Oh
I won't be the only one but that's pretty much the point, Richard
Attenborough was "one of those people"! From a privileged background? To
some extent but then so are our current administration but I don't
think they would have made "Gandhi" do you (or even been capable of
doing so despite combining what is left of their talents)? People like
Attenborough leave a hole when they leave (knowing of-course that
"nature abhors a vacuum"), that directs our attention to the issues
which concerned them when they were alive, this is a legacy and
Attenborough's is considerable; "Gandhi" and "Cry Freedom" are seminal
works and reveal the true heart of the man, but of-course it is not
merely the work itself which inspires but also the way by which it was accomplished,
as a director he was determined and indomitable as an actor he was both
powerful and subtle. One wonders what his parents were like (I hear he
has a brother who has also been somewhat succesful in his field), one
cannot put a price on good parenting and schooling (& as far as the
latter is concerned why do we?), and their example must surely be (in
many ways), as important as that of their off-spring. Nobody can claim
to be perfect (as I am sure "Dicky" would be the first to admit), but
the fundamentalists and dogmatists will always try to reduce to the
absurd the achievements of those who don't live up to their (lowest of),
standards. Tolerance and compassion do not (as Gandhi himself made very
clear), reside solely in one people, one creed or one politics and if
this realisation is at the core of his legacy (& that of his
brother's), then the Attenboroughs have achieved something truly
remarkable for it shall endure, I defy the monetarists and communists to achieve the same.
Quote: "His father,
who was principal of the local university college, instilled in his
children the belief that not one minute of the day should be wasted.
It
was a philosophy that Attenborough carried into his professional life
astonishing colleagues with his tireless 20-hours-a-day energy.
A
dedicated socialist, he was introduced to rebellious politics by his
mother, who joined protest marches in the 1930s against Spain's General
Franco and took in Basque refugees from the Spanish Civil War.
Quote: "Comrade Dickie was a Grammar School boy...
Then a scholarship to RADA. His paternal grandad was a working class baker, his mother's side were the educationalists.
As
usual the obits have undervalued his acting skills, as displayed in
some cracking British films. I would suggest that the spivs he often
played were closer to the spirit of the current shower in power and
illustrate where their particular 'talents' lie.
It is a pity
that the death of the British film industry meant that he never got to
turn Trevor Griffith's Tom Paine script into a film" ...
and....
"A man to be sorely missed.
He
gave two outstanding film performances of course -- Pinkie in Brighton
Rock (I think Greene said he he came nearest to portraying one of his
characters than any other actor) and Christie in 10 Rillington Place.
That slightly effeminate lisp he used was chilling and even in a brief
clip they showed last night it sent shivers down the spine.
I've
probably see that film at least 10 times and its powerful affect is
never diminished, partly I suspect because it was filmed in the house
itself, which adds a very macabre twist to it.
The Chechen Republic? Anyone? Myopic isn't it? "Oh Mr.Putin oh what a lovely War!" You can search the right wing press (obviously -?-), and the left (not so obviously), but neither seem to be able to recall (or recognise the ongoing), situation between The Russians and The Chechens. The Left will rant on about Palestine without having any real solution to the problem but Chechnya is simply forgotten. Clinton abandoned them (a man notionally of "The Left" -in terms of U.S politics-), and that appears to be that as far as any criticism of the mafia-like oligarchy that still has its hands around the throats of The Russian people is concerned. Where is Glasnost? Perestroika? Where is Michael Gorbachev? "Oh they're bashing American involvement in Europe, TTIP and the NATO-ised federal state The EU has become so that's o.k" What an abrogation of responsibility (I guess we shouldn't be surprised though The Left in Britain have been "going round and round in circles" with regard to Palestine for over half a century)! Today however "the scales" were lifted (from my eyes at least), as I finally realised just why it is that opinions like mine concerning the state of OH SO MANY things in modern Britain (esp. "Austerity" and the direct attack on democracy it represents), both now and historically are bullied and brow-beaten into quiescence; the Stalinist b***tards which infest our "intelligentsia" (for want of a better word), are NOT SERVED by resolution, they like their right wing opponents (who at least are bit more more "up front" about their motives), profit from the continuation of conflict.
I missed this the first few times around, but then it stuck me like a thunderbolt; "nuclear weapons have not been "retired"!". If anything both strategically and tactically the necessity of knocking out your opponent's technology has attained pre-eminence and therefore the so-called "limited" use of nuclear weapons has become more not less likely on the 21st century "battlefield" (which of-course -Utilitarianism having more or less finished its work with us-, has now become "any d**n place we choose"). How has this been missed?! It is because (as with certain other major "bug-bears" such as the dangers represented by the use of incineration and wi-fi/mobile phones), the implications realised by such consciousness are for many too challenging to consider, but consider them we must and that urgently! All nations with a substantial military expenditure are now concerned with the issues of both the production of and protection against "E.M.P" weapons and it is extremely unlikely that non-nuclear non-(immediately), lethal methods of producing E.M.Ps are not also being explored. What may or may not it be possible to produce using superconductors and nuclear reactorsfor instance? Quote: "
... but out of nowhere a wave of chaos was to wash over that world. In
a millisecond it was gone. There were no phones, no computers, no power,
nothing. Yet nobody had died, no buildings razed to the ground. And then
the blind panic set in. What's going on, asks Ian Sample
It sounds like the perfect weapon. Without fracturing a single brick or spilling
a drop of blood, it could bring a city to its knees. The few scientists who
are prepared to talk about it speak of a sea change in how wars will be fought.
Even in peacetime, the same technology could bring mayhem to our daily lives.
This weapon is so simple to make, scientists say, it wouldn't take a criminal
genius to put one together and wreak havoc. Some believe attacks have started
already, but because the weapon leaves no trace it's a suspicion that's hard
to prove. The irony is that it's our love of technology itself that makes
us so vulnerable.
This perfect weapon is the electromagnetic bomb, or e-bomb. The idea behind
it is simple. Produce a high-power flash of radio waves or microwaves and
it will fry any circuitry it hits. At lower powers, the effects are more
subtle: it can throw electronic systems into chaos, often making them crash.
In an age when electronics finds its way into just about everything bar food
and bicycles, it is a sure way to cause mass disruption. Panic the financial
markets and you could make a killing as billions are wiped off share values.
You could freeze transport systems, bring down communications, destroy computer
networks. It's swift, discreet and effective.
Right now, talk of the threat of these weapons is low-key, and many want
it to stay that way. But in some circles, concern is mounting. Last month,
James O'Bryon, the deputy director of Live Fire Test & Evaluation at
the US Department of Defense flew to a conference in Scotland to address
the issue. "What we're trying to do is look at what people might use if they
wanted to do something damaging," he says. With good reason, this is about
as much as O'Bryon is happy to divulge.
E-bombs may already be part of the military arsenal. According to some, these
weapons were used during NATO's campaign against Serbia last year to knock
out radar systems. So do they really exist? "Lots of people are doing lots
of work to protect against this type of thing," says Daniel Nitsch of the
German Army Scientific Institute for Protection Technology in Muster, Lower
Saxony. "You can make your own guess."
Interest in electromagnetic weapons was triggered half a century ago, when
the military were testing something a lot less subtle. "If you let a nuclear
weapon off, you get a huge electromagnetic pulse," says Alan Phelps of the
University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. If this pulse hits electronic equipment,
it can induce currents in the circuitry strong enough to frazzle the electronics.
"It can destroy all computers and communications for miles," says Phelps.
But the military ran into problems when it came to finding out more about
the effects of these pulses. How could they create this kind of powerful
pulse without letting off nuclear bombs? Researchers everywhere took up the
challenge.
The scientists knew that the key was to produce intense but short-lived pulses
of electric current. Feeding these pulses into an antenna pumps out powerful
electromagnetic waves with a broad range of frequencies. The broader the
range, the higher the chance that something electrical will absorb them and
burn out.
Researchers quickly realised the most damaging pulses are those that contain
high frequencies. Microwaves in the gigahertz range can sneak into boxes
of electronics through the slightest gap: vent holes, mounting slots or cracks
in the metal casing. Once inside, they can do their worst by inducing currents
in any components they hit. Lower radio frequencies, right down to a few
megahertz, can be picked up by power leads or connectors. These act as antennas,
sending signals straight to the heart of any electronic equipment they are
connected to. If a computer cable picks up a powerful electromagnetic pulse,
the resulting power surge may fry the computer chips.
To cook up high-frequency microwaves, scientists need electrical pulses that
come and go in a flash--around 100 picoseconds, or one ten-billionth of a
second. One way of doing this is to use a set-up called a Marx generator.
This is essentially a bank of big capacitors that can be charged up together,
then discharged one after the other to create a tidal wave of current.
Channelling the current through a series of super-fast switches trims it
down to a pulse of around 300 picoseconds. Pass this pulse into an antenna
and it releases a blast of electromagnetic energy. Marx generators tend to
be heavy, but they can be triggered repeatedly to fire a series of powerful
pulses in quick succession.
Deadly burst
Marx generators are at the heart of an experimental weapons system being
built for the US Air Force by Applied Physical Sciences, an electronics company
in Whitewater, Kansas. "We're trying to put them on either unmanned aerial
vehicles or just shells or missiles in an effort to make an electromagnetic
minefield," says Jon Mayes of APS. "If something flies through it, it'll
knock it out." It could also be used on a plane to burn out the controls
of incoming missiles, says Mayes. Put it on the back of a military jet and
if a missile locks onto the plane, the generator can release a pulse that
scrambles the missile's electronics.
Marx generators have the advantage of being able to operate repeatedly. But
to generate a seriously powerful, one-off pulse, you can't beat the oomph
of old-fashioned explosives. The energy stored in a kilo or two of TNT can
be turned into a huge pulse of microwaves using a device called a flux
compressor. This uses the energy of an explosion to cram a current and its
magnetic field into an ever-smaller volume. Sending this pulse into an antenna
creates a deadly burst of radiowaves and microwaves.
Simplicity is one of the flux compressor's big attractions. Just take a metal
tube, pack it with explosives, and stick a detonator in one end. Then fix
the tube inside a cylinder of coiled wire, which has a wire antenna attached
at the far end. Finally, pass a current through the coil to set up a magnetic
field between the metal tube and the coil, and you're ready to go (Click
on thumbnail
graphic for diagram.).
Setting off the detonator triggers the charge, sending an explosion racing
along the tube at almost 6000 metres per second. If you could slow this down,
you'd see that in the instant before the explosive pressure wave begins to
shatter the device, the blast flares out the inner metal tube. The distorted
metal makes contact with the coil, causing a short circuit that diverts the
current--and the magnetic field it generates--into the undisturbed coil ahead
of it. As the explosive front advances, the magnetic field is squeezed into
a smaller and smaller volume. Compressing the field this way creates a huge
rise in current in the coil ahead of the explosion, building a mega-amp pulse
just 500 picoseconds wide. Finally, just before the whole weapon is destroyed
in the blast, the current pulse flows into an antenna, which radiates its
electromagnetic energy outwards. The whole process is over in less than a
tenth of a millisecond, but for an instant it can spray out a terawatt of
power.
Tom Schilling of TPL, an electronics company in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
is working along similar lines with the microwave weapons he's developing
for the US Air Force. "We're using explosive flux generators to generate
the power, then sending that straight into an antenna," he says. "One of
the systems we're looking at is a guided bomb that can be dropped off a plane.
Targets would be things like command and control centres--we should be able
to shut those down with little or no collateral damage." Schilling's company
is also looking at putting flux compressors into air-to-air missiles. It's
an appealing idea, as even a near miss could bring down a plane.
It certainly ought to be practical. As long ago as the late 1960s, scientists
sent a pair of flux compressors into the upper atmosphere aboard a small
rocket to generate power for an experiment to study the ionosphere. "You
can build flux compressors smaller than a briefcase," says Ivor Smith, an
electrical engineer at Loughborough University who has worked on these devices
for years.
Perhaps the biggest benefit of these weapons is that they carry the tag
"non-lethal". You could take out a city's communications systems without
killing anyone or destroying any buildings. In addition to the obvious benefits
for the inhabitants, this also avoids the sort of bad press back home that
can fuel opposition to a war. But that doesn't make these weapons totally
safe, especially if they're being used to mess up the electronics of aircraft.
"If you're in an aeroplane that loses its ability to fly, it's going to be
bad for you," points out James Benford of Microwave Sciences in Lafayette,
California.
Another big plus for people thinking of using these weapons is that microwaves
pass easily through the atmosphere. This means that you can set off your
weapon and inflict damage without having to get close to your target. "People
think in terms of a kilometre away," says Benford. According to some estimates,
a flux compressor detonated at an altitude of few hundred metres could wipe
out electronics over a 500-metre radius.
Electromagnetic weapons can be sneaky, too. You don't have to fry everything
in sight. Instead you can hit just hard enough to make electronics crash--they
call it a "soft kill" in the business--and then quietly do what you came
to do without the enemy ever knowing you've even been there. "That could
be useful in military applications when you just want to make [the opposition]
lose his electronic memory for long enough to do your mission," Benford says.
"You can deny you ever did anything," he adds. "There's no shrapnel, no burning
wreckage, no smoking gun."
Did it work?
The downside is that it can sometimes be hard to tell when an electromagnetic
weapon has done its job. This is compounded by the fact that unless you know
exactly what kind of electronics you are attacking, and how well protected
they are, it's hard to know how much damage a weapon will do. This
unpredictability has been a major problem for the military as it tries to
develop these weapons. "Military systems have to go through an enormous amount
of development," says Benford. "The key thing is that it has to have a clearly
demonstrated and robust effect."
Tests like this are close to the heart of Nigel Carter, who assesses aircraft
for their sensitivity to microwaves at Britain's Defence Evaluation and Research
Agency in Farnborough, Hampshire. Microwaves can easily leak between panels
on the fuselage, he says. "You've also got an undercarriage with hatches
that open, there's leakage through the cockpit, leakage through any doors."
To find out how bad that leakage is, Carter could simply put the plane in
a field and fire away at it with microwaves. But he has to be careful. "If
we go blatting away at a very high level at hundreds of frequencies, people
in the nearest town get a bit upset because they can't watch TV any more,"
says Carter. "It's very unpopular."
To avoid annoying the neighbours, Carter beams very low-power microwaves
at the plane. Sensors on board--linked by fibre optics to data recorders
so they are immune to the microwaves--record the currents induced in the
plane's electronics.
Knowing what currents are produced by weak microwaves, Carter calculates
what kinds of currents are likely to be produced if the plane is hit by a
more powerful pulse of microwaves. "You can then inject those currents directly
into the electronics," he says. The results can be dramatic. "The sort of
effects you might expect to get if it's not protected are instrumentation
displaying wrong readings, displays blanking out and you could, in the worst
case, get interference with your flight controls," he says.
The idea of weapons like these being used in warfare is disturbing enough,
but what if criminals get their hands on them? According to Bill Radasky,
an expert in electromagnetic interference with Metatech in Goleta, California,
they may have already done so. A basic microwave weapon, he says, can be
cobbled together with bits from an electrical store for just a few hundred
dollars. Such a system would be small enough to fit in the back of a car
and could crash a computer from 100 metres away.
Other systems are even easier to acquire. Some mail-order electronics outlets
sell compact microwave sources that are designed to test the vulnerability
of electronics. But they could just as easily be used in anger. "We've done
experiments that show it's very easy to do," says Radasky. "We've damaged
a lot of equipment with those little boxes." If some reports are to be believed,
they're not the only ones.
Criminals may have already used microwave weapons, according to Bob Gardner
who chairs the Electromagnetic Noise and Interference Commission of the
International Union of Radio Science in Ghent, Belgium. Reports from Russia
suggest that these devices have been used to disable bank security systems
and to disrupt police communications. Another report suggests a London bank
may also have been attacked. While these incidents are hard to prove, they're
perfectly plausible. "If you're asking whether it's technologically reasonable
that someone could do something like this," says Gardner, "then the answer
is yes."
Gardner's claims are backed by Nitsch. He is investigating how vulnerable
computers and networks are to powerful bursts of microwaves. Surprisingly,
he has found that today's machines are far easier to crash than older models.
He says computer manufacturers used to be more worried about electromagnetic
interference, so they often put blocks of material inside to absorb stray
signals, and ran strips of copper around the joins in the casing to keep
microwaves out.
That modern computers have less protection is bad enough. But they are also
more susceptible because they are more powerful. To push signals around faster,
you must reduce the voltage to ensure that the extra current doesn't make
the processor chips overheat. In the 1980s, most computers operated at 5
volts. Today's machines operate at nearer 2 volts, says Nitsch, making their
signals easier to disrupt. Networks are particularly susceptible, he adds,
because the hundreds of metres of cabling connecting their workstations can
act as an efficient radiowave receiving antenna.
Secret attacks
So are businesses taking the threat seriously? Radasky knows of only one
European company that has protected its control centre against microwave
weapons. Gardner believes it will take a high-profile attack to raise awareness
of the issue. But combine the lack of evidence left by microwaves with companies'
reluctance to admit their systems have been breached and you'd expect attacks
to go unreported.
The good news is that protection isn't too difficult if it's done at the
design stage, says Carter. The first thing to do is make sure you've got
well-constructed circuits. This means using strong signals that can easily
be distinguished from the fuzz of noise generated by microwaves. "You also
want to make sure your circuitry only responds at the frequency it's supposed
to," he says. So if your computer is intended to respond to signals coming
in at 500 megahertz, you want to make sure it won't also respond to signals
at twice that frequency--the kind that could be induced by microwaves. Another
step is to wire in filters that absorb large surges of current--much like
those used to protect against glitches in the mains power supply following
lightning strikes.
Regardless of whether these weapons have been used yet, they highlight the
way our dependence on electronics could become our Achilles' heel. The next
time your computer crashes, don't automatically blame Bill Gates. Just wander
over to the window and look out for that unmarked van that sometimes parks
across the street. Could there be someone inside sending a blast of microwaves
your way" Go to: http://www.bilderberg.org/micwaves.htm#Just
Quote: "There are two possible classes of weapons that may be described as
enhanced-EMP nuclear weapons. One is based on commonly known physics,
and I will describe it briefly below. This first type, although never
tested above ground, almost certainly exists now in the arsenals of
several countries.
The second type is often claimed to exist, often by very reliable
sources, but virtually nothing has been made publicly known about this
novel type of weapon. This makes most of what can be said about this
second type mostly speculative. What is written elsewhere on this site,
including what is written below about the first type of enhanced EMP
weapons, is based on known physics or on de-classified documents from
military services or national laboratories.
We know about the first type of enhanced EMP weapons because the
nuclear weapons tested before 1963, including those that caused
significant EMP damage, may be considered to be suppressed-EMP
weapons. If one were trying to minimize the EMP from those weapons,
particularly the E1 component, they could hardly have done a better
job. The E1 pulse arises from gamma rays, and from the effect of those
gamma rays hitting the mid-stratosphere in the presence of a strong
geomagnetic field.
If you wish to minimize the E1 component:
(1) Use a very thick and dense layer of chemical explosive around the nuclear material to trigger the reaction.
(2) Use a very thick and dense steel casing on the entire exterior of the weapon.
(3) Set off a very small fission explosion microseconds before the major (mostly fusion) thermonuclear explosion.
(4) Detonate the device where the geomagnetic field is relatively weak. The numbers in parenthesis in the comments below refer to the numbered statements immediately above.
In above-ground nuclear testing, they did (1) because they had to
with the technology that existed then. They did (2) because they were
trying to maximize the explosive power of the weapon, so they had to
have a thick steel casing that would hold things together for as many
milliseconds as possible. What little they knew then about EMP was
mostly regarded as a nuisance.
They did (3) whenever they were testing thermonuclear weapons (also
known as "hydrogen bombs") because it was the only way to trigger the
second (thermonuclear) stage. It didn't occur to anyone that this first
fission explosion would ionize the upper half of the stratosphere, and
minimize the EMP from high-altitude explosions. Even if they had known
this, it is very unlikely that they would have done more single-stage
testing since (at that time) they still regarded EMP as mostly a
nuisance (but something possibly useful for detecting nuclear explosions
in another country).
For the most part, they did (4) because much of the U.S. testing was
in the near-equatorial regions of the mid-Pacific. (It was a convenient
location for many reasons, and especially for doing tests of very large
weapons.) Actually, 3 of the first 6 high-altitude nuclear tests of
the United States were done in the South Atlantic Anomaly, where the
geomagnetic field is at its very lowest. Although the majority of the
United States tests were in Nevada, they were all smaller tests and none
of them were done at high altitude. Except for the those Nevada tests
and the very first test (which was done in New Mexico), all of the other
tests on the U.S. mainland were done underground (including a 5 megaton
underground test in Alaska).
Soviet high-altitude testing was done at higher latitudes, including one 40 kiloton high-altitude nuclear test (the Thunder
test) in 1961 high above Stalingrad (now Volgograd) that would surely
have produced a large EMP. This may be why the Soviets seemed to know
about high-altitude EMP before the U.S. knew about its unusual
intensity. (Soviet scientists have released details about their 1962 nuclear EMP tests, but nothing about the EMP from their earlier tests.) So the simplest way of making an enhanced-EMP weapon is simply not to do (1), (2), (3) or (4).
Simply using more modern materials to avoid (1) and (2), even if the
casing has to be so thin that it sacrifices some of the explosive power
of the weapon, could easily increase the number of gamma rays emitted
from the weapon by a factor of 10. A huge increase.
To avoid (3), use only a single stage weapon, not a two-stage
thermonuclear. To maximize the nuclear reaction, you probably would
want to use a boosted fission method. In other words, use some of the
lithium deuteride that is generally used as the "thermonuclear" part of
the weapon, but use it only within the concentric shells of the
single-stage weapon in order to get as much of the fissionable material
to fission as possible. For the same reason, use a lot of precisely
timed high-output neutron guns at the instant of detonation.
With some basic physics knowledge and our current knowledge of
high-altitude EMP, a weapon could easily be made that generates
dramatically more gamma radiation, and that is far more efficient in
turning that gamma radiation into electromagnetic pulse. In other
words, any nuclear weapons state could easily create a weapon
that would produce more than 25,000 volts per meter across the entire
continental United States if it is detonated 250 miles (400 kilometers)
above the approximate center of the continental United States.
In addition, there are ways to generate an even larger amount of
gamma rays with a two-stage thermonuclear weapon using a well-shielded
primary (fission) stage and a carefully designed secondary. The design
and deployment of an optimal weapon of this design is much more
complicated than the single-stage weapon, but the knowledge necessary to
design these more sophisicated weapons is becoming increasingly well
known. One cannot keep the laws of physics a secret.
Now, we will leave the realm of commonly known physics and enter an
area that is somewhat speculative. There have been many claims about
the existence of what are called super-EMP nuclear weapons that can
generate electric fields of 200,000 volts per meter. The open
scientific literature only describes the operation of first or second
generation nuclear weapons which are capable of producing a maximum EMP
field strength of about 50,000 volts per meter on the ground (slightly
to the equatorial side of the detonation point). Maximum field
strengths near the horizon would be limited to about half of this value,
or 25,000 volts per meter. The reason that the maximum field strength
is slightly to the equatorial side of the detonation point (in other
words, south of the detonation in the northern hemisphere) is that this
is where the high-energy Compton electrons start to move through the
Earth's magnetic field at nearly a 90 degree angle.
Obtaining field strengths that are higher than this is difficult due
to saturation effects that completely ionize the mid-stratosphere where
the electromagnetic pulse is generated. Basically, the process of
generating the EMP in the middle of the stratosphere very quickly causes
this region to become a fairly good electrical conductor, and therefore
incapable of generating any additional EMP.
The E1 EMP from a nuclear weapon is generated from gamma rays emitted
by the weapon within the first microsecond after the nuclear
detonation. One way of enhancing the EMP is simply to make sure that
the weapon is constructed so that as much of the gamma radiation as
possible escapes from the weapon and is radiated into the upper
atmosphere in a wide area below the detonation. This can be done as
described in the first section above. The (relatively)
gamma-ray-transparent casing only needs to be on the lower side of the
weapon. The gamma radiation that is emitted upward into outer space is
wasted." For full article go to: http://www.futurescience.com/emp/super-EMP.html
There's
a new weapon of mass destruction, one designed to destroy critical
electronic infrastructure. It shorts out everything from office
computers to traffic lights to pacemakers, crippling the machines that
run a modern economy — not to mention those that run a modern
hospital. Although not intended as an anti-personnel device, the
side-effects that this weapon has upon human beings caught within its
blast radius are devastating: those lucky enough to suffer a direct
hit are more or less instantly vaporized. The less fortunate on the
periphery of the blast, or those caught by a ricochet, suffer severe
burns and damage to the internal organs, including the brain. The
weapon is the "e-bomb," or microwave bomb, and as you may have
guessed, this new marvel of terror is brought to us by the same folks
who gave the world the atomic bomb and weaponized anthrax. Yes, it's a
creation of the United States federal government and its "defense"
contractors. Victorino Matus writes about the e-bomb on the Weekly Standard's
website; Matus cannot quite conceal his enthusiasm, but he does at
least mention the humanitarian concerns about the device. Of course,
he concludes by reiterating that the purpose of the bomb is actually
to spare lives: to destroy electronics without also killing people. This is a humanitarian weapon. Something here doesn't add up. Several news sources have reported that the e-bomb may see its first use in the attack on Iraq.That's
understandable as far as it goes; Iraq is not really a stone age
country, despite years of sanctions. It may still have enough
electronics to make the bomb an effective weapon in the U.S. arsenal
(although then again, it may not). But think about this in the long
term. The real danger to the United States at present comes from
terrorist organizations, not from "rogue states," which are only
significant to the extent that they harbor and support terrorists. How
do you use an "e-bomb" against al Qaeda? It's not a weapon of much
use against people hiding in caves. Nor is it of any use in stopping a
hijacked airplane — it could bring down an aircraft, of course, but
so could a conventional missile, and the e-bomb would run the
additional risk of shorting out any other electronics nearby,
including other planes and systems on the ground. Even its usefulness
against Iraq will be very limited. To put it bluntly, an
anti-technology weapon is most useful against a target dependent on
high technology. That doesn't mean Iraq, and it certainly doesn't mean
Afghanistan or al Qaeda. It means countries like the United States. By
its very nature, the e-bomb poses more of a danger to the United
States and other first world countries than it does to terrorists or
rogue states. So why is the US developing this weapon? One explanation
would be that the military-industrial bureaucracy is still fighting
the last war. The e-bomb might work fine against the aircraft and
mechanized infantry divisions of a large nation state such as the
Soviet Union. It would be a useful weapon to deploy against cities as
well, to scramble communications and handicap the economy. But this
kind nation-to-nation warfare is not what America or the world
currently faces. Even apart from al Qaeda, most of the fighting in the
world today is within, not between, states. Outside of Africa, what
warfare there still is between states typically now takes the form of
the United States and its allies fighting a single, smaller foe of
extremely limited conventional forces (Serbia, Iraq, etc.). In such
engagements the e-bomb has limited practical value. It's a
bunker-buster, and one of a highly specialized sort, in an age
characterized by fewer and fewer bunkers. It might have applications
in Iraq, but it would have had few indeed in Serbia — except, again,
as a weapon for use against cities. On
the other hand, the e-bomb would be a very convenient weapon for
anyone who wanted to attack America. There are ways to shield, or
"harden," electronics against electromagnetic pulses, but microwaves
are the most difficult radiation to harden against. No doubt some of
the most highly sensitive military technology might be proofed
against an e-bomb, but civilians would have little protection. In
addition to hospitals and traffic lights, power grids, air traffic
control systems, and telecommunications could all be crippled or
destroyed. The loss of life and economic damage would be bad enough in
Belgrade or Baghdad; in an American city it would be far worse. The
microwave bomb really is a weapon of mass destruction, one
particularly tuned to the weaknesses of a modern, computer-reliant
city. Will
the government's development of this weapon come back to haunt us?
In twenty years' time we may have President George P. Bush threatening
war with Bhutan unless the Bhutanis can prove that they haven't been
developing an e-bomb. Meanwhile our own military-industrial complex
will be busily at work creating yet another weapon of mass
destruction. It's happened before and now it's happening again."Go to: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy42.html
AND this is what's been happening to the "conventional" nuclear arsenal in the meantime...
Doesn't fill "one" with confidence does it ("America dropped an armed nuclear weapon on itself!")?
It happens alot, one of its symptoms is "Greenwash" (a useful adjunct to the miasma of disinformation and news management for the unsustainable resource exploiting industries), however, its importance is most frequently overlooked. Take "Fukushima" for instance, in terms of the international safety profile of the nuclear industry it has, of-course, been disastrous yet the economic consequences have been massively underestimated. The "Powers that Be" ("P.t.B"s), are desperately trying to ameliorate the political consequences of the disaster but haven't a clue how to tackle the economic or environmental ones. Unfortunately (for it), if we were to remove the key log of nuclear power the old-order would be carried to its doom by fallen timber (because without nuclear weapons the old empires have no "presence"), that's far from the whole story though for, in an even more profound sense, the notion that man may "subjugate" the atom underpins an entire philosophy of domination and exploitation that exists at both economically deterministic extremities of the socio/political continuum, therefore nuclear power will remain a necessary loss-leader for the most exploitative regimes.
Municipal waste incinerator projects always run at a loss, they simply encourage people to accept the perpetuation of the brightly packaged (and lucrative -for some-), gewgaw culture whilst imagining that they are "cleaning up" their waste in an environmentally friendly way. Fracking and incineration are also both necessary loss leaders, neither
are actually profitable in themselves; incineration provides an
apparently benign end-user for the oil industry but fracking is truly,
"the Plebs scrabbling in the Roman dirt beneath the emperor's balcony for
debased currency"! As the most recent edition to the mutinous crew
"Fracking" is actually (for most people who oppose it), the most
transparently ludicrous of the three for it smacks of exactly the same
desperation as that displayed by the citizens of Rome as they grovelled
at the emperor's feet.
FLUORIDE, THE SILENT KILLER
by: Yiamouyiannis, John, Ph.D. Dr. Yiamouyiannis received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Rhode
Island and served his post-doctoral fellowship at the Western Reserve University
School of Medicine. He then became editor at Chemical Abstracts Service, the
world's largest chemical information center, where he first became aware of the
health damaging effects of fluoride. He is the former science director of the
National Health Federation; he is the executive director of Health Action and
president of the Safe Water Foundation. He is a world-leading authority on the
biological effects of fluoride and is responsible for ending the use of fluoride
in many areas of the United States and abroad. HARMFUL EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE Fluoride is used as an
insecticide and a roach killer. Even at the level they use to
fluoridate your public water supply, usually at the rate of about 1 part
fluoride for every million parts of water (1 ppm) by weight, it causes
severe problems. As little as one-tenth of an ounce of fluoride will
cause death. It is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less
poisonous than arsenic. No one will die from drinking one glass of
fluoridated water, but it is the long term chronic effects of drinking
fluoridated water that affects health. Dental fluorosis is one of the
earlier signs of fluoride poisoning, appearing in mild cases as a chalky
area on the tooth, and in more advanced cases, teeth become yellow
brown or black and the tips break off. Fluoride in the drinking water
leads to fluoride levels in tissues and organs which damage enzymes.
This results in a wide range of chronic diseases. Fluoride weakens the
immune system and may cause allergic type reactions including
dermatitis, eczema and hives. It causes birth defects and genetic
damage. Fluoride is likely to aggravate kidney disease, diabetes and
hypothyroidism. The amount consumed in drinking water has been shown to
lower thyroid activity in humans. It also causes the breakdown of
collagen which results in wrinkling of the skin and the weakening of
ligaments, tendons and muscles. There are a number of ways that
fluoride can be administered. The most insidious way is through the
drinking water. Some of you have it in your mouthwashes, or in your
toothpaste, or you may take a fluoride supplement which is dispensed in pills or drops.
FLUORIDE A BY-PRODUCT OF INDUSTRY Fluoride is an industrial waste product, a by-product of the aluminum industry and the phosphate fertilizer
companies who have mountains of fluoride that is polluting the ground
water. They have to get rid of it, and the old solution to pollution is
dilution - just put it in the drinking water. People living in the
vicinity of aluminum, phosphate, steel, clay, glass and enamel plants
are exposed to high levels of fluoride in the air. For instance, the
Hamilton area shows extremely high lung cancer rates that decrease as
you get away from the downwind plume of the steel mills. If fluoride
was left with the phosphate and sold to farmers, it would kill their
crops. That is what originally happened when they used this high
fluoride phosphate, and the farmers said they were going back to manure.
FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE Unless it says on the package does not contain fluoride, you are using fluoridated toothpaste. Fluoridated toothpaste contains 1,000 ppm fluoride.
There is enough fluoride at 1,000 to 1,500 parts per million to kill a
small child if they consume the entire tube. If a child consumes just
part of it, it could result in either acute or chronic toxicity. A four
to six year-old child will swallow 25 to 33% of the toothpaste they put
on their toothbrush. Don't let them put it in their mouth unless when
they swallow it, it is good for them. People ask me where they can get non-fluoridated toothpaste.
They have many brands of non-fluoridated toothpaste in health food
stores, so pick up your toothpaste there, and make sure it doesn't have
fluoride, because some health food stores have a couple of brands of
fluoride toothpaste. Not everything in a health food store is safe.
Always read the labels. Pepsodent toothpaste also doesn't have
fluoride. If you want something inexpensive, use baking soda and sea
salt, but make sure you dissolve the salt crystals in water before you
brush your teeth; otherwise the salt crystals will score the enamel.
GUM DAMAGE Fluoride actually causes gum damage at the
concentrations used in fluoridated toothpaste at 1,000 ppm. Fluoride
poisons enzyme activity and slows down the ability of the gums to repair
themselves. If you brush your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, you
will suffer gum damage.
FLUORIDE GELS AND SOLUTIONS Some schools have weekly
fluoride mouth-rinse programs in which the children swish fluoride
solutions around in their mouths. The fluoride comes in a sugar size
packet, and on the outside of the packet it says fatal if swallowed.
If your child is in any of these programs at school, get them out of
it. We have testimonials one after the other of children who come home
with a stomach ache because they had actually accidentally swallowed
part of it, and children do accidentally swallow. Fluoride treatments
at the dentist's office are equally hazardous. In the typical fluoride
treatment, 10,000 parts per million fluoride, which comes in a
flavoured gel to make it taste good, is left on the teeth for about five
minutes. Then the child spits it out, though invariable he swallows
some. The child cannot rinse, eat or drink for at least half an hour
afterward. Children have died after swallowing fluoride topically
applied on their teeth. In one well publicized case, the dental
hygienist neglected to tell the child to wash his mouth out and spit out
the solution. The child began vomiting and sweating and died the same
day. Over 6% of children receiving fluoride treatments at the dental
office suffer gastrointestinal distress such as nausea, vomiting,
diarrhea and abdominal pain either immediately or within one hour after
treatment. According to scientists at the U.S. Public Health Service,
topical fluoride is practically ineffective in reducing tooth decay, and
damages gum tissue. According to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, "the high concentrations of some products (gels,
mouthwash, tablets, toothpaste, etc.) may be neither biologically
desirable nor clinically necessary".
FLUORIDE SUPPLEMENTS Tablets and drops are another means
of administering fluoride. The Canadian Dental Association has
admitted in the last couple of years that children under the age of
three should not be given fluoride supplements. And yet dental
practitioners and pediatricians who haven't kept up to date are still
giving fluoride supplements to young children. I advise against
fluoride supplements for anyone.
ADDITION OF FLUORIDE TO PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS The
addition of fluoride to the public water supply is the most insidious
way of chronically poisoning hundreds of millions of people around the
world. Dr. Dean Burk was former chief chemist of the National Cancer
Institute, and has co-authored studies with many Nobel prize winners
including Otto Warburton, and he is the co-author of the most cited
paper in the entire field of biochemistry - the Lineweaver-Burk Enzyme
Kinetics. In the 1970s, Dean Burk and I conducted a number of studies
which linked fluoride and cancer. There was already scientific evidence
from the 1950s that fluoride was causing cancer, and a 1963 study by
Driscowitz and Norton showed that increased fluoride concentrations in
the media of experimental animals increased tumour incidence from 12% at
the lowest concentrations up to 100%. Taylor and Taylor published a
study in 1965 at the University of Texas in all the mainline medical
journals showing that 1 ppm or even 0.5 ppm increased tumour growth rate
by 25%. These studies bothered me and around 1975 I found that we had
enough data to compare the cancer death rate before and after
fluoridation of fluoridated communities and compare them to
non-fluoridated communities. Based on millions of subjects, the study
showed a 5 to 10% increase in cancer death rate within three to five
years after fluoridation was put into the water after correcting for
various demographic factors like age, race and sex. All the variables
were controlled. We followed this by a series of other studies. In
1977 we had full blown Congressional Hearings, and Congress stated: "We
can no longer assure the American public that fluoride does not cause
cancer". Dean Burk and other well-known scientists were there, and on
the opposing side was the American Dental Association. Ten years later,
Proctor and Gamble, makers of Crest toothpaste found that fluoride was
causing precarcinogenic changes in cells.
HOW FLUORIDE AFFECTS THE DNA REPAIR MECHANISM
Epidemiological evidence shows that fluoride causes cancer. It does
this in several ways. It can actually cause the original lesion. In
each one of our cells we have genetic material called DNA, and this DNA
is double stranded, it has a helix shape and these two strands of DNA
are held together by semi strong bonds called hydrogen bonds. Hydrogen
bonds also hold proteins together. Fluoride goes in and breaks those hydrogen bonds, and consequently destabilizes DNA.
It can't cause a lesion in the DNA itself, but if it is in a site of
the cell that regulates cell growth, it will cause uncontrolled cell
growth. A few minor modifications will give you first a tumour, and
secondly an invasive tumour or cancer. So fluoride has the ability to
actually cause the cancer. We have a marvelous system of repair and
rejuvenation. Even if we go out in the sun, even if we have a lesion by
fluoride itself, we have what is called a DNA repair enzyme system.
So any lesion caused by the sun or ultra-violet light will be
repaired. The DNA repair enzyme system will cut off the ends and use
the complementary strand to repair itself and make intact genetic
material. The unfortunate thing is that one part per million fluoride,
the amount of fluoride that they use in the public water system,
depresses the DNA repair system by 50%. So they have attacked us on the
first defense of damage to our genetic material. Since people can get
cancer from so many different causes, fluoride is just increasing our
chances of getting cancer.
THE IMMUNE SYSTEM Even if the cancer cell starts
dividing and invading surrounding tissues, if our immune system is
strong enough, it will kill those cancer cells without any remedies,
without chemotherapy, without anything and will destroy the occasional
cancer that maybe all of us have had at one time or another. Once in a
while cancer breaks through when the immune system is low or the DNA
repair enzyme system is down, and we will get cancer. Fluoride causes
the lesion; it inhibits the DNA repair enzyme, and then inhibits our
immune system by 30 to 70%. And that occurs at only one part per
million. How does it do that? Our immune system is composed of white
blood cells including phagocyte cells that are carried in the blood
system. If there is an infection or cancer or some foreign agent, these
phagocytes will go to that area and start engulfing and destroying this
bad agent whether it is a cancer cell or a bacterium or virus. It
engulfs it in a little pocket called a lysosome which squirts
enzymes and breaks down the bad agent into little pieces. They have
other things called peroxisomes which burn that agent with free radicals
and either destroy it or use it for building new and healthy cells.
These phagocytes will actually eat up bacteria or viruses, and toxic
substances are just thrown off. Studies from the University of Glasgow
show that fluoride inhibits these white blood cells. Fluoride at levels
below one part per million causes a chronic release of these free
radicals from the white blood cell out into the blood stream where it
starts slowly damaging your body by increasing free radicals. This is
one of the reasons why we call fluoride the ageing factor.
NON-FLUORIDATED WATER Industrial quality reverse osmosis
water brings the total dissolved solids down to less that one part per
million for all the pollutants that might be in there. Distilled water
will remove 99% of the fluoride all of the time. I also recommend a
pre-charcoal filter on a distiller to remove volatiles so that you are
not getting noxious gases in your home. These are worse when you inhale
them than when you drink them, because they go right into your blood
stream and into your lungs. You can buy your water at the supermarket,
but quite frankly you don't know what the quality of the water is. You
must take care that the fluoride concentration is less than 0.2 ppm.
Some spring waters like Vichy (which contains 8 ppm) are notoriously
high in fluoride. Avoid beverages such as soft drinks, beer and fruit
juices from concentrate that have been bottled in fluoridated areas. Teas,
even brewed in fluoride-free water will contain about 1.2 to 2.4 ppm
fluoride. Some people drink 8 to 15 cups of tea a day, and these
amounts are large enough to cause dental fluorosis and other harmful
effects.
MINERALS IN WATER If you want to get minerals, you must
get them in the proper balanced ratio. Calcium, magnesium, phosphorus
and other minerals must be in a ratio that is acceptable to a living
organism. Get your minerals from healthy living organisms like
vegetables, grains, nuts and seeds, and if you are not a vegetarian,
like meats, bones or bonemeal. Beet greens are at the top of the list
as a mineral supplement. I don't recommend milk or dairy as a calcium
source; cow's milk has a very different constitution than human milk.
DETOXIFICATION If you stop taking fluoride, your body
will get rid of it eventually. The fluoride that gets stuck in your
bones gets stuck there for life pretty much, but that is not necessarily
bad. Where fluoride has adverse effects is in the soft tissues. If
you take over 200 mg of vitamin C per day that is all you really need
for removing fluoride. In three to six months you should have about 99%
of it out which is good enough.
GOOD DIET, NOT FLUORIDE, IS NECESSARY FOR HEALTHY TEETH
Many primitive societies whose drinking water contains negligible
amounts of fluoride go through life without tooth decay because they eat
very little sugar and other refined carbohydrates.
DOES FLUORIDE REDUCE TOOTH DECAY? Numerous attempts have
been made to show that the amount of fluoride used to fluoridate public
water systems reduces tooth decay under laboratory conditions. Still
no laboratory study has ever shown that this amount of fluoride is
effective in reducing tooth decay. Further, there are no
epidemiological studies on humans showing that fluoridation reduces
tooth decay that meet the minimum requirements of scientific objectivity
such as the double blind design.
* * *
You may contact Dr. Yiamouyiannis at 614-548-5340. His book
Fluoride: The Aging Factor contains references to studies and
information cited in this article. His other book, High Performance
Health is also available.
The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
A large study was conducted in New Zealand. There, the New Zealand
National Health Service plan examined the teeth of every child in key
age groups, and found that the teeth of children in non-fluoridated
cities were slightly better than those in the fluoridated cities.
(Colquhoun, J. "Child Dental Health Differences in New Zealand", Community Healthy Services, XI 85-90, 1987).
In 1995, neurotoxicologist and former Director of Toxicology at
Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, published
research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when
exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occurred and the
behavior patterns of the animals were adversely effected. Offspring of
pregnant animals receiving relatively low doses of fluoride showed
permanent effects to the brain which were seen as hyperactivity
(ADD-like symptoms). Young animals and adult animals given fluoride
experienced the opposite effect -- hypoactivity or sluggishness. The
toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was subsequently
confirmed by previously classified government research. Two new
epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride's neurotoxic
effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to higher levels
of fluoride have lower IQs. Source: Holistic Medicine
Fluoridation is UNSAFE because
1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone
to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical
studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime
exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in
the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the
production of melatonin, a very important regulatory hormone (Luke,
1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of
children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at
least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997
and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but as yet unproven, concerns about a
connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn,
1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both
arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the
US not only increase the uptake of lead into children's blood (Masters
and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in
violent behavior.
8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of
reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent
or precariously low. Fluoride Action Network
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and
Switzerland do not fluoridate their water.
Fluoride Kills Healthy Enzymes
Did you know that there is an enzyme in saliva that remineralizes soft spots in teeth using calcium in food?
This enzyme is killed by fluoride and it cannot work even in the
absence of fluoride if the teeth are covered by glycerin, a major
component of toothpaste.
Note that the fluoride and clorine in water and the bromine in food
aggravate an existing widespread iodine deficiency in the U.S.
See http://www.helpmythyroid.com.
However, after decades of water fluoridation, virtually all Americans
consume fluoridated food and/or water. Yet, 'dental spending outpaces
economic growth, continuing a trend,' reports the American Dental
Association.(11)
New York State is 70% fluoridated but two very populous counties,
Nassau and Suffolk (Long Island) are totally fluoridation free. In New
York State 18.3%, lost 6 or more teeth due to decay or gum disease(13a)
while only 16.2% of Long Islanders did.(13b)
New York City is 100% fluoridated, yet 20.9% of Brooklyn(14a) and
19.9% of Queens(14b) residents lost six or more teeth, more than
non-fluoridated Long Island and partially fluoridated New York State.
Past news releases show that New York City poor children have more tooth decay than the national average.(15a,b)
Dear Mr. Day,
Hereford, Texas has been called the town without a
toothache. This is not true. But the phrase has been used effectively by
the people interested in marketing "sodium fluoride" all over the
country.
I have practiced dentistry here for years. The native
population of Hereford and Deaf Smith County have remarkably good teeth.
The incidence of caries or tooth decay was very low. I finally
succeeded in getting some members of the dental profession to come to
Hereford to find the cause of the exellent dental health of our people.
After considerable research, it was suggested that the
relatively high content of natural fluorine in our water supply was
responsible. I accepted this conclusion for a time. The people who had
great quantities of sodium fluoride and sodium silico fluoride as
by-products of the aluminum and fertilizer industries decided that when
these by-products were added to city water supplies, they would produce
the same type of dental health which existed here with the natural
fluorine. They widely publicized "the town without a toothache." They
are, I believe, still doing it.
As the years went by I continued to study the local
situation. I observed that, as the town grew and more people began to
live on processed foods, such as canned goods, white flour products,
soft drinks, etc., tooth decay increased. This increase of decay
occurred even though they were drinking the same fluorinated water we
had always been drinking. I am now fully convinced that good natural
food is the preventive of dental caries as well as other diseases.
I believe that fluorine does in a mild way retard caries,
but I also believe that the damage it does is far greater than any good
it may appear to accomplish. It even makes the teeth so brittle and
crumbly they can be treated only with difficulty, if at all.
The dental investigators who came to our County some fifteen
years ago did, in my opinion, make a serious mistake when they gave to
fluorine the credit for our good teeth, and overlooked the quality of
food grown in our rich, well mineralized soil. Every person I found who
had no dental caries consumed much milk.
Why use a poison, when correct food will maintain our bodies
free from diseases and tooth decay? It is hellish and un-American to
put poison in city water supplies and force citizens to drink it.
I sincerely hope that at least some of your dentists are
co-operating with you in getting the real truth about tooth decay over
to your citizens.
If I can further assist you, please call on me.
Cordially yours,
George W. Heard "" Go to: http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990303222823
Quote: "Consider the well known scenario of the swift bone-breakage of the
recently retired, many of these cases occur to those who seem insulted
by their experience; "Why?" they ask, "Has this occurred to me? I have
taken care of my own health all my life (including me teeth)!". That's
the problem; "including your teeth", if one has been assiduously
cleansing one's teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride all your
life the fluoride will have bio-accumulated in your skeletal system (the
maximum absorption level being around 70%), and compromised your
bone-strength and density to such an extent that a break in early
retirement becomes far more likely." Go to: "Wicked Leeks!" http://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/wicked-leeks.html
I am a victim of pre-pubescent dental clinical fluoride treatment myself (my story is sad, long and ongoing). These articles hint that there may be even higher costs to the patient/victim but don't make the connections (as "we" the victims don't anymore), however I can talk from my experience as-well and this has lead me to the conclusion that fluoride is a "whole system" disruptor and can be responsible for ailments as diverse as; fracturing, kidney failure/dysfunction, behavioural problems/brain damage, depression and suicide. What I have not seen however (or been able to find so far on-line), are the statistics, the epidemiological evidence which will prove (I now have no doubt), that many of the "victims" of clinical fluoride treatment are no longer with us. For one thing the behavioural changes induced by fluoride treatment are of such an uncontrollable and self-destructive nature that the patient may perish due to some apparently "self-induced" accident superficially unrelated to any dental treatment they may have received a decade or so before. Therefore it is necessary to examine the medical records of all of those patients who received clinical fluoride treatment as children and compare the statistics for the incidences of accidental "premature" deaths (esp. "self-induced" -not necessarily suicide at all but the suicide statistics MUST be examined as-well-), and serious injuries within the treated group with those for the same demographic within the wider population. I call here on The International Society of Doctors for the Environment and The World Health Organisation to "pull their fingers out" and examine the evidence and make their findings known as quickly as humanly possible (not to do so is tantamount to colluding in mass murder)!
Quote; "Why is it that our local councils can only afford
to collect our recyclable and non-recycled goods separately on a
fortnightly basis? The answer is that the government invests half the waste management budget in municipal waste incineration. Government
investment in the incinerator option meant that the current Unitary
Authority of Southampton was presented with a 'fait accompli', before
the dissolution of the former Hampshire County Council and therefore
before a Southampton area majority against the decision could become
effective in council. A process in which certain media institutions in
the city colluded. Everywhere incinerators scrounge oil based wastes
from the waste stream. In N.Ireland a member of The Environment
Committee in the national government, who had made his name in the waste
management business, was exposed as flogging non-sorted waste from his
recycling plant to the municipal waste incinerator in Liverpool! The
national government invests half our money in recycling (really?), and
half in incineration. Unfortunately one represents a sustainable
technology the other does not (think about it, oil is consumed it is
never re-used in the incineration process). No one has so far stood to account for the Liverpool Incinerator's actions, again why? (Materials Reclamation Facility known as "Murph", never buy a used anything from this Irishman!) The
oxymoron that is "An Unsustainable Economy" will surely be understood
as such by any generations we may be fortunate enough to be the
antecedents of. Also, I too was in favour of waste incineration when
the idea was first mooted in the early '80s, however logical analysis
shows (as it does with the Nuclear Power/CO2 production debate), that
the philosophy that informs the idea is (unfortunately), redundant." Go to: https://gkhales.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/whats-that-coming-over-hill.html
Quote: "Is incineration safe?
This
is an issue I have followed for 25 years. The issue that peaked my
interest was the incredible fact that simply by burning household trash
we make the most toxic substances that we have ever been able to make in
a chemical laboratory: polyhalogenated dibenzo para dioxins and furans
(PCDDs, PCDFs, PBDDs, PBDFs etc) called "dioxins" for short. There are
literally thousands of these substances. There is no question that over
25 years the industry has got better at capturing these pollutants but
we are still hostage as to how well the plants are designed and
operated, monitored and the regulations enforced. In addition to this,
incineration releases many toxic metals from otherwise fairly stable
matrices. At worst these metals (lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium etc)
go into the air, at best they are captured in the fly ash in the air
pollution control devices (APC). But it is a truism to state that the
better the APC the more toxic the ash becomes. Where is this ash going
to go? In Germany and Switzerland the fly ash is put into nylon bags and
deposited in salt mines. In Japan a number of the incinerators vitrify
the ash, making it into a glass-like material, but that takes a huge
amount of energy away from the system. Do you know where the ash is
going in this proposal?
For every four tons of trash burned you
get at least one ton of ash: 90% is called bottom ash (that is the ash
collected under the furnace) and 10% is the very toxic fly ash.
The formidable issue of nanoparticles.
There
is nothing new about nanoparticles, which are particle of less than one
micron in diameter. They are produced in any high temperature
combustion which includes vehicles, coal-fired power stations,
industrial boilers etc. What is new is nanotechnology where these
particles, which have very unusual properties, are being used in many
commercial products from shaving cream to tennis rackets. This has
raised the question of whether they have any negative health effects.
That question has given rise to a new discipline called nanotoxicology.
It turns out that these particles have exquisite biological properties
which are very worrying. They are so tiny that they can cross the lung
membrane and enter the bloodstream. Once there they can enter every
tissue in the body including the brain. The problem with incineration is
twofold: a) because every object in commerce is likely to end up in an
incinerator any toxic element used in these products is likely to end up
in the nanoparticles. The nanoparticles from incinerators are the most
dangerous of any common source. b) There are NO regulations in the world
for the monitoring nanoparticles from incinerators. In most countries
the particles regulated are 10 microns and above.In some countries they
regulate particles at 2.5 microns. But neither standard comes close to
monitoring nanoparticles. We are flying blind on this crucial issue.
I
have attached a very important paper on this issue from Dr. Vyvyan
Howard from Northern Ireland. I know Vyvyan very well and he is one of
the brightest people I have ever met. He co-authored a book on
nanoparticles in 1999. The attached paper was delivered in 2009 in a
hearing on an incinerator proposed for Ireland. It is the most up to
date review of the issue of nanoparticles and incineration available.
Before any new incinerator is built in India, or anywhere else for that
matter, government officials (or the public) should force the project
director to produce a scientific response to the key questions posed in
this paper. If they cannot do so, then clearly building such a plant is
taking a reckless gamble with the public's health. Moreover, if we
return to the opening of this statement, such a gamble cannot be
justified on either economic or environmental grounds, both local and
global." Go to: http://www.no-burn.org/why-incineration-is-a-very-bad-idea-in-the-twenty-first-century
Quote: "Since the publication of this report, important new data has been published strengthening the evidence that fine particulate pollution plays an important role in both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality (see section 3.1) and demonstrating that the danger is greater than previously realised. More data has also been released on the dangers to health of ultrafine particulates and about the risks of other pollutants released from incinerators (see section 3.4). With each publication the hazards of incineration are becoming more obvious and more difficult to ignore. In the light of this data and the discussion provoked by our report, we have extended several sections. In particular, the section on alternative waste technologies (section 8) has been extensively revised and enlarged." Go to: http://www.bsem.org.uk/uploads/IncineratorReport_v3.pdf
Quote:
""The ever-increasing number of damaged babies being born around
incinerators should be taken as a strong warning that the ‘experts’ and
their friendly politicians are deliberately playing down overwhelming
evidence of serious harm to suit industry’s financial interests, and, as
it has been shown many times before, in many cases, their own."
Even
the most modern incinerators produce a deadly cocktail of chemicals,
heavy metals and fine particulates. The chimney stacks of municipal
waste incinerators typically discharge: aluminium, antimony, arsenic,
beryllium, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,
magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver,
thallium, tin, titanium, tungsten, uranium, vanadium, zinc and
zirconium; carbon monoxide, dioxins and furans, PCBs, PAHs, hydrogen
chloride, hydrogen fluoride, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, oxygen,
carbon dioxide, water vapour, volatile organic compounds and particulate
matter.
Below is some further information about just two of these - dioxins and PM2.5 particles. Dioxins Incinerators
are one of the main sources of dioxins (see BBC report). The first
disease associated with dioxins was the extreme skin disease chloracne.
It causes acne like pustules to form across the body and can last for
several years. Most concerns now lie with the potential of dioxins to
cause cancer, but they are also suspected of affecting reproductive
health, lowering sperm counts, causing behavioural problems and
increasing the incidence of diabetes. There is a growing body of
research indicating that dioxins can cause such diseases. The
monitoring of dioxins is wholly inadequate.
Fine Particles - PM2.5s (references at foot of page) According
to a statement by the European Commission in October, 370,000 people
die prematurely each year in Europe as a result of air pollution,
350,000 of them because of PM2.5 particles, i.e. particles that are less
than 2.5 micrometers in size (Ref 1). Most of the particles emitted by
incinerators are PM2.5s (Ref 2, page 9). Reports from Greenpeace
(Ref 3, page 11) and the British Society of Ecological Medicine (Ref 2,
page 9) state that incinerator filters only remove 5-30% of PM2.5s from
emissions. The monitoring of PM2.5s is as inadequate as the monitoring
of dioxins.
Even now the government backed Health Protection
Agency dismisses the effect of fine particulates from incinerators,
pointing to figures from Defra from 2006 indicating that waste
incineration contributed only 0.3% of the national emissions of air
pollution particulates PM10, compared to 27% for traffic and 25% for
industry (see article from 3 Sep 09).
However, Dr Vyvyan
Howard's Statement of Evidence to the Ringaskiddy incinerator inquiry in
Ireland, dated June 2009, explains that the ultrafine particulates from
incinerators are particularly dangerous because they carry a range of
toxins including dioxins, PCBs and metals (see Dr Howard's report,
'Particulate Emissions and Health').
References: EurActiv.com Web Portal - Article on air quality standards The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators, 2005, The British Society for Ecological Medicine Incineration and Human Health, Greenpeace, 2001, (PDF document, 400kb) World Health Organisation Air Quality Guidelines, Executive Summary Environmental
Statement, Sita - in PDF format - Scroll down to the bottom of this
page and click on the link to ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT VOL. 2 : (SECTIONS
8 - 15).
Breaches of emission limits
The safety
record of even the most modern incinerators is patchy at best. For
example the DERL energy-from-waste incinerator in Dundee was built in
2000. SEPA reports that in November 2007 the plant was in breach of
emission limits for particulates, dioxins, furans and metals.[1] The
following year it failed an Operator Performance Assessment by breaching
limits for dioxins and furans.[2] Both of these breaches occurred in
spite of the installation of £1.2m of new clean up technology in
2004.[3] For a full list of emission breaches since 2006, click here.
Some
might say that a couple of emission breaches over a two-year period
doesn’t sound too serious. The problem is that operators only have to
measure dioxins twice a year, as stipulated by s5.6 of Scottish
Government guidelines on incineration.[4] Therefore the problem could
have been going on for months before the inspection. Equally, previous
measurements may have been taken on a day when things just happened to
be a little better than normal. Dr Jeremy Thompson of the British
Society for Ecological Medicine states that at the very least there
ought to be continual measurements of dioxins.
[1] SEPA, East Region Board Meeting, 25 April 2008, s2.3.4.
[2] SEPA, Operator Performance Assessment 2008.
[3] Rob Edwards, Revealed: pollution failures, Sunday Herald, 30 May 2004.
Quote:
"Recycling in Europe is in danger. Excessive incineration capacity in
some countries is causing that recyclable waste ends up being burned and
that some other increase their waste shipments losing incentives to
recycle.
Today English waste is shipped to the Netherlands,
Italian waste to Germany, Norwegian waste to Sweden... Nobody knows
exactly how much waste is being shipped across European borders for
incineration. What we do know is that recycling could be radically
improved and citizens are paying huge sums for the construction and
operation of plants that burn resources that we should be sharing with
future generations.
The European Union is contradicting itself.
Every year Europeans burn more and more waste (69,5 million tons of
waste between 2007 and 2010) while the EU has pledged to phase out
incineration of recyclable waste by 2020. Yet, several new plants are
being planned and/or are under construction now. It makes no sense to
build new incinerators when countries such as Germany, Denmark, United
Kingdom, Holland and Sweden have more incineration capacity than trash
to burn.
Our throw-away lifestyle is trashing our future, and
incinerators are a good example of unsustainability. Investment needs to
go into redesign, reduce, reuse and recycle activities - not to plants
that waste valuable resources.
Having
campaigned extensively on this myself with "Communities Against Toxins
Southampton" and made presentations on the subject of incinerator waste
dumping, recycling labeling and policy I would advise the reader that in all cases of the above the actual situation is much worse than the picture one may have garnered from these already heavily critical articles.
There
is no "safe" level of exposure, like plutonium these highly active
particles are genotoxic, carcinogenic and mutagenic at any exposure
level above zero!
(see if I can dig up the seminal interview on that will let you know when I've found it).
Quote:"Conference Highlights: Discussion of Key Evidence that EMFs Negatively Impact Children, Fetuses and Fertility
The panel presented a wide range of scientific evidence
that electromagnetic radiation of the kind emitted by portable phones,
Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors, Bluetooth earpieces, towers, antennas,
smart boards, smart meters, Google glass, and other wireless devices, is
adversely affecting people across the globe, and especially children.
This radiation may be ‘non-thermal’, but has clear and indisputable
biological and health effects. Based on the DNA effects alone, there
should be no delay in acting to protect the human species.
DNA is being damaged, and natural repair processes impaired, in this unnatural 24/7 bath of radiation.
Children are especially vulnerable to DNA effects due to rapid growth
and development of cells, as well as a longer lifetime of exposure. All
frequencies react similarly with DNA, whether higher frequency or lower
frequency. Some effects occur faster, some occur slower, but the effects
are happening all the same. Cancer is believed to result from changes
in DNA. DNA’s coil of coil structure makes it exquisitely sensitive to
EMF, more than other tissue in the body. The long-term impact for our
species is of great concern as there is no evidence our bodies can adapt
to these unnatural frequencies.
An increasing number of people listen, learn and think betterin electromagnetically clean environments. The audience was asked to turn off their cell phones and wireless devices for this reason.
Cell phones, tablets and other wireless devices also have batteries that emit lower frequency forms of radiation—and
these, too, along with RF and microwaves, have consequences, such as
increased risk for childhood asthma and obesity when exposed in utero,
and increased risk of miscarriage.
Impacts of electromagnetic fields on children*:
→ Research shows radiation emitted by cell phones and WiFi impacts children’s development in utero, their cognitive function, attention, memory, perception, learning capacity, energy, emotions and social skills.
→ There is also diminished reaction time, decreased motor function, increased distraction, hyperactivity, and inability to focus on complex and long-term tasks.
→ Cellular devices can lead to a heightened sense of anxiety in children, to isolation, and feelings of psychological and physical dependency.
→ There are now 9 types of cancer linked to cell phone use:
1. Glioma (Brain Cancer)
2. Acoustic Neuroma (tumor on acoustic nerve)
3. Meningioma (tumor of the meninges)
4. Salivary Gland cancer (parotid gland in cheek)
5. Eye Cancer
6. Testicular Cancer
7. Leukemia
8. Thyroid Cancer
9. Breast Cancer
→ There is a direct relationship between duration of cell phone use and sperm count decline.
Sperm count is reduced by half in men who carry cell phones in their
pants pockets for four hours per day. The motility of the sperm is also
impaired. The testicular barrier, that protects sperm, is the most
sensitive of tissues in the body, and is 100x more absorbent. Besides
sperm count and function, the mitochondrial DNA of sperm are damaged 3x
more if exposed to cell phone radiation.
→ DNA mutations have been linked more to damage on the male side, in research from Iceland, the assumption being that male sperm is more vulnerable than female eggs, which are more protected, being deeper in the body.
Mutations increase with the age of the father, and more autism and schizophrenia increase with the age of the father.
→ WiFi in homes depletes melatonin and leads to poor sleep quality and difficulty falling asleep.
→ Use of wireless devices after lights out has been associated with children’s mental health risks and suicide.
→ Some of the most profound effects in children from in utero EMF exposure are emotional and behavioral.
→ Online time, particularly multi-tasking in young children, has been linked with a chronically distracted view of the world preventing learning critical social, emotional and relational skills.
→ There is imbalanced development of the right and left hemispheres of
the brain, resulting in children having impaired ability to remember
basic things, to use handwriting or to feel empathy. There is a
physiological as well as psychological addiction that is taking place.
Think about what it would be like to have an entire generation that has not developed the capacity for empathy.”
—Devra Lee Davis, PhD MPH, Environmental Health Trust
→
Children are beginning to show signs of dementia, where they cannot
remember basic things, a global phenomenon now being called “Digital Dementia”, believed to potentially be irreversible. There are hundreds of digital detox camps in China and S. Korea; the first U.S. camp opened in Northern California this year.
→ Dr. Taylor summarized his recent study
at Yale University: A standard cell phone with a SAR rating of 1.6W/kg
was placed atop the cages of pregnant mice for the duration of their
pregnancy. Their offspring showed hyperactivity, diminished memory,
apathy, impulsiveness, and other behaviors, compared to unexposed
controls, mirroring children with ADHD. The severity of the effect
depended on the length of exposure.
→
Dr. Taylor said the incidence of ADHD in the U.S. is on the rise (3-5%
of school aged children or 2mm children have ADHD) and the growth
parallels the increased use of cell phones.
→ Besides observing behaviors in the mice, the Yale researchers also
measured electrical activity in the brain of the exposed and unexposed
mice. They found the mice that had been exposed briefly in utero had
changes to the electrical signaling processes in the brain as adults.
Note, the mice had only been exposed during pregnancy, not subsequently,
but the brain function was “permanently altered”.
There appears to have been a dose-response relationship, where the
longer the mice had been exposed per day during the study the greater
the changes in brain function. Continuous exposure throughout pregnancy
was much more dangerous than briefer exposures.
→ Dr. Taylor reminded the audience that while we don’t think of
ourselves as being on the cell phone 24 hours a day, the cell phone is
still emitting radiation 24/7 and impacting us if it is turned on and
near us, day or night. “It’s not talking on the phone that matters, it’s
any time the phone is turned on”, he said. Every 900 milliseconds,
whether you are using the phone or not, your cell phone has a spike in
radiation because it is looking for a signal from the tower, according
to Dr. Davis.
→ Researchers at UCLA
found that children of mothers who used cell phones most frequently
during pregnancy showed nearly a two-fold increase in behavioral and
emotional problems and hyperactivity by the time they reached school
age. Dr. Hugh Taylor stated:
When
you combine data like this—studies that show there is in fact an
association in humans, with our studies in animals—it is clearly cause
and effect.”
→ Wi-Fi in schools is an ‘enormous problem’. Some schools install
massive, industrial strength routers right next to where children sit.
Symptoms reported by children who sit near Wi-Fi routers include nausea,
headaches, blurred vision, and poor sleep. The Israeli Health Ministry
issued a report recommending against Wi-Fi in schools because there is
simply no information about the long-term effects of this type of
chronic exposure.
→ Russians caused the same EHS symptoms in the U.S. Embassy in cold war. Symptoms
of electrohypersensitivity in Wi-Fi environments—of fatigue,
irritability, concentration difficulty—are the same symptoms experienced
by US Embassy personnel in Moscow in the cold war, that came to be
known as microwave syndrome (or radiowave sickness).
→ There are reports of children dropping dead in Canada, or needing to
wear pacemakers, after Wi-Fi installation in their schools.
→
Dr. Blank presented a simple study done by Danish high school girls
wanting to study biological effects of WiFi. They took cress cells and
exposed half to WiFi for 12 days. At left are the unexposed and exposed
cress cells. The effects of WiFi on this plant were made clear.
→ Turkish scientists recently discovered that mice exposed to cell phone
radiation produced offspring with smaller brains, and more brain,
liver, and eye damage. The Turkish government is launching a major
campaign to raise awareness about cell phone radiation safety
specifically geared towards pregnant women and young men interested in
fathering healthy children.
→ Prenatal exposure results in fewer cells in the hippocampus of the
brain, the area we need for thinking, reasoning, judgment and
significantly impairs the development of neurons in the brain.
→ There is also irreversible DNA damage occurring
from these devices, which effects the functioning of the child’s body,
and the quality of the genes they then pass on to future generations.
Human cells, like all matter, are made up of charged particles, and
these particles respond to EMFs. DNA has many different lengths and
responds differently to various radiation frequencies—like different
length antennas—and many effects are irreversible. DNA damage and
mutations can cause cancer and other illnesses, but it can take years to
detect symptoms.
The range of frequencies used today can cause damage to DNA, at levels that are currently being used.”
—Martin Blank, PhD, Special Lecturer and Retired Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University
→ Fetal effects from cellphone and wireless include faster heart rates, genetic changes, altered brain development, and increased behavioral and emotional problems after birth.
→ The strongest evidence for EMF effects are the science showing
the connection between cell phone use and brain cancer (Hardell 2008,
Kundi 2008), according to Dr. Carpenter. The latency period
between cell phone use and brain cancer is thought to be 20 to 30 years.
Brain cancer rates are double for people who’ve been using cell phones
for 10 years or more, appearing on the side of the head where they hold
their phones, and risks are 5x greater for children using cell phones
under the age of 20 than those over the age of 50.
→ Because children’s nervous systems are still developing, synapses and
myelin are being laid down continuously. For the body to create
proteins, it must have correct DNA coding. EMFs break DNA apart,
resulting in bad coding and mutations that result in poor brain
function. Teenagers and children using cell phones before the
myelination process is completed in the 20s are unknowingly causing a
“whopping impact” on their brains.
→ There is some evidence that DNA mutations resulting from
radiofrequency signals are part of what’s driving today’s increased
autism and schizophrenia rates. The evidence was summarized in December
in the landmark BioInitiative Report 2012 by Harvard Professor, Dr.
Martha Herbert, MD who runs the Transcend Research Lab at Mass General.
Dr Herbert stated:
EMF/RFR
from wifi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the
ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune
and metabolic function. This will make it harder for some children to
learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first
place.”
“Powerful industrial entities have
a vested interest in leading the public to believe that EMF/RFR, which
we cannot see, taste or touch, is harmless, but this is not true.”
→ Radio towers, not just cell towers, are also a factor.
Based on 50 years of data, the closer a child lives to a radio tower,
the higher his or her risk for developing cancer. The standard for
“safe” power density remains 1,000 times too high. A 6x risk of cancer
is still considered ‘safe’, according to Dr. Martin Blank.
Politics of EMF Science
No more
research is needed in order to say with certainly that these effects
are real, and there is sufficient cause to take action now to protect
adults and children. While more research will always be
desirable to better understand certain connections, and to continue
looking at the long-term trends with epidemiology, all members of the
panel agreed there is sufficient scientific evidence today on which to
take precautionary steps to minimize this radiation in our lives.
Regulatory
bodies have allowed a trillion dollar wireless industry to emerge
without pre-market health testing or post-market health surveillance.
A whole generation of people has been unaware of the risksof wireless radiation, and have not been taking precautions.
This is why public health officials are so concerned. There is already
evidence that exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess leads to
disease. And exposures have grown dramatically in the last few years.
Our grandchildren and children are “being used as lab rats in an experiment with no controls….that’s what we are doing with cell phone and wireless radiation with our children today.”—Devra Davis, PhD, MPH. Environmental Health Trust
Scientists who expose the truth about the risks from
electromagnetic fields are often intimidated and attacked, and their
careers jeopardized. Industry-associated science is
also designed to underestimate risks, thereby refuting the independent
science and ‘Manufacturing Doubt’. Esteemed scientists who publish
widely sometimes find it hard to publish on this topic.
Just as Bill Moyers recently described was the case with suppression of evidence about lead(“The Toxic Politics of Science”)
the wireless industry behaves as if risks from cell phones and wireless
devices and infrastructure is ‘a PR problem, not a public health
problem’.
The FCC has inadequate exposure guidelines. US
standards for radiofrequency/microwave exposure are based on an
outdated, erroneous assumption that EMFs have no biological effects
unless they cause tissue heating, like a high powered microwave oven
heating your potato. Science has disproven this myth. The exposure guidelines fail to protect about 97 percent of the population, most especially children.
The
cell phone standards we use today for the 6.5 billion cell phones in
the world were set 17 years ago and have never been updated, despite the
fact that the users and uses of cell phones are very different now. And
they’ve never been tested for their safety around children…We’re in the
midst of a huge experiment on ourselves and on our children”
—Devra Lee Davis, PhD, MPH,
cancer epidemiologist and toxicologist, President of Environmental
Health Trust, and author of Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone
Radiation, What the Industry Is Doing to Hide It, and How to Protect
Your Family
Lower power towers and devices are possible, though power levels are being continually increased.
Cell phones and cell towers can be made safer, by using far less power.
Also, many towers emit far more radiation than they claim.
Many countries are issuing advisories: Australia
advises limiting children’s exposure to cell phones; Belgium has banned
sales of cell phones for use by children under age 7; Turkey has banned
ads targeting sales to children. The French National Assembly has banned
WiFi in schools. Italy had a Supreme Court ruling in favor of a man who
claimed his tumor was from cell phone use. A region of India,
Rajasthan, has banned cell towers near schools, and won a court battle
to defeat industries opposition. Standards in the Eastern block are
1,000 times stricter.
“It may take some sort of catastrophe to get people’s attention.”—Frank
Clegg, former president of Microsoft Canada and founder of Canadians 4
Safe Technology, a member of the audience who later joined the panel to
share his perspective.
Several panel members compared the current situation where the
health risks of cell phone and wireless radiation are being downplayed,
and the science suppressed or manipulated, to other well-known public
health scandals driven by commercial interests, such as tobacco, lead, asbestos, DDT, Bisphenyl A, silica, vinyl chloride, PCBs, GMOs, pesticides in food, fracking, the neionicotinoid chemicals impacting bees." Go to: http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/summary-and-audio/
→ There is also 
→
Dr. Blank presented a simple study done by Danish high school girls
wanting to study biological effects of WiFi. They took cress cells and
exposed half to WiFi for 12 days. At left are the unexposed and exposed
cress cells. The effects of WiFi on this plant were made clear.
Dr Herbert stated:
