(Operation Shield seems to be for the benefit of the federal government to "shield" the corruption.) Story Reports
It may have looked like they were ready for war or some deranged person looking for his late Social Security benefits.
But it was only Federal Protective Service officers with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who were conducting a random training operation early Tuesday morning when they surprisingly showed up at the Social Security Administration office in downtown Leesburg.
With their blue and white SUVs circled around the Main Street office, at least one official was posted on the door with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications. And other officers, some with K-9s, sifted through the building.
"I thought someone was upset about not getting there check," said Laura Kelly, who took a friend to the office on Tuesday.
According to one Homeland official in the Washington, D.C. office, Operation Shield. is an effort that uses routine, unannounced visits by FPS inspectors to test the effectiveness of contract guards, or protective security officers -- "detecting the presence of unauthorized persons and potentially disruptive or dangerous activities."
Part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FPS is the federal law enforcement agency that provides integrated security and law enforcement services to over 9,000 federally-owned and leased buildings, facilities, properties and other assets.
Officers on the scene would not speak to the press and by noon they were gone. But Thomas Milligan, district manager for the Social Security Administration office, said while the visit came as a surprise, the office was ready. He added the officers checked videos, security measures, alarm system and more.
"It was to make sure security measures are in place and properly followed," Milligan said.
(A THUG with a semiautomatic rifle, randomly checking identifications making sure the local social security office is sucure??? BULLSHIT! These are government thugs acting like they are protecting Americans. There is no need for this kind of "random" raid with or without any notification.
What the hell are they going to raid next, the place where you vote?) Story Reports
********************************************************************************
As part of the reinvention of the Department of Homeland Security to serve as a tool of political repression, the Federal Protective Service is used by the DHS to track the political activities of peaceful advocacy groups. The FPS was seen arresting photographers in Portland last November during an OWS rally.
In 2004, the FPS arrested a veteran for the crime of complaining to his local VA office in Des Moines.
A separate component of Homeland Security, VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response), recently received an expansion in funding from Congress that will see 2011′s figure of around 9,300 checkpoints increased with the addition of 12 new VIPR teams, who will be used to carry out security checks at bus depots, train stations, ferry ports and highways.
The extra money is being demanded despite the fact that there is “no proof that the roving viper teams have foiled any terrorist plots or thwarted any major threat to public safety,” according to an L.A. Times report.
DHS Officers Armed With Semiautomatics Set Up Unannounced ID Checkpoint
Friday, January 6, 2012
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Georgia Court to Hear Obama Eligibility Challenge on Merits, First Time Ever, Jan. 26
Georgia Court to Hear Obama Eligibility Challenge on Merits, First Time Ever, Jan. 26
By Arlen Williams
“This will be the first time ever, since this whole thing began, that it will be looked on, on merit.” Those are the words of Carl Swensson, Republican Party Chairman of Clayton County, Georgia. “This” refers to an actual judicial hearing of the case against the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. to be, according to the United States Constitution, “Commander in Chief” and United States President.
The attorneys of Barack Obama requested a pretrial dismissal, as it had done on so many other occasions, against so many other cases. But yesterday, one judge denied and scheduled an official hearing of the case to commence, January 26.
From 2008 to the present, judicial standing has been refused the plaintiff, often via convoluted rationale, many say sophistry. The question however is elementary to our constitutional republic: can we as Citizens be assured those presented to us for our votes are eligible to hold office?
Unlike many other states, Georgia has a statue requiring just that. For Swensson’s part, he had “resolved that I would not let anyone on the ballot who is not demonstrably qualified to hold that office.” That would appear to be part of his job as party official and it is the job of Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R) to assure election law is justly carried out. Swensson relates, “We have been hounding him at hearings he’s been having across the state.”
And so it came to pass that Kemp after some delay, followed due process and called forth the court designated by Georgia law, to hear such a case. This particular case was brought by Swensson and co-litigant, Kevin Richard Powell, attorney: J. Mark Hatfield, judge: Michael M. Malihi.
While Obama’s attorney, Michael Jablonski, had argued that the requirements didn’t apply to candidates for a presidential primary, the judge said that isn’t how he reads state law.
“Statutory provisions must be read as they are written, and this court finds that the cases cited by [Obama] are not controlling. When the court construes a constitutional or statutory provision, the ‘first step … is to examine the plain statutory language,” the judge wrote. “Section 21-2-1(a) states that ‘every candidate for federal and state office’ must meet the qualifications for holding that particular office, and this court has seen no case law limiting this provision, nor found any language that contains an exception for the office of president or stating that the provision does not apply to the presidential preference primary.”
(The flag of Gorgia represents those who believe the south was not defeated in vain. States rights along with other issues were the cause of battles lost and won.
It would be more than fitting if Georgia outed the illegal president Jan 26, 2012. This would mean at least the fraud obama would not be on the Georgia ballot.) Story Reports
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
A censored version of a flouride study was published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association
A censored version of a flouride study was published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association in Aug 1948.
Comparison of the secret with the published version indicates that the U.S. AEC did censor damaging information on fluoride, to the point of tragicomedy.
This was a study of the dental and physical health of workers in a factory producing fluoride for the A-bomb program, conducted by a team of dentists from the Manhattan Project.
* The secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities.
* The secret version says the men had to wear rubber boots because the fluoride fumes disintegrated the nails in their shoes. The published version does not mention this.
* The secret version says the fluoride may have acted similarly on the men's teeth, contributing to their toothlessness. The published version omits this statement.
The published version concludes that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view."
Asked for comment on the early links of the Manhattan Project to water fluoridation, Dr Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute for Dental Research, the U.S. agency which today funds fluoride research, said, "I wasn't aware of any input from the Atomic Energy Commission." Nevertheless, he insisted, fluoride's efficacy and safety in the prevention of dental cavities over the last fifty years is well-proved. "The motivation of a scientist is often different from the outcome, " he reflected. "I do not hold a prejudice about where the knowledge comes from."
After comparing the secret and published versions of the censored study, toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix commented, "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist." Of other Cold War-era fluoride safety studies, she asks, "Were they all done like this?"
Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb
by Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths
Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children's teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still-controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age.
Today, two thirds of U.S. public drinking water is fluoridated. Many municipalities still resist the practice, disbelieving the government's assurances of safety.
Since the days of World War II, when this nation prevailed by building the world's first atomic bomb, U.S. public health leaders have maintained that low doses of fluoride are safe for people, and good for children's teeth.
That safety verdict should now be re-examined in the light of hundreds of once-secret WWII documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson --including declassified papers of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. military group that built the atomic bomb.
Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride-- millions of tons-- were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program--both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal.
Other revelations include:
* Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.
* Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.
* The original secret version--obtained by these reporters--of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) --considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies-- for reasons of national security.
* The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was paramount.
* The U.S. government's conflict of interest--and its motive to prove fluoride "safe" -- has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950's, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists.
The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence, and a chorus of questions, about the health effects of fluoride in the environment.
Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste, but to environmental pollution by major industries from aluminum to pesticides: fluoride is a critical industrial chemical.
The impact can be seen, literally, in the smiles of our children. Large numbers of U.S. young people--up to 80 percent in some cities--now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases.)
Less-known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones --"The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones," explains Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (N.Y.). In recent years, pediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among U.S. young people. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride --linked to bone damage by studies since the 1930's-- may be a contributing factor. The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original proof that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones came from U.S. bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.
Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.
"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects."
Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise. An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect.... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor."
The memo --stamped "secret"-- is addressed to the head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Colonel Warren is asked to approve a program of animal research on CNS effects: "Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure...This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties."
On the same day, Colonel Warren approved the CNS research program. This was in 1944, at the height of the Second World War and the nation's race to build the world's first atomic bomb. For research on fluoride's CNS effects to be approved at such a momentous time, the supporting evidence set forth in the proposal forwarded along with the memo must have been persuasive.
The proposal, however, is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. "If you find the memos, but the document they refer to is missing, its probably still classified," said Charles Reeves, chief librarian at the Atlanta branch of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, where the memos were found. Similarly, no results of the Manhattan Project's fluoride CNS research could be found in the files.
After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted." She went on, "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies --"that kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties--I can't imagine that would be ignored"-- but that the results were buried because they might create a difficult legal and public relations problem for the government.
The author of the 1944 CNS research proposal was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, at the time chief of fluoride toxicology studies for the University of Rochester division of the Manhattan Project. Nearly fifty years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Mullenix was introduced to a gently ambling elderly man brought in to serve as a consultant on her CNS research--Harold C. Hodge. By then Hodge had achieved status emeritus as a world authority on fluoride safety. "But even though he was supposed to be helping me," says Mullenix, "he never once mentioned the CNS work he had done for the Manhattan Project."
The "black hole" in fluoride CNS research since the days of the Manhattan Project is unacceptable to Mullenix, who refuses to abandon the issue. "There is so much fluoride exposure now, and we simply do not know what it is doing," she says. "You can't just walk away from this."
Dr. Antonio Noronha, an NIH scientific review advisor familiar with Dr. Mullenix's grant request, says her proposal was rejected by a scientific peer-review group. He terms her claim of institutional bias against fluoride CNS research "farfetched." He adds, "We strive very hard at NIH to make sure politics does not enter the picture."
Fluoride and National Security
The documentary trail begins at the height of WW2, in 1944, when a severe pollution incident occurred downwind of the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb.
The farms downwind in Gloucester and Salem counties were famous for their high-quality produce -- their peaches went directly to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. Their tomatoes were bought up by Campbell's Soup.
But in the summer of 1943, the farmers began to report that their crops were blighted, and that "something is burning up the peach crops around here."
Poultry died after an all-night thunderstorm, they reported. Farm workers who ate the produce they had picked sometimes vomited all night and into the next day. "I remember our horses looked sick and were too stiff to work," these reporters were told by Mildred Giordano, who was a teenager at the time. Some cows were so crippled they could not stand up, and grazed by crawling on their bellies.
The account was confirmed in taped interviews, shortly before he died, with Philip Sadtler of Sadtler Laboratories of Philadelphia, one of the nation's oldest chemical consulting firms. Sadtler had personally conducted the initial investigation of the damage.
Although the farmers did not know it, the attention of the Manhattan Project and the federal government was riveted on the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret documents obtained by these reporters. After the war's end, in a secret Manhattan Project memo dated March 1, 1946, the Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, Harold C. Hodge, worriedly wrote to his boss Colonel Stafford L. Warren, Chief of the Medical Division, about "problems associated with the question of fluoride contamination of the atmosphere in a certain section of New Jersey. There seem to be four distinct (though related) problems," continued Hodge;
1. A question of injury of the peach crop in 1944.
2. A report of extraordinary fluoride content of vegetables grown in this area.
3. A report of abnormally high fluoride content in the blood of human individuals residing in this area.
4. A report raising the question of serious poisoning of horses and cattle in this area.
The New Jersey farmers waited until the war was over, then sued du Pont and the Manhattan Project for fluoride damage -- reportedly the first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program.
Although seemingly trivial, the lawsuits shook the government, the secret documents reveal. Under the personal direction of Manhattan Project chief Major General Leslie R.Groves, secret meetings were convened in Washington, with compulsory attendance by scores of scientists and officials from the U.S War Department, the Manhattan Project, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture and Justice Departments, the U.S Army's Chemical Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal, the Bureau of Standards, and du Pont lawyers. Declassified memos of the meetings reveal a secret mobilization of the full forces of the government to defeat the New Jersey farmers:
These agencies "are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in ... New Jersey," stated Manhattan Project Lieutenant Colonel Cooper B. Rhodes, in a memo c.c.'d to General Groves.
27 August 1945
Subject: Investigation of Crop Damage at Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey
To: The Commanding General, Army Service Forces, Pentagon Building, Washington D.C.
"At the request of the Secretary of War the Department of Agriculture has agreed to cooperate in investigating complaints of crop damage attributed... to fumes from a plant operated in connection with the Manhattan Project."
Signed, L.R. Groves, Major General U.S.
"The Department of Justice is cooperating in the defense of these suits," wrote General Groves in a Feb. 28, 1946 memo to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy.
Why the national-security emergency over a few lawsuits by New Jersey farmers? In 1946 the United States had begun full-scale production of atomic bombs. No other nation had yet tested a nuclear weapon, and the A-bomb was seen as crucial for U.S leadership of the postwar world. The New Jersey fluoride lawsuits were a serious roadblock to that strategy.
"The specter of endless lawsuits haunted the military," writes Lansing Lamont in his acclaimed book about the first atomic bomb test, "Day of Trinity."
In the case of fluoride, "If the farmers won, it would open the door to further suits, which might impede the bomb program's ability to use fluoride," said Jacqueline Kittrell, a Tennessee public interest lawyer specializing in nuclear cases, who examined the declassified fluoride documents. (Kittrell has represented plaintiffs in several human radiation experiment cases.) She added, "The reports of human injury were especially threatening, because of the potential for enormous settlements -- not to mention the PR problem."
Indeed, du Pont was particularly concerned about the "possible psychologic reaction" to the New Jersey pollution incident, according to a secret 1946 Manhattan Project memo. Facing a threat from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to embargo the region's produce because of "high fluoride content," du Pont dispatched its lawyers to the FDA offices in Washington, where an agitated meeting ensued. According to a memo sent next day to General Groves, Du Pont's lawyer argued "that in view of the pending suits...any action by the Food and Drug Administration... would have a serious effect on the du Pont Company and would create a bad public relations situation." After the meeting adjourned, Manhattan Project Captain John Davies approached the FDA's Food Division chief and "impressed upon Dr. White the substantial interest which the Government had in claims which might arise as a result of action which might be taken by the Food and Drug Administration."
There was no embargo. Instead, new tests for fluoride in the New Jersey area would be conducted -- not by the Department of Agriculture -- but by the U.S. Army's Chemical Warfare Service because "work done by the Chemical Warfare Service would carry the greatest weight as evidence if... lawsuits are started by the complainants." The memo was signed by General Groves.
Meanwhile, the public relations problem remained unresolved -- local citizens were in a panic about fluoride.
The farmer's spokesman, Willard B. Kille, was personally invited to dine with General Groves --then known as "the man who built the atomic bomb" -- at his office at the War Department on March 26, 1946. Although he had been diagnosed with fluoride poisoning by his doctor, Kille departed the luncheon convinced of the government's good faith. The next day he wrote to the general, wishing the other farmers could have been present, he said, so "they too could come away with the feeling that their interests in this particular matter were being safeguarded by men of the very highest type whose integrity they could not question."
In a subsequent secret Manhattan project memo, a broader solution to the public relations problem was suggested by chief fluoride toxicologist Harold C. Hodge. He wrote to the Medical Section chief, Col. Warren: "Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester counties through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?" Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.
The New Jersey farmers' lawsuits were ultimately stymied by the government's refusal to reveal the key piece of information that would have settled the case --how much fluoride du Pont had vented into the atmosphere during the war. "Disclosure... would be injurious to the military security of the United States," wrote Manhattan Project Major C.A Taney, Jr. The farmers were pacified with token financial settlements, according to interviews with descendants still living in the area.
"All we knew is that du Pont released some chemical that burned up all the peach trees around here," recalls Angelo Giordano, whose father James was one of the original plaintiffs. "The trees were no good after that, so we had to give up on the peaches." Their horses and cows, too, acted stiff and walked stiff, recalls his sister Mildred. "Could any of that have been the fluoride ?" she asked. (The symptoms she detailed to the authors are cardinal signs of fluoride toxicity, according to veterinary toxicologists.)
The Giordano family, too, has been plagued by bone and joint problems, Mildred adds. Recalling the settlement received by the Giordanos, Angelo told these reporters that "my father said he got about $200."
The farmers were stonewalled in their search for information, and their complaints have long since been forgotten. But they unknowingly left their imprint on history -- their claims of injury to their health reverberated through the corridors of power in Washington, and triggered intensive secret bomb-program research on the health effects of fluoride. A secret 1945 memo from Manhattan Project Lt. Col. Rhodes to General Groves stated: "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by hydrogen fluoride fumes in [the New Jersey] area, although there are no pending suits involving such claims, the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride."
Much of the proof of fluoride's safety in low doses rests on the postwar work performed by the University of Rochester, in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury.
Fluoride and the Cold War.
Delegating fluoride safety studies to the University of Rochester was not surprising. During WWII the federal government had become involved, for the first time, in large-scale funding of scientific research at government-owned labs and private colleges. Those early spending priorities were shaped by the nation's often-secret military needs.
The prestigious upstate New York college, in particular, had housed a key wartime division of the Manhattan Project, studying the health effects of the new "special materials," such as uranium, plutonium, beryllium and fluoride, being used to make the atomic bomb. That work continued after the war, with millions of dollars flowing from the Manhattan Project and its successor organization, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (Indeed, the bomb left an indelible imprint on all U.S. science in the late 1940's and 50's. Up to 90% of federal funds for university research came from either the Defense Department or the AEC in this period, according to Noam Chomsky's 1996 book "The Cold War and the University.")
The University of Rochester medical school became a revolving door for senior bomb program scientists. Postwar faculty included Stafford Warren, the top medical officer of the Manhattan Project, and Harold Hodge, chief of fluoride research for the bomb program.
But this marriage of military secrecy and medical science bore deformed offspring. The University of Rochester's classified fluoride studies -- code- named Program F -- were conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed in Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. Revelation of this experiment in a Pulitzer prize-winning account by Eileen Welsome led to a 1995 U.S. Presidential investigation, and a multimillion-dollar cash settlement for victims.
Program F was not about children's teeth. It grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury. Program F's director was none other than Harold C. Hodge, who had led the Manhattan Project investigation of alleged human injury in the New Jersey fluoride-pollution incident.
Program F's purpose is spelled out in a classified 1948 report. It reads: "To supply evidence useful in the litigation arising from an alleged loss of a fruit crop several years ago, a number of problems have been opened. Since excessive blood fluoride levels were reported in human residents of the same area, our principal effort has been devoted to describing the relationship of blood fluorides to toxic effects."
The litigation referred to, of course, and the claims of human injury were against the bomb program and its contractors. Thus, the purpose of Program F was to obtain evidence useful in litigation against the bomb program. The research was being conducted by the defendants.
The potential conflict of interest is clear. If lower dose ranges were found hazardous by Program F, it might have opened the bomb program and its contractors to lawsuits for injury to human health, as well as public outcry.
Comments lawyer Kittrell: "This and other documents indicate that the University of Rochester's fluoride research grew out of the New Jersey lawsuits and was performed in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. Studies undertaken for litigation purposes by the defendants would not be considered scientifically acceptable today, " adds Kittrell, "because of their inherent bias to prove the chemical safe."
Unfortunately, much of the proof of fluoride's safety rests on the work performed by Program F Scientists at the University of Rochester. During the postwar period that university emerged as the leading academic center for establishing the safety of fluoride, as well as its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay, according to Dental School spokesperson William H. Bowen, MD. The key figure in this research, Bowen said, was Harold C. Hodge-- who also became a leading national proponent of fluoridating public drinking water. Program F's interest in water fluoridation was not just 'to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents,' as Hodge had earlier written. The bomb program needed human studies, as they had needed human studies for plutonium, and adding fluoride to public water supplies provided one opportunity.
The A-Bomb Program and Water Fluoridation
Bomb-program scientists played a prominent -- if unpublicized -- role in the nation's first-planned water fluoridation experiment, in Newburgh, New York. The Newburgh Demonstration Project is considered the most extensive study of the health effects of fluoridation, supplying much of the evidence that low doses are safe for children's bones, and good for their teeth.
Planning began in 1943 with the appointment of a special New York State Health Department committee to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburgh's drinking water. The chairman of the committee was Dr. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project.
Subsequent members included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Project's Medical section, and John W. Fertig, in 1944 with the office of Scientific Research and Development, the Pentagon group which sired the Manhattan Project. Their military affiliations were kept secret: Hodge was described as a pharmacologist, Barnett as a pediatrician. Placed in charge of the Newburgh project was David B. Ast, chief dental officer of the State Health Department. Ast had participated in a key secret wartime conference on fluoride held by the Manhattan Project, and later worked with Dr. Hodge on the Project's investigation of human injury in the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret memos.
The committee recommended that Newburgh be fluoridated. It also selected the types of medical studies to be done, and "provided expert guidance" for the duration of the experiment. The key question to be answered was: "Are there any cumulative effects -- beneficial or otherwise, on tissues and organs other than the teeth -- of long-continued ingestion of such small concentrations...?" According to the declassified documents, this was also key information sought by the bomb program, which would require long-continued exposure of workers and communities to fluoride throughout the Cold War.
In May 1945, Newburgh's water was fluoridated, and over the next ten years its residents were studied by the State Health Department. In tandem, Program F conducted its own secret studies, focusing on the amounts of fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues - key information sought by the bomb program: "Possible toxic effects of fluoride were in the forefront of consideration," the advisory committee stated. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Program F team at the University of Rochester. The samples were collected by Dr. David B. Overton, the Department's chief of pediatric studies at Newburgh.
The final report of the Newburgh Demonstration Project, published in 1956 in the Journal of the American Dental Association, concluded that "small concentrations" of fluoride were safe for U.S.citizens. The biological proof -- "based on work performed ... at the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project" -- was delivered by Dr. Hodge.
Today, news that scientists from the atomic bomb program secretly shaped and guided the Newburgh fluoridation experiment, and studied the citizen's blood and tissue samples, is greeted with incredulity.
"I'm shocked -- beyond words," said present-day Newburgh Mayor Audrey Carey, commenting on these reporters' findings. "It reminds me of the Tuskegee experiment that was done on syphilis patients down in Alabama."
As a child in the early 1950's, Mayor Carey was taken to the old firehouse on Broadway in Newburgh, which housed the Public Health Clinic. There, doctors from the Newburgh fluoridation project studied her teeth, and a peculiar fusion of two finger bones on her left hand she had been born with. Today, adds Carey, her granddaughter has white dental-fluorosis marks on her front teeth.
Mayor Carey wants answers from the government about the secret history of fluoride, and the Newburgh fluoridation experiment. "I absolutely want to pursue it," she said. "It is appalling to do any kind of experimentation and study without people's knowledge and permission."
Contacted by these reporters, the director of the Newburgh experiment, David B. Ast, says he was unaware Manhattan Project scientists were involved. "If I had known, I would have been certainly investigating why, and what the connection was," he said. Did he know that blood and placenta samples from Newburgh were being sent to bomb program researchers at the University of Rochester? "I was not aware of it," Ast replied. Did he recall participating in the Manhattan Project's secret wartime conference on fluoride in January 1944, or going to New Jersey with Dr. Hodge to investigate human injury in the du Pont case--as secret memos state? He told the reporters he had no recollection of these events.
A spokesperson for the University of Rochester Medical Center, Bob Loeb, confirmed that blood and tissue samples from Newburgh had been tested by the University's Dr. Hodge. On the ethics of secretly studying U.S citizens to obtain information useful in litigation against the A-bomb program, he said, "that's a question we cannot answer." He referred inquiries to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), successor to the Atomic Energy Commission.
A spokesperson for the DOE in Washington, Jayne Brady, confirmed that a review of DOE files indicated that a "significant reason" for fluoride experiments conducted at the University of Rochester after the war was "impending litigation between the du Pont company and residents of New Jersey areas." However, she added, "DOE has found no documents to indicate that fluoride research was done to protect the Manhattan Project or its contractors from lawsuits."
On Manhattan Project involvement in Newburgh, the spokesperson stated, "Nothing that we have suggests that the DOE or predecessor agencies -- especially the Manhattan Project -- authorized fluoride experiments to be performed on children in the 1940's."
When told that the reporters had several documents that directly tied the Manhattan Project's successor agency at the University of Rochester, the AEP, to the Newburgh experiment, the DOE spokesperson later conceded her study was confined to "the available universe" of documents. Two days later spokesperson Jayne Brady faxed a statement for clarification: "My search only involved the documents that we collected as part of our human radiation experiments project -- fluoride was not part of our research effort.
"Most significantly," the statement continued, relevant documents may be in a classified collection at the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory known as the Records Holding Task Group. "This collection consists entirely of classified documents removed from other files for the purpose of classified document accountability many years ago," and was "a rich source of documents for the human radiation experiments project," she said.
The crucial question arising from this investigation is: Were adverse health findings from Newburgh and other bomb-program fluoride studies suppressed? All AEC-funded studies had to be declassified before publication in civilian medical and dental journals. Where are the original classified versions?
The transcript of one of the major secret scientific conferences of WW2--on "fluoride metabolism"--is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. Participants in the conference included key figures who promoted the safety of fluoride and water fluoridation to the public after the war - Harold Hodge of the Manhattan Project, David B. Ast of the Newburgh Project, and U.S. Public Health Service dentist H.Trendley Dean, popularly known as the "father of fluoridation." "If it is missing from the files, it is probably still classified," National Archives librarians told these reporters.
A 1944 WW2 Manhattan Project classified report on water fluoridation is missing from the files of the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project, the U.S. National Archives, and the Nuclear Repository at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The next four numerically consecutive documents are also missing, while the remainder of the "MP-1500 series" is present. "Either those documents are still classified, or they've been 'disappeared' by the government," says Clifford Honicker, Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, in Knoxville, Tennessee, which provided key evidence in the public exposure and prosecution of U.S. human radiation experiments.
Seven pages have been cut out of a 1947 Rochester bomb-project notebook entitled "Du Pont litigation." "Most unusual," commented chief medical school archivist Chris Hoolihan.
Similarly, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by these authors over a year ago with the DOE for hundreds of classified fluoride reports have failed to dislodge any. "We're behind," explained Amy Rothrock, FOIA officer for the Department of Energy at their Oak Ridge operations.
Was information suppressed? These reporters made what appears to be the first discovery of the original classified version of a fluoride safety study by bomb program scientists. A censored version of this study was later published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association. Comparison of the secret with the published version indicates that the U.S. AEC did censor damaging information on fluoride, to the point of tragicomedy.
This was a study of the dental and physical health of workers in a factory producing fluoride for the A-bomb program, conducted by a team of dentists from the Manhattan Project.
* The secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities.
* The secret version says the men had to wear rubber boots because the fluoride fumes disintegrated the nails in their shoes. The published version does not mention this.
* The secret version says the fluoride may have acted similarly on the men's teeth, contributing to their toothlessness. The published version omits this statement.
The published version concludes that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view."
Asked for comment on the early links of the Manhattan Project to water fluoridation, Dr Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute for Dental Research, the U.S. agency which today funds fluoride research, said, "I wasn't aware of any input from the Atomic Energy Commission." Nevertheless, he insisted, fluoride's efficacy and safety in the prevention of dental cavities over the last fifty years is well-proved. "The motivation of a scientist is often different from the outcome, " he reflected. "I do not hold a prejudice about where the knowledge comes from."
After comparing the secret and published versions of the censored study, toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix commented, "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist." Of other Cold War-era fluoride safety studies, she asks, "Were they all done like this?"
Comparison of the secret with the published version indicates that the U.S. AEC did censor damaging information on fluoride, to the point of tragicomedy.
This was a study of the dental and physical health of workers in a factory producing fluoride for the A-bomb program, conducted by a team of dentists from the Manhattan Project.
* The secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities.
* The secret version says the men had to wear rubber boots because the fluoride fumes disintegrated the nails in their shoes. The published version does not mention this.
* The secret version says the fluoride may have acted similarly on the men's teeth, contributing to their toothlessness. The published version omits this statement.
The published version concludes that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view."
Asked for comment on the early links of the Manhattan Project to water fluoridation, Dr Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute for Dental Research, the U.S. agency which today funds fluoride research, said, "I wasn't aware of any input from the Atomic Energy Commission." Nevertheless, he insisted, fluoride's efficacy and safety in the prevention of dental cavities over the last fifty years is well-proved. "The motivation of a scientist is often different from the outcome, " he reflected. "I do not hold a prejudice about where the knowledge comes from."
After comparing the secret and published versions of the censored study, toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix commented, "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist." Of other Cold War-era fluoride safety studies, she asks, "Were they all done like this?"
Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb
by Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths
Some fifty years after the United States began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children's teeth, declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still-controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age.
Today, two thirds of U.S. public drinking water is fluoridated. Many municipalities still resist the practice, disbelieving the government's assurances of safety.
Since the days of World War II, when this nation prevailed by building the world's first atomic bomb, U.S. public health leaders have maintained that low doses of fluoride are safe for people, and good for children's teeth.
That safety verdict should now be re-examined in the light of hundreds of once-secret WWII documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson --including declassified papers of the Manhattan Project, the U.S. military group that built the atomic bomb.
Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride-- millions of tons-- were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S atomic bomb program--both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal.
Other revelations include:
* Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.
* Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive U.S. study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water--conducted in Newburgh, New York from 1945 to 1956. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F," they secretly gathered and analyzed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens, with the cooperation of State Health Department personnel.
* The original secret version--obtained by these reporters--of a 1948 study published by Program F scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) --considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies-- for reasons of national security.
* The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester, site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mind-set, in which "national security" was paramount.
* The U.S. government's conflict of interest--and its motive to prove fluoride "safe" -- has not until now been made clear to the general public in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950's, nor to civilian researchers and health professionals, or journalists.
The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence, and a chorus of questions, about the health effects of fluoride in the environment.
Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste, but to environmental pollution by major industries from aluminum to pesticides: fluoride is a critical industrial chemical.
The impact can be seen, literally, in the smiles of our children. Large numbers of U.S. young people--up to 80 percent in some cities--now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases.)
Less-known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones --"The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones," explains Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (N.Y.). In recent years, pediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among U.S. young people. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride --linked to bone damage by studies since the 1930's-- may be a contributing factor. The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original proof that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones came from U.S. bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.
Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.
"Information was buried," concludes Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990's indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin, and might adversely affect human brain functioning, even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995, in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.
During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous U.S. studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), where an NIH panel, she says, flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects."
Declassified documents of the U.S. atomic-bomb program indicate otherwise. An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo reports: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect.... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor."
The memo --stamped "secret"-- is addressed to the head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Colonel Warren is asked to approve a program of animal research on CNS effects: "Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure...This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties."
On the same day, Colonel Warren approved the CNS research program. This was in 1944, at the height of the Second World War and the nation's race to build the world's first atomic bomb. For research on fluoride's CNS effects to be approved at such a momentous time, the supporting evidence set forth in the proposal forwarded along with the memo must have been persuasive.
The proposal, however, is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. "If you find the memos, but the document they refer to is missing, its probably still classified," said Charles Reeves, chief librarian at the Atlanta branch of the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, where the memos were found. Similarly, no results of the Manhattan Project's fluoride CNS research could be found in the files.
After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted." She went on, "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies --"that kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties--I can't imagine that would be ignored"-- but that the results were buried because they might create a difficult legal and public relations problem for the government.
The author of the 1944 CNS research proposal was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, at the time chief of fluoride toxicology studies for the University of Rochester division of the Manhattan Project. Nearly fifty years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr. Mullenix was introduced to a gently ambling elderly man brought in to serve as a consultant on her CNS research--Harold C. Hodge. By then Hodge had achieved status emeritus as a world authority on fluoride safety. "But even though he was supposed to be helping me," says Mullenix, "he never once mentioned the CNS work he had done for the Manhattan Project."
The "black hole" in fluoride CNS research since the days of the Manhattan Project is unacceptable to Mullenix, who refuses to abandon the issue. "There is so much fluoride exposure now, and we simply do not know what it is doing," she says. "You can't just walk away from this."
Dr. Antonio Noronha, an NIH scientific review advisor familiar with Dr. Mullenix's grant request, says her proposal was rejected by a scientific peer-review group. He terms her claim of institutional bias against fluoride CNS research "farfetched." He adds, "We strive very hard at NIH to make sure politics does not enter the picture."
Fluoride and National Security
The documentary trail begins at the height of WW2, in 1944, when a severe pollution incident occurred downwind of the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb.
The farms downwind in Gloucester and Salem counties were famous for their high-quality produce -- their peaches went directly to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. Their tomatoes were bought up by Campbell's Soup.
But in the summer of 1943, the farmers began to report that their crops were blighted, and that "something is burning up the peach crops around here."
Poultry died after an all-night thunderstorm, they reported. Farm workers who ate the produce they had picked sometimes vomited all night and into the next day. "I remember our horses looked sick and were too stiff to work," these reporters were told by Mildred Giordano, who was a teenager at the time. Some cows were so crippled they could not stand up, and grazed by crawling on their bellies.
The account was confirmed in taped interviews, shortly before he died, with Philip Sadtler of Sadtler Laboratories of Philadelphia, one of the nation's oldest chemical consulting firms. Sadtler had personally conducted the initial investigation of the damage.
Although the farmers did not know it, the attention of the Manhattan Project and the federal government was riveted on the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret documents obtained by these reporters. After the war's end, in a secret Manhattan Project memo dated March 1, 1946, the Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, Harold C. Hodge, worriedly wrote to his boss Colonel Stafford L. Warren, Chief of the Medical Division, about "problems associated with the question of fluoride contamination of the atmosphere in a certain section of New Jersey. There seem to be four distinct (though related) problems," continued Hodge;
1. A question of injury of the peach crop in 1944.
2. A report of extraordinary fluoride content of vegetables grown in this area.
3. A report of abnormally high fluoride content in the blood of human individuals residing in this area.
4. A report raising the question of serious poisoning of horses and cattle in this area.
The New Jersey farmers waited until the war was over, then sued du Pont and the Manhattan Project for fluoride damage -- reportedly the first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program.
Although seemingly trivial, the lawsuits shook the government, the secret documents reveal. Under the personal direction of Manhattan Project chief Major General Leslie R.Groves, secret meetings were convened in Washington, with compulsory attendance by scores of scientists and officials from the U.S War Department, the Manhattan Project, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture and Justice Departments, the U.S Army's Chemical Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal, the Bureau of Standards, and du Pont lawyers. Declassified memos of the meetings reveal a secret mobilization of the full forces of the government to defeat the New Jersey farmers:
These agencies "are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in ... New Jersey," stated Manhattan Project Lieutenant Colonel Cooper B. Rhodes, in a memo c.c.'d to General Groves.
27 August 1945
Subject: Investigation of Crop Damage at Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey
To: The Commanding General, Army Service Forces, Pentagon Building, Washington D.C.
"At the request of the Secretary of War the Department of Agriculture has agreed to cooperate in investigating complaints of crop damage attributed... to fumes from a plant operated in connection with the Manhattan Project."
Signed, L.R. Groves, Major General U.S.
"The Department of Justice is cooperating in the defense of these suits," wrote General Groves in a Feb. 28, 1946 memo to the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy.
Why the national-security emergency over a few lawsuits by New Jersey farmers? In 1946 the United States had begun full-scale production of atomic bombs. No other nation had yet tested a nuclear weapon, and the A-bomb was seen as crucial for U.S leadership of the postwar world. The New Jersey fluoride lawsuits were a serious roadblock to that strategy.
"The specter of endless lawsuits haunted the military," writes Lansing Lamont in his acclaimed book about the first atomic bomb test, "Day of Trinity."
In the case of fluoride, "If the farmers won, it would open the door to further suits, which might impede the bomb program's ability to use fluoride," said Jacqueline Kittrell, a Tennessee public interest lawyer specializing in nuclear cases, who examined the declassified fluoride documents. (Kittrell has represented plaintiffs in several human radiation experiment cases.) She added, "The reports of human injury were especially threatening, because of the potential for enormous settlements -- not to mention the PR problem."
Indeed, du Pont was particularly concerned about the "possible psychologic reaction" to the New Jersey pollution incident, according to a secret 1946 Manhattan Project memo. Facing a threat from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to embargo the region's produce because of "high fluoride content," du Pont dispatched its lawyers to the FDA offices in Washington, where an agitated meeting ensued. According to a memo sent next day to General Groves, Du Pont's lawyer argued "that in view of the pending suits...any action by the Food and Drug Administration... would have a serious effect on the du Pont Company and would create a bad public relations situation." After the meeting adjourned, Manhattan Project Captain John Davies approached the FDA's Food Division chief and "impressed upon Dr. White the substantial interest which the Government had in claims which might arise as a result of action which might be taken by the Food and Drug Administration."
There was no embargo. Instead, new tests for fluoride in the New Jersey area would be conducted -- not by the Department of Agriculture -- but by the U.S. Army's Chemical Warfare Service because "work done by the Chemical Warfare Service would carry the greatest weight as evidence if... lawsuits are started by the complainants." The memo was signed by General Groves.
Meanwhile, the public relations problem remained unresolved -- local citizens were in a panic about fluoride.
The farmer's spokesman, Willard B. Kille, was personally invited to dine with General Groves --then known as "the man who built the atomic bomb" -- at his office at the War Department on March 26, 1946. Although he had been diagnosed with fluoride poisoning by his doctor, Kille departed the luncheon convinced of the government's good faith. The next day he wrote to the general, wishing the other farmers could have been present, he said, so "they too could come away with the feeling that their interests in this particular matter were being safeguarded by men of the very highest type whose integrity they could not question."
In a subsequent secret Manhattan project memo, a broader solution to the public relations problem was suggested by chief fluoride toxicologist Harold C. Hodge. He wrote to the Medical Section chief, Col. Warren: "Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester counties through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?" Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.
The New Jersey farmers' lawsuits were ultimately stymied by the government's refusal to reveal the key piece of information that would have settled the case --how much fluoride du Pont had vented into the atmosphere during the war. "Disclosure... would be injurious to the military security of the United States," wrote Manhattan Project Major C.A Taney, Jr. The farmers were pacified with token financial settlements, according to interviews with descendants still living in the area.
"All we knew is that du Pont released some chemical that burned up all the peach trees around here," recalls Angelo Giordano, whose father James was one of the original plaintiffs. "The trees were no good after that, so we had to give up on the peaches." Their horses and cows, too, acted stiff and walked stiff, recalls his sister Mildred. "Could any of that have been the fluoride ?" she asked. (The symptoms she detailed to the authors are cardinal signs of fluoride toxicity, according to veterinary toxicologists.)
The Giordano family, too, has been plagued by bone and joint problems, Mildred adds. Recalling the settlement received by the Giordanos, Angelo told these reporters that "my father said he got about $200."
The farmers were stonewalled in their search for information, and their complaints have long since been forgotten. But they unknowingly left their imprint on history -- their claims of injury to their health reverberated through the corridors of power in Washington, and triggered intensive secret bomb-program research on the health effects of fluoride. A secret 1945 memo from Manhattan Project Lt. Col. Rhodes to General Groves stated: "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by hydrogen fluoride fumes in [the New Jersey] area, although there are no pending suits involving such claims, the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride."
Much of the proof of fluoride's safety in low doses rests on the postwar work performed by the University of Rochester, in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury.
Fluoride and the Cold War.
Delegating fluoride safety studies to the University of Rochester was not surprising. During WWII the federal government had become involved, for the first time, in large-scale funding of scientific research at government-owned labs and private colleges. Those early spending priorities were shaped by the nation's often-secret military needs.
The prestigious upstate New York college, in particular, had housed a key wartime division of the Manhattan Project, studying the health effects of the new "special materials," such as uranium, plutonium, beryllium and fluoride, being used to make the atomic bomb. That work continued after the war, with millions of dollars flowing from the Manhattan Project and its successor organization, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (Indeed, the bomb left an indelible imprint on all U.S. science in the late 1940's and 50's. Up to 90% of federal funds for university research came from either the Defense Department or the AEC in this period, according to Noam Chomsky's 1996 book "The Cold War and the University.")
The University of Rochester medical school became a revolving door for senior bomb program scientists. Postwar faculty included Stafford Warren, the top medical officer of the Manhattan Project, and Harold Hodge, chief of fluoride research for the bomb program.
But this marriage of military secrecy and medical science bore deformed offspring. The University of Rochester's classified fluoride studies -- code- named Program F -- were conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed in Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. Revelation of this experiment in a Pulitzer prize-winning account by Eileen Welsome led to a 1995 U.S. Presidential investigation, and a multimillion-dollar cash settlement for victims.
Program F was not about children's teeth. It grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury. Program F's director was none other than Harold C. Hodge, who had led the Manhattan Project investigation of alleged human injury in the New Jersey fluoride-pollution incident.
Program F's purpose is spelled out in a classified 1948 report. It reads: "To supply evidence useful in the litigation arising from an alleged loss of a fruit crop several years ago, a number of problems have been opened. Since excessive blood fluoride levels were reported in human residents of the same area, our principal effort has been devoted to describing the relationship of blood fluorides to toxic effects."
The litigation referred to, of course, and the claims of human injury were against the bomb program and its contractors. Thus, the purpose of Program F was to obtain evidence useful in litigation against the bomb program. The research was being conducted by the defendants.
The potential conflict of interest is clear. If lower dose ranges were found hazardous by Program F, it might have opened the bomb program and its contractors to lawsuits for injury to human health, as well as public outcry.
Comments lawyer Kittrell: "This and other documents indicate that the University of Rochester's fluoride research grew out of the New Jersey lawsuits and was performed in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. Studies undertaken for litigation purposes by the defendants would not be considered scientifically acceptable today, " adds Kittrell, "because of their inherent bias to prove the chemical safe."
Unfortunately, much of the proof of fluoride's safety rests on the work performed by Program F Scientists at the University of Rochester. During the postwar period that university emerged as the leading academic center for establishing the safety of fluoride, as well as its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay, according to Dental School spokesperson William H. Bowen, MD. The key figure in this research, Bowen said, was Harold C. Hodge-- who also became a leading national proponent of fluoridating public drinking water. Program F's interest in water fluoridation was not just 'to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents,' as Hodge had earlier written. The bomb program needed human studies, as they had needed human studies for plutonium, and adding fluoride to public water supplies provided one opportunity.
The A-Bomb Program and Water Fluoridation
Bomb-program scientists played a prominent -- if unpublicized -- role in the nation's first-planned water fluoridation experiment, in Newburgh, New York. The Newburgh Demonstration Project is considered the most extensive study of the health effects of fluoridation, supplying much of the evidence that low doses are safe for children's bones, and good for their teeth.
Planning began in 1943 with the appointment of a special New York State Health Department committee to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburgh's drinking water. The chairman of the committee was Dr. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project.
Subsequent members included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Project's Medical section, and John W. Fertig, in 1944 with the office of Scientific Research and Development, the Pentagon group which sired the Manhattan Project. Their military affiliations were kept secret: Hodge was described as a pharmacologist, Barnett as a pediatrician. Placed in charge of the Newburgh project was David B. Ast, chief dental officer of the State Health Department. Ast had participated in a key secret wartime conference on fluoride held by the Manhattan Project, and later worked with Dr. Hodge on the Project's investigation of human injury in the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret memos.
The committee recommended that Newburgh be fluoridated. It also selected the types of medical studies to be done, and "provided expert guidance" for the duration of the experiment. The key question to be answered was: "Are there any cumulative effects -- beneficial or otherwise, on tissues and organs other than the teeth -- of long-continued ingestion of such small concentrations...?" According to the declassified documents, this was also key information sought by the bomb program, which would require long-continued exposure of workers and communities to fluoride throughout the Cold War.
In May 1945, Newburgh's water was fluoridated, and over the next ten years its residents were studied by the State Health Department. In tandem, Program F conducted its own secret studies, focusing on the amounts of fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues - key information sought by the bomb program: "Possible toxic effects of fluoride were in the forefront of consideration," the advisory committee stated. Health Department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Program F team at the University of Rochester. The samples were collected by Dr. David B. Overton, the Department's chief of pediatric studies at Newburgh.
The final report of the Newburgh Demonstration Project, published in 1956 in the Journal of the American Dental Association, concluded that "small concentrations" of fluoride were safe for U.S.citizens. The biological proof -- "based on work performed ... at the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project" -- was delivered by Dr. Hodge.
Today, news that scientists from the atomic bomb program secretly shaped and guided the Newburgh fluoridation experiment, and studied the citizen's blood and tissue samples, is greeted with incredulity.
"I'm shocked -- beyond words," said present-day Newburgh Mayor Audrey Carey, commenting on these reporters' findings. "It reminds me of the Tuskegee experiment that was done on syphilis patients down in Alabama."
As a child in the early 1950's, Mayor Carey was taken to the old firehouse on Broadway in Newburgh, which housed the Public Health Clinic. There, doctors from the Newburgh fluoridation project studied her teeth, and a peculiar fusion of two finger bones on her left hand she had been born with. Today, adds Carey, her granddaughter has white dental-fluorosis marks on her front teeth.
Mayor Carey wants answers from the government about the secret history of fluoride, and the Newburgh fluoridation experiment. "I absolutely want to pursue it," she said. "It is appalling to do any kind of experimentation and study without people's knowledge and permission."
Contacted by these reporters, the director of the Newburgh experiment, David B. Ast, says he was unaware Manhattan Project scientists were involved. "If I had known, I would have been certainly investigating why, and what the connection was," he said. Did he know that blood and placenta samples from Newburgh were being sent to bomb program researchers at the University of Rochester? "I was not aware of it," Ast replied. Did he recall participating in the Manhattan Project's secret wartime conference on fluoride in January 1944, or going to New Jersey with Dr. Hodge to investigate human injury in the du Pont case--as secret memos state? He told the reporters he had no recollection of these events.
A spokesperson for the University of Rochester Medical Center, Bob Loeb, confirmed that blood and tissue samples from Newburgh had been tested by the University's Dr. Hodge. On the ethics of secretly studying U.S citizens to obtain information useful in litigation against the A-bomb program, he said, "that's a question we cannot answer." He referred inquiries to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), successor to the Atomic Energy Commission.
A spokesperson for the DOE in Washington, Jayne Brady, confirmed that a review of DOE files indicated that a "significant reason" for fluoride experiments conducted at the University of Rochester after the war was "impending litigation between the du Pont company and residents of New Jersey areas." However, she added, "DOE has found no documents to indicate that fluoride research was done to protect the Manhattan Project or its contractors from lawsuits."
On Manhattan Project involvement in Newburgh, the spokesperson stated, "Nothing that we have suggests that the DOE or predecessor agencies -- especially the Manhattan Project -- authorized fluoride experiments to be performed on children in the 1940's."
When told that the reporters had several documents that directly tied the Manhattan Project's successor agency at the University of Rochester, the AEP, to the Newburgh experiment, the DOE spokesperson later conceded her study was confined to "the available universe" of documents. Two days later spokesperson Jayne Brady faxed a statement for clarification: "My search only involved the documents that we collected as part of our human radiation experiments project -- fluoride was not part of our research effort.
"Most significantly," the statement continued, relevant documents may be in a classified collection at the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory known as the Records Holding Task Group. "This collection consists entirely of classified documents removed from other files for the purpose of classified document accountability many years ago," and was "a rich source of documents for the human radiation experiments project," she said.
The crucial question arising from this investigation is: Were adverse health findings from Newburgh and other bomb-program fluoride studies suppressed? All AEC-funded studies had to be declassified before publication in civilian medical and dental journals. Where are the original classified versions?
The transcript of one of the major secret scientific conferences of WW2--on "fluoride metabolism"--is missing from the files of the U.S. National Archives. Participants in the conference included key figures who promoted the safety of fluoride and water fluoridation to the public after the war - Harold Hodge of the Manhattan Project, David B. Ast of the Newburgh Project, and U.S. Public Health Service dentist H.Trendley Dean, popularly known as the "father of fluoridation." "If it is missing from the files, it is probably still classified," National Archives librarians told these reporters.
A 1944 WW2 Manhattan Project classified report on water fluoridation is missing from the files of the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project, the U.S. National Archives, and the Nuclear Repository at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The next four numerically consecutive documents are also missing, while the remainder of the "MP-1500 series" is present. "Either those documents are still classified, or they've been 'disappeared' by the government," says Clifford Honicker, Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, in Knoxville, Tennessee, which provided key evidence in the public exposure and prosecution of U.S. human radiation experiments.
Seven pages have been cut out of a 1947 Rochester bomb-project notebook entitled "Du Pont litigation." "Most unusual," commented chief medical school archivist Chris Hoolihan.
Similarly, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests by these authors over a year ago with the DOE for hundreds of classified fluoride reports have failed to dislodge any. "We're behind," explained Amy Rothrock, FOIA officer for the Department of Energy at their Oak Ridge operations.
Was information suppressed? These reporters made what appears to be the first discovery of the original classified version of a fluoride safety study by bomb program scientists. A censored version of this study was later published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association. Comparison of the secret with the published version indicates that the U.S. AEC did censor damaging information on fluoride, to the point of tragicomedy.
This was a study of the dental and physical health of workers in a factory producing fluoride for the A-bomb program, conducted by a team of dentists from the Manhattan Project.
* The secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities.
* The secret version says the men had to wear rubber boots because the fluoride fumes disintegrated the nails in their shoes. The published version does not mention this.
* The secret version says the fluoride may have acted similarly on the men's teeth, contributing to their toothlessness. The published version omits this statement.
The published version concludes that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view."
Asked for comment on the early links of the Manhattan Project to water fluoridation, Dr Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute for Dental Research, the U.S. agency which today funds fluoride research, said, "I wasn't aware of any input from the Atomic Energy Commission." Nevertheless, he insisted, fluoride's efficacy and safety in the prevention of dental cavities over the last fifty years is well-proved. "The motivation of a scientist is often different from the outcome, " he reflected. "I do not hold a prejudice about where the knowledge comes from."
After comparing the secret and published versions of the censored study, toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix commented, "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist." Of other Cold War-era fluoride safety studies, she asks, "Were they all done like this?"
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Survival Foraging in 2012
***************************************************
***************************************************
***************************************************
(Information for anyone to use that has realized self dependence is number one. The unconstitutional ndda of 2012 that was passed by congress and signed by the illegal president seals the fate of America. It deleted the 5,6,7 amendments that protected Americans from the government! Its a different 'ballgame" now if you know what mean. This blog will concentrate on self preservation and self reliance in the future because the writing is on the wall.) Story Reports
***************************************************
Survival Foraging
Survival foraging on the move. This simple but effective method requires the survivor to expend little additional energy yet can produce a bountiful harvest of very nutritious wild edibles.
The main criteria for the Survival foraging on the move method are:
You are attempting to walk from point A to point B, perhaps toward help.
That the wild foods you gather be on the direct route of travel and require a minimum of time and effort for acquisition.
You do not veer off your chosen path to chase after anything fleeing, and thereby use up precious energy and time that may become wasted effort.
You throw away any food prejudices you may have. Remember, insects and other creepy crawlies are being used as food on a daily basis by many cultures throughout the world. Do not put your survival at risk due to ignorance.
The idea for successful survival foraging is to keep a constant eye out for easy-to-get wild edibles no matter how small or of what type (animal, insect, or plant) they might be. Stick to your route and pause momentarily to collect edibles of opportunity as you go. This means that anything you harvest is almost free energy since you have to walk the route anyway and you will need occasional rest breaks that the collection of food will conveniently provide.
Practicing Survival Foraging
Walk through the forest for several miles toward an intended destination, continually scanning the immediate surroundings for anything that might be able to add to the cooking pot with only minimal effort.
Edible Clover
Woods sorrel clover is a plant that prefers to grow in cooler, damp areas of the forest. It is an excellent salad green with delicious lemony flavors. Though low on calories as are many vegetables, this wild edible plant contains many important nutrients that will help your body maintain and heal itself. Collect woods sorrel on my way. An important part of Survival Foraging on the Move: the short breaks you take while gathering the food items provide the necessary rest-stops as you travel over long distances.
Slugs are Good Survival Food
A common slug inching across a damp rock is a good choice. Wild survival foods that can run, wiggle, or fly are put into a container that has several inches of water in it. This immobilizes the creatures so that they cannot escape when the cover is opened to add more.
Eat the Bugs that Eat You!
Most insects are an excellent source of fats and protein. In a survival situation do not pass up any source of free food. It all adds up and may help you live another day.
Eating Grasshoppers – Excellent Survival Food
In a little clearing in the woods walking through the tall grass dozens of large grasshoppers were jumping. It was like herding miniature livestock. Some of these grasshoppers were almost as large as my little finger and quite easy to catch because the cool weather made them somewhat lethargic.
Because the grasshoppers were an easy to gather source of high protein and fat energy, take a five minute break and capture several of this excellent survival food.
Survival Starches
The Indian Cucumber plant is easily identifiable and has a starchy root that is something between a cucumber and a potato. This nutritious root is easily harvested with a short digging stick. It only takes a few seconds to extract the root using the narrow end of a tomahawk. AN excellent survival food high in starch and at little cost in terms of time or energy expended.
Ants are Good Survival Food Snacks
A nest of black ants that had created a mound on the surface of the ground. A bear had already harvested the nest, and the ants were busy rebuilding. Following the bears method, dig into the nest with a swipe of a tomahawk to expose a swarm of angry ants and ant pupae, gathere both and put them into the jug of water. It was easy to capture the ants as they attacked my hand but were too small to do anything but give a light pinch.
Be warned that some species of ants have the ability to sting or bite and can be very dangerous especially in large numbers. Even so, all species of ants are edible.
Pine Needles are Nutritious
White pine tree (pinus strobus) the needles of which are very high in vitamin C and other nutrients. It is a easy matter to gather a handful of its green needles. Vitamin C is a very important nutrient for the survivor as it is essential for the recovery process and the healing of wounds. In a real survival situation you could also strip off the edible inner bark of the pine tree, which comes off in thick sheets quite easily.
Cooking the Survival Food
As traveled along you are going to need a fire in order to cook the wild survival foods. Cooking is important as this will not only make the food more appealing but also destroy parasites or disease causing organisms that may be in the water, the insects, or the dirt on the roots gathered. A sheet of birch bark that had fallen from a tree is an excellent fire starter.
A small stream is an excellent place to obtain water for cooking and for refilling water containers. Of course any untested source of water must be treated to destroy pathogens, no matter how pristine it may appear. This beautiful clear brook may harbor giardia or even a dead moose just upstream.
A good method of making water safe to drink is to boil it. Boiling is the best method for destroying disease causing organisms. Carry a 1-pint Kelly Kettle that also serves as the container for a survival kit. Rig the Kelly kettle with a pot holder extension so that you can use it for cooking food at the same time you you boil drinking water.
An afternoon meal of foraged on the move wild survival foods are simmering in the cook pot:
1/4 liter wood sorrel petals
11 slugs
2 deer flies
8 large grasshoppers
50 medium size black ants and ant pupae
A handful of Indian Cucumber roots
A handful of pine needles, chopped
One chicken bouillon cube, from survival kit
The wood sorrel quickly cooked down into a small amount greens, something like spinach but much more tasty. Its lemon flavor makes for excellent soup flavoring!
Chock full of protein, fats, carbohydrates, and vitamins, Survival foraging on the move provides an ample tasty meal in just a few hours time during which a jorney is completing. Survival foraging on the move is like a large treasure hut in which you put your survival food gathering skills to the test.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Homeland Security and the FBI are training the Boy Scouts to become tomorrow’s Gestapo
......................................................................................
Homeland Security and the FBI are behind the effort to indoctrinate and train the Boy Scouts to become tomorrow’s Gestapo.
......................................................................................
“Our end goal is to create more agents,” April McKee, a senior Border Patrol agent, told the New York Times.
“Before it was more about the basics,” said Johnny Longoria, a Border Patrol agent. “But now our emphasis is on terrorism, illegal entry, drugs and human smuggling.”
A document produced by the Department of Homeland Security’s National Infrastructure Coordinating Center identifying advocates of the Second Amendment, veterans, pro-life activists, and militia members as dangerous terrorists. A subsequent DHS document, entitled “Domestic Extremism Lexicon,” pinpointed “antigovernment” types “rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority” as possible terrorists. Islamic groups are specifically excluded from this document.
The new Gestapo Boy Scouts program will train the new Hitler Youth — or Obama youth — for the challenges of a totalitarian globalist future.
Gestapo Scouts will be required to combat “rightwing extremists” who will refuse to turn in their firearms after the next false flag terror attack or engineered pandemic. SWAT Scouts will be called to deal with those who refuse to participate in mandatory vaccinations.
Police state Scouts will be the vanguard for Obama’s million-man Civilian National Security Corps. “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded” as the military.
Obama and his fellow communists worried about growing opposition to the destruction of the Constitution and the imposition of world government by a cabal of international bankers and their corporate fascist partners in crime.
Boy Scouts Train to Become Homeland Gestapo
Scouts Train to Fight Terrorists, and More
.......................................................................................
Home land "security" trains kids to become agents of the government to control Americans.
Project Appleseed is an activity of The Revolutionary War Veterans Association dedicated to teaching every American our shared heritage and history as well as traditional rifle marksmanship skills.
Project Appleseed
Obama wants to take your freedom away by way of a police state.
Project Appleseed wants to help you keep your freedom and protect your liberty.
.........................................................................................
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Reagan made the template for a police state and obama is using the template
(Reagan made the template for a police state. Obama is using the reagan template to turn American into a police state.) Story Reports
The United States can easily be turned into a fascist nation at the stroke
of a pen under the provisions of the Federal Emergency Management Act. What
is being planned is cloaked in secrecy, but what has been revealed is
frightening: suspension of our Constitutional rights; arrest of political
dissenters without habeas corpus; and concentration camps, designed to hold
millions of people, which are being readied all over the U.S. No approval
by congress or state or local government is necessary to execute the plan.
Even local military or police authorities can declare martial law without
consulting higher authority.
Interviewed is investigator and author Chip
Berlet. We also intersperse sections of past programs with experts who deal
with the subject of planned public persecutions, past and present. Some of
these experts include MIT's Noam Chomsky, University of Texas history
professor Tom Philpott, former CIA officer John Stockwell, and congressmen
Henry Gonzalez and Ron Paul.
Project Appleseed Is For All Who Love Liberty And Freedom
Project Appleseed
Project Appleseed is an activity of The Revolutionary War Veterans Association, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, dedicated to teaching every American our shared heritage and history as well as traditional rifle marksmanship skills. Our volunteer instructors travel across the country teaching those who attend about the difficult choices, the heroic actions, and the sacrifices that the Founders made on behalf of modern Americans, all of whom are their “progeny.”
Our heritage program vividly portrays the Battles of Lexington and Concord with the kind of care and immediacy that is absent from most formal schooling. Modern listeners are confronted with the danger, the fear, and the heartbreaking separations that arose out of the choices made on April 19th, 1775. They are also reminded of the marksmanship skills and masterful organization that ultimately helped set the colonists on the path to success. Those who attend gain a better understanding of the fundamental choices faced by our ancestors as they began to set the stage for the nation we now enjoy.
Listen to internet radio with The Rifleman on Blog Talk Radio
Project Apple Seed
(This is a pod cast I suggest you take the time to listen to. Most Americans are not prepared for the future in a way they can depend on themselves and no one else to survive. Don't depend on the government to protect or save you from any disaster. Depend on yourself to get through a disaster. The disaster I am talking about is the federal government.) Story Reports
Friday, December 30, 2011
Compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees with S. McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012
Is The Passed Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (retroactive)
Sue Riley
The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler's (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler's laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain's bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent.
Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act. It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.
Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.
Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.
Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1847, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention. It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama had signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012?
Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. McCain’s (The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.
Immediately Below: The Nazi 1933 Decrees Signed By Hitler
Compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees Below with S. McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
1933. ROBL. I 83.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice
Sue Riley
The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler's (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler's laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain's bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent.
Why should anyone be surprised President Obama insisted on indefinite detentions of U.S. Citizens in The Defense Authorization Act. It was widely known that Obama gave a speech in May 2010 at a Security Conference that proposed, incarcerating anyone in indefinite detention without evidence of wrongdoing that government deemed a “combatant” or likely to engage or support a violent act in the future; including U.S. Citizens.
Now that Obama has signed The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, Obama like Hitler, will have the power to arrest members of Congress, drag U.S. Citizens off the street and from their homes to be imprisoned indefinitely based only on Government’s premise someone is a “Combatant” or Belligerent” having or likely to engage in or support a violent act in the future or do something that (might) threaten National Security.
Now that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, could millions of lawful U.S. activists be subject to indefinite military detention. When you examine Obama’s May 2010 speech, it appears Obama wanted (retroactive power) to incarcerate anyone that government alleged had (prior) committed or supported violent acts on the premise he or she is likely to engage in or support violent acts in the future: some U.S. activists may be vulnerable because no activist knows what other activists or groups they associated or networked did in the past or might do illegally in the future domestically or overseas. U.S. Government need (only allege) a person; group, organization or former inmate—has committed or might commit a violent act or threaten U.S. National Security to order Indefinite Detention of Americans in military custody with no evidence whatsoever.
Historically when countries have passed police state laws like S.1847, many Citizens abstain from politically speaking out; visiting activists websites or writing comments that might be deemed inappropriate by the Government, i.e. cause someone to be investigated or detained in Military Custody. Are some writers dead-meat with Obama’s signing of S. 1867? It is foreseeable any “American” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against any entity of U.S. Government or its coalition partners may under the Patriot Act and The Defense Authorization Act of 2012 be deemed by U.S. authorities a “Combatant or Belligerent” or someone likely to engage in, support or provoke violent acts or threaten National Security. U.S. Government can too easily allege an author’s writings inspired Combatant(s) or Belligerent(s) in the past; could in the future or currently, to order an author’s indefinite military detention. It is problematic that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel that are interrogated, will be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Military Detention. Obama will have the power to override the U.S. Constitution. Obama will have the power to detain indefinitely any American without probable cause or evidence. What American will dare speak out against the U.S. government now that Obama had signed The Defense Authorization Act of 2012?
Obama appears to be centralizing the power of federal Government, by getting legislation passed that U.S. government can potentially use to intimidate and threaten any individual or corporation. Hitler got passed similar laws shortly before the burning of the German Parliament building blamed on the communists: immediately after the fire, Hitler used his prior passed police-state laws to coerce corporations and influential Citizens to support passage of fascist legislation e.g., the (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS / DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE AND STATE that suspended provisions of the German Constitution that protected Citizens’ freedoms and civil liberties. McCain’s (The Defense Authorization Act of 2012) appears more threatening to Americans than Hitler’ (1933 DISCRIMINATORY LAWS. Hitler’s laws set time limits that Germans could be incarcerated for e.g., Serious Disturbance of the Peace and Rioting. But McCain’s bill broadly mandates holding Americans indefinitely in Military Custody for being a Combatant or Belligerent. A U.S. Police State Government can use The Defense Authorization Act; and Patriot Act that includes more than 350 civil asset forfeiture laws to threaten or seize the assets of any corporation or individual; to strong-arm U.S. corporations, institutions and others to support government actions including passage of more Police State (Fascist) legislation that will intimidate, threaten and curtail the civil liberties of Americans.
Immediately Below: The Nazi 1933 Decrees Signed By Hitler
Compare The 1933 Nazi Decrees Below with S. McCain’s National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.
1933. ROBL. I 83.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
The US government is feeding xenoestrogens to the population that has the effect of decreasing the population
BPA: Death by Plastic - Special Report
Bisphenol A is a estrogenic in plastic drinking bottles and food containers. BPA is a known toxic substance outlawed in Canada and Europe, but still used in the United States, even though the FDA raised concerns regarding exposure of fetuses, infants and young children to the substance.
President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.
It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.
Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply
**************************************************************************************
Food may contain environmental estrogens
A discovery that two commonly used food additives are estrogenic has led scientists to suspect that other ingredients added to the food supply may be capable of altering hormones. The FDA, however, doesn't require testing.
By: Jessica A. Knoblauch
Environmental Health News
March 27, 2009
A discovery that two commonly used food additives are estrogenic has led scientists to suspect that many ingredients added to the food supply may be capable of altering hormones.
More than 3,000 preservatives, flavorings, colors and other ingredients are added to food in the United States, and none of them are required to undergo testing for estrogenic activity, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
“We need to be mindful of these food additives because they could be adding to the total effect of other estrogen mimicking compounds we're coming into contact with,” said Clair Hicks, a professor of food science at the University of Kentucky and spokesperson for the Institute of Food Technologists, a nonprofit scientific group.
“The benefits of using these additives in food need to be weighed against the risks they present,” Hicks said.
In a study published in December, Italian researchers screened 1,500 food additives using computer-modeling software, a much faster and cheaper approach than testing lab rats.
The researchers first used modeling to identify 13 molecules that could hypothetically bind with an estrogen receptor, a group of molecules activated by the hormone. Like a clenched fist that fits into the palm of a hand, potentially estrogenic molecules will “fit” inside the receptor, indicating they could interact and alter hormones.
Then, the researchers exposed cells to the 13 food additives, which confirmed that two have estrogen-mimicking properties. Known as “xenoestrogens,” these substances have been linked to reproductive problems in animals and perhaps humans.
The first food additive, propyl gallate, is a preservative used to prevent fats and oils from spoiling that can be found in a range of foods including baked goods, shortening, dried meats, candy, fresh pork sausage, mayonnaise and dried milk.
The second additive, 4-hexyl resorcinol, is used to prevent shrimp, lobsters, and other shellfish from discoloring.
“Some caution should be issued for the use of these two additives,” said Pietro Cozzini, one of the researchers who conducted the study and a chemistry professor at the University of Parma in Italy.
He added that further tests on rats are necessary to determine whether these additives could harm humans.
Paul Foster, whose research focuses on the potential human health effects of endocrine disruptors, agreed. He said there is a big difference between adding estrogenic molecules to cells in a culture dish and actually seeing what happens when that dose is administered to an animal.
“There are a lot of compounds that give quite strong responses in a culture dish that really don’t produce any adverse effects on lab rats,” said Foster, who is deputy director of the National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.
The major concern, Foster said, is what happens when people are exposed to mixtures of these estrogenic compounds.
“There are examples where you can take dose levels of compounds on their own that won’t produce an effect, but when you put these compounds together, you may get something different,” he said.
However, Foster said people should keep in mind that they already ingest significant numbers of fairly potent estrogens in their diets by consuming foods like tofu and milk, so findings like these shouldn’t necessarily scare people until more research has been conducted.
“It’s clear that humans are exposed to a mixture of these estrogenic compounds,” Foster said. “But you have to try to balance out what might already be present in your diet or your lifestyle with these things that might be coming from some other sources,” such as food additives.
Systems like the one used by the Italian researchers are useful for screening potentially estrogenic additives, Foster said, adding that it’s a “good first step” towards identifying compounds that should be subjected to further testing.
Of the estimated 3,000 additives used in the United States to preserve foods or improve their taste and appearance, only about 2,000 have detailed toxicological information available, according to the FDA.
"Our results are part of a bigger, more important problem, which is that there could be other additives used in foods that could have estrogenic activity," Cozzini said.
Globally, the market for additives is expected to reach more than $33 billion by 2012. There are five main reasons that companies add compounds to food: to emulsify, to preserve, to add nutritional content, to add flavor or color and to balance alkalinity and acids.
"With some 3,000 compounds being used in food formulations there may be other additives with estrogenic properties that come to light with these types of studies," Hicks said.
Using the traditional animal testing system, “it would be impossible to test all of the additives in a short time,” Cozzini said. “Every day we discover new molecules, and we must continue to identify new ways to study them.”
Propyl gallate is considered “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) by the FDA, a title given to food additives that don’t require approval because they have a proven track record based on either a history of use before 1958 or on published scientific evidence. Examples of other GRAS substances include salt, sugar, spices and vitamins.
The other estrogenic one, 4-hexyl resorcinol, which is used on raw shelled seafood to inhibit melanosis, or black spots, was petitioned in 1990 for GRAS status. Its status is still pending, according to Michael Herndon, an FDA press officer.
The FDA’s lack of testing for estrogenic compounds doesn’t stop at additives. In 2008, an independent advisory board said the FDA ignored critical evidence concerning another estrogenic compound, bisphenol A, a plasticizing chemical found in polycarbonate baby bottles and the linings of metal foods cans.
“What we’ve seen with the FDA’s handling of BPA is that it’s had its head in the sand,” said Renee Sharp, director of the Environmental Working Group’s California office. “If you look at its assessments, what you see is that it has consistently ignored independent science and consistently used outdated methods in its assessments.”
As concern about the cumulative impacts of these chemicals grows among the scientific community, some studies are suggesting that the effects of these compounds could extend to future generations.
For example, investigators at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have found that adverse effects can be seen in both the granddaughters and grandsons of mice who were developmentally exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic form of estrogen that caused reproductive problems in pregnant women and their fetuses. While DES was taken off the market in 1971, there are many other compounds that have similar, estrogenic effects.
“This study is the flagship of estrogen mimickers and why we worry about them,” said Shanna Swan, director of the University of Rochester's Center for Reproductive Epidemiology and a leading expert on reproductive effects of environmental exposures. “The fact that these chemicals can effect future generations has been a huge lesson for the science community.”
Other research has found that low doses of these chemicals can cause significant changes in those exposed to them and their developing offspring. One recent study published inEnvironmental Health Perspectives found that when rats are exposed to low levels of BPA during lactation, their offspring had an increased chance of breast cancer.
As the evidence that synthetic estrogens may pose a health risk mounts, researchers are uncovering these compounds in new places.
Earlier this month, researchers in Germany found traces of an unknown estrogenic substance leaching into mineral water stored in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, a commonly used plastic for storing foods and beverages.
The study is the first to find that these containers are leaching synthetic estrogens.
“We already knew that BPA was leaching from polycarbonate baby bottles, so we decided to test bottles of mineral water to see if there was any estrogenic activity,” said Martin Wagner, a PhD student in aquatic toxicology at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt.
The scientists tested 20 brands of mineral water and found that 60 percent of the samples tested positive, with estrogenic activity in plastic bottles appearing twice as high as compared to activity in water from glass bottles.
In addition, the researchers found that mud snails placed inside the bottles filled with fresh water experienced reproduction rates double of control snails, which suggests that substances from the packaging, and not the water itself, caused the reproductive change.
“The results show that these leached chemicals are important enough to change reproduction in only eight weeks,” Martin said.
Further testing is needed to identify the source of the estrogenic activity, but Wagner said the study’s significance is that it shows people are exposed to more environmental endocrine disruptors than what was previously thought.
“We’re dealing with this chemical mixture, a cocktail effect, and I would say that if you look at a single compound then you might underestimate the exposure to these environmental estrogens,” he said.
Ralph Vasami, executive director of a plastics industry group, the PET Resin Association, said ongoing research on the safety of PET for the past three decades has revealed no safety issues or reasons for concern.
"PET has been proven through considerable research to be a safe packaging material for water and other food and beverage items,” he said. “The PET industry stands on its record of safety and reliability as a packaging material.”
Swan said that the studies reinforce the need for precautionary action when dealing with these types of chemicals, such as avoiding plastic products whenever possible to decrease exposure.
“If you’re taking several hits of something, even if it’s safe at a low dose, it’s going to add up,” Swan said.
Food may contain environmental estrogens
(The US government is feeding xenoestrogens to the population that has the effect of decreasing the population.) Story Reports
Bisphenol A is a estrogenic in plastic drinking bottles and food containers. BPA is a known toxic substance outlawed in Canada and Europe, but still used in the United States, even though the FDA raised concerns regarding exposure of fetuses, infants and young children to the substance.
President Obama’s top science and technology advisor John P. Holdren co-authored a 1977 book in which he advocated the formation of a “planetary regime” that would use a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply, as well as mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children.
The concepts outlined in Holdren’s 1977 book Ecoscience, which he co-authored with close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich, were so shocking that a February 2009 Front Page Magazine story on the subject was largely dismissed as being outlandish because people couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it could be true.
It was only when another Internet blog obtained the book and posted screenshots that the awful truth about what Holdren had actually committed to paper actually began to sink in.
Forcibly and unknowingly sterilizing the entire population by adding infertility drugs to the nation’s water and food supply
**************************************************************************************
Food may contain environmental estrogens
A discovery that two commonly used food additives are estrogenic has led scientists to suspect that other ingredients added to the food supply may be capable of altering hormones. The FDA, however, doesn't require testing.
By: Jessica A. Knoblauch
Environmental Health News
March 27, 2009
A discovery that two commonly used food additives are estrogenic has led scientists to suspect that many ingredients added to the food supply may be capable of altering hormones.
More than 3,000 preservatives, flavorings, colors and other ingredients are added to food in the United States, and none of them are required to undergo testing for estrogenic activity, according to the Food and Drug Administration.
“We need to be mindful of these food additives because they could be adding to the total effect of other estrogen mimicking compounds we're coming into contact with,” said Clair Hicks, a professor of food science at the University of Kentucky and spokesperson for the Institute of Food Technologists, a nonprofit scientific group.
“The benefits of using these additives in food need to be weighed against the risks they present,” Hicks said.
In a study published in December, Italian researchers screened 1,500 food additives using computer-modeling software, a much faster and cheaper approach than testing lab rats.
The researchers first used modeling to identify 13 molecules that could hypothetically bind with an estrogen receptor, a group of molecules activated by the hormone. Like a clenched fist that fits into the palm of a hand, potentially estrogenic molecules will “fit” inside the receptor, indicating they could interact and alter hormones.
Then, the researchers exposed cells to the 13 food additives, which confirmed that two have estrogen-mimicking properties. Known as “xenoestrogens,” these substances have been linked to reproductive problems in animals and perhaps humans.
The first food additive, propyl gallate, is a preservative used to prevent fats and oils from spoiling that can be found in a range of foods including baked goods, shortening, dried meats, candy, fresh pork sausage, mayonnaise and dried milk.
The second additive, 4-hexyl resorcinol, is used to prevent shrimp, lobsters, and other shellfish from discoloring.
“Some caution should be issued for the use of these two additives,” said Pietro Cozzini, one of the researchers who conducted the study and a chemistry professor at the University of Parma in Italy.
He added that further tests on rats are necessary to determine whether these additives could harm humans.
Paul Foster, whose research focuses on the potential human health effects of endocrine disruptors, agreed. He said there is a big difference between adding estrogenic molecules to cells in a culture dish and actually seeing what happens when that dose is administered to an animal.
“There are a lot of compounds that give quite strong responses in a culture dish that really don’t produce any adverse effects on lab rats,” said Foster, who is deputy director of the National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, which is part of the National Institutes of Health.
The major concern, Foster said, is what happens when people are exposed to mixtures of these estrogenic compounds.
“There are examples where you can take dose levels of compounds on their own that won’t produce an effect, but when you put these compounds together, you may get something different,” he said.
However, Foster said people should keep in mind that they already ingest significant numbers of fairly potent estrogens in their diets by consuming foods like tofu and milk, so findings like these shouldn’t necessarily scare people until more research has been conducted.
“It’s clear that humans are exposed to a mixture of these estrogenic compounds,” Foster said. “But you have to try to balance out what might already be present in your diet or your lifestyle with these things that might be coming from some other sources,” such as food additives.
Systems like the one used by the Italian researchers are useful for screening potentially estrogenic additives, Foster said, adding that it’s a “good first step” towards identifying compounds that should be subjected to further testing.
Of the estimated 3,000 additives used in the United States to preserve foods or improve their taste and appearance, only about 2,000 have detailed toxicological information available, according to the FDA.
"Our results are part of a bigger, more important problem, which is that there could be other additives used in foods that could have estrogenic activity," Cozzini said.
Globally, the market for additives is expected to reach more than $33 billion by 2012. There are five main reasons that companies add compounds to food: to emulsify, to preserve, to add nutritional content, to add flavor or color and to balance alkalinity and acids.
"With some 3,000 compounds being used in food formulations there may be other additives with estrogenic properties that come to light with these types of studies," Hicks said.
Using the traditional animal testing system, “it would be impossible to test all of the additives in a short time,” Cozzini said. “Every day we discover new molecules, and we must continue to identify new ways to study them.”
Propyl gallate is considered “Generally Recognized As Safe” (GRAS) by the FDA, a title given to food additives that don’t require approval because they have a proven track record based on either a history of use before 1958 or on published scientific evidence. Examples of other GRAS substances include salt, sugar, spices and vitamins.
The other estrogenic one, 4-hexyl resorcinol, which is used on raw shelled seafood to inhibit melanosis, or black spots, was petitioned in 1990 for GRAS status. Its status is still pending, according to Michael Herndon, an FDA press officer.
The FDA’s lack of testing for estrogenic compounds doesn’t stop at additives. In 2008, an independent advisory board said the FDA ignored critical evidence concerning another estrogenic compound, bisphenol A, a plasticizing chemical found in polycarbonate baby bottles and the linings of metal foods cans.
“What we’ve seen with the FDA’s handling of BPA is that it’s had its head in the sand,” said Renee Sharp, director of the Environmental Working Group’s California office. “If you look at its assessments, what you see is that it has consistently ignored independent science and consistently used outdated methods in its assessments.”
As concern about the cumulative impacts of these chemicals grows among the scientific community, some studies are suggesting that the effects of these compounds could extend to future generations.
For example, investigators at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences have found that adverse effects can be seen in both the granddaughters and grandsons of mice who were developmentally exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES), a synthetic form of estrogen that caused reproductive problems in pregnant women and their fetuses. While DES was taken off the market in 1971, there are many other compounds that have similar, estrogenic effects.
“This study is the flagship of estrogen mimickers and why we worry about them,” said Shanna Swan, director of the University of Rochester's Center for Reproductive Epidemiology and a leading expert on reproductive effects of environmental exposures. “The fact that these chemicals can effect future generations has been a huge lesson for the science community.”
Other research has found that low doses of these chemicals can cause significant changes in those exposed to them and their developing offspring. One recent study published inEnvironmental Health Perspectives found that when rats are exposed to low levels of BPA during lactation, their offspring had an increased chance of breast cancer.
As the evidence that synthetic estrogens may pose a health risk mounts, researchers are uncovering these compounds in new places.
Earlier this month, researchers in Germany found traces of an unknown estrogenic substance leaching into mineral water stored in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, a commonly used plastic for storing foods and beverages.
The study is the first to find that these containers are leaching synthetic estrogens.
“We already knew that BPA was leaching from polycarbonate baby bottles, so we decided to test bottles of mineral water to see if there was any estrogenic activity,” said Martin Wagner, a PhD student in aquatic toxicology at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt.
The scientists tested 20 brands of mineral water and found that 60 percent of the samples tested positive, with estrogenic activity in plastic bottles appearing twice as high as compared to activity in water from glass bottles.
In addition, the researchers found that mud snails placed inside the bottles filled with fresh water experienced reproduction rates double of control snails, which suggests that substances from the packaging, and not the water itself, caused the reproductive change.
“The results show that these leached chemicals are important enough to change reproduction in only eight weeks,” Martin said.
Further testing is needed to identify the source of the estrogenic activity, but Wagner said the study’s significance is that it shows people are exposed to more environmental endocrine disruptors than what was previously thought.
“We’re dealing with this chemical mixture, a cocktail effect, and I would say that if you look at a single compound then you might underestimate the exposure to these environmental estrogens,” he said.
Ralph Vasami, executive director of a plastics industry group, the PET Resin Association, said ongoing research on the safety of PET for the past three decades has revealed no safety issues or reasons for concern.
"PET has been proven through considerable research to be a safe packaging material for water and other food and beverage items,” he said. “The PET industry stands on its record of safety and reliability as a packaging material.”
Swan said that the studies reinforce the need for precautionary action when dealing with these types of chemicals, such as avoiding plastic products whenever possible to decrease exposure.
“If you’re taking several hits of something, even if it’s safe at a low dose, it’s going to add up,” Swan said.
Food may contain environmental estrogens
(The US government is feeding xenoestrogens to the population that has the effect of decreasing the population.) Story Reports
Friday, December 23, 2011
It's Time to Nail Our Colors to the Mast
Dr Tony Beam
Dr. Tony Beam
Director of Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University.
It's Time to Nail Our Colors to the Mast
They say confession is good for the soul so at the risk of sounding whiny I want to confess that I am physically and mentally exhausted. In fact, last week the thought crossed my mind to toss in the towel with my writing and my radio show and simply concentrate on my responsibilities at North Greenville University.
My weariness is not from my schedule, although doing the radio show requires my getting up at the crack of dawn and my responsibilities at North Greenville often see me working well into the evening. No, the source of my weariness is the pressure I feel from all sides to compromise or at least moderate my stand in both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Man.
It seems everywhere I turn I read the opinions and hear the voices of well-respected, well-educated evangelicals who say we must change our message because the world doesn’t like us much. I hear we need to back off our defense of marriage and our insistence on protecting the sanctity of life because the world has moved on to a different agenda. Unbelievers think Christians are narrow-minded, mean, and too political. What we need, the voices say, is a complete image makeover so we can convince the world that in the battle of good and evil we are the good guys. We need to raise the white flag in the culture war since we lost long ago and focus on how we can connect with people who are concerned about global warming and the politics of change.
Clemson University Professor Dr. Dave Woodard, writing in the new book Why We Whisper he co-authored with U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, (R-SC) said,
“In the late twentieth century, the authority of political power became wedded to the secular-progressive worldview, a philosophy that replaced absolute truths with grand abstract narratives and unfounded pronouncements. This new worldview asserts that since there is no public truth, the only thing that matters is private truth. As Americans lost their right to disagree with secular- progressive beliefs, they were forced to bear the costs, often extreme, of the new standards of behavior. These resulting costs of our deteriorating culture are now borne by Americans who cannot complain without being berated and being labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, and ignorant.”
Woodard speaks of the privatization of truth that demands people who have a well developed Christian worldview and a strong set of traditional values never raise their voice above a whisper in the public arena. It is ok for us to speak openly, within the safe confines of our houses of worship but we must moderate our message in the public sphere so we can avoid the growing list of negative labels that are attached to us by the media when we dare to raise our voices in the marketplace of ideas.
Apparently, it isn’t just evangelicals who are buying into this need to change. Right now, because of three consecutive key losses in three state congressional races that should have been automatic wins for the party, the national Republican leadership is calling for a “re-branding” of the Republican image. It is unpopular to talk about abortion, the defense of traditional marriage, the myth of global warming, and the importance of a strong national defense in the face of the threat of international terrorism. So we are told what is needed is for conservatives to moderate their message and enlarge their tent so more people will like us.
Rather than sticking to what we believe is true and passionately arguing for the traditional values that have made America great, we need to move to the middle and join those who would take us down a completely different path. A path to a new, more progressive America where the real issues are the crisis of climate change, the lack of universal health care, and the need to help our enemies understand us better.
I was almost ready to join the march to the middle for no other reason except I was growing weary of seeming to be out of step with the masses. But then I received a timely reminder from an unlikely source of what is really needed in our world today. Every morning as I prepare for the airing of Christian Worldview Today I read something called the radio “prep sheet.” It is a list of celebrity birthdays, cultural trivia, historical events for the day, and so on that can be used as filler in the course of the show. One of the filler items was a trivia question asking where the term “nail your colors to the mast” originated. It is a naval term used in battle. Every navel vessel flies the flag (the colors) of their county in battle. When the captain of the ship realizes the battle is lost he gives the order to “strike the colors” to indicate surrender.
Nailing the colors to the mast means no surrender. It means the captain and crew are ready to fight until the ship goes down.
Reading this, I immediately thought of the words of Jesus in Luke 9:62, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” I decided to nail my colors to the mast, stay in the battle, and keep my trust in the Master of the sea.
***************************************************************************************
(This is exactly what christian patriots must do. If we as Americans are to save our republic from a complete communist/socialist/marxist police state we must do what the crew and captain of a ship does when they will not surrender to the enemy. We must not surrender to government tyranny.
The enemy of the people's freedom has become our own government.) Story Reports
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
George Washington
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
George Washington
The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.
George Washington
The enemy of the people's freedom has become our own government. Martial law is in effect as soon as obama signs the ndaa of 2012
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 in section 1031 authorizes the US military to "kidnap" or kill "a person" or ANY US CITIZEN WITHOUT THE INDIVIDUALS OR INDIVIDUAL BEING ALLOWED TO QUESTION OR DEFEND ANYTHING. NO CHARGES, NO TRIAL NO OPPURTUNITY TO CONFRONT THE ACCUSERS.
Section 1031 is worded to explain this is needed in a time of war to detain terrorists in America. This section gives several examples of terrorists.
All these examples can be ignored because the US military CAN "kidnap", not arrest A PERSON or ANY PERSON WITH OUT ANY CHARGES OR TRAIL, and keep them in detention forever.
The communist obama regime specifically requested that this ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIAL mandate be put into the bill.
It allows the federal government and military to indefinitely imprison American citizens without charge or trial, inside or outside of the United States.
Sections 1031 and 1032
This violates the 5th, 6th, 7th Amendment, and the Posse Comitatus Act.
5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
6th Amendment: The right to a speedy and public trial
7th Amendment: The right of trial by jury)
Dr. Tony Beam
Director of Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University.
It's Time to Nail Our Colors to the Mast
They say confession is good for the soul so at the risk of sounding whiny I want to confess that I am physically and mentally exhausted. In fact, last week the thought crossed my mind to toss in the towel with my writing and my radio show and simply concentrate on my responsibilities at North Greenville University.
My weariness is not from my schedule, although doing the radio show requires my getting up at the crack of dawn and my responsibilities at North Greenville often see me working well into the evening. No, the source of my weariness is the pressure I feel from all sides to compromise or at least moderate my stand in both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Man.
It seems everywhere I turn I read the opinions and hear the voices of well-respected, well-educated evangelicals who say we must change our message because the world doesn’t like us much. I hear we need to back off our defense of marriage and our insistence on protecting the sanctity of life because the world has moved on to a different agenda. Unbelievers think Christians are narrow-minded, mean, and too political. What we need, the voices say, is a complete image makeover so we can convince the world that in the battle of good and evil we are the good guys. We need to raise the white flag in the culture war since we lost long ago and focus on how we can connect with people who are concerned about global warming and the politics of change.
Clemson University Professor Dr. Dave Woodard, writing in the new book Why We Whisper he co-authored with U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, (R-SC) said,
“In the late twentieth century, the authority of political power became wedded to the secular-progressive worldview, a philosophy that replaced absolute truths with grand abstract narratives and unfounded pronouncements. This new worldview asserts that since there is no public truth, the only thing that matters is private truth. As Americans lost their right to disagree with secular- progressive beliefs, they were forced to bear the costs, often extreme, of the new standards of behavior. These resulting costs of our deteriorating culture are now borne by Americans who cannot complain without being berated and being labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, intolerant, and ignorant.”
Woodard speaks of the privatization of truth that demands people who have a well developed Christian worldview and a strong set of traditional values never raise their voice above a whisper in the public arena. It is ok for us to speak openly, within the safe confines of our houses of worship but we must moderate our message in the public sphere so we can avoid the growing list of negative labels that are attached to us by the media when we dare to raise our voices in the marketplace of ideas.
Apparently, it isn’t just evangelicals who are buying into this need to change. Right now, because of three consecutive key losses in three state congressional races that should have been automatic wins for the party, the national Republican leadership is calling for a “re-branding” of the Republican image. It is unpopular to talk about abortion, the defense of traditional marriage, the myth of global warming, and the importance of a strong national defense in the face of the threat of international terrorism. So we are told what is needed is for conservatives to moderate their message and enlarge their tent so more people will like us.
Rather than sticking to what we believe is true and passionately arguing for the traditional values that have made America great, we need to move to the middle and join those who would take us down a completely different path. A path to a new, more progressive America where the real issues are the crisis of climate change, the lack of universal health care, and the need to help our enemies understand us better.
I was almost ready to join the march to the middle for no other reason except I was growing weary of seeming to be out of step with the masses. But then I received a timely reminder from an unlikely source of what is really needed in our world today. Every morning as I prepare for the airing of Christian Worldview Today I read something called the radio “prep sheet.” It is a list of celebrity birthdays, cultural trivia, historical events for the day, and so on that can be used as filler in the course of the show. One of the filler items was a trivia question asking where the term “nail your colors to the mast” originated. It is a naval term used in battle. Every navel vessel flies the flag (the colors) of their county in battle. When the captain of the ship realizes the battle is lost he gives the order to “strike the colors” to indicate surrender.
Nailing the colors to the mast means no surrender. It means the captain and crew are ready to fight until the ship goes down.
Reading this, I immediately thought of the words of Jesus in Luke 9:62, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” I decided to nail my colors to the mast, stay in the battle, and keep my trust in the Master of the sea.
***************************************************************************************
(This is exactly what christian patriots must do. If we as Americans are to save our republic from a complete communist/socialist/marxist police state we must do what the crew and captain of a ship does when they will not surrender to the enemy. We must not surrender to government tyranny.
The enemy of the people's freedom has become our own government.) Story Reports
Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness.
George Washington
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.
George Washington
Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.
George Washington
The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.
George Washington
The enemy of the people's freedom has become our own government. Martial law is in effect as soon as obama signs the ndaa of 2012
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 in section 1031 authorizes the US military to "kidnap" or kill "a person" or ANY US CITIZEN WITHOUT THE INDIVIDUALS OR INDIVIDUAL BEING ALLOWED TO QUESTION OR DEFEND ANYTHING. NO CHARGES, NO TRIAL NO OPPURTUNITY TO CONFRONT THE ACCUSERS.
Section 1031 is worded to explain this is needed in a time of war to detain terrorists in America. This section gives several examples of terrorists.
All these examples can be ignored because the US military CAN "kidnap", not arrest A PERSON or ANY PERSON WITH OUT ANY CHARGES OR TRAIL, and keep them in detention forever.
The communist obama regime specifically requested that this ILLEGAL UNCONSTITUTIAL mandate be put into the bill.
It allows the federal government and military to indefinitely imprison American citizens without charge or trial, inside or outside of the United States.
Sections 1031 and 1032
This violates the 5th, 6th, 7th Amendment, and the Posse Comitatus Act.
5th Amendment: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"
6th Amendment: The right to a speedy and public trial
7th Amendment: The right of trial by jury)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)