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

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?

bullet 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.
bullet 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.
bullet 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.
bullet 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.
bullet Further human studies of mobile phone health risks are urgently needed, because of the very large numbers using mobiles.
bullet 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.
bullet 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.
bullet 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.
bullet 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.
bullet 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.
bullet 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: (*)

bullet Motorola Star Tac 130 (A) 0.10 +
bullet Motorola Star Tac 130 (B) 0.38 +
bullet Nokia 8810 0.22 --
bullet Sony CMD-C1 0.55 --
bullet Ericsson I8888 World 0.60 +
bullet Ericsson S868 0.77 +
bullet Nokia 6110 0.87 --
bullet Ericsson A1018s 0.88 +
bullet Ericsson SH888 0.90 +
bullet Trium Galaxy (A) 0.93 ++
bullet Trium Galaxy (B) 1.16 ++
bullet Motorola cd930 0.94 +
bullet Panasonic EB-G520 0.95 --
bullet Alcatel One Touch max (A) 0.97 -
bullet Alcatel One Touch max (B) 1.29 -
bullet Ericsson T18s 0.97 +
bullet Nokia 6150 0.98 --
bullet Panasonic EB-GD70 0.99 --
bullet Philips Savy 1.11 -
bullet Bosch GSM 909 1.13 -
bullet Nokia 3210 1.14 --
bullet Motorola cd920 1.17 +
bullet Nokia 3110 1.24 --
bullet Philips Genie 1800 (A) 1.26 +
bullet Philips Genie 1800 (B) 1.41 +
bullet Siemens C25 1.33 --
bullet Philips Genie 900 (A) 1.52 +
bullet Philips Genie 900 (B) 2.67 +
bullet Motorola v3688 1.58 +
bullet 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

bullet Do mobile phones cause sickness - Dr speaks - RealVideo Web TV
bullet Search this site for more phone radiation
bullet Mobile phone radiation - latest news from 100,000 publications
bullet http://www.rf3.com.au - interesting anti-radiation claims for device
bullet Vodafone and phone radiation - letter
bullet Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation
bullet EMFacts Information Service
bullet

Fact Sheet: Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

bullet

Health Costs of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation

bullet

Microwave News

bullet

Radiation and Health Physics

bullet

Radiation Effects Research Foundation

bullet

Radiation Reassessed

bullet

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Radiation Protection Division

bullet

What You Need To Know About Radiation

bullet

FAQ - Radiation

bullet

http://www.cogreslab.demon.co.uk/

bullet

Link site for radiation shields

bullet

Zeropa radiation products

bullet

http://www.freeyellow.com/members7/mobilesafe/





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 MEMBERS

Wednesday, 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

Copyright 2005 PHP
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:

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.

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

Dandelion Salad

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.

Real Video Stream

Real Audio Stream

MP3 Download

transcript

Creative Commons License 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

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

By Jason Leopold

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.com/html/localnews/2004387...

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.