does it actually mean for you and me? Is there really a health risk? Here is a common-sense personal view from a physician and parent of four children who is also a major user of wireless devices of all kinds.
New reports continue to be published several times a year, suggesting that there might be health risks from mobile phones electromagnetic radiation. Yet other studies show little or no health impact.
There can be no doubt any longer that mobile phone radiation affects living cells. For example research shows that nematode worms exposed to mobile phone radiation produce more eggs, release stress hormones and grow larger.
But what is the effect of mobile phone radiation on people? Could we see a mass court action in twenty years time against telecom companies by people claiming compensation for health damage caused by radiation? It's a possibility, even though at present the clear evidence suggests that if there is any effect on human health at all from use of a mobile phone, the electromagnetic radiation risk is very, very low for the individual user.
However some studies have caused concern in the media. For example, in October 2004, scientists at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm gave a new warning about mobile phone radiation and brain tumours - accoustic neuromas (published in the journal Epidemiology). They found that long term users of mobile phones were four times as likely to develop growths on the side they held the phone, and twice as likely as non-users to develop these benign non-cancerous growths. They saw no increased risk from mobile phone radiation in those who had used mobile phones for less than 10 years. The study was of 150 mobile phone users, compared to 60 in a control group.
Do mobile phones cause sickness - Dr speaks - Web TV
March 2003 another study in the International Journal of Oncology suggested that mobile phone users had a 30% increased risk of brain tumours - mainly accoustic neuromas - which occurred close to the ear used for mobile phone listening. Previous studies had shown that growth of leukaemia cells could be increased dramatically after exposure to mobile phone radiation. Although accoustic neuromas do not metastasise (jump to invade other parts of the body) they can create serious problems if intreated. The early symptoms can be hearing loss, loss of balance or noises in one ear - but all these are very common for many other reasons. Advanced growths can invade other nearby areas, causing pressure on the brain.
What makes these studies difficult to evaluate is that a number of other research studies into mobile phone radiation have not shown the same findings. And the effects may be very different depending on the type of electromagnetic radiation. GSM and GPRS (2.5G) phones use what is known as pulsed radiation. The levels rise and fall very rapidly. 3G phones on the other hand use continuous levels. Some research suggests that pulsed radiation may have a greater effect on cells than constant exposure, which is important because different studies have used different types of radiation - perhaps an explanation for some of the more confusing results.
Short exposure to mobile phone radiation kills brain cells in rats
Short exposure to Mobile phone radiation - two hours - has been reported in 2003 to destroy cells in parts of the brain important for memory, movement and learning, and could possibly conceivably premature onset of illnesses such as Alzheimers - although we have no evidence of a similar effect in humans. Lund University Hospital Professor Leif Salford says mobile radiation allows harmful proteins and toxins through the brain barrier in rats. He also has found significant degree of damage to brain neurons in adolescent rats.
He said: "If this effect was to transfer to young mobile users, the effects could be terrifying. We can see reduced brain reserve capacity, meaning those who might normally have got Alzheimer's or dementia in old age could get it much earlier." He used rats aged 12-26 weeks because their brain cells were still developing in a similar way to teenagers and younger children. They were exposed for just 120 minutes to radiation equivalent to typical intensive mobile phone use. Sections of rat brains were examined 50 days after exposure. Animals exposed to medium and high level radiation had many dead neurons in their brains - totally different from rats which were not exposed to radiation. (published Feb 2003).
The trouble is that similar studies cannot be carried out in humans because mobile phone radiation exposure would have to be followed by brain biopsy which can cause epilepsy later, permanent brain damage, stroke or even death. We can only get the answer in humans by doing studies on brain tissue of teenagers killed in accidents, and comparing brain tissue of heavy, medium, light and non-users of mobile phones. In addition, we have yet to see other centres replicate his work.
Dr Kjell Hansson Mild in Sweden studied radiation risk in 11,000 mobile telephone users. Symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, burning sensations on the skin were more common among those who made longer mobile phone calls. At the same time there are a growing number of unconfirmed reports of individuals whose health has been affected after chronic, frequent use of mobile phones, presumably from radiation effects on cells. See below for SAR data on mobile phone radiation levels. Once again, for every study with a positive finding of effect on cells, there is another that has found nothing.
As I say, from a physician's point of view this is all rather difficult to interpret. The truth is that no one knows for sure, but it looks as though the health risks for an individual person with normal patterns of use are extremely low, almost non-existent. I still use a mobile phone, as do our teenage children, and my home has a wireless network as well as hands-free local handsets for landlines. The only steps we have taken are to mount the wireless LAN connection a few feet from where anyone sits, and to encourage our younger children not to spend their entire lives chatting away on mobiles - there are other reasons for that too such as homework and of course cost.
Latest mobile phone radiation news - press here NOW!
As long ago as June 1998 the Lancet reported that radiation from mobiles caused an increase of blood pressure. Dr Braune and colleagues in Freiburg, Germany, attached mobiles to the right side of the heads of ten volunteers. The phones were switched on and off by remote control without the volunteers knowing - so that any radiation effect could be separated from the psychological effect of holding a mobile phone. Their blood pressure rose each time by between 5-10mm Hg, probably from an electromagnetic radiation induced constrictive effect on blood vessels from the mobile phones.
This level of increase would be more than enough to trigger a stroke or heart attack in someone at severe risk, but is harmless in the vast majority of people. This was the first firm evidence that mobile phone radiation could directly alter cell function in the human body. But what about longer term radiation effects of using mobile phones? Could mobile phone exposure trigger cancer? Birth defects? What about the health risks not just from mobile phones but the transmitter masts?
This work on human subjects follows other ealier mobile phone studies in animals suggesting that electromagnetic radiation from mobiles may cause brain tumours, cancer, anxiety, memory loss and serious birth defects. But different studies have contradicted many of these findings. As in so much of cutting edge science, there are real uncertainties about mobile phone radiation. Remember it has taken 30 years to work out the side-effects of oral contraceptives and even that is still debated. Here are some of the more negative reports.
An Australian study found that mice exposed to pulsed digital mobile phone radiation over 18 months had twice the risk of developing cancers. An American study found that learning and short term memory were impaired after 45 minutes exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones in rats. And other studies of electromagnetic radiation on pregnant mice suggest that high exposure to mobile phones can affect intra-uterine development, confirmed recently in chicks (double birth defects, see below). The effects of mobile phone radiation in human embryo development are unknown.
Meanwhile, The European Union is drawing up guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposure of all types.
Mobile phones vary on radiation dosage: Following figures are for European mobile phones in SARS (watts of radiation from mobile phones per kg of brain), antenna extended / retracted. Safety is 10 watts/kg. Lowest radiation levels from phones with hidden antennae or ones extended away from head. Below that are SAR levels for US mobile phones. Note that there are different figures for SAR levels around for the same mobile phones, I suspect because some are official company data, and others independent lab measurements and that there may be other variables according to the exact conditions. For example the first table below shows big SAR phone radiation differences depending on the position of the aerial.
List of some European mobile phone SAR levels
| Manufacturer and Model | Extended/retracted SAR level |
| 1. Nokia 2110 | 0.44/0.25 |
| 2. Nokia 5110 | 0.37 |
| 3. Nokia 6110 | 0.29 |
| 4. Bosch World 718 | 0.28/0.33 |
| 5. Ericsson GA628 | 0.26 |
| 6. Hagenuk Global Handy | 0.03 |
| 7. Motorola Star V3688 | 0.02 |
| 8. Motorola Star TAC 70 | 0.02/0.01 |
(Source: National Physical Laboratory UK.)
List of top 10 highest radiation mobile phones in the US - SAR
| Manufacturer and Model | SAR Level |
| 1. Ericsson T28 World | 1.49 |
| 2. Nokia Digital 5160 | 1.45 |
| 3. Nokia 5170 | 1.45 |
| 4. Denso TP 2200 | 1.44 |
| 5. Qualcomm QCP-1960 | 1.41 |
| 6. Sanyo SCP-4500 | 1.4 |
| 7. Sony CMB-1200, 2200, 3200 | 1.3906 |
| 8. Nokia 8860 | 1.39 |
| 9a. Motorola StarTAC 7867 | 1.38 |
| 9b. Motorola ST7767D | 1.38 |
| 9c. Motorola Talkabout T8167 | 1.38 |
| 9d. Motorola Timeport P8167 | 1.38 |
| 10. Neopoint NP-1000 | 1.38 |
List of 10 lowest radiation mobile phones in the US - SAR
| Manufacturer and Model * | SAR Level |
| 1. Motorola StarTAC 7860 | 0.24 |
| 2. Qualcomm pdQ-1900 | 0.2634 |
| 3. Mitsubishi Trium Galaxy G-130 | 0.35 |
| 4. Motorola TalkAbout 2297 | 0.35 |
| 5a. Motorola ST7797 | 0.39 |
| 5b. Motorola T8097 | 0.39 |
| 5c. Motorola P8097 | 0.39 |
| 6. Motorola StarTAC 7790i | 0.42 |
| 7. Motorola i1000plus | 0.43 |
| 8a. Motorola G520 | 0.457 |
| 8b. Motorola M3682 | 0.457 |
| 9a. Ericsson KF-688 | 0.477 |
| 9b. Ericsson DF-688 | 0.477 |
| 10. Motorola M3097 | 0.53 |
(Source of both tables above: official manufacturers SAR data sent to FCC, and then collated by DoMode.com and CNET.com. These figures may not be 100% accurate and Global Change Ltd cannot take responsibility for them.)
Full list for all US mobile phone radiation SAR levels - press here
Latest news headlines on mobile phone radiation - MUST look here...
So what do we make of it all?
| The greatest risk to a mobile phone user is from an accident while distracted - particularly when driving. This risk is likely to be many tens of thousands of times greater than a radiation hazard. | |
| Evidence from human studies of mobile phone radiation is now of raised blood pressure, direct brain warming (very mild) as well as of mild sensations in heavy users. These effects are short term and unlikely to cause any health problems in the vast majority of users even over many years. | |
| There is no evidence so far of mobile phone radiation causing tumour formation or memory impairment in humans - may be memory enhancing. Much more research needed. | |
| Mice, rats and chickens may be more sensitive to electromagnetic effects from mobile phones on their cells. So results on animals may not be valid for humans. We just don't know. | |
| Further human studies of mobile phone health risks are urgently needed, because of the very large numbers using mobiles. | |
| Whatever effects of using mobile phones there may be in humans, the health risk to an individual user from electromagnetic radiation is likely to be very, very small indeed, but it is possible that some individuals may be more prone to radiation side effects than others. | |
| Expect large numbers of people to come forward with claims that a wide variety of conditions have been triggered or made worse by use of mobile phones. These claims will be extremely difficult to prove. Even if a link is shown, proving that a particular case was directly related to heavy mobile phone use is almost impossible. This has been the case, for example, over Gulf War syndrome, or reactions to MMR vaccine, or the debates over passive smoking, or clustering of leukaemia cases near power stations. | |
| If the case against mobiles were to become established in people's minds, expect many lawsuits alleging that other sources of electromagnetic radiation have also damaged health or caused birth defects - for example electricity sub-stations, computers, generators, minicab aerials. | |
| Some manufacturers already sell radiation shields for mobiles, reducing electromagnetic radiation to the head. Many or most of these seem to be based on very doubtful claims. | |
| Moving the mobile phone aerial eight inches from the head, instead of one inch, would dramatically reduce exposure - dose falls to 1/64th as the square of the distance. | |
| Good quality, screened hands free mobile phone kits, allowing earpiece and microphone attached to phone in pocket, massively reduce brain exposure to electromagnetic radiation, but may increase exposure to the pelvis and the unborn - again with significance unknown! |
Other News
UK government report says now clear that mobile phone radiation can affect brain function. Now that 20,000 radio masts in the UK are active it means that everyone is being subjected to constant low level electromagnetic radiation. Sunday Times 12 March 2000.
However, the levels from phone masts are suprisingly tiny. A single mobile phone can generate a watt of radiation, which it needs to get a signal the long distance to the nearest mast. However, a mast only needs in many cases a power of around 8 watts to handle all the calls in the area. It has a physical advantage because of great height, and the radio spectrum from the mast is wide enough for it to manage all the calls with a low wattage. It is strange quirk of physics. And because the radiation dose falls dramatically with every 10 centimetres of distance, you can see that the radiation exposure of people living close to a mast is likely to be a minute fraction of the dose if they were making a mobile call themselves.
New research suggests living downwind from an electricity pylon can increase the risk of lung cancer significantly. Ionisation of the air causes microscopic pollution particles to become charged so they stick to the lining of the lung. Once again though this has been contradicted by other research. September 2000
Latest mobile phone radiation news - press here NOW!
The Nokia 3210 has a rather high SAR. SAR of 25 new cell-phone models:
Manufacturer: Model: SAR: (*)
| Motorola Star Tac 130 (A) 0.10 + | |
| Motorola Star Tac 130 (B) 0.38 + | |
| Nokia 8810 0.22 -- | |
| Sony CMD-C1 0.55 -- | |
| Ericsson I8888 World 0.60 + | |
| Ericsson S868 0.77 + | |
| Nokia 6110 0.87 -- | |
| Ericsson A1018s 0.88 + | |
| Ericsson SH888 0.90 + | |
| Trium Galaxy (A) 0.93 ++ | |
| Trium Galaxy (B) 1.16 ++ | |
| Motorola cd930 0.94 + | |
| Panasonic EB-G520 0.95 -- | |
| Alcatel One Touch max (A) 0.97 - | |
| Alcatel One Touch max (B) 1.29 - | |
| Ericsson T18s 0.97 + | |
| Nokia 6150 0.98 -- | |
| Panasonic EB-GD70 0.99 -- | |
| Philips Savy 1.11 - | |
| Bosch GSM 909 1.13 - | |
| Nokia 3210 1.14 -- | |
| Motorola cd920 1.17 + | |
| Nokia 3110 1.24 -- | |
| Philips Genie 1800 (A) 1.26 + | |
| Philips Genie 1800 (B) 1.41 + | |
| Siemens C25 1.33 -- | |
| Philips Genie 900 (A) 1.52 + | |
| Philips Genie 900 (B) 2.67 + | |
| Motorola v3688 1.58 + | |
| Bosch GSM 908 1.59 - |
SAR in W/kg
(A) = with extended antenna (B) = antenna not extended
(*) = Warnings about possible radiation hazards in the user manual:
-- = none - = bad + = good ++ = very good
Useful links
| U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Radiation Protection Division | |
Useful references
Mobile phone increases the temperature of the brain (Sciences et vie, No. 949 10/96) and raises blood pressure (publication of the University of Fribourg in the Lancet, 06/07 - 98.
The next techno-wave: RFID - 10 billion wireless tagging devices
Wal-Mart races ahead with Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs): electronic barcodes for manufacturing, distribution and retail - major concerns about data leakage, privacy and civil rights
Future impact of global warming on human life
Truth about global warming research. How consumers, business and governments will respond. Opportunities / threats from climate change.
Blogs - web / video diaries on trends / management by Dr Patrick Dixon
NDP statement on the use of depleted uranium weapons
CANADA: Statement by Member of Canadian Parliament (New Democratic Party) “to ensure that depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction are banned forever”.
PARLIAMENT OF CANADA - HOUSE OF COMMONS
39th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 105
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERSWednesday, June 5, 2008
Depleted Uranium
Mr. Alex Atamanenko (British Columbia Southern Interior, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last year the United Nations First Committee passed a resolution urging member states to re-examine the health hazards posed by the use of uranium weapons.
Belgium has banned the use of uranium in all conventional weapon systems. However, at least 18 countries, including the U.S., use depleted uranium in their arsenals. They are considered weapons of mass destruction under international law.
According to a Canada-U.S. agreement, Canadian uranium exports may only be used for peaceful purposes. However, according to Dr. Douglas Rokke, a U.S. Army research scientist, and others, Canada provides raw uranium to the U.S. and other countries for processing. The resulting depleted uranium is then used in weapons.
One only has to watch the documentary film Beyond Treason to see the devastating effects of these weapons in countries such as Iraq.
I call upon our government to undertake every measure possible to ensure that depleted uranium weapons of mass destruction are banned forever.
NOTE:
To express your support, please contact:
MP Alex Atamanenko (NDP)
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Email: Atamanenko.A@parl.gc.ca
Website: http://atamanenko.ndp.ca/
Telephone: (613) 996-8036
Fax: (613) 943-0922
To Order your copy of the Beyond Treason DVD call toll free 1-877-817-9829 or online at The Power Mall
UNMASKING SECRET MILITARY PROJECTS:
Chemical & Biological Exposures
Radioactive Poisoning
Mind Control Projects
Experimental Vaccines
Gulf War Illness
Depleted Uranium (DU)
Is the United States knowingly using a dangerous battlefield weapon banned by the United Nations because of its long-term effects on the local inhabitants and the environment? Explore the illegal worldwide sale and use of one of the deadliest weapons ever invented.
Beyond the disclosure of black-ops projects spanning the past 6 decades, Beyond Treason also addresses the complex subject of Gulf War Illness. It includes interviews with experts, both civilian and military, who say that the government is hiding the truth from the public and they can prove it.
Additional Bonus CD-Rom contains thousands of pages of corroborating documentation, which can be viewed from most any computer via an internet browser. (Internet Explorer Recommended)
BEYOND TREASON
Featuring: Doug Rokke, Dennis Kyne, Leuren Moret,
Bob Jones, Joyce Riley, Mark Zeller, & Dan Topolski
Produced & Written by
Joyce Riley
Narrated by
Joyce Riley
Directed by
William Lewis
TOTAL RUNNING TIME
WITH BONUS MATERIAL: 100 MINUTES
Available on DVD
DUE TO IMAGES OF A GRAPHIC NATURE
PARENTAL GUIDANCE IS SUGGESTED
Distributed by The Blum Group
28 May 2008
Proof of US Military Planning Invasions Prior to 9/11
http://www.bestcyrano.net/tgj/?p=288 the US was making plans for war just five months before 9/11 and six months before the chemically toxic and radioactive bombing invasion of Afghanistan that included Uranium weapons - Depleted Uranium and/or non-Depleted Uranium.
Read the proof for yourself that invasions in the Middle East were planned and well-researched prior to 9/11. This 69 page document was assembled by the Army Environmental Policy Insitute after involving two dozen legal experts who explored the criminal ramifications for waging an environmentally destructive war.
Examine the document: Environmental Crimes and Military Actions in the International Criminal Court (ICC) - United Nations Perspectives.
Note: Please print this document out before it disappears from the Internet:
http://www.aepi.army.mil/internet/env-crime-icc-printer.pdf
www.mytown.ca/garger
Cathy Garger is a freelance writer, public speaker, activist, and a certified personal coach who specializes in Uranium weapons. Living in the shadow of the national District of Crime, Cathy is constantly nauseated by the stench emanating from the nation's capital during the Washington, DC, federal work week.
Cathy's other comment:
| What is Non-Depleted Uranium? It is possible to change the isotope "recipe" of Uranium Weapons so that they're not technically Depleted Uranium, but they are toxic and radioactive Uranium weapons all the same! Here is an article about the findings of Non-Depleted Uranium in Afghanistan: http://www.umrc.net/os/downloads/AfghanistanOEF.pdf by Cathy Garger (19 articles, 4 quicklinks, 16 diaries, 65 comments) on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 6:39:11 PM |
23 May 2008
Uranium Producer Warns Of Lake Ontario Pollution
Cameco, the world’s largest uranium producer, has told the Canadian nuclear regulator that its refinery might have leaked uranium, arsenic and fluorides into Lake Ontario.
The plant at Port Hope, Ontario, across the lake from Rochester, New York, and down the shore from Toronto, first refined uranium for the Manhattan Project during World War II. It has been temporarily closed since July to remove contaminated soil.
A spokesman for Cameco, Lyle Krahn, said Wednesday that a computer model created for the cleanup, which is several months behind schedule, indicated that the radioactive and toxic materials have been polluting a harbor adjacent to the factory. The harbor leads directly to the lake.
The company notified the regulatory agency, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, about the finding at a meeting last week and now plans drilling tests to confirm the contamination and to measure its extent.
“We’re anticipating that material may have been entering the harbor,” said Krahn, adding that Cameco did not know how long it would take to confirm any possible pollution.
A spokesman for the agency, Aurele Gervais, said: “The Port Hope UF6 plant matter has been ongoing for some time and the harbor issue is a recent development,” using the chemical formula for uranium hexafluoride.
In a background paper prepared for the agency’s commissioners last week, its staff concluded that the potential remained for continued water pollution from the plant.
Cameco in general and the aging Port Hope refinery, which transforms mined uranium into forms suitable for electrical power reactors, have long been targets of environmental groups and the regulatory agency.
After a flood last year closed one of the company’s mines, which produces about 10 percent of the world’s uranium, Linda J. Keen, then the head of the regulatory agency, said her commissioners and staff had a “lack of confidence” in Cameco and its management.
Gordon Edwards, the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, an environmental group in Montreal, said that contamination of the lake had been assumed, given the plant’s age, history and location.
“There’s a long history of contamination at Port Hope,” he said. “The whole siting of this refinery is absurd. It’s right in the center of town, it’s on flood plain and right on the lakefront.”
The plant was opened in the 1930s by Eldorado Mining and Refining to process radium and has undergone several cleanups.
The most recent effort began in July when a construction project at the factory uncovered soil contamination that led to the plant’s closing. At the time, the company said that the shutdown and cleanup would take about two months. Krahn said the 18 million-Canadian-dollar project, which involves removing soil under the plant and constructing a leakproof floor, will be finished by the third quarter.
If drilling confirms lake pollution, Krahn said that Cameco did not expect that would delay the plant’s reopening.
Maybe this is why the Rothschild's have been screaming at EXXON MOBIL about the lack of investment of alternative energies?
The plot was to get uranium out of Ontario, just up the river from Port Hope!The Mohawk's were right. Why should we all be turned into glow worms because Dalton McGuinty says so?
Hm wonder how old Dalton is sleeping tonight, anyway.
Told ya, Canada is to be the butthole of the entire world.
Bad place to make a real estate investment, folks!
21 May 2008
Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia
Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia
Posted on May 20, 2008 by dandelionsalad
Democracy Now!
May 20, 2008
As US Threatens Iran Over Enriching Uranium, Bush Promises to Give Enriched Uranium to Saudi Arabia
The Bush administration has pledged to support Saudi Arabia’s nuclear power program, including supplying enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. The agreement came out of President Bush’s visit to the Saudi kingdom last week, during which Bush also pledged new US assistance in guarding Saudi oil reserves.
Harvey Wasserman, one of the founders of the grassroots movement against nuclear power. He is senior editor of the Ohio-based freepress.org and the editor of nukefree.org.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org
. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.
***
Bush promises Enriched Uranium to Saudis for cheap gas
20 May 2008
I never get any discussion on this blog.
I keep it up here for FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Uranium sucks.
Depleted uranium is being dumped ALL OVER CANADA with government complicity and the effects will awful.
It is apparent that I am now being monitored by someone as I post on these blogs.
If you happen to come by, can you leave any comments you have about changes you have seen in the past week as to signing into sites, having different posting problems, etc. in the past week?
This rogue government must GO in both the US and Canada now. There is no waiting until November US elections !!
Your help is needed.
Thanks.
Virginia
I keep it up here for FUTURE GENERATIONS.
Uranium sucks.
Depleted uranium is being dumped ALL OVER CANADA with government complicity and the effects will awful.
It is apparent that I am now being monitored by someone as I post on these blogs.
If you happen to come by, can you leave any comments you have about changes you have seen in the past week as to signing into sites, having different posting problems, etc. in the past week?
This rogue government must GO in both the US and Canada now. There is no waiting until November US elections !!
Your help is needed.
Thanks.
Virginia
Depleted Uranium, all hush hush
Posted by morris108 on May 19, 2008
I wonder if Israel has made any official inquiry into the effects of depleted uranium?
How much of the depleted uranium particles float over and into Israel?
If your govt scientist told you , your offspring were likely to suffer genetic defects from the use of depleted uranium in Iraq etc. Would you protest?
So far, it is all a big hush up, doesn’t suit the profiteers.
Like the Gulf War syndrome, all hushed up.
At least you could ask for an official enquiry or a savvy journalist to look into it.
17 May 2008
Ontario First nation opposes uranium mining (important lesson !)
First nation opposes uranium mining
Posted By KEVIN McSHEFFREY
15 May 1007
Serpent River First Nation (SRFN) is opposed to uranium mining in the area.
SRFN Chief Isadore Day says at a community meeting on April 28, they reached a consensus opposing development.
He says about 60 SRFN residents attended the meeting out of its population of 340.
They have also been informing off-reserve band members.
"This was not a knee-jerk thing. This has taken place over quite some time."
However, Day says their opposition has less to do with Pele Mountain Resources, the junior mining company hoping to eventually open a uranium mine in Elliot Lake, and more with the slow movement of government regarding resources on traditional SRFN territory (the Serpent River watershed).
"It's not directed at Pele. This would be with any developer within the traditional territory.
"This is an issue between two nations, SRFN and the Crown."
At the heart, is SRFN has not had any input into, nor has it been consulted by the Crown when it came to mining in the past and now with exploration. That should be taken care of first. The regulations need to include First Nation consultations, says Day.
"There has to be an extraordinary level of participation at the outset of any exploration."
SRFN came up with the resolution because such projects are moving too fast with regards to the government and the private sector, but too slow when it comes to the Crown and First Nation.
"It poses real challenges between industry and First Nations when government moves slower in First Nation negotiations than it does when pushing through proponent approvals," Day says.
However, he admits that the government has many First Nations to deal with.
The resolution opposes any development, including cottage lots, forestry, quarries, hydro power and mining on traditional SRFN territory that has a negative impact on the "environment, social, economic and culture for its citizens and future generations."
Forestry is also a big concern, says Day.
The resolution opposes mining exploration in the traditional territory until revisions are made "to the Ontario Mining Act that would recognize the rights and responsibilities of First Nations in making decisions."
It also states any consultation or attempts to accommodate the First Nation during any development must take into consideration the Huron Robinson Treaty of 1850, and that the chiefs in the treaty's area need to be consulted.
Article ID# 1028417
16 May 2008
How To Prepare for Radiation Emergencies, by KLK
How To Prepare for Radiation Emergencies, by KLK
(on the survival blog)
Scenario 1
You are sitting at your retreat, enjoying the scenery, when you hear on the radio that there has just been a nuclear weapon that has detonated in a contiguous State . You decide to run into your shelter. After a few days in there, you start to wonder when it might be safe to come out. You also wonder if you would have been better off evacuating and getting as far away from the radiation source as possible.
A radiation disaster is a scenario for which we must be prepared. It may be from a radiological source, such as a nuclear reactor accident, or from nuclear devices, such as a nuclear weapon.
Much of what we know about radiation exposure comes from accidents such as Chernobyl [nuclear power plant disaster] and [the bombing of] Hiroshima [and Nagasaki]. With the nuclear reactor accident in Chernobyl (1986), 70% of the contamination fell on 26% of Belarus. 400,000 people were evacuated and 50,000 km squared was restricted and removed from use. The isotopes included Cs137, Cs134, Sr90, I131, and Pu239, with an estimated 114 Million Curies entering the environment. Untoward effects from this accident included 31 initial deaths, 300 injuries and hospitalizations, 150,000 abortions, $ 3 billion spent in emergency response, $500 million spent to compensate Italian farmers, 10,000 reindeer slaughtered, and an increase in cancer (mostly thyroid cancer, many years after the incident).
It is estimated that if a large US city (population 1 million) was hit by a 10-Kiloton (KT) nuclear device, that it would produce the following casualties:
>13,000 prompt fatalities
Approximately 114,000 expectant fatalities (>830 cSv)
Approximately 90,000 requiring ICU support (530-830 cSv)
Approximately 141,000 requiring either ICU or minimum care ward (300-530 cSv)
Approximately 150,000 requiring a minimum care ward (150-300 cSv)
Approximately 159,000 requiring outpatient therapy (70-150cSv)
Approximately 128,000 requiring health monitoring (25-70cSv)
Approximately 212,000 worried [but] well (<25>
The healthcare system is not ready or able to cope with this magnitude of casualties. That brings us to: What should you do?
The mechanism of injury from a nuclear device is 3 fold: blast, heat and radiation. Assuming a 10-KT burst, people within a 0.55 km radius of the explosion fall within a “blast injury circle” and have a high immediate fatality rate. People within a 0.9 km radius of the explosion fall within a “prompt radiation circle”, and people within a 2.1 km radius fall within the “thermal circle” and suffer 2nd degree burns. If you are outside of these 3 circles, you may suffer from radiation fallout. The amount of fallout you are exposed to is determined by 3 factors: length of time exposed, distance from the original explosion, and how much shielding there is between you and the radioactive source.
To minimize radiation exposure, you will want to reduce your time exposed, increase your distance from the source and have as much shielding as possible. This can lead to a dilemma if faced with this scenario: should you evacuate your retreat (increase your distance from the source), or should you stay and go into your shelter (increase your shielding)? The answer to this question will depend on whether or not you have a shelter, how far away from the initial source you are, the strength of the nuclear device, and the weather conditions. Even if you have a shelter, you may be forced to evacuate due to your proximity to the radiation source (Remember Chernobyl where 50,000 square kilometers were deemed unusable). It can take many months and sometimes years to clean up after a Radiation Event. Most people don’t have shelters that will sustain them for that long. Unfortunately, if faced with this scenario, you will have limited time to make your decision, for if you decide to evacuate you will want to do it immediately to reduce your exposure time, and before the roads get jammed with people. Thus, it would be useful to know a few basic equations to help you make your decision.
Radiation exposure follows the inverse square law- exposure reduction is proportional to the inverse square of the distance. Radiation is measured in Gray. If the source produces 10 Gy/hour at 1 meter, the exposure will be 2.5 Gy/hour at 2 meters (10 divided by 2 squared). The worst case scenario could produce up to 50-100 Gy/hour at the site of the explosion. With this information, you can calculate your exposure based on how far away you are from the radiation source. You must also keep in mind the weather conditions. If your calculation reveals a total body dose of <0.7>
Scenario 2
You decided to stay at your retreat with some type of shelter, but after 12 hours a family member starts vomiting. Should you take them to the hospital which you know will be full of victims or should you stay isolated?
The key to treating radiation victims is knowing what dose of radiation they received. All medical decisions are based on the dose estimate.
There are many ways to determine dose of exposure, most of which require a hospital visit and laboratory tests. Without access to prompt healthcare, the easiest way to determine dose is to record the time from radiation exposure until the time the victim starts vomiting. Then use the information below to estimate the dose the victim received (measured in Gray):
Time To Onset of Vomiting Post Accident/Terrorist Act
| Hours to Vomiting | Estimated Dose (Gray) |
| 20 | 0.1 |
| 7 | 0.5 |
| 5 | 1 |
| 2 | 5 |
| 1 | 10 |
| 0.8 | 20 |
| 0.5 | 50 |
| 0.3 | 100 |
Use that number for the following interventions:
If they received a dose of <>not be significantly affected by the radiation and they do not need to be hospitalized.
If they received a dose of 0.7-5 Gy, their lymphocytes (cells in the blood that fight infection) will dramatically decrease. This happens within the first 1-2 days and puts them at a very high risk of infection. Their hemoglobin and red blood cells will also decrease at 30 days after exposure and they will become very anemic. With good supportive care, the blood counts will recover by 60 days post exposure. Treatment includes IV fluids, antibiotics and colony stimulating factors. These are the people who benefit the most from being admitted to the hospital because they need the colony stimulating factors (which are not able to be stored at a retreat). My advice would be to take them into the hospital. If this is not feasible, they must be quarantined for at least 60 days. If they do not get an infection, there is a good chance they will live.
If they were exposed to a dose of 6-15 Gy, the predominant effect will be on their gastrointestinal system- this means profuse, bloody diarrhea and dehydration, starting at 5-7 days post exposure. It is also often associated with severe nausea/vomiting and fever. Treatment includes specific antibiotics, GI nutrition, IV fluids and early cytokine therapy for 5 or more weeks. These people will also benefit from hospitalization if feasible. Survival is possible, but unlikely.
If they were exposed to > 15 Gy, the effect will be on their cardiovascular system and central nervous system. This leads to brain swelling and death within 2-3 days. It is associated with a 100% mortality rate and the best care would be to provide them with pastoral care and to keep them comfortable. There is nothing medically that can be done to save their life.
Scenario 3
You decide to make a trip into town to pick up some supplies. It’s around 10 a.m. and you are walking down the street. All of a sudden you hear a loud explosion and see pieces of shrapnel flying. There are casualties all around you from the scrap metal. You are thankful that none of it hit you. Then you hear someone yell “It was a Dirty Bomb!” You think to yourself, “A Dirty Bomb! What should I do?”
A “Dirty Bomb” is a radiological dispersion device which combines a conventional explosive with a radioactive material. It is not a nuclear weapon, nor a weapon of mass destruction; however, it is a weapon of mass disruption. The impact depends on the type of explosive, amount and type of radioactive material and the weather conditions.
Immediate deaths or serious injuries would likely result from the explosion itself. It is unlikely that the radioactive material would kill anyone. The radioactive material would be dispersed into the air and reduced to relatively low concentrations. Low level exposure to radioactive contamination could slightly increase your long term risk of cancer (mostly thyroid cancer). There would be significant impact by causing fear, panic and disruption. Clean up would be costly and could take many months.
Consider this example: In Goiania, Brazil, 1987, 1375 Ci of Cs-137 spread throughout a neighborhood. It was an accident (not a terrorist event), and yet it caused mass panic and fear. Ultimately, 112,000 people were screened, out of which 249 had detectable contamination. Four victims died within four weeks and 20 were hospitalized. Site remediation took months to complete (Oct 1987-March 1988). Can you imagine the impact if it had been a planned event?
Dirty bombs can expose one to radiation both externally and internally. Internal contamination can occur through inhalation (nose, mouth) or absorption (wound in the skin). The radiation is typically deposited in the thyroid, liver, lung and bone. It is not acutely life threatening.
When dealing with a victim of radiation contamination, act as if they were contaminated with raw sewage. Protect yourself with clothes, mask, and gloves and use standard medical emergency procedures (Airway/Breathing/Circulation). Decontaminate after the victim is stabilized. Removing their clothing and washing with soap and water is 95%+ effective at decontaminating. Treat with fluids, anti-emetics (anti-nausea), anti-diarrheals and pain medication.
There are also blocking and diluting agents, but these are isotope specific:
For Radioactive Iodine (I-131), use Potassium Iodide (KI) - must be given within 4 hours after the exposure, see the dosing chart below
For Strontium-85 and Strontium-90, use calcium, aluminum, barium
For Tritium, use ordinary water (force fluids for 3 days)
For the Transuramics (Plutonium, Americium, Curium, Californium), use DTPA 1 gram intravenously (must be given within 24 hours after the exposure)
For Cesium, use Prussian Blue 1 gram orally three times a day for three weeks
There are two problems with the blocking agents: First, you often don’t know what the isotope identity is until after it is too late to administer the blocking agent. There is no easy way to determine which isotopes were included in the bomb and you will need to rely on medical personnel to provide you with this information. Secondly, most of the blocking agents are not readily available. The only exception is KI, which is easily purchased through many of the SurvivalBlog advertisers. You are fortunate if you have DTPA or Prussian Blue stored away, but most people don’t.
In the absence of knowing what isotopes were in the dirty bomb, my advice would be to have as much fluid as possible (to dilute tritium). I would also take KI if you have some. If I-131 was in the bomb, the KI will protect your thyroid gland (and possible cancer later in life). It must be taken within 4 hours after the exposure. If I-131 was not in the explosive, the KI is safe with minimal side effects. If you decide to take some, use the following dosing chart:
Adults 18 and older: 130 mg of KI
Pregnant/Lactating females: 130 mg KI
Children age 3-18 years: 65 mg KI
1 month-3 years: 32 mg KI
Birth-1 month: 16 mg KI
In summary, the radiological/nuclear threat is real! Mass casualties in your area are possible, but radiation injury is treatable.
JWR Adds: Some readers might not be familiar with the term Gray--the standard unit of measurement for radiation exposure, that replaced REM (Roentgen Equivalent, Man), and RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose). For us Bomb Shelter Era dinosaurs, conversion from Grays are as follows.
1 Gy equals 100 rad
1 mGy equals 100 mrad
1 Sv equals 100 rem
1 mSv equals 100 mrem
Stocking up on KI tablets is inexpensive, so every family should keep a supply on hand. In 1985, I was stationed in West Germany and was briefly down-wind of Chernobyl. At the time I wished that I had some KI available! Anyone that lives in an urban area should have a Nuk-Alert "key fob" radiation detector. That way you won't have to wait for word from someone else to determine whether or not a nearby bomb explosion was a dirty bomb. Nuk-Alerts are available from several SurvivalBlog advertisers.
14 May 2008
Torture Policies Undermine 9/11 Case, Jason Leopold on the 20th highjacker case
Torture Policies Undermine 9/11 Case
May 15, 2008
The Pentagon’s decision to drop war-crimes charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the alleged “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks, again underscores the consequences of the Bush administration’s descent into torture and other abusive treatment of “war on terror” detainees.
If al-Qahtani’s case had gone forward, the U.S. government would have been forced to reveal its own violations of the Geneva Convention, anti-torture statutes and the laws of war, according to lawyers representing al-Qahtani.
“All of the [incriminating] statements Mohammad al-Qahtani made or is alleged to have made were the result of torture or made under the threat of torture and that is in my view why the government decided to dismiss his case at this point,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York.
CCR has been representing Mohammed al-Qahtani since 2005 and has led the legal battle for the human rights of detainees incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the last six years.
The harsh treatment of al-Qahtani was catalogued in an 84-page log of his interrogation that was leaked in 2006. The so-called “torture log” shows that beginning in November 2002 and continuing well into January 2003, al-Qahtani was subjected to sleep deprivation, interrogated in 20-hour stretches, poked with IV’s, and left to urinate on himself.
On Dec. 11, 2002, interrogators began to apply what they called the “pride and ego down approach,” subjecting him to religious and sexual humiliation, making him bark like a dog, and calling him “a pig” as he was made to pick up piles of trash with his hands cuffed.
According to one entry for Dec. 13, 2002, the interrogators sought to “escalate the detainee’s emotions.”
“A mask was made from an MRE [meals ready to eat] box with a smiley face on it and placed on the detainee’s head for a few moments. A latex glove was inflated and labeled the ‘sissy slap’ glove. This glove was touched to the detainee’s face periodically after explaining the terminology to him.
“The mask was placed back on the detainee’s head. While wearing the mask, the team began dance instruction with the detainee. The detainee became agitated and began shouting. The mask was removed and detainee was allowed to sit. Detainee shouted and addressed lead [interrogator] as ‘the oldest Christian here’ and wanted to know why lead allowed the detainee to be treated this way.”
The log contains numerous entries describing al-Qahtani’s reaction to the interrogations, as he cried, shook, moaned, yelled, prayed, cried out for Allah, trembled uncontrollably and asserted his innocence.
Psychological Trauma
According to a report by CCR attorneys, “on one occasion described in the interrogation log, Mr. al-Qahtani was rushed to a military base hospital when his heart rate fell dangerously low during a period of extreme sleep deprivation, physical stress and psychological trauma.
“The military flew in a radiologist from the U.S. Naval Station in Puerto Rico to evaluate the computed tomography (‘CT’ or ‘CAT’) scan. After being permitted to sleep a full night, medical personnel cleared Mr. al-Qahtani for further interrogation the next day. During his transportation from the hospital, Mr. al-Qahtani was interrogated in the ambulance.”
Legal experts, who have followed the al-Qahtani case since his capture in December 2001, say a core problem for the Pentagon was that the evidence against al-Qahtani was derived substantially from admissions that he made while under harsh interrogation.
There was also circumstantial evidence related to al-Qahtani’s attempt to enter the United States before the 9/11 attacks. An immigration official turned him back and U.S. government officials claim that action forced the 9/11 hijackers to proceed with only 19 participants.
Last February, the Pentagon announced its intention to pursue the death penalty against al-Qahtani and five other men for their alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks.
But on May 9, the Pentagon dismissed the case against al-Qahtani without explanation – and without prejudice, meaning that the charges could be reinstated at a later date. Though the charges were dropped, he will remain detained indefinitely at Guantanamo.
Al-Qahtani is believed to be one of the first detainees subjected to harsh questioning after the Justice Department issued a legal opinion in August 2002 permitting U.S. government interrogators to sidestep the Geneva Convention and use cruel and humiliating techniques, from forced nudity to stress positions to waterboarding, to extract information.
The Geneva Convention bars abusive or demeaning treatment of captives. However, John Yoo, then a senior lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that the Geneva Convention did not apply to alleged members of al-Qaeda.
As reported previously, specific interrogation methods used against al-Qahtani were approved by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in a December 2002 action memorandum.
Months of Torture
Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, an attorney with CCR and the lead attorney defending al-Qahtani, said in a sworn declaration that his client, imprisoned at Guantanamo, was subjected to months of torture based on verbal and written authorizations from Rumsfeld.
“Mr. al-Qahtani was subjected to a regime of aggressive interrogation techniques, known as the ‘First Special Interrogation Plan,’" Gutierrez said. “Those techniques were implemented under the supervision and guidance of Secretary Rumsfeld and the commander of Guantánamo, Major General Geoffrey Miller.
"These methods included, but were not limited to, 48 days of severe sleep deprivation and 20-hour interrogations, forced nudity, sexual humiliation, religious humiliation, physical force, prolonged stress positions and prolonged sensory over-stimulation, and threats with military dogs.”
Gutierrez’s claims about the type of interrogation al-Qahtani endured have since been borne out by the release of hundreds of pages of internal Pentagon documents, which described interrogation methods at Guantanamo, as well as by the findings of two independent reports on prisoner abuse.
Rumsfeld’s action memo was criticized by Alberto Mora, the former general counsel of the Navy.
“The interrogation techniques approved by the Secretary [of Defense] should not have been authorized because some (but not all) of them, whether applied singly or in combination, could produce effects reaching the level of torture, a degree of mistreatment not otherwise proscribed by the memo because it did not articulate any bright-line standard for prohibited detainee treatment, a necessary element in any such document,” Mora wrote in a 14-page letter to the Navy’s inspector general.
Additionally, a Dec. 20, 2005, Army Inspector General Report relating to the capture and interrogation of al-Qahtani included a sworn statement by Lt. Gen. Randall M. Schmidt, who said Secretary Rumsfeld was “personally involved” in the interrogation of al-Qahtani and spoke “weekly” with Maj. Gen. Miller about the status of the interrogations between late 2002 and early 2003.
Last February, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) confirmed that it had launched a formal investigation to determine, among other issues, whether department attorneys provided the White House with poor legal advice when it said interrogators could use harsh interrogation methods against detainees.
CCR’s Warren said a trial of al-Qahtani would have forced the government to disclose how it obtained information from the defendant about alleged terrorist plans and the inner workings of al-Qaeda.
“We were pursuing the case that the government got evidence through torture,” Warren said. “The government would have to talk about how the information was obtained. That would never be able to survive in court because the torture log is clear that Mr. al-Qahtani provided information because he was being tortured.”
Warren said he wants the Pentagon to release al-Qahtani and have him sent to Saudi Arabia “where they have a system in place to maintain custody of any former Guantanamo detainee who presents a danger, as well as a strong rehabilitation program supervising those that are released.”
“It’s unlikely he would face torture or abuse on the magnitude Mr. al-Qahtani faced at Gitmo,” Warren said.
Jason Leopold has launched a new Web site, The Public Record, at www.pubrecord.org
worth tracking the companies !!
6,700 tons of sand containing traces of depleted uranium from Kuwait to US
| http://seattletimes.nwsource Contaminated sand slated for Idaho dump site Nearly 80 rail cars loaded with contaminated sand from Kuwait are headed toward a dump in southwestern Idaho. American Ecology Corp. is shipping about 6,700 tons of sand containing traces of depleted uranium and lead to a hazardous waste disposal site 70 miles southeast of Boise. The sand arrived by ship at Longview, Wash., this week and company officials say loads are scheduled to begin arriving in Idaho by rail in two weeks. Transfer of the sand to the United States was first reported this week by The Daily News in Longview. The company has previously disposed of low-level radioactive waste and hazardous materials from U.S. military bases overseas at facilities in Idaho, Nevada and Texas, said American Ecology spokesman Chad Hyslop, who is based in Boise. "As you can imagine, the host countries of those bases don't want the waste in their country," Hyslop said. |
28 April 2008
FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE videos for activists
The space program and the military industrial complex
The video, Arsenal of Hypocrisy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TILB9DaMRt4
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DNxhVBfvyI&feature=related
Part 2
War from Space
Voices of the global Network
World peace forum
Vancouver, Canada June 2006
The video, Arsenal of Hypocrisy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TILB9DaMRt4
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DNxhVBfvyI&feature=related
Part 2
War from Space
Voices of the global Network
World peace forum
Vancouver, Canada June 2006
Backgrounder on Frontenac Ventures; Cameco, Ontario, Sharbot Lake Algonquins
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=729
Canada Uranium update
Canada Uranium update
3rd August 2007
As Cameco faces an image problem, associated with its uranium mining in the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario, another uranium mining company, Frontenac Ventures, is facing opposition to the opening of its mine from the Algonquin First Nations. The Algonquins are "asserting their aboriginal rights in the name of the collective good, the preservation of the land against what they perceive as a dire threat of contamination through uranium exploration and mining." Amending legislation to combine surface and subsurface property rights in Eastern Ontario was recently supported by representatives of all political parties in the area where Frontenac is prospecting.
Cameco's image takes a beating
By Randy Burton, The StarPhoenix
2nd August 2007
Under normal circumstances, these would be the best of times for Cameco Corp.
The uranium giant is just coming off the most profitable quarter in its history, with earnings of $205 million on record revenues of $725 million.
It has been selling uranium at rates that are 61 per cent higher than a year ago and sales volumes have doubled. For 2007, revenue is expected to be up by a whopping 40 per cent over 2006.
All of this tends to blunt the complaints in the stock market that Cameco has been too complacent in an era of unprecedented prices for uranium and a wave of consolidation in the industry.
It should also help to ease concerns about the future of the company as one piece of bad news follows another.
In many ways, the past year can only be described as Cameco's annus horribilis. First it was the flooding at the company's Cigar Lake mine, caused by the failure of sealing metal doors and a shortage of underground pumps.
Then it was revealed that it will take at least a year longer than anticipated to bring the mine back into production. The latest blow to the company's profile came with the abrupt suspension of operations at its Port Hope, Ont., conversion facility following the discovery of soil contaminated with uranium.
The combination of these events has been driving down the price of the company's stock in spite of the balance sheet triumphs.
Cameco now finds itself characterized as "Sleepy Hollow" in the pages of the national Globe and Mail, where it is described as a staid sort of company where complacency is good enough.
Cameco's cautious approach to expansion makes an easy target in an era of rapid-fire deal making, but it ignores the fact that progress in uranium mining tends to be measured in decades rather than months. However, there's no doubt Cameco is operating in a climate of market hostility at the moment.
It was against this backdrop that Cameco president and CEO Jerry Grandey responded to the criticisms in discussing Cameco's financial results and operations with analysts and reporters this week.
While he acknowledges Cameco is suffering through some difficulties, Grandey argues the strength of the company's balance sheet is "a far better indication of the company's potential than recent news."
He also announced the company has launched a series of initiatives aimed at improving the company's oversight and accountability mechanisms.
"We understand that our operational performance must improve, from the top of the organization to the people on the front lines," he said.
Given the importance of Cameco to Saskatchewan, this is all good news. The question is whether it's enough for federal regulators.
Linda Keen, the tough, no-nonsense chief executive of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), has been less than pleased with Cameco's recent performance.
At a meeting with company officials in June, Keen made no bones about where she thinks responsibility lies for the string of setbacks the company has suffered of late.
She bluntly told Cameco officials that the CNSC has lost faith in the company following the flooding of the Cigar Lake mine.
"One of the very serious results of this is a lack of confidence that now the CNSC, the commission and the staff, has in Cameco and in the leadership of Cameco," she said.
Keen was having none of Grandey's argument that there were a number of root causes for the accident.
"Mr. Grandey, with due respect . . . I think there was a root cause of leadership and I think it's leadership that we all accept at the top of organizations for what happens in this," she said.
If you look at the situation from Keen's point of view, it's easy to understand her skepticism. After all, Cameco has also had flooding at its McArthur River mine back in 2003, and appears to have been extremely slow to learn the lessons of that disaster.
Keen also has pressures of her own to deal with. The CNSC has taken over from the old Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB), which she recently suggested was seen as being too close to industry. Thus, she is motivated to ensure the federal regulator is not only independent, but is seen to be independent.
Consequently, Keen is in no mood to cut Cameco any slack with regard to its responsibilities. In a recent speech to the Canadian Nuclear Association, she talked about licencees' need to understand that they also have a "social licence" to fulfil, "where a better understanding of their responsibility for transparency and clarity must be achieved with communities, public interest groups and citizens."
Cameco, of course, is a model corporate citizen within Saskatchewan, and Grandey himself has been more than generous in his contributions to community life.
But the confluence of problems on his watch has presented him with some serious challenges.
It's one thing to have back seat drivers in the investment community pick apart your decisions and whine about shareholder value. It's quite another when the head of the country's nuclear regulator suggests you're not doing your job.
After all, the company's future and the fate of thousands of jobs in the Saskatchewan uranium industry depend on satisfying the national licensing agency.
Cameco has clearly been put on notice that it has to do better.
Uranium drilling fight gets hot
Natives warn of threat to Ottawa's water as company looks to court to end blockade
Suzanne Ma, The Ottawa Citizen
30th July 2007
A month-long standoff between two Algonquin communities in Eastern Ontario and a uranium prospecting company will be moving from a make-shift blockade near Sharbot Lake to a Kingston courtroom today, after the Ardoch Lake and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations were served with a $75-million lawsuit last week.
In late June, the two communities had joined forces to prevent Frontenac Ventures from drilling for uranium core samples on disputed land. Since then, all have been embroiled in what has been, so far, a test of nerves. Each side has accused the other of using intimidation tactics. The Algonquins allege the big-ticket lawsuit is Frontenac's latest "stunt."
The company has staked more than 5,000 hectares and was about to start drilling when the Algonquins and their supporters blocked them from accessing the land. They set up a gated base camp near Sharbot Lake, about 50 kilometres north of Kingston, and put up signs and flags, parked a couple of trailers and pitched tents. A handful of people have remained on-site 24 hours a day since June 28, and a number of volunteers guard the perimeter of the staked land.
The Algonquins say the land belongs to them -- most Ardoch Lake and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations are non-status Indians, meaning they never signed a treaty to extinguish their land rights in exchange for reserves and services -- and they're upset the province didn't consult them before giving Frontenac Ventures permission to explore for uranium.
The Algonquins and their supporters say they're worried that exploration and mining will contaminate their lands and water with radioactive waste. The waterways, they point out, are connected to the Ottawa River and could affect the drinking water in the nation's capital.
Frontenac's lawyer, Neal Smitheman, said he will be seeking an injunction to have the blockade removed while working on getting Frontenac access to its mining claims, which were approved by the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.
"If we don't get something resolved soon, it could put the company out of business," Mr. Smitheman said. "When you do things like this, when you occupy and prevent access to people from doing what they have a lawful right to do, they can have serious ramifications."
Paula Sherman, co-chief of the Ardoch Lake First Nations, said the lawsuit has only strengthened her people's resolve.
"We're not leaving until there's a moratorium on uranium mining," said Ms. Sherman, who has been living in a trailer at the base camp.
"We will never allow them to have entry. It's our land. We have a responsibility to take care of the land for future generations."
The apparent confusion over land ownership comes at a time when several Algonquin communities in Ontario are engaged in land-claim negotiations with the provincial government. Frontenac's staked land is just part of a vast territory in dispute, stretching from Algonquin Park all the way to the front lawn of Parliament Hill.
The Ardoch Lake and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations only recently discovered Frontenac Ventures was on the land when an area resident showed up at an Ardoch Lake council meeting a few months ago.
Frank Morrison, who owns 100 hectares of pristine streams, meadows and trees in North Frontenac, found out last November that his land had been prospected for uranium.
His story was featured in the Citizen earlier this month, where he described coming across scarred trees and stumps bearing metal tags with the Ontario trillium symbol. Mr. Morrison started doing some of his own digging, and found a 139-year-old piece of Ontario legislation that allowed mining prospectors "free entry" to his property. He also learned he didn't own the "mineral rights" to his land, so while he owned the surface of the land, he did not own what was buried beneath. And, he found out who the prospector was: Frontenac Ventures.
"Frank came in and said all of his land had been dug up," Ms. Sherman said.
"We began to check it out and discovered roads had been dug out and trees had been cleared."
Algonquin representatives confirmed with the ministry that a chunk of their land had indeed been staked by Frontenac Ventures. First came disbelief. Then anger. And, as word spread throughout the community, non-natives joined in the fight. This week, Dawn King drove to the base camp from near Perth, bringing food and supplies.
"It's a human issue. It's not a native issue. It will affect us all," said Ms. King after unloading a carload of donations from the community, including toilet paper, homemade salsa, bread, eggs and cheese.
Earl Recoskie, a 56-year-old retiree, moved to the area six months ago, drawn to North Frontenac's beautiful lakes and marshes. He wasn't happy when he found out Frontenac Ventures was planning to dig for uranium. He now visits the blockade every day.
"It's disastrous, as far as I'm concerned," he said, resting under the shade of a tent. "We find out a uranium mine could very well be in our backyard. For our sakes and the First Nations' sakes, we are going to do everything we can to try and stop it."
But while much frustration lies with Frontenac, Mr. Recoskie and Ms. King said they were disappointed with the province's inaction.
"You can say what you want about ... any business. They're going to try to do what they're going to do to make money. But the government has the responsibility to do what's right," Mr. Recoskie said.
That's one thing that the Algonquins and Frontenac Ventures can agree on: that the Ontario government granted permits to the company. They gave the go-ahead without saying a word; not a word to Frontenac about the potential conflicts they could face with the local Algonquins, and not a word to the Algonquins, who only learned of the drilling plans when Mr. Morrison tipped them off.
"We do have an obligation to consult First Nations," allowed Laura Blondeau, press secretary for Rick Bartolucci, minister of northern development and mines. But did the ministry consult the Ardoch Lake and Shabot Obaadjiwan First Nations before Frontenac moved in?
"I cannot confirm this," said Ms. Blondeau, who could only say that the ministry was continuing "to establish better processes" when dealing with such matters. Randy Cota, co-chief of the Ardoch Lake First Nations, said many people in the community are fed up.
"We're used to this, (First Nations) have been burned so many times," he said. "The government asks, 'Why can't you trust us?' When (throughout) all of our Canadian history, can you tell me one time when we ever got a fair shake?"
Mr. Smitheman said the public has been misinformed about Frontenac Ventures' plans. "Frontenac Ventures is really a prospector rather than a mining company," he said. "They are trying to gather samples to see if it's a feasible mining site. They want to drill some holes and get some samples. It's no different for someone to drill a hole for water in that area."
But Mr. Cota said there would be no drilling of any kind on the disputed land.
"It's our homeland, we have no place else in the world for the Algonquin people to call home," he said. "We have a responsibility to the land, to respect her and not abuse her. It's time for us to step up to the plate."
Candidates express broad agreement over mining issues
by Jeff Green, Frontenac News
26th July 2007
The Liberal, Conservative, and NDP candidates for the upcoming provincial election in the Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington riding, participated in a forum sponsored by the Bedford Mining Alert (BMA) on July 21 at the Bedford Hall.
The Green Party, which has yet to select a provincial candidate, sent their federal candidate, Chris Walker.
Prior to the meeting, the Bedford Mining Alert had provided each of the candidates with background information about issues related to prospecting on private lands, and the candidates answered a series of questions from BMA member Justin Connidis
The four candidates all agreed on a major issue that has been championed by the Bedford Mining Alert for years - they favoured the uniting of surface and subsurface rights, at least in Eastern Ontario.
Throughout Ontario, a small percentage of landowners do not own the subsurface rights to their property, and these properties are available for staking by prospectors. Prospectors are exempt from normal trespass laws in pursuing their interests on these lands, and they are allowed to clear brush, cut trees, and do trenching on the properties without the consent of the landowners.
Ian Wilson, the Liberal candidate, pointed to proposed legislation that has just been posted for review, legislation that would see changes to how the Mining Act is implemented in the future. (see "A way forward or half a loaf?") The changes do not include uniting surface and subsurface rights, however. Wilson was willing to go further, "I do support uniting surface and subsurface rights in Eastern Ontario," he said.
Although Randy Hillier said, "Surface and subsurface rights must be united", he also posed the issue against the context of the broader agenda of property rights, which he champions.
Chris Walker, from the Green Party, posed the issue in terms of sustainable growth, seeing the drive to extract resources as a symptom of an economy that is causing a host of environmental problems.
He also pointed out that he has researched the Conservative party policy on the Mining Act, and reported that he was told there are no plans to change the mining act.
"That could change," Randy Hiller responded.
"The key issue is not uniting surface and subsurface rights, which I do support" said Ross Sutherland from the NDP, "it is broader than that. There should also be more controls on exploration on Crown lands, and Natives need to be consulted when their lands are being affected."
Before the discussion concerning surface and sub-surface rights got underway, Frank Morrison and John Kittle made presentations. Frank Morrison told the kind of story that is familiar to Bedford Mining Alert members: that of finding his land disturbed and stakes in the ground, and through research realising that prospectors have extensive rights on his land.
In his case, however, it was not a graphite or wollastonite deposit that is being explored, as is common on Bedford. Morrison lives in North Frontenac Township, and the company that has staked his property is Frontenac Ventures Corporation.
John Kittle spoke specifically about uranium and the consequences of uranium mining and exploration.
The candidates were not asked directly about their response to the uranium exploration in North and Central Frontenac until the tail end of the meeting, when the public had their chance to ask questions.
Norm Guntensperger asked them if they support the activities of the Algonquin protesters who have occupied the site where Frontenac Ventures had been located.
Both Randy Hiller and Ian Wilson said they do not support the Algonquins, and Chris Walker and Ross Sutherland said they did.
However, all four candidates said they support a moratorium on uranium exploration in the case.
Although they oppose the occupation, both Ian Wilson and Randy Hiller said they did not favour a heavy-handed approach to the occupation by police or government officials.
"Confrontation does not serve anyone's interest,"Wilson said.
Frontenac Ventures initiates lawsuits against Algonquins at mine site
by Jeff Green, Frontenac News
26th July 2007
Frontenac Ventures Corporation has initiated legal proceedings against the Shabot Obaadjiwaan First Nation, the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, and the leadership of the two communities: Doreen Davis, Paula Sherman, Randy Cota, Bob Lovelace, and Harold Perry.
The Ardoch and Sharbot Lake communities have occupied the Robertsville mine for the past four weeks. Frontenac Ventures has leased space at the mine site as a base camp for exploring a 30,000-acre swath of land for uranium content in the hopes of finding an "economic deposit", in the words of company President George White.
Company lawyer Neil Smitheman said the lawsuit names the First Nations and their leadership because they have been blocking the company from pursuing its business interests. "We need to have this dealt with fast," Smitheman said. Frontenac Ventures is scheduled to complete a deal, described by Gorge White as a "reverse takeover" with Sylvio Ventures of Vancouver on July 31. The deal could lead to the company achieving a listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange later this year. There is no word on how the occupation of the Robertsville mine will affect these dealings.
The suit is scheduled to be heard in Kingston Court on July 30, at which time Frontenac Ventures will be seeking a court injunction to remove the Shabot Obaadjiwaan and Ardoch Algonquins from the Robertsville mine. The federal and provincial governments and the Ontario Provincial Police were served papers as well, although they were not named in the lawsuit.
"They were served," Smitheman said, "because they will be expected to act if there is a court injunction."
Smitheman said that the July 30 court date was the first available date in Kingston.
For their part, the Algonquin leadership refused to acknowledge the legal papers when they were served on Monday July 23.
In other news in this ongoing situation, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs David Ramsay said last week that he will not intervene in the matter, leaving it to the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to deal with.
An anti-uranium information picket is planned for Saturday, July 28, in the Town of Perth along Highway 7. Cars will be slowed in both directions to allow for information to be passed, but the road will not be closed.
A way forward, or half a loaf?
by Jeff Green, Frontenac News
26th July 2007
As Bedford Mining Alert members grilled provincial politicians on the mining act in the Bedford hall last week, Peter Griesbach sat silently at the back of the room.
It's not that Peter Griesbach is indifferent to the mining act. Since 2002 he has been a member of the Minister's Mining Act Advisory Committee (MMAAC) and is chair of a subcommittee of MMAAC that has prepared an amendment to the mining act. The amendment has just been posted for comment on the government's Environmental Registry.
The amended act would not unite surface and subsurface rights, nor would it allow surface rights owners to purchase the subsurface rights to their property, but it would increase the amount of land that is exempt from staking, and would also require more and fuller notification to surface rights owners before a prospector can enter their property.
Peter Griesbach got involved in mining rights in the same way many other people do - he found that someone had entered his property and cut down trees. He phoned the OPP to report a trespass, and was eventually referred to the Ministry of Northern Development of Mines, who informed him that his property had been staked.
"I never thought that unifying surface and sub-surface was do-able, and it was never on the table as we worked through changes to the sections of the mining act that dealing with staking on private property," Griesbach said.
Although he has been chairing the subcommittee that prepared the proposed amendments to the act, he is the only member of the community that is not either a ministry employee or a representative of mining or prospecting interests.
"This has not been a problem," he said, "because everyone had an interest in establishing rules that would not lead to conflicts in the field. The clearer the rules, the easier it will be for everyone."
Among proposed changes that affect Southern Ontario is the elimination of the physical staking of claims. Claims will be staked through interment mapping, thus eliminating the first instance of potential conflict with landowners. The prospector staking a claim will then have 60 days to notify the surface rights owner. As well, 30 days' notification will be required before a prospector can enter the surface rights owner's property, and the specific work plans will have to be given.
It is also proposed that the prospecting company will be required to repair any damages to surface lands that is caused by their activities.
Lots that are one hectare or less will be exempt from staking, as will a one-hectare ring around a residence on lots that are larger than one hectare.
Certain other kinds of property will be exempt from staking as well, if the amendment goes through, including: subdivisions, residential and cottage lots, railway lands, cropping and other farm operations, municipal lands such as parks, etc., and managed woodlots.
The proposed changes are described at a link from
http://www.eco.on.ca/english/others/regpost.htm.
Get off my land
Editorial by Jeff Green, Frontenac News
26th July 2007
In a telling scene during Fiddler on the Roof, a Cossack Inspector who has taken a liking to Tevye the milkman, comes to tell him that on the following day he will be forced to leave his home, and his village.
As Tevye contemplates his own powerlessness in the face of government forces, he reacts in the only way he knows,
"Get off my land,"he says, "
This is still my land, get off my land."
Peter Jorgensen, the part owner and manager of the Robertsville mine, might understand Tevye's reaction, as might Frank and Gloria Morrison, as do First Nations peoples throughout North America, as does George White of Frontenac Ventures Corporation.
Peter Jorgensen has been told that he faces arrest if he so much as approaches his property; Frank and Gloria Morrison have had their property altered by prospectors; First Nations peoples were herded into reserves or left to drift away from their traditional lands about 200 years ago; and George White cannot access property that he has leased or conduct exploration land on property that he has legally staked, again under threat of arrest.
What we have here is a conjunction of cases where the supposed rights of individuals are coming into conflict with the rights of the collective, and these conflicts are not easily resolved.
Peter Jorgensen is clearly on the losing end thus far. He cannot access a property that he holds a legal deed to.
The Algonquins who are preventing him from accessing the property are not doing so for financial gain. They are asserting their aboriginal rights in the name of the collective good, the preservation of the land against what they perceive as a dire threat of contamination through uranium exploration and mining.
Not only do they have nothing to gain financially from this, they are now facing a $77 million lawsuit for their trouble. But as altruistic as the Algonquins' goals may be, their assertion of collective rights impinge directly on Peter Jorgensen's individual rights.
Many members of the Frontenac and Lanark communities fear for their own well being, the well being of their land and their families, if a uranium mine is built. This fear is akin to the fear expressed by the Algonquins, who say that if the land is gone they are gone as a people.
The provincial government is perhaps more concerned that the lights will go out across the province if uranium mining is curtailed. So, whose interests are more important? Thousands of Eastern Ontarians and a tiny native community, or ten million people who expect the power to flow to their own houses?
The government has the right to expropriate the lands of private individuals for airports or roads, so why not for greenhouse-free power?
In the end we are all like Tevye, and Peter Jorgensen. We might own our land today, but that could change.
Activism: STRATCOM CONFERENCE TAKES ISSUE GLOBAL
Two hundred people from 12 countries and 28 states gathered April 11-13 at the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space 16th Annual Space Organizing Conference to learn about this remote command in America’s heartland. And the local sponsor, Nebraskans for Peace, who for years had been fretting about what was going on in its own backyard, couldn’t have been more excited. There’d never before been an international conference specifically addressing the transformation that’s taken place at StratCom. But then, until just recently, StratCom had never before represented the threat to the world that it does now.
From the moment George W. Bush was rushed to StratCom’s underground headquarters at Offutt A.F.B. on 9/11, the U.S.’s nuclear command began to undergo what StratCom Commander General Kevin Chilton described as “not a sea-state change, but a tsunami of change” in its role and mission. In the years since 9/11, the command has seen its traditional and sole responsibility of maintaining America’s nuclear deterrent proliferate to include missions for space, cyberspace, intelligence/reconnaissance/surveillance, missile defense, full spectrum global strike, information operations and combating weapons of mass destruction.
In the blink of a strategic eye, the command has gone from being something that was ‘never supposed to be used’ (i.e. the doomsday machine) to ‘being used for everything.’ It’s gone from being putatively ‘defensive’ to overtly ‘offensive’ to become, in the words of Nebraska activists,
“Dr. Strangelove on steroids.”
With now eight missions under its belt, StratCom’s fingerprints are seemingly everywhere. Though it’s almost never mentioned by name, you can hardly open a newspaper anymore without reading about one of its various machinations. Here’s a rundown:
* Now charged with actively waging the White House’s “War on Terror,” StratCom is authorized to attack any place on the planet in one hour—using either conventional or nuclear weapons—on the mere perception of a threat to America’s ‘national interests.’
* Through its National Security Agency “component command,” StratCom is regularly conducting the now-infamous ‘warrantless wiretaps’ on unsuspecting American citizens.
* The proposed “missile defense” bases in Poland and the Czech Republic that are reviving Cold War tensions with Russia are StratCom installations under StratCom’s command.
* Having conducted what it touts as “the first space war” with its “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign on Iraq, the command is now actively executing the Bush/Cheney Administration’s expressed goal of the weaponization and “domination” of space.
* StratCom’s recent shoot-down of a falling satellite using its Missile Defense system, just after the U.S. had repudiated a Russian proposal banning space weapons, demonstrated the anti-satellite capability of this allegedly ‘defensive’ program and is certain to jump-start an arms race in space.
* In actively promoting the development of new generations of nuclear weapons (the so-called ‘bunker-buster’ tactical nukes and the Reliable Replacement Warhead), StratCom is seeking to ensure America will wield offensive nuclear capability for the remainder of the 21st century.
* Under the White House’s “Unified Command Plan,” StratCom commands access to the hundreds of military bases around the globe and all four military service branches, while working hand-in-glove with the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security and the Department of Justice.
* Operating like some executive branch vigilante and scofflaw, StratCom is now poised to routinely violate international law with preemptive attacks and to usurp Congress’ constitutional authority to declare war under the “War Powers Act.”
StratCom, in the words of Commander Chilton, is today “the most responsive combatant command in the U.S. arsenal”—and the next war the White House gets us into (be it against Iran or geo-political rival like China) will be planned, launched and coordinated from StratCom. In fact, Chilton recently told Congress, he believes the name actually ought to be changed to “Global Command,” to better reflect the “global” nature of its new role and mission.
This is the “New StratCom” that Nebraskans for Peace has watched materialize before its eyes. This is the enhanced threat, which the world community has no notion of whatsoever, because the changes at StratCom have occurred with the speed and power of a “tsunami.” This is the global menace the Global Network sought to expose to the international public at its conference in Omaha this past month.
And while the media coverage of the conference was minimal, the word is neverthess starting to get out nationally and internationally. Most of the people in attendance were activists, organizers and academics from all across the country and around the world. Picking up on the comment that StratCom is now a global problem, Jackie Cabasso of the Western States Legal Foundation stressed that addressing it will in turn require a global response. Americans, she said, can no more be expected to halt this threat than we can expect Nebraskans to do it:
That sort of international commitment was already strongly in evidence. While the speaker from Poland was prohibited from entering the U.S. by Homeland Security, Jan Tamas of the “No To Bases Initiative” in the Czech Republic tied the proposed Star Wars radar in his country directly to StratCom. From the title of his talk alone, “StratCom is the Main Threat to Peace in the Korean Peninsula,” Ko Young-Dae, the representative from Solidarity for Peace and Reunification in Korea (SPARK), made it clear that he understood the connection to the Omaha command center. British activist Lindis Percy of the Campaign for the Accountability of American Bases, who regularly contends with StratCom’s presence in her homeland, sized it up perfectly with the expression, “horrid StratCom.” Similar sentiments were expressed by the German, Swedish, Indian, Japanese, Filipino, Mauritian, Italian, Romanian and Canadian participants. In country after country, an understanding the StratCom menace is starting to take hold.“It’s going to take the efforts of the world community.”
The final keynote of the conference was delivered by Bishop Emeritus Thomas Gumbleton, who back in the mid-‘80s had committed civil disobedience at Offutt A.F.B. when it was still the “Strategic Air Command.” Back then, all we had to fear—and it was plenty—was nuclear holocaust. Today, the Bishop said, because of our greed for wealth and power, we now have to fear StratCom’s nuclear prowess and much more.
That greed for ever-more wealth and power had been the message of the conference’s first speaker, national Indian activist and Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska member, Frank LaMere. The city of Omaha, LaMere noted, was named after the Indian Tribe of the same name that had inhabited this area for centuries and still has a reservation about an hour north of the city. The Omaha, he said, had a covenant with Mother Earth, that in return for the corn and buffalo she so generously provided them to live, they would in turn honor her by living in a good way. Never, LaMere said, when the Omaha deeded their lands to the U.S. government—without once going to war—had they ever imagined that an instrument of destruction like StratCom, capable of destroying the Earth multiple times over, would rest on their ancestral homeland, on that sacred ground.
The Omaha, he said, cannot stop what is happening today by themselves. Nor for that matter can the people of Nebraska, nor even the people of the United States. To stop what is happening at StratCom—indeed to save ourselves from our own greed and self-destruction—Americans will need, LaMere said, the help of all their relations around the world. So he was cheered, he said, to see all these relations from around the world here in Omaha, willing to help. That was good, he said. But we need to act fast. Time is getting short.
A five-minute introductory video about StratCom created by Global Network chairperson Dave Webb, who is also the Vice-Chair of Britain's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), can be viewed by clicking on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkOeUHHV1eU
- Written by Tim Rinne (Coordinator of Nebraskans for Peace) and Bruce Gagnon (Coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space)
http://www.space4peace.org
Bruce Gagnon is the Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.
Between 1983–1998 Bruce was the State Coordinator of the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice.
He was the organizer of the Cancel Cassini Campaign (launched 72 pounds of plutonium into space in 1997) that was featured on the TV program 60 Minutes.
Bruce has been featured by artist Robert Shetterly in his collection of portraits and quotes entitled Americans Who Tell The Truth. In 2006 he was the recipient of the Dr. Benjamin Spock Peacemaker Award.
In 2003 Bruce co-produced a popular video entitled Arsenal of Hypocrisy that spells out U.S. plans for space domination. His latest video, shot in 2006, is entitled The Necessity of the Conversion of the Military Industrial Complex.
In 1968 Bruce was Vice-chair of the Okaloosa County (Florida) Young Republican Club while working on the Nixon campaign for president.
Bruce is a Vietnam-era veteran and began his career by working for the United Farm Workers Union in Florida organizing fruit pickers.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Arsenal+of+Hypocrisy+&search=Search
Where you will find The Arseneal of Hypocrisy and other great videos!!
23 April 2008
High Court to Hear Uranium Case
Bethesda's USEC Argues to Impose Anti-Dumping Duties on French Firm
 Solicitor General Paul D. Clement cited national security interests. (Department Of Justice - Department Of Justice) The Supreme Court said yesterday that it would hear a dispute between USEC of Bethesda and a French supplier of low-enriched uranium in a case the federal government said has implications not only for the energy industry but also for efforts to dismantle some nuclear weapons. Justices agreed to consider in their term that begins next fall whether anti-dumping duties can be imposed on Eurodif, which supplies utilities in the United States with low-enriched uranium, a critical component in the domestic production of nuclear power. USEC, the only U.S. company that enriches uranium, complained to the Commerce Department that Eurodif's prices were unfairly low, and the agency decided in 2001 that anti-dumping duties should be levied. But the U.S. Court of International Trade disagreed, and in September the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld that ruling. USEC received powerful support from the federal government, which urged the Supreme Court to take the case. The appeals court decision, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said in a brief to the high court, "threatens to undermine U.S. foreign policy and national security interests in the remarkably sensitive context of nuclear fuel, nonproliferation, and ensuring domestic supplies for nuclear weaponry." He said it would endanger the financial viability of USEC, the sole source of certain types of nuclear fuel used for military purposes. A coalition of utilities joined Eurodif and its parent company, Areva, in urging the court not to review the case, which they said had been correctly decided by the lower courts. If Congress is concerned about the viability of USEC, they argued, there are other ways to take care of it. "The antidumping statute is an instrument of trade policy with general application to all industries, and not a tool for the implementation of national security or energy policies," argued the Ad Hoc Utilities Group. While the Commerce Department sided with USEC, the courts agreed with the utilities that, in least some cases, importing the low-enriched uranium constituted a provision of a service by the French company, not a purchase of a product. Products are covered by the anti-dumping laws, while services are not. The federal government asked the Supreme Court to uphold the Commerce Department's authority and expertise. And it warned that the decision, in a "truly unprecedented manner" for a trade case, has implications for national security. The government said that a program under which Russia has agreed to convert weapons-grade, highly enriched uranium into the kind of uranium needed by U.S. utilities could be endangered. Dismantling nuclear warheads, it said, is a more expensive process than simply enriching the uranium as the French company does. It is economically viable only because the United States has the ability to use anti-dumping laws to regulate the entry of low-enriched uranium from foreign sources. The combined cases are U.S. v. Eurodif and USEC v. Eurodif. |
Uganda: Country turns to nuclear power plants
africanpress on April 23, 2008
Publisher: Korir, api africanpress@getmail.no source.eastafrican.ke
By Charels Kazooba
Hamstrung by unpredictable climatic changes that have reduced the water levels in Lake Victoria and the amount of hydroelectricity generated by dams along the River Nile, the Ugandan government is turning to the more predictable nuclear power.
The country’s Energy and Mineral Development Minister, Daudi Migereko, estimates that Uganda will be in a position to generate nuclear energy from its uranium deposits within the next 10 to 15 years.
Said Mr Migereko: “With the ever increasing demand, it is envisaged that nuclear power will play an increasing role in the future energy supply. Uganda has significant uranium reserves that can be exploited and used for power generation.”
The Ugandan government has been battling a power crisis since the late 1990s caused by a combination of low investment in the energy sector and low hydropower generation caused by falling water levels in Lake Victoria, which feeds the country’s two hydropower dams in Jinja on the Nile. Power output at the hydropower complex in Jinja has fallen from an installed capacity of 380 Megawatts to around 135MW, forcing the country to resort to diesel-guzzling emergency thermal power plants that produce 100MW.
The power shortage has knocked about a percentage point off the gross domestic product projections and forced the government to set up an Energy Fund of Ush99 billion ($56.5 million) in the financial year 2006/07, of which Ush70 billion ($40 million) is going to pay for the thermal power plants. In 2007/08, more than Ush45 billion ($25.7 million) was added to the Energy Fund. End-user power prices have also risen by about 70 per cent due to the shortage.
A new 250MW hydropower dam is currently under construction at Bujagali on the Nile, with at least two other dams expected over the next decade to meet future demand. However, government officials believe a nuclear power plant could give some insulation against inclement weather like drought, which affects hydropower generation, while exploiting the available uranium resources. Although nuclear power is a controversial option due to the dangers of meltdown and the challenge of disposing of nuclear waste, improvements in technology and reductions in the cost over more than half a century have brought it back to the table of options for many countries.
It is also gaining renewed currency because it leaves a smaller carbon footprint and is, therefore, a relatively cleaner fuel. The hydropower and other renewable energy resources potential in Uganda is estimated at about 5300MW, about half the projected demand if each of the five million households in Uganda were to be connected to the electricity grid — and that is without including demand by heavy industry and institutions.
“Energy security means fulfilling the energy needs of all the people, including the 90 per cent of our citizens who have no access to electricity,” said Permanent Secretary in the Energy Ministry Fredrick Kabagambe-Kaliisa. “Diversification of energy sources is necessary.”
The Ugandan government has already drafted the legal framework under which its nuclear programme will operate. An Atomic Energy Bill is currently being scrutinised by parliament with a view to having it enacted before June to pave the way for the flow of technical assistance from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). “The lack of an effective legal and regulatory infrastructure has made it difficult for IAEA to give us technical support,” Mr Migereko said. The IAEA is the world’s focal point for mobilising peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology for critical needs in developing countries.
The agency also focuses on the use of nuclear and isotopic techniques to address the daunting challenges of disease, poverty, hunger and shortages of drinking water. The EastAfrican has learnt that the government will also enact laws to govern the mining and processing of its uranium deposits for energy production. According to a former IAEA consultant, Dr Abel Rwendeire, Uganda cannot mine its uranium resources until the country has a comprehensive law in place that institutes the required safeguards.
“The Atomic Energy Bill, once passed, will only enable the country to mine and export uranium in its raw form,” Dr Rwendeire told Members of Parliament during a recent sensitisation meeting. “To generate energy out of it, government will have to adopt various other legislation because of the complexity and sophisticated technology involved.” Another anticipated challenge to Uganda’s nascent nuclear power programme is the lack of skilled manpower in the sector, with less than a dozen personnel available to roll out the project.
“We have a long-term plan of nuclear energy production but presently, we have only about 10 experts with nuclear skills,” Dr Akisophel Kisolo, chief radiation safety officer in the Ministry of Energy, told The EastAfrican recently. He said the government could end up sourcing expertise outside the country or training its own personnel. But even then, he warned, it is expensive to hire such skilled labour. Uganda has lagged behind Kenya and Tanzania in the creation of a nuclear legal framework; the two countries have had atomic commissions for years.
A nuclear power plant in Uganda would also help regularise the illicit uranium smuggling trade out of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Tanzania and Angola. Dr Kisolo also said Uganda is expediting the atomic energy legislation to create a mechanism for preventing leakage in the regional oil pipeline to be constructed from Eldoret, Kenya, to Kigali through Kampala. He said atomic energy will be used to test and establish leaking spots on the pipeline. Atomic energy is a highly concentrated form of energy. The energy released is carried off as kinetic energy of emitted particles and is eventually transformed into other forms, mainly heat.
It is also used in the treatment of cancer patients, diagnostic procedures including organ scans, crop improvement through integrated nutrient management, level gauging in soft-drinks firms and assessing geothermal resources like those in Katwe and Kibiro in the Western Rift Valley. Several African nations, including Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Namibia and Nigeria, are seriously considering nuclear power as an alternative to hydropower. With only two nuclear power reactors on the entire continent, both located at Koeberg in South Africa, nuclear power constitutes only a fraction of Africa’s energy mix.
Still, South Africa accounts for 60 per cent of all of Africa’s energy production. The search for cleaner energy sources such as nuclear is also motivated by widespread concern that Africa is more vulnerable than other regions to climate change. Africa maintains 18 per cent of the world’s known recoverable uranium resources. Most operational mines are located in Niger, Congo, Namibia and South Africa. Prospecting and other preproduction work is being performed in Botswana, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Gabon, Guinea, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Mozambique, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
___________________
African Press International - api
Scientists Agree That EMFs Pose a Threat to Your Health
NaturalNews) Electricity has become an integral part of our lives, with electromagnetic fields (EMFs) all around us. Electricity certainly makes our lives easier in many ways. Is it possible that electricity is also making our lives shorter?
Most experts agree that some limited exposure to EMFs is not a threat. We can feel reasonably safe using a toaster, for example. The problem comes when we are chronically exposed to large does of EMFs such as encountered when living near power lines or sleeping in the room where the power enters the house. Unfortunately, this type of chronic exposure to EMFs applies to millions of Americans.
Negative effects of EMF exposure
The effect of EMFs on biological tissue remains controversial. Virtually all scientists agree that more research is necessary to determine safe or dangerous levels. What they do know is that iron, which is necessary for healthy blood and is stored in the brain, is highly affected by EMFs. The permeability of the cell membranes of nerves, blood vessels, skin and other organs is also affected, as well as the intricate DNA of the chromosomes. Every bodily biochemical process involves precisely choreographed movement of EMF sensitive atoms, molecules, and ions.
Dr. David Carpenter, Dean of the School of Public Health, SUNY, has reported that up to 30 percent of all childhood cancers may be due to exposure to residential power lines.
Epidemiological studies in Sweden by Maria Feychting showed that persons exposed to high magnetic fields at home and at work had 3.7 times the risk of developing leukemia compared to those not exposed.
Two research reports have identified elevated risks of breast cancer among women working jobs with presumed higher than average exposure to EMFs.
If you want to follow the Environmental Protection Agency's advice to prudently avoid EMFs, you may want to invest in a Gauss meter to measure your home, work or school environments, both inside and outside.
What is a Gauss Meter?
A Gauss is a common unit of measurement of magnetic field strength. The Gauss meter is a tool for measuring Gauss values. Inside a Gauss meter is a coil of thin wire. As a magnetic field radiates through the coil, it induces a current, which is amplified by the circuitry inside the Gauss meter.
These meters vary in the strength of magnetic fields they are able to measure. A meter used for measuring EMFs from power lines, transformers, substations and appliances should be able to measure as low as .1 mg.
Gauss meters vary in price and accuracy. They have either a single axis coil or a triple axis coil, with the single axis being much simpler and therefore much less expensive. To use the single axis meter, you point its one sensor in three directions, the X, Y and Z axes, and combine the readings in an equation to calculate the combined field strength. The triple axis meters are more complicated in their operations, but produce more accurate results.
Another consideration is whether the meter is frequency weighted. Most meters read the same EMF strength no matter what the frequency. Since the human body appears to be sensitive to both the field strength and the frequency, meters should be frequency weighted. The frequency weighting feature is why these meters will show a higher EMF reading than those typically used by electricians and engineers.
Power lines, substations and transformers
Power generating stations produce enormous amounts of electricity and send it through high voltage wires. All power lines radiate electromagnetic fields, with the exact amount depending on its particular configuration. Power companies know which configurations are best for limiting EMFs but most don't feel the evidence against EMFs supports their making costly changes in the way they deliver electricity.
A substation is where the conversion from transmission to distribution takes place. Through an assemblage of circuit breakers, switches and transformers, the electrical current is stepped down to the power grid. A good bit of public concern about the threat of EMFs has revolved around the substation, which has been seen as the cause of cancer clusters among nearby residents.
A component of a utility's electrical distribution network depends on numerous transformers mounted on power poles. These transformers look like small cylindrical trash cans. When the electrical service is buried underground, you will see a metal box located on the ground near the street. Although many people don't know a transformer when they see it, the power line feeding the transformer is carrying 4000 to 13,000 volts. The transformer then reduces the voltage to the 120-/240 current needed by the nearby homes.
EMFs near a transformer can be very high, but the field strength diminishes rapidly with distance. For this reason, having a transformer located near your home should not be a major concern, but you might want to measure the field strength around the transformer to be sure.
Electric blankets and water beds
An electric blanket can create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6 to 7 inches into the body. An epidemiological study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood leukemia. Similar effects have been reported for users of water bed heaters which emit EMTs even when turned off but still plugged in.
Electric clocks
Electric clocks emit a magnetic field as much as 5 to 10mG up to three feet away. If you have a bedside clock, you may be exposing yourself to the EMF equivalent of an electric power line. Since studies have linked high rates of brain tumors with chronic exposure to magnetic fields, it may be wise to place all clocks and other electrical devices such as phones at least 6 feet from where you sleep.
Electric Razors and Hair Dryers
Electric razors and hair dryers may emit EMFs as high as 200 to 400 mG. This may seem like a really large amount, but your exposure to these devices is probably not continuous for long periods of time. Some experts recommend that hair dryers not be used on children as the high field would be held close to the rapidly developing brain and nervous system of the child.
Fluorescent lights
Fluorescent lights produce a higher level of EMFs than incandescent bulbs. A typical fluorescent tube may have a reading of 160 to 200 mG at 1 inch away.
A better lighting choice is the LED bulbs available at (www.EcoLEDS.com) , reported by Mike Adams to be the world's most eco-friendly bulbs.
Microwave ovens and radar
In addition to microwaves, another type of radiation, ELF, is emitted from microwave ovens and radar from military installations and airports. Microwaves are measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2). The safety limit for microwave exposure is 1mW/mc2. Microwave leakage is a serious issue, serious enough for the FDA to set legal limits on the leakage permitted by a microwave maker.
Since microwave radiation has been known to cause cataracts, birth defects, cancer and other serious illnesses, you don't want to stand in front of or close to a microwave in operation. Once you start thinking about the hazards of microwaving foods, you may find that you can heat food in a toaster oven almost as quickly. You might also want to think about that "frankenfood" you are creating in your microwave by the rearrangement of its molecular structure.
If you want to measure microwaves from military or airport radar sources, you will find that the only really accurate measures can be found with extremely expensive meters. If you are set on doing this, you can rent these meters.
Telephones
The handset of a telephone may emit a surprisingly high amount of EMFs. Since you hold the phone next to your head, you will probably want to get the phone with the lowest EMF reading. Place the Gauss meter directly against the ear piece and the mouth piece to check the reading before you buy a telephone.
Sources:
Natural Solutions Foundation, (www.healthfreedomusa.org) , "Useful Information About Electric Magnetic Fields".
(www.lessemf.com) .
(www.brain101.info/EMF.php) , "Electro Magnetic Field", Nabeel Kauka, M.D.
(www.powerlinefacts.com)
Most experts agree that some limited exposure to EMFs is not a threat. We can feel reasonably safe using a toaster, for example. The problem comes when we are chronically exposed to large does of EMFs such as encountered when living near power lines or sleeping in the room where the power enters the house. Unfortunately, this type of chronic exposure to EMFs applies to millions of Americans.
Negative effects of EMF exposure
The effect of EMFs on biological tissue remains controversial. Virtually all scientists agree that more research is necessary to determine safe or dangerous levels. What they do know is that iron, which is necessary for healthy blood and is stored in the brain, is highly affected by EMFs. The permeability of the cell membranes of nerves, blood vessels, skin and other organs is also affected, as well as the intricate DNA of the chromosomes. Every bodily biochemical process involves precisely choreographed movement of EMF sensitive atoms, molecules, and ions.
Dr. David Carpenter, Dean of the School of Public Health, SUNY, has reported that up to 30 percent of all childhood cancers may be due to exposure to residential power lines.
Epidemiological studies in Sweden by Maria Feychting showed that persons exposed to high magnetic fields at home and at work had 3.7 times the risk of developing leukemia compared to those not exposed.
Two research reports have identified elevated risks of breast cancer among women working jobs with presumed higher than average exposure to EMFs.
If you want to follow the Environmental Protection Agency's advice to prudently avoid EMFs, you may want to invest in a Gauss meter to measure your home, work or school environments, both inside and outside.
What is a Gauss Meter?
A Gauss is a common unit of measurement of magnetic field strength. The Gauss meter is a tool for measuring Gauss values. Inside a Gauss meter is a coil of thin wire. As a magnetic field radiates through the coil, it induces a current, which is amplified by the circuitry inside the Gauss meter.
These meters vary in the strength of magnetic fields they are able to measure. A meter used for measuring EMFs from power lines, transformers, substations and appliances should be able to measure as low as .1 mg.
Gauss meters vary in price and accuracy. They have either a single axis coil or a triple axis coil, with the single axis being much simpler and therefore much less expensive. To use the single axis meter, you point its one sensor in three directions, the X, Y and Z axes, and combine the readings in an equation to calculate the combined field strength. The triple axis meters are more complicated in their operations, but produce more accurate results.
Another consideration is whether the meter is frequency weighted. Most meters read the same EMF strength no matter what the frequency. Since the human body appears to be sensitive to both the field strength and the frequency, meters should be frequency weighted. The frequency weighting feature is why these meters will show a higher EMF reading than those typically used by electricians and engineers.
Power lines, substations and transformers
Power generating stations produce enormous amounts of electricity and send it through high voltage wires. All power lines radiate electromagnetic fields, with the exact amount depending on its particular configuration. Power companies know which configurations are best for limiting EMFs but most don't feel the evidence against EMFs supports their making costly changes in the way they deliver electricity.
A substation is where the conversion from transmission to distribution takes place. Through an assemblage of circuit breakers, switches and transformers, the electrical current is stepped down to the power grid. A good bit of public concern about the threat of EMFs has revolved around the substation, which has been seen as the cause of cancer clusters among nearby residents.
A component of a utility's electrical distribution network depends on numerous transformers mounted on power poles. These transformers look like small cylindrical trash cans. When the electrical service is buried underground, you will see a metal box located on the ground near the street. Although many people don't know a transformer when they see it, the power line feeding the transformer is carrying 4000 to 13,000 volts. The transformer then reduces the voltage to the 120-/240 current needed by the nearby homes.
EMFs near a transformer can be very high, but the field strength diminishes rapidly with distance. For this reason, having a transformer located near your home should not be a major concern, but you might want to measure the field strength around the transformer to be sure.
Electric blankets and water beds
An electric blanket can create a magnetic field that penetrates about 6 to 7 inches into the body. An epidemiological study has linked electric blankets with miscarriages and childhood leukemia. Similar effects have been reported for users of water bed heaters which emit EMTs even when turned off but still plugged in.
Electric clocks
Electric clocks emit a magnetic field as much as 5 to 10mG up to three feet away. If you have a bedside clock, you may be exposing yourself to the EMF equivalent of an electric power line. Since studies have linked high rates of brain tumors with chronic exposure to magnetic fields, it may be wise to place all clocks and other electrical devices such as phones at least 6 feet from where you sleep.
Electric Razors and Hair Dryers
Electric razors and hair dryers may emit EMFs as high as 200 to 400 mG. This may seem like a really large amount, but your exposure to these devices is probably not continuous for long periods of time. Some experts recommend that hair dryers not be used on children as the high field would be held close to the rapidly developing brain and nervous system of the child.
Fluorescent lights
Fluorescent lights produce a higher level of EMFs than incandescent bulbs. A typical fluorescent tube may have a reading of 160 to 200 mG at 1 inch away.
A better lighting choice is the LED bulbs available at (www.EcoLEDS.com) , reported by Mike Adams to be the world's most eco-friendly bulbs.
Microwave ovens and radar
In addition to microwaves, another type of radiation, ELF, is emitted from microwave ovens and radar from military installations and airports. Microwaves are measured in milliwatts per centimeter squared (mW/cm2). The safety limit for microwave exposure is 1mW/mc2. Microwave leakage is a serious issue, serious enough for the FDA to set legal limits on the leakage permitted by a microwave maker.
Since microwave radiation has been known to cause cataracts, birth defects, cancer and other serious illnesses, you don't want to stand in front of or close to a microwave in operation. Once you start thinking about the hazards of microwaving foods, you may find that you can heat food in a toaster oven almost as quickly. You might also want to think about that "frankenfood" you are creating in your microwave by the rearrangement of its molecular structure.
If you want to measure microwaves from military or airport radar sources, you will find that the only really accurate measures can be found with extremely expensive meters. If you are set on doing this, you can rent these meters.
Telephones
The handset of a telephone may emit a surprisingly high amount of EMFs. Since you hold the phone next to your head, you will probably want to get the phone with the lowest EMF reading. Place the Gauss meter directly against the ear piece and the mouth piece to check the reading before you buy a telephone.
Sources:
Natural Solutions Foundation, (www.healthfreedomusa.org) , "Useful Information About Electric Magnetic Fields".
(www.lessemf.com) .
(www.brain101.info/EMF.php) , "Electro Magnetic Field", Nabeel Kauka, M.D.
(www.powerlinefacts.com)
About the author
Barbara is a school psychologist, a published author in the area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative" treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all things natural.17 April 2008
Anti-uranium mining activists stage inquiry in Peterborough into province's plan to expand nuclear reactors
Anti-uranium mining activists stage inquiry in Peterborough into province's plan to expand nuclear reactors
Posted By NICOLE RIVA/Examiner Staff Writer
Posted 1 day ago
The dangers of radiation, health problems and environmental sustainability took centre stage at a meeting staged by anti-uranium mining activists at Sadleir House Tuesday.
Organized by the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium and facilitated by Peterborough group Safe and Green Energy (SAGE), the Citizens Inquiry into Impacts of Uranium Mining was dubbed a neutral hearing by organizers. But of the nearly 40 speakers, there was no one on hand to defend to represent mining companies.
The goal of many participants is to seek a moratorium on uranium mining and exploration in Ontario.
A lack of public debate about uranium mining and nuclear energy was criticized by several speakers, but the executive director of Greenpeace said those groups have said enough.
“The corporations have been heard. They’re in the backrooms of the province,” said Bruce Cox. “This is one of the few times to hear the other side of the story.”
Cox said the four hearings being held by the activists across the province are exactly what is needed to get the government to listen.
“What politicians do respond to is public pressure,” he said.
Nearly 50 people attended the inquiry's afternoon and evening sessions.
The inquiry was overseen by a panel, said Anna Petry from SAGE, which will gather information from the hearings and present them to Premier Dalton McGuinty.
Former Ottawa mayor and MP Marion Dewar and Fraser McVie, a retired official with the corrections system, made up yesterday’s panel.
Anyone wishing to present to the inquiry only had to submit their name by April 1, Petry said, and organizers had no previous knowledge about presentations.
Speakers included concerned citizens, politicians, scientists and activist groups who came from surrounding areas including Port Hope, Haliburton, Toronto and the Bancroft area.
Cox spoke adamantly against the government’s $40-billion proposed nuclear expansion involving up to eight new reactors and said public discussion is needed to preserve Ontario’s natural heritage for future generations.
Rachelle Sauve pushes a three-eyed fish in a shopping cart outside MPP Jeff Leal's constituency office on King Street before walking to trent University's Sadleir House on George Street to attend a a meeting staged by anti-uranium mining activists Tuesday. The citizens inquiry was organized by the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium.
Clifford Skarstedt, Examiner
“The corporations have been heard. They’re in the backrooms of the province. This is one of the few times to hear the other side of the story.” Bruce Cox, executive director.
Cox said the four hearings being held by the activists across the province are exactly what is needed to get the government to listen.
“What politicians do respond to is public pressure,” he said.
Nearly 50 people attended the inquiry's afternoon and evening sessions.
The inquiry was overseen by a panel, said Anna Petry from SAGE, which will gather information from the hearings and present them to Premier Dalton McGuinty.
Former Ottawa mayor and MP Marion Dewar and Fraser McVie, a retired official with the corrections system, made up yesterday’s panel.
Anyone wishing to present to the inquiry only had to submit their name by April 1, Petry said, and organizers had no previous knowledge about presentations.
Speakers included concerned citizens, politicians, scientists and activist groups who came from surrounding areas including Port Hope, Haliburton, Toronto and the Bancroft area.
Cox spoke adamantly against the government’s $40-billion proposed nuclear expansion involving up to eight new reactors and said public discussion is needed to preserve Ontario’s natural heritage for future generations.
“All stages (of production) release some form of radioactive waste,” he said. “One million years is the life expectancy of high-level nuclear waste.”
Former UN secretary general Kofi Annan was quoted on concerns about nuclear terrorism.
“Nobody has targeted wind turbines for terrorist action,” Cox said.
Cox was followed by Trent professor and Ardoch Algonquin First Nation co-chief Paula Sherman who was arrested and fined for contempt of court after a blockade against uranium mining exploration on Sharbot Lake in March along with Ardoch’s spokesman Robert Lovelace, who is serving a six-month sentence at the Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay.
Lovelace was called a hero several times during the day and calls for his release were repeated during yesterday's event.
Sherman demonstrated the need to keep uranium in the ground by reading from the story “Christopher Coyote and the Seeds of the Sun.” In the story once the secrets of the seeds of the sun are revealed everything dies.
Sherman, along with several other speakers, spoke about how the uranium mines encroaching on First Nations ancestral land was a form of colonialism and that a review of Ontario’s Mining Act is needed.
Mark Winfield, former Ontario policy director for the Pembina Institute, explained how uranium negatively impacts the environment at each step and produces radioactive tailings that can contaminate surface and groundwater.
“We’re looking at discharges largely of uranium and other heavy metals notably nickel, arsenic and lead,” Winfield said. “Health Canada, Environment Canada have said the effluent is a toxic substance.”
Presentations from Port Hope residents added a personal feel because of their proximity to the Cameco uranium processing facility, which has had operations curtailed since last July by a contamination leak under one of the plants.
John Miller, from Families Against Radiation Exposure (FARE), described the Cameco situation as being “too close for comfort.”
The 1,500 FARE members are working to force Cameco to clean up from an ongoing leakage and keep the community safer.
“Cameco knows the public wants emissions reduced, health testing done and to ensure the site’s security,” Miller said.
A former Cameco employee, Dan Rudka, told his story of radiation poisoning, which nearly killed him. The poisoning has not been officially acknowledged, he said, but he has tested positive for having uranium in his body.
Rudka recounted how his skin started to rot away, losing one-third of his body mass and how colours were washed out of sheets from his sweat.
Several speakers said uranium can leach into water systems and travel a great distance, and pointed out how if water near Haliburton and Bancroft is affected it could carry down to Peterborough since the areas share a watershed.
“The toxins don’t stop at the plant gate,” said Marion Burton from the Occupational and Environmental Health Coalition. “Communities have a right to know what chemicals exist in our neighbourhoods.”
28 March 2008
Dr Helen Caldicott: The Earth is in the Intensive Care Unit
Posted on March 28, 2008 by dandelionsalad
from www.youtube.com posted with vodpod
.
This week we devote the entire episode to Dr. Helen Caldicott, one of the founders of Physicians For Social Responsibility (PSR).
In this piece, edited by PepperSpray’s Patricia Boiko, Dr. Caldicott talks of the nuclear issues and the health of the earth from the perspective of a healer/physician.
Dr. Caldicott was in Seattle a few months back and PepperSpray collective members rallied around with her to radio stations and to the Washington meeting of PSR where she was the keynote speaker.
Physicians for Social Responsibility an organization of 23,000 doctors committed to educating their colleagues and the public about the dangers of nuclear power, nuclear weapons and nuclear war.http://www.psr.org
After being instrumental in the formation of PSR in the US, Dr. Caldecott helped start similar medical organizations in many other countries.
The international umbrella group (International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.
She also founded the Women’s Action for Nuclear Disarmament, now Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) in the US in 1980.
Other professions took up the challenge of “social responsibility,” and the 1980s and 90s saw an array of organizations such as Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility, each with their own focus.
Books by Helen Caldicott referenced in the video:
Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer
http://books.google.com/books?id=iEVb…
The New Nuclear Danger: George W. Bush’s Military-Industrial Complex
http://books.google.com/books?id=Diy9…
War in Heaven: The Arms Race in Outer Space
http://books.google.com/books?id=FoJu…
“Indymedia Presents” is a weekly public access program produced on behalf of the Seattle Independent Media Center (IMC) by PepperSpray Productions… now also a weekly podcast available at:
http://indymediapresents.blip.tv
http://miroguide.com/channels/1786
Pubic Access producers, community screeners, and IMCs are encouraged to screen or air “Indymedia Presents.” To obtain the show on a regular basis, please contact us at pepperspray@riseup.net.
Related Free Speech Websites:
Independent Media Center
http://www.indymedia.org/en/index.shtmlIndymedia NewsReal
http://www.newsreal.indymedia.orgFree Speech TV:
http://www.freespeech.orgDemocracy Now!
http://www.democracynow.org
see
War in Heaven – The Arms Race in Outer Space
Nuclear Madness - Interview with Dr. Helen Caldicott (must see video)
27 March 2008
| Encore entente cordiale? |  |  |
| By John Busby | |
| Mar/27/2008 | |
| The state visit of France's President Sarkozy will culminate in an agreement with Prime Minister Brown to jointly develop a new generation of nuclear power plants and to export the technology to the rest of the world. See Entente Cordiale Sanders Research, August 7th 2006. The state visit of France's President Sarkozy will culminate in an agreement with Prime Minister Brown to jointly develop a new generation of nuclear power plants and to export the technology to the rest of the world. Concurrently to the meeting in Arsenal's Emirates football stadium Sarkozy is offering to decommission some of his arsenal of nuclear warheads. The recent UK government consultation on nuclear power has ended with an invitation to the private sector to invest in a replacement fleet of reactors, while putting finance in place "up front" to avoid future decommissioning and waste management liabilities passing to the taxpayer. The designs of three out of four reactor candidates are to be examined by safety inspectors, culminating in the approvals for the new build in 2012. With an anticipated construction period of five years, new nuclear generation would commence at the earliest in 2017. It now appears that this is not big enough or fast enough for Gordon Brown. His industry minister John Hutton wants more than just replacement and is arguing for a "significantly higher proportion" of nuclear generation than at present. The competing designs submitted for scrutiny are those of Toshiba (Westinghouse in the US), GE (US), Candu (Canada) and Areva (France). The agency involved in the task has in the past has taken much time and has insisted on modifications for increased safety, which in the case of the Sizewell B station added to the cost and the delay. Cooperation with France for nuclear power means working with Areva, the station builder and fuel provider, which is 90% French state owned. Already electricity is generated and distributed in Britain by EdF, another French company, 85% state owned. Other potential nuclear generators in the UK include German E.On and RWE, Spanish Iberdrola and the UK's Centrica and would presumably be obliged to purchase an Areva reactor. There seems little point in studying the rival designs, but cutting them out risks infringing anti-competition laws. It seems that the Brownian "clunking fist" is impatient with the birth pangs of a nuclear "renaissance" unlikely to be financed by the private sector without subsidy and disincentivised by the need to meet waste management obligations "up front". He wants to lay the foundation stone of Sizewell C right |