- ONE GLOBAL ONE -
- AMERI-ADVOCATE -
- Amsterdam - New York - Santa
Cruz - New Zealand - Montreal -
News, Views and Actions
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - GLOBAL
FOOD SUPPLIES
Visit us at http://members.tripod.com/~ellis_smith/ameri-advocate.html
* ICQ# 22499125
* AOL-IM - SMITHORG *
Front Page
or Contents
~~~~~~
Monsanto | Contrails
Environmental News
& Issues (Decemberber
1999)
Environmental News
& Issues (November 1999)
Environmental News &
Issues (October 1999)
Envrionmental News & Issues Historicals (previous dates from Sept. 1999)
OCTOBER 1999
US
cattle fed manure and wood shavings
31 Oct 1999
GUARDIAN (London) Science Editor
What's wrong with our food?
- special report Tim Radford,
Beef producers in the US still use poultry litter as stock feed.
The mix of chicken manure and wood shavings is, says the North
Carolina extension service, "an economical and safe source of protein,
minerals and energy for beef cattle". American farmers still also use
bone and feather meals to beef up output.
But in both Britain and France - and everywhere in the EU - such
experiments officially came to an end long ago, and European cows and
sheep are back on vegetarian diets. They are supplied with high
protein, high energy cakes and crunch bars made from apple pomace,
bakery products and barley, full fat soya, grape pulp and grass meal,
maize gluten, malt residuals, mango and manioc, sunflower, sweet
lupins and sweet potato, stuck together with minerals, molasses and
vegetable oils of any description.
Farmers need cheap food, so manufacturers use what waste products are
sold locally, and everywhere in Europe, the precise recipe for the
cattle equivalent of the crunchy cereal bar is slightly different.
Alexander During of Fefac, the European consortium of agricultural
feed suppliers in Brussels, said one thing was clear. "We have a ban
on animal protein throughout the EU. There is a total ban on mammalian
meat and bone meal for the whole of the EU. The one difference between
the EU and the UK and the rest of Europe is that, because of
commercial pressures, the UK people do not use tallow as an animal
ingredient and have to replace it with fat of vegetable origin."
Mike Evans, of the UK Agricultural Supply Trade Association, agreed
that French cattle diets are very like British ones. "They will use
many of the ingredients we use in the UK, which is why we are a little
shocked at the revelation that, allegedly, human and animal excrement
had been used," he said. "They most certainly use fat from rendering
plants to provide energy in the diets. We don't since BSE. We use
vegetable oil, they use both."
Animal fats are a valuable source of high energy: if pure, they do not
contain the rogue proteins that have been fingered as the culprit
behind BSE or the new form of CJD which has so far taken 43 lives. So
tallows recovered from rendering plants go into French cattle feed.
Most European nations will also allow fishmeal as a protein source,
and even poultry meal, but the French have banned everything except
hydrolised fish meal: fish protein converted to a kind of Marmite. In
Britain and other parts of Europe in the 1960s and 70s, there were
experiments with poultry litter, town sewage sludge and farmyard
slurry as sources of cattle feed. If fermented, experts argued, these
could provide safe supplements rich in nitrogen. But the experiments
"In this era, in this climate, it turns us off to even think about it, but back
in the 60s and 70s, things were different, and it was all about cheap food
policy and utilising materials and nutrient value. I am referring to poultry
litter now," Mr Evans said.
Mr During agreed. Neither human nor animal excrement
was an acceptable source of food for livestock. But he conceded that
it might still be possible in businesses where feed was mixed on the
farm. Wheat straw is a high fibre diet of low food value: if treated
with ammonia, however, the fibres break down to produce protein
and carbohydrates.
***********
Hearings on Missles Sites
N.DAKOTA
DoD News Briefing - Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA
October 26, 1999
DoD News Briefing - Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA
= N E W S B R I E
F I N G
=
= OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
= (PUBLIC AFFAIRS)
= WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301
====================================================
DoD News Briefing
Kenneth H. Bacon, ASD PA
Tuesday, October 26, 1999 - 1:39 p.m. EDT
Mr. Bacon: Good afternoon.
Welcome. Let me start with a couple
of announcements.
This week the joint program office
for national missile defense is
sending a team to North Dakota to start public hearings that will lead to an
environmental impact statement on the possible construction of a national
missile defense site in North Dakota. Next week a similar team will go to
Alaska to start hearings there. As you know, both these sites have to be
reviewed in the course of assembling the information that the president
needs to make a decision about whether or not to proceed with the
construction of a national missile defense program. And no final decision
will be made until these environmental impact statements are completed as
well as a whole series of other tests and studies that are ongoing.
Second, the Army will announce later today that it's dispatching a group
to the Republic of Korea to meet with their counterparts in the Nokuen-Ri
investigation. The Army team will be led by the Army Inspector General,
Lieutenant General Michael Ackerman. And they'll leave tomorrow, go to
Korea for a one-day meeting on Friday, and then come back. And this will be
the beginning of the information sharing that Secretary Cohen has promised
in a letter to President Kim Dae Jung in South Korea.
Finally, I assume some of you
watched the hearings today, the
chairman and the chiefs before the Senate Armed Services Committee. During
the hearings Chairman Shelton was asked about the impact of a 1.4 percent
across the board cut on the Defense budget. This is being discussed by some
members of Congress. He said the impact would be devastating, that it would
roll back some of the good work that has been done by the $112 billion
six-year defense increase that President Clinton sent to Congress earlier this year.
Let me just give you a couple of
details about the impact this
would have. These are preliminary calculations on our part. But starting
from the definition of an across-the-board cut, that it would be a haircut,
basically, of all accounts: personnel, R&D, procurement, operations and
maintenance. Because the cut really couldn't be implemented on the
personnel side until about six months, you essentially would have to effect
a 2.8 percent increase. That is, instead of 1.4 percent for 12 months, it
would be 2.8 percent for six months. Since we can't and don't want to cut
pay -- after all, we've just gotten a pay increase, and there's no
indication that pay will be cut -- we would have to cut numbers. And a 2.8
percent cut for the final six months of the year would amount to a cut of
between 39,000 and 70,000 people from the total force; that is, from the
active duty force, which is now between 1.3 and 1.4 million.
Now, the disparity between 39,000
and 70,000 is explained by
whether they were high-ranking or lower-ranking people. If they're
higher-ranking people, obviously you save more money by getting rid of
higher-ranking people who have been in the service longer, but it's probably
unlikely that the services would take people out who had been in 18 - 22
years. It's much more likely that they would either take out lower-ranking
people or slow recruiting by not acquiring new people into the force, which,
of course, would run counter to exactly what all the services but the Marine
Corps now are trying to do, and that is to fill recruiting shortfalls.
Second, in terms of operations and
maintenance, it would take out
approximately $1.4 billion to $1.5 billion from the O&M accounts, and that
would hurt the very increases in readiness that we're trying to achieve with
the defense budget increases. As you know, they're designed mainly to go to
personnel accounts -- that is, pay and the benefits, the pension plans, et
cetera -- to operations and maintenance, to support higher readiness, and to
procurement, to get the procurement numbers up into the -- to $60 billion a
year, eventually.
And then, finally, in procurement,
as General Shelton said, of
course, it would be a haircut of 1.4 percent. There are certain contracts,
you know, that we've signed on a multi-year basis or other contracts that
are designed to lock in both us and the contractor, frequently at some
savings. And we wouldn't want to disrupt those contracts, though probably
it would have a disproportionate impact on other contracts that weren't
so-called special or long-term contracts. So it would slow down
modernization in -- probably in disproportionate ways, hitting some programs
more than it would hit other programs.
That's a quick thumbnail
explanation of what General Shelton meant
by "devastating" when he described the impact.
Yes?
Q: Ken, you said that they're
conducting an environmental impact
study on a North Dakota -- possible North Dakota site for national missile
defense. For months people have been saying that Alaska is the optimum site
in terms of coverage for protection of the United States and given possible
threats. Does the fact that we're doing a study on North Dakota indicate
that North Dakota indeed might be chosen if the Russians will not back down
on revising the ABM?
Mr. Bacon: No, and I think
that it's an open question at this
stage. There are advantages and disadvantages to each site. The biggest
advantage to Alaska is that it does provide 50-state coverage. That is a
huge advantage, obviously. When you're building a national missile defense
system, you need to protect the entire nation.
However, moving -- building a site
in Alaska would require -- is
one of the things that would require an adjustment to the ABM Treaty. If we
were to build in North Dakota, where we had a site some years ago, in that
respect, it would not require an adjustment to the treaty.
So these will have to be weighed by
the president and by Secretary
Cohen in reaching the decision. I would say that Alaska has a powerful
advantage, but until we complete the process of doing the environmental
impact statements, studying the geometry of the system, of continuing our
discussions with the Russians over changes to the ABM Treaty, I think it's
impossible to say exactly which site it will be.
Q: What's the Pentagon
reaction to comments by -- I believe it's
the deputy defense minister for Russia, threatening to increase deployment
of missiles to counter any system that we might put up?
Mr. Bacon: Well, I think it
completely misses the point of what
our system is. Our system is not designed and could not in fact counter any
attack by the Russians. We assume the Russians will not attack us. They
should assume we won't attack them.
This is a system that's designed
against a totally different
threat. It could easily be saturated by an arsenal the size of the Soviet
arsenal -- the former Soviet arsenal, the Russian arsenal. It is designed
against a very limited attack from a so-called rogue nation such as an Iraq
or a North Korea that has a small number of missiles -- maybe one, or
five -- with a small number of warheads. So that's what we're building it
against. We've been very clear in describing that to the Russians.
We believe the Russians face a
similar threat. After all, they
are closer to North Korea than we are. They are closer to Iraq than we are.
They are closer to Iran than we are. So they face, in theory, exactly the
same type of threat we do. And we have proposed a number of ways to
cooperate with them in helping them meet that threat, so we can do it
jointly. But I think that anybody in Russia who thinks about this system
would realize that it's not designed to counter the Russians in any way.
Yes.
Q: Ken, about the Lear jet
incident of yesterday, when will you
be releasing a videotape or any material from the F-16 that was tracking the plane?
Mr. Bacon: The answer is we
will not. We have turned over audio
tapes and videotapes. There's -- only one F-16 took a videotape. We have
turned that all over to the National Transportation Safety Board. We called
them today -- I believe Captain Taylor called them -- asked them if we could
get permission to release them, and they said please don't because they
haven't had a chance to review it yet, and they would like to study this as
part of their overall investigation. If it's to be released, they'll make
the decision to release it. But we have given it to them at this stage.
Q: What do the tapes show?
Mr. Bacon: I haven't seen the
tapes.
Q: You haven't been told in
general terms what they --
Mr. Bacon: I have not.
I have not.
Q: -- they show the plane
flying. Can you see that the cockpit
is frosted or anything like that?
Mr. Bacon: I haven't been
told what the tapes say -- show. But I
believe that the observation of frosted windows came later. The videotape
that was taken came from an F-16 launched from Eglin Air Force Base. That
was relatively early in the day. And it was a plane, I believe from Tulsa
or Fargo that an hour or so later noticed the frosted windows in the plane.
Q: Can I just revisit the
question again about whether or not
there was ever at any point any consideration of shooting the plane down in
order to prevent it from hitting a populated area before -- perhaps you'd
calculated where it was going to?
Mr. Bacon: Right. You
may revisit that, and I'll give you the
same answer I gave yesterday. The answer is no.
But I think, in a situation like
this, you have to consider all
the possibilities. And at one point, Admiral Fry -- and this was late; this
was probably about 12:30 our time, and the plane crashed shortly after
1:00 -- Admiral Fry or someone working with him, said, "You know, if this
thing suddenly veers off course and heads to Chicago, we'll have some really
tough decisions to make." It was that type of thinking. It was not
saying,
"Okay, let's get ready." It never got to that point.
The plane had been flying on the
course of 320 degrees, or in the
very narrow range between 318 and 322, for several hours. I had a long talk
this morning with the officer who actually ran the show at NORAD, and that
was Vice Admiral Browne, who is the deputy commander in chief for the Space
Command. General Myers was here in an Air Force budget meeting, so he
turned this over to his so-called DCINC.
And as Admiral Browne described it, obviously in the initial -- first of
all, it's not unusual -- and I can't tell you how often it happens, but it
does happen from time to time -- that the FAA may call the military and say:
"We have lost radio contact with a plane. Can you go up and take a look?"
And sometimes the radio contact just comes back. Maybe it's a gap, or there
is a problem with the radio that's fixed.
So initially, when they lose radio
contact, they try to ping the
plane and see if they can raise somebody on the radio. If they can't, they
might send some planes up to take a look, and that's what they did in this case.
Then they see how it's flying; if
there seems to be some problem,
if it's flying erratically, if they can raise anybody in the plane. They
weren't able to. You know, you fly up and wave to the guy and see if you
can catch his attention. Obviously, they couldn't catch anybody's attention
in this plane.
So for the first couple of hours,
it was a period of checking,
finding out exactly what was going on; checking the manifest. It was during
this time, for instance, that they learned that the plane actually had taken
off, I think in Sanford, Florida; flown to Orlando, landed, picked up
another passenger, not taken on any more fuel, and set off again. So they
had to calculate how much fuel, if it left its initial airport with a full
load, how much did it expend going to Orlando and taking off a second time,
and how long would it be able to fly at a pre-set course at various
altitudes. Since its altitude was oscillating, that had to be factored in as well.
So they were in the course of
making all these calculations.
Meanwhile, the plane was flying steadily along a course and they were
monitoring it. As they reached the point where they figured the plane was
running out of fuel in the next half an hour to an hour, obviously the
question of what do we do if it veers off course became more urgent than it
was early on in the operation. One of the things Admiral Browne did was
check the Joint Staff regulations that deal with destruction of derelict
airborne objects to find out what was required. But the conversations about
action to take never really went beyond the sort of "what if" that I gave
you. You know, what if it suddenly veers of course; then we'll have really
tough decisions to make.
Q: Well, one --
Mr. Bacon: Those decisions
were not made.
Q: One of the questions my
editors keep asking me is, What if it
had veered off course? What factors would come into play in terms of how
will the decision be made whether or not to take some sort of action? Can
only the president make that decision? And then how would they decide?
Would it be a --
Mr. Bacon: I don't think it's
-- I think that every situation is
different. Fortunately, we didn't have to face those decisions this time
around. The regulations make it very clear the secretary of Defense has to
be involved and that this has to be reported to the National Military
Command Authority. The top person in the National Military Command
Authority is the commander in chief. So you can figure it out.
But I think that every situation is
different. It depends a lot
on how much time is involved. Obviously, it would depend -- you have to --
I don't think there's any right answer to this because you're always
weighing a series of factors. How big is the place it's headed towards?
You can't tell with complete specificity where a plane's going to land. If
it's headed toward a major metropolitan area, you can say it's probably
going to land somewhere in that major metropolitan area. If it's headed
toward a much smaller area, you might not be able to say with any
specificity whether it's going to land near a population center in that
small town or not. So all of these things would have to come into play and
the decisions would have to be made quite quickly.
Q: Are there any ways,
feasible ways to divert a plane, say, away
from a populated area, short of shooting down a plane? Are there any ways
to alter the course of a plane?
Mr. Bacon: I think you could
alter the course by nudging its
wings, by creating drafts on its wings or pressure in some way, even perhaps
with physical or kinetic contact. I'm not a pilot, though. And maybe
somebody here is. But it would be risky to our pilots to do something like that.
Once again, you have to weigh the
risks and you have to weigh your
options. And we would take almost any reasonable action before reaching the
point of having to make a decision about destroying an American plane over
American airspace with civilians on board.
Q: People who watch, I don't
know, popular movie culture have
perhaps an overly optimistic idea of what it is the military can accomplish
in terms of some sort of air to air rescue or something like that?
Mr. Bacon: Well, I don't
think many people would believe that to
be possible. I think what people should take away from this is that the FAA
as the supervising agency, working with military support, performed
competently, calmly, quickly and brilliantly in the face of a very
potentially risky and unknown, scary situation. And I think from the very
beginning when they discovered that they couldn't make radio contact with
this plane, what you saw was a very rational and competent approach to
dealing with the problem. And part of a rational, competent approach is not
overreacting. And I don't think there was overreaction here. I think that
they were able to calculate where the plane was going. They made reasonable
judgments, and those judgments turned out to be correct.
Q: And just one point of
clarification. The commander, the
military commander, the four-star whose jurisdiction this fell under was
General Myers.
Mr. Bacon: Yeah.
Q: And that's at the U.S. --
Mr. Bacon: He's the commander
in chief of the Space Command.
Q: U.S. Space -- so this --
Mr. Bacon: Right.
Q: Because that would --
because NORAD falls --
Mr. Bacon: But remember, this
is not primarily a military
operation. This was the FAA. It's civilian airspace, and it was a civil
plane. And the --
Q: Can you just clarify who
-- where the chain went?
Mr. Bacon: -- the military
operates in support of the FAA in this
situation as it does in dealing with other domestic disasters such as
floods, for instance. And so the North American Air Defense Command
followed this plane very closely. They were able out there at Cheyenne
Mountain to watch the progress of the plane through their radar screens and
to watch all the fighters following the plane. As you know, they followed
it in waves. We were actually watching it here as well in the Military
Command Center, the National Military Command Center. So it was being
closely followed in Colorado at NORAD and here in the Joint Staff.
Q: Through the radar -- by
radar, you mean?
Mr. Bacon: By radar, yeah.
Q: Yeah. I have a
question on the -- you have referred to the
guidance on destruction of derelict airborne objects, I think it's called.
It doesn't actually mention aircraft, manned aircraft. Is there --
Mr. Bacon: Well, actually,
it's interesting that the regulation,
this one, applies -- all the examples they give are unmanned. It says,
"This instruction provides guidance for the destruction of derelict objects.
For example, unmanned free balloons, moored balloons, kites, or unmanned
nuclear rockets or missiles over U.S. or international airspace." And then
it gives the procedures that have to be followed. But in this enclosure D,
"instructions for destruction of derelict airborne objects," they refer only
to unmanned objects.
Q: My question is, is there
written guidance beyond that that
does get more specific about manned aircraft?
Mr. Bacon: No.
Q: No?
Mr. Bacon: I mean, then NORAD
took this and changed it into
basically a punch list for their watch officer -- If this happens, here are
the steps you have to go through. But this is the joint staff regulation,
and it only gives examples, but all the examples happen to be unmanned.
Q: Admiral Browne told you
that he'd referred to that at some
point during the episode?
Mr. Bacon: He did. He
did refer to it, and he said that this is
the first time he's had a situation like this to deal with, and like most
people, he probably doesn't sit down and memorize thousands of pages of
regulations just for the sheer joy of it, and instead he looks them up when
he needs to, and that's what he did.
Q: Is his first name
"Joe"?
Mr. Bacon: His name is Herb.
So I assume it's Herbert, Herbert
Browne, vice admiral for --
Q: This was, you know, this
was a highly obvious -- obviously, it
was a highly unusual event. How likely do you think it is that you would
ever face this prospect of having to make the tough decision of whether to
take action against a civilian plane? Is this a very remote possibility?
Mr. Bacon: Well, I think you
defined it yourself. It's "highly
unusual." And by definition, that makes it "a very remote
possibility."
There have been several other
cases, I think at least two were
cited in the New York Times this morning, of aircraft where the pilots or
the crew had died or became incapacitated and flew into the -- one flew into
a remote area in northern New Hampshire; another flew into the Atlantic
Ocean. Those were two that were cited this morning.
I think the FAA would be able to
give you an accounting of that
because it, of course, was the lead agency working with NORAD and the Air
Force in dealing with this.
Q: A new subject?
Mr. Bacon: Sure.
Chris, you were -- I think you had
--
Q: Yeah, just one question
about the authority that CINCNORAD or
CINCSPACE would have in dealing with an airborne threat to the United
States, because there would be a difference in that if it were a military
threat, an unidentified something doing something. This was an identified
thing, and it was not a military operation. But is there different
authority? In other words, are there cases in which CINCNORAD or CINCSPACE
would have the authority to act?
Mr. Bacon: It would be a
different set of authorities entirely if
our territorial sovereignty or integrity were threatened. But it does raise
an interesting point that has come up in some of the questions about the
Learjet incident, and that is, "Were the planes armed or unarmed?"
There are planes kept on several
coastal bases, that are kept on
strip alert and are armed with missiles and with guns, that are designated
to protect our territorial integrity should it be threatened. They are the
planes that would be vectored up to look at unknown threats. Now, you know,
frequently when they go up, what they learn is that they identify the plane,
and it's a plane that for some reason is on the wrong course or whatever, or
they convince the plane to turn around. But planes that are training in the
United States, unless they're on ranges, fly without weapons, without
armaments. We do have, both the U.S. and the Canadians obviously have
planes along our northern border, their southern border. Those planes, some
of them are on strip alert, and they generally are armed with guns only, not
with missiles.
Now, typically when a plane takes
off on a training mission, even
if it's armed, all the arms have safety locks on them so there can't be any
mistakes. If they were launched in a mission against a so-called
"intruder," they would remove the safeties before they took off. But if
they were just to take off on a training mission or a normal patrol, they
would do so with the safety locks on their weapons.
Q: Were any safety locks
removed on any of the --
Mr. Bacon: Not that I'm aware
of, no.
Q: -- Fargo planes?
Mr. Bacon: No.
Q: Those were the only ones
that were armed, is that right?
Mr. Bacon: The two Fargo
planes took off briefly. They were
armed. But they came back before they got close to the Learjet because it
had crashed by then, as I understand it.
Q: But just to be clear,
their safety locks were on?
Mr. Bacon: I don't believe --
well, wait a minute. I do not
believe they were on, but I'll check that.
Q: So they could have,
hypothetically --
Mr. Bacon: I don't believe
the safeties were removed. Sorry. I
don't believe they were removed, but I'll double-check.
Yes?
Q: New subject? Last
night, Secretary Hamre hosted a major
dinner of NATO -- international defense executives from the U.S. and NATO
countries, France, Germany. Can you give us a readout on what was discussed
by way of Hamre's view of globalization over the next year?
Mr. Bacon: Sure. First
let me give you the background of the
dinner. Undersecretary Jack Gansler meets from time to time -- I think it
may be quarterly -- with the arms directors of other countries, his
counterparts. They call themselves the Four Powers. They are Britain,
France, Germany and the United States. He had asked Deputy Secretary Hamre
if he would be interested in throwing a dinner for the armaments directors
when they were passing through Washington. I think their meeting is
actually in Williamsburg, Virginia. And Secretary Hamre said he would, and
it might actually be a good opportunity to invite some American officials
from defense companies to come and meet with the armaments directors and
discuss globalization and some of the opportunities as well as the
challenges. When that happened, the Europeans, our European partners and
friends, decided that they would also invite some industrialists from
Europe. So we had, I would guess, around 50 people or so.
I think I can make a list available to you of the people who were
invited and who came here last night. They held a meeting, a discussion,
for about an hour and a half, maybe an hour and 40 minutes, took a break,
came back and spent about an hour and 15 minutes eating delectable Native
American food, such as coleslaw and catfish for dinner.
And Secretary Hamre was very clear
in saying that this is a
dialogue. It was not a meeting of instructions or decisions; it was a
dialogue. It was an effort to get everybody together and to talk -- not
even an effort that we had planned, really, because it had become more of a
meeting after the Europeans decided to invite their own industrialists. He
pointed out that globalization was here and it was going to be a force that
all of us had to learn to live with and respond to. He said that there is
plenty of room for more transatlantic cooperation now through partnerships
and joint ventures and financing agreements.
He also said that he felt it was
probably premature right now to
assume that it was the time for mega-transatlantic mergers, and he gave two
reasons. One, he felt that the European defense industry is beginning to go
through the same digestive process that the American defense industry has
been going through for the last several years. And as we know from studying
companies in all businesses over here, the process of merging two giant
companies with different cultures and somewhat different product lines and
different executive styles can take time and is challenging. So for that
reason, he felt it was premature. He felt that Europe had to gain more
practice, become more comfortable with the merger process in Europe, just as
we've spent time learning about it here.
And the second reason is he doesn't
think that, frankly, there is
a proper regulatory or security infrastructure to allow such mega mergers
right now. In other words, we in the United States in particular, but in
all countries, all NATO countries, have to do a better job of working on the
security issues that arise when you have companies making sensitive defense
items. Even though they're allied countries, we need to work on this. And
he was very clear in saying that the U.S. has to -- has a ways to go here.
There was a State Department representative there who talked about some of
the efforts we're taking to accelerate export licensing decisions and
technology transfer decisions that are necessary for this. But Secretary
Hamre believes that we need some time. Now, he's not saying we're talking
about years, but -- and in fact, no one knows what we're talking about. But
for both the reasons he listed, he thinks we need a little more time before
we get to the mega-merger category.
Now, having said that, I want to
stress again that there was
strong support from our government, from the foreign arms directors, the
allied arms directors, and from industrialists in the United States and in
Britain, France and Germany for increased cooperation between companies --
among companies. So that, I think, is where the energy will be put:
increased cooperation, and also, at our end, dealing with some of the
security roadblocks that allied companies have complained about, and allied
governments, in the past.
Q: Did he express some
frustration that a fortress Europe was de
facto forming over there with the merger of DASA and Aerospatiale combined
with British Aerospace buying one of its own electronics giants?
Mr. Bacon: He did not.
There was strong feeling on the part of
everybody there that we can't afford a fortress Europe and a fortress
America. As he said, we have to keep the drawbridges down; we have to keep
people moving back and forth between the two defense establishments, and we
have to look for ways to increase cooperation while we work on developments
that will facilitate or allow some mega mergers in the future.
Q: One final question.
Did he give examples of the types of
programs he saw going forward instead of mega mergers?
Mr. Bacon: Not with any great
specificity that I recall.
Q: On the same subject --
Q: Ken?
Mr. Bacon: Yeah?
Q: Just to follow up, was the
issue addressed at all of --
especially in Europe, you have a lot of government ownership of some of
the -- well, you've got more government ownership of defense contractors,
something you don't have over here, and how that plays into this whole issue?
Mr. Bacon: That issue was not
specifically addressed, although
some Americans did express concerns about the difficulties of dealing with
the European regulatory structure. But then some Europeans expressed
frustration about the difficulties of dealing with the U.S. security infrastructure.
So I'd have to say that this was an
extremely level-headed,
low-key discussion. It was really a -- more than anything else, a series of
presentations. Secretary Hamre moderated it, and he called on a number of
people in seriatim. I mean, he would call on a couple of industrialists to
come up and talk, and then a couple of arms directors. And there were other
people there, as I said, a State Department guy and a few other people he
called up to make comments. So people came, and they made comments.
One guy said he had nothing to say
because everything had already
been said. He had nothing to add. And so there was a cumulative effect to
the remarks.
But it wasn't a debate. It
wasn't, you know, "You should do this,
we're going to do this" type thing. It was really a series of statements.
And I think the general feeling from the conversations I had with people at
the meeting was that it had been a useful first step, but it was only a
first step, and it accomplished exactly what Secretary Hamre wanted, which
was the beginning of a dialogue.
Q: Did anyone make plans --
were any plans discussed about having
this as a fairly regular kind of event?
Mr. Bacon: No, there were not
discussions -- that could well
happen today in Williamsburg or whenever the next phase is. But I think
that it was very clear, from what Dr. Hamre said, that he would like to
continue discussions in some form. Whether this is the right form, I don't
know. But -- and I'm not sure he knows either. But I think that there's a
feeling that it's helpful to get everybody together in a room and talk about
general challenges and opportunities.
Yes.
Q: Ken, the Air Force is
reportedly ruminating about pulling out
of the Joint Strike Fighter program to protect their future funding for
development of the F-22. I was just wondering, can they actually do that?
Secondly, have they approached DOD either formally or informally about their
intention to do so? And what would the ramifications be for the entire
program and the other services if they did pull out? Is that a program
buster?
Mr. Bacon: Well, first, I am
aware that some officials in the Air
Force -- generally anonymous officials, I gather -- have apparently raised
this idea. Let me just make two comments.
One, the Joint Fighter, Joint
Strike Fighter is exactly what its
name implies: it's joint. It's a fighter that is being built. It's
really
an attack plane that's being built to -- for use by the Marines, Navy and
Air Force. I think there's an analogy here going back to the '70s between
the F-15 and the F-16. The F-15 was a higher performance air to air
superiority plane bought in smaller numbers than the F-16, which was a
cheaper, very capable but less high performance ground attack plane,
primarily. And we bought many more F-16s than we did F-15s over -- I don't
know the exact numbers, but we can get them. The analogy is the same
between the F-22. Now I think the number they're contemplating buying is
less than 350. I think it's 339 or something like that. And the idea is
that we would buy several thousand Joint Strike Fighters not only because
they'd be used by three services, but they would be the bomb-droppers and
the missile-shooters -- the attackers, basically.
So it's also supposed to be a considerably cheaper plane. And
most of
all, it's supposed to be stealthy. Much stealthier than the F-22. Much
stealthier than the F-18E/F. So not to go ahead with the Joint Strike
Fighter at this stage would deprive all of the services of the next
generation of stealth technology in an era when everybody agrees that
stealth technology is the way to go.
This clearly is an important issue.
We don't have a Joint Strike
Fighter yet. Prototypes are being built by two competing companies. And
we'll have to see how the program evolves. But it's meant to be a highly
stealthy, cheaper plane than the F-22 that will supplement the F-22.
Q: If I could ask you about
that analogy briefly, you have a lot
more than 339 F-15s right now. And so I am wondering what the plan is to
deal with the fact that you are going to have, if you get the F-22, a lot
fewer F-22s than F-15s. And you are going to have 50-year F-15s filling out
the fleet, or are you just going to accept a smaller Air Force? Or are you
going to, at some point, be asking for 300 more F-22s? I mean, what's the
answer there?
Mr. Bacon: Well, it's hard to
predict the future. Typically, we
frequently end up buying more of a plane than we think we are going to
initially.
But one of the benefits of
technology is we could do more with
less. And in air power generally, and we saw this most acutely during
Kosovo, we moved from World War II and the Korean War and even Vietnam,
where we had to drop hundreds of bombs to hit one target or many bombs to
hit one target, and now we can hit one target with one bomb or one missile,
with precision-guided munitions.
The same is true in air-to-air
combat, where our idea is to be
harder to find and to be able to acquire our enemy at much greater ranges
than he can acquire us so that we are more sure of winning with the first
shot than we were in the past.
I can't predict how many of these
we'll buy. Obviously, for a
while, maybe for a long while, we'll have a force that includes F-15s and
F-22s. For one thing, we are still buying F-15s. The later models are more
capable than the earlier models.
It is clear, from everything that
General Ryan has been saying and
other Air Force officials, that the F-16 in particular is beginning to wear
out. And the older planes require more maintenance. They are having more
problems in flight. And, therefore, he has voiced the desire to move to new
generations of planes so that we don't have to continue to maintain the
older planes at increasingly expensive rates.
Bill?
Q: Thank you.
Mr. Bacon: Wait a minute.
I have got Pat and Bill back there.
Q: Thank you. Thank
you, Ken.
Just wanted to know if you could
update us on Chechnya?
Specifically, are the Russians continuing to move toward Grozny? And have
the Russians actually been encountering the terrorist rebels? Have they
gone into Chechnya to boot out --
Mr. Bacon: I think I'll let
the Russians speak about their
problems in Chechnya. I think they are better able to describe what they're
doing there than I am at this stage.
Q: Well, let me ask you this.
Are the rebels in Chechnya enemies
of the United States? Are they the terrorists that have been terrorizing
the Russians and the U.S.?
Mr. Bacon: Well, certainly
from Russian reports, some of the
terrorism in the -- in Russia was rooted in Chechnya. I don't know how much
of it, but the Russians believe that some of it was rooted in Chechnya.
Certainly there are signs that terrorists always seem to find each other in
various countries and make common cause, and I have no reason to believe
that terrorists from places like Afghanistan or elsewhere have not been
working hand in hand with terrorists in Chechnya. Now, to what degree, it's
hard to tell, but I do think they consider themselves a band of brothers,
sometimes a nasty band of brothers.
Pat?
Q: (Off mike.)
Mr. Bacon: Okay.
Thanks.
Q: Thank you.
- END -
***********
October 26, 1999 10:32 AM
WTO & Monsanto email addresses;
Whose Trade Organization?
Here are the personal email addresses of several important men in the
globalization process. Merci de faire circuler et de diffuser largement.
The World Trade Organization is the star attraction in the
"Millennium Trade
Round" in Seattle Nov. 30th.
Mike Moore is the new Secretary-General of the WTO. (OMC)
His address is mike.moore@wto.org
That simple. (he answers his email)
Perhaps you'd like to wish him "Bon Voyage" to Seattle!
MONSANTO BOARD'S EMAIL ADDRESSES: Write Monsanto!
Monsanto is the leader in "life sciences" technology, we're sure
you have a
strong opinion on the subject.
The following are the personal, corporate email addresses of the chairman of
the board of Monsanto etc. so if you wish, you can now tell THEM
exactly how YOU feel. BE POLITE!
Robert B. Shapiro, is the chairman of the board and chief executive officer
of Monsanto.
His address is: rbshap@ccmail.monsanto.com
(he answers his email)
Richard U. De Schutter is the chief administrative officer of Monsanto
His address is: rudesc@ccmail.monsanto.com
(he answers his email )
Jacobus F,.M. Peters is a member of the board's finance, dividend and public
policy committee.
His address is: jfm.peters@tip.nl (he
answers his email)
=============================================
Whose Trade Organisation? Corporate
Globalisation and the Erosion of Democracy
229-page report
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 1999
WTO's Coup Against Democracy
*** 13-Oct-99 ***
TRADE: WTO's Coup Against
Democracy
By Danielle Knight
WASHINGTON, Oct. 13 (IPS) - The World Trade Organisation (WTO), founded
five years ago to enforce rules governing global trade, instead had launched
a coup against democratic governance worldwide, a leading
WTO critic declared Wednesday.
''In the WTO forum, global commerce takes precedence over everything -
democracy, public health, equity, the environment, food safety and more,''
said a report from Public Citizen, a public interest group founded by
consumer advocate Ralph Nader.
''Under this new system, many decisions affecting people's daily lives are
being shifted away from our local and national governments and, instead,
are being made by a group of unelected trade bureaucrats sitting behind
closed doors in Geneva,'' Nader said.
The 229-page report, entitled ''Whose Trade Organisation? Corporate
Globalisation and the Erosion of Democracy,'' warned that, as a result of
WTO rulings - and even threats of challenges before the trade body -
countries had rolled back social policies won after decades of citizen
activism.
Domestic regulations, challenged before the trade body primarily by
corporate interests, had been found to be barriers to free trade, said the
report released in advance of the WTO's ministerial summit, scheduled to
be held Nov 30.-Dec.4 in Seattle, Wash.
''This is not free trade,'' said Joan Claybrook, president of Public
Citizen. ''It's corporate-managed trade...that concentrates more and
more power in the hands of fewer and fewer powerful corporate CEOs.''
Countries that are signatories to the trade body are allowed to challenge
other countries' domestic laws, if they feel it violates the principles of
free trade.
Once the WTO dispute panel, which hears the challenges, rules against a
country's law, that nation must either repeal the regulation or face
perpetual fines to the country that brought the challenge before the trade
body.
''The WTO's five-year record looks like a quiet, slow-motion coup d'etat
against democratic and accountable policymaking and governance
worldwide,'' declared Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade
Watch.
WTO rules go way beyond basic trade principles, such as treating domestic
and foreign goods the same and imposes value judgements on how much
environmental or food safety protection a country will be allowed to provide,
said the report.
It listed about 100 domestic regulations which have been challenged, or
threatened to be challenged, before the trade body.
The United States initiated about half of the challenges and, unlike
many developing countries, the United States had the economic resources to
aggressively pursue and defend numerous challenges before the WTO, said
Claybrook.
After one such US challenge, Guatemala weakened its implementation of the
United Nation's Children's Fund (UNICEF)/World Health Organisation Code on
the marketing of breast milk subsidies, which banned infant formula
packaging depicting plump, healthy babies.
The Code was created to ensure that illiterate mothers did not associate
the formula with healthy infants, because many infants had become ill or
had died after drinking formula diluted with contaminated water.
Health experts also were concerned the advertising would sway mothers away
from breast feeding.
The baby-food manufacturer Gerber, however, threatened to bring the case
before the trade body, noting that a fat baby's face was part of its
trademark and was protected by WTO intellectual property rules.
''Faced with the threat, Guatemala exempted imported products from its
labeling law,'' said the report.
In another case, South Korea weakened its food safety policy in order to
avoid a US challenge on its 30-day shelf-life limit for meat. Seoul
authorities agreed to shorten the duration of Korea's produce inspection
process, alllowing fruit and vegetables to be sold before the results of
safety tests were complete.
US health and environmental regulations have also been challenged at WTO
hearings.
When Mexico threatened to enforce a ruling under the 1991 General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, the treaty that lay the groundwork
for the WTO) the United States gutted provisions of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act that were designed to protect dolphins from tuna fishing nets.
''For the first time in 20 years, tuna caught in nets placed around
schools of dolphins will appear in US supermarkets - and will bear the
''Dolphin-Safe'' label that consumers have come to know and trust,'' said
Public Citizen in its report.
Several new challenges before the WTO have recently loomed, the report said.
On behalf of the auto industry, for example, the United States and the
European Union (EU) have threatened to challenge Japan's new automobile
fuel-efficiency rules enacted to comply with its obligations under the
Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty seeking to curb heat-trapping
''greenhouse''
gas emissions.
''Should this case move to a formal WTO dispute panel, it would be an
important test case for the WTO legality of actions taken under an
international environmental agreement,'' Public Citizen said.
In another threat made in early 1999, the US government also challenged
the EU that is regulation of pollution caused by the electronics industry
may violate WTO rules governing environmental policy.
On behalf of the American Electronics Association the United States
claimed that an EU proposal to ban certain heavy metals in electronics
equipment, to require a certain amount of recycled content and shift the
cost of cleanup and disposal from the public to the electronics
manufacturers, was illegal under WTO rules.
The report also criticized the secrecy surrounding the trade body's
proceedings and rulings.
Members of the press, the public, advocacy groups, and even state attorney
generals representing their own laws that are being challenged, are not
allowed to observe the closed tribunals and hearings of the dispute
panels, the report said.
''There is no freedom of information law, no independent appeal, and
public transcript,'' said Nader.
''We have bound ourselves to tribunals that would be unconstitutional
and
illegal in this country.''(END/IPS/dk/mk/99)
Origin: ROMAWAS/TRADE/
**************
ACTION ALERT: CHICAGO,
IL/WASHINGTON,DC/OAKLAND,CA
10/23/99
The first public meeting will be held on November 18 in
Chicago, Ill.,
followed by a second on November 30, in Washington, D.C., and a third on
December 13, in Oakland, Calif.
FDA ANNOUNCES PUBLIC MEETINGS ON
BIOENGINEERED FOODS!
When we get the specifics on these meetings we will send
out a follow up alert. We need to pack these meetings!!
HHS NEWS
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Consumer Inquiries: 888-SAFEFOOD
FDA ANNOUNCES PUBLIC MEETINGS ON BIOENGINEERED FOODS
The Food and Drug Administration today announced a new initiative to engage
the public about foods made using bioengineering. This initiative will
begin with a series of public meetings to be held in Chicago, Ill.,
Washington, D.C., and Oakland, Calif., this November and December.
At the public meetings, the public will be informed about
current FDA policy for assuring the safety of bioengineered foods.
The public will be asked whether this policy should be modified and also
to comment on appropriate means of providing information to the public
about bioengineered products in the food supply.
Under FDA policy developers of bioengineered foods are expected to consult
with the agency before marketing such foods, to ensure that
all safety and regulatory questions have been fully addressed. FDA's
policy also requires special labeling for a bioengineered food in certain
circumstances. For example, a bioengineered food would need to be called
by a different or modified name if its composition were significantly
different from its conventionally grown counterpart, or if its nutritive
value has been significantly altered. Special labeling would be required
if consumers need to be informed about a safety issue, such as the
possible presence of an allergen that would not normally be found in the
conventionally-grown product.
"FDA makes sure that our food supply is among the safest in the world,"
said Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala.
"Although people have enthusiastically accepted new drugs made from
biotechnology, some consumers have concerns about the use of this
technology in foods, and we need to ask why those concerns exist and how we can
address them."
Modern bioengineering was first used to produce consumer products in the
early 1980's when FDA approved important new drugs to treat a range of
diseases. In the 1990's foods such as tomatoes, corn, and soybeans produced
through bioengineering began to appear. To date, biotechnology firms have
completed consultation with FDA on more than 40 food products, and a
substantial portion of American cropland is planted with seeds produced
using this technology.
"FDA's food regulatory system relies on the best science available to
protect the public," said FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney, M.D. "Our
scientists are not aware of any reason to question the safety of currently
marketed foods produced through bioengineering.
Nevertheless, as a science- based agency, FDA will consider any valid
scientific
information that suggests the agency should reevaluate its process for
overseeing the safety of these foods."
The first public meeting will be held on November 18 in Chicago, Ill.,
followed by a second on November 30, in Washington, D.C.,
and a third on December 13, in Oakland, Calif.
********
News October 20, 1999
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE (ENS)
ANSWER TO WORLD HUNGER: YOUTH INVOLVEMENT IN
ECO-FARMING
NEW YORK, New York, October 20, 1999 (ENS) - Involving young people in
producing food for today's world of six billion people is the key to keeping
hunger at bay, United Nations leaders said Tuesday at a World Food Day
event.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-20-02.html
***************************************************************************
EPA PROPOSES FIRST EVER RADON AIR AND WATER
STANDARDS
WASHINGTON, DC, October 20, 1999 (ENS) - For the first time, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to set limits on radon
gas in indoor air and drinking water. The agency is adopting a carrot and
stick approach, encouraging states to aggressively address airborne radon in
exchange for setting relatively high safe levels of radon in drinking water
supplies.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-20-06.html
***************************************************************************
SPAIN CREATES WETLANDS CONSERVATION PLAN
MADRID, Spain, October 20, 1999 (ENS) - The Spanish environment ministry and
autonomous regional governments Tuesday signed a strategic plan for the
conservation of Spain's wetland areas, amongst them some of Europe's most
important wildlife habitats such as Doņana National Park and the Ebro Delta.
Published in cooperation with ENDS Environment Daily
Website: http://www.ends.co.uk/envdaily }
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-20-01.html
***************************************************************************
CANADA CONSIDERS ENERGY TAX TO CONTROL CLIMATE
CHANGE
By Bill Eggertson
OTTAWA, Ontario, Canada, October 20, 1999 (ENS) - The Canadian government is
considering an energy tax and other measures to control emissions of heat
trapping greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-20-03.html
***************************************************************************
New Cato Institute Study on the Climate Change
Technology Initiative;
Congress Should Eliminate Funding For $1.4 Billion Global Warming Program
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -/E-Wire/-- The Climate Change
Technology
Initiative, being pushed by the Clinton administration as a way to combat
global warming, is a "sham," and "repackaging of failed programs" that
do
nothing to significantly reduce global temperatures, according to a new
study released today by the Cato Institute.
/CONTACT: Jerry Taylor, Director of Natural Resource
Studies,
202-789-5240 or James Markels, Assistant Director of Public Affairs,
202-789-5256, both of the Cato Institute/
/Web site: http://www.cato.org/
For Full Text and Graphics Visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Oct99/20Oct9901.html
Blandin Paper Recognized for Environmental Achievements
GRAND RAPIDS, Minn., Oct. 20 -/E-Wire/-- Blandin
Paper will be
recognized on Wednesday, October 27 as the forest industry's environmental
leader. Auditors from Quality Management Institute (QMI), North America's
leading ISO accredited registrar, will be in Grand Rapids to present Blandin
employees with an official ISO 14001 certificate recognizing the
environmental management system implemented at Blandin's paper mill and its
forestry operations.
/CONTACT: Ed Zabinski, Vice President of
Organizational Development
and Public Affairs, 218-327-6227, or Heather Hill, Communications
Coordinator, 218-327-5207, both of Blandin Paper/
For Full Text and Graphics Visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Oct99/20Oct9903.html
Suncor Energy and Niagara Mohawk Execute Historic
Cross-Border Emission Trade;
Trade Involving 100,000 Metric Tons of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions
Demonstrates Innovative Approach to Global Climate Change
WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -/E-Wire/-- Suncor Energy Inc.
and Niagara Mohawk
Power Corp. of Syracuse, N.Y., yesterday completed one of the world's first
cross-border emission reduction trades. The trade involving Suncor's
purchase of 100,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emission reductions from
Niagara Mohawk was registered with the Environmental Resources Trust (ERT),
a U.S. non-profit organization.
/CONTACT: Niagara Mohawk: Kerry Burns,
315-428-5266; Suncor Energy:
Gordon Lambert, 403-269-8720; or Environmental Resources Trust: Joe
Goffman, 202-387-3500 ext. 119/
For Full Text and Graphics Visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Oct99/20Oct9902.html
***************************************************************************
To Find Out How To Transmit Your News On E-Wire Call
1-888-764-NEWS
E-Wire Is Broadcast To Millions Of Readers Worldwide.
***************************************************************************
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1991-1999. All Rights Reserved.
***********
October 19, 1999 10:51 PM
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE (ENS)
GLOBAL WARMING COULD FLOOD MANHATTAN, TOKYO
SNOWY RIVER CAMPAIGNER BRINGS DOWN VICTORIA GOVERNMMENT
FREED LAB ANIMALS JUMPSTART GORE CAMPAIGN
GLOBAL WARMING COULD
FLOOD MANHATTAN, TOKYO
GLAND, Switzerland, October 19, 1999 (ENS) - The consequences of global
warming for the United States include the flooding of New York City, Boston
and Miami, the World Wide Fund For Nature warns. The Japanese cities Tokyo,
Osaka and Nagoya also face the risk of flooding.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-19-02.html
***************************************************************************
SNOWY RIVER CAMPAIGNER
BRINGS DOWN VICTORIA GOVERNMMENT
By Bob Burton
MELBOURNE, Victoria, Australia October 19, 1999 (ENS) - The seven year
reign of Victoria's Premier, Jeff Kennett, has been ended by a soft-spoken
river restoration campaigner, Craig Ingram, MP, who holds the balance of
power in the Victorian Parliament. Ingram announced Monday he would vote
against the Kennett's Liberal government and support the Labor Party as a
minority government.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-19-01.html
***************************************************************************
FREED LAB ANIMALS
JUMPSTART GORE CAMPAIGN
By Catherine Lazaroff
WASHINGTON, DC, October 19, 1999 (ENS) - After five months of negotiations
and highly visible campaigning, animal rights activists have won major
concessions from the federal government over the use of animals in chemical
safety testing. The agreement announced last week could save the lives of
hundreds of thousands of laboratory animals, and offer a needed boost to
the troubled presidential campaign of Vice President Al Gore.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 1999
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-19-06.html
********
October 19, 1999 12:56 AM
Navy Sonar System Draws
Activists' Fire + much much more
Hello
If you have not heard about or covered what the US Navy is preparing to do
- using in November a powerful sonar system at full blast with devastating
and deadly results for all marine life - then it is *high* time you do
something about it! But first you MUST read the material below to have a
good idea of the threat posed by the US Navy to whales, dolphins and
countless other marine life forms.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter -- there is an
October 28 deadline for public comments of a recent Navy-financed
environmental impact study which conceals the most critical facts observed.
Jean Hudon
Earth Rainbow Network Coordinator
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000
Read also "LFAS feedbacks and more information on the subject" posted at:
http://www.cybernaute.com/earthconcert2000/LFASfeedbacks.htm
Navy Sonar System Draws Activists' Fire
Article published a few days ago in the Los Angeles Times
From: http://www.latimes.com/news/state/19991014/t000092771.html
Environment: Opponents say the submarine detection device will threaten
sea creatures. Pentagon argues that technology is safe.
As the U.S. Navy looks to the future, it sees a serious threat from an
increasing number of super-quiet, fully armed submarines controlled by
potentially hostile Third World countries. To enhance its ability to detect
enemy submarines before they can launch a strike at a U.S. ship or
land-based target, the Navy has spent $350 million over the last decade to
develop an improved underwater sonar system.
But now, just as the new technology is about to be deployed, environmental
activists are protesting that the system's use of low-frequency,
high-decibel sound waves over large undersea areas poses a threat to
whales and other sea life. One group is threatening litigation under a federal
law requiring the military to minimize the environmental damage it causes.
It is an emotional dispute pitting environmental concerns against national
security--with each side charging that the other is crying wolf to justify
its ideological view of the world. The environmental groups, including the
Sierra Club, suggest that the Navy is overestimating the global danger
posed by belligerent Third World submarines and that the sonar system is
unneeded. A more realistic assessment of the geopolitical scene, the groups
say, would not justify the use of an environmentally risky system that was
conceived as a way to thwart a much greater threat from the former Soviet Union.
An official with the San Diego chapter of the Audubon Society suggested
that as a compromise, the Navy should agree to turn on the system only when
the nation faces an immediate threat. "I fully expect the system would
never be used . . . and thus never used to the detriment of the
environment," said Audubon's Jim Pugh. Civilian scientists hired by the
Navy to review the project's environmental impact say that the activists
are demanding an unreasonable and scientifically impossible level of
assurance that not a single sea creature will be ever be harmed by
proximity to the Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS).
A more reasonable standard, said Kurt Fristrup, assistant director of
bio-acoustic research at Cornell University's Laboratory of Ornithology, is
whether there is any likelihood that the system could disrupt an entire
undersea population or habitat. The answer, Fristrup said, is almost assuredly no.
"Maybe there is a species somewhere we haven't discovered that will behave
differently than those we know about, but I think that chance is less than
one in a hundred," Fristrup said.
A $10-million study conducted by Fristrup and other scientists in the
waters off California and Hawaii found no significant impact on
whales--although Fristrup notes that there is much that science still does
not know about larger species of whales, including at what decibel level
their hearing is permanently damaged.
The environmentalists are unimpressed by the conclusions of the
Navy-financed study and the 400-page environmental impact statement that
the system is environmentally benign. At hearings this week in San Diego
and Honolulu--home ports for the Pacific Fleet's attack submarines--the
Navy came under a blizzard of criticism.
Blasting the study as too limited in scope and too sweeping in its
conclusion, the Natural Resources Defense Council vowed at the San Diego
hearing to sue unless the Navy performs additional studies with different
methodologies.
One legal challenge to the system has already failed. The Hawaii County
Green Party failed to persuade a federal justice in Hawaii last year to
block tests off the Kona coast in a region where male humpbacks
congregate.
There is no question that the Navy is eager to put the system into place.
Like many military procurement programs, it has undergone fits and starts
and numerous alterations.
Moreover, Navy officials warn gravely of a submarine arms race with
militarily adventuresome nations buying submarines built in Russia, Sweden,
Germany and Italy. Although much of the former Soviet fleet is rusting at
pier side, Russian shipyards are still building and developing submarines
as a kind of cash crop for the destitute nation.
The Russian diesel-driven submarines are thought by military analysts to be
particularly stealthy--which is one of their major selling points. By the
Navy's count, 21 Third World nations, including North Korea, Iran, Libya
and Pakistan, have a total of 310 submarines, although many of them are
older ones and of doubtful military value.
U.S. officials are concerned that a Third World nation might attempt to
score a psychological or political victory by attacking an American target.
Another use might be in conflict with an American ally, such as the Chinese
deployment of submarines three years ago during a confrontation with Taiwan.
In anti-submarine warfare, the ability to hear an adversary is all
important. While expensive and controversial, the system is only one of
several such Navy projects.
"Undersea warfare remains a tough business where the only acceptable
position is one of absolute operational primacy," Adm. Jay Johnson, chief
of naval operations, has said.
Indeed, development of anti-submarine warfare technology, much of it done
by California firms, is one of the last growth areas for defense
contracting in the post-Cold War world.
Although the exact range of the sonar signals is classified, Navy officials
say that it is a sufficient advancement over the range of the current
system to justify the expense. The system now in place generally relies on
passive sonar listening devices to hear underwater sounds and does not
generate sound.
Under the new system, two specially equipped surface ships will be
outfitted with acoustic devices dropped into the water from the middle of
the ship. Eighteen desk-size sensors dangling on a long cable can emit
sounds that--ironically enough--resemble those made by lovesick humpback
whales.
When the sound waves hit an object, they bounce back. The advance in the
system, officials said, is not so much in the sound emitting apparatus but
in the software that will allow computers to filter out clutter and
determine whether the object is a potentially unfriendly submarine.
If the Navy and environmentalists are at odds over the future, they also
disagree about the past, particularly a 1996 incident in which 12 Cuvier's
beaked whales beached themselves in Greece while NATO naval forces were
testing a low-frequency sonar system.
To the environmentalists, the incident shows the fragility of the giant
mammals and the potential for severe damage. The Navy retorts that no link
was ever found between the sonar tests and the beachings and that the
beaked whales have a history of beaching themselves. The environmentalists
have long been concerned about undersea noise pollution. In the mid-1990s a
protest was mounted against a plan by researchers from the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography in San Diego to use high-frequency sound waves
to look for signs of global warming. Amid controversy, the plan died.
Sonar Controversy
The Navy says a $350-million sonar system will allow it to detect the
undersea presence of a growing number of submarines deployed by potentially
hostile nations. But environmentalists say the system will harm whales and
other sea life. How the system works:
Sources: U.S. Navy, Silent Oceans Project, Natural Resources Defense Council
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
From: camagill@excite.com
Subject: Re: Press Release
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999
The following article is written for submission to newspapers as a guest
opinion editorial. The Honolulu Advertiser published the editorial on
October 18, 1999. Those concerned about LFA can take this editorial to
their local newspapers (don't forget college newspapers as well) and
request that they publish the guest editorial. Should you be successful,
the author would appreciate notification so we can keep track of where the
information is getting out. This effort to place such an editorial by
individuals around the country would probably be historically unique.
U.S. Navy Refuses to Admit $100 Million Mistake
by Lanny Sinkin
What do you do if you make a $100 million mistake? That's the question facing
the U.S. Navy.
In the early 80's, the Navy identified a new generation of silent
submarines as a national security threat. The Navy's extensive underwater
listening system could not hear the submarines in our increasingly noisy
oceans.
The Navy evaluated various technologies for responding to this threat
and chose low frequency active sonar as the best available.
At that point, the Navy made a fundamental mistake. Ignoring numerous
federal laws and an executive order, the Navy proceeded to design, develop,
and test their new sonar system without preparing an assessment of
environmental impacts.
By 1995, the system was on the verge of being deployed in 80% of the
world's oceans. Then the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
discovered the Navy's failure to follow the law and threatened legal
action. The Navy belatedly agreed to prepare the required studies.
The Navy invited scientists to help define the issues. Not
surprisingly, the Navy discovered that sound is a very important part of
the daily life of whales, dolphins, and other marine life, including
endangered species. Extremely loud, low frequency broadcasts as planned by
the Navy could potentially kill or cripple such creatures.
Also not surprisingly, the Navy discovered that human divers and
snorklers in the water could also be injured or killed by such broadcasts.
Existing data on the potential threat to marine and human life,
however, was very limited. So the Navy commissioned scientists to perform
studies. When these studies reached Hawaiian waters, the error in not
studying these questions earlier became apparent.
During the testing of the system off Hawai`i at sound levels millions
of times lower than the Navy intended to use, whale watch boat captains
reported Humpback Whales disappearing from the testing area as soon as the
broadcasts began. A snorkler observing dolphins and exposed to a broadcast
emerged from the water with symptoms a doctor described as similar to a
trauma patient in a hospital.
These dramatic effects at low broadcasting levels strongly suggested
that the system at full power would have devastating effects.
While the Hawai`i testing produced four different law suits, the Navy
quit testing and left before those suits could be heard. The courts
dismissed the suits as moot.
Now the Navy had a real problem. How would they deal with the
evidence from the testing program when they drafted their environmental
impact statement?
The solution adopted was simply to ignore the results documented in
the Hawaiian law suits. The draft environmental impact statement makes no
mention of the whale watch captains, the snorkler, or other evidence
presented to the courts. Ignoring such evidence is simply another
violation of the laws governing environmental assessments.
With Congress looking the other way and judges intimidated by claims
of national security, the Navy may get away with deploying a system that
will wreak havoc on the oceans. Environmental organizations and other
citizens are gearing up for a major fight to prevent that outcome.
Lanny Sinkin is an attorney in Hilo, Hawai`i who filed two of the four
lawsuits against the Navy during the testing in Hawai`i. He can be reached
at the following:
Lanny Sinkin
58 Furneaux Lane, Suite 5
Hilo, Hawai`i 96720
(808) 969-7768
light@ilhawaii.net
FAX: (808) 934-9609
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999
From: Sue <spotter@yournet.com
Save the Whales
From Louise Garnett (650) 728-7926
Dear Ocean Mammal Institute members and friends,
October 1999
We are running out of time to let our elected representatives know
our feelings about the Navy's LFA sonar system. Please send this
email to those individuals you know that care about our oceans and
its inhabitants. We can make a difference if we have the courage to
act.
As you may know, the U.S. Navy has just released the draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the SURTASS LFA
sonar system. The public now has until October 28, 1999 to
respond and voice our opinion about the use of this system.
There are so many things we think you should be aware of
concerning this sonar system that we have taken the time to put
extensive information about this system on our web site
(www.oceanmammalinst.org) including a
link to CNN's 3 part
article about the sonar system.
There are however a few key facts we feel worth mentioning to
you now:
1. The U.S. Navy has not tested the sonar on whales at the
level they intend to use the system at.
2. Even at the low levels they did the LFA sonar test at significant
detrimental effects were observed: abandoned calfs in the Hawaii
test area, humpback whales leaving the test area, 80% of humpback
whales stopped singing during the sonar tests, a significant decrease
in vocalizations of blue and fin whales, and a change in the migration
route of gray whales.
3. Safer alternatives to the SURTASS LFA sonar system have not
even been considered.
4. Your tax dollars are being spent on this system.
To prevent this dangerous technology from being deployed in all
the oceans of the world. It is critical that you call, write or email
each of the 4 individuals listed below between now and October 28,
1999. We have a letter you can print out and send, or create your
own letter :
1. J.S. Johnson. Letters or faxes sent to him will become part of
the official public record on this study if received before October
28, 1999. Address: SURTASS LFA Sonar OEIS/EIP Program
Manager, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 708, Arlington, VA 22203.
Fax: 703-465-8420
2. Your elected Senate and House Representatives. They represent
you in Congress so they need to know what you want them to do.
Phone: U.S. Capitol switchboard 202-224-3121 Address: U.S.
House of Representatives, Wash. D.C. 20515 Address: U.S. Senate,
Wash D.C. 20510 Email: www.senate.gov or www.house.gov
3. Senator Dan Inouye. Ranking democrat on the subcommittee
on Defense and a member of the subcommittee on Oceans and
Fisheries. Phone: 202-224-3934, Address: 722 Hart Senate Office
Bldg, Wash D.C. 20510
Email: www.senate.gov/~inouye/webform.html
4. Al Gore. As a presidential candidate, and current Vice President,
he needs to know your priorities for this country. White House
Switchboard: 202-456-1414, Fax: 202-456-2461
Address: White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Wash. D.C. 20500
Email: www.whitehouse.gov
We can make a difference in this world. To quote Margaret Mead,
"Never doubt that a small group of concerned citizens can change
the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Thank you for your help.
Marsha L. Green, Ph.D.
President/Founder Ocean Mammal Institute
Date:_____________
SUBJECT: U.S. Navy Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System
(SURTASS) Low Frequency
Active (LFA) sonar system
Dear
As a citizen of the United States of America, I do not want my
taxpayer dollars spent on the SURTASS LFA sonar system.
There is significant evidence this sonar will have direct and negative
impacts on ocean inhabitants, especially marine mammals and
humans. Although not mentioned in the Navy's draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), the Navy's SURTASS LFA sonar test
results showed detrimental effects: abandoned calves in the sonar
test area in Hawaii, whales leaving the test area, 80% of humpback
whales stopping their singing during tests, a change in the migration
route of gray whales, a significant decrease in vocalizations of blue
and fin whales and instances of strandings.
The draft EIS is based on test results conducted at approximately
140-180 dB, yet the Navy admits that their actual planned
transmission level is "classified, but not to exceed 215 dB." Since
the decibel scale is logarithmic, a higher dB represents a significant
increase in acoustic intensity.
The SURTASS LFA has not been tested at the level of intended
usage so we cannot know the actual impact it will have. Therefore,
the draft EIS conclusions are unrealistic since they are based on
test results from dB levels so much lower than the Navy's planned
transmit levels.
The oceans and the life they support are critical for our existence.
If it is so important that the U.S. Navy have the SURTASS LFA
capability, then I want an alternative system found that will not have
any detrimental effects on marine life at the level of transmission.
Respectfully,
_________________________________ Signature
_________________________________ Name
_________________________________ Address
You can also email all the senators by copying and pasting all
the following addresses in the address box when sending the
above letter.
senator@sessions.senate.gov,
chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov,
senator@shelby.senate.gov,
email@murkowski.senate.gov,
senator@bryan.senate.gov,
senator_stevens@stevens.senate.gov,
senator_reid@reid.senate.gov,
info@kyl.senate.gov,
mailbox@gregg.senate.gov,
senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov,
opinion@smith.senate.gov,
senator@bumpers.senate.gov,
frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov,
senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov,
senator_torricelli@torricelli.senate.gov,
senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov,
senator@boxer.senate.gov,
senator@feinstein.senate.gov,
senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov,
senator_al@damato.senate.gov,
senator@dpm.senate.gov,
sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov,
senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov,
senator@faircloth.senate.gov,
jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov,
senator@biden.senate.gov,
senator@dorgan.senate.gov,
comments@roth.senate.gov,
senator@conrad.senate.gov,
bob_graham@graham.senate.gov,
senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov,
connie@mack.senate.gov,
senator_glenn@glenn.senate.gov,
senator_max_cleland@cleland.senate.gov,
im_inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov,
senator_coverdell@coverdell.senate.gov,
senator@nickles.senate.gov,
senator@akaka.senate.gov,
senator@inouye.senate.gov,
senator@wyden.senate.gov,
larry_craig@craig.senate.gov,
dirk_kempthorne@kempthorne.senate.gov,
senator_specter@specter.senate.gov,
dick@durbin.senate.gov,
senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov,
senator@moseley-braun.senate.gov,
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov,
chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov,
tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov,
senator@thurmond.senate.gov,
tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov,
sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov
tim@johnson.senate.gov,
pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov,
senator_frist@frist.senate.gov,
wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov,
senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov,
senator@mcconnell.senate.gov
senator@hutchison.senate.gov,
senator@breaux.senate.gov,
senator@landrieu.senate.gov,
senator@bennett.senate.gov,
senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov,
senator@collins.senate.gov,
olympia@snowe.senate.gov,
vermont@jeffords.senate.gov,
senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov,
senator@mikulski.senate.gov,
senator@sarbanes.senate.gov,
senator@kennedy.senate.gov,
senator@warner.senate.gov,
john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov,
michigan@abraham.senate.gov,
senator@levin.senate.gov,
senator_murray@murray.senate.gov,
mail_grams@grams.senate.gov,
senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov,
senator@rockefeller.senate.gov,
senator@cochran.senate.gov,
senator@feingold.senate.gov,
senatorlott@lott.senate.gov,
senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov,
john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov,
senator@enzi.senate.gov,
craig@thomas.senate.gov,
kit_bond@bond.senate.gov,
max@baucus.senate.gov,
conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
Letter to the Editor
Are the whales the next sacrifice on the altar of national security?
Recently the US Navy conducted underwater sonic explosions louder than 747
jet engines at takeoff (140 dcb+) in the Maui Marine Sanctuary and
birthing ground for the Humpback whales. The underwater sounds were heard
New Zealand to California.
No detectable behavior changes were recorded by Navy scientists, but
independent observers noted whales quickly abandoned the testing sight and
altered migration routes.
Perhaps coincidentally, in recent months more whales have swum ashore and
died worldwide than ever recorded, including some 40 dolphin strandings
off Florida -- the Navy confers no causal link to massive searing of
oceans
by periodic noise bombardment and whale beachings.
Sperm whales have brains six times larger than ours, commonly live 200+
years, have complicated social and 'ritual' behaviors.. Modern human
brains developed 100,000 years ago, whales had large brains 80,000,000
years ago. Objective planetary observers might contact whales first.
Are humans too blinded by greed (the resurging whaling industry) and
fear (US Navy) to notice intelligent life on Earth amongst the 83 species
of whales and dolphins gliding through the Earth's waters?
The media silence has been deafening regarding the Navy's insonification
of the whale's oceans.Please contact President Clinton. Stop the US Navy's
LFSSA sound experiments.
The next blast, Nov. 1999, a billion times louder than previous
detonations, will be the loudest sound ever made by humans aimed right
between the ears of every whale and dolphin on Earth.
Cetacean Ambassador Network Member
Scott N. Cameron
6232 Bellota Dr. Apt B
702-636-9401
The Cetacean Ambassador Network is ....... an evolving global network
catalyzing change in consciousness, education and political arenas on
behalf of the 83 species of whales and dolphins, for the awakening and
synchrony of the global mind.
Check also Discovery Online, Earth Alert - Whales at:
http://www.discovery.com/news/earthalert/991011/whalestrinidad.html
The HSUS has also posted an action alert on its web page at
http://www.hsus.org
regarding the draft EIS published by the US Navy on LFA sonar.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - -
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999
From: "Cheryl A. Magill" <102111.1407@compuserve.com
Subject: Report on Reporters = Thank you for your numerous attempts
Dear Jean and Lucia, and All:
I appreciated Lucia's attempt to gain media involvement on the topic of LFA
Sonar. The media... the media... the media. What have they done or
failed
to do? Here's a report on the reporters.
Last year, there were some press releases about the Navy's Phase III
Playback Experiments during which protected Humpback Whales were used as
test subjects in a National Marine Sanctuary. The goal of the testing was
to see if they would respond with obvious signs of pain while being
bombarded with this potentially dangerous Low Frequency Active Sonar.
While several media sources were willing to acknowledge that there were
protestors jumping into the water, their coverage of the story amounted to
something like,
"These "fringe" people are protestesting by jumping in the water,
but
"scientists" assure us that everything is A-OK."
Well, some of the "fringe" people
who were driving the boats had PhDs
themselves. And the all the "scientists" were taking home Navy pay.
But
headlines generally failed to make such subtle distinctions. Go figure.
For a long while the mainstream media refused to run with the story about
Low Frequency Active Sonar. One reason to avoid the topic altogether is
that it's a difficult one to write about. The information about its
applications has been secretive and only recently has there been sufficient
information to develop an alternative data base of sorts. The only
information most media people knew about was found in government press
releases. Until July 30th, we didn't have anything so detailed as a
DEIS,
and had no means of making some of the comparisons we can today. Of
course, we still rely on the alternate sources of the information, as much
of the information contained in the DEIS is frought with convenient
omissions.
Stephanie Siegel of CNN Interactive did a comprehensive investigation of
LFA Sonar. And if you read her work, I think you will agree that her
research efforts truly show. While a few excellent environmental press
sources such as IGC, Sea Shepherd and CSI and strong independent
journalists like Sue Arnold had given the story some play; Ms. Siegel was
the first representative from a major news source who really looked at the
facts and investigated the story. On looking back, I have to smile;
because she began by telling us that she simply didn't have much time to
give this. After more than a month of continuing to request documentation
from multiple sources, she wrote a series of articles about the technology,
the politics and the environmental questions associated with the secret
sonar. Her work, "Making Waves" can be read on-line at:
http://cnn.com/NATURE/9906/30/sea.noise.part1/index.html
As the person who picks through the Internet publications, I can tell you
something else too!
Another printed media source should be
mentioned. That would be the
Christian Science Monitor which continued over the last few years to pick
up stories about ATOC (Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate) and LFAS,
and had probably maintained more information about LFAS and ATOC than any
other daily press. The articles were not lengthy or stunning works of
journalism
by themselves. But strung together in a row, over a period of time they
begin to reflect the journalistic policy of the publication as superior to
competing papers in its treament of this subject matter. Somehow, I'd
failed to appreciate this news source in the past, but for the past year I
have had a reason to acknowledge that the Christian Science Monitor has
continued to offer information and to pose necessary questions in each of
their stories about LFAS. And they did so when other publications were
merely parrotting the official Navy news or Associated Press releases at
best. Occasionally, they'd cover the topic when no one else did.
The
ATOC protests go back well before 1996, and it is the Christian Science
Monitor which even then offered some of the most continuing coverage as a
printed news source and which still maintains many of the original articles
on line.
In radio, Art Bell kicked this story over the edge as the defining news
source during the Hawaii protest in March of 1998. He did two marathon
shows about LFAS and has since fallen silent on the subject. (I have
written to him several times asking that he have Dr. Marsha Green with the
Ocean Mammal Institute back on his program again. But there hasn't been so
much as an acknolwedgement of that request.) Laura Lee hosted several
programs on LFAS with both Benedick Howard and myself as guests.
Ultimately, Jeff Rense with his program, SIGHTINGS ON THE RADIO, has been
the most consistent national talk show host we've had in radio and on live
Internet Broadcasts. He has hosted both Benedick Howard and Jay Murray on
his program. He has offered his web site for numerous articles about LFAS.
All three hosts have dared to devote hours and hours of live broadcasting
time to this topic of ocean noise pollution and the proposed deployment of
LFA Sonar.
Now we are fortunate to have caring articulate writers/authors like Bobbie
Sandoz working to discover what she can share about the potential for gain
and the possibility of loss which may occur with this intrusive technology.
I know of a few other writers who are
continuing to collect and review
their LFA data. This is an important next step as it will further define
the problem more than just report on the facts. Too, there are a couple of
videographers who have expressed an interest in contributing due to their
work with Cetacean. However, the only video presentation of which I am
aware, was produced in cooperation with the Discovery Channel which seems
to endorse this technology inasmuch as it has allowed the US Navy to use
it's video presentation at every Open House as part of their extensive
public relations campaign.
Apparently, one recording artist does have some music devoted to the whales
and to the acoustic difficulties they have encountered. She is just about
to cut that CD. I'm not sure if this is public information yet, so contact
me if you're interested in knowing more about it. Also, the recording
group "Golden Bough" has given me permission to post their song "The
Last
Leviathn" on my web site. This is a most gracious gesture and you will
see
it linked there.
As for media design on the Internet, our logo STOP LFAS was designed by
John-Michael Dumais who continues to delight in the fact that we find it
useful. He has completely donated its use to our purpose and encourages
anyone who wishes to do so to employ its use. If you who are reading this
& might know of a media source or possibly know an Internet Web Master who
would be able to incorporate the use of the STOP LFAS logo, please
encourage them to do so. I have printed this image onto buttons, stickers,
water bottle lables and banners. Some
of the members on the Stop LFAS
E-mail list use the logo on their postage. If you would like to print a
button size logo for yourself, you may do so with the image at this
address:
http://manyrooms.com/lfaslogo.jpg
For larger images, you can use:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/fishattorney/images/stoplfas.jpg
Somnambulistic policies have been so steady on LFAS that I think it highly
unlikely the story will ever make it to television. Look at what CNN did!
A fantastic journalistic presentation goes on the internet and hardly a
mention of this goes to the televsion audience! As for the bash, trash and
run style of topic coverage; why not? Isn't a significant percentage of
television news management handled that way?
I have five or six web pages which are prankish or humoresque. One site is
"taunting." Very ill behaved! But it works. Perhaps
there are times when
such tactics have merit. (So long as the intention is not selfish or
immature and he doesn't run giggling into the boys room afterwards!) I
wouldn't mind seeing the circus come to town. Right about now, in my
opinion, we could use a P.T. Barnham. If anyone can break through the
media barrier and get this global impact DEBATE onto television, they will
have completed a meritorious task regardless of the style of presentation
chosen. Perhaps it will require a few contortionists, a juggler and
bearded lady to wake the lulled public out of this daydream of reassurances
which has so cunningly lulled us into complacent acceptance of our own
diminishing habitats and ever-more deafening world.
So please let me know if there will be any media news events on television
or radio. I would love to watch and possibly laugh if that's fitting. I
will place any media event I learn about in advance on the calendar at this
URL: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/fishattorney/calendar.html
Meanwhile, I continue to remind people that they can learn more about
actions they can take to Stop LFAS Worldwide by going to this page on the
Internet:
http://manyrooms.com/contacts.html
Perhaps I should suggest that people contact their local newspapers, radio
& TV stations. What do you think of that?
Thanks,
Cheryl A. Magill
http://listen.to/lfas
**********
Fact Sheet on Preserving Our
Forests for Future Generations
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
________________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release
October 13, 1999
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND VICE PRESIDENT GORE:
PRESERVING OUR FORESTS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS
&n
